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.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case was argued with No. 395, decided this day, ante, p. 341, and brings the same parties before the Court.
This proceeding arises out of appellee’s efforts to discontinue operation of passenger trains Nos. 11 and 16 operated daily between Birmingham, Alabama, and Columbus, Mississippi, a distance of approximately 120 miles mainly within Alabama. Alleging that the trains are little used and produce revenues far below their direct operating expenses, appellee applied to the Alabama Public Service Commission on September 13, 1948, for the permission to discontinue required by Alabama law.
Over a year later, and before any action on the application had been taken by the Alabama Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered a reduction in the interstate and intrastate operation of coal-burning passenger locomotives to prevent undue depletion of coal reserves during a national coal strike. In response to the I. C. C. order, appellee discontinued service on a number of its trains, including trains Nos. 11 and 16. When the I. C. C. order was rescinded, other trains were restored to operation but appellee refused to restore the financially costly operation of trains Nos. 11 and 16, at least until the Alabama Commission granted a hearing upon its application for permanent discontinuance. An impasse developed and the Alabama Commission entered an order in which it refused to hear evidence proffered by appellee, threatened to delay any hearing on the application until appellee restored the trains, found ap-pellee in contempt of the Commission and called appel-lee’s attention to a provision of the Alabama Code providing penalties for the violation of an order of the Commission. On December 6, 1949, the day after entry of this order, appellee filed its complaint in the District Court alleging that requiring continued operation of trains 11 and 16 would confiscate its property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It prayed for an injunction restraining appellants from enforcing those laws of Alabama, including penalty provisions, which prevented appellee from discontinuing those trains. A temporary restraining order was issued.
In the court below and in this Court, appellants have argued that a federal court should not interfere with a state’s imposition of penalties to punish defiant disregard of its regulatory laws. Beal v. Missouri Pacific R. Corp., 312 U. S. 45, 51 (1941); Wadley Southern R. Co. v. Georgia, 235 U. S. 651, 662 (1915). Compare Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 267 U. S. 493, 496 (1925). Appellee, on the other hand, emphasizes the Commission’s delay in passing upon its application to discontinue the financially burdensome service as being so long-continued and unreasonable as to permit the intervention of a federal court before a decision by the Commission. Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 270 U. S. 587 (1926).
Though these arguments were relevant when the temporary restraining order was issued, we are called upon to review only the final decree, cf. Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 44 (1920), and do not find it necessary to pass upon such contentions in view of the additional developments occurring prior to the entry of the final judgment below. The Commission did hold a hearing on December 8, 1949, in Fayette, Alabama, one of the communities affected by the discontinuance of service, and, on January 9, 1950, entered an order denying permission to discontinue operation of trains Nos. 11 and 16 on the grounds that a public need exists for the service and that appellee had not made a sufficient effort to reduce losses through adoption of more economical operating methods. The pleadings in the court below were amended in light of the Commission’s order of January 9, 1950, and the final judgment entered by the three-judge District Court was based upon a finding that enforcement of that order would be contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. 88 F. Supp. 441 (1950).
Appellee challenges the validity of an order of the Alabama Public Service Commission, but did not invoke the adequate state remedy provided for review of such orders. Therefore, as this case comes to us, it is governed by our decision in No. 395, decided this day, ante, p. 341. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Jackson concur in the result for the reasons set forth in their opinion in No. 395, Alabama Public Service Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., ante, p. 351.
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.
In September of 1955 the United States Army Dredge Pacific and the petitioner’s vessel F. E. Weyerhaeuser were in a collision off the Oregon coast. To recover for its resultant damages the petitioner brought this action against the United States under the Public Vessels Act. A cross-libel was filed, and the District Court after a hearing found that the collision had occurred through the mutual fault of both vessels. Applying the settled admiralty rule of divided damages, the court held that each party was entitled to recover from the other one-half of its provable damages and court costs. 174 F. Supp. 663, supplemented at 178 F. Supp. 496.
A United States Civil Service employee aboard the Pacific, Reynold E. Ostrom, had sustained personal injuries in the collision. He had received compensation for these injuries under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, and had then filed a suit against the petitioner to recover damages. That lawsuit was subsequently settled by the payment to Ostrom of $16,000 by the petitioner, and Ostrom then repaid to the United States the amount which had previously been awarded him as statutory compensation, as required by the Compensation Act.
The United States objected to the inclusion, as part of the petitioner’s damages from the collision, of the $16,000 which the petitioner had paid to Ostrom. The Government stipulated that the amount was a reasonable settlement of Ostrom’s claim, and agreed that such a payment would ordinarily be includible as a proper item of the damages to be divided pursuant to the accepted admiralty formula. The Government took the position, however, that with respect to the amount paid Ostrom the established admiralty rule has been qualified by § 7 (b) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, which provides that the liability of the United States under the Act for
“injury or death of an employee shall be exclusive, and in place, of all other liability of the United States or such instrumentality to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States ... on account of such injury or death, in any direct judicial proceedings in a civil action or in admiralty, or by proceedings, whether administrative or judicial, under any other workmen’s compensation law or under any Federal tort liability statute . ...”
The District Court rejected the Government’s argument and entered a decree which recognized the amount paid by the petitioner to Ostrom as part of the petitioner’s provable damages from the collision. The Court of Appeals reversed, remanding the case to the District Court with directions to recompute the damages after excluding the Ostrom settlement, holding that the exclusive liability provision of § 7 (b) of the Compensation Act precluded any liability of the United States on account of the petitioner’s payment for Ostrom’s personal injuries. 294 F. 2d 179.
We granted certiorari to consider the single question whether the historic admiralty rule of divided damages in mutual fault collisions has been qualified, as the Court of Appeals held, by the exclusive liability provision of the federal compensation statute. 369 U. S. 810. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we hold that this provision of the compensation statute does not so limit the admiralty rule, and we accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
As this Court has pointed out, the Public Vessels Act “was intended to impose on the United States the same liability (apart from seizure or arrest under a libel in rem) as is imposed by the admiralty law on the private shipowner . . . .” Canadian Aviator, Ltd., v. United States, 324 U. S. 215, 228. And there can be no question that a private shipowner in a case such as this would be liable for half of all the petitioner’s provable damages, including the $16,000 paid to Ostrom. The Government argues, however, that the “plain words” of the federal compensation statute nevertheless operate to limit the Government’s liability in this case.
Section 7 (b) provides that the compensation remedy shall be exclusive with respect to the Government’s liability “to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States . . . .” The Government points out that the general words “anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages” literally would cover a shipowner entitled to recover divided damages after a mutual fault collision. But the general language upon which the Government relies follows explicit enumeration of specific categories: employees, their representatives, and their dependents. Under the traditional rule of statutory construction which counsels against giving to general words a meaning totally unrelated to the more specific terms of a statute, we think the meaning of the statutory language is far from “plain.”
The legislative history of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, originally passed in 1916, shows that the concern of Congress was to provide federal employees a swift, economical, and assured right of compensation for injuries arising out of the employment relationship, regardless of the negligence of the employee or his fellow servants, or the lack of fault on the part of the United States. The purpose of § 7 (b), added in 1949, was to establish that, as between the Government on the one hand and its employees and their representatives or dependents on the other, the statutory remedy was to be exclusive. There is no evidence whatever that Congress was concerned with the rights of unrelated third parties, much less of any purpose to disturb settled doctrines of admiralty law affecting the mutual rights and liabilities of private shipowners in collision cases.
Section 5 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is nearly identical to § 7 (b) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act in providing that “[t]he liability of an employer . . . shall be exclusive 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 . . . .” In Ryan Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Corp., 350 U. S. 124, it was held that despite this exclusive liability provision, a shipowner was entitled to reimbursement from a longshoreman’s employer for damages recovered against the shipowner by the longshoreman injured by the employer’s negligence. The Court’s decision in Ryan was based upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the shipowner and the employer. In a series of subsequent cases, the same result was reached, although the contractual relationship was considerably more attenuated. Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. Nacirema Co., 355 U. S. 563; Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser, 358 U. S. 423; Waterman Co. v. Dugan & McNamara, 364 U. S. 421.
In the present case there was no contractual relationship between the United States and the petitioner, governing their correlative rights and duties. There is involved here, instead, a rule of admiralty law which, for more than 100 years, has governed with at least equal clarity the correlative rights and duties of two shipowners whose vessels have been involved in a collision in which both were at fault. The Schooner Catharine v. Dickinson, 17 How. 170, 177; The North Star, 106 U. S. 17, 21. See Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U. S. 282, 284. Long ago this Court held that the full scope of the divided damages rule must prevail over a statutory provision which, like the one involved in the present case, limited the liability of one of the shipowners with respect to an element of damages incurred by the other in a mutual fault collision. The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540. The statute at issue in that case was the Harter Act, which categorically provides that cargo cannot collect directly from the carrying vessel for damages as a result of faults in navigation. The Court held that despite this statutory provision, the carrying vessel must share, according to the divided damages rule, damages sustained by the non-carrying vessel resulting from liability to the carrying vessel’s cargo. See also Aktslsk. Cuzco v. The Sucarseco, 294 U. S. 394.
In this case, as in The Chattahoochee, we hold that the scope of the divided damages rule in mutual fault collisions is unaffected by a statute enacted to limit the liability of one of the shipowners to unrelated third parties. The judgment is
Reversed.
43 Stat. 1112, 46 U. S. C. § 781 et seq.
39 Stat. 742, as amended, 5 U. S. C. § 751 et seq.
“If an injury or death for which compensation is payable ... is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person other than the United States to pay damages therefor, and a beneficiary entitled to compensation from the United States for such injury or death receives, as a result of a suit brought by him or on his behalf, or as a result of a settlement made by him or on his behalf, any money or other property in satisfaction of the liability of such other person, such beneficiary shall, after deducting the costs of suit and a reasonable attorney’s fee, apply the money or other property so received in the following manner:
“(A) If his compensation has been paid in whole or in part, he shall refund to the United States the amount of compensation which has been paid by the United States . . . .” 5 U. S. C. § 777.
63 Stat. 861, 5 U. S. C. § 757 (b).
The Senate Report explained the addition of § 7 (b) as follows:
“Section 7 of the act would be amended by designating the present language as subsection ‘(a)’ and by adding a new subsection '(b).’ The purpose of the latter is to make it clear that the right to compensation benefits under the act is exclusive and in place of any and all other legal liability of the United States or its instrumentalities of the kind which can be enforced by original proceeding whether administrative or judicial, in a civil action or in admiralty or by any proceeding under any other workmen’s compensation law or under any Federal tort liability statute. Thus, an important gap in the present law would be filled and at the same time needless and expensive litigation will be replaced with measured justice. The savings to the United States, both in damages recovered and in the expense of handling the lawsuits, should be very substantial and the employees will benefit accordingly under the Compensation Act as liberalized by this bill.
“Workmen’s compensation laws, in general, specify that the remedy therein provided shall be the exclusive remedy. The basic theory supporting all workmen’s compensation legislation is that the remedy afforded is a substitute for the employee’s (or dependent’s) former remedy at law for damages against the employer. With the creation of corporate instrumentalities of Government and with the enactment of various statutes authorizing suits against the United States for tort, new problems have arisen. Such statutes as the Suits in Admiralty Act, the Public Vessels Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act and the like, authorize in general terms the bringing of civil actions for damages against the United States. The inadequacy of the benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Act has tended to cause Federal employees to seek relief under these general statutes. Similarly, corporate instrumentalities created by the Congress among their powers are authorized to sue and be sued, and this, in turn, has resulted in filing of suits by employees against such instrumen-talities based upon accidents in employments.
“This situation has been of considerable concern to all Government agencies and especially to the corporate instrumentalities. Since the proposed remedy would afford employees and their dependents a planned and substantial protection, to permit other remedies by civil action or suits would not only be unnecessary, but would in general be uneconomical, from the standpoint of both the beneficiaries involved and the Government.” S. Rep. No. 836, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 23. (Emphasis supplied.)
44 Stat. 1426, 33 U. S. C. § 905.
The Harter Act provides in pertinent part:
“If the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in the United States of America shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, her owner or owners, agent, or charterers, shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of said vessel nor shall the vessel, her owner or owners, charterers, agent, or master be held liable for losses arising from dangers of the sea or other navigable waters, acts of God, or public enemies, or the inherent defect, quality, or vice of the thing carried, or from insufficiency of package, or seizure under legal process, or for loss resulting from any act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative, or from saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, or from any deviation in rendering such service.” 46 U. S. C. § 192.
This provision has been substantially reenacted in § 4 (2) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, which provides:
“(2) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from—
“(a) Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship;” 46 U. S. C. § 1304 (2) (a).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases raise two unresolved questions concerning § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. §78j(b). The first is whether purchasers of registered securities who allege they were defrauded by misrepresentations in a registration statement may maintain an action under § 10(b) notwithstanding the express remedy for misstatements and omissions in registration statements provided by § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act), 48 Stat. 82, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §77k. The second question is whether persons seeking recovery under § 10(b) must prove their cause of action by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence.
I
In 1969 Texas International Speedway, Inc. (TIS), filed a registration statement and prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission offering a total of $4,398,900 in securities to the public. The proceeds of the sale were to be used to finance the construction of an automobile speedway. The entire issue was sold on the offering date, October 30, 1969. TIS did not meet with success, however, and the corporation filed a petition for bankruptcy on November 30, 1970.
In 1972 plaintiffs Huddleston and Bradley instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of TIS securities. The complaint alleged violations of § 10(b) of the 1934 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (1982). Plaintiffs sued most of the participants in the offering, including the accounting firm, Herman & MacLean, which had issued an opinion concerning certain financial statements and a pro forma balance sheet that were contained in the registration statement and prospectus. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misrepresent or conceal material facts regarding the financial condition of TIS, including the costs incurred in building the speedway.
After a 3-week trial, the District Judge submitted the case to the jury on special interrogatories relating to liability. The judge instructed the jury that liability could be found only if the defendants acted with scienter. The judge also instructed the jury to determine whether plaintiffs had proved their cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence. After the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the submitted issues, the judge concluded that Herman & MacLean and others had violated § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by making fraudulent misrepresentations in the TIS registration statement. The court then determined the amount of damages and entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a cause of action may be maintained under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act for fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions even when that conduct might also be actionable under § 11 of the 1933 Act. 640 F. 2d 534, 540-543 (1981). However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court as to the appropriate standard of proof for an action under § 10(b), concluding that a plaintiff must prove his case by “clear and convincing” evidence. Id., at 545-546. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judgment on other grounds and remanded the case for a new trial. Id., at 547-550, 560.
We granted certiorari to consider whether an implied cause of action under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act will lie for conduct subject to an express civil remedy under the 1933 Act, an issue we have previously reserved, and to decide the standard of proof applicable to actions under § 10(b). 456 U. S. 914 (1982). We now affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that plaintiffs could maintain an action under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act, but we reverse as to the applicable standard of proof.
HH H-1
The Securities Act of 1933 and the 1934 Act “constitute interrelated components of the federal regulatory scheme governing transactions in securities.” Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 206 (1976). The Acts created several express private rights of action, one of which is contained in § 11 of the 1933 Act. In addition to the private actions created explicitly by the 1933 and 1934 Acts, federal courts have implied private remedies under other provisions of the two laws. Most significantly for present purposes, a private right of action under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 has been consistently recognized for more than 35 years. The existence of this implied remedy is simply beyond peradventure.
The issue in this case is whether a party should be barred from invoking this established remedy for fraud because the allegedly fraudulent conduct would apparently also provide the basis for a damages action under §11 of the 1933 Act. The resolution of this issue turns on the fact that the two provisions involve distinct causes of action and were intended to address different types of wrongdoing.
Section 11 of the 1933 Act allows purchasers of a registered security to sue certain enumerated parties in a registered offering when false or misleading information is included in a registration statement. The section was designed to assure compliance with the disclosure provisions of the Act by imposing a stringent standard of liability on the parties who play a direct role in a registered offering. If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case. Liability against the issuer of a security is virtually absolute, even for innocent misstatements. Other defendants bear the burden of demonstrating due diligence. See 15 U. S. C. §77k(b).
Although limited in scope, § 11 places a relatively minimal burden on a plaintiff. In contrast, § 10(b) is a “catchall” anti-fraud provision, but it requires a plaintiff to carry a heavier burden to establish a cause of action. While a §11 action must be brought by a purchaser of a registered security, must be based on misstatements or omissions in a registration statement, and can only be brought against certain parties, a § 10(b) action can be brought by a purchaser or seller of “any security” against “cmy person” who has used “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. 15 U. S. C. § 78j (emphasis added). However, a § 10(b) plaintiff carries a heavier burden than a § 11 plaintiff. Most significantly, he must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, i. e., with intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.
Since § 11 and § 10(b) address different types of wrongdoing, we see no reason to carve out an exception to § 10(b) for fraud occurring in a registration statement just because the same conduct may also be actionable under § 11. Exempting such conduct from liability under § 10(b) would conflict with the basic purpose of the 1933 Act: to provide greater protection to purchasers of registered securities. It would be anomalous indeed if the special protection afforded to purchasers in a registered offering by the 1933 Act were deemed to deprive such purchasers of the protections against manipulation and deception that § 10(b) makes available to all persons who deal in securities.
While some conduct actionable under § 11 may also be actionable under § 10(b), it is hardly a novel proposition that the 1934 Act and the 1933 Act “prohibit some of the same conduct.” United States v. Naftalin, 441 U. S. 768, 778 (1979) (applying § 17(a) of the 1933 Act to conduct also prohibited by § 10(b) of the 1934 Act in an action by the SEC). “‘The fact that there may well be some overlap is neither unusual nor unfortunate.’” Ibid., quoting SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U. S. 453, 468 (1969). In saving clauses included in the 1933 and 1934 Acts, Congress rejected the notion that the express remedies of the securities laws would pre-empt all other rights of action. Section 16 of the 1933 Act states unequivocally that “[t]he rights and remedies provided by this title shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity.” 15 U. S. C. §77p. Section 28(a) of the 1934 Act contains a parallel provision. 15 U. S. C. §78bb(a). These provisions confirm that the remedies in each Act were to be supplemented by “any and all” additional remedies.
This conclusion is reinforced by our reasoning in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, which held that actions under § 10(b) require proof of scienter and do not encompass negligent conduct. In so holding, we noted that each of the express civil remedies in the 1933 Act allowing recovery for negligent conduct is subject to procedural restrictions not applicable to a § 10(b) action. 425 U. S., at 208-210. We emphasized that extension of § 10(b) to negligent conduct would have allowed causes of action for negligence under the express remedies to be brought instead under § 10(b), “thereby nullifying] the effectiveness of the carefully drawn procedural restrictions on these express actions.” Id., at 210 (footnote omitted). In reasoning that scienter should be required in § 10(b) actions in order to avoid circumvention of the procedural restrictions surrounding the express remedies, we necessarily assumed that the express remedies were not exclusive. Otherwise there would have been no danger of nullification. Conversely, because the added burden of proving scienter attaches to suits under § 10(b), invocation of the § 10(b) remedy will not “nullify” the procedural restrictions that apply to the express remedies.
This cumulative construction of the remedies under the 1933 and 1934 Acts is also supported by the fact that, when Congress comprehensively revised the securities laws in 1975, a consistent line of judicial decisions had permitted plaintiffs to sue under § 10(b) regardless of the availability of express remedies. In 1975 Congress enacted the “most substantial and significant revision of this country’s Federal securities laws since the passage of the Securities Exchange Act in 1934.” See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Pub. L. 94-29, 89 Stat. 97. When Congress acted, federal courts had consistently and routinely permitted a plaintiff to proceed under § 10(b) even where express remedies under §11 or other provisions were available. In light of this well-established judicial interpretation, Congress’ decision to leave § 10(b) intact suggests that Congress ratified the cumulative nature of the § 10(b) action. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 381-382 (1982); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580-581 (1978).
A cumulative construction of the securities laws also furthers their broad remedial purposes. In enacting the 1934 Act, Congress stated that its purpose was “to impose requirements necessary to make [securities] regulation and control reasonably complete and effective.” 15 U. S. C. § 78b. In furtherance of that objective, § 10(b) makes it unlawful to use “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. The effectiveness of the broad proscription against fraud in § 10(b) would be undermined if its scope were restricted by the existence of an express remedy under § 11. Yet we have repeatedly recognized that securities laws combating fraud should be construed “not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate [their] remedial purposes.” SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U. S. 180, 195 (1963). Accord, Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U. S. 6, 12 (1971); Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U. S. 128, 151 (1972). We therefore reject an interpretation of the securities laws that displaces an action under § 10(b).
Accordingly, we hold that the availability of an express remedy under §11 of the 1933 Act does not preclude defrauded purchasers of registered securities from maintaining an action under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act. To this extent the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
HH HH I — I
In a typical civil suit for money damages, plaintiffs must prove their casé by a preponderance of the evidence. Similarly, in an action by the SEC to establish fraud under § 17(a) of the 1933 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 77q(a), we have held that proof by a preponderance of the evidence suffices to establish liability. SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U. S. 344, 355 (1943). “Where... proof is offered in a civil action, as here, a preponderance of the evidence will establish the case....” Ibid. The same standard applies in administrative proceedings before the SEC and has been consistently employed by the lower courts in private actions under the securities laws.
The Court of Appeals nonetheless held that plaintiffs in a § 10(b) suit must establish their case by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals relied primarily on the traditional use of a higher burden of proof in civil fraud actions at common law. 640 F. 2d, at 545-546. Reference to common-law practices can be misleading, however, since the historical considerations underlying the imposition of a higher standard of proof have questionable pertinence here. See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 744-745 (1975) (“[T]he typical fact situation in which the classic tort of misrepresentation and deceit evolved was light years away from the world of commercial transactions to which Rule 10b-5 is applicable”). Moreover, the antifraud provisions of the securities laws are not coextensive with common-law doctrines of fraud. Indeed, an important purpose of the federal securities statutes was to rectify perceived deficiencies in the available common-law protections by establishing higher standards of conduct in the securities industry. See SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., supra, at 186. We therefore find reference to the common law in this instance unavailing.
Where Congress has not prescribed the appropriate standard of proof and the Constitution does not dictate a particular standard, we must prescribe one. See Steadman v. SEC, 450 U. S. 91, 95 (1981). See generally Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, supra, at 749 (private cause of action under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 must be judicially delimited until Congress acts). In doing so, we are mindful that a standard of proof “serves to allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 423 (1979). See also In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 370-371 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Thus, we have required proof by clear and convincing evidence where particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake. See, e. g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745 (1982) (proceeding to terminate parental rights); Addington v. Texas, supra (involuntary commitment proceeding); Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 285-286 (1966) (deportation). By contrast, imposition of even severe civil sanctions that do not implicate such interests has been permitted after proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e. g., United States v. Regan, 232 U. S. 37, 48-49 (1914) (proof by a preponderance of the evidence suffices in civil suits involving proof of acts that expose a party to a criminal prosecution). Thus, in interpreting a statutory provision in Steadman v. SEC, supra, we upheld use of the preponderance standard in SEC administrative proceedings concerning alleged violations of the antifraud provisions. The sanctions imposed in the proceedings included an order permanently barring an individual from practicing his profession. And in SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U. S., at 355, we held that a preponderance of the evidence suffices to establish fraud under § 17(a) of the 1933 Act.
A preponderance-of-the-evidence standard allows both parties to “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.” Addington v. Texas, supra, at 423. Any other standard expresses a preference for one side’s interests. The balance of interests in this case warrants use of the preponderance standard. On the one hand, the defendants face the risk of opprobrium that may result from a finding of fraudulent conduct, but this risk is identical to that in an action under § 17(a), which is governed by the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The interests of defendants in a securities case do not differ qualitatively from the interests of defendants sued for violations of other federal statutes such as the antitrust or civil rights laws, for which proof by a preponderance of the evidence suffices. On the other hand, the interests of plaintiffs in such suits are significant. Defrauded investors are among the very individuals Congress sought to protect in the securities laws. If they prove that it is more likely than not that they were defrauded, they should recover.
We therefore decline to depart from the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard generally applicable in civil actions. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ decision as to the appropriate standard of proof is reversed.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cases are otherwise remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell took no part in the decision of these cases.
The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in January 1973.
Plaintiffs also alleged violations of, inter alia, § 17(a) of the 1933 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 77q(a). We have previously reserved decision on whether § 17(a) affords a private remedy, Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U. S. 551, 557, n. 9 (1979), and we do so once again. Plaintiffs have abandoned their § 17(a) claim, Brief for Respondents in No. 81-680, p. 4, n. 6, and the Court of Appeals did not address the existence of a separate cause of action under § 17(a). Accordingly, there is no need for us to decide the issue.
A pro forma balance sheet is one prepared on the basis of assumptions as to future events.
The judge stated that reckless behavior could satisfy the scienter requirement. While this instruction reflects the prevailing view of the Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue, see McLean v. Alexander, 599 F. 2d 1190, 1197, and n. 12 (CA3 1979) (collecting cases), we have explicitly left open the question whether recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 194, n. 12 (1976).
The trial court also found that Herman & MacLean had aided and abetted violations of § 10(b). While several Courts of Appeals have permitted aider-and-abettor liability, see IIT, An International Investment Trust v. Cornfeld, 619 F. 2d 909, 922 (CA2 1980) (collecting cases), we specifically reserved this issue in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, at 191-192, n. 7. Cf. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 394 (1982) (discussing liability for participants in a conspiracy under analogous Commodity Exchange Act provision).
See, e. g., Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 752, n. 15 (1975).
The Fifth Circuit’s adoption of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in a private action under § 10(b) appears to be unprecedented. See 3 E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 98.04, p. 930 (3d ed., 1981 Cum. Supp.). Other courts have employed a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in private actions under the securities laws. See, e. g., Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., 619 F. 2d 814, 824-825 (CA9 1980); Dzenits v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 494 F. 2d 168, 171, n. 2 (CA101974); Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc., 418 F. 2d 1276, 1291 (CA2 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 913 (1970); Franklin Life Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 451 F. Supp. 602, 607 (SD Ill. 1978), aff’d per curiam, 598 F. 2d 1109 (CA7), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 900 (1979).
1933 Act, §§ 11, 12, 15, 15 U. S. C. §§ 77k, 111, 77o; 1934 Act, §§ 9, 16, 18, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78i, 78p, 78r.
See, e. g., J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 (1964) (§ 14(a) of 1934 Act); Dan River, Inc. v. Unitex Ltd., 624 F. 2d 1216 (CA4 1980) (§ 13 of 1934 Act), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1101 (1981); Kirshner v. United States, 603 F. 2d 234, 241 (CA2 1978) (§ 17(a) of 1934 Act), cert. denied, 442 U. S. 909 (1979). But see, e. g., Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560 (1979) (no implied private right of action under § 17(a) of 1934 Act); Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U. S. 1 (1977) (defeated tender offeror has no implied private right of action under § 14(e) of 1934 Act).
The right of action was first recognized in Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F. Supp. 512 (ED Pa. 1946). By 1961, four Courts of Appeals and several District Courts in other Circuits had recognized the existence of a private remedy under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and only one District Court decision had reached a contrary conclusion. See 3 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 1763-1764, and nn. 260-263 (2d ed. 1961) (collecting cases). By 1969, the existence of a private cause of action hafd been recognized by 10 of the 11 Courts of Appeals. See 6 id., at 3871-3873 (Supp. 1969) (collecting cases). When the question whether an implied cause of action can be brought under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 was first considered in this Court, we confirmed the existence of such a cause of action without extended discussion. See Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U. S. 6, 13, n. 9 (1971). We have since repeatedly reaffirmed that “the existence of a private cause of action for violations of the statute and the Rule is now well established.” Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S., at 196 (citing prior cases).
The Court of Appeals noted that the plaintiffs “apparently did have a Section 11 remedy.” 640 F. 2d 534, 541, n. 5 (1981). While accurate as to the two other defendants, this conclusion may be open to question with respect to Herman & MacLean. Accountants are liable under § 11 only for those matters which purport to have been prepared or certified by them. 15 U. S. C. § 77k(a)(4). Herman & MacLean contends that it did not “expertise” at least some of the materials that were the subject of the lawsuit, Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-8, which if true could preclude a § 11 remedy with respect to these materials.
See H. R. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1933) (Section 11 creates “correspondingly heavier legal liability” in line with responsibility to the public).
A § 11 action can be brought only against certain parties such as the issuer, its directors or partners, underwriters, and accountants who are named as having prepared or certified the registration statement. See 15 U. S. C. § 77k(a). At the same time, §§ 3 and 4 of the 1933 Act exclude a wide variety of securities (such as those issued by the Government and certain banks) and transactions (such as private ones and certain small offerings) from the registration requirement. 15 U. S. C. §§ 77c and 77d.
See Feit v. Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corp., 332 F. Supp. 544, 575 (EDNY 1971); R. Jennings & H. Marsh, Securities Regulation 828-829 (4th ed. 1977).
See Chiarella v. United States, 445 U. S. 222, 234-235 (1980).
See Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, at 193.
Cf. Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375, 390-391 (1970) (existence of express provisions for recovery of attorney’s fees in §§ 9(e) and 18(a) of 1934 Act does not preclude award of attorney’s fees under § 14(a) of Act).
For example, a plaintiff in a § 11 action may be required to post a bond for costs, 15 U. S. C. § 77k(e), and the statute of limitations is only one year, § 77m. In contrast, § 10(b) contains no provision requiring plaintiffs to post security for costs. Also, courts look to the most analogous statute of limitations of the forum State, which is usually longer than the period provided for § 11 actions. See Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S., at 210, n. 29.
See Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F. 2d 783, 786-787 (CA2 1951); 1 A. Bromberg & L. Lowenfels, Securities Fraud & Commodities Fraud §2.4(403), pp. 2:179-2:180 (1982).
Securities Acts Amendments of 1975: Hearings on S. 249 before the Subcommittee on Securities of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1975). As the Conference Report on the legislation explained, the 1975 Amendments were the culmination of “the most searching reexamination of the competitive, statutory, and economic issues facing the securities markets, the securities industry, and, of course, public investors, since the 1930’s.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 94-229, p. 91 (1975).
See, e. g., Schaefer v. First National Bank of Lincolnwood, 509 F. 2d 1287, 1292-1293 (CA7 1975), cert, denied, 425 U. S. 943 (1976); Wolf v. Frank, 477 F. 2d 467, 475 (CA5), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 975 (1973); Jordan Bldg. Corp. v. Doyle, O’Connor & Co., 401 F. 2d 47, 51 (CA7 1968); Ellis v. Carter, 291F. 2d 270, 273-274 (CA9 1961); Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., supra, at 786-787; Om v. Eastman Dillon, Union Securities & Co., 364 F. Supp. 352, 355 (CD Cal. 1973); Stewart v. Bennett, 359 F. Supp. 878, 886 (Mass. 1973); Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 228 F. Supp. 757, 765-766 (Colo. 1964). Cf. Gilbert v. Nixon, 429 F. 2d 348, 355 (CA101970) (recognizing overlapping actions but resolving conflict in favor of express remedy where that remedy is “explicit”). Two early District Court decisions had refused to recognize an action under Rule 10b-5 in the face of overlap with §11. Rosenberg v. Globe Aircraft Corp., 80 F. Supp. 123 (ED Pa. 1948); Montague v. Electronic Corp. of America, 76 F. Supp. 933 (SDNY 1948). The latter case was not subsequently followed in the Southern District, e. g., Osborne v. Mallory, 86 F. Supp. 869 (SDNY 1949), and it has no precedential value in light of the Second Circuit’s decision in Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., supra. The Rosenberg decision stood alone at the time of the 1975 Amendments, and even that decision had not been followed in the District in which it was decided, Premier Industries, Inc. v. Delaware Valley Financial Corp., 185 F. Supp. 694 (ED Pa. 1960), or elsewhere within the same Circuit, Dauphin Corp. v. Redwall Corp., 201 F. Supp. 466 (Del. 1962). Since the 1975 Amendments, the lower courts have continued to recognize that an implied cause of action under § 10(b) can be brought regardless of whether express remedies are available. See, e. g., Berger v. Bishop Investment Corp., 695 F. 2d 302 (CA8 1982); Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. National Student Mar keting Corp., 209 U. S. App. D. C. 9, 21-26, 650 F. 2d 342, 354-359 (1980), cert. denied, 452 U. S. 954 (1981); Ross v. A. H. Robins Co., 607 F. 2d 545, 551-556 (CA2 1979), cert. denied, 446 U. S. 946 (1980); Pearlstein v. Justice Mortgage Investors, [1979] CCH Fed. Sec. L. Rep. ¶ 96,760, pp. 94, 973-94, 974 (ND Tex. 1978); In re Clinton Oil Company Securities Litigation, [1977-1978] CCH Fed. Sec. L. Rep. ¶ 96,015, p. 91,575 (Kan. 1977).
Moreover, certain individuals who play a part in preparing the registration statement generally cannot be reached by a § 11 action. These include corporate officers other than those specified in 15 U. S. C. § 77k(a), lawyers not acting as “experts,” and accountants with respect to parts of a registration statement which they are not named as having prepared or certified. If, as Herman & MacLean argues, purchasers in registered offerings were required to rely solely on § 11, they would have no recourse against such individuals even if the excluded parties engaged in fraudulent conduct while participating in the registration statement. The exempted individuals would be immune from federal liability for fraudulent conduct even though § 10(b) extends to “any person” who engages in fraud in connection with a purchase or sale of securities.
We also reject application of the maxim of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. See H. Hart & A. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 1173-1174 (tent. ed. 1958); Note, Implying Civil Remedies from Federal Regulatory Statutes, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 285, 290-291 (1963). As we stated in SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U. S. 344, 350-351 (1943), such canons “long have been subordinated to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose.” See generally Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U. S. 341, 357 (1963) (favoring “an analysis which reconciles the operation of both statutory schemes with one another rather than holding one completely ousted”). We believe the maxim cannot properly be applied to a situation where the remedies redress different misconduct and where the remedial purposes of the Acts would be undermined by a presumption of exclusivity.
See Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 423 (1979).
See Steadman v. SEC, 450 U. S. 91 (1981).
See n. 7, supra.
A higher standard of proof apparently arose in courts of equity when the chancellor faced claims that were unenforceable at law because of the Statute of Wills, the Statute of Frauds, or the parol evidence rule. See Note, Appellate Review in the Federal Courts of Findings Requiring More than a Preponderance of the Evidence, 60 Harv. L. Rev. 111, 112 (1946). Concerned that claims would be fabricated, the chancery courts imposed a more demanding standard of proof. The higher standard subsequently received wide acceptance in equity proceedings to set aside presumptively valid written instruments on account of fraud.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question now before the Court is whether Nantucket Sound qualifies as “internal waters” of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts rather than partly territorial sea and partly high seas as the United States contends. We agree with the Special Master’s conclusion that the Commonwealth’s claim should be rejected.
I
Pursuant to an earlier decree of this Court, the United States and Massachusetts in 1977 filed a joint motion for supplemental proceedings to determine the location of the Massachusetts coastline. After our appointment of a Special Master, 433 U. S. 917 (1977), the parties agreed on a partial settlement, which we approved in 1981. 452 U. S. 429. Left unresolved was the status of Vineyard Sound and Nantucket Sound, a dispute which gave rise to extensive hearings before the Special Master. The Master concluded that Vineyard Sound is a “historic bay” and therefore a part of the inland waters of Massachusetts. However, he reached a contrary conclusion concerning Nantucket Sound. Explaining that the decision concerning Vineyard Sound has only minimal practical significance, the United States has taken no exception to the Master’s report. Massachusetts, however, has excepted to that part of the report concerning Nantucket Sound. Specifically, although Massachusetts acquiesces in the determination that the doctrine of “historic title” does not support its claim, it continues to maintain that it has “ancient title” to Nantucket Sound.
Nantucket Sound is a relatively shallow body of water south of Cape Cod, northeast of the island of Martha’s Vineyard, and northwest of the island of Nantucket. Massachusetts contends that the English Crown acquired title to this territory as a result of discovery and occupation by colonists in the early 17th century and that it succeeded to the Crown’s title by virtue of various Royal Charters or by the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War.
To prove that Great Britain acquired title to Nantucket Sound which it could pass to Massachusetts, much of the evidence presented to the Special Master concerned whether Nantucket Sound would have been considered “county waters” under English law in the 17th century. Under the “county waters” doctrine, waters “inter fauces terrae” or landward of an opening “between the jaws of the land” could be subject to the jurisdiction of the littoral county rather than the Admiral if the jaws were close enough to each other to satisfy a somewhat ambiguous line-of-sight test. Under Lord Coke’s version of the test a person standing on one jaw must be able to “see what is done” on the other jaw; under Lord Hale’s more expansive version, it is merely necessary that “a man may reasonably discern between shore and shore.”
The relevant jaws of land in this case are the southern tip of Monomoy Island, which extends south from the elbow of Cape Cod, and the northern tip of Nantucket Island. At the present time, those two jaws are 9.2 nautical miles apart, but the distance may have been greater in colonial times. In any event, the parties agree that the distance was too great to satisfy Lord Coke’s version of the test. Whether it would meet Lord Hale’s test depends, in the opinion of the Master, on whether the Commonwealth’s burden of proof is merely to persuade by a preponderance of the evidence or by evidence that is “clear beyond doubt.” For purposes of our decision, we put to one side the parties’ argument about the burden and assume that Lord Hale’s test is satisfied. On the assumption that Nantucket Sound could have been considered “county waters” under the common law of England in the 17th century, we nevertheless conclude that Massachusetts cannot prevail under the doctrine of “ancient title” on which it relies.
II
This Court has consistently followed principles of international law in fixing the coastline of the United States. We have relied in particular on the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, [1958] 15 U. S. T. 1607, T. I. A. S. No. 5639. The Convention provides that the sovereignty of a state extends to “internal waters.” Art. 1. The Convention also contains a set of rules delimiting those waters. Generally speaking, Article 5(1) defines “internal waters” as those waters landward of a baseline which Article 3 in turn defines as “the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.” Of importance to this case, the Convention also includes as a state’s “internal waters” those waters enclosed in “bays” as defined in Article 7. Most of the rules in this Article identify the criteria for defining “juridical bays,” but Article 7(6) further includes as “bays” “so-called ‘historic’ bays” and waters landward of baselines marked when “the straight baseline system provided for in Article 4 is applied.”
In this case, Massachusetts relies exclusively on the provision recognizing “historic bays,” for it is agreed both that the United States has legitimately eschewed the straight baseline method for determining its boundaries, and that Nantucket Sound does not qualify as a juridical bay. Because “historic bay” is not defined in the Convention, we have previously relied on a United Nations study authored by the U. N. Secretariat and entitled Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, Including Historical Bays, [1962] 2 Y. B. Int’l L. Comm’n 1, U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/143 (1962) (hereinafter Juridical Regime). See United States v. Louisiana (Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case), 470 U. S. 93, 101-102 (1985). That study prescribes the three factors of dominion, continuity, and international acquiescence recognized in our own cases for identifying a “historic bay.” The Commonwealth submits that the three-part test is actually the standard for finding “historic title” and that a different doctrine — the doctrine of “ancient title” — is also a sufficient basis for identifying a “historic bay” under Article 7(6) of the Convention. According to Massachusetts, “historic title” is the maritime counterpart of title acquired by adverse possession. It is prescriptive in character because it arises as a result of a state’s exercise of dominion over water that would otherwise constitute either high seas or territorial sea in which all ships enjoy the right of innocent passage. Before this Court, Massachusetts no longer claims “historic title” as it uses the term. Brief for Defendant Massachusetts 4; Reply Brief for Defendant Massachusetts 22.
The Commonwealth instead relies entirely on a claim of “ancient title.” This is the first case in which we have been asked to evaluate such a claim to coastal waters. According to the Juridical Regime, an “ancient title” is based on a state’s discovery and occupation of territory unclaimed by any other sovereign when it was first acquired. To claim “ancient title” to waters that would otherwise constitute high seas or territorial sea, a state must
“affir[m] that the occupation took place before the freedom of the high seas became part of international law. In that case, the State would claim acquisition of the area by an occupation which took place long ago. Strictly speaking, the State would, however, mot assert a historic title, but rather an ancient title based on occupation as an original mode of acquisition of territory. The difference may be subtle but should in the interest of clarity not be overlooked: to base, the title on occupation is to base it on a dear original title which is fortified by long usage” Juridical Regime, at 12 (¶ 71) (emphasis added).
Assuming, arguendo, that waters that would otherwise be considered high seas or territorial sea may be claimed under a theory of “ancient title,” both parties agree that effective “occupation” must have taken place before the freedom of the high seas became a part of international law. Tr. of Oral Arg. 16-17, 34; Brief for Defendant Massachusetts 4. By this analysis, the title must have been perfected no later than the latter half of the 18th century.
H I — I l-H
Although the Special Master discussed the history of [Nantucket Sound], especially [its] role in the development of the colonial economy of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island,” Report 27, his discussion leaves us in doubt whether he felt that “the colonists’ exploitation of the marine resources of the soun[d] was equivalent to a formal assumption of sovereignty over” it before freedom of the seas became generally recognized. Id., at 58. Because the Commonwealth relied on the same historical evidence to establish both “historic” and “ancient” title, and because “the ultimate responsibility for deciding what are correct findings of fact remains with us” in any event, we have examined for ourselves the pertinent exhibits and transcripts. Our independent review leads us to conclude that the Commonwealth did not effectively “occupy” Nantucket Sound so as to obtain “clear original title” and fortify that title “by long usage” before the seas were recognized to be free.
Massachusetts relies on the colonists’ “intensive and exclusive exploitation” of the marine resources of Nantucket Sound to establish occupation. Reply Brief for Defendant Massachusetts 17. At the outset, we have some difficulty appraising the Commonwealth’s historical evidence because the cases and publications cited to us uniformly discuss occupation in the context of “historic” rather than “ancient” title. Assuming that the parties are correct in their unspoken assumption that occupation sufficient to establish “historic title” resembles that necessary to acquire “ancient title” as well, and further assuming that such title extends to the whole of the waters of the Sound and is not merely a right to exploit its resources, we believe that occupation requires, at a minimum, the existence of acts, attributable to the sovereign, manifesting an assertion of exclusive authority over the waters claimed. The history of the two most publicized cases conveys the international understanding of occupation.
In the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), 1951 I. C. J. 116, the Permanent International Court of Justice upheld Norway’s use of straight baselines (now approved expressly by Article 7(6) of the Convention), in part because Norway had proved a historic claim to the “comparatively shallow” waters between the mainland and the fringing islands known as the Skjaergaard, or “rock rampart.” The court acknowledged that Norwegian fishermen had exploited fishing grounds in this region “from time immemorial,” id., at 127, and that the Bang of Denmark and Norway had excluded fishermen from other states “for a long period, from 1616-1618 until 1906.” Id., at 124; see id., at 142.
Of similar effect is the case of Annakumaru Pillai v. Muthupayal, 27 Indian L. R. Madras 551 (1903). The complainant in that case was a lessee of the Rajah of Ramnad who accused the defendant of stealing chanks (mollusks) from the seabed five miles off the Ramnad coast. The Indian High Court upheld its own jurisdiction and the liability of the defendant “upon the immemorial claim of the land sovereign over this body of water.” P. Jessup, The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction 16 (1927) (footnote omitted). The Officiating Chief Judge, relying on historical evidence dating from the 6th century B.C. and explaining the concessions under which chanks and pearls were historically gathered by the state’s licensees, declared that “it would be impossible to ignore the fact that for ages in this country, chanks and pearl oysters have been owned and enjoyed by the sovereign as belonging by prerogative right exclusively to him.” 27 Indian L. R. Madras, at 557. “And [because] chanks as well as pearl oysters while still in the beds have always been taken to be the exclusive property of the sovereign, . . . the fishery operations connected therewith have always been carried on under State control and have formed a source of revenue to the exchequer.” Id., at 554. The Officiating Chief Judge concluded that this history demonstrated “exclusive occupation” of “the fisheries in question.” Id., at 566.
We have encountered additional examples of claims to title based on exploitation of marine resources —the pearl fisheries in Australia, Mexico, and Columbia, the oyster beds in the Bay of Granville and off the Irish Coast, the coral beds off the coasts of Algeria, Sardinia, and Sicily, and various grounds in which herring, among other fishes, are found. See T. Fulton, The Sovereignty of the Sea 696-698 (1976 reprint of 1911 ed.). The continuation of apparently longstanding state regulation over these fisheries does not contradict, and is indeed perfectly consistent with, the understanding of occupation reflected in the Norwegian and Indian cases just discussed.
In contrast, the historical evidence introduced by Massachusetts does not show effective occupation of Nantucket Sound. To be sure, the Commonwealth’s expert witness on the history of the Sound, Dr. Louis DeVorsey, a historical geographer, did conclude that Nantucket Sound was part of an “amphibious resource region” because of the “intimate relationship” between the inhabitants of the area and the surrounding waters. By this Dr. DeVorsey meant essentially that the residents took their livelihood from the sea. Although fascinating from a historical geographer’s point of interest, the testimony of Dr. DeVorsey and the exhibits introduced through him do not satisfy the legal threshold for occupation of a coastal water body.
To begin with, the opinion that Nantucket Sound formed part of an “amphibious resource region” does not prove occupation of the entirety of Nantucket Sound. That conclusion was based largely on activity which undoubtedly took place either within territorial waters or on dry land. For example, to evidence the colonists’ close relationship with the sea, Dr. DeVorsey pointed to the use of sand for glassmaking, stone polishing, and farming. Other activities, such as the building of mills powered by the tide, the making of salt from seawater, and the gathering of seaweed for fertilizer and insulation, also fail to establish occupation of Nantucket Sound. Even considering this evidence together with the more water-based pursuits of harvesting oysters and clams and hunting whales, we do not find sufficient evidence of occupation of Nantucket Sound as a whole. Massachusetts concedes that oysters were dug mainly in the harbors, and for decades the colonists’ exploitation of whales was restricted to those that had drifted onto the beach. Although the residents by the mid-18th century had developed a technique for driving whales onto beaches by pursuing them in modified four- to five-man Indian canoes, and they certainly caught shellfish and clams outside the shallow water near shore, there is no satisfactory evidence that these activities occurred over the entirety of Nantucket Sound, and in particular over the portion of the Sound which the United States contends is high seas.
The evidence of occupation adduced by Massachusetts is also deficient because it does not warrant a finding that the colonists asserted any exclusive right to the waters of Nantucket Sound. The closest the Commonwealth comes is a 1672 contract by which the town of Nantucket attempted to engage a whaler by the name of Lopar to “follow the trade of whaling on the island” for two years in exchange for, inter alia, an exclusive license to hunt whales and 10 acres of land. There is no evidence that the contract was carried out (and in particular no record of a conveyance of real property), and no suggestion in the contract that the license was limited, or even especially concerned -with, whaling in Nantucket Sound. Indeed, the contract does not clearly reflect an exclusive proprietary interest in whales anywhere: it may simply represent a covenant on the part of the Nantucket islanders not to compete with the whaling company or companies chartered under the proposed contract. The only other evidence of an assertion of exclusive control was a 1692 Colonial Resolve to build a vessel to protect coastal ships in Vineyard Sound against the depredations of New Yorkers, with whom a dispute was brewing at the time. But this evidence concerning Vineyard Sound merely highlights the lack of any comparable evidence concerning Nantucket Sound. In the absence of evidence limiting use of Nantucket Sound to the inhabitants of its shores, there is no reason to exempt these waters from such rights as innocent passage traditionally enjoyed in common by all members of the international polity.
Even if Massachusetts had introduced evidence of intensive and exclusive exploitation of the entirety of Nantucket Sound, we would still be troubled by the lack of any linkage between these activities and the English Crown. Cf. United States v. Alaska, 422 U. S. 184, 190-191, 203 (1975). Unless we are to believe that the self-interested endeavors of every seafaring community suffice to establish “ancient title” to the waters containing the fisheries and resources it exploits, without regard to continuity of usage or international acquiescence necessary to establish “historic title,” solely because exploitation predated the freedom of the seas, then the Commonwealth’s claim cannot be recognized. Accordingly, we find that the colonists of Nantucket Sound did not effectively occupy that body of water; as a consequence, Great Britain did not obtain title which could devolve upon Massachusetts.
IV
Our determination that Massachusetts had not established clear title prior to freedom of the seas is corroborated by the Commonwealth’s consistent failure to assert dominion over Nantucket Sound since that time. Three examples should suffice to demonstrate that during the 18th and 19th centuries Massachusetts continued to treat Nantucket Sound in a manner inconsistent with its recent characterization of that body as internal waters.
First, in 1847, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued an opinion which is generally understood as having adopted Lord Coke’s more demanding version of the line-of-sight test for determining whether jaws of land enclosed inland waters. Since it is agreed that Nantucket Sound could not qualify as inland waters under the Coke test, the Court’s decision that that test was part of the common law of Massachusetts supports the further conclusion that the Sound was not part of the internal waters of the Commonwealth.
This conclusion was confirmed in 1859 when the Massachusetts Legislature enacted a statute defining the seaward boundary of the Commonwealth at one marine league (or three nautical miles) from the coast. See Acts of 1859, Ch. 289, Mass. Ex. 53. In accordance with' this measure, the statute treated arms of the sea as part of the Commonwealth if the distance between their headlands did not exceed two marine leagues. Thus, the statute replaced the ambiguous line-of-sight test for applying the inter fauces terrae doctrine with a fixed standard of six nautical miles. Since the distance between Monomoy Point and Nantucket Island is admittedly more than six nautical miles, Massachusetts statutory definition of its own coastline excluded Nantucket Sound.
Finally, in 1881, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted a statute directing its Harbor and Land Commission to prepare charts identifying the boundaries that had been established by the 1859 law. Official charts prepared pursuant to that legislation are consistent with the Master’s conclusion that Vineyard Sound was considered part of the Commonwealth, but that Nantucket Sound was not.
It was not until 1971 that Massachusetts first asserted its claim to jurisdiction over Nantucket Sound. There is simply no evidence that the English Crown or its colonists had obtained “clear original title” to the Sound in the 17th century, or that such title was “fortified by long usage.” Without such evidence, we are surely not prepared to enlarge the exception in Article 7(6) of the Convention for historic bays to embrace a claim of “ancient title” like that advanced in this case.
The parties are directed to prepare and submit a decree conforming to the recommendations of the Special Master.
It is so ordered.
Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In 1968 the United States invoked our original jurisdiction to quiet title „to the seabed along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. In 1975 we entered a decree affirming the title of the United States to the seabed more than three geographic miles seaward of the coastline, and of the States to the seabed within the 3-geographic-mile zone. United States v. Maine, 423 U. S. 1 (1975). See also United States v. Maine, 420 U. S. 515 (1975). In that decree we reserved jurisdiction which either the “United States or any defendant State [could] invoke ... by filing a motion in this Court for supplemental proceedings.” 423 U. S., at 2.
According to the Solicitor General, all but 1,000 acres of the submerged lands of Vineyard Sound belong to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as underlying territorial waters, even under its view that those waters are not inland.
In particular, the Commonwealth points to the charter granted in 1664 by King Charles II to the Duke of York conveying title to New York, New Jersey, and most of New England, cf. Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 413-414 (1842); Mahler v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co., 36 N. Y. 352, 366 (1866), and to the charter granted in 1691 by the English monarchs William and Mary to the colonists of Massachusetts consolidating into “one reall Province by the Name of Our Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England” the territories and colonies that were then commonly known as Massachusetts Bay, New Plymouth, “the Province of Main,” and the territory called Accadia or Nova Scotia, see Mass. Ex. 45, p. 8. Alternatively, Massachusetts asserts that it acquired sovereignty over the area by virtue of the Treaty of Paris signed in 1788. Cf. Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 256-257 (1891); Mahler v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co., 35 N. Y., at 356.
4 E. Coke, Institutes 140 (6th ed. 1681) (“It is no part of the Sea, where one may see what is done of the one part of the water, and of the other, as to see from one Land to the other, that the Coroner shall exercise his office in this ease, and of this the Country may have knowledge; whereby it appeareth that things done there are triable by the Country (that is, by Jury) and consequently not in the Admiral Court”).
M. Hale, De Jure Maris et Brachiorum ejusdem, cap. iv (1667), reprinted in R. Hall, Essay on the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Subject in the Sea Shores of the Realm, App. vii (2d ed. 1875) (“That arm or branch of the sea, which lies within the fauces terrae, where a man may reasonably discerne between shore and shore, is or at least may be ■within the body of a county, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the sheriff or coroner”).
The Special Master rested his conclusion that Massachusetts had to prove its claim “clear beyond doubt” on two cases of this Court and three reports of Special Masters in original jurisdiction cases. See Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S. 11, 77 (1969); United States v. California, 381 U. S. 139, 175 (1965); Report of the Special Master, O. T. 1983, No. 35 Orig., p. 11; Report of the Special Master, O. T. 1974, No. 9 Orig., pp. 18-19; Report of the Special Master, O. T. 1973, No. 52 Orig., p. 42. Cf. United States v. Louisiana (Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case), 470 U. S. 93, 111 (1985).
Although the Master’s conclusion regarding the burden of proof was the focus of the Commonwealth’s opening brief, we find it unnecessary to address the issue given our disposition of the case. Whatever the measure of proof, Massachusetts concedes that it bears the risk of nonpersuasion. See Brief for Defendant Massachusetts 7.
See United States v. California, 381 U. S., at 161-167. See also Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, 470 U. S., at 98; United States v. Maine (Rhode Island and New York Boundary Case), 469 U. S. 504, 513 (1985); United States v. Alaska, 422 U. S. 184, 188-189 (1975); Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S., at 35.
See Louisiana Boundary Case, id., at 21 (Convention contains ‘“the best and most workable definitions available’ ” (quoting United States v. California, 381 U. S., at 165)).
We have previously held that the decision to use the straight baseline system provided for in Article 4 of the Convention rests with the Federal Government. See Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, 470 U. S., at 99; Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S., at 72-73; United States v. California, 381 U. S., at 167-168.
«The term ‘historic bay’ is not defined in the Convention, and there is no complete accord as to its meaning. The Court has stated that a historic bay is a bay ‘over which a coastal nation has traditionally asserted and maintained dominion with the acquiescence of foreign nations.’ United States v. California, 381 U. S., at 172. See also United States v. Alaska, 422 U. S., at 189; Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S., at 23. The Court also has noted that there appears to be general agreement that at least three factors are to be taken into consideration in determining whether a body of water is a historic bay: (1) the exercise of authority over the area by the claiming nation; (2) the continuity of this exercise of authority; and (3) the acquiescence of foreign nations. See United States v. Alaska, 422 U. S., at 189; Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S., at 23-24, n. 27. An authoritative United Nations study concludes that these three factors require that ‘the coastal State must have effectively exercised sovereignty over the area continuously during a time sufficient to create a usage and have done so under the general toleration of the community of States.’ Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, Including Historic Bays 56, U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/143 (1962).” Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, 470 U. S., at 101-102 (footnotes omitted).
One cannot, as a historical matter, point to a precise date on which the international community would have rejected an assertion of sovereignty over Nantucket Sound as contrary to international law. It is clear, however, that such a claim would have become progressively less tenable throughout the 18th century:
“The seventeenth century marked the heyday of the mare clausum (closed sea) with claims by England, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Genoa, Tuscany, the Papacy, Turkey, and Venice.
“In the eighteenth century the position changed completely. Dutch policies had favoured freedom of navigation and fishing in the previous century, and the great publicist Grotius had written against the Portuguese monopoly of navigation and commerce in the East Indies. After the accession of William of Orange to the English throne in 1689 English disputes with Holland over fisheries ceased. However, sovereignty of the sea was still asserted against France, and in general the formal requirement of the salute to the flag was maintained. By the late eighteenth century the claim to sovereignty was obsolete and the requirement of the flag ceremony was ended in 1806. After 1691 extensive Danish claims were reduced by stages to narrow fixed limits. By the late eighteenth century the cannon-shot rule predominated, and claims to large areas of sea faded away.” L. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 233-234 (2d ed. 1973) (footnotes omitted).
“[I]t is an undeniable fact that, since the days of Grotius, the principle of the freedom of the high seas found an ever wider currency and that, after a gradual evolution, it gained the upper hand towards the beginning of the nineteenth century, when it crystallized into a universally accepted principle of international law.” Y. Blum, Historic Titles in International Law §61, pp. 242-243 (1966).
We find it unnecessary to select a “critical date” upon which the community of states would have rejected a British claim to Nantucket Sound. Because the colonists’ activities changed gradually in character and intensity over time, we need say only that effective “occupation” must have ripened into “clear original title,” “fortified by long usage,” no later than the latter half of the 1700’s.
The Special Master discussed this history only as regards “historic” title, see Report 27, even though he recognized that “[effective occupation, from a time prior to the victory of the doctrine of freedom of the seas” is necessary “to establish a valid claim to a body of water under ancient title,” id., at 25-26.
Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U. S. 310, 317 (1984). See Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, 470 U. S., at 101, and cases cited therein.
The Juridical Regime quotes two definitions of “occupation”:
“[Occupation] is defined by Oppenheim as follows:
. “ ‘Occupation is the act of appropriation by a State by which it intentionally acquires sovereignty over such territory as is at the time not under the sovereignty of another State.’
“A similar definition is given by Fauehille:
“ ‘Generally speaking, occupation is the taking by a State, with the intention of acting as the owner, of something which does not belong to any other State but which is susceptible of sovereignty.’” Juridical Regime, at 12 (¶ 70).
On the possible difference between occupation as a mode of original acquisition of territory as contrasted to occupation eventuating in prescriptive acquisition, see M. Strohl, The International Law of Bays 328, n. 27 (1963).
Because of a division of opinion between the Officiating Chief Judge and the second judge on the two-judge panel, the case was subsequently heard by a three-judge panel. The later panel unanimously agreed with the judgment of the Officiating Chief Judge and with his historical analysis. See Annakumaru Pillai v. Muthupayal, 27 Indian L. R. Madras, at 572.
Dr. DeVorsey inferred this intimate relationship in part from 17th- and 18th-century maps naming prominent features and attempting to chart the depths of Nantucket Sound. As Dr. DeVorsey acknowledged, however, none of these maps identified Nantucket Sound as a separate body of water even though they did identify other bodies of water such as Cape Cod Bay, Buzzard’s Bay, and, in two instances, Vineyard Sound. These early maps do not support Massachusetts’ contention that the area’s inhabitants established a special relationship with the protected waters of Nantucket Sound as opposed to the surrounding waters and ocean in general.
The dispute was resolved peacefully, there is no evidence that the vessel was built, and the only other patrol vessel about which Dr. DeVorsey testified was engaged in convoying merchantmen, not in protecting Nantucket Sound.
See Temple of Preah Vihear, 1962 I. C. J. 6, 61 (separate opinion of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice) (“It is a general principle of law . . . that a party’s attitude, state of mind or intentions at a later date can be regarded as good evidence — in relation to the same or a closely connected matter — of his attitude, state of mind or intentions at an earlier date also;. . . the existence of a state of fact, or of a situation, at a later date, may furnish good presumptive evidence of its existence at an earlier date also, even where the later situation or state of affairs has in other respects to be excluded from consideration” (citations omitted)).
While the position of Massachusetts is discussed in text, it bears mention that the United States did not assert sovereignty over Nantucket Sound either. In 1789 the First Congress established a customs enforcement system, which included a number of separate districts in Massachusetts. The statutory definition of the district of Nantucket included “the island of Nantucket” without any reference to adjacent waters, whereas the district of Edgartown, which included Martha’s Vineyard and the Elizabeth Islands, expressly incorporated “all the waters and shores” within Duke’s County. Act of July 31,1789,1 Stat. 31. This distinction was repeated in subsequent legislation in 1790, Act of Aug. 4,1790,1 Stat. 146, and in 1799, Act of Mar. 2, 1799, 1 Stat. 629.
In Commonwealth v. Peters, 53 Mass. 387, 392 (1847), the Massachusetts high court held:
“All creeks, havens, coves, and inlets lying within projecting headlands and islands, and all bays and arms of the sea lying within and between lands not so wide but that persons and objects on the one side can be discerned by the naked eye by persons on the opposite side, are taken to be within the body of the county.”
Chief Judge Shaw’s adoption of the Coke test in Peters is consistent with Judge Story’s earlier exposition in United States v. Grush, 26 F. Cas. 48, 52 (No. 15,268) (CC Mass. 1829):
“I do not understand by this expression, that it is necessary, that the shores should be so near, that all that is done on one shore could be discerned, and testified to with certainty, by persons standing on the opposite shore; but that objects on the opposite shore might be reasonably discerned, that is, might be distinctly seen with the naked eye, and clearly distinguished from each other.”
The parties do not disagree with the Master’s conclusion that the American view of the proper test, which followed Coke, differed from the British view, which followed Hale.
The validity of and any limits to the “ancient title” theory are accordingly reserved for an appropriate case. In view of our decision that the history of Nantucket Sound does not support the acquisition of “ancient title” by Massachusetts, we similarly decline to address the question whether the Commonwealth abandoned or renounced that title, and the antecedent issue of under what standard that judgment should be 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: | 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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, as it comes to us, presents two federal income tax issues. One has to do with inventory accounting. The other relates to a bad-debt reserve.
The Inventory Issue. In 1964, petitioner Thor Power Tool Co. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the taxpayer), in accord with “generally accepted accounting principles,” wrote down what it regarded as excess inventory to Thor’s own estimate of the net realizable value of the excess goods. Despite this write-down, Thor continued to hold the goods for sale at original prices. It offset the write-down against 1964 sales and thereby produced a net operating loss for that year; it then asserted that loss as a carryback to 1963 under § 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 172. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, maintaining that the write-down did not serve to reflect income clearly for tax purposes, disallowed the offset and the carryback.
The Bad-Debt Issue. In 1965, the taxpayer added to its reserve for bad debts and asserted as a deduction, under § 166 (c) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 166 (c), a sum that presupposed a substantially higher charge-off rate than Thor had experienced in immediately preceding years. The Commissioner ruled that the addition was excessive, and determined, pursuant to a formula based on the taxpayer’s past experience, what he regarded as a lesser but “reasonable” amount to be added to Thor’s reserve.
On the taxpayer’s petition for redetermination, the Tax Court, in an unreviewed decision by Judge Goffe, upheld the Commissioner’s exercise of discretion in both respects. 64
T. C. 154 (1975). As a consequence, and also because of other adjustments not at issue here, the court redetermined, App. 264, the following deficiencies in Thor’s federal income tax:
calendar year 1963 — $494,055.99
calendar year 1965 — $59,287.48
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 563 F. 2d 861 (1977). We granted certiorari, 435
U. S. 914 (1978), to consider these important and recurring income tax accounting issues.
I
The Inventory Issue
A
Taxpayer is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Illinois. It manufactures hand-held power tools, parts and accessories, and rubber products. At its various plants and service branches, Thor maintains inventories of raw materials, work-in-process, finished parts and accessories, and completed tools. At all times relevant, Thor has used, both for financial accounting and for income tax purposes, the “lower of cost or market” method of valuing inventories. App. 23-24. See Treas. Reg. § 1.471-2 (c), 26 CFR § 1.471-2 (c) (1978).
Thor’s tools typically contain from 50 to 200 parts, each of which taxpayer stocks to meet demand for replacements. Because of the difficulty, at the time of manufacture, of predicting the future demand for various parts, taxpayer produced liberal quantities of each part to avoid subsequent production runs. Additional runs entail costly retooling and result in delays in filling orders. App. 54-55.
In 1960, Thor instituted a procedure for writing down the inventory value of replacement parts and accessories for tool models it no longer produced. It created an inventory contra-account and credited that account with 10% of each part’s cost for each year since production of the parent model had ceased. 64 T. 0., at 156-157; App. 24. The effect of the procedure was to amortize the cost of these parts over a 10-year period. For the first nine months of 1964, this produced a write-down of $22,090. 64 T. C., at 157; App. 24.
In late 1964, new management took control and promptly concluded that Thor’s inventory in general was overvalued. After “a physical inventory taken at all locations” of the tool and rubber divisions, id., at 52, management wrote off approximately $2.75 million of obsolete parts, damaged or defective tools, demonstration or sales samples, and similar items. Id., at 52-53. The Commissioner allowed this writeoff because Thor scrapped most of the articles shortly after their removal from the 1964 closing inventory. Management also wrote down $245,000 of parts stocked for three unsuccessful products.- Id., at 56. The Commissioner allowed this write-down, too, since Thor sold these items at reduced prices shortly after the close of 1964. Id., at 62.
This left some 44,000 assorted items, the status of which is the inventory issue here. Management concluded that many of these articles, mostly spare parts, were “excess” inventory, that is, that they were held in excess of any reasonably foreseeable future demand. It was decided that this inventory should be written down to its “net realizable value,” which, in most cases, was scrap value. 64 T. C., at 160-161; Brief for Petitioner 9; Tr. of Oral Arg. 11.
Two methods were used to ascertain the quantity of excess inventory. Where accurate data were available, Thor forecast future demand for each item on the basis of actual 1964 usage, that is, actual sales for tools and service parts, and actual usage for raw materials, work-in-process, and production parts. Management assumed that future demand for each item would be the same as it was in 1964. Thor then applied the following aging schedule: the quantity of each item corresponding to less than one year’s estimated demand was kept at cost; the quantity of each item in excess of two years’ estimated demand was written off entirely; and the quantity of each item corresponding to from one to two years’ estimated demand was written down by 50% or 75%. App. 26. Thor presented no statistical evidence to rationalize these percentages or this time frame. In the Tax Court, Thor’s president justified the formula by citing general business experience, and opined that it was “somewhat in between” possible alternative solutions. This first method yielded a total write-down of $744,030. 64 T. C., at 160.
At two plants where 1964 data were inadequate to permit forecasts of future demand, Thor used its second method for valuing inventories. At these plants, the company employed flat percentage write-downs of 5%, 10%, and 50%. for various types of inventory. Thor presented no sales or other data to support these percentages. Its president observed that “this is not a precise way of doing it,” but said that the company “felt some adjustment of this nature was in order, and these figures represented our best estimate of what was required to reduce the inventory to net realizable value.” App. 67. This second method yielded a total write-down of $160,832. 64 T. C., at 160.
Although Thor wrote down all its “excess” inventory at once, it did not immediately scrap the articles or sell them at reduced prices, as it had done with the $3 million of obsolete and damaged inventory, the write-down of which the Commissioner permitted. Rather, Thor retained the “excess” items physically in inventory and continued to sell them at original prices. Id., at 160-161. The company found that, owing to the peculiar nature of the articles involved, price reductions were of no avail in moving this “excess” inventory. As time went on, however, Thor gradually disposed of some of these items as scrap; the record is unclear as to when these dispositions took place.
Thor's total write-down of “excess” inventory in 1964 therefore was:
Ten-year amortization of parts for
discontinued tools $22,090
First method (aging formula based on 1964 usage) 744,030
Second method (flat percentage write-downs) 160,832
Total $926,952
Thor credited this sum to its inventory contra-account, thereby decreasing closing inventory, increasing cost of goods sold, and decreasing taxable income for the year by that amount. The company contended that, by writing down excess inventory to scrap value, and by thus carrying all inventory at “net realizable value,” it had reduced its inventory to “market” in accord with its “lower of cost or market” method of accounting. On audit, the Commissioner disallowed the write-down in its entirety, asserting that it did not serve clearly to reflect Thor’s 1964 income for tax purposes.
The Tax Court, in upholding the Commissioner’s determination, found as a fact that Thor’s write-down of excess inventory did conform to “generally accepted accounting principles” ; indeed, the court was “thoroughly convinced... that such was the case.” Id., at 165. The court found that if Thor had failed to write down its inventory on some reasonable basis, its accountants would have been unable to give its financial statements the desired certification. Id., at 161-162. The court held, however, that conformance with “generally accepted accounting principles” is not enough; § 446 (b), and § 471 as well, of the 1954 Code, 26 U. S. C. §§ 446 (b) and 471, prescribe, as an independent requirement, that inventory accounting methods must “clearly reflect income.” The Tax Court rejected Thor’s argument that its write-down of “excess” inventory was authorized by Treasury Regulations, 64 T. C., at 167-171, and held that the Commissioner had not abused his discretion in determining that the write-down failed to reflect 1964 income clearly.
B
Inventory accounting is governed by §§ 446 and 471 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. §§ 446 and 471. Section 446 (a) states the general rule for methods of accounting: “Taxable income shall be computed under the method of accounting on the basis of which the taxpayer regularly computes his income in keeping his books.” Section 446 (b) provides, however, that if the method used by the taxpayer “does not clearly reflect income, the computation of taxable income shall be made under such method as, in the opinion of the [Commissioner], does clearly reflect income.” Regulations promulgated under § 446, and in effect for the taxable year 1964, state that “no method of accounting is acceptable unless, in the opinion of the Commissioner, it clearly reflects income.” Treas. Reg. § 1.446-1 (a)(2), 26 CPR § 1.446-1 (a)(2) (1964).
Section 471 prescribes the general rule for inventories. It states:
“Whenever in the opinion of the [Commissioner] the use of inventories is necessary in order clearly to determine the income of any taxpayer, inventory shall be taken by such taxpayer on such basis as the [Commissioner] may prescribe as conforming as nearly as may be to the best accounting practice in the trade or business and as most clearly reflecting the income.”
As the Regulations point out, § 471 obviously establishes two distinct tests to which an inventory must conform. First, it must conform “as nearly as may be” to the “best accounting practice,” a phrase that is synonymous with “generally accepted accounting principles.” Second, it “must clearly reflect the income.” Treas. Reg. § 1.471-2 (a) (2), 26 CFR § 1.471-2 (a)(2) (1964).
It is obvious that on their face, §§ 446 and 471, with their accompanying Regulations, vest the Commissioner with wide discretion in determining whether a particular method of inventory accounting should be disallowed as not clearly reflective of income. This Court’s cases confirm the breadth of this discretion. In construing § 446 and its predecessors, the Court has held that “[t]he Commissioner has broad powers in determining whether accounting methods used by a taxpayer clearly reflect income.” Commissioner v. Hansen, 360 U. S. 446, 467 (1959). Since the Commissioner has “[m]uch latitude for discretion,” his interpretation of the statute’s clear-reflection standard “should not be interfered with unless clearly unlawful.” Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U. S. 445, 449 (1930). To the same effect are United States v. Caito, 384 U. S. 102, 114 (1966); Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U. S. 128, 133-134 (1963); American Automobile Assn. v. United States, 367 U. S. 687, 697-698 (1961); Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180, 189-190 (1957); Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193, 203 (1934). In construing § 203 of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1060, a predecessor of § 471, the Court held that the taxpayer bears a “heavy burden of [proof],” and that the Commissioner’s dis-allowance of an inventory accounting method is not to be set aside unless shown to be “plainly arbitrary.” Lucas v. Structural Steel Co., 281 U. S. 264, 271 (1930).
As has been noted, the Tax Court found as a fact in this case that Thor’s write-down of “excess” inventory conformed to “generally accepted accounting principles” and was “within' the term, ‘best accounting practice/ as that term is used in section 471 of the Code and the regulations promulgated under that section.” 64 T. C., at 161,165. Since the Commissioner has not challenged this finding, there is no dispute that Thor satisfied the first part of § 471’s two-pronged test. The only question, then, is whether the Commissioner abused his discretion in determining that the write-down did not satisfy the test’s second prong in that it failed to reflect Thor’s 1964 income clearly. Although the Commissioner’s discretion is not unbridled and may not be arbitrary, we sustain his exercise of discretion here, for in this case the write-down was plainly inconsistent with the governing Regulations which the taxpayer, on its part, has not challenged.
It has been noted above that Thor at all pertinent times used the “lower of cost or market” method of inventory accounting. The rules governing this method are set out in Treas. Reg. | 1.471-4, 26 CFR § 1.471-4 (1964). That Regulation defines “market” tornean, ordinarily, “the current bid price prevailing at the date of the inventory for the particular merchandise in the volume in which usually purchased by the taxpayer.” §1.471-4 (a). The courts have uniformly interpreted “bid price” to mean replacement cost, that is, the price the taxpayer would have to pay on the open market to purchase or reproduce the inventory items. Where no open market exists, the Regulations require the taxpayer to ascertain “bid price” by using “such evidence of a fair market price at the date or dates nearest the inventory as may be available, such as specific purchases or sales by the taxpayer or others in reasonable volume and made in good faith, or compensation paid for cancellation of contracts for purchase commitments.” § 1.471-4 (b).
The Regulations specify two situations in which a taxpayer is permitted to value inventory below “market” as so defined. The first is where the taxpayer in the normal course of business has actually offered merchandise for sale at prices lower than replacement cost. Inventories of such merchandise may be valued at those prices less direct cost of disposition, “and the correctness of such prices will be determined by reference to the actual sales of the taxpayer for a reasonable period before and after the date of the inventory.” Ibid. The Regulations warn that prices “which vary materially from the actual prices so ascertained will not be accepted as reflecting the market.” Ibid.
The second situation in which a taxpayer may value inventory below replacement cost is where the merchandise itself is defective. If goods are “unsalable at normal prices or unusable in the normal way because of damage, imperfections, shop wear, changes of style, odd or broken lots, or other similar causes,” the taxpayer is permitted to value the goods “at bona fide selling prices less direct cost of disposition.” § 1.471-2 (c). The-Regulations define “bona fide selling price” to mean an “actual offering of goods during a period ending not later than 30 days after inventory date.” Ibid. The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that “such exceptional goods as are valued upon such selling basis come within the classifications indicated,” and is required to “maintain such records of the disposition of the goods as will enable a verification of the inventory to be made.” Ibid.
From this language, the regulatory scheme is clear. The taxpayer must value inventory for tax purposes at cost unless the “market” is lower. “Market” is defined as “replacement cost,” and the taxpayer is permitted to depart from replacement cost only in specified situations. When it makes any such departure, the taxpayer must substantiate its lower inventory valuation by providing evidence of actual offerings, actual sales, or actual contract cancellations. In the absence of objective evidence of this kind, a taxpayer’s assertions as to the “market value” of its inventory are not cognizable in computing its income tax.
It is clear to us that Thor’s procedures for writing down the value of its “excess” inventory were inconsistent with this regulatory scheme. Although Thor conceded that “an active market prevailed” on the inventory date, see 64 T. C., at 169,' it “made no effort to determine the purchase or reproduction cost” of its “excess” inventory. Id., at 162. Thor thus failed to ascertain “market” in accord with the general rule of the Regulations. In seeking to depart from replacement cost, Thor failed to bring itself within either of the authorized exceptions. Thor is not able to take advantage of § 1.471-4 (b) since, as the Tax Court found, the company failed to sell its excess inventory or offer it for sale at prices below replacement cost. 64 T. Cl, at 160-161. Indeed, Thor concedes that it continued to sell its “excess” inventory at original prices. Thor also is not able to take advantage of § 1.471-2 (c) since, as the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals both held, it failed to bear the burden of proving that its excess inventory came within the specified classifications. 64 T. C., at 171; 563 F. 2d, at 867. Actually, Thor's “excess” inventory was normal and unexceptional, and was indistinguishable from and intermingled with the inventory that was not written down.
More importantly, Thor failed to provide any objective evidence whatever that the “excess” inventory had the “market value” management ascribed to it. The Regulations demand hard evidence of actual sales and further demand that records of actual dispositions be kept. The Tax Court found, however, that Thor made no sales and kept no records. 64 T. C., at 171. Thor’s management simply wrote down its closing inventory on the basis of a well-educated guess that some of it would never be sold. The formulae governing this write-down were derived from management’s collective “business experience”; the percentages contained in those formulae seemingly were chosen for no reason other than that they were multiples of five and embodied some kind of anagogical symmetry. The Regulations do not permit this kind of evidence. If a taxpayer could write down its inventories on the basis of management’s subjective estimates of the goods’ ultimate salability, the taxpayer would be able, as the Tax Court observed, id., at 170, “to determine how much tax it wanted to pay for a given year.”
For these reasons, we agree with the Tax Court and with the Seventh Circuit that the Commissioner acted within his discretion in deciding that Thor’s write-down of “excess” inventory failed to reflect income clearly. In the light of the well-known potential for tax avoidance that is inherent in inventory accounting, the Commissioner in his discretion may insist on a high evidentiary standard before allowing write-downs of inventory to “market.” Because Thor provided no objective evidence of the reduced market value of its “excess” inventory, its write-down was plainly inconsistent with the Regulations, and the Commissioner properly disallowed it.
C
The taxpayer's major argument against this conclusion is based on the Tax Court’s clear finding that the write-down conformed to “generally accepted accounting principles.” Thor points to language in Treas. Reg. § 1.446-1 (a)(2), 26 CFR § 1.446-1 (a)(2) (1964), to the effect that “[a] method of accounting which reflects the consistent application of generally accepted accounting principles.. will ordinarily be regarded as clearly reflecting income” (emphasis added). Section 1.471-2 (b), 26 CFR § 1.471-2 (b) (1964), of the Regulations likewise stated that an inventory taken in conformity with best accounting practice “can, as a general rule, be regarded as clearly reflecting... income” (emphasis added). These provisions, Thor contends, created a presumption that an inventory practice conformable to “generally accepted accounting principles” is valid for income tax purposes. Once a taxpayer has established this conformity, the argument runs, the burden shifts to the Commissioner affirmatively to demonstrate that the taxpayer’s method does not reflect income clearly. Unless the Commissioner can show that a generally accepted method “demonstrably distorts income,” Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States as Amicus Curiae 3, or that the taxpayer’s adoption of such method was “motivated by tax avoidance,” Brief for Petitioner 25, the presumption in the taxpayer’s favor will carry the day. The Commissioner, Thor concludes, failed to rebut that presumption here.
If the Code and Regulations did embody the presumption petitioner postulates, it would be of little use to the taxpayer in this case. As we have noted, Thor’s write-down of “excess” inventory was inconsistent with the Regulations; any general presumption obviously must yield in the face of such particular inconsistency. We believe, however, that no such presumption is present. Its existence is insupportable in light of the statute, the Court’s past decisions, and the differing objectives of tax and financial accounting.
First, as has been stated above, the Code and Regulations establish two distinct tests to which an inventory must conform. The Code and Regulations, moreover, leave little doubt as to which test is paramount. While § 471 of the Code requires only that an accounting practice conform “as nearly as may be” to best accounting practice, § 1.446-1 (a) (2) of the Regulations states categorically that “no method of accounting is acceptable unless, in the opinion of the Commissioner, it clearly reflects income” (emphasis added). Most importantly, the Code and Regulations give the Commissioner broad discretion to set aside the taxpayer’s method if, “in [his] opinion,” it does not reflect income clearly. This language is completely at odds with the notion of a “presumption” in the taxpayer’s favor. The Regulations embody no presumption; they say merely that, in most cases, generally accepted accounting practices will pass muster for tax purposes. And in most cases they will. But if the Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretion, determines that they do not, he may prescribe a different practice without having to rebut any presumption running against the Treasury.
Second, the presumption petitioner postulates finds no support in this Court’s prior decisions. It was early noted that the general rule specifying use of the taxpayer’s method of accounting “is expressly limited to cases where the Commissioner believes that the accounts clearly reflect the net income.” Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U. S., at 449. More recently, it was held in American Automobile Assn. v. United States that a taxpayer must recognize prepaid income when received, even though this would mismatch expenses and revenues in contravention of “generally accepted commercial accounting principles.” 367 U. S., at 690. “[T]o say that in performing the function of business accounting the method employed by the Association ‘is in accord with generally accepted commercial accounting principles and practices,’ ” the Court concluded, “is not to hold that for income tax purposes it so clearly reflects income as to be binding on the Treasury.” Id., at 693. “[W]e are mindful that the characterization of a transaction for financial accounting purposes, on the one hand, and for tax purposes, on the other, need not necessarily be the same.” Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U. S. 561, 577 (1978). See Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U. S. 1, 15 (1974). Indeed, the Court’s cases demonstrate that divergence between tax and financial accounting is especially common when a taxpayer seeks a current deduction for estimated future expenses or losses. E. g., Commissioner v. Hansen, 360 U. S. 446 (1959) (reserve to cover contingent liability in event of nonperformance of guarantee); Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193 (1934) (reserve to cover expected liability for unearned commissions on anticipated insurance policy cancellations); Lucas v. American Code Co., supra (reserve to cover expected liability on contested lawsuit). The rationale of these cases amply encompasses Thor’s aim. By its president’s concession, the company’s write-down of “excess” inventory was founded on the belief that many of the articles inevitably would become useless due to breakage, technological change, fluctuations in market demand, and the like. Thor, in other words, sought a current “deduction” for an estimated future loss. Under the decided cases, a taxpayer so circumstanced finds no shelter beneath an accountancy presumption.
Third, the presumption petitioner postulates is insupportable in light of the vastly different objectives that financial and tax accounting have. The primary goal of financial accounting is to provide useful information to management, shareholders, creditors, and others properly interested; the major responsibility of the accountant is to protect these parties from being misled. The primary goal of the income tax system, in contrast, is the equitable collection of revenue; the major responsibility of the Internal Revenue Service is to protect the public fisc. Consistently with its goals and responsibilities, financial accounting has as its foundation the principle of conservatism, with its corollary that “possible errors in measurement [should] be in the direction of understatement rather than overstatement of net income and net assets.” In view of the Treasury's markedly different goals and responsibilities, understatement of income is not destined to be its guiding light. Given this diversity, even contrariety, of objectives, any presumptive equivalency between tax and financial accounting would be unacceptable.
This difference in objectives is mirrored in numerous differences of treatment. Where the tax law requires that a deduction be deferred until “all the events” have occurred that will make it fixed and certain, United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422, 441 (1926), accounting principles typically require that a liability be accrued as soon as it can reasonably be estimated. Conversely, where the tax law requires that income be recognised currently under “claim of right,” “ability to pay,” and “control” rationales, accounting principles may defer accrual until a later year so that revenues and expenses may be better matched. Financial accounting, in short, is hospitable to estimates, probabilities, and reasonable certainties; the tax law, with its mandate to preserve the revenue, can give no quarter to uncertainty. This is as it should be. Reasonable estimates may be useful, even essential, in giving shareholders and creditors an accurate picture of a firm’s overall financial health; but the accountant’s conservatism cannot bind the Commissioner in his efforts to collect taxes. “Only a few reserves voluntarily established as a matter of conservative accounting,” Mr. Justice Brandéis wrote for the Court, “are authorized by the Revenue Acts.” Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S., at 201-202.
Finally, a presumptive equivalency between tax and financial accounting would create insurmountable difficulties of tax administration. Accountants long have recognized that “generally accepted accounting principles” are far from being a canonical set of rules that will ensure identical accounting treatment of identical transactions. “Generally accepted accounting principles,” rather, tolerate a range of “reasonable” treatments, leaving the choice among alternatives to management. Such, indeed, is precisely the case here. Variances of this sort may be tolerable in financial reporting, but they are questionable in a tax system designed to ensure as far as possible that similarly situated taxpayers pay the same tax. If management’s election among “acceptable” options were dispositive for tax purposes, a firm, indeed, could decide unilaterally — within limits dictated only by its accountants — the tax it wished to pay. Such unilateral decisions would not just make the Code inequitable; they would make it unenforceable.
D
Thor complains that a decision adverse to it poses a dilemma. According to the taxpayer, it would be virtually impossible for it to offer objective evidence of its “excess” inventory's lower value, since the goods cannot be sold at reduced prices; even if they could be sold, says Thor, their reduced-price sale would just “pull the rug out” from under the identical “non-excess” inventory Thor is trying to sell simultaneously. The only way Thor could establish the inventory’s value by a “closed transaction” would be to scrap the articles at once. Yet immediate scrapping would be undesirable, for demand for the parts ultimately might prove greater than anticipated. The taxpayer thus sees itself presented with “an unattractive Hobson’s choice: either the unsalable inventory must be carried for years at its cost instead of net realizable value, thereby overstating taxable income by such overvaluation until it is scrapped, or the excess inventory must be scrapped prematurely to the detriment of the manufacturer and its customers.” Brief for Petitioner 25.
If this is indeed the dilemma that confronts Thor, it is in reality the same choice that every taxpayer who has a paper loss must face. It can realize its loss now and garner its tax benefit, or it can defer realization, and its deduction, hoping for better luck later. Thor, quite simply, has suffered no present loss. It deliberately manufactured its “excess” spare parts because it judged that the marginal cost of unsalable inventory would be lower than the cost of retooling machinery should demand surpass expectations. This was a rational business judgment and, not unpredictably, Thor now has inventory it believes it cannot sell. Thor, of course, is not so confident of its prediction as to be willing to scrap the “excess” parts now; it wants to keep them on hand, just in case. This, too, is a rational judgment, but there is no reason why the Treasury should subsidize Thor’s hedging of its bets. There is also no reason why Thor should be entitled, for tax purposes, to have its cake and to eat it too.
i — I
The Bad-Debt Issue
A
Deductions for bad debts are covered by § 166 of the 1954 Code, 26 U. S. C. § 166. Section 166 (a)(1) sets forth the general rule that a deduction is allowed for “any debt which becomes worthless within the taxable year.” Alternatively, the Code permits an accrual-basis taxpayer to account for bad debts by the reserve method. This is implemented by § 166 (c), which states that “[i]n lieu of any deduction under subsection (a), there shall be allowed (in the discretion of the [Commissioner]) a deduction for a reasonable addition to a reserve for bad debts.” A “reasonable” addition is the amount necessary to bring the reserve balance up to the level that can be expected to cover losses properly anticipated on debts outstanding at the end of the tax year.
At all times pertinent, Thor has used the reserve method. Its reserve at the beginning of 1965 was approximately $93,000. See 64 T. C., at 162. During 1965, Thor’s new management undertook a stringent review of accounts receivable. In the company’s rubber division, credit personnel studied all accounts; a 100% reserve was set up for two accounts deemed wholly uncollectible, and a 1% reserve was established for all other receivables. Ibid. In the tool division, credit clerks analyzed all accounts more than 90 days past due with balances over $100; a 100% reserve was established for accounts judged wholly uncollectible, and an identical collectibility ratio was applied to accounts under $100 of the same age. A flat 2% reserve was set up for accounts more than 30 days past due, and a 1 % reserve for all other accounts. Id., at 162-163. These judgments, approved by three levels of management, indicated that $136,150 should be added to the bad-debt reserve, bringing its balance at year-end to a figure slightly below $229,000. Id., at 162. Thor claimed this $136,150 as a deduction under § 166 (c).
The Commissioner ruled that the deduction was excessive. He computed what he believed to be a “reasonable” addition to Thor’s reserve by using the “six-year moving average” formula derived from the decision in Black Motor Co. v. Commissioner, 41 B. T. A. 300 (1940), aff’d on other grounds, 125 F. 2d 977 (CA6 1942). This formula seeks to ascertain a “reasonable” addition to a bad-debt reserve in light of the taxpayer’s recent chargeoff history. In this case, the formula indicated that, for the years 1960-1965, Thor’s annual charge-offs of bad debts amounted, on the average, to 3.128% of its year-end receivables. 64 T. C., at 163. Applying that percentage to Thor’s 1965 year-end receivables, the Commissioner determined that $154,156.80 of accounts receivable could reasonably be expected to default. The amount required to bring Thor’s reserve up to this level was $61,359.20, and the Commissioner decided that this was a “reasonable” addition. Accordingly, he disallowed the remaining $74,790.80 of Thor’s claimed § 166 (c) deduction. Both the Tax Court, 64 T. C., at 174-175, and the Seventh Circuit, 563 F. 2d, at 870, held that the Commissioner had not abused his discretion in so ruling.
B
Section 166 (c) states that a deduction for an addition to a bad-debt reserve is to be allowed “in the discretion” of the Commissioner. Consistently with this statutory language, the courts uniformly have held that the Commissioner’s determination of a “reasonable” (and hence deductible) addition must be sustained unless the taxpayer proves that the Commissioner abused his discretion. The taxpayer is said to bear a “heavy burden” in this respect. He must show not only that his own computation is reasonable but also that the Commissioner’s computation is unreasonable and arbitrary.
Since it first received the approval of the Tax Court in 1940, the Black Motor bad-debt formula has enjoyed the favor of all three branches of the Federal Government. The formula has been employed consistently by the Commissioner, approved by the courts, and collaterally recognized by the Congress. Thor faults the Black Motor formula because of its retrospectivity: By ascertaining current additions to a reserve by reference to past chargeoff experience, the formula assertedly penalizes taxpayers who have delayed in making writeoffs in the past, or whose receivables have just recently begun to deteriorate. Petitioner’s objection is not altogether irrational, but it falls short of rendering the formula arbitrary. Common sense suggests that a firm’s
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.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this original action, several States, joined by the United States and a number of pipeline companies, challenge the constitutionality of Louisiana’s “First-Use Tax” imposed on certain uses of natural gas brought into Louisiana, principally from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), as violative of the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
I
The lands beneath the Gulf of Mexico have large reserves of oil and natural gas. Initially, these reserves could not be developed due to technological difficulties associated with offshore drilling. In 1938, the first drilling rig was constructed off the coast of Louisiana, and with the advent of new technologies, offshore drilling has become commonplace. Exploration and development of the OCS in the Gulf of Mexico have become large industries providing a substantial percentage of the natural gas used in this country. Most of the gas being extracted from the lands underlying the Gulf is piped to refining plants located in coastal portions of Louisiana where the gas is “dried” — the liquefiable hydrocarbons gathered and removed- — on its way to ultimate distribution to consumers in over 30 States. It is estimated that 98% of the OCS gas processed in Louisiana is eventually sold to out-of-state consumers with the 2% remainder consumed within Louisiana. The, contractual arrangements between a producer of gas and the pipeline companies vary. Most often, the producer sells the gas to the pipeline companies at the wellhead, although the producer may retain an interest in any extractable components. Some producers, however, retain full ownership rights and simply pay a flat fee for the use of the pipeline companies’ facilities.
The ownership and control of these large reserves of natural gas have been much disputed. In United States v. Louisiana, 339 U. S. 699 (1950), the Court applied the principle of its holding in United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947)—that the United States possesses paramount rights to lands beneath the Pacific Ocean seaward of California’s low-water mark — to the offshore areas adjacent to Louisiana. In 1953, Congress passed the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. §§ 1301-1315, ceding any federal interest in the lands within three miles of the coast, while confirming the Federal Government’s interest in the area seaward of the 3-mile limit. See United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1 (1960); United States v. Maine, 420 U. S. 515, 524-526 (1975). In the same year, Congress passed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. §§ 1331-1343 (OCS Act), which declared that the “subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf appertain to the United States and are subject to its jurisdiction, control, and power of disposition....” § 1322. The OCS Act also established procedures for federal leasing of OCS land to develop mineral resources. While the passage of these Acts established the respective legal interests of the parties, there has been extensive litigation to establish the legal boundaries of the.federal OCS domain. See generally United States v. Louisiana, 446 U. S. 253, 254-260 (1980) (detailing the history of the “long-continuing and sometimes strained controversy” between the United States and Louisiana concerning the OCS lands).
In 1978, the Louisiana Legislature enacted a tax of seven cents per thousand cubic feet of natural gas on the “first use” of any gas imported into Louisiana which was not previously subjected to taxation by another State or the United States. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 47:1301-47:1307 (West Supp. 1981) (Act). The Tax imposed is precisely equal to the severance tax the State imposes on Louisiana gas producers. The Tax is owed by the owner of the gas at the time the first taxable “use” occurs within Louisiana. § 1305B. About 85% of the OCS gas brought ashore is owned by the pipeline companies, the rest by the producers. Since most States impose their own severance tax, it is acknowledged that the primary effect of the First-Use Tax will be on gas produced in the federal OCS area and then piped to processing plants located within Louisiana. It has been estimated that Louisiana would receive at least $150 million in annual receipts from the First-Use Tax.
The stated purpose of the First-Use Tax was to reimburse the people of Louisiana for damages to the State’s waterbot-toms, barrier islands, and coastal areas resulting from the introduction of natural gas into Louisiana from areas not subject to state taxes as well as to compensate for the costs incurred by the State in protecting those resources. § 1301C. Moreover, the Tax was designed to equalize competition between gas produced in Louisiana and subject to the state severance tax of seven cents per thousand cubic feet, and gas produced elsewhere not subject to a severance tax such as OCS gas. § 1301A. The Act specified a number of different uses justifying imposition of the First-Use Tax including sale, processing, transportation, use in manufacturing, treatment, or “other ascertainable action at a point within the state.” § 1302 (8).
The Act itself, as well as provisions found elsewhere in the state statutes, provided a number of exemptions from and credits for the First-Use Tax. The Severance Tax Credit provided that any taxpayer subject to the First-Use Tax was entitled to a direct tax credit on any Louisiana severance tax owed in connection with the extraction of natural resources within the State. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47:647 (West Supp. 1981). Second, municipal or state-regulated electric generating plants and natural gas distributing services located within Louisiana, as well as any direct purchaser of gas used for consumption directly by that purchaser, were provided tax credits on other Louisiana taxes upon a showing that “fuel costs for electricity generation or natural gas distribution or consumption have increased as a direct result of increases in transportation and marketing costs of natural gas delivered from the federal domain of the outer continental shelf...,” which implicitly includes any increases resulting from the First-Use Tax. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47:11B (West Supp. 1981). Furthermore, imported natural gas used for drilling oil or gas within the State was exempted from the First-Use Tax. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:1303A (West Supp. 1981). Thus, Louisiana consumers of OCS gas for the most part are not burdened by the Tax, but it does uniformly apply to gas moving out of the State. The Act also purported to establish the legal effect of the Tax in terms of defining the proper allocation of the Tax among potentially liable parties. Specifically, the Act declared that the “tax shall be deemed a cost associated with uses made by the owner in preparation of marketing of the natural gas.” § 1303C. Any contract which attempted to allocate the cost of the Tax to any party except the ultimate consumer was declared to be “against public policy and unenforceable to that extent.” Ibid.
On March 29, 1979, eight States filed a motion for leave to file a complaint under this Court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the First-Use Tax was unconstitutional under: (1) the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3; (2) the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2; (3) the Import-Export Clause, Art. I, § 10, cl. 2; (4) the Impairment of Contracts Clause, Art. I, § 10, cl. 1; and (5) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff States also sought injunctive relief against Louisiana or its agents collecting the Tax with respect to any gas in interstate commerce as well as a refund of taxes already collected. We granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file on June 18, 1979. 442 U. S. 937. Subsequently, as. is usual, we appointed a Special Master to facilitate handling of the suit. 445 U. S. 913 (1980). To date, the Special Master has issued two reports. In the first report, dated May 14, 1980, the Special Master recommended that the Court approve the motions of New Jersey, the United States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERG), and 17 pipeline companies to intervene as plaintiffs. The Master’s second report was issued on September 15, 1980, and essentially made two recommendations. First, the Master recommended that we deny Louisiana’s motion to dismiss and reject the submissions that the plaintiff States had no standing to bring the action and that the case was not an appropriate one for the exercise of our original jurisdiction. Second, on the plaintiff States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the Tax was unconstitutional on its face, the Special Master, while recognizing that the statute was constitutionally suspect in certain respects, recommended that the motion be denied and that further evidentiary hearings be conducted. We heard oral argument on the exceptions filed to the reports.
II
Initially, we must resolve Louisiana’s contention, rejected by the Special Master, that the case should be dismissed. In support of its motion, Louisiana presents two principal arguments. First, Louisiana contends that the plaintiff States lack standing to bring the suit under the Court’s original jurisdiction. Second, Louisiana argues that even if the bare requirements for exercise of our original jurisdiction have been met, this case is not an appropriate one to entertain here because of certain pending state-court actions in Louisiana in which the constitutional issues sought to be presented may be addressed. See Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U. S. 794, 797 (1976). See also Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493, 501 (1971). We agree with the Special Master that both contentions should be rejected.
A
1
The Constitution provides for this Court’s original jurisdiction over cases in which a “State shall be a Party.” Art. Ill, § 2, cl. 2. Congress has in turn provided that the Supreme Court shall have “original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1251 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. III). In order to constitute a proper “controversy” under our original jurisdiction, “it must appear that the complaining State has suffered a wrong through the action of the other State, furnishing ground for judicial redress, or is asserting a right against the other State which is susceptible of judicial enforcement according to the accepted principles of the common law or equity systems of jurisprudence.” Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S. 1, 15 (1939). See New York v. Illinois, 274 U. S. 488, 490 (1927) ; Texas v. Florida, 306 U. S. 398, 405 (1939).
Louisiana asserts that this case should be dismissed for want of standing because the Tax is imposed on the pipeline companies and not directly on the ultimate consumers. Under its view, the alleged interests of the plaintiff States do not fall within the type of "sovereignty” concerns justifying exercise of our original jurisdiction. Standing to sue, however, exists for constitutional purposes if the injury alleged “fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and not injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976). See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 72-81 (1978). This is clearly the case here. The plaintiff States are substantial consumers of natural gas. The First-Use Tax, while imposed on the pipeline companies, is clearly intended to be passed on to the ultimate consumer. Indeed, the statute forbids the Tax from being passed on or back to any third party other than the purchaser of the gas and explicitly directs that it should be considered as a cost of preparing the gas for market. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:1303C (West Supp. 1981). In fact, the pipeline companies, with the approval of the FERC, have passed on the cost of the First-Use Tax to their customers. See Louisiana First-Use Tax in Pipeline Rate Cases, Docket No. RM78-23, Order No. 10, 43 Fed. Reg. 45553 (1978). Thus, the Special Master properly determined that “although the tax is collected from the pipelines, it is really a burden on consumers.” Second Report, at 12. It is clear that the plaintiff States, as major purchasers of natural gas whose cost has increased as a direct result of Louisiana’s imposition of the First-Use Tax, are directly affected in a “substantial and real” way so as to justify their exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction.
2
Jurisdiction is also supported by the States’ interest as parens patriae. A State is not permitted to enter a controversy as a nominal party in order to forward the claims of individual citizens. See Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson v. Cook, 304 U. S. 387 (1938); New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76 (1883). But it may act as the representative of its citizens in original actions where the injury alleged affects the general population of a State in a substantial way. See, e. g,, Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208 (1901); Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125 (1902); Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230 (1907). See generally Note, The Original Jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, 11 Stan. L. Rev. 665, 671-678 (1959). Cf. Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 257-259 (1972) (the Court has recognized the right of a State to sue as parens patriae “to prevent or repair harm to its 'quasi-sovereign' interests” in original jurisdiction suits).
In this respect, this case is functionally indistinguishable from Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923), in which the Court entertained a suit brought by one State against another. In that case, West Virginia, then the leading producer of natural gas, required gas producers in the State to meet the needs of all local customers before shipping any gas interstate. Ohio and Pennsylvania moved for leave to file a complaint under the Court’s original jurisdiction claiming that the statute violated the Commerce Clause in that the statute would have the effect of cutting off supplies of natural gas to those States. Both States claimed to be protecting a twofold interest — “one as the proprietor of various public institutions and schools whose supply of gas will be largely curtailed or cut off by the threatened interference with the interstate current, and the other as the representative of the consuming public whose supply will be similarly affected.” The Court granted leave to file, finding both interests to be substantial. With respect to representing the interests of its citizens the Court stated:
“The private consumers in each State not only include most of the inhabitants of many urban communities but constitute a substantial portion of the State’s population. Their health, comfort and welfare are seriously jeopardized by the threatened withdrawal of the gas from the interstate stream. This is a matter of grave public concern in which the State, as the representative of the public, has an interest apart from that of the individuals affected. It is not merely a remote or ethical interest but one which is immediate and recognized by law.” Id., at 592.
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia counsels that we should not dismiss this action. Plaintiff States have alleged substantial and serious injury to their proprietary interests as consumers of natural gas as a direct result of the allegedly unconstitutional actions of Louisiana. This direct injury is also supported by the States’ interest in protecting its citizens from substantial economic injury presented by imposition of the First-Use Tax. Nor does the incidence of the Tax fall on a small group of citizens who are likely to challenge the Tax directly. Rather, a great many citizens in each of the plaintiff States are themselves consumers of natural gas and are faced with increased costs aggregating millions of dollars per year. As the Special Master observed, individual consumers cannot be expected to litigate the validity of the First-Use Tax given that the amounts paid by each consumer are likely to be relatively small. Moreover, because the consumers are not directly responsible to Louisiana for payment of the taxes, they of course are foreclosed from suing for a refund in Louisiana’s courts. In such circumstances, exercise of our original jurisdiction is proper.
B
With respect to Louisiana’s second argument, it is true that we have construed the congressional grant of exclusive jurisdiction under § 1251 (a) as requiring resort to our obligatory jurisdiction only in “appropriate cases.” Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91, 93 (1972); Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U. S., at 796-797. This view is consistent with the general observation that the Court’s original jurisdiction should be exercised “sparingly.” United States v. Nevada, 412 U. S. 534, 538 (1973). See Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S., at 501; Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S., at 18-20. In City of Milwaukee, we noted that what is “appropriate” involves not only “the seriousness and dignity of the claim,” but also “the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had.” 406 U. S., at 93. Louisiana urges that presently pending state lawsuits raising the identical constitutional issues presented here constitute sufficient reason to forgo the exercise of our original jurisdiction.
There have been filed in various lower courts several suits challenging the constitutionality of the First-Use Tax. The first suit was brought by Louisiana in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the First-Use Tax is constitutional. Edwards v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., No. 216,867 (19th Judicial Disk, East Baton Rouge Parish). Among the named defendants were all of the pipeline companies doing business in the State. The pipeline companies sought to have the Tax declared unconstitutional. Other lawsuits were filed in state court seeking a refund of taxes paid under protest. Southern Natural Gas Co. v. McNamara, No. 225,533 (19th Judicial District, East Baton Rouge Parish). These refund actions were filed after this Court granted plaintiff States’ motion for leave to file their complaint. Since under Louisiana law there is no provision for interim injunctive relief, the pipeline companies were required to pay the Tax. The receipts have been put in an escrow account subject to refund with interest paid on the account at the rate of 6%. Neither the plaintiff States, the United States, nor the FERC is a named party in any of the state actions nor have they filed leave to intervene, although Louisiana represented at oral argument that such a motion would not be opposed. The final suit was commenced by the FERC against various state officials, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the First-Use Tax on constitutional grounds. FERC v. McNamara, No. C. A. 78-384 (MD La.). That action is presently stayed.
In City of Milwaukee, on which Louisiana relies, the proposed suit by Illinois against four municipalities did not fall within our exclusive grant of original jurisdiction because political subdivisions of the State could not be considered as a State for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1251 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. III). 406 U. S., at 94-98. Similarly, the decision in Wyan-dotte Chemicals did not involve § 1251 (a), since it was a suit between a State and citizens of another State and so did not fall under our exclusive jurisdiction. Louisiana also relies, however, on Arizona v. New Mexico for an example of a case where we determined not to exercise our exclusive jurisdiction in a case between States because the matter was “inappropriate” for determination.
In that case, we denied Arizona’s motion for leave to file a complaint against New Mexico. Arizona was suing to challenge New Mexico’s electrical energy tax which imposed a net kilowatt hour tax on any electric utility generating electricity in New Mexico. Arizona sought a declaratory judgment that the tax constituted, inter alia, an unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce. Arizona brought the suit in its proprietary capacity as a consumer of electricity generated in New Mexico and as parens patriae for its citizens. Arizona further alleged that it had no other forum in which to vindicate its interests. New Mexico asserted that the three Arizona utilities affected by the statute had chosen not to pay the tax and instead had jointly filed suit in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the tax was unconstitutional. This Court held that “[i]n the circumstances of this case, we are persuaded that the pending state-court action provides an appropriate forum in which the issues tendered here may be litigated.” 425 U. S., at 797 (emphasis in original).
Of course, the issue of appropriateness in an original action between States must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Despite the facial similarity with Arizona v. New Mexico, there are significant differences from the present case that compel an opposite result. First, one of the three electric companies involved in the state-court action in New Mexico was a political subdivision of the State of Arizona. Arizona’s interests were thus actually being represented by one of the named parties to the suit. In this case, none of the plaintiff States is directly represented in the tax refund case. It is also important to note that Arizona had itself not suffered any direct harm as of the time that it moved for leave to file a complaint since none of the utilities had yet paid the tax. Unlike the present case, it was highly uncertain whether Arizona’s interest as a purchaser of electricity had been adversely affected. New Mexico’s procedure did not limit the utility companies to seeking a refund of taxes already paid, but rather permitted the companies to refuse to pay the tax pending a declaration of the statute’s constitutionality. In contrast, Louisiana requires the Tax to be paid pending the refund action with interest accruing at the rate of 6%. As recognized by the Special Master, the effect of the limited interest rate is to permit Louisiana to benefit from any delay attendant to the state-court proceedings even if the Tax is ultimately found unconstitutional.
The tax at issue in the Arizona case did not sufficiently implicate the unique concerns of federalism forming the basis of our original jurisdiction. At most, the New Mexico tax affected only some residents in one State. In the present case, the magnitude and effect of the First-Use Tax is far greater. The anticipated $150-million yearly tax is intended to be and is being passed on to millions of consumers in over 30 States. Unlike the day-to-day taxing measures which spurred the Court’s observations in Wyandotte, it is not at all a “waste” of this Court’s time to consider the validity of a tax with the structure and effect of Louisiana’s First-Use Tax. Indeed, there is nothing ordinary about the Tax. Given the underlying claim that Louisiana is attempting, in effect, to levy the Tax as a substitute for a severance tax on gas extracted from areas that belong to the people at large to the relative detriment of the other States in the Union, it is clear that the First-Use Tax implicates serious and important concerns of federalism fully in accord with the purposes and reach of our original jurisdiction.
The exercise of our original jurisdiction is also supported by the fact that the First-Use Tax affects the United States’ interests in the administration of the OCS — a factor totally absent in Arizona v. New Mexico. While we do not have exclusive jurisdiction in suits brought by the United States against a State, see 28 U. S. C. §1251 (b)(2) (1976 ed., Supp. III), we may entertain such suits as original actions in appropriate circumstances. See, e. g., United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947). See also United States v. Alaska, 422 U. S. 184, 186, n. 2 (1975). To be sure, we “seek to exercise our original jurisdiction sparingly and are particularly reluctant to take jurisdiction of a suit where the plaintiff has another adequate forum in which to settle his claim.” United States v. Nevada, 412 U. S., at 538. In this case, however, it is clear that a district court action brought by the United States, which necessarily would not include the plaintiff States, would be an inadequate forum in light of the present posture of this case. In addition, because of the interest of the United States in protecting its rights in the OCS area, with ramifications for all coastal States, as well as its interests under the regulatory mechanism that supervises the production and development of natural gas resources, we believe that this case is an appropriate one for the exercise of our original jurisdiction under § 1251 (b)(2).
For the reasons stated above, we reject Louisiana’s exceptions to the report of the Special Master, and accept the recommendation that we deny Louisiana’s motion to dismiss.
Ill
On the merits, plaintiffs argue that the First-Use Tax violates the Supremacy Clause because it interferes with federal regulation of the transportation and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce. The Supremacy Clause provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. It is basic to this constitutional command that all conflicting state provisions be without effect. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 427 (1819). See also Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941). Consideration under the Supremacy Clause starts with the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law. See Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). But as the Court stated in Rice:
“Such a purpose [to displace state law] may be evidenced in several ways. The scheme of federal regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 250 U. S. 566, 569; Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, 315 U. S. 148. Or the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52. Likewise, the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it may reveal the same purpose. Southern R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 236 U. S. 439; Charleston & W. C. R. Co. v. Varnville Co., 237 U. S. 597; New York Central R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U S. 147; Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., [272 U. S. 605]. Or the state policy may produce a result inconsistent with the objective of the federal statute. Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538.” Ibid.
Of course, a state statute is void to the extent it conflicts with a federal statute — if, for example, “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,” Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, supra, at 67. See generally Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U. S. 151, 157-158 (1978); City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U. S. 624, 633 (1973).
Plaintiffs argue that § 1303C of the Act violates the Natural Gas Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 717-717w (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill) (Gas Act), as amended by the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. In 1938, Congress enacted the Gas Act to assure that consumers of natural gas receive a fair price and also to protect against the economic power of the interstate pipelines. See FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 610, 612 (1944); Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 360 U. S. 378, 388-389 (1959). The Gas Act was intended to provide the Federal Power Commission, now the FERC, with authority to regulate the wholesale pricing of natural gas in the flow of interstate commerce from wellhead to delivery to consumers. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672, 682 (1954).
Under the present law, natural gas owners are entitled to recover from their customers all legitimate costs associated with the production, processing, and transportation of natural gas. See FPC v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 386 U. S. 237, 243 (1967) (cost of service normally includes proper allowance for taxes and this allowance is “obviously within the jurisdiction of the Commission”). As part of the First-Use Tax, Louisiana has directed that the amount of the Tax should be “deemed a cost associated with uses made by the owner in preparation of marketing of the natural gas.” § 1303C. The Act further provides that an owner shall not have an enforceable right to seek reimbursement for payment of the Tax from any third party other than a purchaser of the gas, ibid., even though the third party may be the owner of marketable hydrocarbons that are extracted from the gas in the course of processing.
The effect of § 1303C is to interfere with the FERC’s authority to regulate the determination of the proper allocation of costs associated with the sale of natural gas to consumers. The unprocessed gas obtained at the wellhead contains extractable hydrocarbons which are most often owned and sold separately from the “dried” gas. The FERC normally allocates part of the processing costs between these related products, and insists that the owners of the liquefiable hydrocarbons bear a fair share of the expense associated with processing. See generally FPC v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., supra, at 243 (“income and expense of unregulated and regulated activities should be segregated”). By specifying that the First-Use Tax is a processing cost to be either borne by the pipeline or other owner without compensation, an unlikely event in light of the large sums involved, or passed on to purchasers, Louisiana has attempted a substantial usurpation of the authority of the FERC by dictating to the pipelines the allocation of processing costs for the interstate shipment of natural gas. Owners of natural gas are foreclosed by the operation of § 1303C from entering into valid contracts requiring the owners of the extracted hydrocarbons to reimburse the pipelines for costs associated with transporting and processing these products. The effect of § 1303C is to shift the incidence of certain expenses, which the FERC insists are incurred substantially for the benefit of the owners of extractable hydrocarbons, to the ultimate consumer of the processed gas without the prior approval of the FERC.
The effect of § 1303C is akin to the state regulation overturned in Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n of Kansas, 372 U. S. 84, 92 (1963). In Northern Natural Gas, a state administrative agency’s rule required an interstate pipeline company to purchase natural gas ratably from all the wells in a particular field. The Court held that the rule violated the superior interests of the Federal Government under the Gas Act. The state Commission’s order shifted the burden of performing the “complex task of balancing the output of thousands of natural gas wells within the State” to the pipeline company. This requirement “could seriously impair the Federal Commission’s authority to regulate the intricate relationship between the purchasers’ cost structures and eventual costs to wholesale customers who sell to consumers in other States. This relationship is a matter with respect to which Congress has given the Federal Power Commission paramount and exclusive authority.” Ibid.
While the Special Master noted that the FERC was of the opinion that the First-Use Tax was impermissible, the Special Master refused to recommend that the Court grant plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the Supremacy Clause issue respecting § 1303C because he discerned a factual issue concerning the nature of the gas-drying process. Under the Special Master’s view, if the facts demonstrated that processing was done for the profit of the owners of the extractable hydrocarbons, then the position of the FERC that such costs should not be passed on to the consumers was correct. If, however, the processing was done as a means of standardizing the heat content of the gas for sale to consumers, then it would be reasonable to pass the Tax forward, and thus § 1303C would be consistent with Gas Act policy. The Special Master concluded that this question was best resolved after suitable factual development, and that in any event, it may be that “in the end FERC’s orders can be adjusted so that the laws will mesh without conflict.”
It is our view, however, that the issue is ripe for decision without further evidentiary hearings. Under the Gas Act, determining pipeline and producer costs is the task of the FERC in the first instance, subject to judicial review. Hence, the further hearings contemplated by the Special Master to determine whether and how processing costs are to be allocated are as inappropriate as Louisiana’s effort to pre-empt those decisions by a statute directing that processing costs be passed on to the consumer. Even if the FERC ultimately determined that such expenses should be passed on in toto, this kind of decisionmaking is within the jurisdiction of the FERC; and the Louisiana statute, like the state Commission’s order in Northern Natural Gas, supra, is inconsistent with the federal scheme and must give way. At the very least, there is an “imminent possibility of collision,” ibid. The FERC need not adjust its ruling to accommodate the Louisiana statute. To the contrary, the State may not trespass on the authority of the federal agency. As we see it, plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on the pleadings that § 1303C is invalid under the Supremacy Clause. To that extent, therefore, we sustain plaintiffs’ exceptions to the Special Master’s second report.
IV
Plaintiffs also argue that the First-Use Tax violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution which provides that “[t]he Congress shall have Power... [t]o regulate Commerce... among the several States... Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Prior case law has established that a state tax is not per se invalid because it burdens interstate commerce since interstate commerce may constitutionally be made to pay its way. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274 (1977). See Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250 (1938). The State’s right to tax interstate commerce is limited, however, and no state tax may be sustained unless the tax
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are required in this case to decide the constitutionality of Art. VIII, §182, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, which provides for. the disenfranchisement of persons convicted of, among other offenses, “any crime . . . involving moral turpitude.” Appellees Carmen Edwards, a black, and Victor Underwood, a white, have been blocked from the voter rolls pursuant to § 182 by the Boards of Registrars for Montgomery and Jefferson Counties, respectively, because they each have been convicted of presenting a worthless check. In determining that the misdemeanor of presenting a worthless check is a crime involving moral turpitude, the Registrars relied on opinions of the Alabama Attorney General.
Edwards and Underwood sued the Montgomery and Jefferson Boards of Registrars under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for a declaration invalidating § 182 as applied to persons convicted of crimes not punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary (misdemeanors) and an injunction against its future application to such persons. After extensive proceedings not relevant here, the District Court certified a plaintiff class of persons who have been purged from the voting rolls or barred from registering to vote in Alabama solely because of a misdemeanor conviction and a defendant class of all members of the 67 Alabama County Boards of Registrars. The case proceeded to trial on two causes of action, including a claim that the misdemeanors encompassed within § 182 were intentionally adopted to disenfranchise blacks on account of their race and that their inclusion in § 182 has had the intended effect. For the purposes of this claim, the District Court treated appellee Edwards as the representative of a subclass of black members of the plaintiff class.
In a memorandum opinion, the District Court found that disenfranchisement of blacks was a major purpose for the convention at which the Alabama Constitution of 1901 was adopted, but that there had not been a showing that “the provisions disenfranchising those convicted of crimes [were] based upon the racism present at the constitutional convention.” The court also reasoned that under this Court’s decision in Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217 (1971), proof of an impermissible motive for the provision would not warrant its invalidation in face of the permissible motive of “governing exercise of the franchise by those convicted of crimes,” which the court apparently found evident on the face of § 182. App. E to Juris. Statement E-5 — E-7.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 730 F. 2d 614 (1984). It held that the proper approach to the Fourteenth Amendment discrimination claim was established in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 270, and n. 21 (1977), and Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 287 (1977):
“To establish a violation of the fourteenth amendment in the face of mixed motives, plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in the adoption of section 182. They shall then prevail unless the registrars prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have resulted had the impermissible purpose not been considered.” 730 F. 2d, at 617.
Following this approach, the court first determined that the District Court’s finding of a lack of discriminatory intent in the adoption of §182 was clearly erroneous. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence, the court found that discriminatory intent was a motivating factor. It next determined from the evidence that there could be no finding that there was a competing permissible intent for the enactment of § 182. Accordingly, it concluded that § 182 would not have been enacted in absence of the racially discriminatory motivation, and it held that the section as applied to misdemeanants violated the Fourteenth Amendment, it directed the District Court to issue an injunction ordering appellants to register on the voter rolls members of the plaintiff class who so request and who otherwise qualify. We noted probable jurisdiction, 469 U. S. 878 (1984), and we affirm.
The predecessor to § 182 was Art. VIII, § 3, of the Alabama Constitution of 1875, which denied persons “convicted of treason, embezzlement of public funds, malfeasance in office, larceny, bribery, or other crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary” the right to register, vote or hold public office. These offenses were largely, if not entirely, felonies. The drafters of § 182, which was adopted by the 1901 convention, expanded the list of enumerated crimes substantially to include the following:
“treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on the wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation, [and] crime against nature.”
The drafters retained the general felony provision — “any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary” — but also added a new catchall provision covering “any . . . crime involving moral turpitude.” This latter phrase is not defined, but it was subsequently interpreted by the Alabama Supreme Court to mean an act that is “‘immoral in itself, regardless of the fact whether it is punishable by law. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes, the moral turpitude.’” Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 616, 73 So. 340, 342 (1916) (quoting Fort v. Brinkley, 87 Ark. 400, 112 S. W. 1084 (1908)).
The enumerated crimes contain within them many misdemeanors. If a specific crime does not fall within one of the enumerated offenses, the Alabama Boards of Registrars consult Alabama case law or, in absence of a court precedent, opinions of the Alabama Attorney General to determine whether it is covered by § 182. 730 F. 2d, at 616, n. 2. Various minor nonfelony offenses such as presenting a worthless check and petty larceny fall within the sweep of § 182, while more serious nonfelony offenses such as second-degree manslaughter, assault on a police officer, mailing pornography, and aiding the escape of a misdemeanant do not because they are neither enumerated in § 182 nor considered crimes involving moral turpitude. Id., at 620, n. 13. It is alleged, and the Court of Appeals found, that the crimes selected for inclusion in § 182 were believed by the delegates to be more frequently committed by blacks.
Section 182 on its face is racially neutral, applying equally to anyone convicted of one of the enumerated crimes or a crime falling within one of the catchall provisions. Appellee Edwards nonetheless claims that the provision has had a racially discriminatory impact. The District Court made no finding on this claim, but the Court of Appeals implicitly found the evidence of discriminatory impact indisputable:
“The registrars’ expert estimated that by January 1903 section 182 had disfranchised approximately ten times as many blacks as whites. This disparate effect persists today. In Jefferson and Montgomery Counties blacks are by even the most modest estimates at least 1.7 times as likely as whites to suffer disfranchisement under section 182 for the commission of nonprison offenses.” 730 F. 2d, at 620.
So far as we can tell the impact of the provision has not been contested, and we can find no evidence in the record below or in the briefs and oral argument in this Court that would undermine this finding by the Court of Appeals.
Presented with a neutral state law that produces disproportionate effects along racial lines, the Court of Appeals was correct in applying the approach of Arlington Heights to determine whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
“[0]fficial action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. . . . Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” 429 U. S., at 264-265.
See Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 239 (1976). Once racial discrimination is shown to have been a “substantial” or “motivating” factor behind enactment of the law, the burden shifts to the law’s defenders to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without this factor. See Mt. Healthy, 429 U. S., at 287.
Proving the motivation behind official action is often a problematic undertaking. See Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613 (1982). When we move from an examination of a board of county commissioners such as was involved in Rogers to a body the size of the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901, the difficulties in determining the actual motivations of the various legislators that produced a given decision increase. With respect to Congress, the Court said in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383-384 (1968) (footnote omitted):
“Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter. When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation, the Court will look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the legislature, because the benefit to sound decision-making in this circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress’ purpose. It is entirely a different matter when we are asked to void a statute that is, under well-settled criteria, constitutional on its face, on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it. What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it, and the stakes are sufficiently high for us to eschew guesswork.”
But the sort of difficulties of which the Court spoke in O’Brien do not obtain in this case. Although understandably no “eyewitnesses” to the 1901 proceedings testified, testimony and opinions of historians were offered and received without objection. These showed that the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901 was part of a movement that swept the post-Reconstruction South to disenfranchise blacks. See S. Hackney, Populism to Progressivism in Alabama 147 (1969); C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913, pp. 321-322 (1971). The delegates to the all-white convention were not secretive about their purpose. John B. Knox, president of the convention, stated in his opening address:
“And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State.” 1 Official Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Alabama, May 21st, 1901 to September 3rd, 1901, p. 8 (1940).
Indeed, neither the District Court nor appellants seriously dispute the claim that this zeal for white supremacy ran rampant at the convention.
As already noted, the District Court nonetheless found that the crimes provision in §182 was not enacted out of racial animus, only to have the Court of Appeals set aside this finding. In doing so, the Court of Appeals applied the clearly-erroneous standard of review required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), see Pullman-Standard, v. Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 287 (1982), but was “left with a firm and definite impression of error . . . with respect to the issue of intent.” 730 F. 2d, at 620. The evidence of legislative intent available to the courts below consisted of the proceedings of the convention, several historical studies, and the testimony of two expert historians. Having reviewed this evidence, we are persuaded that the Court of Appeals was correct in its assessment. That court’s opinion presents a thorough analysis of the evidence and demonstrates conclusively that § 182 was enacted with the intent of disenfranchising blacks. We see little purpose in repeating that factual analysis here. At oral argument in this Court appellants’ counsel essentially conceded this point, stating: “I would be very blind and naive [to] try to come up and stand before this Court and say that race was not a factor in the enactment of Section 182; that race did not play a part in the decisions of those people who were at the constitutional convention of 1901 and I won’t do that.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6.
In their brief to this Court, appellants maintain on the basis of their expert’s testimony that the real purpose behind §182 was to disenfranchise poor whites as well as blacks. The Southern Democrats, in their view, sought in this way to stem the resurgence of Populism which threatened their power:
“Q. The aim of the 1901 Constitution Convention was to prevent the resurgence of Populism by disenfranchising practically all of the blacks and a large number of whites; is that not correct?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. The idea was to prevent blacks from becoming a swing vote and thereby powerful and useful to some group of whites such as Republicans?
“A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.
“Q. The phrase that is quite often used in the Convention is to, on the one hand limit the franchise to [the] intelligent and virtuous, and on the other hand to disenfranchise those [referred] to as ‘corrupt and ignorant,’ or sometimes referred to as the ignorant and vicious?
“A. That’s right.
“Q. Was that not interpreted by the people at that Constitutional Convention to mean that they wanted to disenfranchise practically all of the blacks and disenfranchise those people who were lower class whites?
“A. That’s correct.”
“Q. Near the end of the Convention, John Knox did make a speech to the Convention in which he summarized the work of the Convention, and in that speech is it not correct that he said that the provisions of the Suffrage Article would have a disproportionate impact on blacks, but he disputed that that would be [a] violation of the Fifteenth Amendment?
“A. Yes, sir, that is true. Repeatedly through the debates, the delegates say that they are interested in disfranchising blacks and not interested in disfranchising whites. And in fact, they go out of their way to make that point. . . . But the point that I am trying to make is that this is really speaking to the galleries, that it is attempting to say to the white electorate that must ratify this constitution what it is necessary for that white electorate to be convinced of in order to get them to vote for it, and not merely echoing what a great many delegates say. . . . [I]n general, the delegates aggressively say that they are not interested in disfranchising any whites. I think falsely, but that’s what they say.
“Q. So they were simply trying to overplay the extent to which they wanted to disenfranchise blacks, but that they did desire to disenfranchise practically all of the blacks?
“A. Oh, absolutely, certainly.” Cross-examination of Dr. J. Mills Thornton, 4 Record 73-74, 80-81.
Even were we to accept this explanation as correct, it hardly saves § 182 from invalidity. The explanation concedes both that discrimination against blacks, as well as against poor whites, was a motivating factor for the provision and that § 182 certainly would not have been adopted by the convention or ratified by the electorate in the absence of the racially discriminatory motivation.
Citing Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S., at 224, and Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U. S. 464, 472, n. 7 (1981) (plurality opinion), appellants make the further argument that the existence of a permissible motive for § 182, namely, the .disenfranchisement of poor whites, trumps any proof of a parallel impermissible motive. Whether or not intentional disenfranchisement of poor whites would qualify as a “permissible motive” within the meaning of Palmer and Michael M., it is clear that where both impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact are demonstrated, Arlington Heights and Mt. Healthy supply the proper analysis. Under the view that the Court of Appeals could properly take of the evidence, an additional purpose to discriminate against poor whites would not render nugatory the purpose to discriminate against all blacks, and it is beyond peradventure that the latter was a “but-for” motivation for the enactment of § 182.
Appellants contend that the State has a legitimate interest in denying the franchise to those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, and that § 182 should be sustained on that ground. The Court of Appeals convincingly demonstrated that such a purpose simply was not a motivating factor of the 1901 convention. In addition to the general catchall phrase “crimes involving moral turpitude” the suffrage committee selected such crimes as vagrancy, living in adultery, and wife beating that were thought to be more commonly committed by blacks:
“Most of the proposals disqualified persons committing any one of a long list of petty as well as serious crimes which the Negro, and to a lesser extent the poor whites, most often committed. . . . Most of the crimes contained in the report of the suffrage committee came from an ordinance by John Fielding Burns, a Black Belt planter. The crimes he listed were those he had taken cognizance of for years in his justice of the peace court in the Burns-ville district, where nearly all his cases involved Negroes.” M. McMillan, Constitutional Development in Alabama, 1798-1901, p. 275, and n. 76 (1955) (quoted in testimony by appellees’ expert).
At oral argument in this Court, appellants’ counsel suggested that, regardless of the original purpose of §182, events occurring in the succeeding 80 years had legitimated the provision. Some of the more blatantly discriminatory selections, such as assault and battery on the wife and miscegenation, have been struck down by the courts, and appellants contend that the remaining crimes — felonies and moral turpitude misdemeanors — are acceptable bases for denying the franchise. Without deciding whether §182 would be valid if enacted today without any impermissible motivation, we simply observe that its original enactment was motivated by a desire to discriminate against blacks on account of race and the section continues to this day to have that effect. As such, it violates equal protection under Arlington Heights.
Finally, appellants contend that the State is authorized by the Tenth Amendment and §2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny the franchise to persons who commit misdemeanors involving moral turpitude. For the reasons we have stated, the enactment of § 182 violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment cannot save legislation prohibited by the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment. The single remaining question is whether § 182 is excepted from the operation of the Equal Protection Clause of §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment by the “other crime” provision of § 2 of that Amendment. Without again considering the implicit authorization of §2 to deny the vote to citizens “for participation in rebellion, or other crime,” see Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U. S. 24 (1974), we are confident that §2 was not designed to permit the purposeful racial discrimination attending the enactment and operation of § 182 which otherwise violates § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing in our opinion in Richardson v. Ramirez, supra, suggests the contrary.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 182 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 provides:
“The following persons shall be disqualified both from registering, and from voting, namely:
“All idiots and insane persons; those who shall by reason of conviction of crime be disqualified from voting at the time of the ratification of this Constitution; those who shall be convicted of treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on the wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation, crime against nature, or any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or of any infamous crime or crime involving moral turpitude; also, any person who shall be convicted as a vagrant or tramp, or of selling or offering to sell his vote or the vote of another, or of buying or offering to buy the vote of another, or of making or offering to make a false return in any election by the people or in any primary election to procure the nomination or election of any person to any office, or of suborning any witness or registrar to secure the registration of any person as an elector.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the disposition of the estate of a resident of Oregon who died there intestate in 1962. Appellants are decedent’s sole heirs and they are residents of East Germany. Appellees include members of the State Land Board that petitioned the Oregon probate court for the escheat of the net proceeds of the estate under the provisions of Ore. Rev. Stat. § 111.070 (1957), which provides for escheat in cases where a nonresident alien claims real or personal property unless three requirements are satisfied:
(1) the existence of a reciprocal right of a United States citizen to take property on the same terms as a citizen or inhabitant of the foreign country;
(2) the right of United States citizens to receive payment here of funds from estates in the foreign country; and
(3) the right of the foreign heirs to receive the proceeds of Oregon estates “without confiscation.”
The Oregon Supreme Court held that the appellants could take the Oregon realty involved in the present case by reason of Article IV of the 1923 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Germany (44 Stat. 2135) but that by reason of the same Article, as construed in Clark v. Allen, 331 U. S. 503, they could not take the personalty. 243 Ore. 567, 592, 412 P. 2d 781, 415 P. 2d 15. We noted probable jurisdiction. 386 U. S. 1030.
The Department of Justice, appearing as arnicas curiae, submits that, although the 1923 Treaty is still in force, Clark v. Allen should be overruled insofar as it construed the personalty provision of Article IY. That portion of Article IV speaks of the rights of “[nationals of either High Contracting Party” to dispose of “their personal property of every kind within the territories of the other.” That literal language and its long consistent construction, we held in Clark v. Allen, “does not cover personalty located in this country and which an American citizen undertakes to leave to German nationals.” 331 U. S., at 516.
We do not accept the invitation to re-examine our ruling in Clark v. Allen. For we conclude that the history and operation of this Oregon statute make clear that § 111.070 is an intrusion by the State into the field of foreign affairs which the Constitution entrusts to the President and the Congress. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 63.
As already noted one of the conditions of inheritance under the Oregon statute requires “proof that such foreign heirs, distributees, devisees or legatees may receive the benefit, use or control of money or property from estates of persons dying in this state without confiscation, in whole or in part, by the governments of such foreign countries,” the burden being on the nonresident alien to establish that fact.
This provision came into Oregon’s law in 1951. Prior to that time the rights of aliens under the Oregon statute were defined in general terms of reciprocity, similar to the California Act which we had before us in Clark v. Allen, 331 U. S., at 506, n. 1.
We held in Clark v. Allen that a general reciprocity clause did not on its face intrude on the federal domain. 331 U. S., at 516-517. We noted that the California statute, then a recent enactment, would have only “some incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries.” Id., at 517.
Had that case appeared in the posture of the present one, a different result would have obtained. We were there concerned with the words of a statute on its face, not the manner of its application. State courts, of course, must frequently read, construe, and apply laws of foreign nations. It has never been seriously suggested that state courts are precluded from performing that function, albeit there is a remote possibility that any holding may disturb a foreign nation — whether the matter involves commercial cases, tort cases, or some other type of controversy. At the time Clark v. Allen was decided, the case seemed to involve no more than a routine reading of foreign laws. It now appears that in this reciprocity area under inheritance statutes, the probate courts of various States have launched inquiries into the type of governments that obtain in particular foreign nations — whether aliens under their law have enforceable rights, whether the so-called “rights” are merely dispensations turning upon the whim or caprice of government officials, whether the representation of consuls, ambassadors, and other representatives of foreign nations is credible or made in good faith, whether there is in the actual administration in the particular foreign system of law any element of confiscation.
In a California case, involving a reciprocity provision, the United States made the following representation:
“The operation and effect of the statute is inextricably enmeshed in international affairs and matters of foreign policy. The statute does not work disinheritance of, or affect ownership of property in California by, any group or class, but on the contrary operates in fields exclusively for, and preempted by, the United States; namely, the control of the international transmission of property, funds, and credits, and the capture of enemy property. The statute is not an inheritance statute, but a statute of confiscation and retaliation.” In re Bevilacqua’s Estate, 161 P. 2d 589, 593 (Dist. Ct. App. Cal.), superseded by 31 Cal. 2d 580, 191 P. 2d 752.
In its brief amicus curiae, the Department of Justice states that: “The government does not . . . contend that the application of the Oregon escheat statute in the circumstances of this case unduly interferes with the United States’ conduct of foreign relations.”
The Government’s acquiescence in the ruling of Clark v. Allen certainly does not justify extending the principle of that case, as we would be required to do here to uphold the Oregon statute as applied; for it has more than “some incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries,” and its great potential for disruption or embarrassment makes us hesitate to place it in the category of a diplomatic bagatelle.
As we read the decisions that followed in the wake of Clark v. Allen, we find that they radiate some of the attitudes of the “cold war,” where the search is for the “democracy quotient” of a foreign regime as opposed to the Marxist theory. The Oregon statute introduces the concept of “confiscation,” which is of course opposed to the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And this has led into minute inquiries concerning the actual administration of foreign law, into the credibility of foreign diplomatic statements, and into speculation whether the fact that some received delivery of funds should “not preclude wonderment as to how many may have been denied ‘the right to receive’....”. See State Land Board v. Kolovrat, 220 Ore. 448, 461-462, 349 P. 2d 255, 262, rev’d sub nom. Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 187, on other grounds.
That kind of state involvement in foreign affairs and international relations — matters which the Constitution entrusts solely to the Federal Government — is not sanctioned by Clark v. Allen. Yet such forbidden state activity has infected each of the three provisions of § 111.070, as applied by Oregon.
In State Land Board v. Pekarek, 234 Ore. 74, 378 P. 2d 734, the Oregon Supreme Court in ruling against a Czech claimant because he had failed to prove the “benefit” requirement of subsection (l)(c) of the statute said:
“Assuming, without deciding, that all of the evidence offered by the legatees was admissible, it can be given relatively little weight. The statements of Czechoslovakian officials must be judged in light of the interest which they had in the acquisition of funds for their government. Moreover, in judging the credibility of these witnesses we are entitled to take into consideration the fact that declarations of government officials in communist-controlled countries as to the state of affairs existing within their borders do not always comport with the actual facts.” Id., at 83, 378 P. 2d, at 738.
Yet in State Land Board v. Schwabe, 240 Ore. 82, 400 P. 2d 10, where the certificate of the Polish Ambassador was tendered against the claim that the inheritance would be confiscated abroad, the Oregon court, appraising the current attitude of Washington, D. C., toward Warsaw, accepted the certificate as true. Id., at 84, 400 P. 2d, at 11.
In State Land Board v. Rogers, 219 Ore. 233, 347 P. 2d 57, the court held Bulgarian heirs had failed to prove the requirement of what is now § (1) (b) of the reciprocity statute, the “right” of American heirs of Bulgarian decedents to get funds out of Bulgaria into the United States. Such transmission of funds required a license from the Bulgarian National Bank, but the court held the fact that licenses were regularly given insufficient, because they were issued only at the discretion or “whim” of the bank. Id., at 245, 347 P. 2d, at 63.
As one reads the Oregon decisions, it seems that foreign policy attitudes, the freezing or thawing of the “cold war,” and the like are the real desiderata. Yet they of course are matters for the Federal Government, not for local probate courts.
This is as true of (l)(a) of § 111.070 as it is of (l)(b) and (1) (c). In Clostermann v. Schmidt, 215 Ore. 55, 332 P. 2d 1036, the court — applying the predecessor of (l)(a) — held that not only must the foreign law give inheritance rights to Americans, but the political body making the law must have “membership in the family of nations” (id., at 65, 332 P. 2d, at 1041), because the purpose of the Oregon provision was to serve as “an inducement to foreign nations to so frame the inheritance laws of their respective countries in a manner which would insure to Oregonians the same opportunities to inherit and take personal property abroad that they enjoy in the state of Oregon.” Id., at 68, 332 P. 2d, at 1042.
In In re Estate of Krachler, 199 Ore. 448, 263 P. 2d 769, the court observed that the phrase “reciprocal right” in what is now part (l)(a) meant a claim “that is enforceable by law.” Id., at 455, 263 P. 2d, at 773. Although certain provisions of the written law of Nazi Germany appeared to permit Americans to inherit, they created no “right,” since Hitler had absolute dictatorial powers and could prescribe to German courts rules and procedures at variance with the general law. Bequests “ ‘grossly opposed to sound sentiment of the people’ ” would not be given effect. Id., at 503, 263 P. 2d, at 794.
In short, it would seem that Oregon judges in construing § 111.070 seek to ascertain whether “rights” protected by foreign law are the same “rights” that citizens of Oregon enjoy. If, as in the Rogers case, the alleged foreign “right” may be vindicated only through Communist-controlled state agencies, then there is no “right” of the type § 111.070 requires. The same seems to be true if enforcement may require approval of a Fascist dictator, as in Krachler. The statute as construed seems to make unavoidable judicial criticism of nations established on a more authoritarian basis than our own.
It seems inescapable that the type of probate law that Oregon enforces affects international relations in a persistent and subtle way. The practice of state courts in withholding remittances to legatees residing in Communist countries or in preventing them from assigning them is notorious. The several States, of course, have traditionally regulated the descent and distribution of estates. But those regulations must give way if they impair the effective exercise of the Nation’s foreign policy. See Miller, The Corporation as a Private Government in the World Community, 46 Va. L. Rev. 1539, 1542-1549 (1960). Where those laws conflict with a treaty, they must bow to the superior federal policy. See Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 187. Yet, even in absence of a treaty, a State’s policy may disturb foreign relations. As we stated in Hines v. Davidowitz, supra, at 64: “Experience has shown that international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs to another’s subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government.” Certainly a State could not deny admission to a traveler from East Germany nor bar its citizens from going there. Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; cf. Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116. If there are to be such restraints, they must be provided by the Federal Government. The present Oregon law is not as gross an intrusion in the federal domain as those others might be. Yet, as we have said, it has a direct impact upon foreign relations and may well adversely affect the power of the central government to deal with those problems.
The Oregon law does, indeed, illustrate the dangers which are involved if each State, speaking through its probate courts, is permitted to establish its own foreign policy.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“(1) The right of an alien not residing within the United States or its territories to take either real or personal property or the proceeds thereof in this state by succession or testamentary disposition, upon the same terms and conditions as inhabitants and citizens of the United States, is dependent in each case:
“(a) Upon the existence of a reciprocal right upon the part of citizens of the United States to take real and personal property and the proceeds thereof upon the same terms and conditions as inhabitants and citizens of the country of which such alien is an inhabitant or citizen;
“(b) Upon the rights of citizens of the United States to receive by payment to them within the United States or its territories money originating from the estates of persons dying within such foreign country; and
“(c) Upon proof that such foreign heirs, distributees, devisees or legatees may receive the benefit, use or control of money or property from estates of persons dying in this state without confiscation, in whole or in part, by the governments of such foreign countries.
“(2) The burden is upon such nonresident alien to establish the fact of existence of the reciprocal rights set forth in subsection (1) of this section.
“(3) If such reciprocal rights are not found to exist and if no heir, devisee or legatee other than such alien is found eligible to take such property, the property shall be disposed of as escheated property.”
Article IV provides:
“Where, on the death of any person holding real or other immovable property or interests therein within the territories of one High Contracting Party, such property or interests therein would, by the laws of the country or by a testamentary disposition, descend or pass to a national of the other High Contracting Party, whether resident or non-resident, were he not disqualified by the laws of the country where such property or interests therein is or are situated, such national shall be allowed a term of three years in which to sell the same, this term to be reasonably prolonged if circumstances render it necessary, and withdraw the proceeds thereof, without restraint or interference, and exempt from any succession, probate or administrative duties or charges other than those which may be imposed in like cases upon the nationals of the country from which such proceeds may be drawn.
“Nationals of either High Contracting Party may have full power to dispose of their personal property of every kind within the territories of the other, by testament, donation, or otherwise, and their heirs, legatees and donees, of whatsoever nationality, whether resident or non-resident, shall succeed to such personal property, and may take possession thereof, either by themselves or by others acting for them, and retain or dispose of the same at their pleasure subject to the payment of such duties or charges only as the nationals of the High Contracting Party within whose territories such property may be or belong shall be liable to pay in like cases.”
Supra, n. 1.
Ore. Comp. L. Ann. §61-107 (1940).
In Clark v. Allen, 331 U. S. 503, the District Court had held the California reciprocity statute unconstitutional because of legislative history indicating that the purpose of the statute was to prevent American assets from reaching hostile nations preparing for war on this country. Crowley v. Allen, 52 F. Supp. 850, 853 (D. C. N. D. Calif.). But when the case reached this Court, petitioner contended that the statute was invalid, not because of the legislature’s motive, but because on its face the statute constituted “an invasion of the exclusively Federal field of control over our foreign relations.” In discussing how the statute was applied, petitioner noted that a California court had accepted as conclusive proof of reciprocity the statement of a foreign ambassador that reciprocal rights existed in his nation. Brief for petitioner in Clark v. Allen, No. 626, October Term 1946, pp. 73-74. Thus we had no reason to suspect that the California statute in Clark v. Allen was to be applied as anything other than a general reciprocity provision requiring just matching of laws. Had we been reviewing the later California decision of Estate of Gogabashvele, 195 Cal. App. 2d 503, 16 Cal. Rptr. 77, see n. 6, infra, the additional problems we now find with the Oregon provision would have been presented.
See Estate of Gogabashvele, 195 Cal. App. 2d 503, 16 Cal. Rptr. 77, disapproved in Estate of Larkin, 65 Cal. 2d 60, 416 P. 2d 473, and Estate of Chichernea, 66 Cal. 2d 83, 424 P. 2d 687. One commentator has described the Gogabashvele decision in the following manner:
“The court analyzed the general nature of rights in the Soviet system instead of examining whether Russian inheritance rights were granted equally to aliens and residents. The court found Russia had no separation of powers, too much control in the hands of the Communist Party, no independent judiciary, confused legislation, unpublished statutes, and unrepealed obsolete statutes. Before stating its holding of no reciprocity, the court also noted Stalin’s crimes, the Beria trial, the doctrine of crime by analogy, Soviet xenophobia, and demonstrations at the American Embassy in Moscow unhindered by the police. The court concluded that a leading Soviet jurist’s construction of article 8 of the law enacting the R. S. F. S. R. Civil Code seemed modeled after Humpty Dumpty, who said, ‘When I use a word ... , it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ” Note, 55 Calif. L. Rev. 592, 594r-595, n. 10 (1967).
The Rogers case, we are advised, prompted the Government of Bulgaria to register a complaint with the State Department, as disclosed by a letter of November 20, 1967, written by a State Department adviser to the Oregon trial court stating: “The Government of Bulgaria has raised with this Government the matter of difficulties reportedly being encountered by Bulgarian citizens resident in Bulgaria in obtaining the transfer to them of property or funds from estates probated in this country, some under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon. . .
Such attitudes are not confined to the Oregon courts. Representative samples from other States would include statements in the New York courts, such as “This court would consider sending money out of this country and into Hungary tantamount to putting funds within the grasp of, the Communists,” and “If this money were turned over to the Russian authorities, it would be used to kill our boys and innocent people in Southeast Asia. . . .” Heyman, The Nonresident Alien's Right to Succession Under the “Iron Curtain Rule,” 52 Nw. U. L. Rev. 221, 234 (1957). In Pennsylvania, a judge stated at the trial of a case involving a Soviet claimant that “If you want to say that I’m prejudiced, you can, because when it comes to Communism I’m a bigoted anti-Communist.” And another judge exclaimed, “I am not going to send money to Russia where it can go into making bullets which may one day be used against my son.” A California judge, upon being asked if he would hear argument on the law, replied, “No, I won’t send any money to Russia.” The judge took “judicial notice that Russia kicks the United States in the teeth all the time,” and told counsel for the Soviet claimant that “I would think your firm would feel it honor bound to withdraw as representing the Russian government. No American can make it too strong.” Berman, Soviet Heirs in American Courts, 62 Col. L. Rev. 257, and n. 3 (1962).
A particularly pointed attack was made by Judge Musmanno of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where he stated with respect to the Pennsylvania Act that:
“It is a commendable and salutary piece of legislation because it provides for the safekeeping of these funds even with accruing interest, in the steelbound vaults of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania until such time as the Iron Curtain lifts or sufficiently cracks to allow honest money to pass through and be honestly delivered to the persons entitled to them. Otherwise, wages and other monetary rewards faithfully earned under a free enterprise democratic system could be used by Communist forces which are committed to the very destruction of that free enterprising world of democracy.” Belemecich Estate, 411 Pa. 506, 508, 192 A. 2d 740, 741, rev’d, sub nom. Consul General of Yugoslavia v. Pennsylvania, 375 U. S. 395, on authority of Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 187.
And further:
“. . . Yugoslavia, as the court below found, is a satellite state where the residents have no individualistic control over their destiny, fate or pocketbooks, and where their politico-economic horizon is raised or lowered according to the will, wish or whim of a self-made dictator.” 411 Pa., at 509, 192 A. 2d, at 742.
“All the known facts of a Sovietized state lead to the irresistible conclusion that sending American money to a person within the borders of an Iron Curtain country is like sending a basket of food to Little Red Ridinghood in care of her 'grandmother.’ It could be that the greedy, gluttonous grasp of the government collector in Yugoslavia does not clutch as rapaciously as his brother confiscators in Russia, but it is abundantly clear that there is no assurance upon which an American court can depend that a named Yugoslavian individual beneficiary of American dollars will have anything left to shelter, clothe and feed himself once he has paid financial involuntary tribute to the tyranny of a totalitarian regime.” Id., at 511, 192 A. 2d, at 742-743.
Another example is a concurring opinion by Justice Doyle in In re Hosova’s Estate, 143 Mont. 74, 387 P. 2d 305:
“In this year of 1963, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the U. S. S. R. issued the following directive to all of its member [s], ‘We fully stand for the destruction of imperialism and capitalism. We not only believe in the inevitable destruction of capitalism, but also are doing everything for this to be accomplished by way of the class struggle, and as soon as possible.’
“Hence, in affirming this decision the writer is knowingly contributing financial aid to a Communist monolithic satellite, fanatically dedicated to the abolishing of the freedom and liberty of the citizens of this nation.
“By reason of self-hypnosis and failure to understand the aims and objective of the international Communist conspiracy, in the year 1946, Montana did not have statutes to estop us from making cash contributions to our own ultimate destruction as a free nation.” Id., at 85-86, 387 P. 2d, at 311.
In Mullart v. State Land Board, 222 Ore. 463, 353 P. 2d 531, the court had little difficulty finding that reciprocity existed with Estonia. But it took pains to observe that in 1941 Russia “moved in and overwhelmed it [Estonia] with its military might. At the same time the Soviet hastily and cruelly deported about 60,000 of its people to Russia and Siberia and, in addition, exterminated many of its elderly residents. This policy of destroying or decimating families and rendering normal economic life chaotic continued long afterward.” Id., at 467, 353 P. 2d, at 534.
“[A]ny effort to communicate with persons in Estonia exposes such persons to possible death or exile to Siberia. It seems that the Russians scrutinize all correspondence from friends of Estonians in lands where freedom prevails and subject the recipient to suspicion of a relationship inimical to the Soviet. . . . This line of testimony has the support of reliable historical matter of which we take notice. We mention it as explaining the futility of attempting, under the circumstances, to secure more cogent evidence than hearsay in the matter.” Id., at 476, 353 P. 2d, at 537-538.
See Berman, Soviet Heirs in American Courts, 62 Col. L. Rev. 257 (1962); Chaitkin, The Rights of Residents of Russia and its Satellites to Share in Estates of American Decedents, 25 S. Cal. L. Rev. 297 (1952).
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 Sc alia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Over the past decade, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS or Service) has arrested increasing numbers of alien juveniles who are not accompanied by their parents or other related adults. Respondents, a class of alien juveniles so arrested and held in INS custody pending their deportation hearings, contend that the Constitution and immigration laws require them to be released into the custody of “responsible adults.”
I
Congress has given the Attorney General broad discretion to determine whether, and on what terms, an alien arrested on suspicion of being deportable should be released pending the deportation hearing. The Board of Immigration Appeals has stated that “[a]n alien generally... should not be detained or required to post bond except on a finding that he is a threat to the national security... or that he is a poor bail risk.” Matter of Patel, 15 I. & N. Dec. 666 (1976); cf. INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. (NCIR), 502 U. S. 183 (1991) (upholding INS regulation imposing conditions upon release). In the case of arrested alien juveniles, however, the INS cannot simply send them off into the night on bond or recognizance. The parties to the present suit agree that the Service must assure itself that someone will care for those minors pending resolution of their deportation proceedings. That is easily done when the juvenile’s parents have also been detained and the family can be released together; it becomes complicated when the juvenile is arrested alone, i. e., unaccompanied by a parent, guardian, or other related adult. This problem is a serious one, since the INS arrests thousands of alien juveniles each year (more than 8,500 in 1990 alone) — as many as 70% of them unaccompanied. Brief for Petitioners 8. Most of these minors are boys in their midteens, but perhaps 15% are girls and the same percentage 14 years of age or younger. See id., at 9, n. 12; App. to Pet. for Cert. 177a.
For a number of years the problem was apparently dealt with on a regional and ad hoc basis, with some INS offices releasing unaccompanied alien juveniles not only to their parents but also to a range of other adults and organizations. In 1984, responding to the increased flow of unaccompanied juvenile aliens into California, the INS Western Regional Office adopted a policy of limiting the release of detained minors to “‘a parent or lawful guardian/” except in “‘unusual and extraordinary cases/ ” when the juvenile could be released to “ ‘a responsible individual who agrees to provide care and be responsible for the welfare and well being of the child.’” See Flores v. Meese, 934 F. 2d 991, 994 (CA9 1990) (quoting policy), vacated, 942 F. 2d 1352 (CA9 1991) (en banc).
In July of the following year, the four respondents filed an action in the District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class, later certified by the court, consisting of all aliens under the age of 18 who are detained by the INS Western Region because “a parent or legal guardian fails to personally appear to take custody of them.” App. 29. The complaint raised seven claims, the first two challenging the Western Region release policy (on constitutional, statutory, and international law grounds), and the final five challenging the conditions of the juveniles’ detention.
The District Court granted the INS partial summary judgment on the statutory and international law challenges to the release policy, and in late 1987 approved a consent decree that settled all claims regarding the detention conditions. The court then turned to the constitutional challenges to the release policy, and granted respondents partial summary judgment on their equal protection claim that the INS had no rational basis for treating alien minors in deportation proceedings differently from alien minors in exclusion proceedings (whom INS regulations permitted to be parolqd, in some circumstances, to persons other than parents and legal guardians, including other relatives and “friends,” see 8 CFR § 212.5(a)(2)(ii) (1987)). This prompted the INS to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking “to codify Service policy regarding detention and release of juvenile aliens and to provide a single policy for juveniles in both deportation and exclusion proceedings.” 52 Fed. Reg. 38245 (1987). The District Court agreed to defer consideration of respondents’ due process claims until the regulation was promulgated.
The uniform deportation-exclusion rule finally adopted, published on May 17, 1988, see Detention and Release of Juveniles, 53 Fed. Reg. 17449 (codified as to deportation at 8 CFR § 242.24 (1992)), expanded the possibilities for release somewhat beyond the Western Region policy, but not as far as many commenters had suggested. It provides that alien juveniles “shall be released, in order of preference, to: (i) a parent; (ii) a legal guardian; or (iii) an adult relative (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandparent) who are [sic] not presently in INS detention,” unless the INS determines that “the detention of such juvenile is required to secure his timely appearance before the Service or the immigration court or to ensure the juvenile’s safety or that of others.” 8 CFR § 242.24(b)(1) (1992). If the only listed individuals are in INS detention, the Service will consider simultaneous release of the juvenile and custodian “on a discretionary case-by-ease basis.” § 242.24(b)(2). A parent or legal guardian who is in INS custody or outside the United States may also, by sworn affidavit, designate another person as capable and willing to care for the child, provided that person “execute[s] an agreement to care for the juvenile and to ensure the juvenile’s presence at all future proceedings.” § 242.24(b)(3). Finally, in “unusual and compelling circumstances and in the discretion of the [INS] district director or chief patrol agent,” juveniles may be released to other adults who execute a care and attendance agreement. § 242.24(b)(4).
If the juvenile is not released under the foregoing provision, the regulation requires a designated INS official, the “Juvenile Coordinator,” to locate “suitable placement... in a facility designated for the occupancy of juveniles.” § 242.24(c). The Service may briefly hold the minor in an “INS detention facility having separate accommodations for juveniles,” § 242.24(d), but under the terms of the consent decree resolving respondents’ conditions-of-detention claims, the INS must within 72 hours of arrest place alien juveniles in a facility that meets or exceeds the standards established by the Alien Minors Care Program of the Community Relations Service (CRS), Department of Justice, 52 Fed. Reg. 15569 (1987). See Memorandum of Understanding Re Compromise of Class Action: Conditions of Detention, Flores v. Meese, No. 85-4544-RJK (Px) (CD Cal., Nov. 30, 1987) (incorporating the CRS notice and program description), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 148a-205a (hereinafter Juvenile Care Agreement).
Juveniles placed in these facilities are deemed to be in INS detention “because of issues of payment and authorization of medical care.” 53 Fed. Reg., at 17449. “Legal custody” rather than “detention” more accurately describes the reality of the arrangement, however, since' these are not correctional institutions but facilities that meet “state licensing requirements for the provision of shelter care, foster care, group care, and related services to dependent children,” Juvenile Care Agreement 176a, and are operated “in an open type of setting without a need for extraordinary security measures,” id., at 173a. The facilities must provide, in accordance with “applicable state child welfare statutes and generally accepted child welfare standards, practices, principles and procedures,” id., at 157a, an extensive list of services, including physical care and maintenance, individual and group counseling, education, recreation and leisure-time activities, family reunification services, and access to religious services, visitors, and legal assistance, id., at 159a, 178a-185a.
Although the regulation replaced the Western Region release policy that had been the focus of respondents’ constitutional claims, respondents decided to maintain the litigation as a challenge to the new rule. Just a week after the regulation took effect, in a brief, unpublished order that referred only to unspecified “due process grounds,” the District Court granted summary judgment to respondents and invalidated the regulatory scheme in three important respects. Flores v. Meese, No. CV 85-4544-RJK (Px) (CD Cal., May 25,1988), App. to Pet. for Cert. 146a. First, the court ordered the INS to release “any minor otherwise eligible for release... to his parents, guardian, custodian, conservator, or other responsible adult party.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Second, the order dispensed with the regulation’s requirement that unrelated custodians formally agree to care for the juvenile, 8 CFR §§ 242.24(b)(3) and (4) (1992), in addition to ensuring his attendance at future proceedings. Finally, the District Court rewrote the related INS regulations that provide for an initial determination of prima facie deportability and release conditions before an INS examiner, see § 287.3, with review by an immigration judge upon the alien’s request, see § 242.2(d). It decreed instead that an immigration-judge hearing on probable cause and release restrictions should be provided “forthwith” after arrest, whether or not the juvenile requests it. App. to Pet. for Cert. 146a.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. Flores v. Meese, 934 F. 2d 991 (CA9 1990). The Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case and selected an 11-judge en banc court. See Ninth Circuit Rule 35-3. That court vacated the panel opinion and affirmed the District Court order “in all respects.” Flores v. Meese, 942 F. 2d 1352, 1365 (1991). One judge dissented in part, see id., at 1372-1377 (opinion of Rymer, J.), and four in toto, see id., at 1377-1385 (opinion of Wallace, C. J.). We granted certiorari. 503 U. S. 905 (1992).
II
Respondents make three principal attacks upon INS regulation 242.24. First, they assert that alien juveniles suspected of being deportable have a “fundamental” right to “freedom from physical restraint,” Brief for Respondents 16, and it is therefore a denial of “substantive due process” to detain them, since the Service cannot prove that it is pursuing an important governmental interest in a manner narrowly tailored to minimize the restraint on liberty. Second, respondents argue that the regulation violates “procedural due process,” because it does not require the Service to determine, with regard to each individual detained juvenile who lacks an approved custodian, whether his best interests lie in remaining in INS custody or in release to some other “responsible adult.” Finally, respondents contend that even if the INS regulation infringes no constitutional rights, it exceeds the Attorney General’s authority under 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(1). We find it economic to discuss the objections in that order, though we of course reach the constitutional issues only because we conclude that the respondents’ statutory argument fails.
Before proceeding further, however, we make two important observations. First, this is a facial challenge to INS regulation 242.24. Respondents do not challenge its application in a particular instance; it had not yet been applied in a particular instance — because it was not yet in existence— when their suit was brought (directed at the 1984 Western Region release policy), and it had been in effect only a week when the District Court issued the judgment invalidating it. We have before us no findings of fact, indeed no record, concerning the INS’s interpretation of the regulation or the history of its enforcement. We have only the regulation itself and the statement of basis and purpose that accompanied its promulgation. To prevail in such a facial challenge, respondents “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [regulation] would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). That is true as to both the constitutional challenges, see Schall v. Martin, 467 U. S. 253, 268, n. 18 (1984), and the statutory challenge, see NCIR, 502 U. S., at 188.
The second point is related. Respondents spend much time, and their amici even more, condemning the conditions under which some alien juveniles are held, alleging that the conditions are so severe as to belie the Service’s stated reasons for retaining custody — leading, presumably, to the conclusion that the retention of custody is an unconstitutional infliction of punishment without trial. See Salerno, supra, at 746-748; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 237 (1896). But whatever those conditions might have been when this litigation began, they are now (at least in the Western Region, where all members of the respondents’ class are held) presumably in compliance with the extensive requirements set forth in the Juvenile Care Agreement that settled respondents’ claims regarding detention conditions, see supra, at 298. The settlement agreement entitles respondents to enforce compliance with those requirements in the District Court, see Juvenile Care Agreement 148a-149a, which they acknowledge they have not done, Tr. of Oral Arg. 43. We will disregard the effort to reopen those settled claims by alleging, for purposes of the challenges to the regulation, that the detention conditions are other than what the consent decree says they must be.
HH 1 — 1 1 — I
Respondents substantive due process claim relies upon our line of cases which interprets the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantee of “due process of law” to include a substantive component, which forbids the government to infringe certain “fundamental” liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. See, e. g., Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992); Salerno, supra, at 746; Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, 191 (1986). “Substantive due process” analysis must begin with a careful description of the asserted right, for “[t]he doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field.” Collins, supra, at 125; see Bowers v. Hardwick, supra, at 194-195. The “freedom from physical restraint” invoked by respondents is not at issue in this case. Surely not in the sense of shackles, chains, or barred cells, given the Juvenile Care Agreement. Nor even in the sense of a right to come and go at will, since, as we have said elsewhere, “juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody,” Schall, 467 U. S., at 265, and where the custody of the parent or legal guardian fails, the government may (indeed, we have said must) either exercise custody itself or appoint someone else to do so. Ibid. Nor is the right asserted the right of a child to be released from all other custody into the custody of its parents, legal guardian, or even close relatives: The challenged regulation requires such release when it is sought. Rather, the right at issue is the alleged right of a child who has no available parent, close relative, or legal guardian, and for whom the government is responsible, to be placed in the custody of a willing-and-able private custodian rather than of a government-operated or government-selected child-care institution.
If there exists a fundamental right to be released into what respondents inaccurately call a “non-custodial setting,” Brief for Respondents 18, we see no reason why it would apply only in the context of government custody incidentally acquired in the course of law enforcement. It would presumably apply to state custody over orphans and abandoned children as well, giving federal law and federal courts a major new role in the management of state orphanages and other child-care institutions. Cf. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689, 703-704 (1992). We are unaware, however, that any court — aside from the courts below — has ever held that a child has a constitutional right not to be placed in a decent and humane custodial institution if there is available a responsible person unwilling to become the child’s legal guardian but willing to undertake temporary legal custody. The mere novelty of such a claim is reason enough to doubt that “substantive due process” sustains it; the alleged right certainly cannot be considered “ ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’” Salerno, supra, at 751 (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934)). Where a juvenile has no available parent, close relative, or legal guardian, where the government does not intend to punish the child, and where the conditions of governmental custody are decent and humane, such custody surely does not violate the Constitution. It is rationally connected to a governmental interest in “preserving and promoting the welfare of the child,” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 766 (1982), and is not punitive since it is not excessive in relation to that valid purpose. See Schall, supra, at 269.
Although respondents generally argue for the categorical right of private placement discussed above, at some points they assert a somewhat more limited constitutional right: the right to an individualized hearing on whether private placement would be in the child’s “best interests” — followed by private placement if the answer is in the affirmative. It seems to us, however, that if institutional custody (despite the availability of responsible private custodians) is not unconstitutional in itself, it does not become so simply because it is shown to be less desirable than some other arrangement for the particular child. “The best interests of the child,” a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion — much less the sole constitutional criterion — for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others. Even if it were shown, for example, that a particular couple desirous of adopting a child would best provide for the child’s welfare, the child would nonetheless not be removed from the custody of its parents so long as they were providing for the child adequately. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255 (1978). Similarly, “the best interests of the child” is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves. See, e. g., R. C. N. v. State, 141 Ga. App. 490, 491, 233 S. E. 2d 866, 867 (1977).
“The best interests of the child” is likewise not an absolute and exclusive constitutional criterion for the government’s exercise of the custodial responsibilities that it undertakes, which must be reconciled with many other responsibilities. Thus, child-care institutions operated by the State in the exercise of its parens patriae authority, see Schall, supra, at 265, are not constitutionally required to be funded at such a level as to provide the best schooling or the best health care available; nor does the Constitution require them to substitute, wherever possible, private nonadoptive custody for institutional care. And the same principle applies, we think, to the governmental responsibility at issue here, that of retaining or transferring custody over a child who has come within the Federal Government’s control, when the parents or guardians of that child are nonexistent or unavailable. Minimum standards must be met, and the child’s fundamental rights must not be impaired; but the decision to go beyond those requirements — to give one or another of the child’s additional interests priority over other concerns that compete for public funds and administrative attention — is a policy judgment rather than a constitutional imperative.
Respondents’ “best interests” argument is, in essence, a demand that the INS program be narrowly tailored to minimize the denial of release into private custody. But narrow tailoring is required only when fundamental rights are involved. The impairment of a lesser interest (here, the alleged interest in being released into the custody of strangers) demands no more than a “reasonable fit” between governmental purpose (here, protecting the welfare of the juveniles who have come into the Government’s custody) and the means chosen to advance that purpose. This leaves ample room for an agency to decide, as the INS has, that administrative factors such as lack of child-placement expertise favor using one means rather than another. There is, in short, no constitutional need for a hearing to determine whether private placement would be better, so long as institutional custody is (as we readily find it to be, assuming compliance with the requirements of the consent decree) good enough.
If we harbored any doubts as to the constitutionality of institutional custody over unaccompanied juveniles, they would surely be eliminated as to those juveniles (concededly the overwhelming majority of all involved here) who are aliens. “For reasons long recognized as valid, the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government.” Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 81 (1976). “ ‘[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.’” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 792 (1977) (quoting Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 339 (1909)). Thus, “in the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, ‘Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.’” 430 U. S., at 792 (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, supra, at 79-80). Respondents do not dispute that Congress has the authority to detain aliens suspected of entering the country illegally pending their deportation hearings, see Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524, 538 (1952); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S., at 235. And in enacting the precursor to 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a), Congress eliminated any presumption of release pending deportation, committing that determination to the discretion of the Attorney General. See Carlson v. Landon, supra, at 538-540. Of course, the INS regulation must still meet the (unexacting) standard of rationally advancing some legitimate governmental purpose — which it does, as we shall discuss later in connection with the statutory challenge.
Respondents also argue, in a footnote, that the INS release policy violates the “equal protection guarantee” of the Fifth Amendment because of the disparate treatment evident in (1) releasing alien juveniles with close relatives or legal guardians but detaining those without, and (2) releasing to unrelated adults juveniles detained pending federal delinquency proceedings, see 18 U. S. C. § 5034, but detaining unaccompanied alien juveniles pending deportation proceedings. The tradition of reposing custody in close relatives and legal guardians is in our view sufficient to support the former distinction; and the difference between citizens and aliens is adequate to support the latter.
IV
We turn now from the claim that the INS cannot deprive respondents of their asserted liberty interest at all, to the “procedural due process” claim that the Service cannot do so on the basis of the procedures it provides. It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings. See The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903). To determine whether these alien juveniles have received it here, we must first review in some detail the procedures the INS has employed.
Though a procedure for obtaining warrants to arrest named individuals is available, see 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(1); 8 CFR § 242.2(c)(1) (1992), the deportation process ordinarily begins with a warrantless arrest by an INS officer who has reason to believe that the arrestee “is in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained,” 8 U. S. C. § 1357(a)(2). Arrested aliens are almost always offered the choice of departing the country voluntarily, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(b) (1988 ed., Supp. III); 8 CFR §242.5 (1992), and as many as 98% of them take that course. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1044 (1984). Before the Service seeks execution of a voluntary departure form by a juvenile, however, the juvenile “must in fact communicate with either a parent, adult relative, friend, or with an organization found on the free legal services list.” 8 CFR § 242.24(g) (1992). If the juvenile does not seek voluntary departure, he must be brought before an INS examining officer within 24 hours of his arrest. § 287.3; see 8 U. S. C. § 1357(a)(2). The examining officer is a member of the Service’s enforcement staff, but must be someone other than the arresting officer (unless no other qualified examiner is readily available). 8 CFR §287.3 (1992). If the examiner determines that “there is prima facie evidence establishing that the arrested alien is in the United States in violation of the immigration laws,” ibid., a formal deportation proceeding is initiated through the issuance of an order to show cause, §242.1, and within 24 hours the decision is made whether to continue the alien juvenile in custody or release him, § 287.3.
The INS notifies the alien of the commencement of a deportation proceeding and of the decision as to custody by serving him with a Form 1-22IS (reprinted in App. to Brief for Petitioners 7a-8a) which, pursuant to the Immigration Act of 1990, 8 U. S. C. § 1252b(a)(3)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. III), must be in English and Spanish. The front of this form notifies the alien of the allegations against him and the date of his deportation hearing. The back contains a section entitled “NOTICE OF CUSTODY DETERMINATION,” in which the INS officer checks a box indicating whether the alien will be detained in the custody of the Service, released on recognizance, or released under bond. Beneath these boxes, the form states: “You may request the Immigration Judge to redetermine this decision.” See 8 CFR § 242.2(c)(2) (1992). (The immigration judge is a quasi-judicial officer in the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a division separated from the Service’s enforcement staff. §3.10.) The alien must check either a box stating “I do” or a box stating “[I] do not request a redetermination by an Immigration Judge of the custody decision,” and must then sign and date this section of the form. If the alien requests a hearing and is dissatisfied with the outcome, he may obtain further review by the Board of Immigration Appeals, § 242.2(d); § 3.1(b)(7), and by the federal courts, see, e. g., Carlson v. Landon, supra, at 529, 531.
Respondents contend that this procedural system is unconstitutional because it does not require the Service to determine in the case of each individual alien juvenile that detention in INS custody would better serve his interests than release to some other “responsible adult.” This is just the “substantive due process” argument recast in “procedural due process” terms, and we reject it for the same reasons.
The District Court and the en banc Court of Appeals concluded that the INS procedures are faulty because they do not provide for automatic review by an immigration judge of the initial deportability and custody determinations. See 942 F. 2d, at 1364. We disagree. At least insofar as this facial challenge is concerned, due process is satisfied by giving the detained alien juveniles the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. It has not been shown that all of them are too young or too ignorant to exercise that right when the form asking them to assert or waive it is presented. Most are 16 or 17 years old and will have been in telephone contact with a responsible adult outside the INS — sometimes a legal services attorney. The waiver, moreover, is revocable: The alien may request a judicial redetermination at any time later in the deportation process. See 8 CFR § 242.2(d) (1992); Matter of Uluocha, Interim Dec. 3124 (BIA 1989). We have held that juveniles are capable of “knowingly and intelligently” waiving their right against self-incrimination in criminal cases. See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U. S. 707, 724-727 (1979); see also United States v. Saucedo-Velasquez, 843 F. 2d 832, 835 (CA5 1988) (applying Fare to alien juvenile). The alleged right to redetermination of prehear-ing custody status in deportation cases is surely no more significant.
Respondents point out that the regulations do not set a time period within which the immigration-judge hearing, if requested, must be held. But we will not assume, on this facial challenge, that an excessive delay will invariably ensue — particularly since there is no evidence of such delay, even in isolated instances. Cf. Matter of Chirinos, 16 I. & N. Dec. 276 (BIA 1977).
V
Respondents contend that the regulation goes beyond the scope of the Attorney General’s discretion to continue custody over arrested aliens under 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(1). That contention must be rejected if the regulation has a “ ‘reasonable foundation,’ ” Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S., at 541, that is, if it rationally pursues a purpose that it is lawful for the INS to seek. See also NCIR, 502 U. S., at 194. We think that it does.
The statement of basis and purpose accompanying promulgation of regulation 242.24, in addressing the question “as to whose custody the juvenile should be released,” began with the dual propositions that “concern for the welfare of the juvenile will not permit release to just any adult” and that “the Service has neither the expertise nor the resources to conduct home studies for placement of each juvenile released.” Detention and Release of Juveniles, 53 Fed. Reg. 17449 (1988). The INS decided to “strik[e] a balance” by defining a list of presumptively appropriate custodians while maintaining the discretion of local INS directors to release detained minors to other custodians in “unusual and compelling circumstances.” Ibid. The list begins with parents, whom our society and this Court’s jurisprudence have always presumed to be the preferred and primary custodians of their minor children. See Parham v. J R., 442 U. S. 584, 602-603 (1979). The list extends to other close blood relatives, whose protective relationship with children our society has also traditionally respected. See Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 (1977); cf. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U. S. 1 (1974). And finally, the list includes persons given legal guardianship by the States, which we have said possess “special proficiency” in the field of domestic relations, including child custody. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S., at 704. When neither parent, close relative, or state-appointed guardian is immediately available, the INS will normally keep legal custody of the juvenile, place him in a government-supervised and state-licensed shelter-care facility, and continue searching for a relative or guardian, although release to others is possible in unusual cases.
Respondents object that this scheme is motivated purely by “administrative convenience,” a charge echoed by the dissent, see, e. g., post, at 320. This fails to grasp the distinction between administrative convenience (or, to speak less pejoratively, administrative efficiency) as the purpose of a policy — for example, a policy of not considering late-filed objections — and administrative efficiency as the reason for selecting one means of achieving a purpose over another. Only the latter is at issue here. The requisite statement of basis and purpose published by the INS upon promulgation of regulation 242.24 declares that the purpose of the rule is to protect “the welfare of the juvenile,” 53 Fed. Reg. 17449 (1988), and there is no basis for calling that false. (Respondents’ contention that the real purpose was to save money imputes not merely mendacity but irrationality, since respondents point out that detention in shelter-care facilities is more expensive than release.) Because the regulation involves no deprivation of a “fundamental” right, the Service was not compelled to ignore the costs and difficulty of alternative means of advancing its declared goal. Cf. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 656-657 (1972). It is impossible to contradict the Service’s assessment that it lacks the “expertise,” and is not “qualified,” to do individualized child-placement studies, 53 Fed. Reg. 17449 (1988), and the right alleged here provides no basis for this Court to impose upon what is essentially a law enforcement agency the obligation to expend its limited resources in developing such expertise and qualification. That reordering of priorities is for Congress — which has shown, we may say, no inclination to shrink from the task. See, e.g., 8 U. S. C. § 1154(c) (requiring INS to determine if applicants for immigration are involved in “sham” marriages). We do not hold, as the dissent contends, that “minimizing administrative costs” is adequate justification for the Service’s detention of juveniles, post, at 320; but we do hold that a detention program justified by the need to protect the welfare of juveniles is not constitutionally required to give custody to strangers if that entails the expenditure of administrative effort and resources that the Service is unwilling to commit.
Respondents also contend that the INS regulation violates the statute because it relies upon a “blanket” presumption of the unsuitability of custodians other than parents, close relatives, and guardians. We have stated that, at least in certain contexts, the Attorney General’s exercise of discretion under § 1252(a)(1) requires “some level of individualized determination.” NCIR, 502 U. S., 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: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Business activities of national banks are controlled by the National Bank Act (NBA or Act), 12 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). See §§24, 93a, 371(a). As the agency charged by Congress with supervision of the NBA, OCC oversees the operations of national banks and their interactions with customers. See NationsBank of N. C., N. A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U. S. 251, 254, 256 (1995). The agency exercises visitorial powers, including the authority to audit the bank’s books and records, largely to the exclusion of other governmental entities, state or federal. See § 484(a); 12 CFR § 7.4000 (2006).
The NBA specifically authorizes federally chartered banks to engage in real estate lending. 12 U. S. C. § 371. It also provides that banks shall have power “[t]o exercise... all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking.” §24 Seventh. Among incidental powers, national banks may conduct certain activities through “operating subsidiaries,” discrete entities authorized to engage solely in activities the bank itself could undertake, and subject to the same terms and conditions as those applicable to the bank. See § 24a(g)(3)(A); 12 CFR § 5.34(e) (2006).
Respondent Wachovia Bank, a national bank, conducts its real estate lending business through Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, a wholly owned, state-chartered entity, licensed as an operating subsidiary by OCC. It is uncontested in this suit that Wachovia’s real estate business, if conducted by the national bank itself, would be subject to OCC’s superintendence, to the exclusion of state registration requirements and visitoria! authority. The question in dispute is whether the bank’s mortgage lending activities remain outside the governance of state licensing and auditing agencies when those activities are conducted, not by a division or department of the bank, but by the bank’s operating subsidiary. In accord with the Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue, we hold that Wachovia’s mortgage business, whether conducted by the bank itself or through the bank’s operating subsidiary, is subject to OCC’s superintendence, and not to the licensing, reporting, and visitorial regimes of the several States in which the subsidiary operates.
I
Wachovia Bank is a national banking association chartered by OCC. Respondent Wachovia Mortgage is a North Carolina corporation that engages in the business of real estate lending in the State of Michigan and elsewhere. Michigan’s statutory regime exempts banks, both national and state, from state mortgage lending regulation, but requires mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers that are subsidiaries of national banks to register with the State’s Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) and submit to state supervision. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§445.1656(1), 445.1679(1)(a) (West 2002), 493.52(1), and 493.53a(d) (West 1998). From 1997 until 2003, Wachovia Mortgage was registered with OFIS to engage in mortgage lending. As a registrant, Wachovia Mortgage was required, inter alia, to pay an annual operating fee, file an annual report, and open its books and records to inspection by OFIS examiners. §§445.1657, 445.1658, 445.1671 (West 2002), 493.54, 493.56a(2), (13) (West 1998).
Petitioner Linda Watters, the commissioner of OFIS, administers the State’s lending laws. She exercises “general supervision and control” over registered lenders, and has authority to conduct examinations and investigations and to enforce requirements against registrants. See §§445.1661, 445.1665, 445.1666 (West 2002), 493.58, 493.56b, 493.59, 493.62a (West 1998 and Supp. 2005). She also has authority to investigate consumer complaints and take enforcement action if she finds that a complaint is not “being adequately pursued by the appropriate federal regulatory authority.” §445.1663(2) (West 2002).
On January 1, 2003, Wachovia Mortgage became a wholly owned operating subsidiary of Wachovia Bank. Three months later, Wachovia Mortgage advised the State of Michigan that it was surrendering its mortgage lending registration. Because it had become an operating subsidiary of a national bank, Wachovia Mortgage maintained, Michigan’s registration and inspection requirements were preempted. Watters responded with a letter advising Wachovia Mortgage that it would no longer be authorized to conduct mortgage lending activities in Michigan.
Wachovia Mortgage and Wachovia Bank filed suit against Watters, in her official capacity as commissioner, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting Watters from enforcing Michigan’s registration prescriptions against Wachovia Mortgage, and from interfering with OCC’s exclusive visitorial authority. The NBA and regulations promulgated thereunder, they urged, vest supervisory authority in OCC and preempt the application of the state-law controls at issue. Specifically, Wachovia Mortgage and Wachovia Bank challenged as preempted certain provisions of two Michigan statutes — the Mortgage Brokers, Lenders, and Services Licensing Act and the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act. The challenged provisions (1) require mortgage lenders — including national bank operating subsidiaries but not national banks themselves — to register and pay fees to the State before they may conduct banking activities in Michigan, and authorize the commissioner to deny or revoke registrations, §§445.1652(1) (West Supp. 2006), 445.1656(l)(d) (West 2002), 445.1657(1), 445.1658, 445.1679(l)(a), 493.52(1) (West 1998), 493.53a(d), 493.54, 493.55(4), 493.56a(2), and 493.61; (2) require submission of annual financial statements to the commissioner and retention of certain documents in a particular format, §§445.1657(2) (West 2002), 445.1671, 493.56a(2) (West 1998); (3) grant the commissioner inspection and enforcement authority over registrants, §§445.1661 (West 2002), 493.56b (West Supp. 2005); and (4) authorize the commissioner to take regulatory or enforcement actions against covered lenders, §§445.1665 (West 2002), 445.1666, 493.58-59, and 493.62a (West 1998).
In response, Watters argued that, because Wachovia Mortgage was not itself a national bank, the challenged Michigan controls were applicable and were not preempted. She also contended that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits OCC’s exclusive superintendence of national bank lending activities conducted through operating subsidiaries.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the banks in relevant part. 334 F. Supp. 2d 957, 966 (WD Mich. 2004). Invoking the two-step framework of Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), the court deferred to the Comptroller’s determination that an operating subsidiary is subject to state regulation only to the extent that the parent bank would be if it performed the same functions. 334 F. Supp. 2d, at 963-965 (citing, e.g., 12 CFR §§ 5.34(e)(3), 7.4006 (2004)). The court also rejected Watters’ Tenth Amendment argument. 334 F. Supp. 2d, at 965-966. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. 431 F. 3d 556 (2005). We granted certiorari. 547 U. S. 1205 (2006).
II
A
Nearly 200 years ago, in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), this Court held federal law supreme over state law with respect to national banking. Though the bank at issue in McCulloch was short-lived, a federal banking system reemerged in the Civil War era. See Atherton v. FDIC, 519 U. S. 213, 221-222 (1997); B. Hammond, Banks and Polities in America: from the Revolution to the Civil War (1957). In 1864, Congress enacted the NBA, establishing the system of national banking still in place today. National Bank Act, ch. 106, 13 Stat. 99; Atherton, 519 U. S., at 222; Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U. S. 299, 310, 314-315 (1978). The Act vested in nationally chartered banks enumerated powers and “all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking.” 12 U. S. C. §24 Seventh. To prevent inconsistent or intrusive state regulation from impairing the national system, Congress provided: “No national bank shall be subject to any visitorial powers except as authorized by Federal law....” §484(a).
In the years since the NBA’s enactment, we have repeatedly made clear that federal control shields national banking from unduly burdensome and duplicative state regulation. See, e. g., Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U. S. 1, 10 (2003) (national banking system protected from “possible unfriendly State legislation” (quoting Tiffany v. National Bank of Mo., 18 Wall. 409, 412 (1874))). Federally chartered banks are subject to state laws of general application in their daily business to the extent such laws do not conflict with the letter or the general purposes of the NBA. Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 290 (1896). See also Atherton, 519 U. S., at 223. For example, state usury laws govern the maximum rate of interest national banks can charge on loans, 12 U. S. C. §85, contracts made by national banks “are governed and construed by State laws,” National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353, 362 (1870), and national banks’ “acquisition and transfer of property [are] based on State law,” ibid. However, “the States can exercise no control over [national banks], nor in any wise affect their operation, except in so far as Congress may see proper to permit. Any thing beyond this is an abuse, because it is the usurpation of power which a single State cannot give.” Farmers’ and, Mechan ics’ Nat Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 34 (1875) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have “interpretjed] grants of both enumerated and incidental ‘powers’ to national banks as grants of authority not normally limited by, but rather ordinarily pre-empting, contrary state law.” Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N. A. v. Nelson, 517 U. S. 25, 32 (1996). See also Franklin Nat Bank of Franklin Square v. New York, 347 U. S. 373, 375-379 (1954). States are permitted to regulate the activities of national banks where doing so does not prevent or significantly interfere with the national bank’s or the national bank regulator’s exercise of its powers. But when state prescriptions significantly impair the exercise of authority, enumerated or incidental under the NBA, the State’s regulations must give way. Barnett Bank, 517 U. S., at 32-34 (federal law permitting national banks to sell insurance in small towns preempted state statute prohibiting banks from selling most types of insurance); Franklin Nat Bank, 347 U. S., at 377-379 (local restrictions preempted because they burdened exercise of national banks’ incidental power to advertise).
The NBA authorizes national banks to engage in mortgage lending, subject to OCC regulation. The Act provides:
“Any national banking association may make, arrange, purchase or sell loans or extensions of credit secured by liens on interests in real estate, subject to 1828(o) of this title and such restrictions and requirements as the Comptroller of the Currency may prescribe by regulation or order.” 12 U. S. C. § 371(a).
Beyond genuine dispute, state law may not significantly burden a national bank’s own exercise of its real estate lending power, just as it may not curtail or hinder a national bank’s efficient exercise of any other power, incidental or enumerated under the NBA. See Barnett Bank, 517 U. S., at 33-34; Franklin, 347 U. S., at 375-379. See also 12 CFR § 34.4(a)(1) (2006) (identifying preempted state controls on mortgage lending, including licensing and registration). In particular, real estate lending, when conducted by a national bank, is immune from state visitorial control: The NBA specifically vests exclusive authority to examine and inspect in OCC. 12 U. S. C. § 484(a) (“No national bank shall be subject to any visitorial powers except as authorized by Federal law.”).
Harmoniously, the Michigan provisions at issue exempt national banks from coverage. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1675(a) (West 2002). This is not simply a matter of the Michigan Legislature’s grace. Cf. post, at 34, and n. 17. For, as the parties recognize, the NBA would have preemptive force, i. e., it would spare a national bank from state controls of the kind here involved. See Brief for Petitioner 12; Brief for Respondents 14; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9. State laws that conditioned national banks’ real estate lending on registration with the State, and subjected such lending to the State’s investigative and enforcement machinery would surely interfere with the banks’ federally authorized business: National banks would be subject to registration, inspection, and enforcement regimes imposed not just by Michigan, but by all States in which the banks operate. Diverse and duplicative superintendence of national banks’ engagement in the business of banking, we observed over a century ago, is precisely what the NBA was designed to prevent: “Th[e] legislation has in view the erection of a system extending throughout the country, and independent, so far as powers conferred are concerned, of state legislation which, if permitted to be applicable, might impose limitations and restrictions as various and as numerous as the States.” Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220, 229 (1903). Congress did not intend, we explained, “to leave the field open for the States to attempt to promote the welfare and stability of national banks by direct legislation.... [C]on-fusion would necessarily result from control possessed and exercised by two independent authorities.” Id., at 231-232.
Recognizing the burdens and undue duplication state controls could produce, Congress included in the NBA an express command: “No national bank shall be subject to any visitorial powers except as authorized by Federal law....” 12 U. S. C. § 484(a). See supra, at 11-12, 13; post, at 31 (acknowledging that national banks have been “exemp[t] from state visitorial authority... for more than 140 years”). “Visitation,” we have explained “is the act of a superior or superintending officer, who visits a corporation to examine into its manner of conducting business, and enforce an observance of its laws and regulations.” Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U. S. 148, 158 (1905) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also 12 CFR § 7.4000(a)(2) (2006) (defining “visitorial” power as “(i) [e]xamination of a bank; (ii) [inspection of a bank’s books and records; (iii) [Regulation and supervision of activities authorized or permitted pursuant to federal banking law; and (iv) [e]nforcing compliance with any applicable federal or state laws concerning those activities”). Michigan, therefore, cannot confer on its commissioner examination and enforcement authority over mortgage lending, or any other banking business done by national banks.
B
While conceding that Michigan’s licensing, registration, and inspection requirements cannot be applied to national banks, see, e. g., Brief for Petitioner 10, 12, Watters argues that the State’s regulatory regime survives preemption with respect to national banks’ operating subsidiaries. Because such subsidiaries are separately chartered under some State’s law, Watters characterizes them simply as “affiliates” of national banks, and contends that even though they are subject to OCC’s superintendence, they are also subject to multistate control. Id., at 17-22. We disagree.
Since 1966, OCC has recognized the “incidental” authority of national banks under § 24 Seventh to do business through operating subsidiaries. See 31 Fed. Reg. 11459-11460 (1966); 12 CFR § 5.34(e)(1) (2006) (“A national bank may conduct in an operating subsidiary activities that are permissible for a national bank to engage in directly either as part of, or incidental to, the business of banking....”). That authority is uncontested by Michigan’s commissioner. See Brief for Petitioner 21 (“[N]o one disputes that 12 USC §24 (Seventh) authorizes national banks to use nonbank operating subsidiaries....”). OCC licenses and oversees national bank operating subsidiaries just as it does national banks. § 5.34(e)(3) (“An operating subsidiary conducts activities authorized under this section pursuant to the same authorization, terms and conditions that apply to the conduct of such activities by its parent national bank.”); United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Related Organizations: Comptroller’s Handbook 53 (Aug. 2004) (hereinafter Comptroller’s Handbook) (“Operating subsidiaries are subject to the same supervision and regulation as the parent bank, except where otherwise provided by law or OCC regulation.”).
In 1999, Congress defined and regulated “financial” subsidiaries; simultaneously, Congress distinguished those national bank affiliates from subsidiaries — typed “operating subsidiaries” by OCC — which may engage only in activities national banks may engage in directly, “subject to the same terms and conditions that govern the conduct of such activities by national banks.” Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), § 121(a)(2), 113 Stat. 1378 (codified at 12 U. S. C. § 24a(g)(3)(A)). For supervisory purposes, OCC treats national banks and their operating subsidiaries as a single economic enterprise. Comptroller’s Handbook 64. OCC oversees both entities by reference to “business line,” applying the same controls whether banking “activities are conducted directly or through an operating subsidiary.” Ibid.
As earlier noted, Watters does not contest the authority of national banks to do business through operating subsidiaries. Nor does she dispute OCC’s authority to supervise and regulate operating subsidiaries in the same manner as national banks. Still, Watters seeks to impose state regulation on operating subsidiaries over and above regulation undertaken by OCC. But just as duplicative state examination, supervision, and regulation would significantly burden mortgage lending when engaged in by national banks, see supra, at 11-15, so too would those state controls interfere with that same activity when engaged in by an operating subsidiary.
We have never held that the preemptive reach of the NBA extends only to a national bank itself. Rather, in analyzing whether state law hampers the federally permitted activities of a national bank, we have focused on the exercise of a national bank’s powers, not on its corporate structure. See, e. g., Barnett Bank, 517 U. S., at 32. And we have treated operating subsidiaries as equivalent to national banks with respect to powers exercised under federal law (except where federal law provides otherwise). In NationsBank of N. C., N. A., 513 U. S., at 256-261, for example, we upheld OCC’s determination that national banks had “incidental” authority to act as agents in the sale of annuities. It was not material that the function qualifying as within “the business of banking,” §24 Seventh, was to be carried out not by the bank itself, but by an operating subsidiary, i. e., an entity “subject to the same terms and conditions that govern the conduct of [the activity] by national banks [themselves],” § 24a(g)(3)(A); 12 CFR § 5.34(e)(3) (2006). See also Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388 (1987) (national banks, acting through operating subsidiaries, have power to offer discount brokerage services).
Security against significant interference by state regulators is a characteristic condition of the “business of banking” conducted by national banks, and mortgage lending is one aspect of that business. See, e.g., 12 U. SC. §484(a); 12 CFR § 34.4(a)(1) (2006). See also supra, at 11-15; post, at 27 (acknowledging that, in 1982, Congress broadly authorized national banks to engage in mortgage lending); post, at 36-37, and n. 20 (acknowledging that operating subsidiaries “are subject to the same federal oversight as their national bank parents”). That security should adhere whether the business is conducted by the bank itself or is assigned to an operating subsidiary licensed by OCC whose authority to carry on the business coincides completely with that of the bank. See Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. Boutris, 419 F. 3d 949, 960 (CA9 2005) (determination whether to conduct business through operating subsidiaries or through subdivisions is “essentially one of internal organization”).
Watters contends that if Congress meant to deny States visitorial powers over operating subsidiaries, it would have written § 484(a)’s ban on state inspection to apply not only to national banks but also to their affiliates. She points out that §481, which authorizes OCC to examine “affiliates” of national banks, does not speak to state visitorial powers. This argument fails for two reasons. First, one cannot ascribe any intention regarding operating subsidiaries to the 1864 Congress that enacted §§481 and 484, or the 1933 Congress that added the provisions on examining affiliates to §481 and the definition of “affiliate” to §221a. That is so because operating subsidiaries were not authorized until 1966. See supra, at 15-16. Over the past four decades, during which operating subsidiaries have emerged as important instrumentalities of national banks, Congress and OCC have indicated no doubt that such subsidiaries are “subject to the same terms and conditions” as national banks themselves.
Second, Watters ignores the distinctions Congress recognized among “affiliates.” The NBA broadly defines the term “affiliate” to include “any corporation” controlled by a national bank, including a subsidiary. See 12 U. S. C. § 221a(b). An operating subsidiary is therefore one type of “affiliate.” But unlike affiliates that may engage in functions not authorized by the NBA, e.g., financial subsidiaries, an operating subsidiary is tightly tied to its parent by the specification that it may engage only in “the business of banking” as authorized by the Act. § 24a(g)(3)(A); 12 CFR § 5.34(e)(1) (2006). See also supra, at 16-17, and n. 10. Notably, when Congress amended the NBA confirming that operating subsidiaries may “engag[e] solely in activities that national banks are permitted to engage in directly,” 12 U. S. C. §24a(g)(3)(A), it did so in an Act, the GLBA, providing that other affiliates, authorized to engage in nonbanking financial activities, e. g., securities and insurance, are subject to state regulation in connection with those activities. See, e. g., §§ 1843(k), 1844(c)(4). See also 15 U. S. C. § 6701(b) (any person who sells insurance must obtain a state license to do so).
C
Recognizing the neeessary consequence of national banks’ authority to engage in mortgage lending through an operating subsidiary “subject to the same terms and conditions that govern the conduct of such activities by national banks,” 12 U. S. C. §24a(g)(3)(A), see also §24 Seventh, OCC promulgated 12 CFR § 7.4006 (2006): “Unless otherwise provided by Federal law or OCC regulation, State laws apply to national bank operating subsidiaries to the same extent that those laws apply to the parent national bank.” See Investment Securities; Bank Activities and Operations; Leasing, 66 Fed. Reg. 34784, 34788 (2001). Watters disputes the authority of OCC to promulgate this regulation and contends that, because preemption is a legal question for determination by courts, § 7.4006 should attract no deference. See also post, at 38-43. This argument is beside the point, for under our interpretation of the statute, the level of deference owed to the regulation is an academic question. Section 7.4006 merely clarifies and confirms what the NBA already conveys: A national bank has the power to engage in real estate lending through an operating subsidiary, subject to the same terms and conditions that govern the national bank itself; that power cannot be significantly impaired or impeded by state law. See, e. g., Barnett Bank, 517 U. S., at 33-34; 12 U. S. C. §§24 Seventh, 24a(g)(3)(A), 371.
The NBA is thus properly read by OCC to protect from state hindrance a national bank’s engagement in the “business of banking” whether conducted by the bank itself or by an operating subsidiary, empowered to do only what the bank itself could do. See supra, at 16-17. The authority to engage in the business of mortgage lending comes from the NBA, §371, as does the authority to conduct business through an operating subsidiary. See §§24 Seventh, 24a(g)(3)(A). That Act vests visitorial oversight in OCC, not state regulators. § 484(a). State law (in this case, North Carolina law), all agree, governs incorporation-related issues, such as the formation, dissolution, and internal governance of operating subsidiaries. And the laws of the States in which national banks or their affiliates are located govern matters the NBA does not address. See supra, at 11. But state regulators cannot interfere with the “business of banking” by subjecting national banks or their OCC-licensed operating subsidiaries to multiple audits and surveillance under rival oversight regimes.
III
Watters’ alternative argument, that 12 CFR §7.4006 violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, is unavailing. As we have previously explained, “[i]f a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156 (1992). Regulation of national bank operations is a prerogative of Congress under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. See Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U. S. 52, 58 (2003) (per curiam). The Tenth Amendment, therefore, is not implicated here.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Sixth Circuit is
Affirmed.
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
National City Bank of Indiana v. Turnbaugh, 463 F. 3d 325 (CA4 2006); Wachovia Bank, N. A. v. Burke, 414 F. 3d 305 (CA2 2005); 431 F. 3d 556 (CA6 2005) (case below); Wells Fargo Bank N. A. v. Boutris, 419 F. 3d 949 (CA9 2005).
Michigan’s law exempts subsidiaries of national banks that maintain a main office or branch office in Michigan. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§445.1652(1)(b) (West Supp. 2006), 445.1675(m) (West 2002), 493.53a(d) (West 1998). Wachovia Bank has no such office in Michigan.
The Act of June 3,1864, ch. 106,13 Stat. 99, was originally entitled “An Act to provide a National Currency... its title was altered by Congress in 1874 to “the National Bank Act.” Ch. 343, 18 Stat. 123.
Title 12 U. S. C. §1828(o) requires federal banking agencies to adopt uniform regulations prescribing standards for real estate lending by depository institutions and sets forth criteria governing such standards. See, e. g., § 1828(o)(2)(A) (“In prescribing standards... the agencies shall consider — (i) the risk posed to the deposit insurance funds by such extensions of credit; (ii) the need for safe and sound.operation of insured depository institutions; and (iii) the availability of credit.”).
See also 2 R. Taylor, Banking Law §37.02, p. 37-5 (2006) (“[OCC] has exclusive authority to charter and examine [national] banks.” (footnote omitted)).
See 69 Fed. Reg. 1908 (2004) (“The application of multiple, often unpredictable, different state or local restrictions and requirements prevents [national banks] from operating in the manner authorized under Federal law, is costly and burdensome, interferes with their ability to plan their business and manage their risks, and subjects them to uncertain liabilities and potential exposure.”).
Ours is indeed a “dual banking system.” See post, at 22-26,43. But it is a system that has never permitted States to license, inspect, and supervise national banks as they do state banks. The dissent repeatedly refers to the policy of “competitive equality” featured in First Nat. Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson, 396 U. S. 122, 131 (1969). See post, at 25, 35, 40, 43. Those words, however, should not be ripped from their context. Plant City involved the McFadden Act (Branch Banks), 44 Stat. 1228, 12 U. S. C. § 36, in which Congress expressly authorized national banks to establish branches “only when, where, and how state law would authorize a state bank to establish and operate such [branches].” 396 U. S., at 130. See also id., at 131 (“[W]hile Congress has absolute authority over national banks, the [McFadden Act] has incorporated by reference the limitations which state law places on branch banking activities by state banks. Congress has deliberately settled upon a policy intended to foster competitive equality.... [The] Act reflects the congressional concern that neither system ha[s] advantages over the other in the use of branch banking.” (quoting First Nat. Bank of Logan v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., 385 U. S. 252, 261 (1966))). “[W]here Congress has not expressly conditioned the grant of‘power’ upon a grant of state permission, the Court has ordinarily found that no such condition applies.” Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N. A. v. Nelson, 517 U. S. 25, 34 (1996). The NBA provisions before us, unlike the McFadden Act, do not condition the exercise of power by national banks on state allowance of similar exercises by state banks. See supra, at 13.
The regulation further provides:
“If, upon examination, the OCC determines that the operating subsidiary is operating in violation of law, regulation, or written condition, or in an unsafe or unsound manner or otherwise threatens the safety or soundness of the bank, the OCC will direct the bank or operating subsidiary to take appropriate remedial action, which may include requiring the bank to divest or liquidate the operating subsidiary, or discontinue specified activities.” 12 CFR § 5.34(e)(3) (2006).
OCC subsequently revised its regulations to track the statute. See <§ 5.34(e)(1), (3); Financial Subsidiaries and Operating Subsidiaries, 65 Fed. Reg. 12905, 12911 (2000). C£ post, at 29, 30 (dissent’s grudging acknowledgment that Congress “may have acquiesced” in OCC’s position that national banks may engage in “the business of banking” through operating subsidiaries empowered to do only what the bank itself can do).
For example, “for purposes of applying statutory or regulatory limits, such as lending limits or dividend restrictions,” e. g., 12 U. S. C. §§56, 60, 84, 371d, “[t]he results of operations of operating subsidiaries are consolidated with those of its parent.” Comptroller’s Handbook 64. Likewise, for accounting and regulatory reporting purposes, an operating subsidiary is treated as part of the member bank; assets and liabilities of the two entities are combined. See 12 CFR §§ 5.34(e)(4)(i), 223.3(w) (2006). OCC treats financial subsidiaries differently. A national bank may not consolidate the assets and liabilities of a financial subsidiary with those of the bank. Comptroller’s Handbook 64. It cannot be fairly maintained “that the transfer in 2003 of [Wachovia Mortgage’s] ownership from the holding company to the Bank” resulted in no relevant changes to the company’s business. Compare post, at 35, with supra, at 16, n. 8. On becoming Wachovia’s operating subsidiary, Wachovia Mortgage became subject to the same terms and conditions as national banks, including the full supervisory authority of OCC. This change exposed the company to significantly more federal oversight than it experienced as a state nondepository institution.
Cf. Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U. S. 299, 308, and n. 19 (1978) (holding that national bank may charge home State’s interest rate, regardless of more restrictive usury laws in borrower’s State, but declining to consider operating subsidiaries).
The dissent protests that the GLBA does not itself preempt the Michigan provisions at issue. C£ post, at 36-38. We express no opinion on that matter. Our point is more modest: The GLBA simply demonstrates Congress’ formal recognition that national banks have incidental power to do business through operating subsidiaries. See supra, at 16-17; cf. post, at 30-31.
Because we hold that the NBA itself — independent of OCC’s regulation — preempts the application of the pertinent Michigan laws to national bank operating subsidiaries, we need not consider the dissent’s lengthy discourse on the dangers of vest
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Alabama law vests capital sentencing authority in the trial judge, but requires the judge to consider an advisory jury verdict. We granted certiorari to consider petitioner’s argument that Alabama’s capital sentencing statute is unconstitutional because it does not specify the weight the judge must give to the jury’s recommendation and thus permits arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.
I
A defendant convicted of capital murder in Alabama is entitled to a sentencing hearing before the trial jury, Ala. Code § 13A-5-46 (1994), unless jury participation is waived by both parties and approved by the court, § 13A-5-44. The State must prove statutory aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and must disprove, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating circumstance the defendant may proffer. § 13A-5-45(g). The jury then renders an advisory verdict. If it finds that aggravating factors, if any, outweigh mitigating circumstances, then the jury recommends death; otherwise, the verdict is life imprisonment without parole. § 13A-5-46(e). The jury may recommend death only if 10 jurors so agree, while a verdict of life imprisonment requires a simple majority. § 13A-5-46(f). The recommendation and vote tally are reported to the judge.
The judge then must consider all available evidence and file a written statement detailing the defendant’s crime, listing specific aggravating and mitigating factors, and imposing a sentence. Section 13A-5-47(e) provides:
“In deciding upon the sentence, the trial court shall determine whether the aggravating circumstances it finds to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances it finds to exist, and in doing so the trial court shall consider the recommendation of the jury contained in its advisory verdict, unless such a verdict has been waived pursuant to Section 13A-5-46(a) or 13A-5-46(g). While the jury’s recommendation concerning sentence shall be given consideration, it is not binding upon the court.”
If the defendant is sentenced to death, his conviction and sentence are automatically reviewed by an appellate court and, if affirmed, a writ of certiorari is granted by the Alabama Supreme Court as a matter of right. In addition to reviewing the record for errors, the appellate courts must independently weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances and determine whether the death penalty is disproportionate to sentences rendered in comparable cases. § 13A-5-53(b).
Petitioner Louise Harris was married to the victim, a deputy sheriff, and was also having an affair with Lorenzo Mc-Carter. She asked McCarter to find someone to kill her husband, and McCarter to that end approached a co-worker, who refused and reported the solicitation to his supervisor. Mc-Carter then found willing accomplices in Michael Sockwell and Alex Hood, who were paid $100 and given a vague promise of more money upon performance. On the appointed night, as her husband left for work on the night shift, Harris called McCarter on his beeper to alert him. McCarter and Hood sat in a car parked on a nearby street, and Sockwell hid in the bushes next to a stop sign. As the victim stopped his car at the intersection, Sockwell sprang forth and shot him, point blank, with a shotgun. Harris was arrested after questioning, and McCarter agreed to bear witness to the conspiracy in exchange for the prosecutor’s promise not to seek the death penalty. McCarter testified that Harris had asked him to kill her husband so they could share in his death benefits, which totaled about $250,000.
The jury convicted Harris of capital murder. At the sentencing hearing, a number of witnesses attested to her good background and strong character. She was rearing seven children, held three jobs simultaneously, and participated actively in her church. The jury recommended, by a 7 to 5 vote, that she be imprisoned for life without parole. The trial judge then considered her sentence, finding the existence of one aggravating circumstance, that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain, and one statutory mitigator, that Harris had no prior criminal record. The trial judge also found as nonstatutory mitigating circumstances that Harris was a hardworking, respected member of her church and community. Noting that Harris had planned the crime and financed its commission and stood to benefit the most from her husband’s murder, the judge concluded that “the one statutory aggravating circumstance found and considered far outweighs all of the non-statutory mitigating circumstances, and that the sentence ought to be death.” App. 7. In separate proceedings, all the conspirators were convicted of capital murder. McCarter and Hood received prison terms of life without parole; Sockwell, the triggerman, was sentenced to death after the trial judge rejected a jury recommendation, again by a 7 to 5 vote, of life imprisonment.
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Harris’ conviction and sentence. 632 So. 2d 503 (1992). It noted that Alabama’s death penalty statute is based on Florida’s sentencing scheme, which we have held to be constitutional, see Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 457-467 (1984); Prof-fitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 252 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). One difference is that jury recommendations are to be given “great weight” by the sentencing judge in Florida, see Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975), whereas Alabama only requires the judge to “consider” the advisory verdict. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Harris’ contention that Florida’s so-called Tedder standard is constitutionally required, however. 632 So. 2d, at 538. As the statute prescribes, the court then reviewed the record for prejudicial errors and independently weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Finding no errors and concluding that death was the proper sentence, the court affirmed. Id., at 542-543. The Alabama Supreme Court also affirmed, discussing an unrelated claim. 632 So. 2d 543 (1993). We granted certiorari. 512 U. S. 1234 (1994).
II
Alabama’s capital sentencing scheme is much like that of Florida. Both require jury participation in the sentencing process but give ultimate sentencing authority to the trial judge. Ala. Code §13A-5-47(e) (1994); Fla. Stat. §921.141(3) (1985). A sentence of death in both States is subject to automatic appellate review. Ala. Code §13A-5-55 (1994); Fla. Stat. §921.141(4) (1985). In Florida, as in Alabama, the reviewing courts must independently weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine the propriety of the death sentence, Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(2) (1994); Harvard v. State, 375 So. 2d 833 (Fla.), cert. denied, 441 U. S. 956 (1977), and must decide whether the penalty is excessive or disproportionate compared to similar cases, Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1994); Williams v. State, 437 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U. S. 909 (1984).
The two States differ in one important respect. The Florida Supreme Court has opined that the trial judge must give “great weight” to the jury’s recommendation and may not override the advisory verdict of life unless “the facts suggesting a sentence of death [are] so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.” Tedder v. State, supra, at 910. The same deference inures to a jury recommendation of death. See Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833, 839, n. 1 (Fla. 1988) (collecting cases). The Alabama capital sentencing statute, by contrast, requires only that the judge “consider” the jury’s recommendation, and Alabama courts have refused to read the Tedder standard into the statute. See Ex parte Jones, 456 So. 2d 380, 382-383 (Ala. 1984). This distinction between the Alabama and Florida schemes forms the controversy in this case — whether the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution requires the sentencing judge to ascribe any particular weight to the verdict of an advisory jury.
We have held Florida’s capital sentencing statute to be constitutional. See Proffitt v. Florida, supra; Spaziano v. Florida, supra. In Spaziano, we addressed the specific question whether Florida could, consistent with the Constitution, vest sentencing authority in the judge and relegate the jury to an advisory role. While acknowledging that sen-fencing power resides with the jury in most States, we made clear that the “Eighth Amendment is not violated every time a State reaches a conclusion different from a majority of its sisters over how best to administer its criminal laws.” Id., at 464. We therefore rejected the contention that “placing the responsibility on a trial judge to impose the sentence in a capital case is so fundamentally at odds with contemporary standards of fairness and decency that Florida must be required to alter its scheme and give final authority to the jury to make the life-or-death decision.” Id., at 465; see also Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, 648 (1990); Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, 745 (1990).
Asserting that the death penalty serves no function in “rehabilitation,” “incapacitation,” or “deterrence],” Justice Stevens argues that a jury “should bear the responsibility to express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death in particular cases.” Post, at 517, 518 (internal quotation marks omitted). What purpose is served by capital punishment and how a State should implement its capital punishment scheme — to the extent that those questions involve only policy issues — are matters over which we, as judges, have no jurisdiction. Our power of judicial review legitimately extends only to determine whether the policy choices of the community, expressed through its legislative enactments, comport with the Constitution. As we have noted elsewhere, “while we have an obligation to insure that constitutional bounds are not overreached, we may not act as judges as we might as legislators.” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 174-175 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).
In various opinions on the Florida statute we have spoken favorably of the deference that a judge must accord the jury verdict under Florida law. While rejecting an ex post facto challenge in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 294 (1977), we noted the “crucial protection” provided by the standard of Tedder v. State, supra, at 910. In the same fashion, in dismissing Spaziano’s argument that the Tedder standard was wrongly applied by the lower courts in his case, we stated:
“This Court already has recognized the significant safeguard the Tedder standard affords a capital defendant in Florida. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 294-295 (1977). See also Proffitt, 428 U. S., at 249 (joint opinion). We are satisfied that the Florida Supreme Court takes that standard seriously and has not hesitated to reverse a trial court if it derogates the jury’s role.” Spaziano, supra, at 465.
These statements of approbation, however, do not mean that the Tedder standard is constitutionally required. As we stated in Spaziano immediately following the passage quoted above: “Our responsibility, however, is not to second-guess the deference accorded the jury’s recommendation in a particular case, but to ensure that the result of the process is not arbitrary or discriminatory.” 468 U. S., at 465. We thus made clear that, our praise for Tedder notwithstanding, the hallmark of the analysis is not the particular weight a State chooses to place upon the jury’s advice, but whether the scheme adequately channels the sentencer’s discretion so as to prevent arbitrary results. See also Proffitt, 428 U. S., at 252-253 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).
Consistent with established constitutional law, Alabama has chosen to guide the sentencing decision by requiring the jury and judge to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Harris does not challenge this legislative choice. And she objects to neither the vesting of sentencing authority in the judge nor the requirement that the advisory verdict be considered in the process. What she seeks instead is a constitutional mandate as to how that verdict should be considered; relying on Florida’s standard, she suggests that the judge must give “great weight” to the jury’s advice.
We have rejected the notion that “a specific method for balancing mitigating and aggravating factors in a capital sentencing proceeding is constitutionally required.” Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U. S. 164, 179 (1988). Equally settled is the corollary that the Constitution does not require a State to ascribe any specific weight to particular factors, either in aggravation or mitigation, to be considered by the sentences See, e. g., Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U. S. 299, 306-307 (1990); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 113-115 (1982); Proffitt, supra, at 257-258 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). To require that “great weight” be given to the jury recommendation here, one of the criteria to be considered by the sentencer, would offend these established principles and place within constitutional ambit micromanagement tasks that properly rest within the State’s discretion to administer its criminal justice system. We therefore hold that the Eighth Amendment does not require the State to define the weight the sentencing judge must accord an advisory jury verdict.
Harris argues that, under Alabama law, the verdict is more than advisory and that the jury in fact enjoys the key sentencing role, subject only to review by the judge. For support, she points to Alabama cases reversing death sentences where prejudicial errors were committed before the advisory jury. See Ex parte Williams, 556 So. 2d 744, 745 (Ala. 1987). Unless the jury played a key role, so goes the argument, reversal would not be warranted because the sentencing judge was not exposed to the same harmful error. The flaw in this contention is that reversal is proper so long as the jury recommendation plays a role in the judge’s decision, not necessarily a determinative one. If the judge must consider the jury verdict in sentencing a capital defendant, as the statute plainly requires, then it follows that a sentence is invalid if the recommendation upon which it partially rests was rendered erroneously. In Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U. S. 1079 (1992), the advisory jury, but not the sentencing judge, was presented with an invalid aggravating factor. We summarily reversed the death sentence, explaining that “Florida has essentially split the weighing process in two. Initially, the jury weighs aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the result of that weighing process is then in turn weighed within the trial court’s process of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Id., at 1082. Error is committed when the jury considers an invalid factor and its verdict is in turn considered by the judge: “This kind of indirect weighing of an invalid aggravating factor creates the same potential for arbitrariness as the direct weighing of an invalid aggravating factor, and the result, therefore, was error.” Ibid, (citation omitted). Such consequential error attaches whenever the jury recommendation is considered in the process, not only when it is given great weight by the judge.
We have observed in the Florida context that permitting the trial judge to reject the jury’s advisory verdict may afford capital defendants “a second chance for life with the trial judge,” Dobbert, 432 U. S., at 296. In practice, however, Alabama’s sentencing scheme has yielded some ostensibly surprising statistics. According to the Alabama Prison Project, there have been only 5 cases in which the judge rejected an advisory verdict of death, compared to 47 instances where the judge imposed a death sentence over a jury recommendation of life. Statistics compiled by the Alabama Prison Project (Nov. 29, 1994) (lodged with the Clerk of this Court). But these numbers do not tell the whole story. We do not know, for instance, how many cases in which a jury recommendation of life imprisonment is adopted would have ended differently had the judge not been required to consider the jury’s advice. Without such a subjective look into the minds of the decisionmakers, the deceptively objective numbers afford at best an incomplete picture. Even assuming that these statistics reflect a true view of capital sentencing in Alabama, they say little about whether the scheme is constitutional. That question turns not solely on a numerical tabulation of actual death sentences as compared to a hypothetical alternative, but rather on whether the penalties imposed are the product of properly guided discretion and not of arbitrary whim. If the Alabama statute indeed has not had the effect that we or its drafters had anticipated, such unintended results would be of little constitutional consequence. An ineffectual law is for the state legislature to amend, not for us to annul.
Harris draws our attention to apparent disparities in the weight given to jury verdicts in different cases in Alabama. For example, the trial judge here did not specify his reason for rejecting the jury’s advice but in another case wrote that he accorded “great weight” to the recommendation, State v. Coral, No. CC-88-741 (Montgomery Cty., June 26, 1992), Alabama Capital Sentencing Orders, p. 72 (lodged with the Clerk of this Court). In rejecting the jury verdict, other judges have commented variously that there was a “reasonable basis” to do so, State v. Parker, No. CC-88-105 (Colbert Cty., Dec. 3, 1991), Alabama Capital Sentencing Orders, at 408, that the verdict was “unquestionably a bizarre result,” Ex parte Hays, 518 So. 2d 768, 777 (Ala. 1986), or that “if this were not a proper case for the death penalty to be imposed, a proper case can scarcely be imagined,” State v. Frazier, No. CC-85-3291 (Mobile Cty., July 31, 1990), Alabama Capital Sentencing Orders, at 139. Juxtaposing these statements, Harris argues that the Alabama statute permits judges to reject arbitrarily the advisory verdict, thereby abusing their sentencing discretion.
But these statements do not indicate that the judges have divergent understandings of the statutory requirement that the jury verdicts be considered; they simply illustrate how different judges have “considered” the jury’s advice. There is no reason to expect that the advisory verdicts will be treated uniformly in every case. The Alabama statute provides that the weighing process “shall not be defined to mean a mere tallying of aggravating and mitigating circumstances for the purpose of numerical comparison,” Ala. Code § 13 A-5-48 (1994), which is no less than what the Constitution requires, see Proffitt, 428 U. S., at 258 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). The disparate treatment of jury verdicts simply reflects the fact that, in the subjective weighing process, the emphasis given to each decisional criterion must of necessity vary in order to account for the particular circumstances of each case. See Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S., at 112 (“[A] consistency produced by ignoring individual differences is a false consistency”). In any event, Harris does not show how the various statements affect her case. She does not bring an equal protection claim, and she does not contest the lower courts’ conclusion that her sentence is proportionate to that imposed in similar cases. The sentiments expressed in unrelated cases do not render her punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.
The Constitution permits the trial judge, acting alone, to impose a capital sentence. It is thus not offended when a State further requires the sentencing judge to consider a jury’s recommendation and trusts the judge to give it the proper weight. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court.
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (TRCA), 106 Stat. 3567, subjects the States to suits brought under § 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) for false and misleading advertising, 60 Stat. 441, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a). The question presented in this case is whether that provision is effective to permit suit against a State for its alleged misrepresentation of its own product — either because the TRCA effects a constitutionally permissible abrogation of state sovereign immunity, or because the TRCA operates as an invitation to waiver of such immunity which is automatically accepted by a State’s engaging in the activities regulated by the Lanham Act.
I
In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), we asserted jurisdiction over an action in assumpsit brought by a South Carolina citizen against the State of Georgia. In so doing, we reasoned that Georgia’s sovereign immunity was qualified by the general jurisdictional provisions of Article III, and, most specifically, by the provision extending the federal judicial power to controversies “between a State and Citizens of another State.” U. S. Const., Art. III, §2, cl. 1. The “shock of surprise” created by this decision, Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313, 325 (1934), prompted the immediate adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, which provides:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
Though its precise terms bar only federal jurisdiction over suits brought against one State by citizens of another State or foreign state, we have long recognized that the Eleventh Amendment accomplished much more: It repudiated the central premise of Chisholm that the jurisdictional heads of Article III superseded the sovereign immunity that the States possessed before entering the Union. This has been our understanding of the Amendment since the landmark case of Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890). See also Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 497-498 (1921); Principality of Monaco, supra, at 320-328, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 97-98 (1984); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54, 66-68 (1996).
While this immunity from suit is not absolute, we have recognized only two circumstances in which an individual may sue a State. First, Congress may authorize such a suit in the exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment — an Amendment enacted after the Eleventh Amendment and specifically designed to alter the federal-state balance. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). Second, a State may waive its sovereign immunity by consenting to suit. Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447-448 (1883). This ease turns on whether either of these two circumstances is present.
II
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a), enacted in 1946, created a private right of action against “[a]ny person” who uses false descriptions or makes false representations in commerce. The TRCA amends § 43(a) by defining “any person” to include “any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity.” §3(c), 106 Stat. 3568. The TRCA further amends the Lanham Act to provide that such state entities “shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity for any violation under this Act,” and that remedies shall be available against such state entities “to the same extent as such remedies are available... in a suit against” a nonstate entity. §3(b) (codified in 15 U.S.C. §1122).
Petitioner College Savings Bank is a New Jersey chartered bank located in Princeton, New Jersey. Since 1987, it has marketed and sold CollegeSure certificates of deposit designed to finance the costs of college education. College Savings holds a patent upon the methodology of administering its CollegeSure certificates. Respondent Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (Florida Prepaid) is an arm of the State of Florida. Since 1988, it has administered a tuition prepayment program designed to provide individuals with sufficient funds to cover future college expenses. College Savings brought a patent infringement action against Florida Prepaid in United States District Court in New Jersey. That action is the subject of today’s decision in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, ante, p. 627. In addition, and in the same court, College Savings filed the instant action alleging that Florida Prepaid violated § 43(a) of the Lanham Act by making misstatements about its own tuition savings plans in its brochures and annual reports.
Florida Prepaid moved to dismiss this action on the ground that it was barred by sovereign immunity. It argued that Congress had not abrogated sovereign immunity in this case because the TRCA was enacted pursuant to Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution and, under our decisions in Seminole Tribe, supra, and Fitzpatrick, supra, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity only when it legislates to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the TRCA. Both it and College Savings argued that, under the doctrine of constructive waiver articulated in Parden v. Terminal R. Co. of Ala. Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), Florida Prepaid had waived its immunity from Lan-ham Act suits by engaging in the interstate marketing and administration of its program after the TRCA made clear that such activity would subject Florida Prepaid to suit. College Savings also argued that Congress’s purported abrogation of Florida Prepaid’s sovereign immunity in the TRCA was effective, since it was enacted not merely pursuant to Article I but also to enforce the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court rejected both of these arguments and granted Florida Prepaid’s motion to dismiss. 948 F. Supp. 400 (N. J. 1996). The Court of Appeals affirmed. 181 F. 3d 353 (CA3 1997). We granted certiorari. 525 U. S. 1063 (1999).
III
We turn first to the contention that Florida’s sovereign immunity was validly abrogated. Our decision three Terms ago in Seminole Tribe, supra, held that the power “to regulate Commerce” conferred by Article I of the Constitution gives Congress no authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity. As authority for the abrogation in the present case, petitioner relies upon §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which we held in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, supra, and reaffirmed in Seminole Tribe, see 517 U. S., at 72-73, could be used for that purpose.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of... property... without due process of law.” Section 5 provides that “[t]he Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” We made clear in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 516-529 (1997), that the term “enforce” is to be taken seriously — that the object of valid §5 legislation must be the earefiilly delimited remediation or prevention of constitutional violations. Petitioner claims that, with respect to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, Congress enacted the TRCA to remedy and prevent state deprivations without due process of two species of “property” rights: (1) a right to be free from a business competitor’s false advertising about its own product, and (2) a more generalized right to be secure in one’s business interests. Neither of these qualifies as a property right protected by the Due Process Clause.
As to the first: The hallmark of a protected property interest is the right to exclude others. That is “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.” Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 176 (1979). That is why the right that we all possess to use the public lands is not the “property” right of anyone — hence the sardonic maxim, explaining what economists call the “tragedy of the commons,” res publica, res nullius. The Lanham Act may well contain provisions that protect constitutionally cognizable property interests — notably, its provisions dealing with infringement of trademarks, which are the “property” of the owner because he can exclude others from using them. See, e. g., K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U. S. 176, 185-186 (1988) (“Trademark law, like contract law, confers private rights, which are themselves rights of exclusion. It grants the trademark owner a bundle of such rights”). The Lanham Act’s false-advertising provisions, however, bear no relationship to any right to exclude; and Florida Prepaid’s alleged misrepresentations concerning its own products intruded upon no interest over which petitioner had exclusive dominion.
Unsurprisingly, petitioner points to no decision of this Court (or of any other court, for that matter) recognizing a property right in freedom from a competitor’s false advertising about its own products. The closest petitioner comes is dicta in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215, 236 (1918), where the Court found equity jurisdiction over an unfair-competition claim because “[t]he rule that a court of equity concerns itself only in the protection of property rights treats any civil right of a pecuniary nature as a property right.” But to say that a court of equity “treats any civil right of a pecuniary nature as a property right” is not to say that all civil rights of a pecuniary nature are property rights. In fact, when one reads the full passage from which this statement is taken it is clear that the Court was saying just the opposite, namely, that equity will treat civil rights of a pecuniary nature as property rights even though they are properly not such:
“In order to sustain the jurisdiction of equity over the controversy, we need not affirm any general and absolute property in the news as such. The rule that a court of equity concerns itself only in the protection of property rights treats any civil right of a pecuniary nature as a property right... ; and the right to acquire property by honest labor or the conduct of a lawful business is as much entitled to protection as the right to guard property already acquired.... It is this right that furnishes the basis of the jurisdiction in the ordinary case of unfair competition.” Id., at 286-237.
We may also note that the unfair competition at issue in International News Service amounted to nothing short of theft of proprietary information, something in which a power to “exclude others” could be said to exist. See id., at 233.
Petitioner argues that the common-law tort of unfair competition “by definition” protects property interests, Brief for Petitioner 15, and thus the TRCA “by definition” is designed to remedy and prevent deprivations of such interests in the false-advertising context. Even as a logical matter, that does not follow, since not everything which protects property interests is designed to remedy or prevent deprivations of those property interests. A municipal ordinance prohibiting billboards in residential areas protects the property interests of homeowners, although erecting billboards would ordinarily not deprive them of property. To sweep within the Fourteenth Amendment the elusive property interests that are “by definition” protected by unfair-competition law would violate our frequent admonition that the Due Process Clause is not merely a “font of tort law.” Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 701 (1976).
Petitioner’s second assertion of a property interest rests upon an argument similar to the one just discussed, and suffers from the same flaw. Petitioner argues that businesses are “property” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause, and that Congress legislates under § 5 when it passes a law that prevents state interference with business (which false advertising does). Brief for Petitioner 19-20. The assets of a business (including its good will) unquestionably are property, and any state taking of those assets is unquestionably a “deprivation” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But business in the sense of the activity of doing business, or the activity of making a profit is not property in the ordinary sense — and it is only that, and not any business asset, which is impinged upon by a competitor’s false advertising.
Finding that there is no deprivation of property at issue here, we need not pursue the follow-on question that City of Boerne would otherwise require us to resolve: whether the prophylactic measure taken under purported authority of §5 (viz., prohibition of States’ sovereign-immunity claims, which are not in themselves violations of the Fourteenth Amendment) was genuinely necessary to prevent violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We turn next to the question whether Florida’s sovereign immunity, though not abrogated, was voluntarily waived.
IV
We have long recognized that a State’s sovereign immunity is “a personal privilege which it may waive at pleasure.” Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S., at 447. The decision to waive that immunity, however, “is altogether voluntary on the part of the sovereignty.” Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 529 (1858). Accordingly, our “test for determining whether a State has waived its immunity from federal-court jurisdiction is a stringent one.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 478 U. S. 234, 241 (1985). Generally, we will find a waiver either if the State voluntarily invokes our jurisdiction, Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U. S. 273, 284 (1906), or else if the State makes a "clear declaration” that it intends to submit itself to our jurisdiction, Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47, 54 (1944). See also Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S., at 99 (State’s consent to suit must be "unequivocally expressed”). Thus, a State does not consent to suit in federal court merely by consenting to suit in the courts of its own creation. Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 441—445 (1900). Nor does it consent to suit in federal court merely by stating its intention to “sue and be sued,” Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147, 149-150 (1981) (per curiam), or even by authorizing suits against it “‘in any court of competent jurisdiction,’ ” Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Common, 327 U. S. 573, 577-579 (1946). We have even held that a State may, absent any contractual commitment to the contrary, alter the conditions of its waiver and apply those changes to a pending suit. Beers v. Arkansas, supra.
There is no suggestion here that respondent Florida Prepaid expressly consented to being sued in federal court. Nor is this a ease in which the State has affirmatively invoked our jurisdiction. Rather, petitioner College Savings and the United States both maintain that Florida Prepaid has "impliedly” or “constructively” waived its immunity from Lanham Act suit. They do so on the authority of Parden v. Terminal R. Co. of Ala. Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184 (1964)— an elliptical opinion that stands at the nadir of our waiver (and, for that matter, sovereign-immunity) jurisprudence. In Parden, we permitted employees of a railroad owned and operated by Alabama to bring an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) against their employer. Despite the absence of any provision in the statute specifically referring to the States, we held that the Act authorized suits against the States by virtue of its general provision subjecting to suit "[e]very common carrier by railroad... engaging in commerce between... the several States,” 45 U. S. C. §51 (1940 ed.). We further held that Alabama had waived its immunity from FELA suit even though Alabama law expressly disavowed any such waiver:
“By enacting the [FELA]... Congress conditioned the right to operate a railroad in interstate commerce upon amenability to suit in federal court as provided by the Act; by. thereafter operating a railroad in interstate commerce, Alabama must be taken to have accepted that condition and thus to have consented to suit.” 377 U. S., at 192.
The four dissenting Justices in Parden refused to infer a waiver because Congress had not “expressly declared” that a State operating in commerce would be subject to liability, but they went on to acknowledge — in a concession that, strictly speaking, was not necessary to their analysis — that Congress possessed the power to effect such a waiver of the State’s constitutionally protected immunity so long as it did so with clarity. Id., at 198-200 (opinion of White, J.).
Only nine years later, in Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U. S. 279 (1973), we began to retreat from Parden. That case held — in an opinion written by one of the Parden dissenters over the solitary dissent of Parderis author — that the State of Missouri was immune from a suit brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act by employees of its state health facilities. Although the statute specifically covered the state hospitals in question, see 29 U. S. C. § 203(d) (1964 ed.), and such coverage was unquestionably enforceable in federal court by the United States, 411 U. S., at 285-286, we did not think that the statute expressed with clarity Congress’s intention to supersede the States’ immunity from suits brought by individuals. We “put to one side” the Parden case, which we characterized as involving “dramatic circumstances” and “a rather isolated state activity,” 411 U. S., at 285, unlike the provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act in question that applied to a broad class of state employees. We also distinguished the railroad in Parden on the ground that it was “operated for profit” “in the area where private persons and corporations normally ran the enterprise.” 411 U. S., at 284. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Stewart, went even further, concluding that although, in their view, Congress had clearly purported to subject the States to suits by individuals in federal courts, it lacked the constitutional authority to do so. Id., at 287, 289-290 (opinion concurring in result).
The next year, we observed (in dictum) that there is “no place” for the doctrine of constructive waiver in our sovereign-immunity jurisprudence, and we emphasized that we would “find waiver only where stated by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 673 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted). Several Terms later, in Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U. S. 468 (1987), although we expressly avoided addressing the constitutionality of Congress’s conditioning a State’s engaging in Commerce Clause activity upon the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity, we said there was “no doubt that Parden’s discussion of congressional intent to negate Eleventh Amendment immunity is no longer good law,” and overruled Parden “to the extent [it] is inconsistent with the requirement that an abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity by Congress must be expressed in unmistakably clear language,” 483 U. S., at 478, and n. 8.
College Savings and the United States concede, as they surely must, that these intervening decisions have seriously limited the holding of Parden. They maintain, however, that Employees and Welch are distinguishable, and that a core principle of Parden remains good law. A Parden-style waiver of immunity, they say, is still possible after Employees and Welch so long as the following two conditions are satisfied: First, Congress must provide unambiguously that the State will be subject to suit if it engages in certain specified conduct governed by federal regulation. Second, the State must voluntarily elect to engage in the federally regulated conduct that subjects it to suit. In this latter regard, their argument goes, a State is never deemed to have constructively waived its sovereign immunity by engaging in activities that it cannot realistically choose to abandon, such as the operation of a police force; but constructive waiver is appropriate where a State runs an enterprise for profit, operates in a field traditionally occupied by private persons or corporations, engages in activities sufficiently removed from “core [state] functions,” Reply Brief for United States 3, or otherwise acts as a “market participant” in interstate commerce, cf. White v. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Employers, Inc., 460 U. S. 204, 206-208 (1983). On this theory, Florida Prepaid constructively waived its immunity from suit by engaging in the voluntary and nonessential activity of selling and advertising a for-profit educational investment vehicle in interstate commerce after being put on notice by the clear language of the TRCA that it would be subject to Lanham Act liability for doing so.
We think that the constructive-waiver experiment of Par-den was ill conceived, and see no merit in attempting to salvage any remnant of it. As we explain below in detail, Parden broke sharply with prior eases, and is fundamentally incompatible with later ones. We have never applied the holding of Parden to another statute, and in fact have narrowed the case in every subsequent opinion in which it has been under consideration. In short, Parden stands as an anomaly in the jurisprudence of sovereign immunity, and indeed in the jurisprudence of constitutional law. Today, we drop the other shoe: Whatever may remain of our decision in Parden is expressly overruled.
To begin with, we eannot square Parden with our cases requiring that a State’s express waiver of sovereign immunity be unequivocal. See, e. g., Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47 (1944). The whole point of requiring a “clear declaration” by the State of its waiver is to be certain that the State in fact consents to suit. But there is little reason to assume actual consent based upon the State’s mere presence in a field subject to congressional regulation. There is a fundamental difference between a State’s expressing unequivocally that it waives its immunity and Congress’s expressing unequivocally its intention that if the State takes certain action it shall be deemed to have waived that immunity. In the latter situation, the most that can be said with certainty is that the State has been put on notice that Congress intends to subject it to suits brought by individuals. That is very far from concluding that the State made an “altogether voluntary” decision to waive its immunity. Beers, 20 How., at 529.
Indeed, Parden-style waivers are simply unheard of in the context of other constitutionally protected privileges. As we said in Edelman, “[c]onstructive consent is not a doctrine commonly associated with the surrender of constitutional rights.” 415 U. S., at 673. For example, imagine if Congress amended the securities laws to provide with unmistakable clarity that anyone committing fraud in connection with the buying or selling of securities in interstate commerce would not be entitled to a jury in any federal criminal prosecution of such fraud. Would persons engaging in securities fraud after the adoption of such an amendment be deemed to have “constructively waived” their constitutionally protected rights to trial by jury in criminal eases? After all, the trading of securities is not so vital an activity that any one person’s decision to trade cannot be regarded as a voluntary choice. The answer, of course, is no. The classic description of an effective waiver of a constitutional right is the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938). “[C]ourts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver” of fundamental constitutional rights. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy ex rel. Bogash, 301 U. S. 389, 398 (1937). See also Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Ohio, 301 U. S. 292, 307 (1937) (we “do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights”). State sovereign immunity, no less than the right to trial by jury in criminal eases, is constitutionally protected. Great Northern, supra, at 51; Pennhurst, 465 U. S., at 98. And in the context oí federal sovereign immunity — obviously the closest analogy to the present case — it is well established that waivers are not implied. See, e.g., United States v. King, 395 U. S. 1, 4 (1969) (describing the “settled proposi-tio[n]” that the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed”). We see no reason why the rule should be different with respect to state sovereign immunity.
Given how anomalous it is to speak of the “constructive waiver” of a constitutionally protected privilege, it is not surprising that the very cornerstone of the Parden opinion was the notion that state sovereign immunity is not constitutionally grounded. Parden’s discussion of waiver began with the observation:
“By empowering Congress to regulate commerce... the States necessarily surrendered any portion of their sovereignty that would stand in the way of such regulation. Since imposition of the FELA right of action upon interstate railroads is within the congressional regulatory power, it must follow that application of the Act to such a railroad cannot be precluded by sovereign immunity.” 377 U. S., at 192.
See also id., at 193-194, n. 11. Our more recent decision in Seminole Tribe expressly repudiates that proposition, and in formally overruling Parden we do no more than make explicit what that case implied.
Recognizing a congressional power to exact constructive waivers of sovereign immunity through the exercise of Article I powers would also, as a practical matter, permit Congress to circumvent the antiabrogation holding of Seminole Tribe. Forced waiver and abrogation are not even different sides of the same coin — they are the same side of the same coin. “All congressional creations of private rights of action attach recovery to the defendant’s commission of some act, or possession of some status, in a field where Congress has authority to regulate conduct. Thus, all federal prescriptions are, insofar as their prospective application is concerned, in a sense conditional, and — to the extent that the objects of the prescriptions consciously engage in the activity or hold the status that produces liability — can be rede-scribed as invitations to ‘waiver.’ ” Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1, 43 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting). See also Fitzpatrick, 427 U. S., at 451-452 (referring to congressional intent to “abrogate” state sovereign immunity as a “necessary predicate” for Parden-style waiver). There is little more than a verbal distinction between saying that Congress can make Florida liable to private parties for false or misleading advertising in interstate commerce of its prepaid tuition program, and saying the same thing but adding at the end “if Florida chooses to engage in such advertising.” As further evidence that constructive waiver is little more than abrogation under another name, consider the revealing facts of this case: The statutory provision relied upon to demonstrate that Florida constructively waived its sovereign immunity is the very same provision that purported to abrogate it.
Nor do we think that the constitutionally grounded principle of state sovereign immunity is any less robust where, as here, the asserted basis for constructive waiver is conduct that the State realistically could choose to abandon, that is undertaken for profit, that is traditionally performed by private citizens and corporations, and that otherwise resembles the behavior of “market participants.” Permitting abrogation or constructive waiver of the constitutional right only when these conditions exist would of course limit the evil— but it is hard to say that that limitation has any more support in text or tradition than, say, limiting abrogation or constructive waiver to the last Friday of the month. Since sovereign immunity itself was not traditionally limited by these factors, and since they have no bearing upon the volun-tariness of the waiver, there is no principled reason why they should enter into our waiver analysis. When we held in Seminole Tribe that sovereign immunity barred an action brought under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act against the State of Florida for its alleged failure to negotiate a gambling compact with the Seminole Tribe of Indians, we did not pause to consider whether Florida’s decision not to negotiate was somehow involuntary. Nor did we pause to consider whether running a tugboat towing service at “fair and reasonable rates” was for profit, was traditionally performed by private citizens and corporations, and otherwise resembled the behavior of “market participants” when we held, in Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490 (1921), that sovereign immunity foreclosed an admiralty action against the State of New York for damages caused by the State’s engaging in such activity. Hans itself involved an action against Louisiana to recover coupons on a bond — the issuance of which surely rendered Louisiana a participant in the financial markets.
The “market participant” eases from our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, relied upon by the United States, are inapposite. See, e.g., White v. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Employers, Inc., 460 U. S. 204 (1983); Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429 (1980); and Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U. S. 794 (1976). Those cases hold that, where a State acts as a participant in the private market, it may prefer the goods or services of its own citizens, even though it could not do so while acting as a market regulator. Since “state proprietary activities may be, and often are, burdened with the same restrictions imposed on private market participants,” “[ejvenhandedness suggests that, when acting as proprietors, States should similarly share existing freedoms from federal constraints, including the inherent limits of the [dormant] Commerce Clause,” White, supra, at 207-208, n. 3. The “market participant” exception to judicially created dormant Commerce Clause restrictions makes sense because the evil addressed by those restrictions — the prospect that States will use custom duties, exclusionary trade regulations, and other exercises of governmental power (as opposed to the expenditure of state resources) to favor their own citizens, see Hughes, supra, at 808 — is entirely absent where the States are buying and selling in the market. In contrast, a suit by an individual against an unconsenting State is the very evil at which the Eleventh Amendment is directed — and it exists whether or not the State is acting for profit, in a traditionally “private” enterprise, and as a “market participant.” In the sovereign-immunity context, moreover, “[e]venhandness” between individuals and States is not to be expected: “[T]he constitutional role of the States sets them apart from other employers and defendants.” Welch, 483 U. S., at 477. Cf. Atascadero, 473 U. S., at 246.
The United States points to two other contexts in which it asserts we have permitted Congress, in the exercise of its Article I powers, to extract “constructive waivers” of state sovereign immunity. In Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, 359 U. S. 275 (1959), we held that a bistate commission which had been created pursuant to an interstate compact (and which we assumed partook of state sovereign immunity) had consented to suit by reason of a suability provision attached to the congressional approval of the compact. And we have held in such cases as South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203 (1987), that Congress may, in the exercise of its spending power, condition its grant of funds to the States upon their taking certain actions that Congress could not require them to take, and that acceptance of the funds entails an agreement to the actions. These cases seem to us fundamentally different from the present one. Under the Compact Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §10, cl. 3, States cannot form an interstate compact without first obtaining the express consent of Congress; the granting of such consent is a gratuity. So also, Congress has no obligation to use its Spending Clause power to disburse funds to the States; such funds are gifts. In the present case, however, what Congress threatens if the State refuses to agree to its condition is not the denial of a gift or gratuity, but a sanction: exclusion of the State from otherwise permissible activity. Justice Breyer’s dissent acknowledges the intuitive difference between the two, but asserts that it disappears when the gift that is threatened to be withheld is substantial enough. Post, at 697. Perhaps so, which is why, in eases involving conditions attached to federal funding, we have acknowledged that “the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’ ” Dole, supra, at 211, quoting Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548, 590 (1937). In any event, we think where the constitutionally guaranteed protection of the States’ sovereign immunity is involved, the point of coercion is automatically passed — and the voluntariness of waiver destroyed — when what is attached to the refusal to waive is the exclusion of the State from otherwise lawful activity.
V
The principal thrust of Justice Breyer’s dissent is an attack upon the very legitimacy of state sovereign immunity itself. In this regard, Justice Breyer and the other dissenters proclaim that they are “not yet ready,” post, at 699 (emphasis added), to adhere to the still-warm precedent of Seminole Tribe and to the 110-year-old decision in Hans that supports it. Accordingly, Justice Breyer reiterates (but only in outline form, thankfully) the now-fashionable revisionist accounts of the Eleventh Amendment set forth in other opinions in a degree.of repetitive detail that has despoiled our northern woods. Compare post, at 700-701, with Atascadero, supra, at 258-302 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Welch, supra, at 504-516 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 76-99 (Stevens, J., dissenting); id., at 100-185 (Soüter, J., dissenting). But see Alden v. Maine, post, at 760-808 (Souter, J., dissenting). The arguments recited in these sources have been soundly refuted,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board respondents did not except to the terms of an order dirécting them to cease and desist from certain practices found to violate §8 (b)(4) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(4)(A), as regards the employees of a named employer “or any other employer” where an object is to force or require the named employer “or any other employer or person” to cease doing business with a named primary contractor. The Court of Appeals in enforcement proceedings modified the order, among other ways, by striking the references to “any other employer” and to “any other employer or person.” 283 F. 2d 26. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with directions that a judgment be entered which affirms and enforces the Board order after restoring these deleted provisions. Labor Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U. S. 385; § 10 (e), 49 Stat. 454, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (e). See also Labor Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., ante, p. 318.
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.
Petitioner Thomas West brought a “hybrid” suit against his employer, his union, and his union representative under the Railway Labor Act. He alleged that the employer had breached the collective-bargaining agreement and that the union and its representative had breached their duty of fair representation. The parties agree, for the purpose of our review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, that petitioner’s cause of action accrued on March 25,1984, the date petitioner learned of the alleged breach of the union’s duty of fair representation. His complaint was filed on September 24, 1984, less than six months after the statute of limitations began to run. The summonses and complaints were mailed to respondents on October 10, 1984. Respondents acknowledged service of the complaint on dates ranging from October 12, 1984, through November 1, 1984. Thus, both the date on which the complaints were mailed and the date when the first acknowledgment of service was made were more than six months after the statute began to run.
Because service was not effected within the 6-month period prescribed in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment. App. to Pet. for Cert. 15a. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. 780 F. 2d 361 (1986). We granted certiorari, 478 U. S. 1004 (1986), because the Third Circuit’s decision is at odds with a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Macon v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 779 F. 2d 1166 (1985), cert. pending, No. 85-1400.
Congress did not enact a federal statute of limitations that is expressly applicable to federal duty of fair representation claims. In DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983), we filled that gap in federal law by deciding that the 6-month period prescribed in § 10(b) should be applied to hybrid claims under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 185. Section 10(b) authorizes the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to issue a complaint when a charging party asserts that an employer or a union has engaged in an unfair labor practice. The statute does not impose any time limit on the issuance of such a complaint, but it does provide that “no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made . . . See n. 1, supra. Given our holding in DelCostello, the Court of Appeals read this statutory language to require in hybrid suits of this kind that both the filing and the service of the complaint be made within the 6-month period of limitations. We did not, however, intend that result.
The only gap in federal law that we intended to fill in DelCostello was the appropriate limitations period. We did not intend to replace any part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with any part of § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, and Rule 4 governs the procedure for effecting service and the period within which service must be made. The clerk of the district court must “forthwith issue a summons and deliver the summons to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney, who shall be responsible for prompt service of the summons and a copy of the complaint.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(a). Service must normally be made within 120 days. See Rule 4(j). Although we have not expressly so held before, we now hold that when the underlying cause of action is based on federal law and the absence of an express federal statute of limitations makes it necessary to borrow a limitations period from another statute, the action is not barred if it has been “commenced” in compliance with Rule 3 within the borrowed period. See 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1056 (1969). We decline respondents’ invitation to require that when a federal court borrows a statute of limitations to apply to a federal cause of action, the statute of limitation’s provisions for service must necessarily also be followed, even when the borrowed statute is to be applied in a context somewhat different from the one in which those procedural rules originated.
Inevitably our resolution of cases or controversies requires us to close interstices in federal law from time to time, but when it is necessary for us to borrow a statute of limitations for a federal cause of action, we borrow no more than necessary. Here, because of the availability of Rule 3, there is no lacuna as to whether the action was brought within the borrowed limitations period.
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.
Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 453, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 160(b), provides:
“Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, the Board, or any agent or agency designated by the Board for such purposes, shall have power to issue and cause to be served upon such person a complaint stating the charges in that respect, and containing a notice of hearing before the Board or a member thereof, or before a designated agent or agency, at a place therein fixed, not less than five days after the serving of said complaint: Provided, That no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made, unless the person aggrieved thereby was prevented from filing such charge by reason of service in the armed forces, in which event the six-month period shall be computed from the day of his discharge. Any such complaint may be amended by the member, agent, or agency conducting the hearing or the Board in its discretion at any time prior to the issuance of an order based thereon. The person so complained of shall have the right to file an answer to the original or amended complaint and to appear in person or otherwise and give testimony at the place and time fixed in the complaint. In the discretion of the member, agent, or agency conducting the hearing or the Board, any other person may be allowed to intervene in the said proceeding and to present testimony. Any such proceeding shall, so far as practicable, be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable in the district courts of the United States under the rules of civil procedure for the district courts of the United States, adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to section 2072 of title 28.” (Emphasis added.)
Although DelCostello and the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Macon v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 779 F. 2d 1166 (1985), both involved a hybrid action brought under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 185, rather than a hybrid action brought under the Railway Labor Act, the parties agree that § 10(b) provides the applicable statute of limitations in this case. We find no reason to distinguish the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, from the Railway Labor Act for the limited purpose of determining whether service must be effected within the limitations period.
Under § 10(b), the employee’s charge is timely if a copy is served personally or mailed within the limitations period. See 29 CFR § 102.113(a) (1986). The complaint in an unfair labor practice proceeding is filed by the General Counsel after he or she has investigated the employee’s charge. See 29 U. S. C. § 153(d).
When the underlying cause of action is based on state law, and federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, state law not only provides the appropriate period of limitations but also determines whether service must be effected within that period. Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U. S. 740, 752-753 (1980). Respect for the State’s substantive decision that actual service is a component of the policies underlying the statute of limitations requires that the service rule in a diversity suit “be considered part and parcel of the statute of limitations.” Id., at 752 (footnote omitted). This requirement, naturally, does not apply to federal-question cases. Indeed, Walker expressly declined to “address the role of Rule 3 as a tolling provision for a statute of limitations, whether set by federal law or borrowed from state law, if the cause of action is based on federal law.” Id., at 751, n. 11.
Our holding that the statute of limitations was tolled when the complaint was filed eliminates the potential difficulty of determining the actual dates on which service of the complaint was made on the various defendants.
In some cases, the determination of the length of the borrowed period may require examination of the tolling rules that are followed in the jurisdiction from which the statute of limitations is borrowed. See, e. g., Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 269 (1986) (suggesting that length of limitations period and “closely related questions of tolling and application” are governed by state law in action brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983); Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U. S. 650, 661-662 (1983) (§ 1988 requires borrowing Puerto Rico’s statute of limitations and its rule that, after tolling ends, the statute of limitations begins to run anew in § 1983 action); Board of Regents, Univ. of N. Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478, 484-485 (1980) (§ 1988 requires federal courts in § 1983 actions to refer to state statute of limitations and coordinate tolling rules unless state law is inconsistent with federal law). The governing principle is that we borrow only what is necessary to fill the gap left by Congress.
Respondents also argue that §10(b)’s service requirement must be adopted in order to assure that defendants receive prompt notice of suit against them. The requirement of timely service in Rule 4(j) satisfies this need without recourse to the service requirement of § 10(b). While it is possible that a defendant Will not be served with the complaint until 10 months after the cause of action accrues, this result is not inconsistent with our adoption of a 6-month statute of limitations for breach of contract/ breach of duty of fair representation claims. See DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983). The administrative scheme for unfair labor practices only requires that the charge be filed and served within six months of the date the cause of action accrued. The defendant does not receive the complaint, if any, until the General Counsel has investigated the charge and decided to proceed. Under both the administrative procedure for unfair labor practices and the judicial procedure for hybrid claims, the statute of limitations and the tolling provisions extinguish stale claims; they guarantee that the defendant is not subject to suit for conduct that occurred more than six months before the complaining party initiates appropriate legal process, by filing either a charge with the NLRB or a complaint in federal 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: | 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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
announced by The Chief Justice.
The defendants were charged in the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi with a conspiracy to violate 18 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 215 and numerous substantive violations of the same section. The law provides:
“Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
The indictment charged a conspiracy to solicit contributions to the Mississippi Democratic Committee and to the defendants personally in return for promises to use influence to obtain for the contributors appointments in the Post Office Department and in the Office of Price Stabilization. Other counts of the indictment charged substantive violations. Material here are counts 31, 32, and 33 charging the solicitation by two of the defendants of three $300 political contributions from named individuals in return for the promise of support and influence on behalf of the contributors to secure for them appointments as Chairmen of the County Ration Boards of Pike, Amite and Lawrence Counties, respectively. It is stipulated that no such offices were in existence at the time of the solicitation or at any time thereafter up to the return of the indictment. Authority to create such offices, however, had been granted to the President, well before the violations charged, by the Defense Production Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 798, 807, 50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. IV) § 2103.
Defendants successfully moved to dismiss these portions of the indictment on the ground that the statute did not make criminal the sale of non-existent offices or of influence in connection with appointments to them. The District Court also ordered stricken the references in the conspiracy count to the offices of Chairmen of County Ration Boards. The order of dismissal was appealed by the Government under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 3731. Our jurisdiction in such cases is limited to the construction of the statute involved.
We think the District Court was wrong. The statute is plainly broad enough on its face to cover the sale of influence in connection with an office which had been authorized by law and which, at the time of the sale, might reasonably be expected to be established. That was the situation here and we do not have to go further to say whether the words will cover the sale of an office which is purely the creature of the seller’s fancy.
The evil at which the statute is directed is the operation of purchased, and thus improper, influence in determining the occupants of federal office. But in attacking that evil, Congress outlawed not the use of such influence, but the solicitation of its purchase, the peddling of the forbidden wares. As is not uncommon in criminal legislation, Congress, in order to strike at the root, made the scope of the statute wider than the immediate evil. Even judges need not be blind to the fact of political life that it helps in influencing political appointments to be fore-handed with a recommendation before an office is formally created. Certainly it was not unreal for Congress to believe that the sale of influence in anticipation of jobs was equally damaging to the proper operation of the federal service and to take steps to prevent it. It did so in this Act. Nothing has been suggested, either by the sparse legislative history or by prior judicial construction, to restrain us from giving effect to the obvious, ordinary reading of the statute. It is pressed upon us that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed. But this does not mean that such legislation “must be construed by some artificial and conventional rule.” United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U. S. 50, 55. We should not read such laws so as to put in what is not readily found there. But equally we should not read out what as a matter of ordinary English speech is in.
This Act penalized corruption. It is no less corrupt to sell an office one may never be able to deliver than to sell one he can. Dealing in futures also discredits the processes of government. There is no indication that this statute punishes delivery of the fruit of the forbidden transaction — it forbids the sale. The sale is what is here alleged. Whether the corrupt transaction would or could ever be performed is immaterial. We find no basis for allowing a breach of warranty to be a defense to corruption.
Our construction of the statute does not offend the requirement of definiteness. The picture of the unsuspecting influence merchant, steering a careful course between violation of the statute on the one hand and obtaining money by false pretenses on the other by confining himself to the sale of non-existent but plausible offices, entrapped by the dubieties of this statute, is not one to commend itself to reason.
The judgment below is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.
The statute was revised and amended in 1951 in respects not material here. 65 Stat. 320.
Only one reported case has construed the statute. Hoeppel v. United States, 66 App. D. C. 71, 85 F. 2d 237. It dealt with a question unrelated to this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case because the decisions of the Supreme Court of Idaho, holding that petitioner may be liable under state law for the negligent inspection of a mine where respondents’ decedents worked, raised important questions about the operation of federal and state law in defining the duties of a labor union acting as a collective-bargaining agent.
I
This dispute arises out of an underground fire that occurred on May 2, 1972, at the Sunshine Mine in Kellogg, Idaho, and caused the deaths of 91 miners. Respondents, the survivors of four of the deceased miners, filed this state-law wrongful-death action in Idaho state court. Their complaint alleged that the miners’ deaths were proximately caused by fraudulent and negligent acts of petitioner United Steelworkers of America (Union), the exclusive bargaining representative of the miners working at the Sunshine Mine. As to the negligence claim, the complaint specifically alleged that the Union “undertook to act as accident prevention representative and enforcer of an agreement negotiated between [sic] [the Union] on behalf of the deceased miners,” App. 53-54, and “undertook to provide representatives who inspected [the Sunshine Mine] and pretended to enforce the contractual accident prevention clauses,” id., at 54. Respondents’ answers to interrogatories subsequently made clear that their suit was based on contentions that the Union had, through a collective-bargaining agreement negotiated with the operator of the Sunshine Mine, caused to be established a joint management-labor safety committee intended to exert influence on management on mine safety measures; that members of the safety committee designated by the Union had been inadequately trained on mine safety issues; and that the Únion, through its representatives on the safety committee, had negligently performed inspections of the mine that it had promised to conduct, failing to uncover obvious and discoverable deficiencies. Id., at 82-83.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Union, accepting the Union’s argument that “federal law has preempted the field of union representation and its obligation to its membership,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 164a, and that “[negligent performance of [a union’s] contractual duties does not state a claim under federal law for breach of fair representation,” id., at 163a. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed. Dunbar v. United Steelworkers of America, 100 Idaho 523, 602 P. 2d 21 (1979). In the view of the Supreme Court of Idaho, although federal law unquestionably imposed on the Union a duty of fair representation of the miners, respondents’ claims were “not necessarily based on the violation of the duty of fair representation and such is not the only duty owed by a union to its members.” Id., at 526, 602 P. 2d, at 24. Three of the five justices concurred specially to emphasize that “the precise nature of the legal issues raised by [respondents’] wrongful death action is not entirely clear at the present procedural posture of the case,” and that “a final decision whether the wrongful death action ... is preempted . . . must therefore await a full factual development.” Id., at 547, 602 P. 2d, at 25 (Bakes, J., specially concurring). We denied the Union’s petition for certiorari. Steelworkers v. Dunbar, 446 U. S. 983 (1980).
After extensive discovery, the trial court again granted summary judgment for the Union. App. to Pet. for Cert. 89a-106a. As to respondents’ fraud claim, the court concluded that the record was devoid of evidence supporting the contentions that the Union had made misrepresentations of fact, that the Union had intended to defraud the miners, or that the miners had relied on Union representations. Id., at 96a. On the negligence count, the trial court first noted that, in its view, respondents’ claims centered on the collective-bargaining contract between the Union and the Sunshine Mine, especially Article IX of the agreement, which established the joint management-labor safety committee. Id., at 90a-91a. The trial court urged the State Supreme Court to reconsider its conclusion that respondents’ state-law negligence claim was not pre-empted by federal labor law, reasoning that “[respondents] are complaining about the manner in which the Union carried out the collective bargaining agreement, essentially saying the Union advisory committee should have done more,” and that respondents “are attempting to hold the [Union] liable on the basis of its representational duties.” Id., at 103a-104a.
The Supreme Court of Idaho originally affirmed the grant of summary judgment on appeal. Id., at 49a-88a. On rehearing, however, the Idaho Supreme Court withdrew its prior opinion and concluded that respondents had stated a valid claim under Idaho law that was not pre-empted by federal labor law. Rawson v. United Steelworkers of America, 111 Idaho 630, 726 P. 2d 742 (1986). Distinguishing this Court’s decision in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202 (1985), which held that resolution of a state-law tort claim must be treated as a claim arising under federal labor law when it is substantially dependent on construction of the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement, the Supreme Court of Idaho stated that “in the instant case, the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement do not require interpretation, . . . but rather the provisions determine only the nature and scope of the Union’s duty.” 111 Idaho, at 640, 726 P. 2d, at 752. The court continued: “Our narrow holding today is that the Union, having inspected, assumed a duty to use due care in inspecting and, from the duty to use due care in inspecting arose the further duty to advise the committee of any safety problems the inspection revealed.” Ibid. The court also affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that summary judgment for the Union was proper on respondents’ fraud claim. Id., at 633, 726 P. 2d, at 745.
The Union again petitioned for certiorari. While that petition was pending, we decided Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U. S. 851 (1987), in which it was held that an individual employee’s state-law tort suit against her union for breach of the union’s duty of care to provide the employee with a safe workplace must be treated as a claim under federal labor law, when the duty of care allegedly arose from the collective-bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Six days later, we granted the Union’s petition, vacated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and remanded this case for further consideration in light of Hechler. Steelworkers v. Rawson, 482 U. S. 901 (1987).
On remand, the Supreme Court of Idaho “adhere[d] to [its] opinion as written.” 115 Idaho 785, 788, 770 P. 2d 794, 797 (1988). The court also distinguished Hechler, stressing that there we had considered a situation where the alleged duty of care arose from the collective-bargaining agreement, whereas in this case “the activity was concededly undertaken and the standard of care is imposed by state law without reference to the collective bargaining agreement.” 115 Idaho, at 786, 770 P. 2d, at 795. The court further stated that it was “not faced with looking at the Collective Bargaining Agreement to determine whether it imposes some new duty upon the union — rather it is conceded that the union undertook to inspect and, thus, the issue is solely whether that inspection was negligently performed under traditional Idaho tort law.” Id., at 787, 770 P. 2d, at 796.
We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1017 (1990), and we now reverse.
II
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185(a), states:
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, 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.”
Over 30 years ago, this Court held that § 301 not only provides the federal courts with jurisdiction over controversies involving collective-bargaining agreements but also authorizes the courts to fashion “a body of federal law for the enforcement of these collective bargaining agreements.” Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, 353 U. S. 448, 451 (1957). Since then, the Court has made clear that § 301 is a potent source of federal labor law, for though state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over controversies involving collective-bargaining agreements, Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962), state courts must apply federal law in deciding those claims, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962), and indeed any state-law cause of action for violation of collective-bargaining agreements is entirely displaced by federal law under § 301, see Avco Corp. v. Machinists, 390 U. S. 557 (1968). State law is thus “preempted” by § 301 in that only the federal law fashioned by the courts under § 301 governs the interpretation and application of collective-bargaining agreements.
In recent cases, we have recognized that the pre-emptive force of § 301 extends beyond state-law contract actions. In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, supra, we held that a state-law tort action against an employer may be pre-empted by § 301 if the duty to the employee of which the tort is a violation is created by a collective-bargaining agreement and without existence independent of the agreement. Any other result, we reasoned, would “allow parties to evade the requirements of §301 by relabeling their contract claims as claims for tortious breach of contract.” Id., at 211. We extended this rule of pre-emption to a tort suit by an employee against her union in Electrical Workers v. Hechler, supra. There Hechler alleged that her union had by virtue of its collective-bargaining agreement with the employer and its relationship with her assumed the duty to ensure that she was provided with a safe workplace, and that the union had violated this duty. As in Allis-Chalmers, the duty relied on by Hechler was one without existence independent of the collective-bargaining agreement (unions not, under the common law of Florida, being charged with a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing a safe workplace, see 481 U. S., at 859-860), but was allegedly created by the collective-bargaining agreement, of which Hechler claimed to be a third-party beneficiary, see id., at 861. Because resolution of the tort claim would require a court to “ascertain, first, whether the collective-bargaining agreement in fact placed an implied duty of care on the Union . . . , and second, the nature and scope of that duty,” id., at 862, we held that the tort claim was not sufficiently independent of the collective-bargaining agreement to withstand the preemptive force of §301.
At first glance it would not appear difficult to apply these principles to the instant case. Respondents alleged in their complaint that the Union was negligent in its role as “enforcer of an agreement negotiated between [sic] [the Union] on behalf of the deceased miners,” App. 53-54, a plain reference to the collective-bargaining agreement with the operator of the Sunshine Mine. Respondents’ answers to interrogatories gave substance to this allegation by stating that “by the contract language” of the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union had caused the establishment of the joint safety committee with purported influence on mine safety issues, and that members of the safety committee had failed reasonably to perform inspections of the mine or to uncover obvious and discoverable deficiencies in the mine safety program. App. 82-83. The only possible interpretation of these pleadings, we believe, is that the duty on which respondents relied as the basis of their tort suit was one allegedly assumed by the Union in the collective-bargaining agreement. Prior to our remand, the Supreme Court of Idaho evidently was of this view as well. The court noted then that the Union could be liable under state tort law because it allegedly had contracted to inspect, and had in fact inspected, the mine “pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.” 111 Idaho, at 638, 726 P. 2d, at 750. Although the Idaho Supreme Court believed that resolution of the tort claim would not require interpretation of the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, it acknowledged that the provisions of that agreement determined “the nature and scope of the Union’s duty,” id., at 640, 726 P. 2d, at 752.
The situation is complicated, however, by the Idaho Supreme Court’s opinion after our remand. Although the court stated that it adhered to its prior opinion as written, 115 Idaho, at 788, 770 P. 2d, at 797, it also rejected the suggestion that there was any need to look to the collective-bargaining agreement to discern whether it placed any implied duty on the Union. Rather, Idaho law placed a duty of care on the Union because the Union did, in fact, actively inspect the mine, and the Union could be held liable for the negligent performance of that inspection. Id., at 787, 770 P. 2d, at 796. According to the Supreme Court of Idaho, the Union may be liable under state tort law because its duty to perform that inspection reasonably arose from the fact of the inspection itself rather than the fact that the provision for the Union’s participation in mine inspection was contained in the labor contract.
As we see it, however, respondents’ tort claim cannot be described as independent of the collective-bargaining agreement. This is not a situation where the Union’s delegates are accused of acting in a way that might violate the duty of reasonable care owed to every person in society. There is no allegation, for example, that members of the safety committee negligently caused damage to the structure of the mine, an act that could be unreasonable irrespective of who committed it and could forseeably cause injury to any person who might possibly be in the vicinity.
Nor do we understand the Supreme Court of Idaho to have held that any casual visitor in the mine would be liable for violating some duty to the miners if the visitor failed to report obvious defects to the appropriate authorities. Indeed, the court did not disavow its previous opinion, where it acknowledged that the Union’s representatives were participating in the inspection process pursuant to the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, and that the agreement determined the nature and scope of the Union’s duty. If the Union failed to perform a duty in connection with inspection, it was a duty arising out of the collective-bargaining agreement signed by the Union as the bargaining agent for the miners. Clearly, the enforcement of that agreement and the remedies for its breach are matters governed by federal law. “[(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.” Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S., at 211. Pre-emption by federal law cannot be avoided by characterizing the Union’s negligent performance of what it does on behalf of the members of the bargaining unit pursuant to the terms of the collective-bargaining contract as a state-law tort. Accordingly, this suit, if it is to go forward at all, must proceed as a case controlled by federal, rather than state, law.
Ill
The Union insists that the case against it may not go forward even under federal law. It argues first that only the duty of fair representation governs the exercise of its representational functions under the collective-bargaining contract, and that a member may not sue it under §301 for breach of contract. Second, the Union submits that even if it may be sued under §301, the labor agreement contains no enforceable promise made by it to the members of the unit in connection with inspecting the mine. Third, the Union asserts that as the case now stands, it is charged with only negligence, which is insufficient to prove a breach of its duty of fair representation.
“It is now well established that, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, . . . the Union had a statutory duty fairly to represent all of those employees, both in its collective bargaining . . . and in its enforcement of the resulting collective bargaining agreement.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 177 (1967). “Under this doctrine, the exclusive agent’s statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, and to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.” Ibid. This duty of fair representation is of major importance, but a breach occurs “only when a union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Id., at 190. The courts have in general assumed that mere negligence, even in the enforcement of a collective-bargaining agreement, would not state a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation, and we endorse that view today.
The Union’s duty of fair representation arises from the National Labor Relations Act itself. See Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers, 493 U. S. 67, 86-87 (1989); DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151, 164 (1983); United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U. S. 56, 66 (1981) (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). The duty of fair representation is thus a matter of status rather than contract. We have never held, however, that, as a matter of federal law, a labor union is prohibited from voluntarily assuming additional duties to the employees by contract. Although at one time it may have appeared most unlikely that unions would be called upon to assume such duties, see Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 356-357 (1964) (Goldberg, J., concurring in result), nonetheless “it is of the utmost importance that the law reflect the realities of industrial life and the nature of the collective bargaining process,” id., at 358, and it may well be that if unions begin to assume duties traditionally viewed as the prerogatives of management, cf. Breininger, supra, at 87-88; Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U. S., at 859-860, employees will begin to demand that unions be held more strictly to account in their carrying out of those duties. Nor do we know what the source of law would be for such a prohibition, for “when neither the collective-bargaining process nor its end product violates any command of Congress, a federal court has no authority to modify the substantive terms of a collective-bargaining contract.” United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds v. Robinson, 455 U. S. 562, 576 (1982); cf. H. K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U. S. 99, 106-108 (1970).
Our decision in Electrical Workers v. Hechler, supra, is relevant here. There we were presented with a claim by an employee that the union had breached its duty to provide her with a safe workplace. The alleged duty was plainly based on the collective-bargaining agreement that the union had negotiated with the employer; Hechler argued that she was a third-party beneficiary of that agreement. Id., at 861, 864-865. Hechler carefully distinguished her §301 claim from a fair representation claim, id., at 864, and so did we, for the distinction had a significant effect: The statutes of limitations for the two claims are different. Id., at 863-865. We therefore accepted, and again accept, that “a labor union . . . may assume a responsibility towards employees by accepting a duty of care through a contractual agreement,” id., at 860, even if that contractual agreement is a collective-bargaining contract to which only the union and the employer are signatories.
But having said as much, we also think it necessary to emphasize caution, lest the courts be precipitate in their efforts to find unions contractually bound to employees by collective-bargaining agreements. The doctrine of fair representation is an important check on the arbitrary exercise of union power, but it is a purposefully limited check, for a “wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents.” Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330, 338 (1953). If an employee claims that a union owes him a more far-reaching duty, he must be able to point to language in the collective-bargaining agreement specifically indicating an intent to create obligations enforceable against the union by the individual employees. Cf. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650, 653 (1965).
Applying this principle to the case at hand, we are quite sure that respondents may not maintain a § 301 suit against the Union. Nothing in the collective-bargaining agreement suggests that it creates rights directly enforceable by the individual employees against the Union. The pertinent part of the collective-bargaining agreement, Article IX, consists entirely of agreements between the Union and the employer and enforceable only by them. App. 20-22. Section 2 of the Article provides that “a committee consisting of two (2) supervisory personnel and two (2) reliable employees, approved by the Union, shall inspect” the mine if an employee complains to the shift boss that he is being forced to work in unusually unsafe conditions but receives no redress, id., at 20, but even if this section might be interpreted as obliging the Union to inspect the mine in such circumstances, the promise is not one specifically made to, or enforceable by, individual employees. Nor have respondents placed anything in the record indicating that any such complaints were made or that the Union failed to act on them. Section 4 of the Article states that a Union member may accompany the state mine safety inspection team on its inspections of the mine, and Section 5 states that a Union designate and the Safety Engineer “shall make a tour of a section of the mine” once each month, id., at 22, but again the agreement gives no indication that these obligations, if such is what they are, may be enforced by an individual employee.
Moreover, under traditional principles of contract interpretation, respondents have no claim, for with exceptions under federal labor law not relevant here, see Lewis v. Benedict Coal Carp., 361 U. S. 459, 468-471 (1960), third-party beneficiaries generally have no greater rights in a contract than does the promisee. For respondents to have an enforceable right as third-party beneficiaries against the Union, at the very least the employer must have an enforceable right as promisee. But the provisions in the collective-bargaining agreement relied on by respondents are not promises by the Union to the employer. Cf. Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S., at 104-106. They are, rather, concessions made by the employer to the Union, a limited surrender of the employer’s exclusive authority over mine safety. A violation by the employer of the provisions allowing inspection of the mine by Union delegates might form the basis of a § 301 suit against the employer, but we are not presented with such a case.
IV
In performing its functions under the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union did, as it concedes, owe the miners a duty of fair representation, but we have already noted that respondents’ allegation of mere negligence will not state a claim for violation of that duty. Supra, at 372-373. Indeed, respondents have never specifically relied on the federal duty of fair representation, nor have they alleged that the Union improperly discriminated among its members or acted in arbitrary and capricious fashion in failing to exercise its duties under the collective-bargaining agreement. Cf. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S., at 177. Respondents did, of course, allege that the Union had committed fraud on the membership in violation of state law, a claim that might implicate the duty of fair representation. The Supreme Court of Idaho held, however, that summary judgment was properly entered on this claim because respondents had failed to demonstrate specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. 111 Idaho, at 633, 726 P. 2d, at 745. Respondents did not cross-petition to challenge this aspect of the Idaho Supreme Court’s judgment, and we are in no position to question it.
It follows that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Idaho must be
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Stevens
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, V, and VII, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and VI, in which Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join.
Congress enacted the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, in the words of the statute’s preamble, “to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use.” 90 Stat. 539. The question presented is whether that statute pre-empts a state common-law negligence action against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective medical device. Specifically, we must consider whether Lora Lohr, who was injured when her pacemaker failed, may rely on Florida common law to recover damages from Med-tronic, Inc., the manufacturer of the device.
HH
Throughout our history the several States have exercised their police powers to protect the health and safety of their citizens. Because these are “primarily, and historically,... matter[s] of local concern,” Hillsborough County v. Automated, Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 719 (1985), the “States traditionally have had great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons,” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 756 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Despite the prominence of the States in matters of public health and safety, in recent decades the Federal Government has played an increasingly significant role in the protection of the health of our people. Congress’ first significant enactment in the field of public health was the Food and Drug Act of 1906, a broad prohibition against the manufacture or shipment in interstate commerce of any adulterated or mis-branded food or drug. See 34 Stat. 768; Regier, The Struggle for Federal Food and Drugs Legislation, 1 Law & Contemp. Prob. 1 (1933). Partly in response to an ongoing concern about radio and newspaper advertising making false therapeutic claims for both “quack machines” and legitimate devices such as surgical instruments and orthopedic shoes, in 1938 Congress broadened the coverage of the 1906 Act to include misbranded or adulterated medical devices and cosmetics. See Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA), §§501, 502, 52 Stat. 1049-1051; Cavers, The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938: Its Legislative History and Its Substantive Provisions, 6 Law & Contemp. Prob. 2 (1939); H. R. Rep. No. 94-853, p. 6 (1976).
While the FDCA provided for premarket approval of new drugs, Cavers, 6 Law & Contemp. Prob., at 40, it did not authorize any control over the introduction of new medical devices, see S. Rep. No. 93-670, pp. 1-2 (1974); H. R. Rep. No. 94-853, at 6. As technologies advanced and medicine relied to an increasing degree on a vast array of medical equipment “[f]rom bedpans to brainscans,” including kidney dialysis units, artificial heart valves, and heart pacemakers, policymakers and the public became concerned about the increasingly severe injuries that resulted from the failure of such devices. See generally Finck, The Effectiveness of FDA Medical Device Regulation, 7 U. C. D. L. Rev. 293, 297-301 (1974); H. R. Rep. No. 94-853, at 7.
In 1970, for example, the Daikon Shield, an intrauterine contraceptive device, was introduced to the American public and throughout the world. Touted as a safe and effective contraceptive, the Daikon Shield resulted in a disturbingly high percentage of inadvertent pregnancies, serious infections, and even, in a few cases, death. Id., at 8; Regulation of Medical Devices (Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices), Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). In the early 1970’s, several other devices, including catheters, artificial heart valves, defibrillators, and pacemakers (including pacemakers manufactured by petitioner Medtronic), attracted the attention of consumers, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Congress as possible health risks. See Medical Device Amendments, 1973, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 270-361 (1973).
In response to the mounting consumer and regulatory concern, Congress enacted the statute at issue here: the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA or Act), 90 Stat. 539. The Act classifies medical devices in three categories based on the risk that they pose to the public. Devices that present no unreasonable risk of illness or injury are designated Class I and are subject only to minimal regulation by “general controls.” 21 U. S. C. § 360c(a)(l)(A). Devices that are potentially more harmful are designated Class II; although they may be marketed without advance approval, manufacturers of such devices must comply with federal performance regulations known as “special controls.” § 360c(a)(l)(B). Finally, devices that either “presenft] a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury,” or which are “purported or represented to be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health,” are designated Class III. § 360c(a)(l)(C). Pacemakers are Class III devices. See 21 CFR §870.3610 (1995).
Before a new Class III device may be introduced to the market, the manufacturer must provide the FDA with a “reasonable assurance” that the device is both safe and effective. See 21 U. S. C. § 360e(d)(2). Despite its relatively innocuous phrasing, the process of establishing this “reasonable assurance,” which is known as the “premarket approval,” or “PMA” process, is a rigorous one. Manufacturers must submit detailed information regarding the safety and efficacy of their devices, which the FDA then reviews, spending an average of 1,200 hours on each submission. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (Ser. No. 100-34), p. 384 (1987) (hereinafter 1987 Hearings); see generally Kahan, Premarket Approval Versus Premarket Notification: Different Routes to the Same Market, 39 Food Drug Cosm. L. J. 510, 512-514 (1984).
Not all, nor even most, Class III devices on the market today have received premarket approval because of two important exceptions to the PMA requirement. First, Congress realized that existing medical devices could not be withdrawn from the market while the FDA completed its PMA analysis for those devices. The statute therefore includes a “grandfathering” provision which allows pre-1976 devices to remain on the market without FDA approval until such time as the FDA initiates and completes the requisite PMA. See 21 U. S. C. § 360e(b)(l)(A); 21 CFR § 814.1(c)(1) (1995). Second, to prevent manufacturers of grandfathered devices from monopolizing the market while new devices clear the PMA hurdle, and to ensure that improvements to existing devices can be rapidly introduced into the market, the Act also permits devices that are “substantially equivalent” to pre-existing devices to avoid the PMA process. See 21 U. S. C. § 360e(b)(l)(B).
Although “substantially equivalent” Class III devices may be marketed without the rigorous PMA review, such new devices, as well as all new Class I and Class II devices, are subject to the requirements of §360(k). That section imposes a limited form of review on every manufacturer intending to market a new device by requiring it to submit a “pre-market notification” to the FDA (the process is also known as a “§ 510(k) process,” after the number of the section in the original Act). If the FDA concludes on the basis of the § 510(k) notification that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a pre-existing device, it can be marketed without further regulatory analysis (at least until the FDA initiates the PMA process for the underlying pre-1976 device to which the new device is “substantially equivalent”). The § 510(k) notification process is by no means comparable to the PMA process; in contrast to the 1,200 hours necessary to complete a PMA review, the § 510(k) review is completed in an average of only 20 hours. See 1987 Hearings, at 384. As one commentator noted: “The attraction of substantial equivalence to manufacturers is clear. [Section] 510(k) notification requires little information, rarely elicits a negative response from the FDA, and gets processed very quickly.” Adler, The 1976 Medical Device Amendments: A Step in the Right Direction Needs Another Step in the Right Direction, 43 Food Drug Cosm. L. J. 511, 516 (1988); see also Kahan, 39 Food Drug Cosm. L. J., at 514-519.
Congress anticipated that the FDA would complete the PMA process for Class III devices relatively swiftly. But because of the substantial investment of time and energy necessary for the resolution of each PMA application, the ever-increasing numbers of medical devices, and internal administrative and resource difficulties, the FDA simply could not keep up with the rigorous PMA process. As a result, the § 510(k) premarket notification process became the means by which most new medical devices — including Class III devices — were approved for the market. In 1983, for instance, a House Report concluded that nearly 1,000 of approximately 1,100 Class III devices that had been introduced to the market since 1976 were admitted as “substantial equivalents” and without any PMA review. See Medical Device Regulation: The FDA’s Neglected Child (Committee Print compiled for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce), Comm. Print 98-F, p. 34 (1983). This lopsidedness has apparently not evened out; despite an increasing effort by the FDA to consider the safety and efficacy of substantially equivalent devices, the House reported in 1990 that 80% of new Class III devices were being introduced to the market through the §510(k) process and without PMA review. H. R. Rep. No. 101-808, p. 14 (1990); see also D. Kessler, S. Pape, & D. Sundwall, The Federal Regulation of Medical Devices, 317 New England J. Med. 357,359 (1987) (55 § 510(k) notifications are filed for each PMA application; average FDA response to § 510(k) notification is one-fifth the response time to a PMA).
II
As have so many other medical device manufacturers, petitioner Medtronic took advantage of §510(k)’s expedited process in October 1982, when it notified the FDA that it intended to market its Model 4011 pacemaker lead as a device that was “substantially equivalent” to devices already on the market. (The lead is the portion of a pacemaker that transmits the heartbeat-steadying electrical signal from the “pulse generator” to the heart itself.) On November 30, 1982, the FDA found that the model was “substantially equivalent to devices introduced into interstate commerce” prior to the effective date of the Act, and advised Medtronic that it could therefore market its device subject only to the general control provisions of the Act, which could be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. See Respondent’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 93-482 (MD Fla., Nov. 1,1993), Exh. A to Exh. 1 (Declaration of Charles H. Swanson) (hereinafter FDA Substantial Equivalence Letter). The agency emphasized, however, that this determination should not be construed as an endorsement of the pacemaker lead’s safety. Ibid.
Cross-petitioner Lora Lohr is dependent on pacemaker technology for the proper functioning of her heart.. In 1987 she was implanted with a Medtronic pacemaker equipped with one of the company’s Model 4011 pacemaker leads. On December 30,1990, the pacemaker failed, allegedly resulting in a “complete heart block” that required emergency surgery. According to her physician, a defect in the lead was the likely cause of the failure.
In 1993 Lohr and her husband filed this action in a Florida state court. Their complaint contained both a negligence count and a strict-liability count. The negligence count alleged a breach of Medtronic’s “duty to use reasonable care in the design, manufacture, assembly, and sale of the subject pacemaker” in several respects, including the use of defective materials in the lead and a failure to warn or properly instruct the plaintiff or her physicians of the tendency of the pacemaker to fail, despite knowledge of other earlier failures. Complaint ¶ 5. The strict-liability count alleged that the device was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous to foreseeable users at the time of its sale. Id., ¶ 11. (A third count alleging breach of warranty was dismissed for failure to state a claim under Florida law.)
Medtronic removed the case to Federal District Court, where it filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that both the negligence and strict-liability claims were preempted by 21 U. S. C. § 360k(a). That section, which is at the core of the dispute between the parties in this suit, provides:
Ҥ360k. State and local requirements respecting devices
“(a) General rule
“Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement—
“(1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and
“(2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter.”
The District Court initially denied Medtronic's motion, finding nothing in the statute to support the company’s argument that the MDA entirely exempted from liability a manufacturer who had allegedly violated the FDA’s regulations. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 5d. Not long after that decision, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that §360k required pre-emption of at least some common-law claims brought against the manufacturer of a medical device. See Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F. 3d 194 (1994). After reconsidering its ruling in light of Duncan, the District Court reversed its earlier decision and dismissed the Lohrs’ entire complaint.
The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part. 56 F. 3d 1335 (CA11 1995). Rejecting the Lohrs’ broadest submission, it first decided that “common law actions are state requirements within the meaning of §360k(a).” Id., at 1342. It next held that pre-emption could not be avoided by merely alleging that the negligence flowed from a violation of federal standards. Id., at 1343. Then, after concluding that the term “requirements” in §360k(a) was unclear, it sought guidance from FDA’s regulations regarding pre-emption. Those regulations provide that a state requirement is not pre-empted unless the FDA has established “ ‘specific requirements applicable to a particular device.’ ” Id., at 1344 (citing 21 CFR § 808.1(d) (1995)). Under these regulations, the court concluded, it was not necessary that the federal regulation specifically deal with pacemakers, but only that the federal requirement “should, in some way, be ‘restricted by nature’ to a particular process, procedure, or device and should not be completely open-ended,” 56 F. 3d, at 1346 (footnote omitted), and that the specific device at issue should be subject to its requirements.
Under this approach, the court concluded that the Lohrs’ negligent design claims were not pre-empted. It rejected Medtronic’s argument that the FDA’s finding of “substantial equivalence” had any significance with respect to the pacemaker’s safety, or that the FDA’s continued surveillance of the device constituted a federal “requirement” that its design be maintained. Id., at 1347-1349. On the other hand, it concluded that the negligent manufacturing and failure to warn claims were pre-empted by FDA’s general “good manufacturing practices” regulations, which establish general requirements for most steps in every device’s manufacture, see id., at 1350; 21 CFR §§820.20-820.198 (1995), and by the FDA labeling regulations, which require devices to bear various warnings, see 56 F. 3d, at 1350-1351; 21 CFR §801.109 (1995). The court made a parallel disposition of the strict-liability claims, holding that there was no pre-emption insofar as plaintiffs alleged an unreasonably dangerous design, but they could not revive the negligent manufacturing or failure to warn claims under a strict-liability theory. 56 F. 3d, at 1351-1352.
Medtronic filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ decision insofar as it affirmed the District Court and the Lohrs filed a cross-petition seeking review of the judgment insofar as it upheld the pre-emption defense. Because the Courts of Appeals are divided over the extent to which state common-law claims are pre-empted by the MDA, we granted both petitions. 516 U. S. 1087 (1996).
Ill
As in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504 (1992), we are presented with the task of interpreting a statutory provision that expressly pre-empts state law. While the pre-emptive language of § 360k(a) means that we need not go beyond that language to determine whether Congress intended the MDA to pre-empt at least some state law, see id., at 517, we must nonetheless “identify the domain expressly pre-empted” by that language, ibid. Although our analysis of the scope of the pre-emption statute must begin with its text, see Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 111 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), our interpretation of that language does not occur in a contextual vacuum. Rather, that interpretation is informed by two presumptions about the nature of pre-emption. See ibid.
First, because the States are independent sovereigns in our federal system, we have long presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action. In all pre-emption cases, and particularly in those in which Congress has “legislated... in a field which the States have traditionally occupied,” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947), we “start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Ibid.; Hillsborough Cty., 471 U. S., at 715-716; cf. Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 22 (1987). Although dissenting Justices have argued that this assumption should apply only to the question whether Congress intended any pre-emption at all, as opposed to questions concerning the scope of its intended invalidation of state law, see Cipollone, 505 U. S., at 545-546 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part), we used a “presumption against the pre-emption of state police power regulations” to support a narrow inter-:? pretation of such an express command in Cipollone. Id., at 518, 523. That approach is consistent with both federalism concerns and the historic primacy of state regulation of matters of health and safety.
Second, our analysis of the scope of the statute’s preemption is guided by our oft-repeated comment, initially made in Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U. S. 96, 103 (1963), that “[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone” in every pre-emption case. See, e. g., Cipollone, 505 U. S., at 516; Gade, 505 U. S., at 96; Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S. 497, 504 (1978). As a result, any understanding of the scope of a pre-emption statute must rest primarily on “a fair understanding of congressional purpose.” Cipollone, 505 U. S., at 530, n. 27 (opinion of Stevens, J.). Congress’ intent, of course, primarily is discerned from the language of the pre-emption statute and the “statutory framework” surrounding it. Gade, 505 U. S., at 111 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Also relevant, however, is the “structure and purpose of the statute as a whole,” id., at 98 (opinion of O’Connor, J.), as revealed not only in the text, but through the reviewing court’s reasoned understanding of the way in which Congress intended the statute and its surrounding regulatory scheme to affect business, consumers, and the law.
With these considerations in mind, we turn first to a consideration of petitioner Medtronic’s claim that the Court of Appeals should have found the entire action pre-empted and then to the merits of the Lohrs’ cross-petition.
>
In its petition, Medtronic argues that the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the Lohrs’ claims alleging negligent design were not pre-empted by 21 U. S. C. § 360k(a). That section provides that “no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter.” Medtronic suggests that any common-law cause of action is a “requirement” which alters incentives and imposes duties “different from, or in addition to,” the generic federal standards that the FDA has promulgated in response to mandates under the MDA. In essence, the company argues that the plain language of the statute pre-empts any and all common-law claims brought by an injured plaintiff against a manufacturer of medical devices.
Medtronic’s argument is not only unpersuasive, it is implausible. Under Medtronic’s view of the statute, Congress effectively precluded state courts from affording state consumers any protection from injuries resulting from a defective medical device. Moreover, because there is no explicit private cause of action against manufacturers contained in the MDA, and no suggestion that the Act created an implied private right of action, Congress would have barred most, if not all, relief for persons injured by defective medical devices. Medtronic’s construction of §360k would therefore have the perverse effect of granting complete immunity from design defect liability to an entire industry that, in the judgment of Congress, needed more stringent regulation in order “to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use,” 90 Stat. 539 (preamble to Act). It is, to say the least, “difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct,” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 251 (1984), and it would take language much plainer than the text of §360k to convince us that Congress intended that result.
Furthermore, if Congress intended to preclude all common-law causes of action, it chose a singularly odd word with which to do it. The statute would have achieved an identical result, for instance, if it had precluded any “remedy” under state law relating to medical devices. “Requirement” appears to presume that the State is imposing a specific duty upon the manufacturer, and although we have on prior occasions concluded that a statute pre-empting certain state “requirements” could also pre-empt common-law damages claims, see Cipollone, 505 U. S., at 521-522 (opinion of Stevens, J.), that statute did not sweep nearly as broadly as Medtronic would have us believe that this statute does.
The pre-emptive statute in Cipollone was targeted at a limited set of state requirements — those “based on smoking and health” — and then only at a limited subset of the possible applications of those requirements — those involving the “advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of” the federal statute. See id., at 515. In that context, giving the term “requirement” its widest reasonable meaning did not have nearly the pre-emptive scope nor the effect on potential remedies that Medtronic’s broad reading of the term would have in this suit. The Court in Cipollone held that the petitioner in that case was able to maintain some common-law actions using theories of the case that did not run afoul of the pre-emption statute. See id., at 524-530. Here, however, Medtronic’s sweeping interpretation of the statute would require far greater interference with state legal remedies, producing a serious intrusion into state sovereignty while simultaneously wiping out the possibility of remedy for the Lohrs’ alleged injuries. Given the ambiguities in the statute and the scope of the preclusion that would occur otherwise, we cannot accept Medtronic’s argument that by using the term “requirement,” Congress clearly signaled its intent to deprive States of any role in protecting consumers from the dangers inherent in many medical devices.
Other differences between this statute and the one in Cipollone further convince us that when Congress enacted § 360k, it was primarily concerned with the problem of specific, conflicting state statutes and regulations rather than the general duties enforced by common-law actions. Unlike the statute at issue in Cipollone, §360k refers to “requirements” many times throughout its text. In each instance, the word is linked with language suggesting that its focus is device-specific enactments of positive law by legislative or administrative bodies, not the application of general rules of common law by judges and juries. For instance, subsections (a)(2) and (b) of the statute also refer to “requirements”— but those “requirements” refer only to statutory and regulatory law that exists pursuant to the MDA itself, suggesting that the pre-empted “requirements” established or continued by States also refer primarily to positive enactments of state law. Moreover, in subsection (b) the FDA is given authority to exclude certain “requirements” from the scope of the preemption statute. Of the limited number of “exemptions” from pre-emption that the FDA has granted, none even remotely resemble common-law claims.
An examination of the basic purpose of the legislation as well as its history entirely supports our rejection of Med-tronic’s extreme position. The MDA was enacted “to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use.” 90 Stat. 539. Medtronic asserts that the Act was also intended, however, to “protect innovations in device technology from being ‘stifled by unnecessary restrictions,’ ” Brief for Petitioner in No. 95-754, p. 3 (citing H. R. Rep. No. 94-853, at 12), and that this interest extended to the pre-emption of common-law claims. While the Act certainly reflects some of these concerns, the legislative history indicates that any fears regarding regulatory burdens were related more to the risk of additional federal and state regulation rather than the danger of pre-existing duties under common law. See, e. g., 122 Cong. Rec. 5850 (1976) (statement of Rep. Collins) (opposing further “redundant and burdensome Federal requirements”); id., at 5855 (discussing efforts taken in MDA to protect small businesses from the additional requirements of the Act). Indeed, nowhere in the materials relating to the Act’s history have we discovered a reference to a fear that product liability actions would hamper the development of medical devices. To the extent that Congress was concerned about protecting the industry, that intent was manifested primarily through fewer substantive requirements under the Act, not the pre-emption provision; furthermore, any such concern was far outweighed by concerns about the primary issue motivating the MDA’s enactment: the safety of those who use medical devices.
The legislative history also confirms our understanding that § 360(k) simply was not intended to pre-empt most, let alone all, general common-law duties enforced by damages actions. There is, to the best of our knowledge, nothing in the hearings, the Committee Reports, or the debates suggesting that any proponent of the legislation intended a sweeping pre-emption of traditional common-law remedies against manufacturers and distributors of defective, devices. If Congress intended such a result, its failure even to hint at it is spectacularly odd, particularly since Members of both Houses were acutely aware of ongoing product liability litigation. Along with the less-than-precise language of §360k(a), that silence surely indicates that at least some common-law claims against medical device manufacturers may be maintained after the enactment of the MDA.
V
Medtronic asserts several specific reasons why, even if § 360k does not pre-empt all common-law claims, it at least pre-empts the Lohrs’ claims in this suit. In contrast, the Lohrs argue that their entire complaint should survive a reasonable evaluation of the pre-emptive scope of §360k(a). First, the Lohrs claim that the Court of Appeals correctly held that their negligent design claims were not pre-empted because the § 510(k) premarket notification process imposes no “requirement” on the design of Medtronic’s pacemaker. Second, they suggest that even if the FDA’s general rules regulating manufacturing practices and labeling are “requirements” that pre-empt different state requirements, § 360k(a) does not pre-empt state rules that merely duplicate some or all of those federal requirements. Finally, they argue that because the State’s general rules imposing' common-law duties upon Medtronic do not impose a requirement “with respect to a device,” they do not conflict with the FDA’s general rules relating to manufacturing and labeling and are therefore not pre-empted.
Design Claim
The Court of Appeals concluded that the Lohrs’ defective design claims were not pre-empted because the requirements with which the company had to comply were not sufficiently concrete to constitute a pre-empting federal requirement. Medtronic counters by pointing to the FDA’s determination that Model 4011 is “substantially equivalent” to an earlier device as well as the agency’s continuing authority to exclude the device from the market if its design is changed. These factors, Medtronic argues, amount to a specific, federally enforceable design requirement that cannot be affected by state-law pressures such as those imposed on manufacturers subject to product liability suits.
The company’s defense exaggerates the importance of the § 510(k) process and the FDA letter to the company regarding the pacemaker’s substantial equivalence to a grandfathered device. As the court below noted, “[t]he 510(k) process is focused on equivalence, not safety.” 56 F. 3d, at 1348. As a result, “substantial equivalence determinations provide little protection to the public. These determinations simply compare a post-1976 device to a pre-1976 device to ascertain whether the later device is no more dangerous and no less effective than the earlier device. If the earlier device poses a severe risk or is ineffective, then the later device may also be risky or ineffective.” Adler, 43 Food Drug Cosm. L. J., at 516. The design of the Model 4011, as with the design of pre-1976 and other “substantially equivalent” devices, has never been formally reviewed under the MDA for safety or efficacy.
The FDA stressed this basic conclusion in its letter to Medtronic finding the 4011 lead “substantially equivalent” to devices already on the market. That letter only required Medtronic to comply with “general standards” — the lowest level of protection “applicable to all medical devices,” and including “listing of devices, good manufacturing practices, labeling, and the misbranding and adulteration provisions of the Act.” It explicitly warned Medtronic that the letter did “not in any way denote official FDA approval of your device,” and that “[a]ny representation that creates an impression of official approval of this device because of compliance with the premarket notification regulations is misleading and constitutes misbranding.” FDA Substantial Equivalence Letter.
Thus, even though the FDA may well examine §510(k) applications for Class III devices (as it examines the entire medical device industry) with a concern for the safety and effectiveness of the device, see Brief for Petitioner in No. 95-754, at 22-26, it did not “require” Medtronics’ pacemaker to take any particular form for any particular reason; the agency simply allowed the pacemaker, as a device substantially equivalent to one that existed before 1976, to be marketed without running the gauntlet of the PMA process. In providing for this exemption to PMA review, Congress intended merely to give manufacturers the freedom to compete, to a limited degree, with and on the same terms as manufacturers of medical devices that existed prior to 1976. There is no suggestion in either the statutory scheme or the legislative history that the §510(k) exemption process was intended to do anything other than maintain the status quo with respect to the marketing of existing medical devices and their substantial equivalents. That status quo included the possibility that the manufacturer of the device would have to defend itself against state-law claims of negligent design. Given this background behind the “substantial equivalence” exemption, the fact that “[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone” in every pre-emption case, 505 U. S., at 516 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and the presumption against pre-emption, the Court of Appeals properly concluded that the “substantial equivalence” provision did not pre-empt the Lohrs’ design claims.
Identity of Requirements Claims
The Lohrs next suggest that even if “requirements” exist with respect to the manufacturing and labeling of the pacemaker, and even if we can also consider state law to impose a “requirement” under the Act, the state requirement is not pre-empted unless it is “different from, or in addition to,” the federal requirement. §360k(a)(1). Although the precise contours of their theory of recovery have not yet been defined (the pre-emption issue was decided on the basis of the pleadings), it is clear that the Lohrs’ allegations may include claims that Medtr
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Carjacking “with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm” is a federal crime. The question presented in this case is whether that phrase requires the Government to prove that the defendant had an unconditional intent to kill or harm in all events, or whether it merely requires proof of an intent to kill or harm if necessary to effect a carjacking. Most of the judges who have considered the question have concluded, as do we, that Congress intended to criminalize the more typical carjacking carried out by means of a deliberate threat of violence, rather than just the rare case in which the defendant has an unconditional intent to use violence regardless of how the driver responds to his threat.
W
A jury found petitioner guilty on three counts of car-j'acking, as well as several other offenses related to stealing cars. In each of the carjackings, petitioner and an armed accomplice identified a car that they wanted and followed it until it was parked. The accomplice then approached the driver, produced a gun, and threatened to shoot unless the driver handed over the car keys. The accomplice testified that the plan was to steal the ears without harming the victims, but that he would have used his gun if any of the drivers had given him a “hard time.” App. 52. When one victim hesitated, petitioner punched him in the face, but there was no other actual violence.
The District Judge instructed the jury that the Government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the taking of a motor vehicle was committed with the intent “to cause death or serious bodily harm to the person from whom the ear was taken.” Id., at 29. After explaining that merely using a gun to frighten a victim was not sufficient to prove such intent, he added the following statement over petitioner’s objection:
“In some cases, intent is conditional. That is, a defendant may intend to engage in certain conduct only if a certain event occurs.
“In this case, the government contends that the defendant intended to cause death or serious bodily harm if the alleged victims had refused to turn over their cars. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had such an intent, the government has satisfied this element of the offense...Id., at 30.
In his postverdiet motion for a new trial, petitioner contended that this instruction was inconsistent with the text of the statute. The District Judge denied the motion, stating that there “is no question that the conduct at issue in this case is precisely what Congress and the general public would describe as carjacking, and that Congress intended to prohibit it in §2119.” 921 F. Supp. 155, 156 (EDNY 1996). He noted that the statute as originally enacted in 1992 contained no intent element but covered all carjackings committed by a person “possessing a firearm.” A 1994 amendment had omitted the firearm limitation, thus broadening the coverage of the statute to encompass the use of other weapons, and also had inserted the intent requirement at issue in this case. The judge thought that an “odd result” would flow from a construction of the amendment that “would no longer prohibit the very crime it was enacted to address except in those unusual circumstances when carjackers also intended to commit another crime — murder or a serious assault.” Id., at 159. Moreover, the judge determined that even though the issue of conditional intent has not been discussed very often, at least in the federal courts, it was a concept that scholars and state courts had long recognized.
Over a dissent that accused the majority of “a clear judicial usurpation of congressional authority,” United States v. Arnold, 126 F. 3d 82, 92 (CA2 1997) (opinion of Miner, J.), the Court of Appeals affirmed. The majority was satisfied that “the inclusion of a conditional intent to harm within the definition of specific intent to harm” was not only “a well-established principle of criminal common law,” but also, and “most importantly,” comported “with a reasonable interpretation of the legislative purpose of the statute.” Id., at 88. The alternative interpretation, which would cover “only those carjackings in which the car j acker’s sole and unconditional purpose at the time he committed the carjacking was to kill or maim the victim,” the court concluded, was clearly at odds with the intent of the statute’s drafters. Ibid.
To resolve an apparent conflict with a decision of the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Randolph, 93 F. 3d 656 (1996), we granted certiorari. 523 U. S. 1093 (1998).
Writing for the Court in United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 593 (1981), Justice White reminded us that the language of the statutes that Congress enacts provides “the most reliable evidence of its intent.” For that reason, we typically begin the task of statutory construction by focusing on the words that the drafters have chosen. In interpreting the statute at issue, “[w]e consider not only the bare meaning” of the critical word or phrase “but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137, 145 (1995).
The specific issue in case Congress intended to describe when it used the words “with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm” in the 1994 amendment to the carjacking statute. More precisely, the question is whether a person who points a gun at a driver, having decided to pull the trigger if the driver does not comply with a demand for the car keys, possesses the intent, at that moment, to seriously harm the driver. In our view, the answer to that question does not depend on whether the driver immediately hands over the keys or what the offender decides to do after he gains control over the ear. At the relevant moment, the offender plainly does have the forbidden intent.
The opinions that have addressed this issue accurately point out that a carjacker’s intent to harm his victim may be either “conditional” or “unconditional.” The statutory phrase at issue theoretically might describe (1) the former, (2) the latter, or (3) both species of intent. Petitioner argues that the “plain text” of the statute “unequivocally” describes only the latter: that the defendant must possess a specific and unconditional intent to kill or harm in order to complete the proscribed offense. To that end, he insists that Congress would have had to insert the words “if necessary” into the disputed text in order to include the conditional species of intent within the scope of the statute. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 2. Because Congress did not include those words, petitioner contends that we must assume that Congress meant to provide a federal penalty for only those carjackings in which the offender actually attempted to harm or kill the driver (or at least intended to do so whether or not the driver resisted).
We believe, however, that a commonsense reading of the carjacking statute counsels that Congress intended to criminalize a broader scope of conduct than attempts to assault or kill in the course of automobile robberies. As we have repeatedly stated, “ ‘the meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context.’” Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S. 115, 118 (1994) (quoting King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991)). When petitioner’s argument is considered in the context of the statute, it becomes apparent that his proffered construction of the intent element overlooks the significance of the placement of that element in the statute. The carjacking statute essentially is aimed at providing a federal penalty for a particular type of robbery. The statute’s mens rea component thus modifies the act of “tak[ing]” the motor vehicle. It directs the factfinder’s attention to the defendant’s state of mind at the precise moment he demanded or took control over the car “by force and violence or by intimidation.” If the defendant has the proscribed state of mind at that moment, the statute’s seienter element is satisfied.
Petitioner’s reading of the intent element, in contrast, would improperly transform the mens rea element from a modifier into an additional actus reus component of the carjacking statute; it would alter the statute into one that focuses on attempting to harm or kill a person in the course of the robbery of a motor vehicle. Indeed, if we accepted petitioner’s view of the statute’s intent element, even Congress’ insertion of the qualifying words “if necessary,” by themselves, would not have solved the deficiency that he believes exists in the statute. The inclusion of those words after the intent phrase would have excluded the unconditional species of intent — the intent to harm or kill even if not necessary to complete a carjacking. Accordingly, if Congress had used words such as “if necessary” to describe the conditional species of intent, it would also have needed to add something like “or even if not necessary” in order to cover both species of intent to harm. Given the fact that the actual text does not mention either species separately— and thus does not expressly exclude either — that text is most naturally read to encompass the mens rea of both conditional and unconditional intent, and not to limit the statute’s reach to crimes involving the additional actus reus of an attempt to kill or harm.
Two considerations strongly support the conclusion that a natural reading of the text is fully consistent with a congressional decision to cover both species of intent. First, the statute as a whole reflects an intent to authorize federal prosecutions as a significant deterrent to a type of criminal activity that was a matter of national concern. Because that purpose is better served by construing the statute to cover both the conditional and the unconditional species of wrongful intent, the entire statute is consistent with a normal interpretation of the specific language that Congress chose. See John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust and Sav. Bank, 510 U. S. 86, 94-95 (1993) (statutory language should be interpreted consonant with “the provisions of the whole law, and ... its object and policy” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, petitioner’s interpretation would exclude from the coverage of the statute most of the conduct that Congress obviously intended to prohibit.
Second, it is reasonable to presume that Congress was familiar with the cases and the scholarly writing that have recognized that the “specific intent” to commit a wrongful act may be conditional. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 696-698 (1979). The facts of the leading case on the point are strikingly similar to the facts of this case. In People v. Connors, 253 Ill. 266, 97 N. E. 643 (1912), the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a union organizer who had pointed a gun at a worker and threatened to kill him forthwith if he did not take off his overalls and quit work. The court held that the jury had been properly instructed that the “specific intent to kill” could be found even though that intent was “coupled with a condition” that the defendant would not fire if the victim complied with his demand. That holding has been repeatedly cited with approval by other courts and by scholars. Moreover, it reflects the views endorsed by the authors of the Model Criminal Code. The core principle that emerges from these sources is that a defendant may not negate a proscribed intent by requiring the victim to comply with a condition the defendant has no right to impose; “[a]n intent to kill, in the alternative, is nevertheless an intent to kill.”
This interpretation of the statute’s specific intent element does not, as petitioner suggests, render superfluous the statute’s “by force and violence or by intimidation” element. While an empty threat, or intimidating bluff, would be sufficient to satisfy the latter element, such conduct, standing on its own, is not enough to satisfy §2119’s specific intent element. In a carjacking case in which the driver surrendered or otherwise lost control over his car without the defendant attempting to inflict, or actually inflicting, serious bodily harm, Congress’ inclusion of the intent element requires the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have at least attempted to seriously harm or kill the driver if that action had been necessary to complete the taking of the car.
In short, we disagree with petitioner’s reading of the text of the Act and think it unreasonable to assume that Congress intended to enact such a truncated version of an important criminal statute. The intent requirement of § 2119 is satisfied when the Government proves that at the moment the defendant demanded or took control over the driver’s automobile the defendant possessed the intent to seriously harm or kill the driver if necessary to steal the ear (or, alternatively, if unnecessary to steal the car). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
As amended by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, §60003(a)(14), 108 Stat. 1970, and by the Carjacking Correction Act of 1996, §2, 110 Stat. 3020, the statute provides:
“Whoever, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall—
“(1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both,
“(2) if serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title) results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and
“(3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both, or sentenced to death.” 18 U. S. C. §2119 (1994 ed. and Supp. III) (emphasis added).
He was also charged with conspiring to operate a “chop shop” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §371, operating a chop shop in violation of §2322, and using and carrying a firearm in violation of § 924(c).
One victim testified that the accomplice gun ened, “ ‘Get out of the car or I’ll shoot.’ ” App. 51, Another testified that he said, “‘Give me your keys or I will shoot you right now.’” Id., at 52.
The Ninth Circuit held that neither a person's mere threat to the driver that “‘she would be okay if she [did] what was told of her’” nor “the brandishing of a weapon, without more” constituted an intent to cause death or serious bodily harm under the amended version of §2119. 93 F. 3d, at 664-665. The court therefore reversed the defendant’s carjacking conviction on the ground of insufficient evidence. In the course of its opinion, the Ninth Circuit also stated more broadly that “[t]he mere conditional intent to harm a victim if she resists is simply not enough to satisfy §2119’s new specific intent requirement.” Id., at 665. It is this proposition with which other courts have disagreed. See United States v. Williams, 136 F. 3d 547, 550-551 (CA8 1998), cert. pending, No. 97-9553; United States v. Arnold, 126 F. 3d 82, 89, n. 4 (CA2 1997); United States v. Romero, 122 F. 3d 1334, 1338 (CA10 1997), cert. denied, 523 U. S. 1025 (1998); United States v. Anderson, 108 F. 3d 478, 481-483 (CA3), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 843 (1997).
See, e. g., Williams, 136 F. 3d, at 550-551; Anderson, 108 F. 3d, at 481.
Although subsections (2) and (8) of the carjacking statute envision harm or death resulting from the crime, subsection (1), under petitioner’s reading, would have to cover attempts to harm or kill when no serious bodily harm resulted.
Although the legislative history relating to the carjacking amendment is sparse, those members of Congress who recorded comments made statements reflecting the statute’s broad deterrent purpose. See 139 Cong. Rec. 27867 (1993) (statement of Sen. Lieberman) (“Th[e 1994] amendment will broaden and strengthen th[e] [carjacking] law so our U. S. attorneys will have every possible tool available to them to attack the problem”); 140 Cong. Rec. E858 (May 5, 1994) (extension of remarks by Rep. Franks) (“We must send a message to [caijackers] that committing a violent crime will carry a severe penalty”). There is nothing in the 1994 amendment’s legislative history to suggest that Congress meant to create a federal crime for only the unique and unusual subset of caqackings in which the offender intends to harm or kill the driver regardless of whether the driver accedes to the offender’s threat of violence.
The trial judge had given this instruction to the jury:
‘“The court instructs you as to the intent to kill alleged in the indictment that though you must find that there was a specific intent to kill the prosecuting witness, Morgan H. Bell, still, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the intention of the defendants was only in the alternative — that is, if the defendants, or any of them, acting for and with the others, then and there pointed a revolver at the said Bell with the intention of compelling him to take off his overalls and quit work, or to kill him if he did not — and if that specific intent was formed in the minds of the defendants and the shooting of the said Bell with intent to kill was only prevented by the happening of the alternative — that is, the compliance of the said Bell with the demand that he take off his overalls and quit work — then the requirement of the law as to the specific intent is met.' ” 253 Ill., at 272-273, 97 N. E., at 645.
See People v. Vandelinder, 192 Mich. App. 447, 451, 481 N. W. 2d 787, 789 (1992) (endorsing holding of Connors); Eby v. State, 154 Ind. App. 509, 517, 290 N. E. 2d 89, 95 (1972) (same); Beall v. State, 203 Md. 380, 386, 101 A. 2d 233, 236 (1953) (same); Price v. State, 168 Tenn. 378, 381, 79 S. W. 2d 283, 284 (1935) (same). But see State v. Irwin, 55 N. C. App. 305, 285 S. E. 2d 345 (1982) (reaching opposite conclusion); State v. Kinnemore, 34 Ohio App. 2d 39, 295 N. E. 2d 680 (1972) (same).
See 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.5(d), p. 312 (1986); R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 646-647, 835 (3d ed. 1982); 1 J. Bishop, Bishop on Criminal Law §287a (9th ed. 1923); 1 H. Brill, Cyclopedia of Criminal Law §409, p. 692 (1922); Alexander & Kessler, Mens Rea and Inchoate Crimes, 87 J. Crim. L. & C. 1138, 1140-1147 (1997). See also 2 C. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 182 (15th ed. 1994) (supporting principle of conditional intent but not citing Connors).
Section 2.02(6) of the Model Penal Code provides:
“Requirement of Purpose Satisfied if Purpose is Conditional.
“When a particular purpose is an element of an offense, the element is established although such purpose is conditional, unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense.” American Law Institute, Model Penal Code (1985).
Of course, in this case the condition that the driver surrender the car was the precise evil that Congress wanted to prevent.
Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law, at 647.
In somewhat different contexts, courts have held that a threat to harm does not in itself constitute intent to harm or kill. In Hairston v. State, 64 Miss. 689 (1877), for example, the defendant in an angry and profane manner threatened to shoot a person if that person stopped the defendant’s mules. The court afiSrmed the defendant’s conviction for assault, but reversed a conviction of assault with intent to commit murder, explaining that “we have found no case of a conviction of assault with intent to kill or murder, upon proof only of the levelling of a gun or pistol.” Id., at 694. See also Myers v. Clearman, 125 Iowa 461, 464, 101 N. W. 193, 194 (1904) (in determining whether defendant acted with intent to commit great bodily harm the issue for the jury was “whether the accused, in aiming his revolver at [the victim], intended to inflict great bodily harm, or some more serious offense, or did this merely with the purpose of frightening her”).
We also reject petitioner’s argument that the rule of lenity should apply in this ease. We have repeatedly stated that “ ‘[t]he rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be derived,... we can make no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.’ ” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 138 (1998) (quoting United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 499 (1997)) (additional quotations and citations omitted). Accord, Ladner v. United States, 358 U. S. 169, 178 (1958). The result of our preceding analysis requires us to make no such guess in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
The Eleventh Amendment, adopted in 1795, and formally ratified in 1798, provides:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
The Eleventh Amendment is the basis of a motion by Missouri to dismiss a complaint filed by employees of state agencies of that State, the Department of Public Health and Welfare, and two of its divisions, the Division of Mental Disease and the Division of Health, and various officials of the Department and of the two Divisions.
Although the Eleventh Amendment is not literally applicable since petitioners who brought suit are citizens of Missouri, it is established that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1; Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U. S. 311; Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184; C. Jacobs, The Eleventh Amendment and Sovereign Immunity 109-110 (1972).
The employees seek overtime compensation due them under § 16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1069, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 216 (b), and an equal amount as liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals, sitting in a panel of three, reversed, one judge dissenting. No. 20,204, Apr. 2, 1971 (not reported). On the filing of a petition for rehearing, the Court of Appeals sat en banc and by a closely divided vote set aside the panel decision and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 452 F. 2d 820. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 405 U. S. 1016.
The panel of three thought the present case was governed by Parden v. Terminal R. Co., supra. The court sitting en banc thought Parden was distinguishable. That is the central issue argued in the present case.
Farden involved a state-owned railroad operating in interstate commerce; and the claims were those of employees under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq. The term carrier for purposes of that Act was defined by Congress as including “[e]very common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States.” Id., § 51. The Court concluded that Congress designed to bring state-owned, as well as privately owned, carriers within that definition and that it was empowered to do so by the Commerce Clause. The State’s operation of its railroad in interstate commerce, it held, was in subordination to the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and application of the FELA to a State in those circumstances was not precluded by sovereign immunity. 377 U. S., at 191-193. The Farden case in final analysis turned on the question of waiver, a majority of the Court holding that it was a federal question since any consent of the State to suit did not arise from an act “wholly within its own sphere of authority” but in the area of commerce, which is subject to pervasive federal regulation. Id., at 196.
It is said that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) stands on the same foundation, reflecting the power of Congress to regulate conditions of work of those producing goods for commerce, United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, and those whose activities are necessary to the production of goods for commerce. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517, 524. By § 3 (d) of the Act, “employer” was first defined to exclude the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State. But in 1966 there was added to § 3 (d) an “except” clause which reads “except with respect to employees of a State, or a political subdivision thereof, employed (1) in a hospital, institution, or school referred to in the last sentence of subsection (r) of this section . . . .” Section 3 (r) was amended at the same time to include: “the operation of a hospital, an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution, a school for mentally or physically handicapped or gifted children, an elementary or secondary school, or an institution of higher education (regardless of whether or not such hospital, institution, or school is public or private or operated for profit or not for profit) . . . Identical language was also added in 1966 to subsection 3 (s), which defines “ [enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.”
By reason of the literal language of the present Act, Missouri and the departments joined as defendants are constitutionally covered by the Act, as the Court held in Maryland v. Wirts, 392 U. S. 183. The question is whether Congress has brought the States to heel, in the sense of lifting their immunity from suit in a federal court — a question we reserved in Maryland v. Wirtz, supra, at 199-201.
There is no doubt that Congress desired to bring under the Act employees of hospitals and related institutions. S. Rep. No. 1487, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 8, 22-23; H. R. Rep. No. 1366, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 3, 11-12, 15, 16-17, 18. But § 16 (b) remained the same. Prior to 1966 and afterward, it read in relevant part:
“Any employer who violates the provisions of section 6 or section 7 of this Act shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction . . . .”
The history and tradition of the Eleventh Amendment indicate that by reason of that barrier a federal court is not competent to render judgment against a nonconsenting State. Parden involved the railroad business which Alabama operated “for profit.” 377 U. S., at 185. Parden was in the area where private persons and corporations normally ran the enterprise.
State mental hospitals, state cancer hospitals, and training schools for delinquent girls which are not operated for profit are not proprietary. “Before 1810, only a few eastern-seaboard states had incorporated private institutions to care for the mentally ill, and Virginia alone had established a public asylum.” D. Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum 130 (1971)., But, as Rothman relates, after that the public sector took over.
Where employees in state institutions not conducted for profit have such a relation to interstate commerce that national policy, of which Congress is the keeper, indicates that their status should be raised, Congress can act. And when Congress does act, it may place new or even enormous fiscal burdens on the States. Congress, acting responsibly, would not be presumed to take such action silently. The dramatic circumstances of the Par-den case, which involved a rather isolated state activity can be put to one side. We deal here with problems that may well implicate elevator operators, janitors, charwomen, security guards, secretaries, and the like in every office building in a State’s governmental hierarchy. Those who follow the teachings of Kirschbaum v. Walling, supra, and see its manifold applications will appreciate how pervasive such a new federal scheme of regulation would be.
But we have found not a word in the history of the 1966 amendments to indicate a purpose of Congress to make it possible for a citizen of that State or another State to sue the State in the federal courts. The Parden opinion did state that it would be “surprising” to learn that Congress made state railroads liable to employees under the PELA, yet provided “no means by which that liability may be enforced.” 377 U. S., at 197. It would also be surprising in the present case to infer that Congress deprived Missouri of her constitutional immunity without changing the old § 16 (b) under which she could not be sued or indicating in some way by clear language that the constitutional immunity was swept away. It is not easy to infer that Congress in legislating pursuant to the Commerce Clause, which has grown to vast proportions in its applications, desired silently to deprive the States of an immunity they have long enjoyed under another part of the Constitution. Thus, we cannot conclude that Congress conditioned the operation of these facilities on the forfeiture of immunity from suit in a federal forum.
By holding that Congress did not lift the sovereign immunity of the States under the PLSA, we do not make the extension of coverage to state employees meaningless. Cf. Parden v. Terminal R. Co., supra, at 190. Section 16 (c) gives the Secretary of Labor authority to bring suit for unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA. Once the Secretary acts under § 16 (c), the right of any employee or employees to sue under § 16' (b) terminates. Section 17 gives the Secretary power to seek to enjoin violations of the Act and to obtain restitution in behalf of employees. Sections 16 and 17 suggest that since private enforcement of the Act was not a paramount objective, disallowance of suits by state employees and remitting them to relief through the Secretary of Labor may explain why Congress was silent as to waiver of sovereign immunity of the States. For suits by the United States against a State are not barred by the Constitution. See United States v. Mississippi, 380 U. S. 128,140-141. In this connection, it is not amiss to note that § 16 (b) allows recovery by employees, not only of the amount of unpaid wages, but of an equal amount as liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees. It is one thing, as in Parden, to make a state employee whole; it is quite another to let him recover double against a State. Recalcitrant private employers may be whipped into line in that manner. But we are reluctant to believe that Congress in pursuit of a harmonious federalism desired to treat the States so harshly. The policy of the Act so far as the States are concerned is wholly served by allowing the delicate federal-state relationship to be managed through the Secretary of Labor.
The Solicitor General, as amicus curiae, argues that Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, should not be construed to apply to the present case, his theory being that in Hans the suit was one to collect on coupons attaching to state bonds, while in the instant case the suit is a cause of action created by Congress and contained in § 16 (b) of the Act. It is true that, as the Court said in Harden, “the States surrendered a portion of their sovereignty when they granted Congress the power to regulate commerce.” 377 U. S., at 191. But we decline to extend Parden to cover every exercise by Congress of its commerce power, where the purpose of Congress to give force to the Supremacy Clause by lifting the sovereignty of the States and putting the States on the same footing as other employers is not clear.
We are told that the FLSA in 1971 covered 45.4 million employees and nearly 2 million establishments, and that 2.7 million of these employees and 118,000 of these establishments were in state or local government employment. We are also told that less than 4% of these establishments can be investigated by the Secretary of Labor each year. The argument is that if we deny this direct federal court remedy, we in effect are recognizing that there is a right without any remedy. Section 16 (b), however, authorizes employee suits in “any court of competent jurisdiction.” Arguably, that permits suit in the Missouri courts but that is a question we need not reach. We are concerned only with the problem of this Act and the constitutional constraints on “the judicial power” of the United States.
Affirmed.
The dissent argues that “Parden held that a federal court determination of such suits cannot be precluded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because the States surrendered their sovereignty to that extent when they granted Congress the power to regulate commerce.” Post, at 299. But, the plain language of the Court’s opinion in Parden belies this assertion. For example, the Court stated:
“Recognition of the congressional power to render a State suable under the FELA does not mean that the immunity doctrine, as embodied in the Eleventh Amendment with respect to citizens of other States and as extended to the State’s own citizens by the Hans case, is here being overridden. It remains the law that a State may not be sued by an individual without its consent.” 377 U. S. 184, 192. The Court then repeated that “[a] State’s immunity from suit by an individual without its consent has been fully recognized by the Eleventh Amendment and by subsequent decisions of this Court.” Id., at 196. As we read these passages, and clearly as the dissent in Parden read them, id., at 198, they dealt with constitutional constraints on the exercise of the federal judicial power. Moreover, if Parden was concerned merely with the surrender of common-law sovereign immunity when the States granted Congress the power to regulate commerce, it would seem unnecessary to reach the question of waiver or consent, for Congress could subject the States to suit by their own citizens whenever it was deemed necessary or appropriate to the regulation of commerce. No more would be required. But, there can be no doubt that the Court’s holding in Parden was premised on the conclusion that Alabama, by operating the railroad, had consented to suit in the federal courts under FELA. Id., at 186.
“Few departures from colonial practices occurred in the first forty years after independence; the insane commonly languished in local jails and poorhouses or lived with family and friends. But in the course of the next few decades, in a dramatic transformation, state after state constructed asylums. Budding manufacturing centers like New York and Massachusetts erected institutions in the 1830’s, and so did the agricultural states of Vermont and Ohio, Tennessee and Georgia. By 1850, almost every northeastern and midwestern legislature supported an asylum; by 1860, twenty-eight of the thirty-three states had public institutions for the insane. Although not all of the mentally ill found a place within a hospital, and a good number among the aged and chronic poor remained in almshouses and jails, the institutionalization of the insane became the standard procedure of the society during these years. A cult of asylum swept the country.” Ibid.
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.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal court may allow the prevailing party attorney’s fees for legal services performed in prosecuting an employment discrimination claim in state administrative and judicial proceedings that Title VII requires federal claimants to invoke.
I
Respondent Cidni Carey, in August 1974, applied for work as a cocktail waitress with petitioner New York Gaslight Club, Inc. After an interview, she was advised that no position was available.
The following January, respondent filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that petitioners, the Club and its manager, had denied her a position because of her race. App. to Brief for Respondent al-a3. As required by § 706 (c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 259, as redesignated, 86 Stat. 104, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (c), respondent’s complaint was forwarded to the New York State Division of Human Rights (Division).
In May 1975, after an investigation during which respondent was represented by counsel, the Division found probable cause to believe that petitioners had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice. Efforts at conciliation failed, and the Division, pursuant to N. Y. Exec. Law § 297 (4) (a) (McKinney Supp. 1979), recommended that a public hearing be held.
Counsel for respondent wrote to the EEOC on May 20, advising the Commission that respondent was proceeding in the Division. He asked that the Commission “reassume” jurisdiction over the claim so that, if necessary, respondent could obtain a right-to-sue letter at an appropriate time. On May 22, the EEOC responded, stating that an investigator would be assigned to respondent’s matter as soon as possible.
The state administrative hearing was held on two separate days in late 1975 and early 1976. Both respondent and petitioners were represented by counsel. App. 68. No attorney for the State appeared. On August 13, 1976, the hearing examiner found that petitioners had discriminated against respondent because she is black. Id., at 70. Petitioners were ordered to offer respondent employment as a cocktail waitress and to pay her back wages from August 1974. Id., at 70-72. No attorney’s fee was awarded.
Petitioners appealed to the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, an agency established to hear appeals from orders of the Division. N. Y. Exec. Law § 297-a (McKinney 1972 and Supp. 1979). The Board held a hearing in December 1976 at which counsel for petitioners, respondent, and the Division appeared.
Meanwhile, EEOC proceedings had begun. Giving due weight to the state finding of probable cause, see § 706 (b), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (b), the EEOC determined that there was reasonable cause to believe petitioners had violated Title VII. The EEOC’s attempts at conciliation also failed. The Commission’s General Counsel chose not to sue, and, as required by § 706 (f)(1), § 2000e-5 (f)(1), the EEOC issued respondent a right-to-sue letter. This was issued on July 13, 1977; respondent, under § 706 (f)(1), then had 90 days to file a Title VII action in federal district court.
On August 26, the Appeal Board confirmed the Division’s order. Petitioners immediately appealed the Board’s decision to the New York Supreme Court. The Division cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order.
On September 30, respondent filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. CL § 1981, Title VII, and the Thirteenth Amendment. App. 29. Respondent alleged that petitioners did not hire her because she is black, and that petitioner Club had employed only four blacks as waitresses during its 20-year existence. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that petitioners’ practices were unlawful under federal law, an order requiring petitioners to hire respondent, backpay with interest, retroactive employment-related benefits, attorney’s fees, and other appropriate relief. Petitioners’ answer denied virtually all the allegations in the complaint and cited the pendency of the state proceedings as an affirmative defense.
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court on November 3 unanimously affirmed the Appeal Board’s determination. New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, 59 App. Div. 2d 852, 399 N. Y. S. 2d 158 (1977). Petitioners unsuccessfully moved for reargument, and then filed a motion with the New York Court of Appeals for leave to appeal.
On February 3, 1978, while that motion was pending, the Federal District Court held a pretrial conference, after which petitioners agreed that if the state court denied their motion for leave to appeal, they would comply with the Division’s order. App. 73. One week later the New York Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion. 43 N. Y. 2d 951 (1978).
The parties thereafter apparently agreed that the federal action could be dismissed, except for respondent’s request for attorney’s fees. See App. 75-79. Respondent sought an award for 82 hours of attorney’s time. Of that total, 9 hours were spent in preparing and filing the EEOC charge and the federal suit, 22 hours were spent in preparing and presenting the case before the hearing examiner, 29! hours were spent in defending the Division’s order before the Appeal Board and the state courts, and 22 hours were spent seeking the fee award. App. to Pet. for Cert. A39-A40.
In July 1978, the District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, App. 35, but left pending the application for attorney’s fees. After further briefing, the court denied the fee request. 458 F. Supp. 79 (SDNY 1978).
The District Court found the propriety of the EEOC’s issuance of a right-to-sue letter while state proceedings were pending “very doubtful.” Id., at 80. Although the EEOC’s action had given respondent no choice but to preserve her rights by filing a complaint in federal court, the District Court ruled that the mere filing of a federal suit does not entitle an aggrieved party to attorney’s fees. The court reasoned that the fortuity of a need to file a protective federal suit should not make the defendants responsible for the costs of representing the plaintiff in the state forums. Id., at 81.
The District Court also relied on its conclusion that respondent “had the option of pursuing her state administrative remedies without incurring any expenses at all for legal services,” since state law, N. Y. Exec. Law § 297 (4) (a) (McKinney Supp. 1978), provides that the case in support of the complaint is to be presented to the hearing examiner by one of the attorneys for the Division. 458 F. Supp., at 81. The decision in Parker v. Califano, 182 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 561 F. 2d 320 (1977), upholding an award of attorney’s fees for prosecution of a federal employee’s Title VII claim in mandatory preliminary proceedings within the employee’s agency, was distinguished on the ground that the agency did not provide an independent attorney to prosecute the complaint. 458 F. Supp., at 81.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 598 F. 2d 1253 (1979). The court ruled: “A complaining party who is successful in state administrative proceedings after having her complaint under Title VII referred to a state agency in accordance with the statutory scheme of that Title is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in the same manner as a party who prevails in federal court.” Id., at 1260. The court relied on several factors in reaching its decision. Among them were the significant role of state human rights agencies in the Title VII enforcement scheme; the statute’s strong preference for administrative resolution of a discrimination complaint; the importance of providing an incentive for complete development of the administrative record; the language of the statute’s fee provision; and the desirability of encouraging a complainant to retain private counsel notwithstanding participation of a Division attorney at certain points during the state proceedings.
We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 897 (1979), to consider this question that is significant to the enforcement of the antidis-crimination provisions of Title YII.
II
Section 706 (k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 261, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (k), provides:
“In any action or proceeding under this title the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”
The question presented is whether, in the words of the statute, respondent was the “prevailing party” in an “action or proceeding under this title.” An examination of the language and history of the statute, the nature of the proceedings in which respondent participated, and the relationship of those proceedings to Title VITs enforcement mechanisms, together persuade us that Congress clearly intended to authorize awards of attorney’s fees to persons in respondent’s situation.
The words of § 706 (k) leave little doubt that fee awards are authorized for legal work done in “proceedings” other than court actions. Congress’ use of the broadly inclusive disjunctive phrase “action or proceeding” indicates an intent to subject the losing party to an award of attorney’s fees and costs that includes expenses incurred for administrative proceedings. This conclusion is supported by a comparison of § 706 (k) with another fee provision in the same Act, namely, § 204 (b) of Title II, 78 Stat. 244, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-3 (b). The pertinent language of § 204 (b) is identical to that of § 706 (k) except that § 204 (b) permits an award only with respect to “any action commenced pursuant to this title.” The two provisions were enacted contemporaneously as parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The omission of the words “or proceeding” from § 204 (b) is understandable, since enforcement of Title II depends solely on court actions. See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S. 400, 401 (1968). It is apparent, therefore, that the two fee provisions were carefully tailored to the enforcement scheme of each Title. It cannot be assumed that the words “or proceeding” in § 706 (k) are mere surplusage.
It might be argued that the words “or proceeding” authorize fee awards only for work done in federal administrative proceedings, such as those before the EEOC, but not for state administrative or state judicial proceedings. This reading at least would not render the words “or proceeding” a complete nullity. We find nothing in the statute, however, to suggest that Congress intended to draw this particular line. Rather, other provisions of the statute that interact with § 706 (k); the purpose of § 706 (k); the humanitarian remedial policies of Title VII; and the statute’s structure of cooperation between federal and state enforcement authorities, all point to the opposite conclusion.
Section 706 (k) authorizes a fee award to the prevailing party in “any . . . proceeding under this title.” (Emphasis added.) The same Title creates the system of deferral to state and local remedies. The statute uses the word “proceeding” to describe the state and local remedies to which complainants are required to resort. For example, § 706 (c), 86 Stat. 104, provides:
“[N]o charge may be filed . . . before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated. ... If any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is imposed by a State or local authority other than a requirement of the filing of a written and signed statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is based, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced for the purposes of this subsection at the time such statement is, sent. . . .” (Emphasis added).
Indeed, throughout Title VII the word “proceeding,” or its plural form, is used to refer to all the different types of proceedings in which the statute is enforced, state and federal, administrative and judicial. The conclusion that fees are authorized for work done at the state and local levels is inescapable.
This Court recently examined the legislative history and purpose of §706 (k). In Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412 (1978), it was noted that, although the legislative history of § 706 (k) is “sparse,” 434 U. S., at 420, it is clear that one of Congress’ primary purposes in enacting the section was to “make it easier for a plaintiff of limited means to bring a meritorious suit.” Ibid., quoting 110 Cong. Rec. 12724 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey). Because Congress has cast the Title VII plaintiff in the role of “a private attorney general,” vindicating a policy “of the highest priority,” a prevailing plaintiff “ordinarily is to be awarded attorney’s fees in all but special circumstances.” 434 U. S., at 416, 417. See also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S., at 402. It is clear that Congress intended to facilitate the bringing of discrimination complaints. Permitting an attorney’s fee award to one in respondent’s situation furthers this goal, while a contrary rule would force the complainant to bear the costs of mandatory state and local proceedings and thereby would inhibit the enforcement of a meritorious discrimination claim.
Title VII establishes a comprehensive enforcement scheme in which state agencies are given “a limited opportunity to resolve problems of employment discrimination and thereby to make unnecessary, resort to federal relief by victims of the discrimination.” Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U. S. 750, 755 (1979). Congress envisioned that Title VII’s procedures and remedies would “mes[h] nicely, logically, and coherently with the State and city legislation,” and that remedying employment discrimination would be an area in which “[t]he Federal Government and the State governments could cooperate effectively.” 110 Cong. Rec. 7205 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Clark).
Pursuant to this policy of cooperation, Title VII provides that where the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have occurred in a State or locality which has a law prohibiting the practice and in which an agency has been established to enforce that law, “no charge may be filed [with the EEOC] by the person aggrieved before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated.” § 706 (c). In practice, § 706 (c) has resulted in EEOC’s development of a referral and deferral system, which the Court approved in Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522 (1972). When a charge is filed with the EEOC prior to exhaustion of state or local remedies, the Commission refers the complaint to the appropriate local agency. The EEOC then holds the complaint in “suspended animation.” Id., at 526. Upon termination of the state proceedings or expiration of the 60-day deferral period, whichever comes first, the EEOC automatically assumes concurrent jurisdiction of the complaint. Ibid. ,
Of course, the “ultimate authority” to secure compliance with Title VII resides in the federal courts. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44-45 (1974). The statute authorizes civil enforcement actions by both the EEOC and the private plaintiff. After the deferral period, the EEOC assumes jurisdiction, and, “as promptly as possible” it determines whether there is probable cause to believe that the charge is true. § 706 (b). After an additional 30 days, the EEOC is authorized to bring an action, in which the complainant has an absolute right to intervene. § 706 (f). If the Commission does not file suit, or enter into a conciliation agreement to which the complainant is a party, within 180 days after it reassumes jurisdiction, it must issue a “right to sue” letter notifying the complainant of his right to bring an action within 90 days. Ibid.
It is clear from this scheme of interrelated and complementary state and federal enforcement that Congress viewed proceedings before the EEOC and in federal court as supplements to available state remedies for employment discrimination. Initial resort to state and local remedies is mandated, and recourse to the federal forums is appropriate only when the State does not provide prompt or complete relief. See Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S., at 48-50.
The construction of § 706 (k) that petitioners advocate clashes with this congressional design. Complainants unable to recover fees in state proceedings may be expected to wait out the 60-day deferral period, while focusing efforts on obtaining federal relief. See n. 6, infra. Only authorization of fee awards ensures incorporation of state procedures as a meaningful part of the Title VII enforcement scheme.
The District Court felt that granting a fee award to respondent would be a “windfall” based on the unforeseeable fortuity that filing a protective federal suit became necessary. 458 F. Supp., at 81. We agree with the District Court that the availability of a federal fee award for work done in state proceedings following EEOC referral and deferral should not depend upon whether the complainant ultimately finds it necessary to sue in federal court to obtain relief other than attorney’s fees. But our agreement with the District Court compels us to reject its conclusion. It would be anomalous to award fees to the complainant who is unsuccessful or only partially successful in obtaining state or local remedies, but to deny an award to the complainant who is successful in fulfilling Congress’ plan that federal policies be vindicated at the state or local level. Since it is clear that Congress intended to authorize fee awards for work done in administrative proceedings, we must conclude that § 706 (f)(1)’s authorization óf a civil suit in federal court encompasses a suit solely to obtain an award of attorney’s fees for legal work done in state and local proceedings.
Ill
Against the strong considerations favoring an award of fees, petitioners make three arguments. First, they contend that awarding fees for work done in state proceedings for which the State does not authorize fees infringes on the State’s powers under the Tenth Amendment. Second, they argue that Congress’ intent to pre-empt the state law has not been clearly expressed. Third, they contend that even if § 706 (k) authorizes fees for work done in state proceedings in some instances, denial of an award here was within the District Court’s discretion.
We must reject petitioners’ Tenth Amendment argument. Congress’ power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is broad, and overrides any interest the State might have in not authorizing awards for fees in connection with state proceedings. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678 (1978); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 446 (1976).
Petitioners cite Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132 (1963), Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U. S. 199 (1952), and Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194 (1931), in support of their argument that Congress’ intent to pre-empt state regulation of the administration of state proceedings is not clearly expressed in § 706 (k) and should not be inferred. We find these cases inapposite. Section 706 (k) does not “preempt” state law. “Title VII was designed to supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination.” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S., at 48-49. Title VII explicitly leaves the States free, and indeed encourages them, to exercise their regulatory power over discriminatory employment practices. Title VII merely provides a supplemental right to sue in federal court if satisfactory relief is not obtained in state forums. §706 (f)(l). One aspect of complete relief is an award of attorney’s fees, which Congress considered necessary for the fulfillment of federal goals. Provision of a federal award of attorney’s fees is not different from any other aspect of the ultimate authority of federal courts to enforce Title VII. For example, if state proceedings result in an injunction in favor of the complainant, but no award for backpay because state law does not authorize it, the complainant may proceed in federal court to “supplement” the state remedy. The state law which fails to authorize backpay has not been pre-empted. In any event, if it can be said that § 706 (k) pre-empts the state rule, we believe that Congress’ intent to achieve this result is manifest.
We also find no merit in petitioners’ suggestion that denial of a fee award was within the District Court’s discretion. As noted earlier, the court’s discretion to deny a fee award to a prevailing plaintiff is narrow. Absent “special circumstances,” see Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S., at 402; Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S., at 416-417, fees should be awarded. Petitioners argue that the availability of a Division attorney to present the “case in support of the complaint” is a “special circumstance” which should deprive a prevailing complainant of a fee award. Clearly, however, an attorney is needed to assist the complainant during the state proceedings, and the Division employee does not take the place of private counsel.
The New York state procedure, to which respondent’s charge was referred, provides for adversary quasi-judicial hearings leading to findings of fact, administrative appeals, and judicial review. The first stage of the state administrative action is the investigation; this results in either a finding of probable cause or a dismissal of the complaint. N. Y. Exec. Law § 297 (2) (McKinney Supp. 1979). A finding of probable cause after investigation is a necessary prelude to the public hearing. § 297 (4) (a). State law makes no provision for the participation of a Division attorney in the investigation, and a complainant is not represented by a Division attorney at this preliminary stage. See Brief for New York State Attorney General and New York State Division of Human Rights as Amici Curiae 4 — 5.
Following the investigation, the Division attempts to conciliate the complainant's grievance with the employer. N. Y. Exec. Law §§297 (3) (a), (b), and (c) (McKinney 1972). No Division attorney participates in the conciliation efforts on behalf of the complainant, and the Division staff is even empowered to execute a settlement agreement with the employer over the complainant’s objections. §297 (3)(c).
If efforts at conciliation fail and a hearing is scheduled, state law provides:
“The case in support of the complaint shall be presented by one of the attorneys or agents of the division and, at the option of the complainant, by his attorney. With the consent of the division, the case in support of the complainant may be presented solely by his attorney.” § 297 (4) (a) (McKinney Supp. 1979).
At the time of the hearing on respondent's complaint, however, the practice of the Division was to involve one of its attorneys only if the complainant was not represented by private counsel. Brief for New York State Attorney General and New York State Division of Human Rights as Amici Curiae 5. Complainants were “encouraged” to obtain private counsel due to a growing caseload and staff limitations. App. to Pet. for Cert. A58-A59.
At the appellate level, the Division attorney appears only to support and seek enforcement of orders issued by the Division and the Appeal Board. N. Y. Exec. Law § 298 (McKinney Supp. 1979). The Division attorney does not represent the complainant on an appeal from an order adverse to the claimant. In addition, the Division cannot appeal from an order of the Human Rights Appeal Board reversing a Division order. See Brief for New York State Attorney General and New York Division of Human Rights as Amici Curiae 5-6.
It is thus obvious that the assistance provided a complainant by the Division attorney is not fully adequate, and that the attorney has no obligation to the complainant as a client. In fact, at times the position of the Division may be detrimental to the interests of the complainant and to enforcement of federal rights. Representation by a private attorney thus assures development of a complete factual record at the investigative stage and at the administrative hearing. At both, settlement is possible and is encouraged. A Division employee cannot act as the complainant’s attorney for purposes of advising him whether to accept a settlement. Retention of private counsel will help assure that federal rights are not compromised in the conciliation process.
If a Division attorney appears at the public hearing, he does not represent the interests of the complainant, but rather those of the State. Id., at 5; App. to Pet. for Cert. A59-A60. He presents the “case in support of the complaint,” not in support of the complainant. N. Y. Exec. Law § 297 (4) (a) (McKinney Supp. 1979). Upon appeal, the Division attorney is authorized only to support the order entered by the Division or the Appeal Board. Without doubt, the private attorney has an important role to play in preserving and protecting federal rights and interests during the state proceedings.
In sum, we conclude that §§ 706 (f) and 706 (k) of Title VII authorize a federal-court action to recover an award of attorney’s fees for work done by the prevailing complainant in state proceedings to which the complainant was referred pursuant to the provisions of Title VII. We also conclude that no special circumstances exist in this case that would justify denial of a fee award.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice joins the Court’s opinion except footnote 6 thereof; in his view, resolution of the issue dealt with in that footnote is not necessary.
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Rehnquist would reverse the judgment essentially for the reasons given by Judge Mulligan in dissenting from the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Respondent was represented by counsel employed by the NAACP Special Contribution Fund.
In cases involving federal employees, all the Courts of Appeals that have considered the question have upheld fee awards under § 706 (k) for work done in federal administrative proceedings that must be exhausted as a condition to filing an action in federal court. E. g., Brown v. Bathke, 588 F. 2d 634, 638 (CA8 1978); Fischer v. Adams, 572 F. 2d 406 (CA1 1978); Parker v. Califano, 182 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 561 F. 2d 320 (1977); Foster v. Boorstin, 182 U. S. App. D. C. 342, 561 F. 2d 340 (1977); Johnson v. United States, 554 F. 2d 632 (CA4 1977).
See, e. g., §706 (f)(1), 78 Stat. 260, as redesignated, 86 Stat. 105, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (f)(1) (court may stay “further proceedings” pending the termination of “State or local proceedings”); § 706 (i), 78 Stat. 261, as amended, 86 Stat. 107, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (i) (Commission may commence “proceedings” to compel compliance with court order).
Other provisions of Title VII also evidence the policy of promoting federal-state cooperation in enforcement. Section 706 (b), 78 Stat. 259, as redesignated, 86 Stat. 104, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(b), requires the EEOC to “accord substantial weight” to a state administrative determination, and § 709 (b), 78 Stat. 262, as amended, 86 Stat. 108, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-8 (b), authorizes the EEOC to “cooperate with State and local agencies charged with the administration of State fair employment practices laws” in funding research and other mutually beneficial projects, and to enter into work-sharing agreements with those agencies to facilitate the processing of complaints.
We thus disagree with the District Court that the propriety of EEOC’s issuance of the right-to-sue letter in this case is “very doubtful.” 458 F. Supp. 79, 80 (SDNY 1978). As we read the statute, the Commission was required to issue the letter after 180 days, regardless of the posture of any state proceedings.
We note that if fees were authorized only when the complainant found an independent reason for suing in federal court under Title VII, such a ground almost always could be found. Section 706 (f)(1) requires the EEOC to give the complainant a “right to sue” letter if, after it assumes concurrent jurisdiction over the complaint, it does not sue within 180 days. Thus, after waiting 240 days (60 days deferral to the state or local agency and 180 days for the EEOC to act after deferral), the complainant appears to have an absolute right to resort to an action in federal court. The federal court may stay the action for a maximum of 60 more days, to permit completion of state proceedings. §706 (f)(1). It took three years for the New York proceedings in this case finally to provide respondent all the relief she desired other than attorney’s fees. It is doubtful that the systems of many States could provide complete relief within 240 days. The existence of an incentive to get into federal court, such as the availability of a fee award, would ensure that almost all Title VII complainants would abandon state proceedings as soon as possible. This, however, would undermine Congress’ intent to encourage full use of state remedies.
The Human Rights Law of the State of New York does not authorize an award of counsel fees for work done in either state administrative or judicial proceedings. See State Commission for Human Rights v. Speer, 35 App. Div. 2d 107, 111-112, 313 N. Y. S. 2d 28, 33 (1970), rev'd on other grounds, 29 N. Y. 2d 555, 272 N. E. 2d 884 (1971); State Division of Human Rights v. Gorton, 32 App. Div. 2d 933, 934, 302 N. Y. S. 2d 966, 968 (1969).
On October 18, 1977, Division regulations were amended to provide for the presentation of the case in support of the complaint solely by the attorney for the complainant, upon consent of the Division. The regulation requires the Division attorney to submit a statement to the hearing examiner in lieu of appearance. 9 N. Y. C. R. R. § 465.11 (d)(2),
We also reject petitioners’ argument, not suggested in the petition for certiorari, that respondent’s representation by a public interest group is a “special circumstance” that should result in denial of counsel fees. Federal Courts of Appeals’ decisions are to the contrary. See, e. g., Reynolds v. Coomey, 567 F. 2d 1166 (CA1 1978); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F. 2d 10, 13 (CA2 1976). Congress endorsed such decisions allowing fees to public interest groups when it was considering, and passed, the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, which is legislation similar in purpose and design to Title VIPs fee provision. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, pp. 5 and 8, n. 16 (1976).
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.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we must decide whether an individual debtor not engaged in business is eligible to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq.
I
From March 1983 until April 1985, petitioner Sheldon Baruch Toibb, a former staff attorney with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was employed as a consultant by Independence Electric Corporation (IEC), a company he and two others organized to produce and market electric power. Petitioner owns 24 percent of the company’s shares. After IEC terminated his employment, petitioner was unable to find work as a consultant in the energy field; he has been largely supported by his family and friends since that time.
On November 18, 1986, petitioner filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Code, 11 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. The Schedule of Assets and Liabilities accompanying petitioner’s filing disclosed no secured debts, a disputed federal tax priority claim of $11,000, and unsecured debts of $170,605. Petitioner listed as nonexempt assets his IEC shares and a possible claim against his former business associates. He stated that the market value of each of these assets was unknown.
On August 6, 1987, the Chapter 7 trustee appointed to administer petitioner’s estate notified the creditors that the Board of Directors of IEC had offered to purchase petitioner’s IEC shares for $25,000. When petitioner became aware that this stock had such value, he decided to avoid its liquidation by moving to convert his Chapter 7 case to one under the reorganization provisions of Chapter 11.
The Bankruptcy Court granted petitioner’s conversion motion, App. 21, and on February 1, 1988, petitioner filed a plan of reorganization. Id., at 70. Under the plan, petitioner proposed to pay his unsecured creditors $25,000 less administrative expenses and priority tax claims, a proposal that would result in a payment of approximately 11 cents on the dollar. He further proposed to pay the unsecured creditors, for a period of six years, 50 percent of any dividends from IEC or of any proceeds from the sale of the IEC stock, up to full payment of the debts.
On March 8, 1988, the Bankruptcy Court on its own motion ordered petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed because petitioner was not engaged in business and, therefore, did not qualify as a Chapter 11 debtor. Id., at 121. At the ensuing hearing, petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to demonstrate that he had a business to reorganize. Petitioner also argued that Chapter 11 should be available to an individual debtor not engaged in an ongoing business. On August 1, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that, under the authority of Wamsganz v. Boatmen’s Bank of De Soto, 804 F. 2d 503 (CA8 1986), petitioner failed to qualify for relief under Chapter 11. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-17 and A-19.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, also relying on Wamsganz, upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of petitioner’s Chapter 11 case. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-8 and A-9. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Bankruptcy Court had the authority to dismiss the proceeding sua sponte, and that the Circuit’s earlier Wams-ganz decision was controlling. In re Toibb, 902 F. 2d 14 (1990). Because the Court of Appeals’ ruling that an individual nonbusiness debtor may not reorganize under Chapter 11 clearly conflicted with the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in In re Moog, 774 F. 2d 1073 (1985), we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 498 U. S. 1060 (1991).
II
A
In our view, the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code disposes of the question before us. Section 109, 11 U. S. C. § 109, defines who may be a debtor under the various chapters of the Code. Section 109(d) provides: “Only a person that may be a debtor under chapter 7 of this title, except a stockbroker or a commodity broker, and a railroad may be a debtor under chapter 11 of this title.” Section 109(b) states: “A person may be a debtor under chapter 7 of this title only if such person is not — (1) a railroad; (2) a domestic insurance company, bank, . . . ; or (3) a foreign insurance company, bank, . . . engaged in such business in the United States.” The Code defines “person” as used in Title 11 to “includ[e] [an] individual.” § 101(35). Under the express terms of the Code, therefore, petitioner is “a person who may be a debtor under chapter 7” and satisfies the statutory requirements for a Chapter 11 debtor.
The Code contains no ongoing business requirement for reorganization under Chapter 11, and we are loath to infer the exclusion of certain classes of debtors from the protections of Chapter 11, because Congress took care in § 109 to specify who qualifies — and who does not qualify — as a debtor under the various chapters of the Code. Section 109(b) expressly excludes from the coverage of Chapter 7 railroads and various financial and insurance institutions. Only municipalities are eligible for the protection of Chapter 9. § 109(c). Most significantly, § 109(d) makes stockbrokers and commodities brokers ineligible for Chapter 11 relief, but otherwise leaves that Chapter available to any other entity eligible for the protection of Chapter 7. Congress knew how to restrict recourse to the avenues of bankruptcy relief; it did not place Chapter 11 reorganization beyond the reach of a nonbusiness individual debtor.
B
The amicus curiae in support of the Court of Appeals’ judgment acknowledges that Chapter 11 does not expressly exclude an individual nonbusiness debtor from its reach. He echoes the reasoning of those courts that have engrafted an ongoing-business requirement onto the plain language of § 109(d) and argues that the statute’s legislative history and structure make clear that Chapter 11 was intended for business debtors alone. See, e. g., Wamsganz v. Boatmen’s Bank of De Soto, 804 F. 2d, at 505 (“The legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code, taken as a whole, shows that Congress meant for chapter 11 to be available to businesses and persons engaged in business, and not to consumer debtors”). We find these arguments unpersuasive for several reasons.
First, this Court has repeated with some frequency: “Where, as here-, the resolution of a question of federal law turns on a statute and the intention of Congress, we look first to the statutory language and then to the legislative history if the statutory language is unclear.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U. S. 886, 896 (1984). The language of § 109 is not unclear. Thus, although a court appropriately may refer to a statute’s legislative history to resolve statutory ambiguity, there is no need to do so here.
Second, even were we to comments urged in support of a congressional intent to exclude a nonbusiness debtor from Chapter 11, the scant history on this precise issue does not suggest a “clearly expressed legislative intenft] . . . contrary ...” to the plain language of § 109(d). See Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). The ami-cus does point to the following statement in a House Report:
“Some consumer debtors are unable to avail themselves of the relief provided under chapter 13. For these debtors, straight bankruptcy is the only remedy that will enable them to get out from under the debilitating effects of too much debt.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 125 (1977).
Petitioner responds with the following excerpt from a later Senate Report:
“Chapter 11, Reorganization, is primarily designed businesses, although individuals are eligible for relief under the chapter. The procedures of chapter 11, however, are sufficiently complex that they will be used only in a business case and not in the consumer context.” S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 3 (1978).
These apparently conflicting views tend to negate the suggestion that the Congress enacting the current Code operated with a clear intent to deny Chapter 11 relief to an individual nonbusiness debtor.
Finally, we are not persuaded by the contention that Chapter 11 is unavailable to a debtor without an ongoing business because many of the Chapter’s provisions do not apply to a nonbusiness debtor. There is no doubt that Congress intended that a business debtor be among those who might use Chapter 11. Code provisions like the ones authorizing the appointment of an equity security holders’ committee, § 1102, and the appointment of a trustee “for cause, including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by current management ...,”§ 1104(a)(1), certainly are designed to aid in the rehabilitation of a business. It does not follow, however, that a debtor whose affairs do not warrant recourse to these provisions is ineligible for Chapter 11 relief. Instead, these provisions — like the references to debtor businesses in the Chapter’s legislative history — reflect an understandable expectation that Chapter 11 would be used primarily by debtors with ongoing businesses; they do not constitute an additional prerequisite for Chapter 11 eligibility beyond those established in § 109(d).
HH 1 — 1
Although the foregoing analysis is dispositive of the question presented, we deal briefly with amicus’ contention that policy considerations underlying the Code support inferring a congressional intent to preclude a nonbusiness debtor from reorganizing under Chapter 11. First, it is said that bringing a consumer debtor within the scope of Chapter 11 does not serve Congress’ purpose of permitting business debtors to reorganize and restructure their debts in order to revive the debtors’ businesses and thereby preserve jobs and protect investors. This argument assumes that Congress had a single purpose in enacting Chapter 11. Petitioner suggests, however, and we agree, that Chapter 11 also embodies the general Code policy of maximizing the value of the bankruptcy estate. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, 471 U. S. 343, 351-354 (1985). Under certain circumstances a consumer debtor’s estate will be worth more if reorganized under Chapter 11 than if liquidated under Chapter 7. Allowing such a debtor to proceed under Chapter 11 serves the congressional purpose of deriving as much value as possible from the debtor’s estate.
Second, amicus notes that a consumer proceed under Chapter 11 would permit the debtor to shield both disposable income and nonexempt personal property. He argues that the legislative history of Chapter 11 does not reflect an intent to offer a consumer debtor more expansive protection than he would find under Chapter 13, which does not protect disposable income, or Chapter 7, which does not protect nonexempt personal assets. As an initial matter, it makes no difference whether the legislative history affirmatively reflects such an intent, because the plain language of the statute allows a consumer debtor to proceed under Chapter 11. Moreover, differences in the requirements and protections of each chapter reflect Congress’ appreciation that various approaches are necessary to address effectively the disparate situations of debtors seeking protection under the Code.
Amicus does not contend that allowing a consumer debtor to reorganize under Chapter 11 will leave the debtor’s creditors in a worse position than if the debtor were required to liquidate. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-31. Nor could he. Section 1129(a)(7) provides that a reorganization plan may not be confirmed unless all the debtor’s creditors accept the plan or will receive not less than they would receive under a Chapter 7 liquidation. Because creditors cannot be expected to approve a plan in which they would receive less than they would from an immediate liquidation of the debtor’s assets, it follows that a Chapter 11 reorganization plan usually will be confirmed only when creditors will receive at least as much as if the debtor were to file under Chapter 7. Absent some showing of harm to the creditors of a nonbusiness debtor allowed to reorganize under Chapter 11, we see nothing in the allocation of “burdens” and “benefits” of Chapter 11 that warrants an inference that Congress intended to exclude a consumer debtor from its coverage. See Herbert, Consumer Chapter 11 Proceedings: Abuse or Alternative?, 91 Com. L. J. 234, 245-248 (1986).
Amicus also warns that allowing consumer debtors to proceed under Chapter 11 will flood the bankruptcy courts with plans of reorganization that ultimately will prove unworkable. We think this fear is unfounded for two reasons. First, the greater expense and complexity of filing under Chapter 11 likely will dissuade most consumer debtors from seeking relief under this Chapter. See S. Rep. No. 95-989, at 3; see also Herbert, supra, at 242-243. Second, the Code gives bankruptcy courts substantial discretion to dismiss a Chapter 11 case in which the debtor files an untenable plan of reorganization. See §§ 1112(b) and 1129(a).
Finally, amicus asserts that extending Chapter 11 to consumer debtors creates the risk that these debtors will be forced into Chapter 11 by their creditors under § 303(a), a result contrary to the intent reflected in Congress’ decision to prevent involuntary bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 13.' In particular, he suggests that it would be unwise to force a debtor into a Chapter 11 reorganization, because an involuntary debtor would be unlikely to cooperate in the plan of reorganization — a point that Congress noted in refusing to allow involuntary Chapter 13 proceedings. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 120.
We find these concerns overstated in light of the Code’s provisions for dealing with recalcitrant Chapter 11 debtors. If an involuntary Chapter 11 debtor fails to cooperate, this likely will provide the requisite “cause” for the bankruptcy court to convert the Chapter 11 case to one under Chapter 7. See § 1112(b). In any event, the argument overlooks Congress’ primary concern about a debtor’s being forced into bankruptcy under Chapter 13: that such a debtor, whose future wages are not exempt from the bankruptcy estate, § 1322(a)(1), would be compelled to toil for the benefit of creditors in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s involuntary servitude prohibition. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 120. Because there is no comparable provision in Chapter 11 requiring a debtor to pay future wages to a creditor, Congress’ concern about imposing involuntary servitude on a Chapter 13 debtor is not relevant to a Chapter 11 reorganization.
IV
The plain language of the Bankruptcy vidual debtors not engaged in business to file for relief under Chapter 11. Although the structure and legislative history of Chapter 11 indicate that this Chapter was intended primarily for the use of business debtors, the Code contains no “ongoing business” requirement for Chapter 11 reorganization, and we find no basis for imposing one. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Because petitioner’s unsecured debts exceeded $100,000 and he had no regular income, he was ineligible to proceed under Chapter 13 of the Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq. See § 109(e).
Petitioner does not seek further review of the question whether he is engaged in an ongoing business.
The Eighth Circuit also agreed with what it regarded as the supporting precedent of In re Little Creek Development Co., 779 F. 2d 1068 (CA5 1986), and In re Winshall Settlor’s Trust, 758 F. 2d 1136 (CA6 1985).
The named respondent, Stuart J. Radloff, was dismissed as Chapter 7 trustee when the Bankruptcy Court converted petitioner’s case to one under Chapter 11. Mr. Radloff did not participate in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals and refrained from responding to Mr, Toibb’s petition for certiorari filed with this Court. We therefore specifically requested the United States Trustee, see 28 U. S. C. §581(a)(13), to respond. In doing so, the United States Trustee indicated his agreement with petitioner’s position and suggested that, if this Court decided to review the case, it might wish to appoint counsel to defend the Eighth Circuit’s judgment. We then invited James Hamilton, Esq., of Washington, D. C., a member of the Bar of this Court, to serve as amicus curiae in support of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 498 U. S. 1065 (1991). Mr. Hamilton accepted this appointment and has well fulfilled this assigned responsibility.
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
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 896, 15 U. S. C. § 78p(b), imposes a general rule of strict liability on owners of more than 10% of a corporation’s listed stock for any profits realized from the purchase and sale, or sale and purchase, of such stock occurring within a 6-month period. These statutorily defined “insiders,” as well as the corporation’s officers and directors, are liable to the issuer of the stock for their short-swing profits, and are subject to suit “instituted ... by the issuer, or by the owner of any security of the issuer in the name and in behalf of the issuer . . . .” Ibid.
Our prior cases interpreting § 16(b) have resolved questions about the liability of an insider defendant under the statute. This case, in contrast, requires us to address a plaintiff’s standing under § 16(b) and, in particular, the requirements for continued standing after the institution of an action. We hold that a plaintiff, who properly “instituted [a § 16(b) action as] the owner of [a] security of the issuer,” may continue to prosecute the action after his interest in the issuer is exchanged in a merger for stock in the issuer’s new corporate parent.
I
In January 1987, respondent Ira L. Mendell filed a complaint under § 16(b) against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, stating that he owned common stock in Viacom International, Inc. (International), and was suing on behalf of the corporation. He alleged that petitioners, a collection of limited partnerships, general partnerships, individual partners and corporations, “operated as a single unit” and were, for purposes of this litigation, a “single . . . beneficial owner of more than ten per centum of the common stock” of International. App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a-42a. Respondent claimed that petitioners were liable to International under § 16(b) for approximately $11 million in profits earned by them from trading in International’s common stock between July and October 1986. Id., at 42a-43a. The complaint recited that respondent had made a demand upon International and its board of directors to bring a § 16(b) action against petitioners and that more than 60 days had passed without the institution of an action.
In June 1987, less than six months after respondent had filed his § 16(b) complaint, International was acquired by Arsenal Acquiring Corp., a shell corporation formed by Arsenal Holdings, Inc. (now named Viacom, Inc.) (Viacom), for the purpose of acquiring International. By the terms of the acquisition, Viacom’s shell subsidiary was merged with International, which then became Viacom’s wholly owned subsidiary and only asset. The stockholders of International received a combination of cash and stock in Viacom in exchange for their International stock. Id., at 40a; App. 14-26.
As a result of the acquisition, respondent, who was a stockholder in International when he instituted this action, acquired stock in International’s new parent corporation and sole stockholder, Viacom. Respondent amended his complaint to reflect the restructuring by claiming to prosecute the § 16(b) action on behalf of Viacom as well as International. App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a.
Following the merger, petitioners moved for summary judgment, arguing that respondent had lost standing to maintain the action when the exchange of stock and cash occurred, after which respondent no longer owned any security of International, the “issuer.” The District Court held that § 16(b) actions “may be prosecuted only by the issuer itself or the holders of its securities,” and granted the motion because respondent no longer owned any International stock. App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a. The court concluded that only Viacom, as International’s sole security holder, could continue to prosecute this action against petitioners. Id., at 33a.
A divided Court of Appeals reversed. Mendell ex rel. Viacom, Inc. v. Gollust, 909 F. 2d 724 (CA2 1990). The majority saw nothing in the text of § 16(b) to require dismissal of respondent’s complaint. “[T]he language of the statute speaks of the ‘owner’ of securities; but such language is not modified by the word ‘current’ or any like limiting expression. The statute does not specifically bar the maintenance of § 16(b) suits by former shareholders and Congress . . . could readily have eliminated such individuals.” Id., at 730. Since the provisions of the statute were open to “interpretation,” the court relied on the statute’s remedial purposes in determining “whether the policy behind the statute is best served by allowing the claim.” Id., at 728-729. The majority concluded that the remedial policy favored recognizing respondent’s continued standing after the merger. “Permitting [respondent] to maintain this § 16(b) suit is not barred by the language of the statute or by existing case law, and it is fully consistent with the statutory objectives.” Id., at 731. The summary judgment for petitioners was reversed.
The dissent took issue with this conflict with prior decisions of the Second Circuit and at least one other. See Portnoy v. Kawecki Berylco Industries, Inc., 607 F. 2d 766, 767 (CA7 1979); Rothenberg v. United Brands Co., CCH Fed. Sec. L. Rep. ¶ 96,045 (SDNY), aff’d mem., 673 F. 2d 1295 (CA2 1977).
We granted certiorari, 498 U. this conflict and to determine whether a stockholder who has properly instituted a § 16(b) action to recover profits from a corporation’s insiders may continue to prosecute that action after a merger involving the issuer results in exchanging the stockholder’s interest in the issuer for stock in the issuer’s new corporate parent.
r — i I — I
<3
Congress passed § 16(b) of the 1934 Act to “preven[t] the unfair use of information which may have been obtained by [a] beneficial owner, director, or officer by reason of his relationship to the issuer.” 15 U. S. C. §78p(b). As we noted in Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Provident Securities Co., 423 U. S. 232, 243 (1976): “Congress recognized that insiders may have access to information about their corporations not available to the rest of the investing public. By trading on this information, these persons could reap profits at the expense of less well informed investors.” Prohibiting short-swing trading by insiders with nonpublic information was an important part of Congress’ plan in the 1934 Act to “insure the maintenance of fair and honest markets,” 15 U. S. C. § 78b; and to eliminate such trading, Congress enacted a “flat rule [in § 16(b)] taking the profits out of a class of transactions in which the possibility of abuse was believed to be intolerably great.” Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co., 404 U. S. 418, 422 (1972); see also Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 411 U. S. 582, 591-595 (1973).
The question presented in this case requires us to determine who may maintain an action to enforce this “flat rule.” We begin with the text. Section 16(b) imposes liability on any “beneficial owner, director, or officer” of a corporation for “any profit realized by him from any purchase and sale, or any sale and purchase, of any equity security of [an] issuer . . . within any period of less than six months.” 15 U. S. C. § 78p(b). A “[s]uit to recover [an insider’s] profit may be instituted ... by the issuer, or by the owner of any security of the issuer in the name and in behalf of the issuer . . . .” Ibid.
The statute imposes a form of strict liability on “beneficial owner[s],” as well as on the issuer’s officers and directors, rendering them liable to suits requiring them to disgorge their profits even if they did not trade on inside information or intend to profit on the basis of such information. See Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., supra, at 595. Because the statute imposes “liability without fault within its narrowly drawn limits,” Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Provident Securities Co., supra, at 251, we have been reluctant to exceed a literal, “mechanical” application of the statutory text in determining who may be subject to liability, even though in some cases a broader view of statutory liability could work to eliminate an “evil that Congress sought to correct through § 16(b).” Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co., supra, at 425.
To enforce this strict liability rule on insider trading, Congress chose to rely solely on the issuers of stock and their security holders. Unlike most of the federal securities laws, § 16(b) does not confer enforcement authority on the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is, rather, the security holders of an issuer who have the ultimate authority to sue for enforcement of § 16(b). If the issuer declines to bring a § 16(b) action within 60 days of a demand by a security holder, or fails to prosecute the action “diligently,” 15 U. S. C. § 78p(b), then the security holder may “institut[e]” an action to recover insider short-swing profits for the issuer. Ibid.
In contrast to the “narrowly drawn limits” on the class of corporate insiders who may be defendants under § 16(b), Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Provident Securities Co., supra, at 251, the statutory definitions identifying the class of plaintiffs (other than the issuer) who may bring suit indicate that Congress intended to grant enforcement standing of considerable breadth. The only textual restrictions on the standing of a party to bring suit under § 16(b) are that the plaintiff must be the “owner of [a] security” of the “issuer” at the time the suit is “instituted.”
Although plaintiffs seeking to sue under the statute must own a “security,” § 16(b) places no significant restriction on the type of security adequate to confer standing. “[A]ny security” will suffice, 15 U. S. C. §78p(b), the statutory definition being broad enough to include stock, notes, warrants, bonds, debentures, puts, calls, and a variety of other financial instruments; it expressly excludes only “currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker’s acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months . . . .” § 78c(a)(10); see also Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U. S. 56 (1990). Nor is there any restriction in terms of either the number or percentage of shares, or the value of any other security, that must be held. See Portnoy v. Revlon, Inc., 650 F. 2d 895, 897 (CA7 1981) (plaintiff bought single share); Magida v. Continental Can Co., 231 F. 2d 843, 847-848 (CA2) (plaintiff owned 10 shares), cert. denied, 351 U. S. 972 (1956). In fact, the terms of the statute do not even require that the security owner have had an interest in the issuer at the time of the defendant’s short-swing trading, and the courts to have addressed this issue have held that a subsequent purchaser of the issuer’s securities has standing to sue for prior short-swing trading. See, e. g., Dottenheim v. Murchison, 227 F. 2d 737, 738-740 (CA5 1955), cert. denied, 351 U. S. 919 (1956); Blau v. Mission Corp., 212 F. 2d 77, 79 (CA2), cert. denied, 347 U. S. 1016 (1954).
The second requirement for § 16(b) standing is that the plaintiff own a security of the “issuer” whose stock was traded by the insider defendant. An “issuer” of a security is defined under § 3(a)(8) of the 1934 Act as the corporation that actually issued the security, 15 U. S. C. §78c(a)(8), and does not include parent or subsidiary corporations. While this requirement is strict on its face, it is ostensibly subject to mitigation in the final requirement for § 16(b) standing, which is merely that the plaintiff own a security of the issuer at the time the § 16(b) action is “instituted.” Today, as in 1934, the word “institute” is commonly understood to mean “inaugurate or commence; as to institute an action.” Black’s Law Dictionary 985-986 (3d ed. 1933) (citing cases); see Black’s Law Dictionary 800 (6th ed. 1990) (same definition); Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 988 (2d ed. 1987) (“to set in operation; to institute a lawsuit”). Congressional intent to adopt this common understanding is confirmed by Congress’ use of the same word elsewhere to mean the commencement of an action. See, e. g., 8 U. S. C. § 1503(a) (“action . . . may be instituted only within five years after . . . final administrative denial”); 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) (“Any action instituted in accordance with this subsection shall survive notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the office of Secretary or any vacancy in such office”).
The terms of § 16(b), read in context, of signal breadth, expressly limited only by conditions existing at the time an action is begun. Petitioners contend, however, that the statute should at least be read narrowly enough to require the plaintiff owning a “security” of the “issuer” at the time the action is “instituted” to maintain ownership of the issuer’s security throughout the period of his participation in the litigation. See Brief for Petitioners 11. But no such “continuous ownership requirement,” ibid., is found in the text of the statute, nor does § 16(b)’s legislative history reveal any congressional intent to impose one.
This is not to say, of course, a maintained by someone who is subsequently divested of any interest in the outcome of the litigation. Congress clearly intended to put “a private-profit motive behind the uncovering of this kind of leakage of information, [by making] the stockholders [its] policemen.” Hearings on H. R. 7852 and H. R. 8720 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 136 (1934) (testimony of Thomas G. Corcoran) (hereinafter Hearings). The sparse legislative history on this question, which consists primarily of hearing testimony by one of the 1934 Act's drafters, merely confirms this conclusion.
Congress must, indeed, have assumed any plaintiff would maintain some continuing financial stake in the litigation for a further reason as well. For if a security holder were allowed to maintain a § 16(b) action after he had lost any financial interest in its outcome, there would be serious constitutional doubt whether that plaintiff could demonstrate the standing required by Article III’s case-or-controversy limitation on federal court jurisdiction. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U. S. 797, 804 (1985) (Article III requires “the party requesting standing [to allege] ‘such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues’ ”) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962)); see also Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982). Although “Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975), “Art. III’s requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself.” Ibid. Moreover, the plaintiff must maintain a “personal stake” in the outcome of the litigation throughout its course. See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U. S. 388, 395-397 (1980).
Hence, we have no difficulty ment of § 16(b), Congress understood and intended that, throughout the period of his participation, a plaintiff authorized to sue insiders on behalf of an issuer would have some continuing financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, both for the sake of furthering the statute’s remedial purposes by ensuring that enforcing parties maintain the incentive to litigate vigorously and to avoid the serious constitutional question that would arise from a plaintiff’s loss of all financial interest in the outcome of the litigation he had begun. See Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932) (“When the validity of an act of Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, . . . this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided”); see also Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440, 465-466 (1989); id., at 481 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
B
The conclusion that § 16(b) requires a plaintiff security holder to maintain some financial interest in the outcome of the litigation does not, however, tell us whether an adequate financial stake can be maintained when the plaintiff’s interest in the issuer has been replaced by one in the issuer’s new parent. We think it can be.
The modest financial stake in an issuer sufficient to bring suit is not necessarily greater than an interest in the original issuer represented by equity ownership in the issuer’s parent corporation. A security holder eligible to institute suit will have no direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, since any recovery will inure only to the issuer’s benefit. Yet the indirect interest derived through one share of stock is enough to confer standing, however slight the potential marginal increase in the value of the share. A bondholder’s sufficient financial interest may be even more attenuated, since any recovery by the issuer will increase the value of the bond only because the issuer may become a slightly better credit risk.
Thus, it is difficult to see how such a bondholder plaintiff, for example, is likely to have a more significant stake in the outcome of a § 16(b) action than a stockholder in a company whose only asset is the issuer. Because such a bondholder’s attenuated financial stake is nonetheless sufficient to satisfy the statute’s initial standing requirements, the stake of a parent company stockholder like respondent should be enough to meet the requirements for continued standing, so long as that is consistent with the text of the statute. It is consistent, of course, and in light of the congressional policy of lenient standing, we will not read any further condition into the statute, beyond the requirement that a § 16(b) plaintiff maintain a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation sufficient to motivate its prosecution and avoid constitutional standing difficulties.
Ill
In this case, respondent has satisfied the statute’s requirements. He owned a “security” of the “issuer” at the time he “instituted” this § 16(b) action. In the aftermath of International’s restructuring, he retains a continuing financial interest in the outcome of the litigation derived from his stock in International’s sole stockholder, Viacom, whose only asset is International. Through these relationships, respondent still stands to profit, albeit indirectly, if this action is successful, just as he would have done if his original shares had not been exchanged for stock in Viacom. Although a calculation of the values of the respective interests in International that respondent held as its stockholder and holds now as a Viacom stockholder is not before us, his financial interest is actually no less real than before the merger and apparently no more attenuated than the interest of a bondholder might be in a § 16(b) suit on an issuer’s behalf.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The text of § 16(b) reads in full:
“For the purpose of preventing the unfair use of information which may have been obtained by such beneficial owner, director, or officer by reason of his relationship to the issuer, any profit realized by him from any purchase and sale, or any sale and purchase, of any equity security of such issuer (other than an exempted security) within any period of less than six months, unless such security was acquired in good faith in connection with a debt previously contracted, shall inure to and be recoverable by the issuer irrespective of any intention on the part of such beneficial owner, director, or officer in entering into such transaction of holding the security purchased or of not repurchasing the security sold for a period exceeding six months. Suit to recover such profit may be instituted at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction by the issuer, or by the owner of any security of the issuer in the name and in behalf of the issuer if the issuer shall fail or refuse to bring such suit within sixty days after request or shall fail diligently to prosecute the same thereafter; but no such suit shall be brought more than two years after the date such profit was realized. This subsection shall not be construed to cover any transaction where such beneficial owner was not such both at the time of the purchase and sale, or the sale and purchase, of the security involved, or any transaction or transactions which the Commission by rules and regulations may exempt as not comprehended within the purpose of this subsection.” 15 U. S. C. §78p(b).
The phrase “beneficial owner, director, or officer” is defined in § 16(a) as “[ejvery person who is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 10 per centum of any class of any equity security . . . which is registered pursuant to [§ 12 of the 1934 Act], or who is a director or an officer of the issuer of such security . . . .” 15 U. S. C. §78p(a).
See Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Provident Securities Co., 423 U. S. 232 (1976) (defendant must be 10% beneficial owner before purchase to be subject to liability for subsequent sale); Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 411 U. S. 582 (1973) (binding option to sell stock not a "sale” for purposes of § 16(b)); Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co., 404 U. S. 418 (1972) (no liability for sales by defendant after its ownership interest fell below 10%); Blau v. Lehman, 368 U. S. 403 (1962) (partnership not liable under § 16(b) for trades by partner).
International stockholders who chose not to exchange their shares under the terms of the merger were afforded appraisal rights under Ohio law. App. 25-26. Respondent did not exercise his right to appraisal.
Respondent also sought to sue derivatively on behalf of International. App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a. This “double derivative” claim was dismissed by the District Court. Id., at 33a. Because of its disposition of respondent’s § 16(b) claim, the Court of Appeals did not reach this issue. Mendell ex rel. Viacom, Inc. v. Gollust, 909 F. 2d 724, 731 (CA2 1990). Although respondent now “urges upon th[is] Court the validity of his double derivative action,” Brief for Respondent 26, this issue was not properly presented to this Court for review and we do not reach it.
The Court of Appeals observed:
“Here plaintiff’s suit was timely, and while his § 16(b) suit was pending he was involuntarily divested of his share ownership in the issuer through a merger. But for that merger plaintiff’s suit could not have been challenged on standing grounds. Although we decline — in keeping with § 16(b)’s objective analysis regarding defendants’ intent — to inquire whether the merger was orchestrated for the express purpose of divesting plaintiff of standing, we cannot help but note that the incorporation of Viacom and the merger proposal occurred after plaintiff’s § 16(b) claim was instituted. Hence, the danger of such intentional restructuring to defeat the enforcement mechanism incorporated in the statute is clearly present.” 909 F. 2d, at 731.
Cf. § 2(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77b(11) (definition of “issuer” for certain purposes is “any person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by the issuer, or any person under direct or indirect common control with the issuer").
Petitioners have directed our attention only to a statement by Thomas G. Corcoran, a principal drafter of the statute, at one of the hearings on the 1934 Act. Corcoran testified that Congress could be confident that § 16(b) would be enforced because the enactment of the statute would “[say] to all of the stockholders of the company, ‘You can recover any of this profit for your own account, if you find out that any such transactions are going on.’ ” Hearings 136. This statement was not, of course, a complete description of the class of plaintiffs entitled to § 16(b) standing, since “any security [holder]” may sue, not just stockholders. 15 U. S. C. § 78p(b). Nor was it meant as a precise description of a plaintiff’s incentive to sue; the witness elsewhere made it clear that a stockholder plaintiff (or any other security holder) would not directly receive any recovery, but would be suing solely on the corporation’s behalf:
“The fact that the stockholders, with an interest, are permitted to sue to recover that ■profit for the benefit of the company, puts anyone doing this particular thing, in the position of taking [a] risk that somebody with a profit motive will try to find out.” Hearings 137 (emphasis added).
Corcoran’s analysis does, however, demonstrate the statute’s reliance for its enforcement on the profit motive in an issuer’s security holders, a dependence that could hardly cease the moment after suit was filed.
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether 28 U. S. C. § 2680(c), which exempts from the coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act “[a]ny claim arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs,” precludes recovery against the United States for injury to private property sustained during a temporary detention of the property by the Customs Service.
HH
While a serviceman stationed in Guam, petitioner assembled a large collection of oriental art. When he was transferred from Guam to Philadelphia, petitioner brought his art collection with him. In his customs declaration, petitioner stated that he intended to keep the contents of the collection for himself. Subsequently, acting upon information that, contrary to his representations, petitioner planned to resell portions of his collection, agents of the United States Customs Service obtained a valid warrant to search petitioner’s house. In executing that warrant, the agents seized various antiques and other objects of art.
Petitioner was charged with smuggling his art collection into the country, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 545. After a jury trial, he was acquitted. The Customs Service then notified petitioner that the seized objects were subject to civil forfeiture under 19 U. S. C. § 1592, which at the time permitted confiscation of goods brought into the United States “by means of any false statement.” Relying on 19 U. S. C. § 1618, petitioner filed a petition for relief from the forfeiture. The Customs Service granted the petition and returned the goods.
Alleging that some of the objects returned to him had been injured while in the custody of the Customs Service, petitioner filed an administrative complaint with the Service requesting compensation for the damage. The Customs Service denied relief. Relying on the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (1976 ed. and Supp. V), petitioner then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking approximately $12,000 in damages for the alleged injury to his property. The Government moved for a dismissal of the complaint or for summary judgment on the ground that petitioner’s claim was barred by § 2680(c). The District Court granted the Government’s motion.
The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed. 679 F. 2d 306 (CA3 1982). The Court of Appeals reasoned that the United States may be held liable for torts committed by its employees only on the basis of a statutory provision evincing a “‘clear relinquishment of sovereign immunity.’” Id., at 309 (quoting Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 31 (1953)). In the court’s view, the Federal Tort Claims Act, as qualified by § 2680(c), fails to provide the necessary relinquishment of governmental immunity from suits alleging that customs officials damaged or lost detained property. On the contrary, the court observed, the “clear language” of § 2680(c) shields the United States from “all claims arising out of detention of goods by customs officers and does not purport to distinguish among types of harm.” 679 F. 2d, at 308. On that basis, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits regarding the liability of the United States for injuries caused by the negligence of customs officials in handling property in their possession. 459 U. S. 1101 (1983). We now affirm.
II
A
The Federal Tort Claims Act, enacted in 1946, provides generally that the United States shall be liable, to the same extent as a private party, “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.” 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b); see also 28 U. S. C. §2674. The Act’s broad waiver of sovereign immunity is, however, subject to 13 enumerated exceptions. 28 U. S. C. §§2680(a)-(f), (h)-(n). One of those exceptions, § 2680(c), exempts from the coverage of the statute “[a]ny claim arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs . . . .” Petitioner asks us to construe the foregoing language to cover only claims “for damage caused by the detention itself and not for the negligent. . . destruction of property while it is in the possession of the customs service.” By “damage caused by the detention itself,” petitioner appears to mean harms attributable to an illegal detention, such as a decline in the economic value of detained goods (either because of depreciation or because of a drop in the price the goods will fetch), injury resulting from deprivation of the ability to make use of the goods during the period of detention, or consequential damages resulting from lack of access to the goods. The Government asks us to read the exception to cover all injuries to property sustained during its detention by customs officials.
The starting point of our analysis of these competing interpretations must, of course, be the language of § 2680(c). “[W]e assume ‘that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.’” American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U. S. 63, 68 (1982) (quoting Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 9 (1962)). At first blush, the statutory language certainly appears expansive enough to support the Government’s construction; the encompassing phrase, “arising in respect of,” seems to sweep within the exception all injuries associated in any way with the “detention” of goods. It must be admitted that this initial reading is not ineluctable; as Judge Weis, dissenting in the Court of Appeals, pointed out, it is possible (with some effort) to read the phrase, “in respect of” as the equivalent of “as regards” and thereby to infer that “the statutory exception is directed to the fact of detention itself, and that alone.” 679 F. 2d, at 310. But we think that the fairest interpretation of the crucial portion of the provision is the one that first springs to mind: “any claim arising in respect of” the detention of goods means any claim “arising out of” the detention of goods, and includes a claim resulting from negligent handling or storage of detained property.
Relying on the analysis of the Second Circuit in Alliance Assurance Co. v. United States, 252 F. 2d 529 (1958), petitioner argues that the foregoing reading of the plain language of § 2680(c) is undercut by the context in which the provision appears.
“That the exception does not and was not intended to bar actions based on the negligent destruction, injury or loss of goods in the possession or control of the customs authorities is best illustrated by the fact that the exception immediately preceding it expressly bars actions ‘arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission’ of mail. 28 U. S. C. A. § 2680(b). If Congress had similarly wished to bar actions based on the negligent loss of goods which governmental agencies other than the postal system undertook to handle, the exception in 28 U. S. C. A. § 2680(b) shows that it would have been equal to the task. The conclusion is inescapable that it did not choose to bestow upon all such agencies general absolution from carelessness in handling property belonging to others.” Id., at 534.
We find the conclusion reached by petitioner and the Second Circuit far from “inescapable.” The specificity of § 2680(b), in contrast with the generality of § 2680(c), suggests, if anything, that Congress intended the former to be less encompassing than the latter. The motivation for such an intent is not hard to find. One of the principal purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act was to waive the Government’s immunity from liability for injuries resulting from auto accidents in which employees of the Postal System were at fault. In order to ensure that § 2680(b), which governs torts committed by mailmen, did not have the effect of barring precisely the sort of suit that Congress was most concerned to authorize, the draftsmen of the provision carefully delineated the types of misconduct for which the Government was not assuming financial responsibility — namely, “the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter” — thereby excluding, by implication, negligent handling of motor vehicles. The absence of any analogous desire to limit the reach of the statutory exception pertaining to the detention of property by customs officials explains the lack of comparable nicety in the phraseology of § 2680(c).
B
The legislative history of § 2680(c), though meager, supports the interpretation of the provision that we have derived from its language and context. Two specific aspects of the evolution of the provision are telling. First, the person who almost certainly drafted the language under consideration clearly thought that it covered injury to detained property caused by the negligence of customs officials. It appears that the portion of § 2680(c) pertaining to the detention of goods was first written by Judge Alexander Holtzoff, one of the major figures in the development of the Tort Claims Act. In his report explicating his proposals, Judge Holtzoff explained:
“[The proposed provision would exempt from the coverage of the Act] [c]laims arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty. This exception appears in all previous drafts. It is expanded, however, so as to include immunity from liability in respect of loss in connection with the detention of goods or merchandise by any officer of customs or excise. The additional proviso has special reference to the detention of imported goods in appraisers’ warehouses or customs houses, as well as seizures by law enforcement officials, internal revenue officers, and the like.” A. Holtzoff, Report on Proposed Federal Tort Claims Bill 16 (1981) (Holtzoff Report) (emphasis added).
Though it cannot be definitively established that Congress relied upon Judge Holtzoff’s report, it is significant that the apparent draftsman of the crucial portion of § 2680(c) believed that it would bar a suit of the sort brought by petitioner.
Second, the congressional Committees that submitted Reports on the various bills that ultimately became the Tort Claims Act suggested that the provision that was to become § 2680(c), like the other exceptions from the waiver of sovereign immunity, covered claims “arising out of” the designated conduct. Thus, for example, the House Judiciary Committee described the proposed exceptions as follows:
“These exemptions cover claims arising out of the loss or miscarriage of postal matter; the assessment or collection of taxes or assessments; the detention of goods by customs officers; admiralty and maritime torts; deliberate torts such as assault and battery; and others.” H. R. Rep. No. 1287, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1945).
The Committees’ casual use of the words, “arising out of,” with reference to the exemption of claims pertaining to the detention of goods substantially undermines petitioner’s contention that the phrase, “in respect of,” was designed to limit the sorts of suits covered by the provision.
Of perhaps greater importance than these two clues as to the meaning of the prepositional phrase contained in § 2680(c) is the fact that our interpretation of the plain language of the provision accords with what we know of Congress’ general purposes in creating exceptions to the Tort Claims Act. The three objectives most often mentioned in the legislative history as rationales for the enumerated exceptions are: ensuring that “certain governmental activities” not be disrupted by the threat of damages suits; avoiding exposure of the United States to liability for excessive or fraudulent claims; and not extending the coverage of the Act to suits for which adequate remedies were already available.
The exemption of claims for damage to goods in the custody of customs officials is certainly consistent with the first two of these purposes. One of the most important sanctions available to the Customs Service in ensuring compliance with the customs laws is its power to detain goods owned by suspected violators of those laws. Congress may well have wished not to dampen the enforcement efforts of the Service by exposing the Government to private damages suits by disgruntled owners of detained property.
Congress may also have been concerned that a waiver of immunity from suits alleging damage to detained property would expose the United States to liability for fraudulent claims. The Customs Service does not have the staff or resources it would need to inspect goods at the time it seizes them. Lacking a record of the condition of a piece of property when the Service took custody of it, the Government would be in a poor position to defend a suit in which the owner alleged that the item was returned in damaged condition. Congress may have reasoned that the frequency with which the Government would be obliged to pay undeserving claimants if it waived immunity from such suits offset the inequity, resulting from retention of immunity, to persons with legitimate grievances.
To a lesser extent, our reading of § 2680(c) is consistent with the third articulated purpose of the exceptions to the Tort Claims Act. At common law, a property owner had (and retains) a right to bring suit against an individual customs official who negligently damaged his goods. Title 28 U. S. C. §2006 provides that judgments in such suits shall be paid out of the Federal Treasury if a court certifies that there existed probable cause for the detention of the goods and that the official was acting under the directions of an appropriate supervisor. Congress in 1946 may have concluded that this mode of obtaining recompense from the United States (or from an individual officer) was “adequate.” To be sure, there are significant limitations to the common-law remedy, the most important of which is the apparent requirement that the plaintiff prove negligence on the part of a particular customs official. Such proof will often be difficult to come by. But Congress may well have concluded that exposing the United States to liability for injury to property in the custody of the Customs Service under circumstances in which the owner is not able to demonstrate such specific negligence would open the door to an excessive number of fraudulent suits.
rH HH HH
Petitioner and some commentators argue that § 2680(c) should not be construed in a fashion that denies an effectual remedy to many persons whose property is damaged through the tortious conduct of customs officials. That contention has force, but it is properly addressed to Congress, not to this Court. The language of the statute as it was written leaves us no choice but to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the Tort Claims Act does not cover suits alleging that customs officials injured property that had been detained by the Customs Service.
It is so ordered.
Because Guam is outside the customs territory of the United States, all goods imported therefrom are subject to duties. 19 U. S. C. § 1202.
Section 1618 permits the Secretary of the Treasury to remit or mitigate a forfeiture “if he finds that such . . . forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or without any intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the revenue or to violate the law, or finds the existence of such mitigating circumstances as to justify the remission or mitigation of such . . . forfeiture . . . .”
Petitioner also requested damages for two other alleged injuries related to the seizure and detention of his property: the destruction of a cork pagoda by customs officials during the search of petitioner’s house, and the accidental seizure of a sales receipt for a stereo receiver (without which petitioner was unable to obtain warranty repairs). App. 6-7. In his brief, petitioner argues that these two claims are segregable from his primary claim for damages resulting from the injury to the detained goods and merit separate analysis. Because petitioner did not present this argument to the Court of Appeals, we decline to consider it. See United States v. Lovasco, 431 U. S. 783, 788, n. 7 (1977).
Civil Action No. 81-2054 (ED Pa. Oct. 15, 1981). The District Court did not identify the grounds for its ruling. We see no reason to doubt the inference drawn by the Court of Appeals that the District Court was persuaded by the Government’s argument that § 2680(c) barred the suit. 679 F. 2d 306, 307, and n. 2. It would have been better practice, however, for the District Court to have noted the reasons for its judgment.
In three cases, Courts of Appeals have construed § 2680(c) in ways that would not bar petitioner’s suit. A & D International, Inc. v. United States, 665 F. 2d 669 (CA5 1982); A-Mark, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 593 F. 2d 849 (CA9 1978); Alliance Assurance Co. v. United States, 252 F. 2d 529 (CA2 1958). In two other cases, Courts of Appeals have read the provision as did the Third Circuit in this case. United States v. One (1) Douglas A-26B Aircraft, 662 F. 2d 1372 (CA11 1981); United States v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, FL 8443 AY, 501 F. 2d 1327 (CA5 1974). In Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U. S. 460, 462, n. 3 (1980), we acknowledged the divergence in the views of the Circuits but expressly declined to decide the issue.
The full text of § 2680(c) provides:
“The provisions of [28 U. S. C. §§ 2671-2679] and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to—
“(c) Any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty, or the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs or excise or any other law-enforcement officer.”
We have no occasion in this case to decide what kinds of “law-enforcement officer[s],” other than customs officials, are covered by the exception.
In view of the fact that the Tort Claims Act permits recovery only of “money damages ... for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death,” 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b), it is unclear whether, even in the absence of § 2680(c), any of the foregoing sorts of damage would be recoverable under the Act. Cf., e. g., Idaho ex rel. Trombley v. United States Dept. of Army, Corps of Engineers, 666 F. 2d 444 (CA9) (adopting a restrictive interpretation of the language of § 1346(b)), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 823 (1982). If the sorts of damages that, under petitioner’s theory, are covered by § 2680(c) would not be recoverable in any event because of the limitation built into § 1346(b), § 2680(c) would be mere surplusage. The unattractiveness of such a construction of the statute, see Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 392 (1979), would cast considerable doubt on petitioner’s position. However, because the question of the scope of § 1346(b) has not been briefed or argued in this case, we decline to rely on any inferences that might be drawn therefrom in our decision today.
Because petitioner conceded below that the injuries to his property occurred after it had been lawfully detained by customs officers, we need not consider the meaning of the term “detention” as used in the statute.
The Court of Appeals, while properly emphasizing the plain language of § 2680(c) as the basis for its ruling, suggested that the structure of the Tort Claims Act should affect how that language is read. Relying on the principles that “sovereign immunity is the rule, and that legislative departures from the rule must be strictly construed,” the Court of Appeals suggested that § 2680(c), as an exception from a statute waiving sovereign immunity, should be broadly construed. 679 F. 2d, at 308-309. We find such an approach unhelpful. Though the Court of Appeals is certainly correct that the exceptions to the Tort Claims Act should not be read in a way that would “‘nullif[y them] through judicial interpretation,’” id., at 309, unduly generous interpretations of the exceptions run the risk of defeating the central purpose of the statute. See United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U. S. 543, 548, n. 5 (1951); cf. Block v. Neal, 460 U. S. 289, 298 (1983) (“‘The exemption of the sovereign from suit involves hardship enough where consent has been withheld. We are not to add to its rigor by refinement of construction where consent has been announced’ ”) (quoting Anderson v. Hayes Construction Co., 243 N. Y. 140, 147, 153 N. E. 28, 29-30 (1926) (Cardozo, J.)). We think that the proper objective of a court attempting to construe one of the subsections of 28 U. S. C. § 2680 is to identify “those circumstances which are within the words and reason of the exception” — no less and no more. See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 31 (1953).
For reiterations of this argument, see A & D International, Inc. v. United States, 665 F. 2d, at 672; A-Mark, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 593 F. 2d, at 850.
See General Tort Bill: Hearing before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Claims, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1932) (testimony of Assistant Attorney General Rugg).
Judge Holtzoff went on to explain that “[t]his provision is suggested in the proposed draft of the bill submitted by the Crown Proceedings Committee in England in 1927. ...” Holtzoff Report, at 16. The relevant portion of the bill to which Holtzoff referred was even more explicit:
“No proceedings shall lie under this section—
“(c) for or in respect of the loss of or any deterioration or damage occasioned to, or any delay in the release of, any goods or merchandise by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by any officer of customs and excise acting as such . . . .” Report of Crown Proceedings Committee §ll(5)(c), pp. 17-18 (Apr. 1927). (It appears that this bill was never enacted into law in England.)
Mr. Holtzoff wrote his report while serving as Special Assistant to the Attorney General. He had been “assigned by Attorney General Mitchell to the special task of co-ordinating the views of the Government departments” regarding the proper scope of a tort claims statute. See Borchard, The Federal Tort Claims Bill, 1 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, n. 2 (1983). Holtzoff submitted his report, in which his draft bill was contained, to Assistant Attorney General Rugg, who in turn transmitted it to the General Accounting Office of the Comptroller General. Insofar as Holtzoff’s report embodied the views of the Executive Department at that stage of the debates over the tort claims bill, it is likely that, at some point, the report was brought to the attention of the Congressmen considering the bill. We agree with the dissent that, because the report was never introduced into the public record, the ideas expressed therein should not be given great weight in determining the intent of the Legislature. See post, at 863-864. But, in the absence of any direct evidence regarding how Members of Congress understood the provision that became § 2680(c), it seems to us senseless to ignore entirely the views of its draftsman.
See also S. Rep. No. 1400, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1946); S. Rep. No. 1196, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1942); H. R. Rep. No. 2245, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1942).
Cf. 679 F. 2d, at 809 (Weis, J., dissenting) (discussed, supra, at 854).
The dissent objects to our effort to test our interpretation of § 2680(c) for conformity with the legislative purposes that underlie § 2680 as a whole, principally on the ground that we take inadequate account of the “central purpose” of the Tort Claims Act. Post, at 866-869. The dissent mistakes the nature of our analysis. Our view is that the language of § 2680(c) is inclusive enough to exempt the United States from liability for negligence in the handling or storage of goods detained by the Customs Service, see supra, at 854. Our purpose in looking to the legislative history is merely to ensure that our construction is not undercut by any indication that Congress meant the exception to be read more narrowly. Because of the sparseness of the evidence regarding the purpose of § 2680(c) itself, see supra, at 855-858, we consider it advisable to consider Congress’ more general objectives in excluding certain kinds of claims from the broad waiver of sovereign immunity effected by the Tort Claims Act. Because we find that our reading of § 2680(c) is consistent with those objectives, we see no need to throw our analytical net any wider.
For a variety of expressions of these three purposes, see S. Rep. No. 1400, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1946); Tort Claims: Hearings on H. R. 5373 and H. R. 6463 before the House Judiciary Committee, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1942) (testimony of Assistant Attorney General Shea); Tort Claims Against the United States: Hearings on H. R. 7236 before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Judiciary Committee, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 22 (1940) (testimony of Alexander Holtzoff); Hearings, supra n. 11, at 17 (testimony of Assistant Attorney General Rugg); Holtzoff Report, at 15. To our knowledge, the only arguably relevant specific statement as to the purpose of § 2680(c) appears in the testimony of Alexander Holtzoff before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Holtzoff emphasized the adequacy of existing remedies as a justification for the portion of the provision pertaining to the recovery of improperly collected taxes; he did not proffer an explanation for the portion of the provision pertaining to the detention of goods. Tort Claims Against the United States: Hearings on S. 2690 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 38 (1940).
See, e. g., 19 U. S. C. § 1594 (authorizing seizure of “a vessel or vehicle” to force payment of assessed penalties); 19 U. S. C. § 1595a(a) (authorizing seizure of property used to facilitate the illegal importation of other goods).
The Government’s vulnerability to fraudulent claims would be especially great in a case in which the Customs Service took custody of the goods from a shipper rather than from the owner. The shipper would contend that it exercised due care in the handling of the goods. The owner would demonstrate that he received the goods in damaged condition. In the absence of an extensive system for accounting for the movements and treatment of property in its custody, the Customs Service would be hard pressed to establish that its employees were not at fault. We do not suggest that such a dilemma would automatically give rise to liability on the part of the United States; that of course would depend upon the substance of the pertinent state tort law. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. But uneasiness at the prospect of such scenarios may have influenced Congress when it carved out this exception to the Tort Claims Act.
See, e. g., States Marine Lines, Inc. v. Shultz, 498 F. 2d 1146, 1149 (CA4 1974); Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F. 2d 774, 775 (CA2 1944); J. Story, Commentaries on the Law of Bailments §§ 613, 618, pp. 387, 390 (1832).
See States Marine Lines, Inc. v. Shultz, supra, at 1149-1150.
We note that there exists at least one other remedial system that might enable someone in petitioner’s position to obtain compensation from the Government. If the owner of property detained by the Customs Service were able to establish the existence of an implied-in-fact contract of bailment between himself and the Service, he could bring suit under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491 (1976 ed., Supp. V). See Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U. S. 460 (1980).
At oral argument, the Government contended that a property owner could recover against the United States under this theory by bringing suit against the relevant District Director of the Customs Service and would not be obliged to prove negligence on the part of any specific customs official. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29. Though we do not decide the issue, such an interpretation of the common-law doctrine appears questionable to us. Except in cases in which the property owner could demonstrate that the Director expressly authorized tortious conduct by a subordinate, it seems likely that the owner would be obliged to identify and bring suit against the individual whose malfeasance caused the injury to his goods.
The dissent finds “internally inconsistent” the foregoing “hypothetical rationales” for § 2680(c). Post, at 865. Thus, the dissent suggests that the fact that an owner of goods damaged by the Customs Service might recover from the United States under the Tucker Act, see n. 22, supra, makes it unlikely that Congress would have been chary of creating a remedy under the Tort Claims Act because of the risk of exposing the Government to an excessive number of fraudulent suits. Post, at 865-866. But the requirement that an owner, to recover under the Tucker Act, prove that the Service entered into an implied-in-fact contract of bailment would operate to screen out many fraudulent claims; Congress rationally could have concluded that, in view of the absence of any comparable filter in the Tort Claims Act, it was inadvisable to extend the coverage of the latter to owners of detained goods. Similarly, the dissent finds it implausible that Congress might have feared that the creation of a remedy against the United States under the Tort Claims Act would inhibit vigorous enforcement of the customs laws, see supra, at 859, when there already existed a common-law remedy against customs officials for negligence in the handling of goods, see supra, at 860-861. Post, at 866. But, as explained above, the apparent requirement that the owner, to recover under the common law, prove negligence on the part of a specific customs official, see supra, at 860-861, and n. 23, combined with the obligation of the United States to indemnify the official if he acted under proper authority, see supra, at 860, would have minimized the effect of the extant remedies on the willingness of the Service to adopt vigorous enforcement policies and the willingness of its officials to implement those policies. Congress might well have feared that the creation of a remedy under the Tort Claims Act would have increased the liability of the United States to such a degree as to curtail the exercise by the Service of its authority to detain goods.
Comment, Governmental Liability for Customs Officials’ Negligence: Kosak v. United States, 67 Minn. L. Rev. 1040 (1983); Note, Using the Federal Tort Claims Act to Remedy Property Damage Following Customs Service Seizures, 17 U. Mich. J. of L. Ref. 83 (1983).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
We are asked once again to mark the boundaries of state sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that immunity did not extend to suits by Indian tribes, and Alaska seeks review of that determination.
I
In 1980, Alaska enacted a revenue-sharing statute that provided annual payments of $25,000 to each “Native village government” located in a community without a state-chartered municipal corporation. Alaska Stat. Ann. § 29.89.050 (1984). The State’s attorney general believed the statute to be unconstitutional. In his view, Native village governments were “racially exclusive groups” or “racially exclusive organizations” whose status turned exclusively on the racial ancestry of their members; therefore, the attorney general believed, funding these groups would violate the equal protection clause of Alaska’s Constitution. Acting on the attorney general’s advice, the Commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Community and Regional Affairs (petitioner here), enlarged the program to include all unincorporated communities, whether administered by Native governments or not. Shortly thereafter, the legislature increased funding under the program to match its increased scope. Funding, however, never reached the full $25,000 initially allocated to each unincorporated Native community.
The legislature repealed the revenue-sharing statute in 1985, see 1985 Alaska Sess. Laws, ch. 90, and replaced it with one that matched the program as expanded by the commissioner. In the same year, respondents filed this suit, challenging the commissioner’s action on federal equal protection grounds, and seeking an order requiring the commissioner to pay them the money that they would have received had the commissioner not enlarged the program. The District Court initially granted an injunction to preserve sufficient funds for the 1986 fiscal year, but then dismissed the suit as violating the Eleventh Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, first on the ground that 28 U. S. C. § 1362 constituted a congressional abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity, Native Village of Noatak v. Hoffman, 872 F. 2d 1384 (1989) (later withdrawn), and then, upon reconsideration, on the ground that Alaska had no immunity against suits by Indian tribes. 896 F. 2d 1157 (1989). We granted certiorari sub nom. Hoffman v. Native Village of Noatak, 498 U. S. 807 (1990).
I — I I — I
The Eleventh Amendment provides as follows:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
Despite the narrowness of its terms, since Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 483 U. S. 468, 472 (1987) (plurality opinion); Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U. S. 279, 290-294 (1973) (Marshall, J., concurring in result); and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the “plan of the convention.” See Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U. S. 299, 304 (1990); Welch, supra, at 474 (plurality opinion); Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 238 (1985); Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 99 (1984).
Respondents do not ask us to revisit Hans; instead they argue that the traditional principles of immunity presumed by Hans do not apply to suits by sovereigns like Indian tribes. And even if they did, respondents contend, the States have consented to suits by tribes in the “plan of the convention.” We consider these points in turn.
In arguing that sovereign immunity does not restrict suit by Indian tribes, respondents submit, first, that sovereign immunity only restricts suits by individuals against sovereigns, not by sovereigns against sovereigns, and as we have recognized, Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U. S. 505, 509 (1991), Indian tribes are sovereigns. Respondents’ conception of the nature of sovereign immunity finds some support both in the apparent understanding of the Founders and in dicta of our own opinions. But whatever the reach or meaning of these early statements, the notion that traditional principles of sovereign immunity only restrict suits by individuals was rejected in Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313 (1934). It is with that opinion, and the conception of sovereignty that it embraces, that we must begin.
In Monaco, the Principality had come into possession of Mississippi state bonds, and had sued Mississippi in federal court to recover amounts due under those bonds. Mississippi defended on grounds of the Eleventh Amendment, among others. Had respondents’ understanding of sovereign immunity been the Court’s, the Eleventh Amendment would not have limited the otherwise clear grant of jurisdiction in Article III to hear controversies “between a State . . . and foreign States.” But we held that it did.
“Manifestly, we cannot rest with a mere literal application of the words of §2 of Article III, or assume that the letter of the Eleventh Amendment exhausts the restrictions upon suits against non-consenting States. Behind the words of the constitutional provisions are postulates which limit and control. . . . There is . . . the postulate that States of the Union, still possessing attributes of sovereignty, shall be immune from suits, without their consent, save where there has been a ‘surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention.’ The Federalist, No. 81.” Monaco, supra, at 322-323 (footnote omitted).
Our clear assumption in Monaco was that sovereign immunity extends against both individuals and sovereigns, so that there must be found inherent in the plan of the convention a surrender by the States of immunity as to either. Because we perceived in the plan “no ground upon which it can be said that any waiver or consent by a State of the Union has run in favor of a foreign State,” id., at 330, we concluded that foreign states were still subject to the immunity of the States.
We pursue the same inquiry in the present case, and thus confront respondents’ second contention: that the States waived their immunity against Indian tribes when they adopted the Constitution. Just as in Monaco with regard to foreign sovereigns, so also here with regard to Indian tribes, there is no compelling evidence that the Founders thought such a surrender inherent in the constitutional compact. We have hitherto found a surrender of immunity against particular litigants in only two contexts: suits by sister States, South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286, 318 (1904), and suits by the United States, United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621 (1892). We have not found a surrender by the United States to suit by the States, Kansas v. United States, 204 U. S. 331, 342 (1907); see Jackson, The Supreme Court, the Eleventh Amendment, and State Sovereign Immunity, 98 Yale L. J. 1, 79-80 (1988), nor, again, a surrender by the States to suit by foreign sovereigns, Monaco, supra.
Respondents argue that Indian tribes are more like States than foreign sovereigns. That is true in some respects: They are, for example, domestic. The relevant difference between States and foreign sovereigns, however, is not domesticity, but the role of each in the convention within which the surrender of immunity was for the former, but not for the latter, implicit. What makes the States’ surrender of immunity from suit by sister States plausible is the mutuality of that concession. There is no such mutuality with either foreign sovereigns or Indian tribes. We have repeatedly held that Indian tribes enjoy immunity against suits by States, Potawatomi Tribe, supra, at 509, as it would be absurd to suggest that the tribes surrendered immunity in a convention to which they were not even parties. But if the convention could not surrender the tribes’ immunity for the benefit of the States, we do not believe that it surrendered the States’ immunity for the benefit of the tribes.
I — I I — H b-i
Respondents argue that, if the Eleventh Amendment operates to bar suits by Indian tribes against States without their consent, 28 U. S. C. § 1362 operates to void that bar. They press two very different arguments, which we consider in turn.
A
In United States v. Minnesota, 270 U. S. 181 (1926), we held that the United States had standing to sue on behalf of Indian tribes as guardians of the tribes’ rights, and that, since “the immunity of the State is subject to the constitutional qualification that she may be sued in this Court by the United States,” id., at 195, no Eleventh Amendment bar would limit the United States’ access to federal courts for that purpose. Relying upon our decision in Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U. S. 463 (1976), respondents argue that we have read § 1362 to embody a general delegation of the authority to sue on the tribes’ behalf from the Federal Government back to tribes themselves. Hence, respondents suggest, because the United States would face no sovereign immunity limitation, in no case brought under § 1362 can sovereign immunity be a bar.
Section 1362 provides as follows:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, brought by any Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
What is striking about this most unremarkable statute is its similarity to any number of other grants of jurisdiction to district courts to hear federal-question claims. Compare it, for example, with § 1331(a) as it existed at the time § 1362 was enacted:
“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.” 28 U. S. C. § 1331(a) (1964 ed.).
Considering the text of § 1362 in the context of its enactment, one might well conclude that its sole purpose was to eliminate any jurisdictional minimum for “arising under” claims brought by Indian tribes. Tribes already had access to federal courts for “arising under” claims under § 1331, where the amount in controversy was greater than $10,000; for all that appears from its text, § 1362 merely extends that jurisdiction to claims below that minimum. Such a reading, moreover, finds support in the very title of the Act that adopted § 1362: “To amend the Judicial Code to permit Indian tribes to maintain civil actions in Federal district courts without regard to the $10,000 limitation, and for other purposes.” 80 Stat. 880.
Moe, however, found something more in the title’s “other purposes” — an implication that “a tribe’s access to federal court to litigate [federal-question cases] would be at least in some respects as broad as that of the United States suing as the tribe’s trustee,” 425 U. S., at 473 (emphasis added). The “respect” at issue in Moe was access to federal court for the purpose of obtaining injunctive relief from state taxation. The Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341, denied such access to persons other than the United States; we held that § 1362 revoked that denial as to Indian tribes. Moe did not purport to be saying that § 1362 equated tribal access with the United States’ access generally, but only “at least in some respects,” 425 U. S., at 473, or “in certain respects,” id., at 474. Respondents now urge us, in effect, to eliminate this limitation utterly — for it is impossible to imagine any more extreme replication of the United States’ ability to sue than replication even to the point of allowing unconsented suit against state sovereigns. This is a vast expansion upon Moe. Section 1341, which Moe held § 1362 to eliminate in its application to tribal suits, was merely a limitation that Congress itself had created — commiting state tax-injunction suits to state courts as a matter of comity. Absent that statute, state taxes could constitutionally be enjoined. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58, 71, n. 10 (1989). The obstacle to suit in the present case, by contrast, is a creation not of Congress but of the Constitution. A willingness to eliminate the former in no way bespeaks a willingness to eliminate the latter, especially when limitation to “certain respects” has explicitly been announced.
Moreover, as we shall discuss in Part III-B, our cases require Congress’ exercise of the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity, where it exists, to be exercised with unmistakeable clarity. To avoid that difficulty, respondents assert that § 1362 represents not an abrogation of the States’ sovereign immunity, but rather a delegation to tribes of the Federal Government’s exemption from state sovereign immunity. We doubt, to begin with, that that sovereign exemption can be delegated — even if one limits the permissibility of delegation (as respondents propose) to persons on whose behalf the United States itself might sue. The consent, “inherent in the convention,” to suit by the United States — at the instance and under the control of responsible federal officers — is not consent to suit by anyone whom the United States might select; and even consent to suit by the United States for a particular person’s benefit is not consent to suit by that person himself.
But in any event, assuming that delegation of exemption from state sovereign immunity is theoretically possible, there is no reason to believe that Congress ever contemplated such a strange notion. Even if our decision in Moe could be regarded as in any way related to sovereign immunity, see n. 3, supra, it could nevertheless not be regarded as in any way related to congressional “delegation.” The opinion does not mention that word, and contains not the slightest suggestion of such an analysis. To say that “§ 1362 . . . suggests that in certain respects tribes suing under this section were to be accorded treatment similar to that of the United States had it sued on their behalf,” 425 U. S., at 474, does not remotely imply delegation — only equivalence of treatment. The delegation theory is entirely a creature of respondents’ own invention.
B
Finally, respondents ask us to recognize § 1362 as a congressional abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We have repeatedly said that this power to abrogate can only be exercised by a clear legislative statement. As we said in Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U. S. 223 (1989):
“To temper Congress’ acknowledged powers of abrogation with due concern for the Eleventh Amendment’s role as an essential component of our constitutional structure, we have applied a simple but stringent test: ‘Congress may abrogate the States’ constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.’” Id., at 227-228.
We agree with petitioner that § 1362 does not reflect an “unmistakably clear” intent to abrogate immunity, made plain “in the language of the statute.” As we have already noted, the text is no more specific than § 1331, the grant of general federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, and no one contends that § 1331 suffices to abrogate immunity for all federal questions.
Respondents’ argument, however, is not that § 1362 is a “clear statement” under the standard of Dellmuth, but rather that it was a sufficiently clear statement under the standard of Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), the existing authority for “abrogation” at the time of § 1362’s enactment in 1966. In Parden, we found a sufficiently clear intent to avoid state immunity in a statute that subjected to liability “every” common carrier in interstate commerce, where the State, after the statute’s enactment, chose to become a carrier in interstate commerce. Id., at 187-188. Similarly, respondents argue, a statute that grants jurisdiction to district courts to hear “all civil actions, brought by any Indian tribe” should constitute a sufficiently clear expression of intent to abrogate immunity. Dellmuth is not to the contrary, respondents maintain, since the statute there was enacted in the mid-1970’s, long after the rule of Parden had been drawn into question. Dellmuth, supra, at 231.
We shall assume for the sake of argument (though we by no means accept) that Congress must be presumed to have had as relatively obscure a decision as Parden in mind as a backdrop to all its legislation. But even if Congress were aware of Parden’s minimal clarity requirement, nothing in Parden could lead Congress to presume that that requirement applied to the abrogation of state immunity. Parden itself neither mentioned nor was premised upon abrogation. Its theory was that, by entering a field of economic activity that is federally regulated, the State impliedly “consent[s]” to be bound by that regulation and to be subject to suit in federal court on the same terms as other regulated parties, thus “waiv[ing]” its Eleventh Amendment immunity. 377 U. S., at 186. Not until 1976 (10 years after the passage of § 1362) did we first acknowledge a congressional power to abrogate state immunity — under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). Thus, Barden would have given Congress no reason to believe it could abrogate state sovereign immunity and gives us no reason to believe that Congress intended abrogation by a means so subtle as § 1362. At the time § 1362 was enacted, abrogation would have been regarded as such a novel (not to say questionable) course that a general “arising under” statute like § 1362 would not conceivably have been thought to imply it. We conclude that neither under the current standard of Dellmuth nor under any standard in effect at the time of Parden was § 1362 an abrogation of state sovereign immunity.
> h — I
Finally, respondents argue that even if the Eleventh Amendment bars their claims for damages, they still seek in-junctive relief, which the Eleventh Amendment would not bar. The Court of Appeals, of course, did not address this point, and we leave it for that court’s initial consideration on remand.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
As Alexander Hamilton said: “It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty, not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent.” The Federalist No. 81, pp. 548-549 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (emphasis added and deleted). James Madison expressed a similar understanding at the Virginia Convention (“It is not in the power of individuals to call any state into court”), 3 J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 533 (2d ed. 1863) (emphasis added), as did Chief Justice Marshall (“[A]n individual cannot proceed to obtain judgment against a state, though he may be sued by a state”), id., at 555-556 (emphasis added). In United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 645 (1892), we adverted to respondents’ distinction explicitly, describing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), as having “proceeded upon the broad ground that ‘it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent,’” 143 U. S., at 645-646, and concluding that “the suability of one government by another government. . . does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty.” Id., at 646.
The only evidence alluded to by respondents is a statement by President Washington to Chief Cornplanter of the Seneca Nation:
“Here, then, is the security for the remainder of your lands. No State, nor person, can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States.
“If . . . you have any just cause of complaint against [a purchaser], and can make satisfactory proof thereof, the federal courts will be open to you for redress, as to all other persons.” 4 American State Papers, Indian Affairs, Vol. 1, p. 142 (1832). But of course, denying Indian tribes the right to sue States in federal court does not disadvantage them in relation to “all other persons.” Respondents are asking for access more favorable than that which others enjoy.
Such injunction suits can only be brought against state officers in their official capacity and not against the State in its own name. Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18, 27 (1933). Respondents argue that since the plaintiffs in Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U. S. 463 (1976), named the State of Montana as a defendant, as well as individual officers, the decision in that case held that § 1362 eliminated not only the statutory bar of § 1341 but sovereign immunity as well. We think not. Since Montana had not objected in this Court on sovereign immunity grounds, its immunity had been waived and was not at issue.
In asserting that § 1362’s grant of jurisdiction to “all civil actions” suffices to abrogate a State’s defense of immunity, post, at 795-796, the dissent has just repeated the mistake of the Court in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), see id., at 434-450 (Iredell, J., dissenting), the case that occasioned the Eleventh Amendment itself. The fact that Congress grants jurisdiction to hear a claim does not suffice to show Congress has abrogated all defenses to that claim. The issues are wholly distinct. A State may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and if it does, § 1362 certainly would grant a district court jurisdiction to hear the claim. The dissent’s view returns us, like Sisyphus, to the beginning of this 200-year struggle.
Because we find that § 1362 does not enable tribes to overcome Alaska’s sovereign immunity, we express no view on whether these respondents qualify as “tribes” within the meaning of that statute.
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.
It appearing that petitioner might have been fishing at a location outside the boundaries of what is, or was, the Puyallup Indian Reservation when the acts with which he is charged were committed, and, if this were so, that the Supreme Court of Washington then unnecessarily addressed, and determined, the federal question whether the Puyallup Reservation “has ceased to exist,” the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for resolution by the state courts of the factual issue whether the alleged offenses took place outside the boundaries of what is, or was, the Reservation.
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal presents the validity of a conviction of appellant for conducting religious services in a public park of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, without a required license, when proper application for the license had been arbitrarily and unreasonably refused by the City Council. The conclusion depends upon consideration of the principles of the First Amendment secured against state abridgment by the Fourteenth.
Appellant is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Permission for appellant and another Witness, now deceased, was sought to conduct services in Goodwin Park on June 25 and July 2. They offered to pay all proper fees and charges, and complied with the procedural requirements for obtaining permission to use the park. When the license was refused on May 4, appellant nevertheless held the planned services and continued them until arrested. He was charged with violation of § 22 of the city ordinance set out below. On conviction in the Municipal Court he was fined $20 and took an appeal which entitled him to a plenary trial before the Superior Court. Before that trial appellant moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground that “the ordinance as applied was unconstitutional and void.” This motion on the constitutional question, pursuant to New Hampshire practice, was transferred to the Supreme Court. It ruled, as it had on a former prosecution under a different clause of an identical section, so far as pertinent, of a New Hampshire statute, against one Cox, State v. Cox, 91 N. H. 137, 143, 16 A. 2d 508, 513, that:
“The discretion thus vested in the authority [city council] is limited in its exercise by the bounds of reason, in uniformity of method of treatment upon the facts of each application, free from improper or inappropriate considerations and from unfair discrimination. A systematic, consistent and just order of treatment, with reference to the convenience of public use of the highways, is the statutory mandate. The licensing authority has no delegation of power in excess of that which the legislature granting the power has and the legislature attempted to delegate no power it did not possess.” State v. Derrickson, 97 N. H. 91, 93, 81 A. 2d 312, 313.
In Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, we affirmed on appeal from the New Hampshire conviction of Cox, acknowledging the usefulness, p. 576, of the state court’s carefully phrased interpretive limitation on the licensing authority. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire went on to hold the challenged clause in this present prosecution valid also in these words:
“The issue which this case presents is whether the city of Portsmouth can prohibit religious and church meetings in Goodwin Park on Sundays under a licensing system which treats all religious groups in the same manner. Whether a city could prohibit religious meetings in all of its parks is a doubtful question which we need not decide in this case. What we do decide is that a city may take one of its small parks and devote it to public and nonreligious purposes under a system which is administered fairly and without bias or discrimination.” 97 N. H., at 95, 81 A. 2d, at 315.
Thereupon it discharged the case.
The result of this action was to open the case now here in the Superior Court for trial. At the conclusion of the evidence, appellant raised federal issues by a motion to dismiss the complaint set out below. The Superior Court passed upon the issues raised. It held that Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, determined the validity of the section of the ordinance under attack; that the refusal of the licenses by the City Council was arbitrary and unreasonable, but refused to dismiss the prosecution on that ground because:
“The respondents could have raised the question of their right to licenses to speak in Goodwin Park by proper civil proceedings in this Court, but they chose to deliberately violate the ordinance.”
On appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed. It held the ordinance valid on its face under Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569. While the Cox case involved the clause of the ordinance, § 22, relating to “parade or procession upon any public street or way,” the New Hampshire Supreme Court thought the present prosecution was “under a valid ordinance which requires a license before open air public meetings may be held.” This was the first ruling on the public speech clause. Cf. State v. Cox, 91 N. H., at 143, 16 A. 2d, at 513; Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S., at 573. As the ordinance was valid on its face the state court determined the remedy was by certiorari to review the unlawful refusal of the Council to grant the license, not by holding public religious services in the park without a license, and then defending because the refusal of the license was arbitrary.
Appellant’s challenge on federal grounds to the action and conclusion of the New Hampshire courts is difficult to epitomize. By paragraph 3 of his motion to dismiss, note 3, supra, appellant relied on the principles of the First Amendment for protection against the city ordinance. In his statement of jurisdiction, the question presented, No. I, the illegal denial of his application for a license, was urged as a denial of First Amendment principles. In his brief, he phrases the issue differently as indicated below. We conclude that appellant’s contentions are, first, no license for conducting religious ceremonies in Goodwin Park may be required because such a requirement would abridge the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; second, even though a license may be required, the arbitrary refusal of such a license by the Council, resulting in delay, if appellant must, as New Hampshire decided, pursue judicial remedies, was unconstitutional, as an abridgment of free speech and a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. The abridgment would be because of delay through judicial proceedings to obtain the right of speech and to carry out religious exercises. The due process question raised by appellant as a part of the latter constitutional contention disappears by our holding, as indicated later in this opinion, that the challenged clause of the ordinance and New Hampshire’s requirement for following a judicial remedy for the arbitrary refusal are valid. This analysis showing an attack on the ordinance as applied as repugnant to the principles of the First Amendment and a determination of its validity by the New Hampshire Supreme Court requires us to take jurisdiction by appeal. The state ground for affirmance, i. e., the failure to take certiorari from the action refusing a license, depends upon the constitutionality of the ordinance.
First. We consider the constitutionality of the requirement that a license from the city must be obtained before conducting religious exercises in Goodwin Park. Our conclusion takes into consideration the interpretive limitation repeated from State v. Cox, quoted at p. 398 of this opinion. This state interpretation is as though written into the ordinance itself. Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 514. It requires uniform, nondiscriminatory and consistent administration of the granting of licenses for public meetings on public streets or ways or such a park as Goodwin Park, abutting thereon. The two opinions of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire do not state in precise words that reasonable opportunities for public religious or other meetings on public property must be granted under this ordinance to such religious organizations as Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the former appeal of this controversy in the Derrickson case, supra, New Hampshire decided that the city could exclude, without discrimination, all religious meetings from Goodwin Park, if it so desired, leaving that one park, among several, there being no showing of its unique advantages for religious meetings, as a retreat for quietness, contemplation or other nonreligious activities. The Supreme Court refused to determine whether religious meetings could be excluded from all parks at all times. That has not been decided in this appeal. Informed witnesses at this trial without contradiction testified that no public religious services were ever licensed in any Portsmouth park. There was no allocation of parks between religious and nonreligious meetings. The Superior Court held the refusal of this license arbitrary and unreasonable. Obviously the license required is not the kind of prepublication license deemed a denial of liberty since the time of John Milton but a ministerial, police routine for adjusting the rights of citizens so that the opportunity for effective freedom of speech may be preserved. While there was no assertion of the invalidity of the ordinance on its face, the Supreme Court determined the validity of the ordinance as applied. See Dahnke-Walker Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282, 287; Charleston Assn. v. Alderson, 324 U. S. 182, 185-186. We can only conclude from these decisions that the Supreme Court of New Hampshire has held that the ordinance is valid and, as now written, made it obligatory upon Portsmouth to grant a license for these religious services in Goodwin Park. The appellant’s contention that the Council’s application of the ordinance so as to bar all religious meetings in Goodwin Park without a license, made the ordinance unconstitutional, was not sustained by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Appellant’s brief, p. 3, continues the claim in this Court as follows:
“This exception presented to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire the question. It is whether the ordinance as enforced by the City Council, under its policy to refuse religious meetings in the park, was a violation of the federal Constitution.”
By its construction of the ordinance the state left to the licensing officials no discretion as to granting permits, no power to discriminate, no control over speech. There is therefore no place for narrowly drawn regulatory requirements or authority. The ordinance merely calls for the adjustment of the unrestrained exercise of religions with the reasonable comfort and convenience of the whole city. Had the refusal of the license not been in violation of the ordinance, the Supreme Court would not, we are sure, have required the appellant in its next application to go through the futile gesture of certiorari only to be told the Portsmouth Council’s refusal of a license was a valid exercise of municipal discretion under the ordinance and the Fourteenth Amendment. Such state conclusions are not invalid, although they leave opportunity for arbitrary refusals that delay the exercise of rights.
The principles of the First Amendment are not to be treated as a promise that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may gather around him at any public place and at any time a group for discussion or instruction. It is a non sequitur to say that First Amendment rights may not be regulated because they hold a preferred position in the hierarchy of the constitutional guarantees of the incidents of freedom. This Court has never so held and indeed has definitely indicated the contrary. It has indicated approval of reasonable nondiscriminatory regulation by governmental authority that preserves peace, order and tranquillity without deprivation of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press and the exercise of religion. When considering specifically the regulation of the use of public parks, this Court has taken the same position. See the quotation from the Hague case (below) and Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 293-294; Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558, 562. In these cases, the ordinances were held invalid, not because they regulated the use of the parks for meeting and instruction but because they left complete discretion to refuse the use in the hands of officials. “The right to be heard is placed in the uncontrolled discretion of the Chief of Police.” 334 U. S., at 560. “[W]e have consistently condemned licensing systems which vest in an administrative official discretion to grant or withhold a permit upon broad criteria unrelated to proper regulation of public places.” 340 U. S., at 294.
There is no basis for saying that freedom and order are not compatible. That would be a decision of desperation. Regulation and suppression are not the same, either in purpose or result, and courts of justice can tell the difference. We must and do assume that with the determination of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire that the present ordinance entitles Jehovah’s Witnesses to hold religious services in Goodwin Park at reasonable hours and times, the Portsmouth Council will promptly and fairly administer their responsibility in issuing permits on request.
Second. New Hampshire’s determination that the ordinance is valid and that the Council could be compelled to issue the requested license on demand brings us face to face with another constitutional problem. May this man be convicted for holding a religious meeting without a license when the permit required by a valid enactment — the ordinance in this case — has been wrongfully refused by the municipality?
Appellant’s contention is that since the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, the Council’s unlawful refusal to issue the license is a complete defense to this prosecution. His argument asserts that if he can be punished for violation of the valid ordinance because he exercised his right of free speech, after the wrongful refusal of the license, the protection of the Constitution is illusory. He objects that by the Council’s refusal of a license, his right to preach may be postponed until a case, possibly after years, reaches this Court for final adjudication of constitutional rights. Poulos takes the position that he may risk speaking without a license and defeat prosecution by showing the license was arbitrarily withheld.
It must be admitted that judicial correction of arbitrary refusal by administrators to perform official duties under valid laws is exulcerating and costly. But to allow applicants to proceed without the required permits to run businesses, erect structures, purchase firearms, transport or store explosives or inflammatory products, hold public meetings without prior safety arrangements or take other unauthorized action is apt to cause breaches of the peace or create public dangers. The valid requirements of license are for the good of the applicants and the public. It would be unreal to say that such official failures to act in accordance with state law, redressable by state judicial procedures, are state acts violative of the Federal Constitution. Delay is unfortunate, but the expense and annoyance of litigation is a price citizens must pay for life in an orderly society where the rights of the First Amendment have a real and abiding meaning. Nor can we say that a state’s requirement that redress must be sought through appropriate judicial procedure violates due process.
It is said that Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 306, and Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, stand as decisions contrary to the New Hampshire judgment. In the Royall case two statutes were involved. One laid down the requirement that before attorneys could practice law in Virginia they had to obtain a special “revenue license.” At the time this statute was enacted, Virginia law permitted license fees to be paid in either “tax due coupons” or money. Subsequently Virginia passed another statute with which the Royall case was concerned. It provided that license fees could only be paid in “lawful money of the United States.” Royall tendered “tax due coupons” for the amount of the license fee, had them refused, and Royall then proceeded to practice law without the license. The statute requiring payment in money was held unconstitutional:
“Admitting this, it is still contended, on behalf of the Commonwealth, that it was unlawful for the plaintiff in error to practice his profession without a license, and that his remedy was against the officers to compel them to issue it. It is doubtless true, as a general rule, that where the officer, whose duty it is to issue a license, refuses to do so, and that duty is merely ministerial, and the applicant has complied with all the conditions that entitle him to it, the remedy by mandamus would be appropriate to compel the officer to issue it. That rule would apply to cases where the refusal of the officer was wilful and contrary to the statute under which he was commissioned to act. But here the case is different. The action of the officer is based on the authority of an act of the General Assembly of thé State, which, although it may be null and void, because unconstitutional, as against the applicant, gives the color of official character to the conduct of the officer in his refusal; and, although at the election of the aggrieved party the officer might be subjected to the compulsory process of mandamus to compel the performance of an official duty, nevertheless the applicant, who has done everything on his part required by the law, cannot be regarded as violating the law if, without the formality of a license wrongfully withheld from him, he pursues the business of his calling, which is not unlawful in itself, and which, under the circumstances, he has a constitutional right to prosecute. As to the plaintiff in error, the act of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia forbidding payment of his license tax in its coupons, receivable for that tax by a contract protected by the Constitution of the United States, is unconstitutional, and its unconstitutionality infects and nullifies the antecedent legislation of the State, of which it becomes a part, when applied, as in this case, to enforce an unconstitutional enactment against a party, not only without fault, but seeking merely to exercise a right secured to him by the Constitution. . . .
“In the present case the plaintiff in error has been prevented from obtaining a license to practice his profession in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States. To punish him for practicing it without a license thus withheld is equally a denial of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, and the law, under the authority of which this is attempted, must on that account and in his case be regarded as null and void.” 116 U. S., at 582-583.
In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the statute in question forbade solicitation for religious causes without a license with this discretionary power in the secretary of the public welfare council:
“Upon application of any person in behalf of such cause, the secretary shall determine whether such cause is a religious one or is a bona fide object of charity or philanthropy and conforms to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity, and, if he shall so find, shall approve the same and issue to the authority in charge a certificate to that effect.” 310 U. S., at 302.
We said, speaking of the secretary:
“If he finds that the cause is not that of religion, to solicit for it becomes a crime. He is not to issue a certificate as a matter of course. His decision to issue or refuse it involves appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion. He is authorized to withhold his approval if he determines that the cause is not a religious one. Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth.” Id., at 305.
In the Thomas case, a statute of Texas was involved that required labor union organizers to obtain an organizer’s card before soliciting membership. § 5, 323 U. S., at 519, note 1. He was enjoined from soliciting membership without the card and violated the injunction. Id., at 518. This Court concluded that Thomas was forbidden by the statute from making labor union speeches anywhere in Texas without a permit for solicitation of membership. Id., at 532 et seq. The Court treated the statute as a prohibition of labor union discussion without an organizer’s card anywhere within the bounds of Texas legislative power. It said:
“We think a requirement that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the First Amendment.” Id., at 540.
The Court allowed the unconstitutionality of the statute to be used as a complete defense to contempt of the injunction.
It is clear to us that neither of these decisions is contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. In both of the above cases the challenged statutes were held unconstitutional. In the Royall case, the statute requiring payment of the license fee in money was unconstitutional. In the Cantwell case, the statute had not been construed by the state court “to impose a mere ministerial duty on the secretary of the welfare council.” The right to solicit depended on his decision as to a “religious cause.” 310 U. S., at 306. Therefore we held that a statute authorizing this previous restraint was unconstitutional even though an error might be corrected after trial. In the Thomas case, the section of the Texas Act was held prohibitory of labor speeches anywhere on private or public property without registration. This made § 5 unconstitutional. The statutes were as though they did not exist. Therefore there were no offenses in violation of a valid law. In the present prosecution there was a valid ordinance, an unlawful refusal of a license, with remedial state procedure for the correction of the error. The state had authority to determine, in the public interest, the reasonable method for correction of the error, that is, by certiorari. Our Constitution does not require that we approve the violation of a reasonable requirement for a license to speak in public parks because an official error occurred in refusing a proper application.
Affirmed.
Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 160.
Constitution, First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Id., Fourteenth Amendment:
“. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“Section 22. License Required. No theatrical or dramatic representation shall be performed or exhibited and no parade or procession upon any public street or way, and no open air public meeting upon any ground abutting thereon shall be permitted unless a license therefor shall first be obtained from the City Council.
“Section 23. License Form. Every such license shall be in writing and shall specify the day and hour of the permit to perform or exhibit, or of such parade, procession or open air public meeting.
“Section 24. Fee. The fee for such license shall be not more than Three Hundred Dollars for each day such licensee shall perform or exhibit or such parade, procession, or open air public meeting shall take place, but the fee for a license to exhibit in any hall shall not exceed Fifty Dollars.
“Section 25. Penalty. Any person, who violates section 22 of this Article shall be fined Twenty Dollars.”
“1. The undisputed evidence shows that the members of the city council and the city council itself acted arbitrarily, capriciously and without support of law and of fact when they denied the application made by Jehovah’s witnesses in behalf of the defendants to deliver the public talks upon the occasions in question.
“2. The undisputed evidence shows that the park in question is a public park, dedicated as such without any limitations in the deed of dedication or in the ordinances of the City of Portsmouth and the defendants had the legal right to deliver the talks in the park and it was the duty of the city council to issue to the defendants permits to use the public park in question for public meetings and public talks.
“3. If the ordinance is construed and applied so as to justify convictions of the defendants under the facts in this ease, then the ordinance is unconstitutional as construed and applied because it abridges the rights of the defendants to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of worship, contrary to the Bill of Rights of the New Hampshire Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
State v. Poulos, 97 N. H. 352, 88 A. 2d 860.
“Is the construction of the laws of New Hampshire and the ordinance in question — so as to completely deny the appellant the right to challenge the federal constitutionality of the ordinance, as enforced, construed and applied in criminal proceedings brought to punish appellant for holding a meeting and giving a speech in the city park of Portsmouth without a permit, which was applied for and illegally denied according to the holdings of the courts below — an abridgment of the rights of appellant to freedom of speech and assembly contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States?”
“Is the administration and enforcement of the ordinance by the City Council, requiring a permit for holding meetings in the parks of Portsmouth so as to deny all applications made by religious organizations to hold religious meetings and deliver religious talks in the parks of Portsmouth, an abridgment of freedom of speech, assembly and worship in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?”
“Does the construction and application of the ordinance and the law of New Hampshire so as to require appellant to apply for a writ of mandamus or certiorari as the only remedies to correct the unconstitutional administration of the ordinance, and also so as to deny the defense in the criminal prosecution that the construction and application of the ordinance by the City Council was in violation of his rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, amount to an abridgment of freedom of speech, assembly and worship contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?”
King Mfg. Co. v. Augusta, 277 U. S. 100; Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413. When the appeal was docketed we postponed determination of jurisdiction of the appeal to the hearing on the merits. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2); Rules of the Supreme Court, No. 12 (5).
State v. Derrickson, 97 N. H. 91, 94, 81 A. 2d 312, 314.
Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, concurrence at 282: “A licensing standard which gives an official authority to censor the content of a speech differs toto cáelo from one limited by its terms, or by nondiscriminatory practice, to considerations of public safety and the like.”
“It has been conceded by the defense on this transfer, as well as on the first one, that the ordinance is valid on its face. It is identical in language with the statute that was construed as valid in State v. Cox, 91 N. H. 137, which was affirmed in Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569. It is not disputed that the ordinance applies to the park that was the scene of the open air meetings in question. No objection has been made to the application of the ordinance to the areas where the meetings took place, and no exception taken to any finding or ruling with respect thereto.” 97 N. H. 352, 354, 88 A. 2d 860, 861.
“Again we call attention to the fact that in this jurisdiction if a licensing statute is constitutional and applies to those seeking a license, the remedy here provided consists of proceedings against the licensing authority that has wrongfully denied the license.” 97 N. H., at 356, 88 A. 2d, at 862-863.
Distinguishing Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, where a defense of unconstitutionality was allowed in a prosecution for holding a public meeting without a license, the State Court said: “Permits had been refused for public meetings, but, unlike the case at bar, the prosecutions were contemplated under ordinances that were invalid.” 97 N. H., at 356-357, 88 A. 2d, at 863.
“The remedy of the defendant Poulos for any arbitrary and unreasonable conduct of the city council was accordingly in certiorari or other appropriate civil proceedings.” 97 N. H., at 357, 88 A. 2d, at 863.
This conclusion follows the rule in State v. Stevens, 78 N. H. 268, 269-270, 99 A. 723, 724-725, that where a license statute is valid an erroneous refusal of the license cannot be attacked collaterally on prosecution for acting without a license.
Constitutionally protected right to circulate publications does not include door-to-door canvassing for subscriptions contrary to the reasonable limitations of a municipal ordinance. See Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 641.
Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 451:
“The ordinance is comprehensive with respect to the method of distribution. It covers every sort of circulation ‘either by hand or otherwise.’ There is thus no restriction in its application with respect to time or place; It is not limited to ways which might be regarded as inconsistent with the maintenance of public order or as involving disorderly conduct, the molestation of the inhabitants, or the misuse or littering of the streets. The ordinance prohibits the distribution of literature of any kind at any time, at any place, and in any manner without a permit from the City Manager.”
In considering a required permit in Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, Mr. Justice Roberts, in considering an ordinance that gave the Director of Public Safety discretion as to issue of park permits, p. 502, wrote:
“Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.” Pp. 515-516.
Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 160-161:
“Municipal authorities, as trustees for the public, have the duty to keep their communities’ streets open and available for movement of people and property, the primary purpose to which the streets are dedicated. So long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature, it may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets. For example, a person could not exercise this liberty by taking his stand in the middle of a crowded street, contrary to traffic regulations, and maintain his position to the stoppage of all traffic; a group of distributors could not insist upon a constitutional right to form a cordon across the street and to allow no pedestrian to pass who did not accept a tendered leaflet; nor does the guarantee of freedom of speech or of the press deprive a municipality of power to enact regulations against throwing literature broadcast in the streets. Prohibition of such conduct would not abridge the constitutional liberty since such activity bears no necessary relationship to the freedom to speak, write, print or distribute information or opinion.”
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 306-307:
“Even the exercise of religion may be at some slight inconvenience in order that the State may protect its citizens from injury. Without doubt a State may protect its citizens from fraudulent solicitation by requiring a stranger in the community, before permitting him publicly to solicit funds for any purpose, to establish his identity and his authority to act for the cause which he purports to represent. The State is likewise free to regulate the time and manner of solicitation generally, in the interest of public safety, peace, comfort or convenience. But to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.”
In considering conviction, for an unlicensed religious parade, under a statute with provisions similar to this ordinance, we said:
“Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses. The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which they ultimately depend. The control of travel on the streets of cities is the most familiar illustration of this recognition of social need. Where a restriction of the use of highways in that relation is designed to promote the public convenience in the interest of all, it cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise of some civil right which in other circumstances would be entitled to protection. One would not be justified in ignoring the familiar red traffic light because he thought it his religious duty to disobey the municipal command or sought by that means to direct public attention to an announcement of his opinions.” Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 574.
“If a municipality has authority to control the use of its public streets for parades or processions, as it undoubtedly has, it cannot be denied authority to give consideration, without unfair discrimination, to time, place and manner in relation to the other proper uses of the streets. We find it impossible to say that the limited authority conferred by the licensing provisions of the statute in question as thus construed by the state court contravened any constitutional right.” Id., at 576.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 712; Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 641; First Amendment.
It may be that in some states, the proof of proper application and unlawful refusal is a sufficient defense. It is also true that others punish activities without a license, following an unlawful refusal. Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 225 Mass. 192, 114 N. E. 287; State v. Stevens, 78 N. H. 268, 99 A. 723; Phoenix Carpet Co. v. State, 118 Ala. 143, 22 So. 627; City of Montpelier v. Mills, 171 Ind. 175, 85 N. E. 6; Commonwealth v. Gardner, 241 Mass. 86, 134 N. E. 638; State v. Orr, 68 Conn. 101, 35 A. 770; City of Malden v. Flynn, 318 Mass. 276, 61 N. E. 2d 107. A close parallel exists between unlawful refusals and failure to apply for license on the ground that such application would be unavailing. Such a defense is not allowed. “It is well settled that where a licensing ordinance, valid on its face, prohibits certain conduct unless the person has a license, one who without a license engages in that conduct can be criminally prosecuted without being allowed to show that the application for a license would have been unavailing. ... In short, the individual is given the choice of securing a license, or staying out of the occupation, or, before he acts, seeking a review in the civil courts of the licensing authority’s refusal to issue him a license. Likewise in the case at bar the defendants are given the choice of complying with the regulation, or not engaging in the regulated activity, or, before they act, petitioning the appropriate civil tribunals for a modification of or exception from the regulation.” United States v. Slobodkin, 48 F. Supp. 913, 917. See cases cited, particularly Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U. S. 539, 554.
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 motion of the American Bankers Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of the California Bankers Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.
These cases were consolidated in the Court of Appeals. Cenance v. Bohn Ford Co., 621 F. 2d 130 (CA5 1980). In each, a prospective purchaser of an automobile entered into an installment sales transaction with an automobile dealer. Prior to completion of the transaction the dealer submitted the buyer’s credit application to petitioner Ford Motor Credit Co. (FMCC). Once the dealer was notified that the buyer met FMCC’s credit standards, the buyer and the dealer executed a retail installment contract. On each contract the following legend appeared: “The foregoing contract hereby is accepted by the Seller and assigned to Ford Motor Credit-Company in accordance with the terms of the Assignment set forth on the reverse side hereof.” Pursuant to the arrangement between the dealer and FMCC, FMCC purchased each contract without recourse against the dealer. Although FMCC did not assist in the actual negotiations, it provided the dealer with credit forms, including blank retail installment contracts. Although each did so, none of the dealers was obligated to seek financing from FMCC in perfecting its sales transaction.
Subsequently, each buyer brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 82 Stat. 146, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq. The allegations common to all suits were that FMCC was a creditor within the meaning of the Act and that the statement concerning assignment to FMCC did not adequately disclose that status. The respective District Courts agreed and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. In determining that FMCC was a creditor, the Court of Appeals relied upon its prior decision in Meyers v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc., 539 F. 2d 511 (1976). There the court had held under similar facts that it would be elevating form over substance to characterize a party such as FMCC, there Chrysler Credit Corp., as anything but a creditor. In the immediate case, the court reiterated that point:
“The Meyers analysis applies with even greater force to the instant situation because here the dealers regularly dealt only with Ford. The dealer and Ford prearranged for the assignment of the finance instrument. At no time did the risk of finance reside with the dealer. The transaction between dealer and automobile purchaser was conditioned upon acceptance of the credit application by Ford. Indeed, the credit .application form was prepared by Ford. As in Meyers, it would be elevating form over substance to hold that Ford was anything but an original creditor within the meaning of the Act and Regulation Z.” 621 F. 2d, at 133.
Having concluded that FMCC was a creditor within the meaning of the Act, the Court of Appeals went on to hold that the statement in the retail sales agreement notifying the buyer of the assignment to FMCC was an insufficient disclosure of creditor status in violation of 12 CFR § 226.6 (d) (1980). The court also held that FMCC was liable for certain other Truth in Lending Act violations pertinent to each particular suit.
FMCC’s petition for certiorari challenges these holdings. We grant the petition in major part, affirm the holding that FMCC is a creditor within the meaning of the Act, but reverse the holding that the statement revealing the assignment to FMCC was not a sufficient disclosure of creditor status to satisfy § 226.6 (d).
The Truth in Lending Act, as it stood prior to recent amendments, defined creditors in pertinent part as those “who regularly extend, or arrange for the extension of, credit . . . .” 15 U. S. C. § 1602 (f). Regulation Z, promulgated pursuant to the Act, defines the term consistently with the above: “ 'Creditor’ means a person who in the ordinary course of business regularly extends or arranges for the extension of consumer credit . . . 12 CFR § 226.2 (s) (1980). On the facts of this case, the above definition easily encompasses both the dealers and FMCC. Each dealer arranged for the extension of credit but FMCC actually extended the credit. The facts negate any suggestion that the dealers anticipated financing any of these transactions. The sales were contingent upon FMCC’s approval of the credit worthiness of the buyer. The acceptance of the contract and the assignment became operational simultaneously, and the assignment divested the dealer of any risk in the transaction. In short, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it would be elevating form over substance to conclude that FMCC is not a creditor -within the meaning of the Act.
Equally formalistic, however, is the conclusion below that the statement notifying the buyer of the assignment to FMCC was an insufficient disclosure of FMCC’s creditor status. As the Court of Appeals recognized, other Courts of Appeals that have addressed this precise point have held that such a statement adequately disclosed FMCC’s role in the transactions. Sharp v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 615 F. 2d 423, 426 (CA7 1980); Augusta v. Marshall Motor Co., 614 F. 2d 1085, 1086 (CA6 1979); Milhollin v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 588 F. 2d 753, 756-757 (CA9 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 444 U. S. 555 (1980). Those courts have reasoned that the statement notifying the buyer that the contract was, upon acceptance, assigned to FMCC served the purpose of the Act by disclosing the nature of the relationship of the finance company to the transaction. It was unnecessary precisely to characterize FMCC as a “creditor.” Contrary to the court below, we agree with those Courts of Appeals that have found the notification of assignment to be a sufficient disclosure of creditor status. As we stated in Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, supra:
“The concept of ‘meaningful disclosure’ that animates TILA . . . cannot be applied in the abstract. Meaningful disclosure does not mean more disclosure. Rather, it describes a balance between ‘competing considerations of complete disclosure . . . and the need to avoid . . . [informational overload].” 444 U. S., at 568.
Here, requiring more disclosure would not meaningfully benefit the consumer and consequently would not serve the purposes of the Act.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is accordingly affirmed in part and reversed in part.
So ordered.
Justice Marshall would grant the petition for writ of certiorari because of the conflict among the Circuits and set the cases for plenary consideration.
In addition to the failure to disclose creditor status, three of the plaintiffs, Cenance, Strzelecki, and Booker, alleged that tag, title, and registration fees should have been separately disclosed, 12 CFR § 226.4 (b) (4) (1980); Cenance also averred that a $1 lien recordation fee should have been separately itemized as a fee paid to public officials, §226.4 (b)(1); and Shropshire and Wiggs alleged that documentary fees should not have been included in the cash-price disclosure since they were in fact part of the financing charge.
There were additional violations sustained by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals rejected FMCC’s claim that under § 226.6 (d) one. of these violations .should not have been attributed to it since the violation was beyond the “purview” of its relationship with the dealer. We deny FMCC’s petition for certiorari insofar as it challenges the Court of Appeals’ judgment in this respect.
Absent a clear indication of legislative intent to the contrary, the statutory language controls its construction. In addition, the regulations promulgated by the governmental body responsible for interpreting or administering a statute are entitled to considerable respect, Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U. S. 443, 450 (1978), and this is particularly true under the Truth in Lending Act, see Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U. S. 555, 566-567 (1980). These rules are fully applicable here.
FMCC does contend, however, that there is an indication in the legislative history that under facts such as these a finance institution should be treated as a subsequent assignee and be afforded the more limited liability that, status carries. See 15 U. S. C. § 1614. In this regard petitioner cites the failure of Congress to adopt an amendment to the Act which would have limited the applicability of § 1614 to those subsequent assignees not “in a continuing business relationship with the original creditor.” 114 Cong. Rec. 1611 (1968). The failure to adopt this provision, in petitioner’s view, indicates an intent to confer upon a -financial institution that maintains a continuing business relationship with a particular seller, the status of subsequent assignee. There is little or no force to this position. The proposed provision merely addressed the liability of those subsequent assignees who had a continuing business relationship with the original creditor. The mere fact that joint creditors had a continuing business relationship with one another would not entitle either creditor to the status of subsequent assignee. The failure to adopt the amendment says nothing about the liability of one who is an original creditor within the meaning of the Act. A nominal assignee who in fact is the original extender of credit is not a subsequent assignee within the meaning of § 1614.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1, “[e]very contract, combination..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade” is illegal. In Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968), this Court held that vertical maximum price fixing is a per se violation of that statute. In this ease, we are asked to reconsider that decision in light of subsequent decisions of this Court. We conclude that Albrecht should be overruled.
Respondents, Barkat U. Khan and his corporation, entered into an agreement with petitioner, State Oil Company, to lease and operate a gas station and convenience store owned by State Oil. The agreement provided that respondents would obtain the station’s gasoline supply from State Oil at a price equal to a suggested retail price set by State Oil, less a margin of B.25 cents per gallon. ' 'Under the agreement, respondents could charge any amount for gasoline sold to the station’s customers, but if the price charged was higher than > State Oil’s suggested retail price, the excess was to be rebated to State Oil. Respondents could sell gasoline for less than State Oil’s suggested retail price, but any such decrease would reduce their 3.25 cents-per-gallon margin.
About a year after respondents began operating the gas station, they fell behind in lease payments. State Oil then gave notice of its intent to terminate the agreement and commenced a state court proceeding to evict respondents. At State Oil’s request, the state court appointed a receiver to operate the gas station. The receiver operated the station for several months without being subject to the price restraints in respondents’ agreement with State Oil. According to respondents, the receiver obtained an overall profit margin in excess of 3.25 cents per gallon by lowering the price of regular-grade gasoline and raising the price of premium grades.
Respondents sued State Oil in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging in part that State Oil had engaged in price fixing in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act by preventing respondents from raising or lowering retail gas prices. According to the complaint, but for the agreement with State Oil, respondents could have charged different prices based on the grades of gasoline, in the same way that the receiver had, thereby achieving increased sales and profits. State Oil responded that the agreement did not actually prevent respondents from setting gasoline prices, and that, in substance, respondents did not allege a violation of antitrust laws by their claim that State Oil’s suggested retail price was not optimal.
The District Court found that the allegations in the complaint did not state a per se violation of the Sherman Act because they did not establish the sort of “manifestly anti-competitive implications or pernicious effect on competition” that would justify per se prohibition of State Oil’s conduct. App. 43-44. Subsequently, in ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court concluded that respondents had failed to demonstrate antitrust injury or harm to competition. App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a. The District Court held that respondents had not shown that a difference in gasoline pricing would have increased the station’s sales; nor had they shown that State Oil had market power or that its pricing provisions affected competition in a relevant market. Id., at 37a, 40a. Accordingly, the District Court entered summary judgment for State Oil on respondents’ Sherman Act claim. Id., at 40a.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 93 F. 3d 1358 (1996). The court first noted that the agreement between respondents and State Oil did indeed fix maximum gasoline prices by making it “worthless” for respondents to exceed the suggested retail prices. Id., at 1360. After reviewing legal and economic aspects of price fixing, the court concluded'that State Oil’s pricing scheme was a per se antitrust violation under Albrecht v. Herald Co., supra. Although the Court of Appeals characterized Albrecht as “unsound when decided” and “inconsistent with later decisions” of this Court, it felt constrained to follow that decision. 93 F. 3d, at 1363. In light of Albrecht and Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U. S. 328 (1990) (ARCO), the court found that respondents could have suffered antitrust injury from not being able to adjust gasoline prices.
We granted certiorari to consider two questions, whether State Oil’s conduct constitutes a per se violation of the Sherman Act and whether respondents are entitled to recover damages based on that conduct. 519 U. S. 1107 (1997).
II
A
Although the Sherman Act, by its terms, prohibits every agreement “in restraint of trade,” this Court has long recognized that Congress intended to outlaw only unreasonable restraints. See, e. g., Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., 457 U. S. 332, 342-343 (1982) (citing United States v. Joint Traffic Assn., 171 U. S. 505 (1898)). As a consequence, most antitrust claims are analyzed under a “rule of reason,” according to which the finder of fact must decide whether the questioned practice imposes an unreasonable restraint on competition, taking into account a variety of factors, including specific information about the relevant business, its condition before and after the restraint was imposed, and the restraint’s history, nature, and effect. 457 U. S., at 343, and n. 13 (citing Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States, 246 U. S. 231, 238 (1918)).
Some types of restraints, however, have such predictable and pernicious anticompetitive effect, and such limited potential for proeompetitive benefit, that they are deemed unlawful per se. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 5 (1958). Per se treatment is appropriate “[ojnce experience with a particular kind of restraint enables the Court to predict with confidence that the rule of reason will condemn it.” Maricopa County, supra, at 344; see also Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U. S. 1, 19, n. 33 (1979). Thus, we have expressed reluctance to adopt per se rules with regard to “restraints imposed in the context of business relationships where the economic impact of certain practices is not immediately obvious.” FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U. S. 447, 458-459 (1986).
A review of this Court’s decisions leading up to and beyond Albrecht is relevant to our assessment of the continuing validity of the per se rule established in Albrecht. Beginning with Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911), the Court recognized the illegality of agreements under which manufacturers or suppliers set the minimum resale prices to be charged by their distributors. By 1940, the Court broadly declared all business combinations “formed for the purpose and with the effect of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce” illegal per se. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 223 (1940). Accordingly, the Court condemned an agreement between two affiliated liquor distillers to limit the maximum price charged by retailers in Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U. S. 211 (1951), noting that agreements to fix maximum prices, “no less than those to fix minimum prices, cripple the freedom of traders and thereby restrain their ability to sell in accordance with their own judgment.” Id., at 213.
In subsequent cases, the Court’s attention turned to arrangements through which suppliers imposed restrictions on dealers with respect to matters other than resale price. In White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253 (1963), the Court considered the validity of a manufacturer’s assignment of exclusive territories to its distributors and dealers. The Court determined that too little was known about the competitive impact of such vertical limitations to warrant treating them as per se unlawful. Id., at 263. Four years later, in United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365 (1967), the Court reconsidered the status of exclusive dealer territories and held that, upon the transfer of title to goods to a distributor, a supplier’s imposition of territorial restrictions on the distributor was “so obviously destructive of competition” as to constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Id., at 379. In Schwinn, the Court acknowledged that some vertical restrictions, such as the conferral of territorial rights or franchises, could have procompetitive benefits by allowing smaller enterprises to compete, and that such restrictions might avert vertical integration in the distribution process. Id., at 379-380. The Court drew the line, however, at permitting manufacturers to control product marketing once dominion over the goods had passed to dealers. Id., at 380.
Albrecht, decided the following Term, involved a newspaper publisher who had granted exclusive territories to independent carriers subject to their adherence to a maximum price on resale of the newspapers to the public. Influenced by its decisions in Socony-Vacuum, Kiefer-Stewart, and Schwinn, the Court concluded that it was per se unlawful for the publisher to fix the maximum resale price of its newspapers. 390 U. S., at 152-154. The Court acknowledged that “[mjaximum and minimum price fixing may have different consequences in many situations,” but nonetheless condemned maximum price fixing for “substituting the perhaps erroneous judgment of a seller for the forces of the competitive market.” Id., at 152.
Albrecht was animated in part by the fear that vertical maximum price fixing could allow suppliers to discriminate against certain dealers, restrict the services that dealers could afford to offer customers, or disguise minimum price fixing schemes. Id., at 152-153. The Court rejected the notion (both on the record of that case and in the abstract) that, because the newspaper publisher “granted exclusive territories, a price ceiling was necessary to protect the public from price gouging by dealers who had monopoly power in their own territories.” Id., at 153.
In a vigorous dissent, Justice Harlan asserted that the majority had erred in equating the effects of maximum and minimum price fixing. Id., at 156-168. Justice Harlan pointed out that, because the majority was establishing a per se rule, the proper inquiry was “not whether dictation of maximum prices is ever illegal, but whether it is always illegal.” Id., at 165-166. He also faulted the majority for conclusively listing “certain unfortunate consequences that maximum price dictation might have in other cases,” even as it rejected evidence that the publisher’s practice of fixing maximum prices counteracted potentially anticompetitive actions by its distributors. Id., at 165. Justice Stewart also dissented, asserting that the publisher’s maximum price fixing scheme should be properly viewed as promoting competition, because it protected consumers from dealers such as Albrecht, who, as “the only person who could sell for home delivery the city’s only daily morning newspaper,” was “a monopolist within his own territory.” Id., at 168.
Nine years later, in Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 438 U. S. 36 (1977), the Court overruled Schwinn, thereby rejecting application of a per se rule in the context of vertical nonprice restrictions. The Court acknowledged the principle of stare decisis, but explained that the need for clarification in the law justified reconsideration of Schwinn:
“Sineé its announcement, Schwinn has been the subject of continuing controversy and confusion, both in the scholarly journals and in the federal courts. The great weight of scholarly opinion has been critical of the decision, and a number of the federal courts confronted with analogous vertical restrictions have sought to limit its reach. In our view, the experience of the past 10 years should be brought to bear on this subject of considerable commercial importance.” 433 U. S., at 47-49 (footnotes omitted).
The Court considered the historical context of Schwinn, noting that Schwinn’s per se rule against vertical nonpriee restrictions came only four years after the Court had refused to endorse a similar rule in White Motor Co., and that the decision neither explained the “sudden change in position,” nor referred to the accepted requirements for per se violations set forth in Northern Pacific R. Co. 433 U. S., at 51-52. The Court then reviewed scholarly works supporting the economic utility of vertical nonprice restraints. See id., at 54-57 (citing, e. g., Posner, Antitrust Policy and the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Restricted Distribution, Horizontal Merger and Potential Competition Decisions, 75 Colum. L. Rev. 282 (1975); Preston, Restrictive Distribution Arrangements: Economic Analysis and Public Policy Standards, 30 Law & Contemp. Prob. 506 (1965)). The Court concluded that, because “departure from the rule-of-reason standard must be based upon demonstrable economic effect rather than — as in Schwinn — upon formalistic line drawing,” the appropriate course would be “to return to the rule of reason that governed vertical restrictions prior to Schwinn.” GTE Sylvania, supra, at 58-59.
In GTE Sylvania, the Court declined to comment on Albrechts per se treatment of vertical maximum price restrictions, noting that the issue “involve[d] significantly different questions of analysis and policy.” 483 U. S., at 51, n. 18. Subsequent decisions of the Court, however, have hinted that the analytical underpinnings of Albrecht were substantially weakened by GTE Sylvania. We noted in Mari-copa County that vertical restraints are generally more defensible than horizontal restraints. See 457 U. S., at 348, n. 18. And we explained in 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U. S. 335, 341-342 (1987), that decisions such as GTE Sylvania “recognize the possibility that a vertical restraint imposed by a single manufacturer or wholesaler may stimulate interbrand competition even as it reduces intrabrand competition.”
Most recently, in ARCO, 495 U. S. 328 (1990), although Al-brecht’s continuing validity was not squarely before the Court, some disfavor with that decision was signaled by our statement that we would “assume, arguendo, that Albrecht correctly held that vertical, maximum price fixing is subject to the per se rule.” 495 U. S., at 335, n. 5. More significantly, we specifically acknowledged that vertical maximum price fixing “may have procompetitive interbrand effects,” and pointed out that, in the wake of GTE Sylvania, “[t]he proeompetitive potential of a vertical maximum price restraint is more evident. . . than it was when Albrecht was decided, because exclusive territorial arrangements and other nonprice restrictions were unlawful per se in 1968.” 495 U. S., at 348, n. 13 (citing several commentators identifying proeompetitive effects of vertical maximum price fixing, including, e. g., P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 340.30b, p. 378, n. 24 (1988 Supp.); Blair & Harrison, Rethinking Antitrust Injury, 42 Vand. L. Rev. 1539, 1553 (1989); Easterbrook, Maximum Price Fixing, 48 U. Chi. L. Rev. 886, 887-890 (1981)) (hereinafter Easterbrook).
B
Thus, our reconsideration of Albrecht’s continuing validity is informed by several of our decisions, as well as a considerable body of scholarship discussing the effects of vertical restraints. Our analysis is also guided by our general view that the primary purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect interbrand competition. See, e. g., Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U. S. 717, 726 (1988). “Low prices,” we have explained, “benefit consumers regardless of how those prices are set, and so long as they are above predatory levels, they do not threaten competition.” ARCO, supra, at 340. Our interpretation of the Sherman Act also incorporates the notion that condemnation of practices resulting in lower prices to consumers is “especially costly” because “cutting prices in order to increase business often is the very essence of competition.” Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574, 594 (1986).
So informed, we find it difficult to maintain that vertically imposed maximum prices could harm consumers or competition to the extent necessary to justify their per se invalidation. As Chief Judge Posner wrote for the Court of Appeals in this ease:
“As for maximum resale price fixing, unless the supplier is a monopsonist he cannot squeeze his dealers’ margins below a competitive level; the attempt to do so would just drive the dealers into the arms of a competing supplier. A supplier might, however, fix a maximum resale price in order to prevent his dealers from exploiting a monopoly position.... [Sjuppose that State Oil, perhaps to encourage ... dealer services ... has spaced its dealers sufficiently far apart to limit competition among them (or even given each of them an exclusive territory); and suppose further that Union 76 is a sufficiently distinctive and popular brand to give the dealers in it at least a modicum of monopoly power. Then State Oil might want to place a ceiling on the dealers’ resale prices in order to prevent them from exploiting that monopoly power folly. It would do this not out of disinterested malice, but in its commercial self-interest. The higher the price at which gasoline is resold, the smaller the volume sold, and so the lower the profit to the supplier if the higher profit per gallon at the higher price is being snared by the dealer.” 93 F. 3d, at 1362.
See also R. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox 281-282 (1978) (“There could, of course, be no anticonsumer effect from [the type of price fixing considered in Albrecht], and one suspects that the paper has a legitimate interest in keeping subscriber prices down in order to increase circulation and maximize revenues from advertising”).
We recognize that the Albrecht decision presented a number of theoretical justifications for a per se rule against vertical maximum price fixing. But criticism of those premises abounds. The Albrecht decision was grounded in the fear that maximum price fixing by suppliers could interfere with dealer freedom. 390 U. S., at 152. In response, as one commentator has pointed out, “the ban on maximum resale price limitations declared in Albrecht in the name of ‘dealer freedom’ has actually prompted many suppliers to integrate forward into distribution, thus eliminating the very independent trader for whom Albrecht professed solicitude.” 8 P. Areeda, Antitrust Law ¶ 1635, p. 395 (1989) (hereinafter Areeda). For example, integration in the newspaper industry since Albrecht has given rise to litigation between independent distributors and publishers. See P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, supra, ¶ 729.7, pp. 599-614 (1996 Supp.).
The Albrecht Court also expressed the concern that maximum prices may be set too low for dealers to offer consumers essential or desired services. 390 U. S., at 152-153. But such conduct, by driving away customers, would seem likely to harm manufacturers as well as dealers and consumers, making it unlikely that a supplier would set such a price as a matter of business judgment. See, e. g., Lopatka, Stephen Breyer and Modern Antitrust: A Snug Fit, 40 Antitrust Bull. 1, 60 (1995); Blair & Lang, Albrecht After ARCO: Maximum Resale Price Fixing Moves Toward the Rule of Reason, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1007, 1034 (1991). In addition, Albrecht noted that vertical maximum price fixing could effectively channel distribution through large or specially advantaged dealers. 390 U. S., at 153. It is unclear, however, that a supplier would profit from limiting its market by excluding potential dealers. See, e. g., Easterbrook 905-908. Further, although vertical maximum price fixing might limit the viability of inefficient dealers, that consequence is not necessarily harmful to competition and consumers. See, e. g., id., at 907; Lopatka, supra, at 60.
Finally, Albrecht reflected the Court’s fear that maximum price fixing could be used to disguise arrangements to fix minimum prices, 390 U. S., at 153, which remain illegal per se. Although we have acknowledged the possibility that maximum pricing might mask minimum pricing, see Maricopa County, 457 U. S., at 348, we believe that such conduct — as with the other concerns articulated in Albrecht— can be appropriately recognized and punished under the rule of reason. See, e. g., Easterbrook 901-904; see also Pitofsky, In Defense of Discounters: The No-Frills Case for a Per Se Rule Against Vertical Price Fixing, 71 Geo. L. J. 1487, 1490, n. 17 (1983).
Not only are the potential injuries cited in Albrecht less serious than the Court imagined, the per se rule established therein could in fact exacerbate problems related to the unrestrained exercise of market power by monopolist-dealers. Indeed, both courts and antitrust scholars have noted that Albrecht’s rule may actually harm consumers and manufacturers. See, e. g., Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, 19 F. 3d 745, 753 (CA1 1994) (Breyer, C. J.); Areeda ¶ 1636a, at 395; G. Mathewson & R. Winter, Competition Policy and Vertical Exchange 13-14 (1985). Other commentators have also explained that Al-brecht’s per se rule has even more potential for deleterious effect on competition after our decision in GTE Sylvania, because, now that vertical nonprice restrictions are not unlawful per se, the likelihood of dealer monopoly power is increased. See, e. g., Easterbrook 890, n. 20; see also ARCO, 495 U. S., at 343, n. 13. We do not intend to suggest that dealers generally possess sufficient market power to exploit a monopoly situation. Such retail market power may in fact be uncommon. See, e. g., Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 727, n. 2; GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 54. Nor do we hold that a ban on vertical maximum price fixing inevitably has anticompetitive consequences in the exclusive dealer context.
After reconsidering Albrecht’s rationale and the substantial criticism the decision has received, however, we conclude that there is insufficient economic justification for per se invalidation of vertical maximum price fixing. That is so not only because it is difficult to accept the assumptions underlying Albrecht, but also because Albrecht has little or no relevance to ongoing enforcement of the Sherman Act. See Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U. S. 752, 777, and n. 25 (1984). Moreover, neither the parties nor any of the amici curiae have called our attention to any cases in which enforcement efforts have been directed solely against the conduct encompassed by AlbrecMs, per se rule.
Respondents argue that reconsideration of Albrecht should require “persuasive, expert testimony establishing that the per se rule has distorted the market.” Brief for Respondents 7. Their reasoning ignores the fact that Albrecht itself relied solely upon hypothetical effects of vertical maximum price fixing. Further, Albrecht’s, dire predictions have not been borne out, even though manufacturers and suppliers appear to have fashioned schemes to get around the per se rule against vertical maximum price fixing. In these circumstances, it is the retention of the rule of Albrecht, and not, as respondents would have it, the rule’s elimination, that lacks adequate justification. See, e. g., GTE Sylvania, supra, at 58-59.
Respondents’ reliance on Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U. S. 356 (1953) (per curiam), and Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U. S. 258 (1972), is similarly misplaced, because those decisions are clearly inapposite, having to do with the antitrust exemption for professional baseball, which this Court has described as “an aberration ... resting] on a recognition and an acceptance of baseball’s unique characteristics and needs,” id., at 282. In the context of this ease, we infer little meaning from the fact that Congress has not reacted legislatively to Albrecht. In any event, the history of various legislative proposals regarding price fixing seems neither clearly to support nor to denounce the per se rule of Albrecht. Respondents are of course free to seek legislative protection from gasoline suppliers of the sort embodied in the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 92 Stat. 322, 15 U. S. C. § 2801 et seq. For the reasons we have noted, however, the remedy for respondents’ dispute with State Oil should not come in the form of a per se rule affecting the conduct of the entire marketplace.
c
Despite what Chief Judge Posner aptly described as Al-brechts "infirmities, [and] its increasingly wobbly, moth-eaten foundations,” 93 F. 3d, at 1363, there remains the question whether Albrecht deserves continuing respect under the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court of Appeals was correct in applying that principle despite disagreement with Al-brecht, for it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.
We approach the reconsideration of decisions of this Court with the utmost caution. Stare decisis reflects “a policy judgment that fin most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.’” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997) (quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 406 (1932) (Brandéis, J., dissenting)). It "is the preferred course because it 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 (1991). This Court has expressed its reluctance to overrule decisions involving statutory interpretation, see, e. g., Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720, 736 (1977), and has acknowledged that stare decisis concerns are at their acme in eases involving property and contract rights, see, e. g., Payne, 501 U. S., at 828. Both of those concerns are arguably relevant in this case.
But “[sjtare decisis is not an inexorable command.” Ibid. In the area of antitrust law, there is a competing interest, well represented in this Court’s decisions, in recognizing and adapting to changed circumstances and the lessons of accumulated experience. Thus, the general presumption that legislative changes should be left to Congress has less force with respect to the Sherman Act in light of the accepted view that Congress “expected the courts to give shape to the statute’s broad mandate by drawing on common-law tradition.” National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679, 688 (1978). As we have explained, the term “restraint of trade,” as used in § 1, also “invokes the common law itself, and not merely the static content that the common law had assigned to the term in 1890.” Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 732; see also GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 53, n. 21; McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 372-373 (1987) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Accordingly, this Court has reconsidered its decisions construing the Sherman Act when the theoretical underpinnings of those decisions are called into serious question. See, e. g., Copperweld Corp., supra, at 777; GTE Sylvania, supra, at 47-49; cf. Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S. 141, 147 (1940).
Although we do not “lightly assume that the economic realities underlying earlier decisions have changed, or that earlier judicial perceptions of those realities were in error,” we have noted that “different sorts of agreements” may amount to restraints of trade “in varying times and circumstances,” and “[i]t would make no sense to create out of the single term ‘restraint of trade’ a chronologically schizoid statute, in which a ‘rule of reason’ evolves with new circumstances and new wisdom, but a line of per se illegality remains forever fixed where it was.” Business Electronics, supra, at 731-732. Just as Schwinn was “the subject of continuing controversy and confusion” under the “great weight” of scholarly criticism, GTE Sylvania, supra, at 47-48, Albrecht has been widely criticized since its inception. With the views underlying Albrecht eroded by this Court’s precedent, there is not much of that decision to salvage. See, e. g., Neal v. United States, 516 U. S. 284, 295 (1996); Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 173 (1989); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 480-481 (1989).
Although the rule of Albrecht has been in effect for some time, the inquiry we must undertake requires considering “ ‘the effect of the antitrust laws upon vertical distributional restraints in the American economy today.’” GTE Sylvania, supra, at 53, n. 21 (quoting Schwinn, 388 U. S., at 392 (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). As the Court noted in ARCO, 495 U. S., at 336, n. 6, there has not been another ease since Albrecht in which this Court has “confronted an unadulterated vertical, maximum-price-fixing arrangement.” Now that we confront Albrecht directly, we find its conceptual foundations gravely weakened.
In overruling Albrecht, we of course do not hold that all vertical maximum price fixing is per se lawful. Instead, vertical maximum priee fixing, like the majority of commercial arrangements subject-to the antitrust laws, should be evaluated under the rule of reason. In our view, rule-of-reason analysis will effectively identify those situations in which vertical maximum price fixing amounts to anticompetitive conduct.
There remains the question whether respondents are entitled to recover damages based on State Oil’s conduct. Although the Court of Appeals noted that “the district judge was right to conclude that if the rule of reason is applicable, Khan loses,” 93 F. 3d, at 1362, its consideration of this case was necessarily premised on Albrecht's per se rule. Under the circumstances, the matter should be reviewed by the Court of Appeals in the first instance. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the ease 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: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the
Court.
The plaintiff in this case is a small utility district raising a big question — the constitutionality of §5 of the Voting Rights Act. The district has an elected board, and is required by §5 to seek preclearance from federal authorities in Washington, D. C., before it can change anything about those elections. This is required even though there has never been any evidence of racial discrimination in voting in the district.
The district filed suit seeking relief from these preclearance obligations under the “bailout” provision of the Voting Rights Act. That provision allows the release of a “political subdivision” from the preclearance requirements if certain rigorous conditions are met. The court below denied relief, concluding that bailout was unavailable to a political subdivision like the utility district that did not register its own voters. The district appealed, arguing that the Act imposes no such limitation on bailout, and that if it does, the preclearance requirements are unconstitutional.
That constitutional question has attracted ardent briefs from dozens of interested parties, but the importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it. Quite the contrary: Our usual practice is to avoid the unnecessary resolution of constitutional questions. We agree that the district is eligible under the Act to seek bailout. We therefore reverse, and do not reach the constitutionality of § 5.
I
A
The Fifteenth Amendment promises that the “right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 15, § 1. In addition to that self-executing right, the Amendment also gives Congress the “power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” §2. The first century of congressional enforcement of the Amendment, however, can only be regarded as a failure. Early enforcement Acts were inconsistently applied and repealed with the rise of Jim Crow. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 310 (1966); A. Keyssar, The Right to Vote 105-111 (2000). Another series of enforcement statutes in the 1950’s and 1960’s depended on individual lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice. But litigation is slow and expensive, and the States were creative in “contriving new rules” to continue violating the Fifteenth Amendment “in the face of adverse federal court decrees.” Katzenbach, supra, at 335; Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U. S. 406, 411 (2008).
Congress responded with the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the Act operates nationwide; as it exists today, that provision forbids any “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(a). Section 2 is not at issue in this case.
The remainder of the Act constitutes a “scheme of stringent remedies aimed at areas where voting discrimination has been most flagrant.” Katzenbach, supra, at 315. Rather than continuing to depend on case-by-case litigation, the Act directly pre-empted the most powerful tools of black disenfranchisement in the covered areas. All literacy tests and similar voting qualifications were abolished by §4 of the Act. Voting Rights Act of 1965, §§4(a)-(d), 79 Stat. 438-439. Although such tests may have been facially neutral, they were easily manipulated to keep blacks from voting. The Act also empowered federal examiners to override state determinations about who was eligible to vote. §§ 6, 7, 9, 13, id., at 439-442, 444-445.
These two remedies were bolstered by §5, which suspended all changes in state election procedure until they were submitted to and approved by a three-judge Federal District Court in Washington, D. C., or the Attorney General. Id., at 439, codified as amended at 42 U. S. C. § 1973c(a). Such preclearance is granted only if the change neither “has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” Ibid. We have interpreted the requirements of § 5 to apply not only to the ballot-access rights guaranteed by § 4, but to drawing district lines as well. Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 564-565 (1969).
To confine these remedies to areas of flagrant disenfranchisement, the Act applied them only to States that had used a forbidden test or device in November 1964, and had less than 50% voter registration or turnout in the 1964 Presidential election. § 4(b), 79 Stat. 438. Congress recognized that the coverage formula it had adopted “might bring Within its sweep governmental units not guilty of any unlawful discriminatory voting practices.” Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U. S. 404, 411 (1977). It therefore “afforded such jurisdictions immediately available protection in the form of . . . [a] ‘bailout’ suit.” Ibid.
To bail out under the current provision, a jurisdiction must seek a declaratory judgment from a three-judge District Court in Washington, D. C. 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973b(a)(l), 1973c(a). It must show that for the previous 10 years it has not used any forbidden voting test, has not been subject to any valid objection under § 5, and has not been found liable for other voting rights violations; it must also show that it has “engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment” of voters, and similar measures. §§ 1973b(a)(l)(A)-(F). The Attorney General can consent to entry of judgment in favor of bailout if the evidence warrants it, though other interested parties are allowed to intervene in the declaratory judgment action. § 1973b(a)(9). There are other restrictions: To bail out, a covered jurisdiction must show that every jurisdiction in its territory has complied with all of these requirements. § 1973b(a)(3). The District Court also retains continuing jurisdiction over a successful bailout suit for 10 years, and may reinstate coverage if any violation is found. § 1973b(a)(5).
As enacted, §§4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were temporary provisions. They were expected to be in effect for only five years. § 4(a), 79 Stat. 438. We upheld the temporary Voting Rights Act of 1965 as an appropriate exercise of congressional power in Katzenbach, explaining that “[t]he constitutional propriety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be judged with reference to the historical experience which it reflects.” 383 U. S., at 308. We concluded that the problems Congress faced when it passed the Act were so dire that “exceptional conditions [could] justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.” Id., at 334-335 (citing Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398 (1934), and Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332 (1917)).
Congress reauthorized the Act in 1970 (for 5 years), 1975 (for 7 years), and 1982 (for 25 years). The coverage formula remained the same, based on the use of voting-eligibility tests and the rate of registration and turnout among all voters, but the pertinent dates for assessing these criteria moved from 1964 to include 1968 and eventually 1972. 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(b). We upheld each of these reauthorizations against constitutional challenges, finding that circumstances continued to justify the provisions. Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526 (1973); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156 (1980); Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U. S. 266 (1999). Most recently, in 2006, Congress extended §5 for yet another 25 years. Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, 120 Stat. 577. The 2006 Act retained 1972 as the last baseline year for triggering coverage under §5. It is that latest extension that is now before us.
B
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One was created in 1987 to deliver city services to residents of a portion of Travis County, Texas. It is governed by a board of five members, elected to staggered terms of four years. The district does not register voters but is responsible for its own elections; for administrative reasons, those elections are run by Travis County. Because the district is located in Texas, it is subject to the obligations of § 5, although there is no evidence that it has ever discriminated on the basis of race.
The district filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking relief under the statute’s bailout provisions and arguing in the alternative that, if interpreted to render the district ineligible for bailout, § 5 was unconstitutional. The three-judge District Court rejected both claims. Under the statute, only a “State or political subdivision” is permitted to seek bailout, 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(a)(l)(A), and the court concluded that the district was not a political subdivision because that term includes only “counties, parishes, and voter-registering subunits,” Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Mukasey, 573 F. Supp. 2d 221, 232 (2008). Turning to the district’s constitutional challenge, the court concluded that the 25-year extension of §5 was constitutional both because “Congress . . . rationally concluded that extending [§] 5 was necessary to protect minorities from continued racial discrimination in voting” and because “the 2006 Amendment qualifies as a congruent and proportional response to the continuing problem of racial discrimination in voting.” Id., at 283. We noted probable jurisdiction, 555 U. S. 1091 (2009), and now reverse.
II
The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable. When it was first passed, unconstitutional discrimination was rampant, and the “registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead” of black registration in many covered States. Katzenbach, supra, at 313; H. R. Rep. No. 109-478, p. 12 (2006). Today, the registration gap between white and black voters is in single digits in the covered States; in some of those States, blacks now register and vote at higher rates than whites. Id., at 12-13. Similar dramatic improvements have occurred for other racial minorities. Id., at 18-20. “[M]any of the first generation barriers to minority voter registration and voter turnout that were in place prior to the [Voting Rights Act] have been eliminated.” Id., at 12; Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U. S. 1, 10 (2009) (plurality opinion) (“Passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was an important step in the struggle to end discriminatory treatment of minorities who seek to exercise one of the most fundamental rights of our citizens: the right to vote”).
At the same time, § 5, “which authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking, imposes substantial ‘federalism costs.’” Lopez, supra, at 282 (quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 926 (1995)). These federalism costs have caused Members of this Court to express serious misgivings about the constitutionality of § 5. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 358-362 (Black, J., concurring and dissenting); Allen, 393 U. S., at 586, n. 4 (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Georgia, supra, at 545 (Powell, J., dissenting); City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 209-221 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); id., at 200-206 (Powell, J., dissenting); Lopez, 525 U. S., at 293-298 (Thomas, J., dissenting); id., at 288 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
Section 5 goes beyond the prohibition of the Fifteenth Amendment by suspending all changes to state election law — however innocuous — until they have been precleared by federal authorities in Washington, D. C. The preclearance requirement applies broadly, NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm’n, 470 U. S. 166, 175-176 (1985), and in particular to every political subdivision in a covered State, no matter how small, United States v. Sheffield Bd. of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 117-118 (1978).
Some of the conditions that we relied upon in upholding this statutory scheme in Katzenbach and City of Rome have unquestionably improved. Things have changed in the South. Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels. See generally H. R. Rep. No. 109-478, at 12-18.
These improvements are no doubt due in significant part to the Voting Rights Act itself, and stand as a monument to its success. Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements. See Issacharoff, Is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act a Victim of Its Own Success? 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1710 (2004). It may be that these improvements are insufficient and that conditions continue to warrant preclearance under the Act. But the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.
The Act also differentiates between the States, despite our historic tradition that all the States enjoy “equal sovereignty.” United States v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 1, 16 (1960) (citing Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845)); see also Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725-726 (1869). Distinctions can be justified in some cases. “The doctrine of the equality of States ... does not bar ... remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared.” Katzenbach, supra, at 328-329 (emphasis added). But a departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that a statute’s disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets.
These federalism concerns are underscored by the argument that the preclearance requirements in one State would be unconstitutional in another. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U. S. 461, 491-492 (2003) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“Race cannot be the predominant factor in redistricting under our decision in Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900 (1995). Yet considerations of race that would doom a redistricting plan under the Fourteenth Amendment or §2 seem to be what save it under §5”). Additional constitutional concerns are raised in saying that this tension between §§2 and 5 must persist in covered jurisdictions and not elsewhere.
The evil that §5 is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance. The statute’s coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions. For example, the racial gap in voter registration and turnout is lower in the States originally covered by § 5 than it is nationwide. E. Blum & L. Campbell, Assessment of Voting Rights Progress in Jurisdictions Covered Under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act 3-6 (Am. Enterprise Inst. 2006). Congress heard warnings from supporters of extending § 5 that the evidence in the record did not address “systematic differences between the covered and the non-covered areas of the United States [,] . . . and, in fact, the evidence that is in the record suggests that there is more similarity than difference.” The Continuing Need for Section 5 Pre-Clearance: Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (2006) (statement of Richard H. Pildes); see also Persily, The Promise and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act, 117 Yale L. J. 174, 208 (2007) (“The most one can say in defense of the [coverage] formula is that it is the best of the politically feasible alternatives or that changing the formula would . . . disrupt settled expectations”).
The parties do not agree on the standard to apply in deciding whether, in light of the foregoing, concerns, Congress exceeded its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power in extending the preclearance requirements. The district argues that “ ‘[t]here must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end,’” Brief for Appellant 31 (quoting City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 520 (1997)); the Federal Government asserts that it is enough that the legislation be a “‘rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition,’” Brief for Federal Appellee 6 (quoting Katzenbach, supra, at 324). That question has been extensively briefed in this case, but we need not resolve it. The Act’s preclearance requirements and its coverage formula raise serious constitutional questions under either test.
In assessing those questions, we are keenly mindful of our institutional role. We fully appreciate that judging the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blod gett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 147-148 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring). “The Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath we do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 64 (1981). The Fifteenth Amendment empowers “Congress,” not the Court, to determine in the first instance what legislation is needed to enforce it. Congress amassed a sizable record in support of its decision to extend the preclearance requirements, a record the District Court determined “document[ed] contemporary racial discrimination in covered states.” 573 F. Supp. 2d, at 265. The District Court also found that the record “demonstrat[ed] that section 5 prevents discriminatory voting changes” by “quietly but effectively deterring discriminatory changes.” Id., at 264.
We will not shrink from our duty “as the bulwar[k] of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments,” The Federalist No. 78, p. 526 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton), but “[i]t is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case,” Escambia County v. McMillan, 466 U. S. 48, 51 (1984) (per curiam). Here, the district also raises a statutory claim that it is eligible to bail out under §§4 and 5.
Justice Thomas argues that the principle of constitutional avoidance has no pertinence here. He contends that even if we resolve the district’s statutory argument in its favor, we would still have to reach the constitutional question, because the district’s statutory argument would not afford it all the relief it seeks. Post, at 212-214 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
We disagree. The district expressly describes its constitutional challenge to §5 as being “in the alternative” to its statutory argument. See Brief for Appellant 64 (“[T]he Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment that the district is entitled to use the bailout procedure or, in the alternative, that § 5 cannot be constitutionally applied to the district”). The district’s counsel confirmed this at oral argument. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 14 (“[Question:] [D]o you acknowledge that if we find in your favor on the bailout point we need not reach the constitutional point? [Answer:] I do acknowledge that”). We therefore turn to the district’s statutory argument.
Ill
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act authorizes a bailout suit by a “State or political subdivision.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(a)(l)(A). There is no dispute that the district is a political subdivision of the State of Texas in the ordinary sense of the term. See, e. g., Black’s Law Dictionary 1197 (8th ed. 2004) (“A division of a state that exists primarily to discharge some function of local government”). The district was created under Texas law with “powers of government” relating to local utilities and natural resources. Tex. Const., Art. XVI, § 59(b); Tex. Water Code Ann. § 54.011 (West 2002); see also Bennett v. Brown Cty. Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 272 S. W. 2d 498, 500 (Tex. 1954) (“[W]ater improvement district[s]... are held to be political subdivisions of the State” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Act, however, also provides a narrower statutory definition in § 14(c)(2): “ ‘[PJolitical subdivision’ shall mean any county or parish, except that where registration for voting is not conducted under the supervision of a county or parish, the term shall include any other subdivision of a State which conducts registration for voting.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973l(c)(2). The District Court concluded that this definition applied to the bailout provision in §4(a), and that the district did not qualify, since it is not a county or parish and does not conduct its own voter registration.
“Statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words, of course, in the usual case. But this is an unusual ease.” Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & S. S. Co., 336 U. S. 198, 201 (1949); see also Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U. S. 755, 764 (1949); Philko Aviation, Inc. v. Shacket, 462 U. S. 406, 412 (1983). Were the scope of § 4(a) considered in isolation from the rest of the statute and our prior cases, the District Court’s approach might well be correct. But here specific precedent, the structure of the Voting Rights Act, and underlying constitutional concerns compel a broader reading of the bailout provision.
Importantly, we do not write on a blank slate. Our decisions have already established that the statutory definition in § 14(c)(2) does not apply to every use of the term “political subdivision” in the Act. We have, for example, concluded that the definition does not apply to the preclearance obligation of § 5. According to its text, § 5 applies only “[whenever a [covered] State or political subdivision” enacts or administers a new voting practice. Yet in Sheffield Bd. of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, we rejected the argument by an Alabama city that it was neither a State nor a political subdivision as defined in the Act, and therefore did not need to seek preclearance of a voting change. The dissent agreed with the city, pointing out that the city did not meet the statutory definition of “political subdivision” and therefore could not be covered. Id., at 141-144 (opinion of Stevens, J.). The majority, however, relying on the purpose and structure of the Act, concluded that the “definition was intended to operate only for purposes of determining which political units in nondesignated States may be separately designated for coverage under §4(b).” Id., at 128-129; see also id., at 130, n. 18 (“Congress’ exclusive objective in § 14(c)(2) was to limit the jurisdictions which may be separately designated for coverage under §4(b)”).
We reaffirmed this restricted scope of the statutory definition the next Term in Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S. 32 (1978). There, a school board argued that because “it d[id] not meet the definition” of political subdivision in § 14(c)(2), it “d[id] not come within the purview of §5.” Id., at 43, 44. We responded:
“This contention is squarely foreclosed by our decision last Term in [Sheffield]. There, we expressly rejected the suggestion that the city of Sheffield was beyond the ambit of § 5 because it did not itself register voters and hence was not a political subdivision as the term is defined in § 14(c)(2) of the Act. . . . [O]nce a State has been designated for coverage, § 14(c)(2)’s definition of political subdivision has no operative significance in determining the reach of § 5.” Id., at 44 (internal quotation marks omitted).
According to these decisions, then, the statutory definition of “political subdivision” in § 14(c)(2) does not apply to every use of the term “political subdivision” in the Act. Even the intervenors who oppose the district’s bailout concede, for example, that the definition should not apply to §2, which bans racial discrimination in voting by “any State or political subdivision,” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(a). See Brief for Intervenor-Appellee Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches et al. 17 (citing Smith v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power Dist., 109 F. 3d 586, 592-593 (CA9 1997)); see also United States v. Uvalde Consol. Independent School Dist., 625 F. 2d 547, 554 (CA5 1980) (“[T]he Supreme Court has held that this definition [in § 14(c)(2)] limits the meaning of the phrase ‘State or political subdivision’ only when it appears in certain parts of the Act, and that it does not confine the phrase as used elsewhere in the Act”). In light of our holdings that the statutory definition does not constrict the scope of preclearance required by § 5, the district argues, it only stands to reason that the definition should not constrict the availability of bailout from those preclearance requirements either.
The Government responds that any such argument is foreclosed by our interpretation of the statute in City of Rome, 446 U. S. 156. There, it argues, we made clear that the discussion of political subdivisions in Sheffield was dictum, and “specifically held that a ‘city is not a “political subdivision” for purposes of §4(a) bailout.’” Brief for Federal Appellee 14 (quoting City of Rome, supra, at 168).
Even if that is what City of Rome held, the premises of its statutory holding did not survive later changes in the law. In City of Rome we rejected the city’s attempt to bail out from coverage under § 5, concluding that “political units of a covered jurisdiction cannot independently bring a § 4(a) bailout action.” 446 U. S., at 167. We concluded that the statute as then written authorized a bailout suit only by a “State” subject to the coverage formula, or a “ ‘political subdivision with respect to which [coverage] determinations have been made as a separate unit,’ ” id., at 164, n. 2 (quoting 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(a) (1976 ed.)); see also 446 U. S., at 163-169. Political subdivisions covered because they were part of a covered State, rather than because of separate coverage determinations, could not separately bail out. As Justice Stevens put it, “[t]he political subdivisions of a covered State” were “not entitled to bail out in a piecemeal fashion.” Id., at 192 (concurring opinion).
In 1982, however, Congress expressly repudiated City of Rome and instead embraced “piecemeal” bailout. As part of an overhaul of the bailout provision, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to expressly provide that bailout was also available to “political subdivisions” in a covered State, “though [coverage] determinations were not made with respect to such subdivision as a separate unit.” Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, §2(b), 96 Stat. 131, codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(a)(l) (emphasis added). In other words, Congress decided that a jurisdiction covered because it was within a covered State need not remain covered for as long as the State did. If the subdivision met the bailout requirements, it could bail out, even if the State could not. In light of these amendments, our logic for denying bailout in City of Rome is no longer applicable to the Voting Rights Act— if anything, that logic compels the opposite conclusion.
Bailout and preclearance under § 5 are now governed by a principle of symmetry. “Given the Court’s decision in Sheffield that all political units in a covered State are to be treated for § 5 purposes as though they were ‘political subdivisions’ of that State, it follows that they should also be treated as such for purposes of §4(a)’s bailout provisions.” City of Rome, supra, at 192 (Stevens, J., concurring).
The Government contends that this reading of Sheffield is mistaken, and that the district is subject to §5 under our decision in Sheffield not because it is a “political subdivision” but because it is a “State.” That would mean it could bail out only if the whole State could bail out.
The assertion that the district is a State is at least counter-intuitive. We acknowledge, however, that there has been much confusion over why Sheffield held the city in that case to be covered by the text of § 5. See City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 168-169; id., at 192 (Stevens, J., concurring); see also Uvalde Consol. Independent School Dist. v. United States, 451 U. S. 1002, 1004, n. 4 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“[T]his Court has not yet settled on the proper construction of the term ‘political subdivision’ ”).
But after the 1982 amendments, the Government’s position is untenable. If the district is considered the State, and therefore necessarily subject to preclearance so long as Texas is covered, then the same must be true of all other subdivisions of the State, including counties. That would render even counties unable to seek bailout so long as their State was covered. But that is the very restriction the 1982 amendments overturned. Nobody denies that counties in a covered State can seek bailout, as several of them have. See Voting Rights Act: Section 5 of the Act — History, Scope, and Purpose: Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., 2599-2834 (2005) (detailing bailouts). Because such piecemeal bailout is now permitted, it cannot be true that §5 treats every governmental unit as the State itself.
The Government’s contrary interpretation has helped to render the bailout provision all but a nullity. Since 1982, only 17 jurisdictions — out of the more than 12,000 covered political subdivisions — have successfully bailed out of the Act. App. to Brief for Jurisdictions That Have Bailed Out as Amici Curiae 3; Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 2002 Census of Governments, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1, 22-60. It is unlikely that Congress intended the provision to have such limited effect. See United States v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415, 426-427 (2009).
We therefore hold that all political subdivisions — not only those described in § 14(c)(2) — are eligible to file a bailout suit.
***
More than 40 years ago, this Court concluded that “exceptional conditions” prevailing in certain parts, of the country justified extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 334. In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different Nation. Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today. We conclude instead that the Voting Rights Act permits all. political subdivisions, including the district in this ease, to seek relief from its preclearance requirements.
The judgment of the District Court 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: | 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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1989 Congress enacted a law that broadly prohibits federal employees from accepting any compensation for making speeches or writing articles. The prohibition applies even when neither the subject of the speech or article nor the person or group paying for it has any connection with the employee’s official duties. We must decide whether that statutory prohibition comports with the Constitution’s command that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.” We hold that it does not.
I
In 1967 Congress authorized the appointment every four years of a special Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries, whose principal function would be to recommend appropriate levels of compensation for the top positions in all three branches of the Federal Government. Each of the first five Quadrennial Commissions recommended significant salary increases, but those recommendations went largely ignored. The Report of the 1989 Quadrennial Commission, however, was instrumental in leading to the enactment of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which contains the provision challenged in this case.
The 1989 Quadrennial Commission’s report noted that inflation had decreased the salary levels for senior Government officials, measured in constant dollars, by approximately 35% since 1969. The report
“also found that because their salaries are so inadequate, many members of Congress are supplementing their official compensation by accepting substantial amounts of ‘honoraria’ for meeting with interest groups which desire to influence their votes. Albeit to a less troubling extent, the practice of accepting honoraria also extends to top officials of the Executive and Judicial branches.” Fairness for Our Public Servants: Report of The 1989 Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries vi (Dec. 1988).
Accordingly, the Commission recommended that “salary levels for top officials be set at approximately the same amount in constant dollars” as those in effect in 1969 and further that “Congress enact legislation abolishing the practice of accepting honoraria in all three branches.” Ibid.
The President’s Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform subsequently issued a report that endorsed the Quadrennial Commission’s views. The President’s Commission recommended enacting a ban on receipt of honoraria “by all officials and employees in all three branches of government.” To Serve With Honor: Report of the President’s Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform 36 (Mar. 1989). Explaining the breadth of its proposal, it added:
“In recommending this ban, we also recognize, as did the Quadrennial Commission, that the statutory definition of honoraria must be broad enough to— ‘close present and potential loopholes such as receipt of consulting, professional or similar fees; payments for serving on boards; travel; sport, or other entertainment expenses not reasonably necessary for the appearance involved; or any other benefit that is the substantial equivalent of an honorarium.’” Ibid, (quoting Fairness for Our Public Servants, at 24).
Although not adopted in their entirety, the two Commissions’ recommendations echo prominently in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. Section 703 of that Act provided a 25% pay increase to Members of Congress, federal judges, and certain high-level Executive Branch employees above the salary grade GS-15. See 103 Stat. 1768. Another section — the one at issue here — amended § 501(b) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to create an “Honoraria Prohibition,” which reads: “An individual may not receive any honorarium while that individual is a Member, officer or employee.” Id., at 1760.
Section 505 of the Ethics Reform Act defined “officer or employee” to include nearly all employees of the Federal Government and “Member” to include any Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to Congress. The Congressional Operations Appropriations Act, 1992, adopted in 1991, extended both the salary increase and the prohibition against honoraria to the Senate. The 1989 Act defined “honorarium” to encompass any compensation paid to a Government employee for “an appearance, speech or article.” The 1992 Appropriations Act amended that definition to exclude any series of appearances, speeches, or articles unrelated to the employee’s official duties or status. The definition now reads as follows:
“(3) The term ‘honorarium’ means a payment of money or any thing of value for an appearance, speech or article (including a series of appearances, speeches, or articles if the subject matter is directly related to the individual’s official duties or the payment is made because of the individual’s status with the Government) by a Member, officer or employee, excluding any actual and necessary travel expenses incurred by such individual (and one relative) to the extent that such expenses are paid or reimbursed by any other person, and the amount otherwise determined shall be reduced by the amount of any such expenses to the extent that such expenses are not paid or reimbursed.” 5 U. S. C. App. § 505(3) (1988 ed., Supp. V).
Section 503(2) of the Ethics Reform Act provides that the statutory provisions governing honoraria for employees of the Executive Branch shall be subject to rules and regulations issued by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and administered by designated agency ethics officials. 5 CFR §2636.201 et seq. (1994). OGE’s regulations permit reimbursement of certain expenses associated with appearances, speeches, and articles. The regulations also confine the reach of each of those terms. Thus, a performance using “an artistic, athletic or other such skill or talent” is not an “appearance”; reading a part in a play or delivering a sermon is not a “speech”; and works of “fiction, poetry, lyrics, or script” are not “article[s].” §§ 2636.203(b), (d). The regulations permit teaching a course involving multiple presentations at an accredited program or institution.
The Attorney General may enforce the prohibition against honoraria by a civil action to recover a penalty of not more than the larger of $10,000 or the amount of the honorarium. If an employee has accepted an honorarium in good-faith reliance on an opinion of either the OGE or the ethics officer of her employing agency, she is not subject to the civil penalty. 5 U. S. C. App. §504 (1988 ed., Supp. V).
II
Two unions and several career civil servants employed full time by various Executive departments and agencies filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the constitutionality of the honoraria ban. Pursuant to a stipulation with the Government, the District Court certified respondent National Treasury Employees Union as the representative of a class composed of all Executive Branch employees “below grade GS-16, who— but for 5 U. S. C. app. 501(b) — would receive ‘honoraria,’ as defined in 5 U. S. C. app. 505(3).” App. 124-125. All of the individual respondents save one are members of the class; the exception is a grade GS-16 lawyer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who has published articles about Russian history.
Each of the individual respondents alleges that he or she has in the past received compensation for writing or speaking on various topics in full compliance with earlier ethics regulations. The record contains a number of affidavits describing respondents’ past activities that the honoraria ban would now prohibit. A mail handler employed by the Postal Service in Arlington, Virginia, had given lectures on the Quaker religion for which he received small payments that were “not much, but enough to supplement my income in a way that makes a difference.” Id., at 47. An aerospace engineer employed at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, had lectured on black history for a fee of $100 per lecture. Id., at 63. A microbiologist at the Food and Drug Administration had earned almost $3,000 per year writing articles and making radio and television appearances reviewing dance performances. Id., at 77. A tax examiner employed by the Internal Revenue Service in Ogden, Utah, had received comparable pay for articles about the environment. Id., at 67.
The District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, held the statute “unconstitutional insofar as it applies to Executive Branch employees of the United States government,” and enjoined the Government from enforcing the statute against any Executive Branch employee. 788 F. Supp. 4, 13-14 (1992). The court acknowledged that Congress’ interest in promoting “the integrity of, and popular confidence in and respect for, the federal government” is “vital.” Id., at 9. The court also characterized § 501(b) as a content-neutral restriction on the speech of “government employees who, as a condition of their employment, have relinquished certain First Amendment prerogatives....” Id., at 10. Nevertheless, the court concluded that “regulatory legislation having the effect of suppressing freedom of expression to the slightest degree” could “go no farther than necessary to accomplish its objective.” Ibid. The court found the statute both overinclusive, because it restricts so much speech, and underinclusive, because it prohibits hono-raria for some forms of speech and not others. Id., at 11. Concluding from the legislative history that Congress had been concerned mainly about appearances of impropriety among its own Members, the court found the application of § 501(b) to the parties before it severable from the remainder of the Act.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 990 F. 2d 1271 (CADC 1993). It noted that, even though § 501(b) prohibits no speech, the denial of compensation places a significant burden on employees. The court held that the Government’s strong, undisputed interest “in protecting the integrity and efficiency of public service and in avoiding even the appearance of impropriety created by abuse of the practice of receiving honoraria” does not justify a substantial burden on speech that does not advance that interest. Id., at 1274. The court emphasized that the Government’s failure as to many respondents to identify “some sort of nexus between the employee’s job and either the subject matter of the expression or the character of the payor” undercut its proffered concern about actual or apparent improprieties. Id., at 1275. Stressing the absence of evidence of either corruption or the appearance of corruption among lower level federal employees receiving honoraria with no connection to their employment, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Government had failed to justify the ban’s burden on their speech. Id., at 1277. The court rejected the Government’s argument that administrative and enforcement difficulties justify § 501(b)’s broad prophylactic rule.
Turning to the question of remedy, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that §501(b)’s application to Executive Branch employees is severable from the remainder of the statute. The legislative history convinced the court that Congress had adopted the honoraria ban primarily in response to the growing concern about payments to its own Members; moreover, the statute itself disclosed that “the honorarium ban was adopted as part of a package of which a key ingredient was a sharp increase in the salary of members of Congress, judges, and a limited class of senior executive branch officials.” Id., at 1278 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the court fashioned a remedy that, in effect, rewrote the statute by eliminating the words “officer or employee” from § 501(b) “except in so far as those terms encompass members of Congress, officers and employees of Congress, judicial officers and judicial employees.” Id., at 1279.
Over two dissents, the Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc. 3 F. 3d 1555 (1993). We granted certiorari. 511 U. S. 1029 (1994).
Ill
Federal employees who write for publication in their spare time have made significant contributions to the marketplace of ideas. They include literary giants like Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville, who were employed by the Customs Service; Walt Whitman, who worked for the Departments of Justice and Interior; and Bret Harte, an employee of the mint. Respondents have yet to make comparable contributions to American culture, but they share with these great artists important characteristics that are relevant to the issue we confront.
Even though respondents work for the Government, they have not relinquished “the First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest.” Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968). They seek compensation for their expressive activities in their capacity as citizens, not as Government employees. They claim their employment status has no more bearing on the quality or market value of their literary output than it did on that of Hawthorne or Melville. With few exceptions, the content of respondents’ messages has nothing to do with their jobs and does not even arguably have any adverse impact on the efficiency of the offices in which they work. They do not address audiences composed of co-workers or supervisors; instead, they write or speak for segments of the general public. Neither the character of the authors, the subject matter of their expression, the effect of the content of their expression on their official duties, nor the kind of audiences they address has any relevance to their employment.
In Pickering and a number of other cases we have recognized that Congress may impose restraints on the job-related speech of public employees that would be plainly unconstitutional if applied to the public at large. See, e. g., Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507 (1980). When a court is required to determine the validity of such a restraint, it must “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 State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering, 391 U. S., at 568.
In such cases, which usually have involved disciplinary actions taken in response to a government employee’s speech, we have applied Pickering’s balancing test only when the employee spoke “as a citizen upon matters of public concern” rather than “as an employee upon matters only of personal interest,” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 147 (1983) (emphasis added). Thus, private speech that involves nothing more than a complaint about a change in the employee’s own duties may give rise to discipline without imposing any special burden of justification on the government employer. Id., at 148-149. If, however, the speech does involve a matter of public concern, the government bears the burden of justifying its adverse employment action. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 388 (1987); see also Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 674 (1994). Respondents’ expressive activities in this case fall within the protected category of citizen comment on matters of public concern rather than employee comment on matters related to personal status in the workplace. The speeches and articles for which they received compensation in the past were addressed to a public audience, were made outside the workplace, and involved content largely unrelated to their Government employment.
The sweep of § 501(b) makes the Government’s burden heavy. Unlike Pickering and its progeny, this case does not involve a post hoc analysis of one employee’s speech and its impact on that employee’s public responsibilities. Cf. Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661 (1994); Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378 (1987); Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138 (1983); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972). Rather, the Government asks us to apply Pickering to Congress’ wholesale deterrent to a broad category of expression by a massive number of potential speakers. In Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 564 (1973), we established that the Government must be able to satisfy a balancing test of the Pickering form to maintain a statutory restriction on employee speech. Because the discussion in that case essentially restated in balancing terms our approval of the Hatch Act in Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 (1947), we did not determine how the components of the Pickering balance should be analyzed in the context of a sweeping statutory impediment to speech.
We normally accord a stronger presumption of validity to a congressional judgment than to an individual executive’s disciplinary action. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 671, and n. 2 (1994) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). The widespread impact of the honoraria ban, however, gives rise to far more serious concerns than could any single supervisory decision. See City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. 43, 54-55 (1994). In addition, unlike an adverse action taken in response to actual speech, this ban chills potential speech before it happens. Cf. Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). For these reasons, the Government’s burden is greater with respect to this statutory restriction on expression than with respect to an isolated disciplinary action. The Government must show that the interests of both potential audiences and a vast group of present and future employees in a broad range of present and future expression are outweighed by that expression’s “necessary impact on the actual operation” of the Government. Pickering, 391 U. S., at 571.
Although § 501(b) neither prohibits any speech nor discriminates among speakers based on the content or viewpoint of their messages, its prohibition on compensation unquestionably imposes a significant burden on expressive activity. See Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105 (1991); see also Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 227-231 (1987); Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575 (1983). Publishers compensate authors because compensation provides a significant incentive toward more expression. By denying respondents that incentive, the honoraria ban induces them to curtail their expression if they wish to continue working for the Government.
The ban imposes a far more significant burden on respondents than on the relatively small group of lawmakers whose past receipt of honoraria motivated its enactment. The absorbing and time-consuming responsibilities of legislators and policymaking executives leave them little opportunity for research or creative expression on subjects unrelated to their official responsibilities. Such officials often receive invitations to appear and talk about subjects related to their work because of their official identities. In contrast, invitations to rank-and-file employees usually depend only on the market value of their messages. The honoraria ban is unlikely to reduce significantly the number of appearances by high-ranking officials as long as travel expense reimbursement for the speaker and one relative is available as an alternative form of remuneration. See supra, at 460. In contrast, the denial of compensation for lower paid, nonpol-icymaking employees will inevitably diminish their expressive output.
The large-scale disincentive to Government employees’ expression also imposes a significant burden on the public’s right to read and hear what the employees would otherwise have written and said. See Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 756-757 (1976). We have no way to measure the true cost of that burden, but we cannot ignore the risk that it might deprive us of the work of a future Melville or Hawthorne. The honoraria ban imposes the kind of burden that abridges speech under the First Amendment.
IV
Because the vast majority of the speech at issue in this case does not involve the subject matter of Government employment and takes place outside the workplace, the Government is unable to justify § 501(b) on the grounds of immediate workplace disruption asserted in Pickering and the cases that followed it. Cf., e. g., Waters, 511 U. S., at 664. Instead, the Government submits that the ban comports with the First Amendment because the prohibited honoraria were “reasonably deemed by Congress to interfere with the efficiency of the public service.” Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 101 (1947).
In Mitchell we upheld the prohibition of the Hatch Act, 5 U. S. C. § 7324(a)(2), on partisan political activity by all classified federal employees, including, for example, a skilled mechanic at the mint named Poole who had no policymaking authority. We explained that “[t]here are hundreds of thousands of United States employees with positions no more influential upon policy determination than that of Mr. Poole. Evidently what Congress feared was the cumulative effect on employee morale of political activity by all employees who could be induced to participate actively.” 330 U. S., at 101. In Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548 (1973), we noted that enactment of the Hatch Act in 1939 reflected “the conviction that the rapidly expanding Government work force should not be employed to build a powerful, invincible, and perhaps corrupt political machine.” Id., at 565. An equally important concern 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.” Id., at 566.
Thus, the Hatch Act aimed to protect employees’ rights, notably their right to free expression, rather than to restrict those rights. Like the Hatch Act, the honoraria ban affects hundreds of thousands of federal employees. Unlike partisan political activity, however, honoraria hardly appear to threaten employees’ morale or liberty. Moreover, Congress effectively designed the Hatch Act to combat demonstrated ill effects of Government employees’ partisan political activities. In contrast, the Government has failed to show how it serves the interests it asserts by applying the honoraria ban to respondents.
The Government’s underlying concern is that federal officers not misuse or appear to misuse power by accepting compensation for their unofficial and nonpolitical writing and speaking activities. This interest is undeniably powerful, but the Government cites no evidence of misconduct related to honoraria in the vast rank and file of federal employees below grade GS-16. Instead of a concern about the “cumulative effect” of a widespread practice that Congress deemed to “menace the integrity and the competency of the service,” Mitchell, 330 U. S., at 103, the Government relies here on limited evidence of actual or apparent impropriety by legislators and high-level executives, together with the purported administrative costs of avoiding or detecting lower level employees’ violations of established policies.
As both the District Court and the Court of Appeals noted, the Government has based its defense of the ban on abuses of honoraria by Members of Congress. 990 F. 2d, at 1278; 788 F. Supp., at 13. Congress reasonably could assume that payments of honoraria to judges or high-ranking officials in the Executive Branch might generate a similar appearance of improper influence. Congress could not, however, reasonably extend that assumption to all federal employees below grade GS-16, an immense class of workers with negligible power to confer favors on those who might pay to hear them speak or to read their articles. A federal employee, such as a supervisor of mechanics at the mint, might impair efficiency and morale by using political criteria to judge the performance of his or her staff. But one can envision scant harm, or appearance of harm, resulting from the same employee’s accepting pay to lecture on the Quaker religion or to write dance reviews.
Although operational efficiency is undoubtedly a vital governmental interest, e. g., Rankin, 483 U. S., at 384, several features of the honoraria ban’s text cast serious doubt on the Government’s submission that Congress perceived honoraria as so threatening to the efficiency of the entire federal service as to render the ban a reasonable response to the threat. Cf. Waters, 511 U. S., at 677-678. The first is the rather strange parenthetical reference to “a series of appearances, speeches, or articles” that the 1991 amendment inserted in the definition of the term “honorarium.” The amended definition excludes such a series from the prohibited category unless “the subject matter is directly related to the individual’s official duties or the payment is made because of the individual’s status with the Government.” See supra, at 460. In other words, accepting pay for a series of articles is prohibited if, and only if, a nexus exists between the author’s employment and either the subject matter of the expression or the identity of the payor. For an individual article or speech, in contrast, pay is taboo even if neither the subject matter nor the payor bears any relationship at all to the author’s duties.
Congress’ decision to provide a total exemption for all unrelated series of speeches undermines application of the ban to individual speeches and articles with no nexus to Government employment. Absent such a nexus, no corrupt bargain or even appearance of impropriety appears likely. The Government’s only argument against a general nexus limitation is that a wholesale prophylactic rule is easier to enforce than one that requires individual nexus determinations. See Brief for United States 21-23. The nexus limitation for series, however, unambiguously reflects a congressional judgment that agency ethics officials and the OGE can enforce the statute when it includes a nexus test. A blanket burden on the speech of nearly 1.7 million federal employees requires a much stronger justification than the Government’s dubious claim of administrative convenience.
The definition’s limitation of “honoraria” to expressive activities also undermines the Government’s submission that the breadth of §501 is reasonably necessary to protect the efficiency of the public service. Both Commissions that recommended the ban stressed the importance of defining hono-raria in a way that would close “potential loopholes such as receipt of consulting, professional or similar fees; payments for serving on boards; travel; sport, or other entertainment expenses not reasonably necessary for the appearance involved; or any other benefit that is the substantial equivalent of an honorarium.” See supra, at 458. Those recommendations reflected a considered judgment that compensation for “an appearance, speech or article” poses no greater danger than compensation for other services that a Government employee might perform in his or her spare time. Congress, however, chose to restrict only expressive activities. One might reasonably argue that expressive activities, because they occupy a favored position in the constitutional firmament, should be exempt from even a comprehensive ban on outside income. Imposing a greater burden on speech than on other off-duty activities assumed to pose the same threat to the efficiency of the federal service is, at best, anomalous.
The fact that § 501 singles out expressive activity for special regulation heightens the Government’s burden of justification. See Minneapolis Star, 460 U. S., at 583. As we noted last Term when reviewing the Federal Communications Commission’s must-carry rules for cable television systems, “[w]hen the Government defends a regulation on speech as a means to redress past harms or prevent anticipated harms, it must do more than simply ‘posit the existence of the disease sought to be cured.’... It must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.” Turner Broadcasting System, 512 U. S., at 664. That case dealt with a direct regulation of communication by private entities, but its logic applies as well to the special burden § 501 imposes on the expressive rights of the multitude of employees it reaches. As Justice Brandéis reminded us, a “reasonable” burden on expression requires a justification far stronger than mere speculation about serious harms. “Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women.... To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced.” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 376 (1927) (concurring opinion). The Government has not persuaded us that § 501(b) is a reasonable response to the posited harms.
We also attach significance to the OGE regulations that limit the coverage of the statutory terms “appearance, speech or article.” 5 CFR §2636.203 (1994). The regulations exclude a wide variety of performances and writings that would normally appear to have no nexus with an employee’s job, such as sermons, fictional writings, and athletic competitions, see supra, at 460, countermanding the Commissions’ recommendation that an even more inclusive hono-raria ban would be appropriate. See supra, at 458. The exclusions, of course, make the task of the OGE and agency ethics officials somewhat easier, but they “diminish the credibility of the Government’s rationale” that paying lower level employees for speech entirely unrelated to their work jeopardizes the efficiency of the entire federal service. City of Ladue, 512 U. S., at 52. We recognize our obligation to defer to considered congressional judgments about matters such as appearances of impropriety, but on the record of this case we must attach greater weight to the powerful and realistic presumption that the federal work force consists of dedicated and honorable civil servants. The exclusions in the OGE regulations are more consistent with that presumption than with the honoraria ban’s dubious application not merely to policymakers, whose loss of honoraria was offset by a salary increase, but to all Executive Branch employees below grade GS-16 as well.
These anomalies in the text of the statute and regulations underscore our conclusion: The speculative benefits the hono-raria ban may provide the Government are not sufficient to justify this crudely crafted burden on respondents’ freedom to engage in expressive activities. Section 501(b) violates the First Amendment.
V
After holding § 501(b) invalid because it was not as carefully tailored as it should have been, the Court of Appeals approved a remedy that is itself arguably overinclusive. The relief granted by the District Court and upheld by the Court of Appeals enjoined enforcement of the entire hono-raria ban as applied to the entire Executive Branch of the Government. That injunction provides relief to senior executives who are not parties to this case. It also prohibits enforcement of the statute even when an obvious nexus exists between the employee’s job and either the subject matter of his or her expression or the interest of the person paying for it. As an alternative to its request for outright reversal, the Government asks us to modify the judgment by upholding the statute as it applies, first, to employees not party to this action and, second, to situations in which a nexus is present.
For three reasons, we agree with the Government’s first suggestion — that the relief should be limited to the parties before the Court. First, although the occasional case requires us to entertain a facial challenge in order to vindicate a party’s right not to be bound by an unconstitutional statute, see, e. g., Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947, 965-967, and n. 13 (1984), we neither want nor need to provide relief to nonparties when a narrower remedy will fully protect the litigants. See Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469, 484-485 (1989). In this case, granting full relief to respondents— who include all Executive Branch employees below grade GS-16 — does not require passing on the applicability of § 501(b) to Executive Branch employees above grade GS-15, including those high-level employees who received a 25% salary increase that offsets the honoraria ban’s disincentive to speak and write. Second, the Government conceivably might advance a different justification for an honoraria ban limited to more senior officials, thus presenting a different constitutional question than the one we decide today. Our policy of avoiding unnecessary adjudication of constitutional issues, see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring), therefore counsels against determining senior officials’ rights in this case. Third, as the Court of Appeals recognized, its remedy required it to tamper with the text of the statute, a practice we strive to avoid.
Our obligation to avoid judicial legislation also persuades us to reject the Government’s second suggestion — that we modify the remedy by crafting a nexus requirement for the honoraria ban. We cannot be sure that our attempt to redraft the statute to limit its coverage to cases involving an undesirable nexus between the speaker’s official duties and either the subject matter of the speaker’s expression or the identity of the payor would correctly identify the nexus Congress would have adopted in a more limited honoraria ban. We cannot know whether Congress accurately reflected its sense of an appropriate nexus in the terse, 33-word parenthetical statement with which it exempted series of speeches and articles from the definition of honoraria in the 1992 amendment, see supra, at 460; in an elaborate, nearly 600-word provision with which it later exempted Department of Defense military school faculty and students from the ban; or in neither. The process of drawing a proper nexus, even more than the defense of the statute’s application to senior employees, would likely raise independent constitutional concerns whose adjudication is unnecessary to decide this case. Cf. supra, at 478. We believe the Court of Appeals properly left to Congress the task of drafting a narrower statute.
Insofar as the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirms the injunction against enforcement of § 501(b) against respondents, it is affirmed; insofar as it grants relief to parties not before the Court, it is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
103 Stat. 1760, 5 U. S. C. App. §101 et seq. (1988 ed., Supp. V). The 1989 statute is a comprehensive amendment of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 1824. The provisions of the Act governing outside income, including honoraria, are codified at 5 U. S. C. App. § 501 et seq. (1988 ed., Supp. V).
The General Schedule, abbreviated “GS,” is the basic pay schedule for employees of the Federal Government. 5 U. S. C. § 5332 (1988 ed. and Supp. V). The Executive Branch positions to which the statute gave the salary increase are on the Executive Schedule, a separate pay scale above the General Schedule. See 103 Stat. 1768.
105 Stat. 447, 5 U. S. C. §5318 note (1988 ed., Supp. V).
The original definition read as follows: “(3) The term ‘honorarium’ means a payment of money or any thing of value for an appearance, speech or article by a Member, officer or employee, excluding any actual and necessary travel expenses incurred by such individual (and one relative) to the extent that such expenses are paid or reimbursed by any other person, and the amount otherwise determined shall be reduced by the amount of any such expenses to the extent that such expenses are not paid or reimbursed.” 103 Stat. 1761, 1762.
In 1993, employees in the certified class earned between $11,903 (GS-1, step 1) and $86,589 (GS-15, step 10). 5 U. S. C. §5332 (1988 ed., Supp. V). According to OPM, the mean grade was GS-9, which paid workers between $27,789 and $36,123. Office of Personnel Management, Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce, App. 2
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a proceeding under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 48 Stat. 955, 28 U. S. C. § 400. Its aim is to have declared invalid a condition under which the respondent became a member of the Federal Reserve System. The California State Banking Commission authorized the establishment of the respondent provided it obtained federal deposit insurance. This requirement could be met either by direct application to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or through membership in the Federal Reserve System. § 12 B (e) and (f) of the Federal Reserve Act, 48 Stat. 162, 170, 49 Stat. 684, 687, 12 U. S. C. § 264 (e) and (f). Respondent sought such membership but its application was rejected. The promoters of the Bank, having requested the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to reconsider the application for membership, were advised that favorable action depended on a showing that the Transamerica Corporation, a powerful bank holding company, did not have, nor was intended to have, any interest in this Bank. Having been satisfied on this point, the Board of Governors granted membership to respondent subject to conditions of which the fourth is the bone of contention in this litigation.
This condition reads as follows:
“4. If, without prior written approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Trans-america Corporation or any unit of the Transamerica group, including Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, or any holding company affiliate or any subsidiary thereof, acquires, directly or indirectly, through the mechanism of extension of loans for the purpose of acquiring bank stock, or in any other manner, any interest in such bank, other than such as may arise out of usual correspondent bank relationships, such bank, within 60 days after written notice from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, shall withdraw from membership in the Federal Reserve System.”
The Board of Governors gave the respondent this explanation for the condition:
“The application for membership has been approved upon representations that the bank is a bona fide local independent institution and that no holding company group has any interest in the bank at the time of its admission to membership, and that the directors and stockholders of the bank have no plans, commitments or understandings looking toward a change in the status of the bank as a local independent institution. Condition of membership numbered 4 is designed to maintain that status.”
Some time later, in 1944, Transamerica, without prior knowledge of the respondent, acquired 540 of the 5,000 shares of its outstanding stock. The Bank duly advised the Board of Governors of this fact, but requested that it be relieved of Condition No. 4. This, the Board of Governors declined to do. Then followed this action, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, against the Board of Governors for a declaration that Condition No. 4 was invalid and for an injunction against its enforcement. A motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint, in that it failed to set forth a justiciable controversy, was denied. 64 F. Supp. 811. The defendants answered, claiming that the Bank’s acceptance of membership barred it from questioning the validity of Condition No. 4, and that in any case the condition was valid, and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Bank, having filed a number of affidavits, moved for summary judgment. The District Court, in an unreported opinion, held that the Bank was bound by the condition on which it had accepted membership in the Federal Reserve System, and gave judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, one judge dissenting, reversed. It rejected the defense of estoppel and sustained the validity of the condition “only as a statement that, if the Board of Governors should determine, after hearing, that Trans-america’s ownership of the bank’s shares has resulted in a change for the worse in the character of the bank’s personnel, in its banking policies, in the safety of its deposits or in any other substantial way, it may require the bank to withdraw from the Federal Reserve System.” 161 F. 2d 636, 643-44. Accordingly, it remanded the case to the District Court for entry of a judgment construing Condition No. 4 to such effect. Since this ruling involves a matter of importance to the administration of the Federal Reserve Act, we brought the case here. 332 U. S. 755.
Condition No. 4 provides for withdrawal from membership in the Federal Reserve System, for violation of its provisions, “within 60 days after written notice from the Board of Governors . . . .” Section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Board of Governors to revoke the membership status of a bank “after hearing.” If the case contained no more than the foregoing elements, three questions would emerge:
(1) Was this action premature, brought as it was before the Board of Governors commenced revocation proceedings?
(2) If not, could the respondent attack the validity of a condition on the basis of which it had been accepted, and had enjoyed, membership? Compare Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245, 255.
(3) If so, did the Board of Governors have power to impose the condition as a means of guarding against acquisition by Transamerica of an interest in respondent?
However, with due regard for the considerations that should guide us in rendering a declaratory judgment, the record as a whole requires us to dispose of the case without reaching any of these questions.
Extended correspondence between Marriner S. Eccles, the then Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and A. P. Giannini, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Transamerica, together with the testimony of Eccles before the House Committee on Banking and Currency, set forth the reason for the Board’s insistence on the fourth condition. The Board sought to block “acquisition by Transamerica of stock in independent unit banks, especially when it constitutes a means of evading the requirements of the Federal agencies who will not permit its banks to establish additional branches.” Hearings before Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, on H. R. 2634, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 15. The Board was concerned not that Transamerica might purchase some shares of independent banks for the ordinary purposes of investment, but that it would buy into banks in order to acquire control, and thereby turn banks, though outwardly independent, into parts of its own banking network. The Board of Governors was therefore carrying out the policy underlying Condition No. 4 when it formally disavowed any intention to invoke that condition against respondent merely because of acquisition by Transamerica of an interest in the Bank, with no indication of subversion of its independence. This action by the Board was taken after it had satisfied itself that Transamerica’s holding did not affect the Bank’s control. The Bank had vigorously insisted on its continued independence, in urging upon the Board the harmlessness of Transamerica’s ownership of some of the Bank’s stock, and the Board, upon independent investigation found such to be the fact. Accordingly, the Board concluded that “the public interest” called for no action.
A declaratory judgment, like other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as a matter of judicial discretion, exercised in the public interest. Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co., 316 U. S. 491; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 297-98; H. R. Rep. No. 1264, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2; Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (2d ed. 1941) pp. 312-14. It is always the duty of a court of equity to strike a proper balance between the needs of the plaintiff and the consequences of giving the desired relief. Especially where governmental action is involved, courts should not intervene unless the need for equitable relief is clear, not remote or speculative.
The actuality of the plaintiff’s need for a declaration of his rights is therefore of decisive importance. And so we turn to the facts of the case at bar. The Bank has always insisted that it is independent of Transamerica; the Board of Governors has sustained the claim. The Bank stands on its right to remain in the Federal Reserve System; the Board acknowledges that right. The Bank disclaims any intention to give up its independence; the Board of Governors, having imposed the condition to safeguard this independence, disavows any action to terminate the Bank’s membership, so long as the Bank maintains the independence on which it insists. What the Bank really fears, and for which it now seeks relief, is that under changed conditions, at some future time, it may be required to withdraw from membership, and if this happens, so the argument runs, the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, has agreed with the Federal Reserve Board to refuse any application by the Bank for deposit insurance as a non-member.
Thus the Bank seeks a declaration of its rights if it should lose its independence, or if the Board of Governors should reverse its policy and seek to invoke the condition even though the Bank remains independent and if then the Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should not change their policy not to grant deposit insurance to the Bank as a non-member of the Federal Reserve System. The concurrence of these contingent events, necessary for injury to be realized, is too speculative to warrant anticipatory judicial determinations. Courts should avoid passing on questions of public law even short of constitutionality that are not immediately pressing. Many of the same reasons are present which impel them to abstain from adjudicating constitutional claims against a statute before it effectively and presently impinges on such claims.
It appears that the respondent could, if it wished, protect itself from the loss of its independence through adoption of by-laws forbidding any further sale or pledge of its shares to Transamerica or its affiliates. See California Corporations Code, L. 1947, c. 1038, § 501 (g). To this the Bank replies that even if its independence is maintained, the Board of Governors may change its policy, and seek enforcement of Condition No. 4, whether or not such enforcement is required by “the public interest” in having independent banks, which the condition now serves. Such an argument reveals the hypothetical character of the injury on the existence of which a jurisdiction rooted in discretion is to be exercised. In the light of all this, the difficulties deduced from the present uncertainty regarding the future enforcement of the condition, possibly leading to uninsured deposits, are too tenuous to call for adjudication of important issues of public law. We are asked to contemplate as a serious danger that a body entrusted with some of the most delicate and grave responsibilities in our Government will change a deliberately formulated policy after urging it on this Court against the Bank’s standing to ask for relief.
A determination of administrative authority may of course be made at the behest of one so immediately and truly injured by a regulation claimed to be invalid, that his need is sufficiently compelling to justify judicial intervention even before the completion of the administrative process. But, as we have seen, the Bank's grievance here is too remote and insubstantial, too speculative in nature, to justify an injunction against the Board of Governors, and therefore equally inappropriate for a declaration of rights. This is especially true in view of the type of proof offered by the Bank. Its claims of injury were supported entirely by affidavits. Judgment on issues of public moment based on such evidence, not subject to probing by judge and opposing counsel, is apt to be treacherous. Caution is appropriate against the subtle tendency to decide public issues free from the safeguards of critical scrutiny of the facts, through use of a declaratory summary judgment. Modern equity practice has tended away from a procedure based on affidavits and interrogatories, because of its proven insufficiencies. Equity Rule 46 forbade such practice save in exceptional cases. See Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v. James, 272 U. S. 701; cf. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43 (a). Again, not the least of the evils that led to the Norris-LaGuardia Act was the frequent practice of issuing labor injunctions upon the basis of affidavits rather than after oral proof presented in open court. See Amidon, J., in Great Northern R. Co. v. Brosseau, 286 F. 414, 416; Swan, J., in Aeolian Co. v. Fischer, 29 F. 2d 679, 681-82.
Where administrative intention is expressed but has not yet come to fruition (Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 324), or where that intention is unknown (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean, 301 U. S. 412, 429-30), we have held that the controversy is not yet ripe for equitable intervention. Surely, when a body such as the Federal Reserve Board has not only not asserted a challenged power but has expressly disclaimed its intention to go beyond the legitimate “public interest” confided to it, a court should stay its hand.
Judgment reversed.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“If at any time it shall appear to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that a member bank has failed to comply with the provisions of this section or the regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System made pursuant thereto, or has ceased to exercise banking functions without a receiver or liquidating agent having been appointed therefor, it shall be within the power of the board after hearing to require such bank to surrender its stock in the Federal reserve bank and to forfeit all rights and privileges of membership. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may restore membership upon due proof of compliance with the conditions imposed by this section.” 38 Stat. 251, 260, as amended, 46 Stat. 250, 251, 49 Stat. 684, 704, 12 U. S. C. § 327. See also § 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, 239, 5 U. S. C. § 1004.
The following is an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board on January 28,1946:
“Upon consideration of the latest report of examination of the Peoples Bank, Lakewood Village, California, from which the Board concluded that there had been no substantial change in the control, management or policy of the bank resulting from the acquisition by Transamerica Corporation of certain shares of the bank’s stock, the Board, by unanimous vote, decided that there was no present need in the public interest for any action by the Board with respect to the condition of membership of the bank relating to acquisition of its stock by Transamerica Corporation.”
“501. The by-laws of a corporation may make provisions not in conflict with law or its articles for:
“(g) Special qualifications of persons who may be shareholders, and reasonable restrictions upon the right to transfer or hypothecate shares.”
Likewise, the shareholders, or such of them as chose to, could presumably bind themselves not to sell or pledge to Transamerica, and by noting this agreement on their certificates could bind their transferees. Cf. Vannucci v. Pedrini, 217 Cal. 138, 17 P.2d 706.
The bank asserted, in its affidavits, not that lack of confidence had deterred depositors, but that deposits had been so heavy that capital expansion was in order, but might be disadvantaged by fear of prospective investors to risk personal assessment if deposits were uninsured.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Over the course of five days in April 2019, three committees of the U. S. House of Representatives issued four subpoenas seeking information about the finances of President Donald J. Trump, his children, and affiliated businesses. We have held that the House has authority under the Constitution to issue subpoenas to assist it in carrying out its legislative responsibilities. The House asserts that the financial information sought here-encompassing a decade's worth of transactions by the President and his family-will help guide legislative reform in areas ranging from money laundering and terrorism to foreign involvement in U. S. elections. The President contends that the House lacked a valid legislative aim and instead sought these records to harass him, expose personal matters, and conduct law enforcement activities beyond its authority. The question presented is whether the subpoenas exceed the authority of the House under the Constitution.
We have never addressed a congressional subpoena for the President's information. Two hundred years ago, it was established that Presidents may be subpoenaed during a federal criminal proceeding, United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 30 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, Cir. J.), and earlier today we extended that ruling to state criminal proceedings, Trump v. Vance, ante, --- U.S. at p. ----, 140 S.Ct. at p. ----. Nearly fifty years ago, we held that a federal prosecutor could obtain information from a President despite assertions of executive privilege, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), and more recently we ruled that a private litigant could subject a President to a damages suit and appropriate discovery obligations in federal court, Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997).
This case is different. Here the President's information is sought not by prosecutors or private parties in connection with a particular judicial proceeding, but by committees of Congress that have set forth broad legislative objectives. Congress and the President-the two political branches established by the Constitution-have an ongoing relationship that the Framers intended to feature both rivalry and reciprocity. See The Federalist No. 51, p. 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). That distinctive aspect necessarily informs our analysis of the question before us.
I
A
Each of the three committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, but each supplied different justifications for the requests.
The House Committee on Financial Services issued two subpoenas, both on April 11, 2019. App. 128, 154, 226. The first, issued to Deutsche Bank, seeks the financial information of the President, his children, their immediate family members, and several affiliated business entities. Specifically, the subpoena seeks any document related to account activity, due diligence, foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity identified by Deutsche Bank. The second, issued to Capital One, demands similar financial information with respect to more than a dozen business entities associated with the President. The Deutsche Bank subpoena requests materials from "2010 through the present," and the Capital One subpoena covers "2016 through the present," but both subpoenas impose no time limitations for certain documents, such as those connected to account openings and due diligence. Id., at 128, 155.
According to the House, the Financial Services Committee issued these subpoenas pursuant to House Resolution 206, which called for "efforts to close loopholes that allow corruption, terrorism, and money laundering to infiltrate our country's financial system." H. Res. 206, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (Mar. 13, 2019). Such loopholes, the resolution explained, had allowed "illicit money, including from Russian oligarchs," to flow into the United States through "anonymous shell companies" using investments such as "luxury high-end real estate." Id., at 3. The House also invokes the oversight plan of the Financial Services Committee, which stated that the Committee intends to review banking regulation and "examine the implementation, effectiveness, and enforcement" of laws designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. H. R. Rep. No. 116-40, p. 84 (2019). The plan further provided that the Committee would "consider proposals to prevent the abuse of the financial system" and "address any vulnerabilities identified" in the real estate market. Id., at 85.
On the same day as the Financial Services Committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued an identical subpoena to Deutsche Bank-albeit for different reasons. According to the House, the Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Deutsche Bank as part of an investigation into foreign efforts to undermine the U. S. political process. Committee Chairman Adam Schiff had described that investigation in a previous statement, explaining that the Committee was examining alleged attempts by Russia to influence the 2016 election; potential links between Russia and the President's campaign; and whether the President and his associates had been compromised by foreign actors or interests. Press Release, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Schiff Statement on House Intelligence Committee Investigation (Feb. 6, 2019). Chairman Schiff added that the Committee planned "to develop legislation and policy reforms to ensure the U. S. government is better positioned to counter future efforts to undermine our political process and national security." Ibid.
Four days after the Financial Services and Intelligence Committees, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued another subpoena, this time to the President's personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP. The subpoena demanded information related to the President and several affiliated business entities from 2011 through 2018, including statements of financial condition, independent auditors' reports, financial reports, underlying source documents, and communications between Mazars and the President or his businesses. The subpoena also requested all engagement agreements and contracts "[w]ithout regard to time." App. to Pet. for Cert. in 19-715, p. 230.
Chairman Elijah Cummings explained the basis for the subpoena in a memorandum to the Oversight Committee. According to the chairman, recent testimony by the President's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, along with several documents prepared by Mazars and supplied by Cohen, raised questions about whether the President had accurately represented his financial affairs. Chairman Cummings asserted that the Committee had "full authority to investigate" whether the President: (1) "may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office," (2) "has undisclosed conflicts of interest that may impair his ability to make impartial policy decisions," (3) "is complying with the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution," and (4) "has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities." App. in No. 19-5142 (CADC), p. 107. "The Committee's interest in these matters," Chairman Cummings concluded, "informs its review of multiple laws and legislative proposals under our jurisdiction." Ibid.
B
Petitioners-the President in his personal capacity, along with his children and affiliated businesses-filed two suits challenging the subpoenas. They contested the subpoena issued by the Oversight Committee in the District Court for the District of Columbia (Mazars, No. 19-715), and the subpoenas issued by the Financial Services and Intelligence Committees in the Southern District of New York (Deutsche Bank, No. 19-760). In both cases, petitioners contended that the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose and violated the separation of powers. The President did not, however, resist the subpoenas by arguing that any of the requested records were protected by executive privilege. For relief, petitioners asked for declaratory judgments and injunctions preventing Mazars and the banks from complying with the subpoenas. Although named as defendants, Mazars and the banks took no positions on the legal issues in these cases, and the House committees intervened to defend the subpoenas.
Petitioners' challenges failed. In Mazars, the District Court granted judgment for the House, 380 F.Supp.3d 76 (DC 2019), and the D. C. Circuit affirmed, 940 F.3d 710 (2019). In upholding the subpoena issued by the Oversight Committee to Mazars, the Court of Appeals found that the subpoena served a "valid legislative purpose" because the requested information was relevant to reforming financial disclosure requirements for Presidents and presidential candidates. Id., at 726-742 (internal quotation marks omitted). Judge Rao dissented. As she saw it, the "gravamen" of the subpoena was investigating alleged illegal conduct by the President, and the House must pursue such wrongdoing through its impeachment powers, not its legislative powers. Id., at 773-774. Otherwise, the House could become a "roving inquisition over a co-equal branch of government." Id., at 748. The D. C. Circuit denied rehearing en banc over several more dissents. 941 F.3d 1180, 1180-1182 (2019).
In Deutsche Bank, the District Court denied a preliminary injunction, 2019 WL 2204898 (SDNY, May 22, 2019), and the Second Circuit affirmed "in substantial part," 943 F.3d 627, 676 (2019). While acknowledging that the subpoenas are "surely broad in scope," the Court of Appeals held that the Intelligence Committee properly issued its subpoena to Deutsche Bank as part of an investigation into alleged foreign influence over petitioners and Russian interference with the U. S. political process. Id., at 650, 658-659. That investigation, the court concluded, could inform legislation to combat foreign meddling and strengthen national security. Id., at 658-659, and n. 59.
As to the subpoenas issued by the Financial Services Committee to Deutsche Bank and Capital One, the Court of Appeals concluded that they were adequately related to potential legislation on money laundering, terrorist financing, and the global movement of illicit funds through the real estate market. Id., at 656-659. Rejecting the contention that the subpoenas improperly targeted the President, the court explained in part that the President's financial dealings with Deutsche Bank made it "appropriate" for the House to use him as a "case study" to determine "whether new legislation is needed." Id., at 662-663, n. 67.
Judge Livingston dissented, seeing no "clear reason why a congressional investigation aimed generally at closing regulatory loopholes in the banking system need focus on over a decade of financial information regarding this President, his family, and his business affairs." Id., at 687.
We granted certiorari in both cases and stayed the judgments below pending our decision. 589 U. S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 660, 205 L.Ed.2d 418 (2019).
II
A
The question presented is whether the subpoenas exceed the authority of the House under the Constitution. Historically, disputes over congressional demands for presidential documents have not ended up in court. Instead, they have been hashed out in the "hurly-burly, the give-and-take of the political process between the legislative and the executive." Hearings on S. 2170 et al. before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 87 (1975) (A. Scalia, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel).
That practice began with George Washington and the early Congress. In 1792, a House committee requested Executive Branch documents pertaining to General St. Clair's campaign against the Indians in the Northwest Territory, which had concluded in an utter rout of federal forces when they were caught by surprise near the present-day border between Ohio and Indiana. See T. Taylor, Grand Inquest: The Story of Congressional Investigations 19-23 (1955). Since this was the first such request from Congress, President Washington called a Cabinet meeting, wishing to take care that his response "be rightly conducted" because it could "become a precedent." 1 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 189 (P. Ford ed. 1892).
The meeting, attended by the likes of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Randolph, and Henry Knox, ended with the Cabinet of "one mind": The House had authority to "institute inquiries" and "call for papers" but the President could "exercise a discretion" over disclosures, "communicat[ing] such papers as the public good would permit" and "refus[ing]" the rest. Id., at 189-190. President Washington then dispatched Jefferson to speak to individual congressmen and "bring them by persuasion into the right channel." Id., at 190. The discussions were apparently fruitful, as the House later narrowed its request and the documents were supplied without recourse to the courts. See 3 Annals of Cong. 536 (1792); Taylor, supra, at 24.
Jefferson, once he became President, followed Washington's precedent. In early 1807, after Jefferson had disclosed that "sundry persons" were conspiring to invade Spanish territory in North America with a private army, 16 Annals of Cong. 686-687, the House requested that the President produce any information in his possession touching on the conspiracy (except for information that would harm the public interest), id., at 336, 345, 359. Jefferson chose not to divulge the entire "voluminous" correspondence on the subject, explaining that much of it was "private" or mere "rumors" and "neither safety nor justice" permitted him to "expos[e] names" apart from identifying the conspiracy's "principal actor": Aaron Burr. Id., at 39-40. Instead of the entire correspondence, Jefferson sent Congress particular documents and a special message summarizing the conspiracy. Id., at 39-43; see generally Vance, ante, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 140 S.Ct. at 2421 - 2422. Neither Congress nor the President asked the Judiciary to intervene.
Ever since, congressional demands for the President's information have been resolved by the political branches without involving this Court. The Reagan and Clinton presidencies provide two modern examples:
During the Reagan administration, a House subcommittee subpoenaed all documents related to the Department of the Interior's decision whether to designate Canada a reciprocal country for purposes of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act. President Reagan directed that certain documents be withheld because they implicated his confidential relationship with subordinates. While withholding those documents, the administration made "repeated efforts" at accommodation through limited disclosures and testimony over a period of several months. 6 Op. of Office of Legal Counsel 751, 780 (1982). Unsatisfied, the subcommittee and its parent committee eventually voted to hold the Secretary of the Interior in contempt, and an innovative compromise soon followed: All documents were made available, but only for one day with no photocopying, minimal notetaking, and no participation by non-Members of Congress. Id., at 780-781; see H. R. Rep. No. 97-898, pp. 3-8 (1982).
In 1995, a Senate committee subpoenaed notes taken by a White House attorney at a meeting with President Clinton's personal lawyers concerning the Whitewater controversy. The President resisted the subpoena on the ground that the notes were protected by attorney-client privilege, leading to "long and protracted" negotiations and a Senate threat to seek judicial enforcement of the subpoena. S. Rep. No. 104-204, pp. 16-17 (1996). Eventually the parties reached an agreement, whereby President Clinton avoided the threatened suit, agreed to turn over the notes, and obtained the Senate's concession that he had not waived any privileges. Ibid. ; see L. Fisher, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Investigations: Subpoenas and Contempt Power 16-18 (2003).
Congress and the President maintained this tradition of negotiation and compromise-without the involvement of this Court-until the present dispute. Indeed, from President Washington until now, we have never considered a dispute over a congressional subpoena for the President's records. And, according to the parties, the appellate courts have addressed such a subpoena only once, when a Senate committee subpoenaed President Nixon during the Watergate scandal. See infra, at 2032 - 2033 (discussing Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725 (CADC 1974) (en banc)). In that case, the court refused to enforce the subpoena, and the Senate did not seek review by this Court.
This dispute therefore represents a significant departure from historical practice. Although the parties agree that this particular controversy is justiciable, we recognize that it is the first of its kind to reach this Court; that disputes of this sort can raise important issues concerning relations between the branches; that related disputes involving congressional efforts to seek official Executive Branch information recur on a regular basis, including in the context of deeply partisan controversy; and that Congress and the Executive have nonetheless managed for over two centuries to resolve such disputes among themselves without the benefit of guidance from us. Such longstanding practice " 'is a consideration of great weight' " in cases concerning "the allocation of power between [the] two elected branches of Government," and it imposes on us a duty of care to ensure that we not needlessly disturb "the compromises and working arrangements that [those] branches... themselves have reached." NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 524-526, 134 S.Ct. 2550, 189 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014) (quoting The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655, 689, 49 S.Ct. 463, 73 L.Ed. 894 (1929) ). With that in mind, we turn to the question presented.
B
Congress has no enumerated constitutional power to conduct investigations or issue subpoenas, but we have held that each House has power "to secure needed information" in order to legislate. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 161, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580 (1927). This "power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." Id., at 174, 47 S.Ct. 319. Without information, Congress would be shooting in the dark, unable to legislate "wisely or effectively." Id., at 175, 47 S.Ct. 319. The congressional power to obtain information is "broad" and "indispensable." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187, 215, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1957). It encompasses inquiries into the administration of existing laws, studies of proposed laws, and "surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them." Id., at 187, 77 S.Ct. 1173.
Because this power is "justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative process," it is subject to several limitations. Id., at 197, 77 S.Ct. 1173. Most importantly, a congressional subpoena is valid only if it is "related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress." Id., at 187, 77 S.Ct. 1173. The subpoena must serve a "valid legislative purpose," Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161, 75 S.Ct. 668, 99 L.Ed. 964 (1955) ; it must "concern[ ] a subject on which legislation 'could be had,' "
Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 506, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975) (quoting McGrain, 273 U.S. at 177, 47 S.Ct. 319 ).
Furthermore, Congress may not issue a subpoena for the purpose of "law enforcement," because "those powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary." Quinn, 349 U.S. at 161, 75 S.Ct. 668. Thus Congress may not use subpoenas to "try" someone "before [a] committee for any crime or wrongdoing." McGrain, 273 U.S. at 179, 47 S.Ct. 319. Congress has no " 'general' power to inquire into private affairs and compel disclosures," id., at 173-174, 47 S.Ct. 319, and "there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure," Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200, 77 S.Ct. 1173. "Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated are indefensible." Id., at 187, 77 S.Ct. 1173.
Finally, recipients of legislative subpoenas retain their constitutional rights throughout the course of an investigation. See id., at 188, 198, 77 S.Ct. 1173. And recipients have long been understood to retain common law and constitutional privileges with respect to certain materials, such as attorney-client communications and governmental communications protected by executive privilege. See, e.g., Congressional Research Service, supra, at 16-18 (attorney-client privilege); Senate Select Committee, 498 F.2d at 727, 730-731 (executive privilege).
C
The President contends, as does the Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the United States, that the usual rules for congressional subpoenas do not govern here because the President's papers are at issue. They argue for a more demanding standard based in large part on cases involving the Nixon tapes-recordings of conversations between President Nixon and close advisers discussing the break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the Watergate complex. The tapes were subpoenaed by a Senate committee and the Special Prosecutor investigating the break-in, prompting President Nixon to invoke executive privilege and leading to two cases addressing the showing necessary to require the President to comply with the subpoenas. See Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 ; Senate Select Committee, 498 F.2d 725.
Those cases, the President and the Solicitor General now contend, establish the standard that should govern the House subpoenas here. Quoting Nixon, the President asserts that the House must establish a "demonstrated, specific need" for the financial information, just as the Watergate special prosecutor was required to do in order to obtain the tapes. 418 U.S. at 713, 94 S.Ct. 3090. And drawing on Senate Select Committee -the D. C. Circuit case refusing to enforce the Senate subpoena for the tapes-the President and the Solicitor General argue that the House must show that the financial information is "demonstrably critical" to its legislative purpose. 498 F.2d at 731.
We disagree that these demanding standards apply here. Unlike the cases before us, Nixon and Senate Select Committee involved Oval Office communications over which the President asserted executive privilege. That privilege safeguards the public interest in candid, confidential deliberations within the Executive Branch; it is "fundamental to the operation of Government." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708, 94 S.Ct. 3090. As a result, information subject to executive privilege deserves "the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice." Id., at 715, 94 S.Ct. 3090. We decline to transplant that protection root and branch to cases involving nonprivileged, private information, which by definition does not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations.
The standards proposed by the President and the Solicitor General-if applied outside the context of privileged information-would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities. The President and the Solicitor General would apply the same exacting standards to all subpoenas for the President's information, without recognizing distinctions between privileged and nonprivileged information, between official and personal information, or between various legislative objectives. Such a categorical approach would represent a significant departure from the longstanding way of doing business between the branches, giving short shrift to Congress's important interests in conducting inquiries to obtain the information it needs to legislate effectively. Confounding the legislature in that effort would be contrary to the principle that:
"It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served." United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 43, 73 S.Ct. 543, 97 L.Ed. 770 (1953) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Legislative inquiries might involve the President in appropriate cases; as noted, Congress's responsibilities extend to "every affair of government." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the President's approach does not take adequate account of these significant congressional interests, we do not adopt it.
D
The House meanwhile would have us ignore that these suits involve the President. Invoking our precedents concerning investigations that did not target the President's papers, the House urges us to uphold its subpoenas because they "relate[ ] to a valid legislative purpose" or "concern[ ] a subject on which legislation could be had." Brief for Respondent 46 (quoting Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 127, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115 (1959), and Eastland, 421 U.S. at 506, 95 S.Ct. 1813 ). That approach is appropriate, the House argues, because the cases before us are not "momentous separation-of-powers disputes." Brief for Respondent 1.
Largely following the House's lead, the courts below treated these cases much like any other, applying precedents that do not involve the President's papers. See 943 F.3d at 656-670 ; 940 F.3d at 724-742. The Second Circuit concluded that "this case does not concern separation of powers" because the House seeks personal documents and the President sued in his personal capacity. 943 F.3d at 669. The D. C. Circuit, for its part, recognized that "separation-of-powers concerns still linger in the air," and therefore it did not afford deference to the House. 940 F.3d at 725-726. But, because the House sought only personal documents, the court concluded that the case "present[ed] no direct interbranch dispute." Ibid.
The House's approach fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the President's information. Congress and the President have an ongoing institutional relationship as the "opposite and rival" political branches established by the Constitution. The Federalist No. 51, at 349. As a result, congressional subpoenas directed at the President differ markedly from congressional subpoenas we have previously reviewed, e.g., Barenblatt, 360 U.S. at 127, 79 S.Ct. 1081 ; Eastland, 421 U.S. at 506, 95 S.Ct. 1813, and they bear little resemblance to criminal subpoenas issued to the President in the course of a specific investigation, see Vance, ante, --- U.S. p., ----, 140 S.Ct., p. ---- ; Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039. Unlike those subpoenas, congressional subpoenas for the President's information unavoidably pit the political branches against one another. Cf. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 753 (CADC 1997) ("The President's ability to withhold information from Congress implicates different constitutional considerations than the President's ability to withhold evidence in judicial proceedings.").
Far from accounting for separation of powers concerns, the House's approach aggravates them by leaving essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President's personal records. Any personal paper possessed by a President could potentially "relate to" a conceivable subject of legislation, for Congress has broad legislative powers that touch a vast number of subjects. Brief for Respondent 46. The President's financial records could relate to economic reform, medical records to health reform, school transcripts to education reform, and so on. Indeed, at argument, the House was unable to identify any type of information that lacks some relation to potential legislation. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 52-53, 62-65.
Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could "exert an imperious controul" over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President's expense, just as the Framers feared. The Federalist No. 71, at 484 (A. Hamilton); see id., No. 48, at 332-333 (J. Madison); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721-722, 727, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986). And a limitless subpoena power would transform the "established practice" of the political branches. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. at 524, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead of negotiating over information requests, Congress could simply walk away from the bargaining table and compel compliance in court.
The House and the courts below suggest that these separation of powers concerns are not fully implicated by the particular subpoenas here, but we disagree. We would have to be "blind" not to see what "[a]ll others can see and understand": that the subpoenas do not represent a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved. Rumely, 345 U.S. at 44, 73 S.Ct. 543 (quoting Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20, 37, 42 S.Ct. 449, 66 L.Ed. 817 (1922) (Taft, C. J.)).
The interbranch conflict here does not vanish simply because the subpoenas seek personal papers or because the President sued in his personal capacity. The President is the only person who alone composes a branch of government. As a result, there is not always a clear line between his personal and official affairs. "The interest of the man" is often "connected with the constitutional rights of the place." The Federalist No. 51, at 349. Given the close connection between the Office of the President and its occupant, congressional demands for the President's papers can implicate the relationship between the branches regardless whether those papers are personal or official. Either way, a demand may aim to harass the President or render him "complaisan[t] to the humors of the Legislature." Id., No. 71, at 483. In fact, a subpoena for personal papers may pose a heightened risk of such impermissible purposes, precisely because of the documents' personal nature and their less evident connection to a legislative task. No one can say that the controversy here is less significant to the relationship between the branches simply because it involves personal papers. Quite the opposite. That appears to be what makes the matter of such great consequence to the President and Congress.
In addition, separation of powers concerns are no less palpable here simply because the subpoenas were issued to third parties. Congressional demands for the President's information present an interbranch conflict no matter where the information is held-it is, after all, the President's information. Were it otherwise, Congress could sidestep constitutional requirements any time a President's information is entrusted to a third party-as occurs with rapidly increasing frequency. Cf. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. ----, ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 2219, 2220, 201 L.Ed.2d 507(2018). Indeed, Congress could declare open season on the President's information held by schools, archives, internet service providers, e-mail clients, and financial institutions. The Constitution does not tolerate such ready evasion; it "deals with substance, not shadows." Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325, 18 L.Ed. 356 (1867).
E
Congressional subpoenas for the President's personal information implicate weighty concerns regarding the separation of powers. Neither side, however, identifies an approach that accounts for these concerns. For more than two centuries, the political branches have resolved information disputes using the wide variety of means that the Constitution puts at their disposal. The nature of such interactions would be transformed by judicial enforcement of either of the approaches suggested by the parties, eroding a "[d]eeply embedded traditional way[ ] of conducting government." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. at 610, 72 S.Ct. 863 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
A balanced approach is necessary, one that takes a "considerable impression" from "the practice of the government," McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) ; see Noel Canning, 573 U.S. at 524-526, 134 S.Ct. 2550, and "resist[s]" the "pressure inherent within each of the separate Branches to exceed the outer limits of its power," INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). We therefore conclude that, in assessing whether a subpoena directed at the President's personal information is "related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress," Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187, 77 S.Ct. 1173, courts must perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the "unique position" of the President, Clinton, 520 U.S. at 698, 117 S.Ct. 1636 (internal quotation marks omitted). Several special considerations inform this analysis.
First, courts should carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers. " '[O]ccasion[s] for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' should be avoided whenever possible." Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U.S. 367, 389-390, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 692, 94 S.Ct. 3090 ). Congress may not rely on the President's information if other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it needs in light of its particular legislative objective. The President's unique constitutional position means that Congress may not look to him as a "case study" for general legislation. Cf. 943 F.3d at 662-663, n. 67.
Unlike in criminal proceedings, where "[t]he very integrity of the judicial system"
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: | M | 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.
These are seven cases in which petitioner sued to recover stock assessments from shareholders of the Banco Kentucky Co. They were started in 1936 in the Eastern District of Kentucky and were stayed by agreement while the principal case upon which these depended, Anderson v. Abbott, 321 U. S. 349, wended its way through the courts. In the latter case we sustained the liability of the shareholders of Banco for the stock assessment. That was in 1944. During the time Anderson v. Abbott was being litigated, the shareholders involved in the present litigation died and respondents became executors of their estates. Through no lack of diligence, petitioner failed to learn of these facts until more than two years later. Upon learning of them he promptly moved to revive the actions against the representatives of the decedents. The District Court, following Anderson v. Brady, 1 F. R. D. 589, denied the motions for revivor and granted motions of the executors to dismiss. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. 153 F. 2d 685. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because the case presented an important problem in the construction of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case involves a reconciliation of Rule 25 (a) and Rule 6 (b). So far as material here, Rule 25 (a) provides:
“If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court within 2 years after the death may order substitution of the proper parties. If substitution is not so made, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.”
And the relevant part of Rule 6(b) reads:
“When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may, at any time in its discretion . . . (2) upon motion permit the act to be done after the expiration of the specified period where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not enlarge the period for taking any action under Rule 59, except as stated in subdivision (c) thereof, or the period for taking an appeal as provided by law.”
It is said that since by Rule 25 (a) substitution may be made within two years after the death of a party, substitution is, within the meaning of Rule 6 (b), an act “allowed” to be done “within a specified time” which the court may on a showing of “excusable neglect” permit to be done after the two-year period. That argument is reinforced by reliance on the provision in Rule 6 (b) which grants but two exceptions to the power of enlargement of time. Since Rule 25 (a) is not included in the exceptions, it is argued that the time allowed by that rule may be enlarged under Rule 6(b). And it is pointed out that the facts of the present cases establish that the failure of the receiver to act within the two-year period was the result of “excusable neglect,” thus giving the District Court discretion to allow the substitution under Rule 6 (b).
We agree, however, with the Circuit Court of Appeals. Rule 25 (a) is based in part on 28 U. S. C. § 778, 42 Stat. 352, which limited the power of substitution to two years from the death of a party. And even within that two-year period substitution could not be made unless the executor or administrator was served “before final settlement and distribution of the estate.” That statute, like other statutes of limitations, was a statute of repose. It was designed to keep short the time within which actions might be revived so that the closing and distribution of estates might not be interminably delayed. That policy is reflected in Rule 25 (a). Even within the two-year period substitution is not a matter of right; the court “may” order substitution but it is under no duty to do so. Under the Rule, as under the statute, the settlement and distribution of the estate might be so far advanced as to warrant a denial of the motion for substitution within the two-year period. In contrast to the discretion of the court to order substitution within the two-year period is the provision of Rule 25 (a) that if substitution is not made within that time the action “shall be dismissed” as to the deceased. The word “shall” is ordinarily “the language of command.” Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U. S. 490, 493. And when the same Rule uses both “may” and “shall,” the normal inference is that each is used in its usual sense — the one act being permissive, the other mandatory. See United States v. Thoman, 156 U.S. 353, 360.
Thus, as stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Rule 25 (a) operates both as a statute of limitations upon re-vivor and as a mandate to the court to dismiss an action not revived within the two-year period. Rule 6 (b) relates to acts required or allowed to be done by parties to an action and permits the court to afford relief to a party for his failure to act within the prescribed time limits. There would be more force in petitioner’s argument if Rule 25 (a) had, without more, set a two-year period within which substitution might be made. But Rule 25 (a) does not stop there. It directs the court to dismiss the action if substitution has not been made within that time. That is action required of the court, not of a party. And Rule 6 (b) should not be construed to override an express direction of action to be taken by the court. See Wallace v. United States, 142 F. 2d 240, 244.
Reasons of policy support this construction. It is, to be sure, stipulated that in five of the present cases the estate is “still open and undistributed”; in one it is “still open”; in another it has been distributed. At least where an estate is ready to be closed or where there has already been a distribution, revivor may work unfairness and be disruptive of orderly and expeditious administration of estates. But it is not enough to say that if Rule 6 (b) and Rule 25 (a) are construed to permit substitution after the two-year period, the court need not allow it where unfairness or prejudice would result. For the normal policy of a statute of limitations is to close the door — finally, not qualifiedly or conditionally. The federal law embodied in Rule 25 (a) has a direct impact on the probate of estates in the state courts. It should not be construed to be more disruptive of prompt and orderly probate administration in those courts than its language makes necessary.
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Reed took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Petitioner brought actions against approximately 5,000 shareholders scattered throughout the United States and some in foreign countries. During the progress of the litigation some changed their residences. And it was stipulated that petitioner, with a limited staff, could not during this time keep up with the changes of residence or deaths of defendants.
Cf. Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 104 F. 2d 83, with Burke v. Canfield, 72 App. D. C. 127, 111 F. 2d 526, and Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. v. Snyder, 109 F. 2d 469.
See note 1, supra.
But see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Joy, 173 U. S. 226; Winslow v. Domestic Engineering Co., 20 F. Supp. 578.
And see H. Rep. No. 429, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On December 2, 1943, the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Maryland, issued a certificate of naturalization to petitioner after proceedings that conformed with the requirements of the Nationality Act of 1940. 54 Stat. 1137, 8 U. S. C. § 501 ff. Seven days later, and at the same term of court, the Government moved to vacate and set aside the order of naturalization, claiming on evidence outside the record that it was obtained by fraud and. that therefore the citizenship was illegally procured.
It is admitted that the requirements of § 338 of the Nationality Act, wherein Congress made specific provision for “revoking . . . the order admitting ... to citizenship ... on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such order . . . [was] illegally procured,” were not, followed. Instead, the Maryland court exercised its general power under Maryland .law to' set aside judgments during the term of court in which they were rendered.
We brought this case here to determine whether the requirements of § 338 control the revocation of citizenship on the ground of fraud or on the ground that it was illegally procured; or whether the grant of citizenship by the courts of the forty-eight States is subject to whatever summary control State courts may have over their merely local judgments. The questions are of obvious importance in the administration of the naturalization laws, apart from the conflict between the views of the court below and those of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States ex rel. Volpe v. Jordan, 161 F. 2d 390.
The issue was raised by petitioner’s action in the District Court for the District of Columbia for a judgment declaring him to be a citizen of the. United States and for an. order restraining respondents from deporting him. Upon a motion by the Government to dismiss the complaint, petitioner moved for summary judgment which was granted by the District Court, declaring petitioner “to be a national and citizen of the United States” but “without prejudice to the government’s right to institute appropriate proceedings for denaturalization under Sec. 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940.” The Court, of Appeals reversed, 87 U. S. App. D. C. 137, 184-F. 2d 225, and we granted certiorari. 341 U. S. 919.
Due regard for § 338, including the history of its origin, and for the nature of a judgment of naturalization, together with a consideration of the conflicting and capricious diversities of local law affecting the finality of local judgments, compel us to hold that § 338 is the exclusive procedure for canceling citizenship on the score of fraudulent or illegal procurement based on evidence outside the record.
Section 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940 is for our purpose the reenactment of § 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 596, 601. That Act was the culmination of half a century’s agitation directed, at naturalization frauds, particularly in their bearing upon the suffrage. On the basis of a nationwide survey to determine the incidence and causes of naturalization frauds with á view to devising recommendations for corrective legislation, President Theodore Roosevelt’s Commission on Naturalization prepared a report which was the foundation of the Act of 1906. H. R. Doc. No. 46, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. This report, the hearings before congressional committees and their reports, the floor debates on the proposed measure, leave no doubt that the target of legislation was fraudulent naturalization. It is equally clear that the remedy for th'e disclosed evil lay in the effective exercise of the power of Congress “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 4.
To prevent fraud in a proceeding before a naturalization court, the Act devised a scheme of administrative oversight for the naturalization process. The Government was given the right to appear. § 11, 34 Stat. 596, 599. This right was fortified by requiring notice of the petition to the newly created Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and a ninety-day waiting period between the filing of the petition and the final hearing. §§ 6- and 12, 34 Stat¡ 596, 598 and 599. These were safeguards to enable verification by the Bureau of the facts alleged in the petition and investigation of the qualifications of the applicant for citizenship. By these provisions Congress recognized that enforcement is the heart of the law.
But Congress was not content, to devise measures against fraud in procuring naturalization only. In § 15 of the Act of 1906 it formulated a carefully safeguarded method for denaturalization. Though the principal criticism leading to the enactment concerned the evils inherent in widely diverse naturalization procedures, experience was not wanting Qf the dangers and hardships attendant on haphazard denaturalization. Information was before Congress that ever since 1890 the then circuit courts had vacated naturalization orders at the suit of the Attorney General, although when the validity of § 15 was before it, this Court left open the question whether a court of equity had such power, without express legislative authority. Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227, 240. But the revocation of citizenship before 1906 was not always surrounded by the safeguards of an original equity proceeding. See, e. g., Tinn v. United States District Attorney, 148 Cal. 773, 84 P. 152 (1906) . Indeed, the history of the Act of 1906 makes clear that elections could be influenced by irregular denaturalizations as well as by fraudulent naturalizations. The only instance in the extensive legislative materials of vacation of naturalization orders by what appears to have been the procedure urged by the Government in this case involved just such a situation. A judge who had naturalized seven aliens on the supposition that they were members of his own political party promptly vacated his order when this supposition was corrected. See Rep. Atty. Gon. 394 (1903).
Significantly, floor action on § 15 in the House reveals a specific purpose to deprive the naturalizing court as such of power to revoke. The original bill authorized United States attorneys to institute revocation proceedings in the court issuing the certificate, as well as in a court having jurisdiction to naturalize in the district of the naturalized citizen’s residence. H. R. 15442, 59th Cong., 1st Sess., § 17. A committee amendment adopted just before final passage put the section in the form in which it was enacted. That amendment, in the words of Congressman Bonynge, the manager of the bill, “takes away the right to institute .[a revocation proceeding] in the court out of which the certificate of citizenship may have been issued, unless the alien happens to reside within the jurisdiction of that court.” 40 Cong. Rec. 7874.
In the light of this legislative history we cannot escape the conclusion that in its detailed provisions for revoking a naturalization because of fraud or-illegal procurement not appearing on the face of the record, Congress formulated a self-contained, exclusive procedure. With a view to protecting the Government against fraud while safeguarding citizenship from abrogation except by a clearly defined procedure, Congress insisted on the detailed, explicit provisions of § 15. To find that at the same time it left the same result to be achieved by the confused and conflicting medley, as we shall see, of State procedures for setting aside local judgments is to read congressional enactment without respect for reason.
Between them, these two sections, § 11 and § 15, provided a' complete and exclusive framework for safeguarding citizenship against unqualified applicants. Under the first, the Government was given ample opportunity to interpose objections prior to the order of naturalization. If proper account was not taken of the evidence, the Government had recourse to appeal for examination of the action of the naturalizing court on the record. Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568. Congress, however, thought that ninety days was quite enough time for the Government to develop its case — indeed many members deemed it too long. 40 Cong. Rec. 7766-7770. At the-expiration of that time, if citizenship was granted, it was to be proof against attacks for fraud or illegal procurement based on evidence outside the record, except through the proceedings prescribed in § 15. The congressional scheme, providing carefully for the representation of the Government’s interest before the grant of citizenship and a detailed, safeguarded procedure for attacking the decree on evidence of fraud outside the record, covers the whole ground. Every national interest is thereby protected.
Neither uncontested practice nor adjudication by lower courts has rendered a verdict which is disregarded by our construction of § 338. Nor as a rule for future conduct is any burden thereby placed on the Government in setting aside a naturalization order where it can prove illegality or fraud.
An abstract syllogism is pressed against this natural, because rational, treatment of § 338 as the exclusive and safeguarding procedure for voiding naturalizations granted after compliance with the careful formalities of § 334. Grant of citizenship is a judgment; a judgment is within the control of the issuing court during the court’s term; therefore naturalization is subject to révocation for fraud or illegal procurement during the term of the court that granted it. So runs the argument. Such abstract reasoning is mechanical jurisprudence in its most glittering form. It disregards all those decisive considerations by which a provision like § 338 derives the meaning of life from the context of its generating forces and its pur-' poses. It also disregards the capricious and haphazard results that would flow from applying such an empty syllogism to the actualities Of judicial administration.
By. giving State courts jurisdiction in naturalization cases, Congress empowered some thousand State court judges to adjudicate citizenship. If the requirements specifically defined in § 338 for revocation of citizenship were to be supplemented by State law regarding control over judgments by way of the “term rule”' or otherwise, the retention of citizenship would be contingent upon application of myriad discordant rules by a thousand judges scattered over the land.
Wide arid whimsical diversities are"revealed by the local law of the forty-eight States in the power of their courts to set asidé local jridgments. The courts of some States have no power to set aside their own judgments; courts in other States have almost unlimited power. Not only is there this great diversity among the States. There are capricious differences within individual States. That Congress, composed largely of lawyers, should have gone through the process of the elaborate definition in § 338 but impliedly also allowed denaturalization through the eccentricities and accidents of variegated State practice, is an assumption that ought to have a solider foundation than an abstract syllogism. Without more, we cannot believe that Congress would subject a naturalized citizen — who has achieved that status only by the protecting formalities of the Nationality Act — to such unpredictable attack.
Finally, if is suggested that since § 15 was found not to prevent the taking of appeals from a naturalization order, Tutun v. United States, supra, and since there are diversities in the time for appeal among State courts with power to naturalize, the diversities among State courts in the power to vacate their own. judgments ought not to require resort to § 338 as the exclusive, uniform procedure for denaturalization.
One answer is that the Act of 1906 and its successor, the Nationality Act of 1940, had no provision whatever as to appellate review of errors appearing of record in a naturalization court. On the other hand, Congress laboriously dealt with the revocation of naturalization obtained by fraud or otherwise illegally. And since appellate review is so ingrained a part of American justice, this Court in the Tutun case naturally held that it was not to be assumed that Congress denied the right of appeal merely because it did not affirmatively confer it. Of course there are differences among State judiciaries as to the time within which an appeal can be taken. But the differences are within a narrow and unimportant range compared with the enormous and quixotic differences relating to a court’s control over its judgments on the score of fraud or illegality. It is one thing to allow some play for the joints in a statutory scheme like the Nationality Act, enforceable by both State and federal courts. It is quite another to inject a wholly dislocating factor by incorporating the diverse State rules for vacating judgments into the revocation process, which Congress specifically and comprehensively dealt with in § 338.
Congressional concern for uniformity in post-naturalization proceedings was shown in this very connection. The bill before Congress in 1906 provided for a uniform mode of appeal to the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals from naturalization judgments rendered by State, as well as federal, courts. H. R. 15442, 59th Cong., 1st Sess., § 13. Constitutional doubts and the practical problems which such an anomalous procedure would raise led to the omission of this section, leaving appeal procedure to the States. 40 Cong. Rec. 7784-7787. It is not to be supposed, however, that where, as with denaturalization, such doubts and anomalies were not present, Congress would gratuitously abandon the constitutional mandate, to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” It established such a rule in § 338.
Accordingly, the judgment below must be reversed and that of the District Court reinstated.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Reed, joined by Mr. Justice Burton, see post, p. 92.] •
APPENDIX.
Power of State Courts to Vacate Their Own Judgments
The diversities in State rules governing the power to vacate judgments are illustrated by the following:
(1) The common law rule, still followed by many States, including Maryland, is that for the duration of the term in which the judgment is entered the court may entertain a motion to change it. This “term rule” inevitably would produce.erratic results as to naturalization:
(a) States differ very substantially in the length of court terms set by legislature or court. See 3 Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, “Court Calendars” (1951). For example, in several counties of Kentucky the Circuit Court holds terms of only six days’ duration; in contrast, the terms of the .Oklahoma District Courts are six months in length.
(b) Even within- a State the length of terms may vary greatly. ' Consider Indiana, for example. The Marion County (Indianapolis)^ Superior Court has monthly terms; some judges of the Lake County Superior Court hold terms lasting for six months.
(c) In a good many States the length of term may fluctuate with the amount of business that happens to' be before the court, and with the untrammelled discretion of a judge in adjourning sine die. Unless adjourned sine die or concluded by the terminal date set. by statute, a term, in general, ends only at the commencement of the next succeeding term held at the same place. See, e. g., Comes v. Comes, 190 Iowa 547, 178. N. W. 403 (1920); Hensley v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 22, 3 P. 2d 211 (1931). Thus, a term may be less than a day in length, or it might be a full year where the court has only one prescribed term annually.
(d) There is an inherent uncertainty in the “term rule.”- Consider a court with a prescribed or permitted term of ten months. E. g., Rhode Island Superior Court in Providence, R. I. Gen. Laws, 1938, c. 498, § 2. A citizenship obtained by naturalization on the first day of the tej-m might be vacated at any time within 10 months — under the reasoning of the Government; whereas the alien fortunate enough to be naturalized on the last day of the term would have citizenship indefeasibly except by the safeguarded procedure of § 338.
(2) A number of States have statutes similar to that of Alabama reading: “The circuit courts . . . shall be open for the transaction of any and all business, or judicial proceedings of every kind, at all times.” Ala. Code, 1940, Tit. 13, § 114. In those States wide disparity in the time within which a judgment may be vacated is introduced by the following circumstances:
(a) Some of these States provide by statute that a court has control of its judgments and may vacate . them within some fixed time; the times vary greatly:
One year:
Minnesota — Minn. Stat., 1949, § 544.32.
60 days:
Kentucky (courts in continuous session) — Ky. Rev. Stat., 1946, § 451.130 (1).
30 days:
Alabama — Ala. Code, 1940, Tit. 13, § 119. Illinois — 111. Rev. Stat., 1949, c. 77, § 82. Maryland (Baltimore City Court) — See Harvey v. Slacum, 181 Md. 206, 29 A. 2d 276 (1942). New Mexico — N. M. Stat., 1941, § 19-901.
(b) Other States provide that only the motion for setting aside the judgment need be filed within a fixed period; the length of these periods also varies considerably:
“A reasonable time not exceeding six months:”
Arizona — Ariz. Code Ann., 1939, § 21-1502. California — Deering’s Cal. Code Civ. Proc., 1949, § 473.
6 months:
Nevada — See Lauer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 62 Nev. 78, 140 P. 2d 953 (1943).
(c) At any rate either the fixed period or the reasonable time for vacating judgments produces quite different results from the erratic consequences of the “term rule.”
(3) In some States, it appears, a court has no control over its judgments after they are signed and entered. See, e. g., Louisiana Bank v. Hampton, 4 Mart. 94 (La. 1816); Nelson & Co. v. Rocquet & Co., 123 La. 91, 48 So. 756 (1909). In Massachusetts a court has no jurisdiction to vacate a judgment “on mere motion” except for clerical error. Shawmut Commercial Paper Co. v. Cram, 212 Mass. 108, 98 N. E. 696 (1912), But see Mass. Gen. Laws, 1932, c. 250, §§ 14-20.
54 Stat. 1137, 1158, 8 U. S. C. § 738. The pertinent portions of the section are:
“(a) It shall be. the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court specified in subsection (a) of section 301 in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured.
“(b) The party to whom was granted the naturalization alleged to have been fraudulently or illegally procured shall, in any such proceedings under subsection (a) of this section, have sixty.days’ personal notice in which to make answer to the petition of the United States; and if such naturalized person be absent from the United States or from the judicial district in. which such person last had his residence, such notice shall be given by publication in the manner provided for the service of summons by publication or upon1 absentees by the laws of the State or the place where such suit is brought.”
See Eddy v. Summers, 183 Md. 683, 687, 39 A. 2d 812, 814 (1944).
As early as 1844, a Senate resolution called- for an inquiry into these frauds and into the possibility of a judicial procedure for canceling fraudulent naturalization certificates. S. J., 28th Cong., 2d Sess. 40, 44. For a summary of pre-Civil War legislative activity in regard to naturalization see Franklin, The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States. Annual messages of the Presidents, from Grant onward, urged remedial legislation. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Grant, 1st Annual Message, 1869, 6th Annual Message, 1874, 7th Annual Message, 1875, 8th Annual Message, 1876; Arthur, 4th Annual Message, 1884; Cleveland, 1st Annual Message, 1885, 2d Annual Message, 1886,4th Annual Message, 1888; Harrison, 1st Annual Message, 1889, 2d Annual Message, 1890; Roosévelt, 3d Annual Message, 1903, 4th Annual Message, 1904, 5th Annual Message, 1905. Grant and Cleveland asserted specifically that there was no way for the Government to obtain a revocation of fraudulently acquired citizenship and asked for correction of this deficiency. Id., Grant, 6th Annual Message, 1874; Cleveland, 1st Annual Message, 1885. But Harrison called attention to a “new application of a familiar equity jurisdiction” whereby over a hundred naturalization orders had been vacated at the instance of the Attorney General by the United States Circuit Courts in original equity suits. As he saw -it, the urgent remaining need was for an adequate prenaturalization investigation. Id., Harrison, 2d Annual Message, 1890.
In 1903, a federal grand jury investigated and a Special Assistant United States Attorney was charged with prosecution of naturalization frauds' in New York City. See Rep. Atty. Gen. v, 392 (1903); H. R. Doc. No. 46, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 76. A special examiner for the Department of Justice made a nationwide investigation, a report of which was transmitted to Congress. See Rep. Atty. Gen. 393 (1903). See generally Roche, Pre-Statutory Denaturalization, 35 Cornell L. Q. 120.
See, e. g., H. R. Doc. No. 46, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 11-15, 20-23, 76-78, 79-92; Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on the Bills to Establish a Bureau of Naturalization, and to Provide for a Uniform Rule for the Naturalization of Aliens Throughout the United States, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 3-54; H. R. Rep. No. 1789, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 2; S. Rep. No. 4373, 59th Cong., 1st Sess: 2; 40 Cong. Rec. 3640 ff.
These provisions were suggested by the special Commission on Naturalization. See H. R. Doc. No. 46, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 17, 99. In his Second Annual Message, President Harrison had recommended a waiting period for investigation. See Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Harrison, 2d Annual Message, 1890. See also Rep. Atty. Gen. 397 (1903) for a similar suggestion from the Special Examiner in Relation to Naturalization.
No section of the Act was more thoroughly debated than this one. Three separate amendments to reduce the waiting period were rejected. 40 Cong. Rec. 7762-7770. The period was cut to thirty days in the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1156, 8 U. S. C. § 734 (c). But the codifiers reiterated that the purpose of the delay was to permit the Government “to make further inquiry as to the eligibility of the applicant and the competency of his witnesses.” Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 6127, superseded by H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 466.
The opportunity for investigation provided by these sections was taken full advantage-of by the Bureau. See H. R. Rep. No. 1328, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 1. Indeed, in 1926, the investigations were made a formal part of the naturalization process in the federal courts by permitting officers of the Bureau to conduct the examination of the applicant’s witnesses prior to final hearing on the petition and authorizing the naturalization judge to forego such examination on final hearings if the recommendation of the Bureau was favorable. 44 Stat. 709. This procedure was extended to state naturalization courts as well in 1940. 54 Stat. 1137, 1156, 8 U. S. C. § 733.
See Richardson, Messages and Papers of. the Presidents, Harrison, 2d Annual Message, 1890. 1,916 fraudulently obtained naturalization certificates were canceled in civil proceedings in New York City in, the two-year period to May 29, 1905. H. R. Doc. No. 46, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 76; H. R. Rep. No. 1789, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 2.
In that case, nine citizenship orders were revoked in an ex parte' proceeding on oral motion of the United States District Attorney, purporting to be made as in the course of the original proceedings, over three years after the orders admitting to citizenship. This action was, however, reversed on appeal. See also 40 Cong. Rec. 7045 where it is stated that upon the announcement by the United States District Attorney in San Francisco that immunity from prosecution would be given to any holder' of a fraudulently acquired certificate who surrendered it for cancellation, 204 certificates were turned in in the first thirty days.
Objections were raised, on similar grounds, to the section in the original bill, providing for appeal from naturalization orders and requiring a stay of the issuance of the certificate pending appeal. It was argued that a partisan district attorney might influence a close election by judiciously choosing the cases in which to appeal and obtain the stay. 40 Cong. Rec. 7786.
It deserves emphasis that we are dealing here with the revocation of naturalization “on the ground of fraud or on the ground that . . . [the naturalization was] illegally procured,” to be established outside the record. We have not before us, and therefore do not decide, the power of a State court to control its naturalization judgment to the extent of correcting some clerical error.
And, of course, the present case does not touch situations where under State law a judgment does not come into being until a defined period or .event after a decision is rendered. Compare Commissioner v. Estate of Bedford, 325 U. S. 283, 284 — 288.
54 Stat. 1137, 1156, 8 U. S. C. § 734.
The conflicting varieties of State rules for vacating judgments are illustratively summarized in an Appendix, post, p. 88.
That Congress was not inattentive to existing variations in Statpractice, where it wished to absorb them, is shown by the last portion of § 338 (b) which reads:
“. . . and if such naturalized person be absent from the United States or from the judicial district in which such person last had his residence, such notice shall.be given by publication in the manner provided for the service of summons by publication or upon absentees by the laws of the State or the place where such suit is brought.’’ (Emphasis added.)
Vagaries among the States as to time, for appeals are not substantial. The times for appeal fixed by States range principally from thirty days to three months. See Pound, Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 340-342.
It is hardly necessary to note that the best effort to secure fastidious accuracy and currency in such matters as the local rules here summarized cannot assure them. The interpretation of local law, especially as to practice, is treacherous business for an outsider. The very uncertainty of the local rules makes it all the more unlikely that Congress intended to subject citizenship by naturalization to such attack.
Of course only State courts with power to naturalize, that is, “having a seal, a clerk, and jurisdiction in actions at law or equity, or law and equity, in which the amount in controversy is unlimited,” 54 Stat. 1137, 1140, 8 U. S. C. § 701 (a), are here canvassed.
A great many States provide procedures — statutory or common law — for vacating judgments by a separate proceeding in the nature of an equity suit. See, e. g., Kan. Gen. Stat., 1949, § 60-3007 et seq. The Government in this case does not argue that these collateral procedures are available in the face of § 338. But it is not obvious why the argument of implied State control over a State judgment is not also relevant as to these State methods for controlling judgments.
The medieval idea of dividing the calendar year for judicial purposes into terms and vacations developed from the necessities of sowing and harvesting, and from the demands of the Church for religious peace at certain seasons of the year. See 1 Reeves, History of English Law, 191-192; 3 Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 674-675.
The States used as illustration under this division (1) are only those which, as far as investigation discloses, follow the common law “term rule.”
Texas provides striking illustrations of diversity within a single State. The Texas District Courts vary greatly from county to county in the number of terms per year and in the specified length of the terms; many District Courts are in continuous session, others sit “till finished,” and others have fixed terms of 3, 4, 6, 8 or 10 weeks. The judgments of certain District Courts with terms of 3 months or longer become “as final ... 30 days after the date of judgment ... as if the term of court had expired.” Vernon’s Tex. Civ. Stat., 1926, Art. 2092 (30); Joy v. Young, 194 S. W. 2d 159 (Tex. Civ. App. 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: | 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.
These cases involve a challenge to Alabama state legislative districts under the equal protection principles announced by this Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993). Appellees, the plaintiffs below, are white Alabama voters who are residents of various majority-white districts. The districts in which appellees reside are adjacent to majority-minority districts. All of the districts were created under a state redistricting plan whose acknowledged purpose was the maximization of the number of majority-minority districts in Alabama. Appellants in No. 00-132 are a group of African-American voters whose initial state lawsuit resulted in the adoption of the redistricting plan at issue. Appellants in No. 00-133 are Alabama state officials.
Appellees brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama challenging their own districts as the products of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. A three-judge court convened to hear the case pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2284. The District Court ultimately held that seven of the challenged majority-white districts were the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and enjoined their use in any election. 96 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (MD Ala. 2000). On direct appeal to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, appellants in both cases contend, among other things, that appellees lack standing to maintain this suit under our decision in United States v. Hays, 515 U. S. 737 (1995). We agree.
Hays involved a challenge to Louisiana’s districting plan for its Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. The plan contained two majority-minority districts. The appel-lees lived in a majority-white district that bordered on one of the majority-minority districts. The appellees challenged the entire plan, including their own district, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under our decision in Shaw v. Reno, supra. United States v. Hays, 515 U. S., at 739-742.
We concluded that the appellees lacked standing to maintain their challenge. We assumed for the sake of argument that the evidence was sufficient to state a Shaw claim with respect to the neighboring majority-minority district. Id., at 746. But we concluded that the appellees had not shown a cognizable injury under the Fourteenth Amendment because they did not reside in the majority-minority district and had not otherwise shown that they had “personally been denied equal treatment.” Id., at 744-746 (internal quotation marks omitted). The appellees’ failure to show the requisite injury, we noted, was not changed by the fact that the racial composition of their own district might have been different had the legislature drawn the adjacent majority-minority district another way. Id., at 746.
Appellees’ position here is essentially indistinguishable from that of the appellees in Hays. Appellees are challenging their own majority-white districts as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering under a redistricting plan whose purpose was the ereation of majority-minority districts, some of which border appellees’ districts. Like the appellees in Hays, they have neither alleged nor produced any evidence that any of them was assigned to his or her district as a direct result of having “personally been subjected to a racial classification.” Id., at 745; see also Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 904 (1996). Rather, appellees suggest that they are entitled to a presumption of injury-in-fact because the bizarre shapes of their districts reveal that the districts were the product of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 120a, 148a, 153a.
The shapes of appellees’ districts, however, were necessarily influenced by the shapes of the majority-minority districts upon which they border, and appellees have produced no evidence that anything other than the deliberate creation of those majority-minority districts is responsible for the districting lines of which they complain. Appellees’ suggestion thus boils down to the claim that an unconstitutional use of race in drawing the boundaries of majority-minority districts necessarily involves an unconstitutional use of race in drawing the boundaries of neighboring majority-white districts. We rejected that argument in Hays, explaining that evidence sufficient to support a Shaw claim with respect to a majority-minority district did “not prove anything” with respect to a neighboring majority-white district in which the appellees resided. 515 U. S., at 746. Accordingly, “an allegation to that effect does not allege a cognizable injury under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ibid.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the cases are remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
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.
Clyde Timothy Bunkley petitions for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court contradicted the principles of this Court’s decision in Fiore v. White, 531 U. S. 225 (2001) (per curiam), when it failed to determine whether the “common pocketknife” exception to Florida’s definition of a ‘“[w]eapon’” encompassed Bunkley’s pocketknife at the time that his conviction became final in 1989. Fla. Stat. §790.001(13) (2000). We agree, and therefore grant Bunkley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his petition for a writ of certiorari.
1=1
In the early morning hours of April 16,1986, Bunkley burglarized a closed, unoccupied Western Sizzlin’ Restaurant. Report and Recommendation in No. 91-113-CIV-T-99(B) (MD Fla.), p. 1. The police arrested him after he left the restaurant. At the time of his arrest, the police discovered a “pocketknife, with a blade of 2V¿ to 3 inches in length, . . . folded and in his pocket.” 768 So. 2d 510 (Fla. App. 2000) (per curiam). “There is no evidence indicating Bunkley ever used the pocketknife during the burglary, nor that he threatened anyone with the pocketknife at any time.” Ibid.
Bunkley was charged with burglary in the first degree because he was armed with a “dangerous weapon” — namely, the pocketknife. Fla. Stat. § 810.02(2)(b) (2000). The punishment for burglary in the first degree is “imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment.” §810.02(2). If the pocketknife had not been classified as a “dangerous weapon,” Bunkley would have been charged with burglary in the third degree. See 833 So. 2d 739, 742 (Fla. 2002). Burglary in the third degree is punishable “by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.” Fla. Stat. § 775.082(3)(d) (2002); see also 833 So. 2d, at 742. Bunkley was convicted of burglary in the first degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1989, a Florida appellate court affirmed Bunkley’s conviction and sentence. See 539 So. 2d 477.
Florida law defines a “ ‘[wjeapon’ ” to “mea[n] any dirk, metallic knuckles, slingshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife.” §790.001(13). Florida has excepted the “ ‘common pocketknife’ ” from its weapons statute since 1901, and the relevant language has remained unchanged since that time. See 833 So. 2d, at 743.
In 1997, the Florida Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the “common pocketknife” exception for the first time. In L. B. v. State, 700 So. 2d 370, 373 (per curiam), the court determined that a pocketknife with a blade of 3% inches “plainly falls within the statutory exception to the definition of ‘weapon’ found in section 790.001(13).” The complete analysis of the Florida Supreme Court on this issue was as follows: “In 1951, the Attorney General of Florida opined that a pocketknife with a blade of four inches in length or less was a ‘common pocketknife.’ The knife appellant carried, which had a 3%-inch blade, clearly fell within this range.” Ibid, (citation omitted). The Florida Supreme Court accordingly vacated the conviction in L. B. because the “knife in question was a ‘common pocketknife’ under any intended definition of that term.” Ibid. Justice Grimes, joined by Justice Wells, wrote an opinion agreeing with the majority’s resolution of the case “[i]n view of the Attorney General’s opinion and the absence of a more definitive description of a common pocketknife.” Ibid.
After the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision in L. B., Bunkley filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (1999). Bunkley alleged that under the L. B. decision, his pocketknife could not have been considered a “weapon” under §790.001(13). He therefore argued that his conviction for armed burglary was invalid and should be vacated because a “common pocketknife can not [sic] support a conviction involving possession of a weapon.” App. to Pet. for Cert. C-2. The Circuit Court rejected Bunkley’s motion, and the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed. 768 So. 2d 510 (2000).
The Florida Supreme Court also rejected Bunkley’s claim. It held that the L. B. decision did not apply retroactively. Under Florida law, only “jurisprudential upheavals” will be applied retroactively. 833 So. 2d, at 743 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court stated that a “jurisprudential upheaval is a major constitutional change of law.” Id., at 745 (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, any “evolutionary refinements” in the law “are not applied retroactively.” Id., at 744. The court then held that L. B. was an evolutionary refinement in the law, and therefore Bunkley was not entitled to relief. In a footnote, the Florida Supreme Court cited our decision in Fiore v. White, supra, and held without analysis that Fiore did not apply to this case. See 833 So. 2d, at 744, n. 12.
Justice Pariente, joined by Chief Justice Anstead, dissented. She stated that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in L. B. “should be applied to grant Bunkley collateral relief.” 833 So. 2d, at 746. She criticized the majority opinion for relying solely on a retroactivity question. In her view, “application of the due process principles of Fiore renders a retroactivity analysis . . . unnecessary.” Id., at 747. She noted that even if .L. B. was merely an evolutionary refinement of the law, “the majority offers no precedent laying out the stages of this evolution.” 833 So. 2d, at 747. Because she thought the L. B. decision “correctly stated the law at the time Bunkley’s conviction became final,” she would have vacated Bunkley’s conviction. 833 So. 2d, at 747.
II
Fiore v. White involved a Pennsylvania criminal statute that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted for the first time after the defendant Fiore’s conviction became final. See 531 U. S., at 226. Under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of the criminal statute, Fiore could not have been guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. See id., at 227-228. We originally granted certiorari in Fiore to consider “when, or whether, the Federal Due Process Clause requires a State to apply a new interpretation of a state criminal statute retroactively to cases on collateral review.” Id., at 226. “Because we were uncertain whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision . .. represented a change in the law,” we certified a question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Id., at 228. This question asked whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of the statute “ ‘state [d] the correct interpretation of the law of Pennsylvania at the date Fiore’s conviction became final.’” Ibid.
When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court replied that the ruling “ ‘merely clarified the plain language of the statute/ ” ibid., the question on which we originally granted certiorari disappeared. Pennsylvania’s answer revealed the “simple, inevitable conclusion” that Fiore’s conviction violated due process. Id., at 229. It has long been established by this Court that “the Due Process Clause . . . forbids a State to convict a person of a crime without proving the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 228-229. Because Pennsylvania law — as interpreted by the later State Supreme Court decision — made clear that Fiore’s conduct did not violate an element of the statute, his conviction did not satisfy the strictures of the Due Process Clause. Consequently, “retroactivity [was] not at issue.” Id., at 226.
Fiore controls the result here. As Justice Pariente stated in dissent, “application of the due process principles of Fiore” may render a retroactivity analysis “unnecessary.” 833 So. 2d, at 747. The question here is not just one of retro-activity. Rather, as Fiore holds, “retroactivity is not at issue” if the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of the “common pocketknife” exception in L. B. is “a correct statement of the law when [Bunkley’s] conviction became final.” 531 U. S., at 226. The proper question under Fiore is not whether the law has changed. Rather, Fiore requires that the Florida Supreme Court answer whether, in light of L. B., Bunkley’s pocketknife of 2Vz to 3 inches fit within § 790.001(13)’s “common pocketknife” exception at the time his conviction became final.
Although the Florida Supreme Court has determined that the L. B. decision was merely an “evolutionary refinement” in the meaning of the “common pocketknife” exception, it has not answered whether the law in 1989 defined Bunkley’s 2Vi-to 3-inch pocketknife as a “weapon” under § 790.001(13). Although the L. B. decision might have “culminat[ed].. . [the] century-long evolutionary process,” the question remains about what § 790.001(13) meant in 1989. 833 So. 2d, at 745. If Bunkley’s pocketknife fit within the “common pocketknife” exception to §790.001(13) in 1989, then Bunkley was convicted of a crime for which he cannot be guilty — burglary in the first degree. And if the “stages” of § 790.001(13)’s “evolution” had not sufficiently progressed so that Bunkley’s pocketknife was still a weapon in 1989, this case raises the issue left open in Fiore.
It is true that the Florida Supreme Court held Fiore inapplicable because the L. B. decision was a change in the law which “culminat[ed] [the] century-long evolutionary process.” 833 So. 2d, at 745. As the dissent acknowledges, however, see post, at 843, n. 1, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in L. B. cast doubt on the validity of Bunkley’s conviction. For the first time, the Florida Supreme Court interpreted the common pocketknife exception, and its interpretation covered the weapon Bunkley possessed at the time of his offense. In the face of such doubt, Fiore entitles Bunkley to a determination as to whether L. B. correctly stated the common pocketknife exception at the time he was convicted. Ordinarily, the Florida Supreme Court’s holding that L. B. constitutes a change in — rather than a clarification of — the law would be sufficient to dispose of the Fiore question. By holding that a change in the law occurred, the Florida Supreme Court would thereby likewise have signaled that the common pocketknife exception was narrower at the time Bunkley was convicted.
Here, however, the Florida Supreme Court said more. It characterized L. B. as part of the “century-long evolutionary process.” 833 So. 2d, at 745. Because Florida law was in a state of evolution over the course of these many years, we do not know what stage in the evolutionary process the law had reached at the time Bunkley was convicted. The Florida Supreme Court never asked whether the weapons statute had “evolved” by 1989 to such an extent that Bunkley’s 2Vz- to 3-inch pocketknife fit within the “common pocketknife” exception. The proper question under Fiore is not just whether the law changed. Rather, it is when the law changed. The Florida Supreme Court has not answered this question; instead, it appeared to assume that merely labeling L. B. as the “culmination” in the common pocketknife exception’s “century-long evolutionary process” was sufficient to resolve the Fiore question. 833 So. 2d, at 745. It is not. Without further clarification from the Florida Supreme Court as to the content of the common pocketknife exception in 1989, we cannot know whether L. B. correctly stated the common pocketknife exception at the time he was convicted.
On remand, the Florida Supreme Court should consider whether, in light of the L. B. decision, Bunkley’s pocketknife of m to 3 inches fit within § 790.001(13)’s “common pocketknife” exception at the time his conviction became final. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, accordingly, is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The dissent claims that the Florida Supreme Court did not need to decide anything other than whether L. B. was a change in the law. See ;post, at 845 (citing Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.850(b)(2) (2000)). Yet as the dissent concedes, see post, at 843, the Florida Supreme Court passed upon the Fiore due process inquiry as well as the retroactivity question. The dissent also notes that Bunkley has raised the issue of the common pocketknife in prior appeals. These appeals, however, were filed prior to the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in L. B. And we agree with the dissent that absent the L. B. decision, Bunkley would not be able to pursue his claim now. The Florida Supreme Court committed an error of law here by not addressing whether the L. B. decision means that at the time Bunk-ley was convicted, he was convicted of a crime — armed burglary — for which he may not be guilty. Therefore, Michigan v. Long, 468 U. S. 1032 (1983), has no applicability here.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Armed Career Criminal Act imposes a special mandatory 15-year prison term upon felons who unlawfully possess a firearm and who also have three or more previous convictions for committing certain drug crimes or “violent felon[ies].” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V). The question in this case is whether driving under the influence of alcohol is a “violent felony” as the Act defines it. We conclude that it is not.
I
A
Federal law prohibits a previously convicted felon from possessing a firearm. § 922(g)(1) (2000 ed.). A related provision provides for a prison term of up to 10 years for an ordinary offender. § 924(a)(2). The Armed Career Criminal Act imposes a more stringent 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on an offender who has three prior convictions “for a violent felony or a serious drug offense.” § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V).
The Act defines a “violent felony” as “any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” that
“(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
“(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B) (2000 ed.).
We here consider whether driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), as set forth in New Mexico’s criminal statutes, falls within the scope of the second clause.
B
The relevant background circumstances include the following: In September 2004, New Mexico police officers received a report that Larry Begay, the petitioner here, had threatened his sister and aunt with a rifle. The police arrested him. Begay subsequently conceded he was a felon and pleaded guilty to a federal charge of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of § 922(g)(1). Begay’s presentence report said that he had been convicted a dozen times for DUI, which under New Mexico’s law becomes a felony (punishable by a prison term of more than one year) the fourth (or subsequent) time an individual commits it. See N. M. Stat. Ann. §§ 66-8-102(G) to (J) (Supp. 2007). The sentencing judge consequently found that Begay had at least three prior convictions for a crime “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” 377 F. Supp. 2d 1141,1143 (NM 2005). The judge also concluded that Begay’s “three felony DUI convictions involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id., at 1145, The judge consequently concluded that Begay had three or more prior convictions for a “violent felony” and should receive a sentence that reflected a mandatory minimum prison term of 15 years. Ibid.
Begay, claiming that DUI is not a “violent felony” within the terms of the statute, appealed. The Court of Appeals panel by a vote of 2 to 1 rejected that claim. 470 F. 3d 964 (CA10 2006). Begay sought certiorari, and we agreed to decide the question.
II
A
New Mexico’s DUI statute makes it a crime (and a felony-after three earlier convictions) to “drive a vehicle within [the] state” if the driver “is under the influence of intoxicating liquor” (or has an alcohol concentration of .08 or more in his blood or breath within three hours of having driven the vehicle resulting from “alcohol consumed before or while driving the vehicle”). §§66-8-102(A), (C). In determining whether this crime is a violent felony, we consider the offense generically, that is to say, we examine it in terms of how the law defines the offense and not in terms of how an individual offender might have committed it on a particular occasion. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575, 602 (1990) (adopting this “categorical approach”); see also James v. United States, 550 U. S. 192, 208-209 (2007) (attempted burglary is a violent felony even if, on some occasions, it can be committed in a way that poses no serious risk of physical harm).
We also take as a given that DUI does not fall within the scope of the Act’s clause (i) “violent felony” definition. DUI, as New Mexico defines it, nowhere “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).
Finally, we assume that the lower courts were right in concluding that DUI involves conduct that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Drunk driving is an extremely dangerous crime. In the United States in 2006, alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes claimed the lives of more than 17,000 individuals and harmed untold amounts of property. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Traffic Safety Facts, 2006 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment — Alcohol-Related Fatalities 1 (No. 810821, Aug. 2007), http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/ Pubs/810821.PDF (as visited Apr. 11, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Even so, we find that DUI falls outside the scope of clause (ii). It is simply too unlike the provision’s listed examples for us to believe that Congress intended the provision to cover it.
B
1
In our view, the provision’s listed examples — burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving the use of explosives— illustrate the kinds of crimes that fall within the statute’s scope. Their presence indicates that the statute covers only similar crimes, rather than every crime that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). If Congress meant the latter, i. e., if it meant the statute to be all encompassing, it is hard to see why it would have needed to include the examples at all. Without them, clause (ii) would cover all crimes that present a “serious potential risk of physical injury.” Ibid. Additionally, if Congress meant clause (ii) to include all risky crimes, why would it have included clause (i)? A crime which has as an element the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” against the person (as clause (i) specifies) is likely to create “a serious potential risk of physical injury” and would seem to fall within the scope of clause (ii).
Of course, Congress might have included the examples solely for quantitative purposes. Congress might have intended them to demonstrate no more than the degree of risk sufficient to bring a crime within the statute’s scope. But were that the case, Congress would have likely chosen examples that better illustrated the “degree of risk” it had in mind. Our recent case, James v. United States — where we considered only matters of degree, i. e., whether the amount of risk posed by attempted burglary was comparable to the amount of risk posed by the example crime of burglary— illustrates the difficulty of interpreting the examples in this respect. Compare 550 U. S., at 203-207, with id., at 215, 218-219, 229 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Indeed, the examples are so far from clear in respect to the degree of risk each poses that it is difficult to accept clarification in respect to degree of risk as Congress’ only reason for including them. See id., at 229 (“Congress provided examples [that]... have little in common, most especially with respect to the level of risk of physical injury that they pose”).
These considerations taken together convince us that, “ To give effect... to every clause and word’ ” of this statute, we should read the examples as limiting the crimes that clause (ii) covers to crimes that are roughly similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed, to the examples themselves. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167,174 (2001) (quoting United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528,538-539 (1955); some internal quotation marks omitted); see also Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1,12 (2004) (describing the need to interpret a statute in a way that gives meaning to each word).
The concurrence complains that our interpretive approach is insufficiently specific. See post, at 150-151 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). But the concurrence’s own approach demands a crime-by-crime analysis, uses a standard of measurement (comparative degree of risk) that even the concurrence admits is often “unclear,” post, at 151, requires the concurrence to turn here to the still less clear “rule of lenity,” post, at 153, and, as we explain, is less likely to reflect Congress’ intent. See, e. g., post, at 153-154 (recognizing inability to measure quantitative seriousness of risks associated with DUI).
The statute’s history offers further support for our conclusion that the examples in clause (ii) limit the scope of the clause to crimes that are similar to the examples themselves. Prior to the enactment of the current language, the Act applied its enhanced sentence to offenders with “three previous convictions for robbery or burglary.” Taylor, supra, at 581 (internal quotation marks omitted). Congress sought texpand that definition to include both crimes against the person (clause (i)) and certain physically risky crimes against property (clause (ii)). See H. R. Rep. No. 99-849, p. 3 (1986) (hereinafter H. R. Rep.). When doing so, Congress rejected a broad proposal that would have covered every offense that involved a substantial risk of the use of “‘physical force against the person or property of another.’” Taylor, 495 U. S., at 583 (quoting S. 2312, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986); H. R. 4639, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986)). Instead, it added the present examples. And in the relevant House Report, it described clause (ii) as including “State and Federal felonies against property such as burglary, arson, extortion, use of explosives and similar crimes as predicate offenses where the conduct involved presents a serious risk of injury to a person.” H. R. Rep., at 5 (emphasis added).
Of course, the statute places the word “otherwise,” just after the examples, so that the provision covers a felony that is one of the example crimes “or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). But we cannot agree with the Government that the word “otherwise” is sufficient to demonstrate that the examples do not limit the scope of the clause. That is because the word “otherwise” can (we do not say must, cf. post, at 151 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment)) refer to a crime that is similar to the listed examples in some respects but different in others — similar, say, in respect to the degree of risk it produces, but different in respect to the “way or manner” in which it produces that risk. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1598 (1961) (defining “otherwise” to mean “in a different way or manner”).
2
In our view, DUI differs from the example crimes — burglary, arson, extortion, and crimes involving the use of explosives — in at least one pertinent, and important, respect. The listed crimes all typically involve purposeful, “violent,” and “aggressive” conduct. 470 F. 3d, at 980 (McConnell, J., dissenting in part); see, e. g., Taylor, supra, at 598 (“burglary” is an unlawful or unprivileged entry into a building or other structure with “intent to commit a crime”); ALI Model Penal Code §220.1(1) (1985) (“arson” is causing a fire or explosion with “the purpose of,” e. g., “destroying a building... of another” or “damaging any property ... to collect insurance”); id., §223.4 (extortion is “purposely” obtaining property of another through threat of, e. g., inflicting “bodily injury”); Leocal, supra, at 9 (the word “ ‘use’... most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct” which fact helps bring it outside the scope of the statutory term “crime of violence”). That conduct is such that it makes more likely that an offender, later possessing a gun, will use that gun deliberately to harm a victim. Crimes committed in such a purposeful, violent, and aggressive manner are “potentially more dangerous when firearms are involved.” 470 F. 3d, at 980 (McConnell, J., dissenting in part). And such crimes are “characteristic of the armed career criminal, the eponym of the statute.” Ibid.
By way of contrast, statutes that forbid driving under the influence, such as the statute before us, typically do not insist on purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct; rather, they are, or are most nearly comparable to, crimes that impose strict liability, criminalizing conduct in respect to which the offender need not have had any criminal intent at all. The Government argues that “the knowing nature of the conduct that produces intoxication combined with the inherent recklessness of the ensuing conduct more than suffices” to create an element of intent. Brief for United States 35. And we agree with the Government that a drunk driver may very well drink on purpose. But this Court has said that, unlike the example crimes, the conduct for which the drunk driver is convicted (driving under the influence) need not be purposeful or deliberate. See Leocal, supra, at 11 (a DUI offense involves “accidental or negligent conduct”); see also 470 F. 3d, at 980 (McConnell, J., dissenting in part) (“[D]runk driving is a crime of negligence or recklessness, rather than violence or aggression”).
When viewed in terms of the Act’s basic purposes, this distinction matters considerably. As suggested by its title, the Armed Career Criminal Act focuses upon the special danger created when a particular type of offender — a violent criminal or drug trafficker — possesses a gun. See Taylor, supra, at 587-588; 470 F. 3d, at 981, n. 3 (McConnell, J., dissenting in part) (“[T]he title [of the Act] was not merely decorative”). In order to determine which offenders fall into this category, the Act looks to past crimes. This is because an offender’s criminal history is relevant to the question whether he is a career criminal, or, more precisely, to the kind or degree of danger the offender would pose were he to possess a gun.
In this respect — namely, a prior crime’s relevance to the possibility of future danger with a gun — crimes involving intentional or purposeful conduct (as in burglary and arson) are different from DUI, a strict-liability crime. In both instances, the offender’s prior crimes reveal a degree of callousness toward risk, but in the former instance they also show an increased likelihood that the offender is the kind of person who might deliberately point the gun and pull the trigger. We have no reason to believe that Congress intended a 15-year mandatory prison term where that increased likelihood does not exist.
Were we to read the statute without this distinction, its 15-year mandatory minimum sentence would apply to a host of crimes which, though dangerous, are not typically committed by those whom one normally labels “armed career criminals.” See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. § 8-4-103(a)(2)(A)(ii) (2007) (reckless polluters); 33 U. S. C. § 1319(c)(1) (individuals who negligently introduce pollutants into the sewer system); 18 U. S. C. § 1365(a) (individuals who recklessly tamper with consumer products); §1115 (seamen whose inattention to duty causes serious accidents). We have no reason to believe that Congress intended to bring within the statute’s scope these kinds of crimes, far removed as they are from the deliberate kind of behavior associated with violent criminal use of firearms. The statute’s use of examples (and the other considerations we have mentioned) indicate the contrary.
The dissent’s approach, on the other hand, would likely include these crimes within the statutory definition of “violent felony,” along with any other crime that can be said to present a “‘potential risk of physical injury.’” Post, at 156 (opinion of Alito, J.). And it would do so because it believes such a result is compelled by the statute’s text. See post, at 155. But the dissent’s explanation does not account for a key feature of that text — namely, the four example crimes intended to illustrate what kind of “violent felony” the statute covers. The dissent at most believes that these examples are relevant only to define the requisite serious risk associated with a “crime of violence.” Post, at 158-159. But the dissent does not explain how to identify the requisite level of risk, nor does it describe how these various examples might help determine what other offenses involve conduct presenting the same level of risk. If they were in fact helpful on that score, we might expect more predictable results from a purely risk-based approach. Compare post, at 148, 153-154 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), with post, at 156-158 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the dissent’s reliance on these examples for a function they appear incapable of performing reads them out of the statute and, in so doing, fails to effectuate Congress’ purpose to punish only a particular subset of offender, namely, career criminals.
The distinction we make does not minimize the seriousness of the risks attached to driving under the influence. Nor does our argument deny that an individual with a criminal history of DUI might later pull the trigger of a gun. (Indeed, we may have such an instance before us. 470 F. 3d, at 965.) Rather, we hold only that, for purposes of the particular statutory provision before us, a prior record of DUI, a strict-liability crime, differs from a prior record of violent and aggressive crimes committed intentionally such as arson, burglary, extortion, or crimes involving the use of explosives. The latter are associated with a likelihood of future violent, aggressive, and purposeful “armed career criminal” behavior in a way that the former are not.
We consequently conclude that New Mexico’s crime of “driving under the influence” falls outside the scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s clause (ii) “violent felony” definition. And we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in relevant part and remand the case for 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.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
. This case, like Hust v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 328 U. S. 707, and Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U. S. 155, presents questions concerning the liability for injury to third persons of a general- agent who, under the terms of the wartime standard form of agency agreement, GAA 4-4-42, manages certain phases of the business of ships owned by the United States and operated by the War Shipping Administration. More specifically the issue raised by these facts is whether such a general agent is liable under § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, known as the Jones Act, to a member of the crew who suffered physical injury through the negligence of the master and officers of such a vessel, when the injury occurred after March 24, 1943, the date of enactment of the War Shipping Administration (Clarification) Act.
Respondent was procured from the union hiring hall by petitioner in accordance with the terms of the standard agreement and made available to the master for employment by him. The master is designated by the contract as an agent and employee of the United States. In July of 1945 respondent was signed on the S. S. Edward B. Haines at New York by the master of that vessel as second assistant engineer. In the space on the shipping articles entitled “Operating Company on this Voyage” there was written “Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc., as general agent for the United States.” The articles were stamped at the top as follows: “You Are Being Employed By the United States.”
In November, 1945, when The Haines was on voyage and either in port or off the coast of China, respondent contracted poliomyelitis. At that time the master exercised “full control, responsibility and authority with respect to the navigation and management of the vessel” as provided in § 3A (d) of the contract. See p. 796, infra. Because of alleged negligence of the master and officers in furnishing proper treatment, he suffered permanent injury from the disease. McAllister sued the petitioner, Cosmopolitan, under the Jones Act. The complaint alleged that Cosmopolitan “managed, operated and controlled” The Haines under a General Agency Agreement with its owner, that McAllister was in the employ of Cosmopolitan, and that his injuries resulted from the negligence of Cosmopolitan, “its agents, servants, and employees” in failing to take precautions against a known poliomyelitis epidemic and in failing to provide proper treatment. The answer denied these allegations. The jury found a verdict for respondent for $100,000.
On appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. McAllister v. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., 169 F. 2d 4. While recognizing, that Cosmopolitan was “a shipping company which contracted with the. War Shipping Administration to attend to the accounting' ^nd certain other shoreside . usiness of The Haines- ... in accordance with the standard form of General- Agency Service Agreement,” id. at p. 5, the court felt itself bound by the decision of this Court in Hust v. Moore-McCormack Lines, supra. It relied upon the fact that we expressly distinguished the Hust ease in Caldarola v. Eckert, supra. The Court of Appeals reached this conclusion despite the fact that the injury to Hust occurred prior to the' Clarification Act, and the injury here occurred subsequent to that act. In its view the Hust case held, as a matter of law, that before the Clarification Act a seaman under the Jones Act could recover for a tort against a service agreement general agent, as an employer. The court did not perceive how the Clarification Act changed this liability. 169 F.. 2d 4,8.
I.
We are impelled to the conclusion that the Clarification Act affords no basis for distinguishing the present case from the Hust case and that the reasoning in the later Caldarola case, which we accept as sound, calls for the rejection of the basis of the Hust case. The Hust case went on the theory that the general agents for the United States under the same standard service agreement were employers of the injured seaman, Hust, for the purposes of liability under the Jones Act. The general agent was found to be liable to the seaman by two steps of reasoning: first, that the overruling of Fleet Corporation v. Lustgarten, 280 U. S. 320, by Brady v. Roosevelt S. S. Co., 317 U. S. 575, gave a seaman a right tó sue undér the Jones Act such general agents as were employed under Contracts like Moore-McCormack’s for torts committed against seamen by masters and crew, 328 U. S. 716-722; second, that although “technically the agreement made Hust an employee of the United States,” p. 723, the “rules of private agency,” p. 724, should not be applied to take away “protections” from seamen. See 332 U. S. 165-166 This second step was said to find support in the election given to seamen by § 1 of the Clarification Act to proceed under the new Act for claims arising after October 1,1941, and before the enactment of the Clarification Act, March 24, 1943. 328 U. S. at 725, et seq.
As to the first conclusion, we think it arises from a misconception of the ruling of the Brady case. The Brady case decided no more, directly or by implication, than that an action could be maintained against agents of the United States at common law for the agents’ own torts. The case did not involve the right to recover against employers under the Jones Act. Brady was a customs inspector suing for injuries sustained when a ship’s ladder broke. The opinion said, 317 U. S. at 577, “The sole question here is whether the Suits in Admiralty Act makes private operators such as respondent nonsuable for their torts.” Cf. Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U. S. at 159-160.
As to the second conclusion, we are unable to perceive in the statutes relating to sailors’ rights or the history behind their enactment any legislative purpose to create in seamen employees of the United States through the War Shipping Administration a right to enforce tort claims under the Jones Act against others than their employers or any recognition that such right ever existed. The Jones Act was welfare legislation that created new rights in seamen for damages arising from maritime torts. As welfare legislation, this statute is entitled to a liberal construction to accomplish its beneficent purposes. Compare Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U. S. 724; American Stevedores v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446. In considering similar legislation in other fields, we have concluded that Congress intended that the purposes of such enactments should not be restricted by common-law concepts of control so as to bar from welfare legislation as independent contractors persons who were as a matter of economic reality a part of the processes and dependent upon the businesses to which they rendered service.
The issue in this case is whether a construction- of the Jones Act carrying out the 'intention of Congress to grant those nety rights to seamen against their employers requires or permits a holding that the general agent under the contract here in question is an employer undér the Jones Act. The decision depends upon the interpretation of the contract between respondent and Cosmopolitan on one hand and that between Cosmopolitan and the United States on the other. We assume, without deciding, that the rule of the Hearst case applies, that is, the word “employment” should be construed so as to give protection to seamen for torts committed against them by 'those standing in the proximate relation of employer, and the rules of private agency should not be rigorously applied. Yet this Court may not disregard the plain and rational meaning of employment and employer to furnish a seaman a cause of action against one completely outside the broadest lines or definitions of employment or employer. We have no doubt that, under the Jones Act, only one person, firm, or corporation can be sued as employer. Either Cosmopolitan or the Government is that employer. The seaman’s substantive rights are the same whoever is the employer. Under the Jones Act, his remedy permits him to demand a jury trial. If the Government is the employer, his remedy is in admiralty' Without. a jury. See the excerpt from the' House Report, p. 792, infra.
It was said in Hust that the election of remedies granted seamen injured between October 1, 1941, and the effective date of the Clarification Act, March 24, 1943, indicated that a seaman had broader rights before the Clarification Act than he did after. 328 U. S.- at 725, Part III. The suggestion was that Congress could not have intended to restrict suits against general agents. This statement springs from the Court’s then understanding of the Brady case, which we have heretofore considered. The reason for the election given by the Clarification Act was quite different. It was to give seamen employees of the United States through the War Shipping Administration on public vessels or foreign-flag vessels or otherwise an election to employ the means for redress theretofore possessed by them, such as those mentioned in § 1 of the Clarification Act, note 8, supra, or to enjoy the same rights as similar employees on merchant vessels. Nothing has been presented to us from the Act or from its legislative history indicative of congressional purpose to do anything other than to extend existing rights of merchant seamen to all seamen employed through the War Shipping Administration. This was specifically declared in H. R. Rep. No. 107, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 21:
“The various rights and remedies under statute and general maritime law with respect to death, injury, illness, and other casualty to seamen, have been rather fully set forth hereinabove. Under clause 2 of section 1 (a) these substantive rights would be governed by existing law relating to privately employed seamen. The only modification thereof arises from the remedial provision that they shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act. This procedure is appropriate in view of the fact that the suits will be against the Government of the United States. In such a suit ño provision is made for a jury trial as may otherwise be had in a proceeding such as one under the Jones Act for reasons set forth in the letter of the Attorney General (September 14, 1942).”
See S. Rep. No. 62, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 11-12; S. Rep. No. 1813, 77th. Cong., 2d Sess., p. 6; Hearings before the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., on H. R. 7424, p. 33.
The Caldarola case, 332 U. S. 155, undermined the foundations of Hust. See the dissent therein at pp. 161— 163. Caldarola held that the general agents under the standard form contract were not in possession and control of the vessel so as to make them liable under New York law to an invitee for injuries arising from negligence in its maintenance. Pp. 158-59. Our ruling was based on “the interpretation of that contract” as “a matter of federal concern.” We do not think it consistent to hold that the general agent has enough “possession and control” to be an employer under the Jones Act but not enough to be responsible for maintenance under New York law. It is true, as respondent argues, that Caldarola dealt only with the general agent’s liability to a stevedore, as opposed to a crew member, under the law of New York. We think, however, that vicarious liability to anyone must be predicated on the relation which exists under the standard form agreement and the shipping articlés between the general agent on the one hand and the master and crew of the vessel on the other. Caldarola held that this relation was not one which involved that proximity necessary to a finding of liability in the general agent for the torts of the master and crew. We perceive no reason why the rationale of this holding does not apply with equal force to a suit under the Jones Act. Under common-law principles of agency such a conclusion is required. We think it equally compelled even if we are to adopt, as the Court in Rust suggested, the perhaps less technical and more substantial tests propounded in Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111.
Hust was decided June 10, 1946; Caldarola June 23, 1947. Certainly from the latter date, the danger of relying on Hust was apparent to the world though it must be admitted there was enough uncertainty in the law properly to give concern to Congress. Notwithstanding there may be somb undesirable results in overruling Hust, such as loss of rights under the Suits in Admiralty Act by reliance on Hust, we think that in view of Caldarola, the uncertainty as to remedies that the two decisions generate, and the desirability of clarifying the position of the United States as an employer through the War Shipping Administration, that case should be and is overruled.
n.
A re-examination of the present standard'service agreement will make clear the conclusion set out in Part I of this opinion., 46 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. § 306.44 et seq. The solution of the problem of determining the employer under such a contract depends upon determining whose enterprise the operation of the vessel was. Such words as employer, agent, independent contractor are not decisive. No single phrase can be said to determine the employer. One must look at the venture as a whole. Whose orders controlled the master and the crew? Whose money paid their wages? . Who hired the crew? Whose initiative and judgment chose the route and the ports? It is in the light of these basic considerations that one must read the contract. No evidence has come to our attention that indicates the general agent ever undertook to give orders or directions as to the route or management of the ship while on voyage.
An examination of the terms of the contract and the actual conduct of the parties under this agreement, so far as shown by the record, demonstrates that the United States had retained for the entire voyage the possession, management,, and navigation of the vessel and control of the ship’s officers and crew to the exclusion of the general agent. Under , the General Agency Agreement the general agent is appointed by the United States “as its agent and not as an independent contractor, to manage and conduct the business of vessels assigned to it.” Art. I. The general agent agrees “to manage and conduct the business for the United States, in accordance with such directions, orders, or regulations as the latter has prescribed, or from time to time may prescribe.” Art. 2. The general agent engages itself to “maintain the vessels in such trade or service as the United States may direct,” to “collect all moneys due the United States” under the agreement, to “equip, victual, supply and maintain the vessels, subject to such directions, orders, regulations and methods of supervision and inspection as the United States m'afy from time to time prescribe,” Art. .3A, to “arrange for the repair of the vessels” and \ to “exercis^ reasonable diligence in making inspections an^ obtaining information with respect to the state of repair and condition of the vessels.” Art. 14. The agreement provides in Art. 3A (d) that:
“(d) The General Agent shall procure the Master of the vessels operated hereunder, subject to the approval of the United States. The Master shall be an agent and employee of the United States, and shall have and exercise full control, responsibility and authority with respect to the navigation and management of the vessel. The General Agent shall procure and make available to the Master for engagement by him the officers and men required by him to fill the complement of the vessel. Such officers and men shall be procured by the General Agent through the usual channels and in accordance with the customary practices of commercial operators and upon the terms and conditions prevailing in the particular service or services in which the vessels are to be operated from time to time. The officers and members of the crew shall be subject only to the orders of the Master. All such persons shall be paid in the customary manner with funds by the United States hereunder.”
It is thus seen that the duties of the respondent were expressly and intentionally limited to those of a ship’s husband who has been engaged to take care of the shore-side business of the ship and who has no part in the actual management or navigation of the vessel. This view is reinforced by the considerations which led to the establishment of the War Shipping Administration to control “the operation, purchase, charter, requisition, and use of all ocean vessels under the flag or control of the United States.” Secrecy, speed, and efficiency of operation were of paramount importance. Direct governmental operation of the merchant fleet insured sovereign immunity from regulation, taxation,, and inspection, by other sovereignties both local and foreign. At the same time, the services of private shipping companies could be utilized because they possessed personnel skilled in the shoreside business of a ship and familiar with local port facilities and conditions. In addition these private companies were favorably situated through their union and other connections to secure seamen to man the vessels. As a result service agreements were designed whereby the shoreside services and administration of the merchant fleet were to be handled by existing private companiés while the United States, through the master of the ship, retained full control over the navigation and physical operation of the vessel.
Two types of service agreements were drafted — the General Agency Agreement, with which we are presently concerned, and the Ber th Agency Agreement. The general agent has the responsibility of husbanding the vessel and his duties are to victual, supply, maintain, and repair the ship. The duties of the berth agent relate primarily to the handling and loading of cargo and other port services such as wharfage and pilotage needed by the vessel. In foreign ports the berth agent also takes care of the husbanding services. There is necessarily a certain overlapping of duties, but to avoid any conflict of authority both the general agent and the berth agent were made subject to “such directions, orders, or regulations* as the [United States] has prescribed, or from time to time may prescribe.” This division of duties between the general agent and the berth agent emphasizes the fact that neither the possession nor management of the vessel was conferred on either of them. There could be ho occasion for any conflict of authority with regard to orders received by the master as to the actual operation of the ship, for he was expressly made, in Art. 3A (d), the agent and employee of the United States with “full control, responsibility and authority with respect to the navigation and management of the vessel.”
Even the discretion vested in the agents was decreased by the master contracts which the United States executed for the furnishing of numerous services and supplies required by the vessels. There were also detailed instructions issued by the War Shipping Administration as to the terms of the contracts which the agents were authorized to enter into, and these contracts were required to be executed in the name of the United States as principia!.
At the time of the wartime requisition of the privately owned merchant fleet, the government administrative agencies concerned gave careful study to the question of whether the crews were to be employees of the shipping companies or of the United States. There were outstanding many collective bargaining agreements between the private shipping companies and the maritime unions. It was manifestly undesirable to disturb these existing agreements and for the Government to negotiate new ones. Yet it was essential that the masters and crews be government employees in order to obviate strikes and work stoppages, to insure sovereign immunity for the vessels, and to preserve wartime secrecy by confining all litigation concerning operation of the vessels to the admiralty courts where.appropriate security precautions could be observed. The service agreements, therefore, provided that the officers and men to fill the complement of the vessel should be procured by the general agent through the usual channels upon the terms and conditions customarily prevailing in the services in which the vessels were to be operated. These men, however, were to be hired by the master of the ship and were to be subject to his orders only. The responsibility of employing the officers, so the Regulations show, was vested exclusively in the master, and the men so hired became employees of. the United States and not of the general agent.
Previously existing collective bargaining agreements were adhered to so that seamen’s, conditions of employment would be disrupted as little ¿s possible by the change-over occasioned by government requisition of the vessels. See the War Shipping Administration’s over-all collective bargaining arrangement with the nine principal maritime unions, known as the “Statements of Policy,” WSA Operations Regulations 1, May 25, 1942. Although the War Shipping Administration seamen fell within the exclusion of employees of the United States from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act, the Administrator arranged to utilize the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board for the designation of bargaining units, while specifically reserving the Administration’s rights with respect to the Board’s absence of jurisdiction over personnel aboard WSA operated vessels. The House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, in reporting the Clarification Act, expressly approved of this practical solution of the collective bargaining problem. A similar practical arrangement was made in connection with the functioning of the War Labor Board.
The shipping articles summarized above, pp. 785-786, complied with the tenor of the General Agency Agreement by making it clear that respondent was an employee of the' United States. In order to pay the crew and the other expenses incidental to the operation of the ship, the War Shipping Administration deposited funds in a special joint bank account set up in the name of the agent “as general agent for the War Shipping Administration.” From this special account the general agent drew the funds and turned them over to the master to pay the crew. No money of the general agent was used for this purpose or in the operation of the vessel.
Thus the cases and an analysis of the relations established by the standard form agreement lead to the conelusion that an agent such as Cosmopolitan, who contracts to manage certain shoreside business of a vessel operated by the War Shipping Administration, is not liable to a seaman for injury caused by the negligence of the master or crew of such a vessel.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge dissent.
46 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. § 306.44.
41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, which provides in pertinent part:
“Any seaman who shall suffer personal- injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to .railway employees shall apply; . . .” •
57 Stat. 45,50 U. S. C. App. § 1291.
See text, p. 796r infra.
Under 46 U. S. C. §§ 564, 565,713, the crewman signs "the shipping articles in the presence of’ a United States .Shipping Commissioner who certifies • that the crewman fully understands the contents of the instrument.
Note 2, supra.
As §33 shows on its face, a seaman has the advantages of the Act only against his employer. Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 389; Nolan v. General Seafoods Corp., 112 F. 2d 515, 517; The Norland, 101 F. 2d 967; Baker v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 57 F. Supp. 207, 208; Eggleston v. Republic Steel Corp., 47 F. Supp. 658, 659; Gardiner v. Agwilines, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 348.
It should be noted that a concurring opinion added to the grounds given in the Court’s opinion an argument that Moore-McCormack was owner pro hac vice. 328 U. S. 734. This' view was again rejected in Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U. S. at 159. A contract such as this does not give “exclusive possession, command, and navigation of the vessel,” Reed v. United States, 11 Wall. 591, 600, and therefore fails to give the operator an owner’s power. Leary v. United States, 14 Wall. 607, 611; United States v. Shea, 152 U. S. 178, 186-89.
57 Stat/45, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291:
“(a) officers and members of crews (hereinafter referred to as ‘seamen’) employed on United States or foreign flag vessels as employees of the United States through the War Shipping Administration shall, with respect to (1) laws administered by the Public Health Service and the Social Security Act, as amended by subsection (b) (2) and (3) of this section; (2) death, injuries, illness, maintenance and cure, loss of effects, detention, or repatriation, or claims arising^ therefrom not covered by the foregoing clause (4); and (3) collection of wages and bonuses and making of allotments, have all of the rights, benefits, exemptions, privileges, and liabilities, under law applicable to citizens of the United States employed as seamen on privately owned and operated American vessels. Such seamen, because of the temporary wartime character of their employment by the War Shipping Administration, shall not be considered as officers or employees of the United States for the purposes of the United States Employees Compensation Act, as amended; the Civil Service Retirement Act, as amended; the Act of Congress approved March 7, 1942 (Public Law 490, Seventy-seventh Congress); or-the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide benefits for the injury, disability, death, or detention of employees of contractors with the United States and certain other persons or reimbursement therefor’, approved December 2, 1942 (Public Law 784, Seventy-seventh Congress). Claims arising under clause (1) hereof shall be enforced in the same manner as such claims would be enforced if the seaman were employed on a privately owned and operated American vessel. Any claim referred to in clause (2) or (3) hereof shall, if administratively disallowed in whole or in part, be enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act, notwithstanding the vessel on which the seaman is employed is not a merchant vessel within the meaning of such Act. Any claim, right, or cause of action of or in respect of any such seaman accruing on or after October 1, 1941, and prior to the date of enactment of this section may be enforced, and upon the election of the seaman or his surviving dependent or beneficiary, or his legal representative to do so shall be governed, as if this section had been in effect when such claim, right, or cause of action accrued, such election to be made in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Administrator, War Shipping Administration. Rights of any seaman under the Social Security Act, as amended by subsection (b) (2) and (3), .and claims therefor shall be governed solely by the provisions of such Act, so amended. When used in this subsection the term ‘administratively disallowed’ means a denial of a written claim'in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Administrator, War Shipping Administration. . . .”
See the discussion of the Brady case at 328 U. S. 745-47.
Newsboys, Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 120, 128-31; unloaders of coal cars, United States v. Silk, 331 U. S. 704, 713; meat boners, Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U. S. 722.
But compare Robinson v. Baltimore & L. O. R. Co., 237 U. S. 84, 94:
“We are of the opinion that Congress used the words ‘employé’ and ‘employed’ in the statute in their natural sense, and intended to describe the conventional relation , of employer and employe.”
Hull v. Philadelphia & Reading R. Co., 252 U. S. 475.
It is much the same type of problem as was presented in Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U. S. 126. There we concluded that the leader and organizer of a traveling orchestra was the employer of the band members rather than the various dance hall proprietors for whom the orchestra performed.
Eor a full discussion see the dissent in Hust v. Moore-McCormack, 328 U. S. 707, 744, and the excerpts from the Senate and House Reports, footnotes 9 and 10.
For the background of the statutory distinctions drawn between public vessels and merchant vessels, see Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 324 U. S. 215, 218-22; American Stevedores v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446, 450-54.
Although Congress has not enacted legislation to make entirely clear the remedies of W. S. A. seamen against the United States for torts, there has been an effort to do so. H. R. 4873, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., sought to do so by amending the Suits in Admiralty Act, § 5, 41 Stat. 525, 526, so as to make the remedy in admiralty of that act exclusive as to the same subject matter so as to protect the general agent from suits such as Hust or Caldarola. The bill was passed by the House June 8, 1948, 94 Cong. Rec. 7388-89, but was not passed by the Senate. H. R. 483 and 4051 of the 81st Cong., 1st Sess., to the same effect, are.now pending. In H. R. Rep. No. 2060 on H. R. 4873, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., the Committee on the Judiciary said, p. 2:
“Then the Supreme Court on June 23,1947, handed down its decision in Caldarola v. Eckert (332 U. S. 155), which claifified, in the opinion of the committee, the rule previously announced so as to makd it plain that the agent while liable for the negligence of its own employees was not liable for the negligence of the civil-service masters and crews with whom the United States manned the vessels. For the negligence of those, the United States was the only responsible party. The committee believes that litigants should, not be made the victims of the legal confusion regarding the proper remedy ill such cases, and are not responsible for the conditions brought about by the lack of clarity in tt s opinions of the Supreme Court. Legislative relief is requisite not mly to save to litigants possessing meritorious claims their right to 2 day in court, but also to settle the question of remedy in future cas'/s.”
Executive Order 9054 of February 7, 1942, issued under the First War Powers Act of December 18, 1941, 55 Stat. 838. 3 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. 1086.
Promulgated by the Administrator, War Shipping Administration, in General Order No. 21, Sept. 22, 1942, and Supp. 4 thereto, Dec. 29, 1943. 7 Fed. Reg. 7561; 8 Fed. Reg. 17512. -
Article 2 of the General Agency Agreement, form GAA 4-4-42, and Article 2 of the Berth Agency Agreement, form BA 12-29-43.,
Examples of such contracts are contained in the record of Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U. S. 155, No. 625, 1946 Term.
For example, see Operations Regulations Nos. 27 (towage contracts); 84 (duties of berth agents, general agents, and agents); 97 (bunker oil contracts); 99, Supp. 1 and 2 (pilferage).
General Order No. 42 of the War Shipping Administration, 9 F. R. 4110.
See letter of April 28, 1947, from the General Counsel of the Maritime Commission to the Department of Justice.
See the Statements of Policy of May 4 and May 12, 1942, issued by the War Shipping Administration and the various maritime unions. WSA Operations Regulation No. 1.
Article 3A (d) of the General Agency Agreement, set out in text of opinion at p. 796.
Operations- Regulations No. 15, Directive No. 2, issued by the War Shipping Administration provided: “The Master of a vessel has full discretion in signing on crew members and may reject any person seeking employment .... Records shall be kept of the names of those rejected and of the reason for rejection and shall be submitted to the port office of the Recruitment and Manning Organization of the War Shipping Administration in the port in which the rejection occurs.”
See Restatement, Agency, § 79, comment (a).
See letter of October 20, 1942, from the War Shipping Administration to the National Labor Relations Board, and the reply of October 26, 1942, record, pp. 43-51, in No. 360, Fink v. Shepard Steamship Co., post, p. 810.
H. R. Rep. No. 107, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 23-24.
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.
In this case we review the decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority that petitioner Fort Stewart Schools, a Federal Government employer, is required to bargain with the labor union representing its employees over a proposal -relating to wages and fringe benefits.
I
Respondent Fort Stewart Association of Educators (Union), is the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of two elementary schools at Fort Stewart, a United States military facility in Georgia. The schools, petitioner here, are owned and operated by the United States Army under authority of 64 Stat. 1107, 20 U. S. C. § 241(a), which directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “make such arrangements ... as may be necessary to provide free public education” for children living on federally owned property. The present controversy arose when, during the course of collective-bargaining negotiations, the Union submitted to the schools proposals relating to mileage reimbursement, various types of paid leave, and a salary increase. Petitioner declined to negotiate these matters, claiming that they were not subject to bargaining under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, sometimes referred to as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U. S. C. §7101 et seq. (FSLMRS or Statute). The Union sought the aid of the Federal Labor Relations Authority pursuant to §§ 7105(a)(2)(D) and (E) and the Authority held that the Union’s proposals were negotiable. Fort Stewart Assn. of Educators, 28 F. L. R. A. 547 (1987). Upon a petition for review by petitioner and cross-petitions for enforcement by the Authority and the Union, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Authority’s decision, 860 F. 2d 396 (1988), and we granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 807 (1989).
II
The FSLMRS requires a federal agency to negotiate in good faith with the chosen representative of employees covered by the Statute, 5 U. S. C. § 7114(a)(4), and makes it an unfair labor practice to refuse to do so, § 7116(a)(5). The scope of the negotiating obligation is set forth in §7102, which confers upon covered employees the right, through their chosen representative, “to engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of employment.” §7102(2). Section 7103(a)(14) defines “conditions of employment” as follows:
“‘conditions of employment’ means personnel policies, practices, and matters, whether established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working conditions, except that such term does not include policies, practices, and matters —
“(A) relating to political activities prohibited under subchapter III of chapter 73 of this title;
“(B) relating to the classification of any position; or
“(C) to the extent such matters are specifically provided for by Federal statute . . . .”
In construing these provisions, and the other provisions of the FSLMRS at issue in this case, the Authority was interpreting the statute that it is charged with implementing, see § 7105. We must therefore review its conclusions under the standard set forth in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). If, upon examination of “the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole,” K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U. S. 281, 291 (1988), it is clear that the Authority’s interpretation is incorrect, then we need look no further, “for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843. If, on the other hand, “the statute is silent or ambiguous” on the point at issue, we must decide “whether the agency’s answer is based' on a permissible construction of the statute.” Ibid.
The Authority concluded that the Union’s proposals related to “conditions of employment,” following its decision in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1897, 24 F. L. R. A. 377, 379 (1986) (AFGE). 28 F. L. R. A., at 550-551. Petitioner claims that this was error because §7103(a)(14) defines “conditions of employment” as matters affecting “working conditions,” and because the latter term most naturally connotes “the physical conditions under which an employee labors,” Brief for Petitioner 17. The difficulty here, of course, is that the word “conditions” has two common meanings. It can mean matters “established or agreed upon as a requisite to the doing ... of something else”; and it can also mean “attendant circumstances,” or an “existing state of affairs.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 473 (1961). Whereas the term “conditions of employment” in § 7102 seems to us equally susceptible of both meanings, petitioner is correct that the term “working conditions” in the defining provision of § 7103(a)(14) more naturally refers, in isolation, only to the “circumstances” or “state of affairs” attendant to one’s performance of a job. See Department of Defense Dependents Schools v. FLRA, 274 U. S. App. D. C. 299, 301, 863 F. 2d 988, 990 (1988) (“The term ‘working conditions’ ordinarily calls to mind the day-to-day circumstances under which an employee performs his or her job”), rehearing en banc granted, No. 87-1733 (Feb. 6, 1989). Even if, however, it could not reasonably be interpreted to bear the other meaning in isolation, here it is not in isolation, but forms part of a paragraph whose structure, as a whole, lends support to the Authority’s broader reading.
As set forth above, § 7103(a)(14) specifically excepts from the definition of “conditions of employment” (and thus suggests are covered by the term “working conditions”) “policies, practices, and matters . . . relating to political activities prohibited under subchapter III of chapter 73 of this title.” The subchapter referred to contains restrictions on partisan political activities of federal employees and protects them from being required or coerced to engage in political activity. It is barely conceivable, but most unlikely, that this provision of § 7103(a)(14) was meant to exclude from collective-bargaining proposals that would somehow infect with politics the “physical conditions” of the workplace; it seems much more plausibly directed at “conditions of employment” in the sense of qualifications demanded of, or obligations imposed upon, employees. And the second exception set forth in § 7103(a)(14), as set forth above, unquestionably assumes that “conditions of employment” (and hence “working conditions”) bears this broader meaning. The exception of “policies, practices, and matters . . . relating to the classification of any position” would be utterly unnecessary if petitioner’s interpretation of “working conditions” were correct.
It might reasonably be argued, of course, that these two exceptions are indeed technically unnecessary, and were inserted out of an abundance of caution — a drafting imprecision venerable enough to have left its mark on legal Latin (ex abundanti cautela). But petitioner does not make this argument. Indeed, in its reply brief petitioner claims that it is “a serious distortion of [its] position,” Reply Brief for Petitioner 2, to characterize it, as respondent Union does, as asserting that “negotiations over ‘working conditions’ are limited to the physical conditions under which an employee labors.” Brief for Respondent Union 11. Petitioner asserts that, to the contrary, it “recognize[s] that the phrase ‘conditions of employment’ is no doubt susceptible of diverse interpretations,” including an interpretation whereby it would embrace “any subject which is insisted upon as a prerequisite for continued employment,” Reply Brief for Petitioner 2 (internal quotations omitted); and petitioner even acknowledges, with apparent approval, that the phrase in the present statute “has been extended beyond the purely physical conditions of the workplace,” ibid. The textual argument is thus abandoned. Petitioner seeks to persuade us, not (as respondent Union does) that the term “conditions of employment” (as defined to include only “working conditions”) bears one, rather than the other, of its two possible meanings; but rather to persuade us that it bears some third meaning no one has ever conceived of, so that it includes other insisted-upon prerequisites for continued employment, but does not include the insisted-upon prerequisite par excellence, wages. And this new unheard-of meaning, petitioner contends, is so “unambiguously expressed,” Chevron, supra, at 843, that we must impose it upon the agency initially responsible for interpreting the statute, despite the deference otherwise accorded under Chevron. To describe this position is sufficient to reject it, but we nonetheless examine briefly the elements petitioner sets forth to establish that “conditions of employment” clearly has a meaning here that it bears nowhere else.
Petitioner points to the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §151 et seq., which authorizes bargaining over “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,” § 158(d), and to the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U. S. C. §1201 et seq., which grants postal workers the right to bargain over “wages, hours, and working conditions.” Note following §1201. Because each of these statutes specifically refers to wages, the argument runs, we must infer from the absence of such a reference in the FSLMRS that Congress did not mean to include them. But those other statutes deal with labor-management relations in entirely different fields of employment, and the FSLMRS contains no indication that it is to be read in pari materia with them. The first of those provisions does (perhaps) show that the term “conditions of employment” can be used to refer only to physical circumstances of employment; and the second of them does (perhaps) show that “working conditions” is more naturally used to mean that — but those are points we have already conceded.
Petitioner discusses at great length the legislative history of the Statute, from which it has culled a formidable number of statements suggesting that certain members and committees of Congress did not think the duty to bargain would extend to proposals relating to wages and fringe benefits. A Senate Report, for example, states unequivocally that “[t]he bill permits unions to bargain collectively on personnel policies and practices, and other matters affecting working conditions within the authority of agency managers. ... It excludes bargaining on economic matters . . . .” S. Rep. No. 95-969, pp. 12-13 (1978). A House Report recounts that the bill “does not permit . . . bargaining on wages and fringe benefits____” H. R. Rep. No. 95-1403, p. 12 (1978). To like effect are numerous floor statements by both sponsors and opponents.
The trouble with these statements, to the extent they are relevant to our inquiry, is that they may have been wrong. The wages and fringe benefits of the overwhelming majority of Executive Branch employees are fixed by law, in accordance with the General Schedules of the Civil Service Act, see 5 U. S. C. § 5332, and are therefore eliminated from the definition of “conditions of employment” by the third exception in §7103(a)(14) set forth above — which excludes “matters . . . specifically provided for by Federal statute.” 5 U. S. C. § 7103(a)(14)(C). Employees of schools established under §241 are among a miniscule minority of federal employees whose wages are exempted from operation of the General Schedules. Title 20 U. S. C. § 241(a) provides that an agency establishing such a school may fix “the compensation, tenure, leave, hours of work, and other incidents of the employment relationship” of its employees “without regard to the Civil Service Act and rules.” Ibid. See also AFGE, 24 F. L. R. A., at 378. The legislative materials to which petitioner refers display no awareness of this exception. To the contrary, numerous statements, many from the same sources to which petitioner points, display the erroneous belief that the wages and fringe benefits of all Executive Branch em- -- ployees were set by statute. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-1403, p. 12 (1978) (“Federal pay will continue to be set in accordance with the pay provisions of title 5, and fringe benefits, including retirement, insurance, and leave, will continue to be set by Congress”); id., at 44 (“Rates of overtime pay are not bargainable, because they are specifically provided for by statute”). Thus, all of the statements to which petitioner refers may have rested upon the following syllogism: The wages and fringe benefits of all federal employees are specifically provided for by federal statute; “conditions of employment” subject to the duty to bargain do not include “matters . . . specifically provided for by Federal statute”; therefore “conditions of employment” subject to the duty to bargain do not include the wages and fringe benefits of all federal employees. Since the premise of that syllogism is wrong, so may be its expressed conclusion. There is no conceivable persuasive effect in legislative history that may reflect nothing more than the speakers’ incomplete understanding of the world upon which the statute will operate. Cf. Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U. S. 820, 824 (1990) (expectation by Members of Congress that all Title VII suits would be tried in federal court, “even if universally shared,” does not establish that the statute requires such suits to be brought in federal court).
Ill
Petitioner next argues that, even if the Union’s proposals relate to “conditions of employment” subject to bargaining under § 7102, they are exempted from the statutory duty to bargain by § 7106, which provides that “nothing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any management official of any agency ... to determine the . . . budget ... of the agency . . . .” 5 U. S. C. §7106. The Authority rejected that claim by applying the test established in its decision in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 2 F. L. R. A. 604 (1980), enf’d on other grounds sub nom. Department of Defense v. FLRA, 212 U. S. App. D. C. 256, 659 F. 2d 1140 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 945 (1982):
“To establish that a proposal directly interferes with an agency’s right to determine its budget under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute, an agency must make a substantial showing that the proposal requires the inclusion of a particular program or amount in its budget or that the proposal will result in significant and unavoidable increases in cost not affected [sic: offset] by compensating benefits.” 28 F. L. R. A., at 551 (emphasis added).
Because petitioner did not contend that the Union’s proposal required “the inclusion of a particular program or amount in its budget,” the only question for the Authority was whether petitioner had made out its case under the underscored standard. The Authority held that it had not, finding that petitioner had shown neither that its costs would be significantly and unavoidably increased were it to accept the proposals offered by the Union, nor that “any increased costs . . . would not be offset by compensating benefits.” Id., at 552.
The parties initially dispute which entity is the relevant “agency” for purposes of determining whether the Union’s proposals would “affect the authority of any management official of any agency ... to determine the . . . budget... of the agency. ...” 5 U. S. C. § 7106(a). The Authority concluded only that petitioner had not satisfied § 7106(a) with respect to its own budget, i. e., that of the schools at the Fort Stewart Army base. The Court of Appeals upheld the Authority’s decision, but did so by reference to the budget of the Army as a whole, which it noted “includes bases, troops, weapons, vehicles, other equipment, salaries for all other officers, and expenses for its eight other schools.” 860 F. 2d, at 405-406. We cannot, however, uphold the Authority’s decision on that basis, for it is elementary that if an agency’s decision is to be sustained in the courts on any rationale under which the agency’s factual or legal determinations are entitled to deference, it must be upheld on the rationale set forth by the agency itself. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 93-95 (1943). Because petitioner does not challenge, as a ground for reversing the Authority’s decision, its determination to look only to petitioner’s budget, we assume without deciding that that determination was correct.
Petitioner does not take issue with the Authority’s premise that § 7106 does not make a proposal nonnegotiable simply because it “imposes a cost upon the agency which requires the expenditure of appropriated agency funds.” See 28 F. L. R. A., at 607. Rather, petitioner argues that “the application of the FLRA’s rule here — particularly the conclusion that the proposal calling for a 13.5% pay raise would not significantly affect the agency’s budget — is plainly flawed.” Brief for Petitioner 28. Petitioner also claims that “the other aspect of the FLRA’s rule — requiring management to show that a significant increase in costs would not be offset by compensating benefits — is not reasonable or consistent with the statute, because it negates management’s right to set the agency budget.” Ibid.
The latter observation has some force if the Authority’s definition of “compensating benefits” is as petitioner describes it. Petitioner claims that, in order to prove that the cost of a given proposal is not outweighed by “compensating benefits,” an agency must disprove'not only monetary benefits, but also nonmonetary “intangible” benefits such as the positive effects that a proposed change might have on employee morale. Although counsel for the Authority agreed with petitioner’s statement of its test at oral argument before this Court, it is not entirely clear from the Authority’s cases that the “benefits” side of the calculus is as all embracing as petitioner suggests. Cf. International Association of Fire Fighters Local F-61, 3 F. L. R. A. 438, 452 (1980) (rejecting agency’s claim of no “compensating benefits” where “the agency has made no substantial demonstration that the increased costs . . . will not be offset by increased employee performance, reduced turnover, fewer grievances and the like”). Indeed, it is difficult to see how the Authority could possibly derive a test measured by nonmonetary benefits from a provision that speaks only to the agency’s “authority ... to determine . . . [its] budget,” a phrase that can only be understood to refer to the allocation of funds within the agency.
We need not dwell on this point, however, because the Authority’s first ground for its decision is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner has challenged neither the Authority’s requirement that an agency show a significant and unavoidable increase in its costs, nor the Authority’s finding that petitioner failed to submit any evidence on that point in this case. Rather, it asks us to hold that a proposal calling for a 13.5% salary increase would necessarily result in a “significant and unavoidable” increase in the agency’s overall costs. We cannot do that without knowing even so rudimentary a fact as the percentage of the agency’s budget attributable to teachers’ salaries. Under the Authority’s precedents, petitioner had the burden of proof on this point, but it placed nothing in the record to document its total costs or even its current total teachers’ salaries. The Authority reasonably determined that it could not conclude from an increase in one budget item of indeterminate amount whether petitioner’s costs as a whole would be “significantly] and unavoidably]” increased.
IV
Petitioner’s final argument rests upon 20 U. S. C. §241, which directs the agency establishing a school thereunder to “ensure that the education provided pursuant to such arrangement is comparable to free public education provided for children in comparable communities in the State,” § 241 (a), and to limit expenditures “[t]o the maximum extent practicable” to “an amount per pupil which will not exceed the per pupil cost of free public education provided for children in comparable communities in the State,” § 241(e). In implementing this provision, the Army has promulgated a regulation stating that education provided under §241 “will be considered comparable to free public education offered by selected communities of the State” when 10 specified factors, including “[s]alary schedules” are, “to the maximum extent practicable, equal.” Army Reg. 352-3, 1 — 7(h) (1980). Petitioner claims — and we assume for purposes of this discussion — that in order to accept the Union’s proposals, it would have to contravene this regulation because the proposed salaries would exceed those of employees of the local school systems.
It is a familiar rule of administrative law that an agency must abide by its own regulations. Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U. S. 535, 547 (1959); Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363, 388 (1957). That says nothing, however, about whether an agency can be compelled to negotiate about a change in its regulations. The latter question is addressed by 5 U. S. C. § 7117(a)(2), which provides, insofar as applicable to the regulation here, that “[t]he duty to bargain in good faith shall, to the extent not inconsistent with Federal law or any Government-wide rule or regulation, extend to matters which are the subject of any agency rule or regulation . . . only if the Authority has determined under subsection (b) of this section that no compelling need (as determined under regulations prescribed by the Authority) exists for the rule or regulation,(Emphasis added.) Section 7117(b) sets out the procedures by which the Authority is to make its “compelling need” determination, see generally FLRA v. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Department of Army, 485 U. S. 409 (1988), and § 7105(a)(2)(D) instructs the Authority to “prescribe criteria” for that determination.
Pursuant to this last provision, the Authority has adopted the following regulation:
“A compelling need exists for an agency rule or regulation concerning any condition of employment when the agency demonstrates that the rule or regulation meets any one or more of the following illustrative criteria:
“(a) The rule or regulation is essential, as distinguished from helpful or desirable, to the accomplishment of the mission or the execution of functions of the agency ... in a manner which is consistent with the requirements of an effective and efficient government.
“(b) The rule or regulation is necessary to insure the maintenance of basic merit principles.
“(c) The rule or regulation implements a mandate to the agency . . . under law or other outside authority, which implementation is essentially nondiscretionary in nature.” 5 CFR §2424.11 (1989).
Before the Authority, petitioner rested its entire case upon the assertion that the last of these criteria was satisfied by the provision of Army Regulation 352-3 which requires salaries equal to those of local schools, since that provision “implements the mandate” of § 241(a). The Authority disagreed, following its decision in Fort Knox Teachers Assn., 27 F. L. R. A. 203, 215, 216 (1987), which said that no “compelling need” for Army Regulation 352-3 exists because § 241 does not require the agency “to match exactly the conditions of employment of teachers in local school districts” or “to restrict the Agency’s discretion as to the particular employment practices which could be adopted.”
Petitioner argues that, although “[sjection 241 does not specifically provide that teachers’ salaries . . . must be set by comparison with those at local public schools,” Brief for Petitioner 32, it does state that “[f]or the purpose of providing such comparable education,” teachers’ salaries and benefits “may be fixed without regard to the [General Schedules set out in the] Civil Service Act,” 20 U. S. C. § 241(a). According to petitioner, “it is a fair reading of [§ 241] to conclude that Congress excepted [wages and fringe benefits] from the civil service laws so that they would be set by comparison with those at public schools.” Brief for Petitioner 33. That is not so. All that can reasonably be deduced from the exclusion of the General Schedules is that Congress expected teachers’ wages and benefits to be one of the elements that the federal agency could adjust in order to render per pupil expenditure comparable to that in local public schools. But to be able to adjust is not to be required to make equal. The statute requires equivalence (“[t]o the maximum extent practicable”) in total per pupil expenditure, not in each separate element of educational cost. An agency may well decide to pay teachers more or less than teachers in local schools, in order that it may expend less or more than local schools for other needs of the educational program. It is thus impossible to say that the requirement of Army Reg. 352-3 that teachers’ salaries be “to the maximum extent practicable, equal” was “essentially nondiscretionary in nature” within the meaning of § 2424.11(c).
Petitioner insists, however, that reading §2424.11 this strictly renders that regulation in violation of the Statute, which never requires bargaining over any matter covered by a regulation except “to the extent not inconsistent with Federal law.” See § 7117(a)(2); see also § 7117(a)(1). Thus, to recognize a compelling need for a regulation “only if it implements a statutory mandate that leaves an agency absolutely no room for discretion,” Brief for Petitioner 33, n. 23, is to render the “compelling need” exception of § 7117(a)(2) a nullity, for bargaining over such a regulation would be “inconsistent with Federal law” anyway. We may assume, without deciding, that petitioner is correct that any rule that meets the §2424.11(c) “essentially nondiscretionary” standard as interpreted by the Authority would necessarily be a rule required by law. There is some support for that equivalency in the Authority’s cases. See, e. g., Fort Knox Teachers Assn., 25 F. L. R. A. 1119 (1987). But see National Border Patrol Council, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 23 F. L. R. A. 106 (1986); National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1153, 26 F. L. R. A. 505 (1987). Even so, the Authority’s regulation does not eliminate the “compelling need” exception. Petitioner’s argument ignores the existence of subsections (a) and (b) of § 2424.11, which provide alternative methods of proving “compelling need.” In this case, to be sure, petitioner chose not to assert a claim that Army Regulation 352-3 was either “essential ... to the accomplishment of the mission or the execution of functions of the agency,” 5 CFR §2424.11(a) (1989), or “necessary to insure the maintenance of basic merit principles,” § 2424.11(b). But, those alternatives were available and suffice to give the regulation for which there is a “compelling need” an existence quite independent of the regulation whose elimination would be inconsistent with law.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is
Affirmed.
See 124 Cong. Rec. 25716, 29182 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Udall) (“We do not permit bargaining over pay and fringe benefits, but on other issues relating to an employee’s livelihood”) (“There is not really any argument in this bill or in this title about Federal collective bargaining for wages and fifinge benefits and retirement”); id., at 24286, 25720 (remarks of Rep. Clay) (“[E]mployees still. . . cannot bargain over pay”) (“I. . . want to assure my colleagues that there is nothing in this bill which allows Federal employees the right... to negotiate over pay and money-related fringe benefits”); id., at 27549 (remarks of Sen. Sasser) (“[Exclusive representatives of Federal employees may not bargain over pay or fringe benefits”).
Statements from the floor are to like effect. See id., at 25721, 25722 (remarks of Rep. Ford) (“[N]o matters that are governed by statute (such as pay, money-related fringe benefits, retirement, and so forth) could be altered by a negotiated agreement") (“It is not the intent of this provision to interfere with the current system of providing the employees in question with retirement benefits, life insurance benefits, health insurance benefits, and workmen’s compensation. Those benefits would not become negotiable and would continue to be paid to those employees exclusively pursuant to the Federal statutes in effect”); id,., at 29182 (remarks of Sen. Udall) (“All these major regulations about wages and hours and retirement and benefits will continue to be established by law through congressional action”); id., at 29174 (remarks of Rep. Collins) (criticizing the bill as too broad because it excluded from the scope of bargaining only “matter[s] relating to discrimination, political activities, and those few specifically prescribed by law — for example, pay and benefits”).
Because petitioner loses under the standard set out in the second part of the Authority’s test, and because neither party challenges that standard, we need not reach the question discussed in Justice Marshall’s opinion, viz., whether the Authority’s interpretation of the phrase “to determine the . . . budget” in § 7106 is too generous to the Government.
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a State violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide notice and a hearing before suspending a tenured public employee without pay.
I
Respondent Richard J. Homar was employed as a police officer at East Stroudsburg University (ESU), a branch of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education. On August 26, 1992, when respondent was at the home of a family friend, he was arrested by the Pennsylvania State Police in a drug raid. Later that day, the state police filed a criminal complaint charging respondent with possession of marijuana, possession with intent to deliver, and criminal conspiracy to violate the controlled substance law, which is a felony. The state police notified respondent’s supervisor, University Police Chief David Marazas, of the arrest and charges. Chief Marazas in turn informed Gerald Levanowitz, ESU’s Director of Human Resources, to whom ESU President James Gilbert had delegated authority to discipline ESU employees. Levanowitz suspended respondent without pay effective immediately. Respondent failed to report to work on the day of his arrest, and learned of his suspension the next day, when he called Chief Marazas to inquire whether he had been suspended. That same day, respondent received a letter from Levanowitz confirming that he had been suspended effective August 26 pending an investigation into the criminal charges filed against him. The letter explained that any action taken by ESU would not necessarily coincide with the disposition of the criminal charges.
Although the criminal charges were dismissed on September 1, respondent’s suspension remained in effect while ESU continued with its own investigation. On September 18, Levanowitz and Chief Marazas met with respondent in order to give him an opportunity to tell his side of the story. Respondent was informed at the meeting that the state police had given ESU information that was “very serious in nature,” Record, Doc. No. 26, p..48, but he was not informed that that included a report of an alleged confession he had made on the day of his arrest; he was consequently unable to respond to damaging statements attributed to him in the police report.
In a letter dated September 23, Levanowitz notified respondent that he was being demoted to the position of groundskeeper effective the next day, and that he would receive backpay from the date the suspension took effect at the rate of pay of a groundskeeper. (Respondent eventually received backpay for the period of his suspension at the rate of pay of a university police officer.) The letter maintained that the demotion was being imposed “as a result of admissions made by yourself to the Pennsylvania State Police on August 26, 1992 that you maintained associations with individuals whom you knew were dealing in large quantities of marijuana and that you obtained marijuana from one of those individuals for your own use. Your actions constitute a clear and flagrant violation of Sections 200 and 200.2 of the [ESU] Police Department Manual.” App. 82a. Upon receipt of this letter, the president of respondent’s union requested a meeting with President Gilbert. The requested meeting took place on September 24, at which point respondent had received and read the police report containing the alleged confession. After providing respondent with an opportunity to respond to the charges, Gilbert sustained the demotion.
Respondent filed this suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against President Gilbert, Chief Marazas, Levanowitz, and a Vice President of ESU, Curtis English, all in both their individual and official capacities. He contended, inter alia, that petitioners’ failure to provide him with notice and an opportunity to be heard before suspending him without pay violated due process. The District Court entered summary judgment for petitioners. A divided Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s determination that it was permissible for ESU to suspend respondent without pay without first providing a hearing. 89 F. 3d 1009 (CA3 1996). We granted certiorari. 519 U. S. 1052 (1997).
II
The protections of the Due Process Clause apply to government deprivation of those perquisites of government employment in which the employee has a constitutionally protected “property” interest. Although we have previously held that public employees who can be discharged only for cause have a constitutionally protected property interest in their tenure and cannot be fired without due process, see Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 578 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 602-603 (1972), we have not had occasion to decide whether the protections of the Due Process Clause extend to discipline of tenured public employees short of termination. Petitioners, however, do not contest this preliminary point, and so without deciding it we will, like the District Court, “[a]ssum[e] that the suspension infringed a protected property interest,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 59a, and turn at once to petitioners’ contention that respondent received all the process he was due.
A
In Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532 (1985), we concluded that a public employee dismissable only for cause was entitled to a very limited hearing prior to his termination, to be followed by a more comprehensive post-termination hearing. Stressing that the pretermination hearing “should be an initial check against mistaken decisions — essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action,” id., at 545-546, we held that pretermination process need only include oral or written notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity for the employee to tell his side of the story, id., at 546. In the course of our assessment of the governmental interest in immediate termination of a tenured employee, we observed that “in those situations where the employer perceives a significant hazard in keeping the employee on the job, it can avoid the problem by suspending with pay.” Id., at 544-545 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).
Relying on this dictum, which it read as “strongly suggesting] that suspension without pay must be preceded by notice and an opportunity to be heard in all instances,” 89 F. 3d, at 1015 (emphasis added), and determining on its own that such a rule would be “eminently sensible,” id., at 1016, the Court of Appeals adopted a categorical prohibition: “[A] governmental employer may not suspend an employee without pay unless that suspension is preceded by some kind of pre-suspension hearing, providing the employee with notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Ibid. Respondent (as well as most of his amici) makes no attempt to defend this absolute rule, which spans all types of government employment and all types of unpaid suspensions. Brief for Respondent 8,12-13. This is eminently wise, since under our precedents such an absolute rule is indefensible.
It is by now well established that “‘due process,’ unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.” Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 895 (1961). “[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972). This Court has recognized, on many occasions, that where a State must act quickly, or where it would be impractical to provide pre-deprivation process, postdeprivation process satisfies the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43, 53 (1993); Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113, 128 (1990) (collecting cases); Barry v. Barchi, 443 U. S. 55, 64-65 (1979); Dixon v. Love, 431 U. S. 105, 115 (1977); North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306, 314-320 (1908). Indeed, in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327 (1986), we specifically noted that “we have rejected the proposition that [due process] always requires the State to provide a hearing prior to the initial deprivation of property.” 451 U. S., at 540. And in FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U. S. 230 (1988), where we unanimously approved the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC’s) suspension, without prior hearing, of an indicted private bank employee, we said: “An important government interest, accompanied by a substantial assurance that the deprivation is not baseless or unwarranted, may in limited cases demanding prompt action justify postponing the opportunity to be heard until after the initial deprivation.” Id., at 240.
The dictum in Loudermill relied upon by the Court of Appeals is of course not inconsistent with these precedents. To say that when the government employer perceives a hazard in leaving the employee on the job it “can avoid the problem by suspending with pay” is not to say that that is the only way of avoiding the problem. Whatever implication the phrase “with pay” might have conveyed is far outweighed by the clarity of our precedents which emphasize the flexibility of due process as contrasted with the sweeping and categorical rule adopted by the Court of Appeals.
B
To determine what process is constitutionally due, we have generally balanced three distinct factors:
“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976).
See also, e. g., Mallen, supra, at 242; Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422, 434 (1982).
Respondent contends that he has a significant private interest in the uninterrupted receipt of his paycheck. But while our opinions have recognized the severity of depriving someone of the means of his livelihood, see, e. g., Mallen, supra, at 243; Loudermill, 470 U. S., at 543, they have also emphasized that in determining what process is due, account must be taken of “the length” and “finality of the deprivation,” Logan, supra, at 434 (emphasis added). Unlike the employee in Loudermill, who faced termination, respondent faced only a temporary suspension without pay. So long as the suspended employee receives a sufficiently prompt post-suspension hearing, the lost income is relatively insubstantial (compared with termination), and fringe benefits such as health and life insurance are often not affected at all, Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18; Record, Doe. No. 19, p. 7.
On the other side of the balance, the State has a significant interest in immediately suspending, when felony charges are filed against them, employees who occupy positions of great public trust and high public visibility, such as police officers. Respondent contends that this interest in maintaining public confidence could have been accommodated by suspending him with pay until he had a hearing. We think, however, that the government does not have to give an employee charged with a felony a paid leave at taxpayer expense. If his services to the government are no longer useful once the felony charge has been filed, the Constitution does not require the government to bear the added expense of hiring a replacement while still paying him. ESU’s interest in preserving public confidence in its police force is at least as significant as the State’s interest in preserving the integrity of the sport of horse racing, see Barry v. Barchi, supra, at 64, an interest we “deemed sufficiently important... to justify a brief period of suspension prior to affording the suspended trainer a hearing,” Mallen, 486 U. S., at 241.
The last factor in the Mathews balancing, and the factor most important to resolution of this case, is the risk of erroneous deprivation and the likely value of any additional procedures. Petitioners argue that any presuspension hearing would have been worthless because pursuant to an Executive Order of the Governor of Pennsylvania a state employee is automatically to be suspended without pay “[a]s soon as practicable after [being] formally charged with ... a felony.” 4 Pa. Code § 7.173 (1997). According to petitioners, supervisors have no discretion under this rule, and the mandatory suspension without pay lasts until the criminal charges are finally resolved. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 20. If petitioners’ interpretation of this order is correct, there is no need for any presuspension process since there would be nothing to consider at the hearing except the independently verifiable fact of whether an employee had indeed been formally charged with a felony. See Codd v. Velger, 429 U. S. 624, 627-628 (1977) (per curiam). Cf. Loudermill, supra, at 543. Respondent, however, challenges petitioners’ reading of the Code, and contends that in any event an order of the Governor of Pennsylvania is a “mere directiv[e] which do[es] not confer a legally enforceable right.” Brief for Respondent 20. We need not resolve this disputed issue of state law because even assuming the Code is only advisory (or has no application at all), the State had no constitutional obligation to provide respondent with a presuspension hearing. We noted in Loudermill that the purpose of a pre-termination hearing is to determine “whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action.” 470 U. S., at 545-546. By parity of reasoning, the purpose of any pre-suspension hearing would be to assure that there are reasonable grounds to support the suspension without pay. Cf. Mallen, 486 U. S., at 240. But here that has already been assured by the arrest and the filing of charges.
In Mallen, we concluded that an “ex parte finding of probable cause” such as a grand jury indictment provides adequate assurance that the suspension is not unjustified. Id., at 240-241. The same is true when an employee is arrested and then formally charged with a felony. First, as with an indictment, the arrest and formal charges imposed upon respondent “by an independent body demonstrate] that the suspension is not arbitrary.” Id., at 244. Second, like an indictment, the imposition of felony charges “itself is an objective fact that will in most cases raise serious public concern.” Id., at 244-245. It is true, as respondent argues, that there is more reason to believe an employee has committed a felony when he is indicted rather than merely arrested and formally charged; but for present purposes arrest and charge give reason enough. They serve to assure that the state employer’s decision to suspend the employee is not “baseless or unwarranted,” id., at 240, in that an independent third party has determined that there is probable cause to believe the employee committed a serious crime.
Respondent further contends that since (as we have agreed to assume) Levanowitz had discretion not to suspend despite the arrest and filing of charges, he had to be given an opportunity to persuade Levanowitz of his innocence before the decision was made. We disagree. In Mallen, despite the fact that the FDIC had discretion whether to suspend an indicted bank employee, see 64 Stat. 879, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1818(g)(1); Mallen, supra, at 234-235, and n. 5, we nevertheless did not believe that a presuspension hearing was necessary to protect the private interest. Unlike in the case of a termination, where we have recognized that “the only meaningful opportunity to invoke the discretion of the decisionmaker is likely to be before the termination takes effect,” Loudermill, supra, at 543, in the case of a suspension there will be ample opportunity to invoke discretion later — and a short delay actually benefits the employee by allowing state officials to obtain more accurate information about the arrest and charges. Respondent “has an interest in seeing that a decision concerning his or her continued suspension is not made with excessive haste.” Mallen, 486 U. S., at 243. If the State is forced to act too quickly, the decisionmaker “may give greater weight to the public interest and leave the suspension in place.” Ibid.
C
Much of respondent’s argument is dedicated to the proposition that he had a due process right to a presuspension hearing because the suspension was open-ended and he “theoretically may not have had the opportunity to be heard for weeks, months, or even years after his initial suspension without pay.” Brief for Respondent 23. But, as respondent himself asserts in his attempt to downplay the governmental interest, “[b]ecause the employee is entitled, in any event, to a prompt post-suspension opportunity to be heard, the period of the suspension should be short and the amount of pay during the suspension minimal.” Id., at 24-25.
Whether respondent was provided an adequately prompt post-suspension hearing in the present case is a separate question. Although the charges against respondent were dropped on September 1 (petitioners apparently learned of this on September 2), he did not receive any sort of hearing until September 18. Once the charges were dropped, the risk of erroneous deprivation increased substantially, and, as petitioners conceded at oral argument, there was likely value in holding a prompt hearing, Tr. of Oral Arg. 19. Cf. Mal-len, supra, at 243 (holding that 90 days before the agency hears and decides the propriety of a suspension does not exceed the permissible limits where coupled with factors that minimize the risk of an erroneous deprivation). Because neither the Court of Appeals nor the District Court addressed whether, under the particular facts of this case, petitioners violated due process by failing to provide a sufficiently prompt postsuspension hearing, we will not consider this issue in the first instance, but remand for consideration by the Court of Appeals.
* * *
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.
It is true, as respondent contends, that in Mallen we did not expressly state whether the bank president’s suspension was with or without pay. But the opinion in Mallen recites no order from the FDIC, if it had authority to issue such an order, that the bank pay its president; only an order that the bank suspend its president’s participation in the bank’s affairs. Our opinion in Mallen certainly reflects the assumption that the suspension would be without pay. For example, in discussing the private interest at stake we considered “the severity of depriving someone of his or her livelihood.” 486 U. S., at 243 (citing eases). And, Mallen argued to this Court that “denial of an income stream to underwrite these extraordinary expenses can be crucial, not only to Mallen’s financial condition in general, but to his ability to pay for his criminal defense.” Brief for Appellee in FDIC v. Mallen, O. T. 1987, No. 87-82, pp. 7-8.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether respondent’s attempted corporate rehabilitation under the Bankruptcy Act, materially affecting the rights of widespread public investor creditors, may be conducted under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 905, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. (1958 ed.), or whether dismissal or, in effect, transfer to proceedings under Chapter X of that Act, 52 Stat. 883, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 501 et seq. (1958 ed.), is required upon motion by the Securities and Exchange Commission dr any other party in interest, pursuant to § 328 of the Bankruptcy Act, 66 Stat. 432, 11 U. S. C. § 728 (1958 ed.).
I.
Respondent, American Trailer Rentals Company, was organized in 1958 to engage in the automobile-trailer rental business. The business was financed largely through the sale of trailers to investors and their simul-. taneous lease-back. From 1959 to 1961 hundreds of small investors, scattered.throughout the. entire western part of the United States,, purchased and leased back a total of 5,866 trailers, paying an aggregate price of $3,587,439 (approximately $600 per trailer). Under the usual form of lease-back agreement, the trailer owners were to receive a set 2% of their investment per month for 10 years.
The trailers sold to investors and then leased back are of the general utility type that are attached to the rear bumper of automobiles. They were placed by respondent at gasoline stations, the operators of which acted as respondent’s rental agents, without the investors ever having seen them. Respondent had about 700 such service station operators in December 1961, although the number had declined to about 500 by the time the petition for an arrangement was filed a year later.
Respondent’s further offering of these sale and leaseback arrangements to the public was halted in' 1961, when the SEC advised respondent that these sale and leaseback arrangements were investment contracts and therefore securities, which could not be sold to the public unless and until a registration statement was filed and became effective under the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq. (1958 ed.). Respondent ‘then filed a registration statement with the SEC pertaining to these sale and lease-back arrangements. This registration statement, however, never became effective, and proceedings were instituted by the SEC to stop distribution of respondent's proposed prospectus on the •grounds that it contained false and misleading statements. See Securities Act of 1933, § 8 (d), 48 Stat. 79, 15 U. S. C. § 77h (d) (1958 ed.). In June. 1963, respondent consented to the entry of an order stopping distribution of this prospectus. See SEC, Securities Act Release No. 4615 (1963).
After this attempt to register the sale and lease-back agreements had failed, respondent’s executive vice president and other persons organized a corporation named Capitol Leasing Corporation, which offered respondent’s investor creditors an exchange of its stock for their trailers on the basis of one share of its stock for each $2 the investor creditors had paid for the' trailers. After Capitol had acquired approximately 300 of the 5,866 trailers outstanding in exchange for its stock, the SEC suspended the exemption from registration for small offerings, upon which Capitol had relied in making this offer, on the grounds that there was reasonable cause to believe that the material used in making this offer again contained false and misleading statements.
Following this event, respondent filed a petition and a proposed plan of arrangement under Chapter XI of the. Bankruptcy Act. The petition, annexed schedules, and other documents show that respondent had never operated at a profit. For the three years ended September 30, 1961, it had an aggregate income from “gross rentals" of $395,610. In the same period, it made rental payments to investor-trailer owners of $613,021; made payments to gasoline station operators of $118,400; and incurred additional “operating expenses” of $668,698.
The $613,021 paid to trailer owners included payments' to investors whose trailers had not yet been obtained and put into the system. In order to make the necessary payments to trailer owners and station operators respondent had not only borrowed money from its officers, directors, and stockholders but also had used funds obtained for purchase of new trailers. Virtually all the trailers were purchased from an affiliate in which respondent’s officers and directors had interests. Many of these trailers proved defective in design or otherwise unsuitable for rental. About a year prior to the filing of respond-' ent’s Chapter XI proceeding, this manufacturing affiliate became' bankrupt, owing respondent approximately $200,000 for trailers that were never manufactured and. an additional amount of approximately, $150,000 for trailers that were manufactured but never delivered. These latter trailers had been mortgaged by the affiliate to a third party who took possession upon the affiliate’s bankruptcy. In addition, in June 1961, some 100 trailers, as to which respondent, although obligated by the leaseback arrangements to do so, did not have insurance coverage, were unbeatable and considered lost. Finally, certain funds received from investors for the purchase of trailers had been, at an earlier period, misappropriated by a member or members of respondent’s management. Respondent’s executive vice president, who estimated this misappropriation loss to be at least $141,000, attributed it “almost completely” to a deceased member of the original management group, but did not feel “qualified to make [the] judgment” that the two remaining members of that group, including one who owned over 15% of respondent’s common stock, could be held liable.
At the time of filing its Chapter XI petition, respondent stated its total assets as $685,608, of which $500,000 represented the stated estimated “value” of its trailer-rental system, an intangible asset. It stated in its petition that its trailer-rental system (which then consisted of arrangements with some 500 service station operator agents) “was built by [respondent] at an estimated cost of $500,000,” despite the fact that respondent’s balance sheet in 1961 showed the cost of establishing a system of 700 stations as only $33,750, and that in 1961 respondent had estimated that the cost of establishing an additional 800 rental stations would be only $56,000. The total liabilities were stated at $1,367,890, of which $710,597 was owed to trailer owners under their leasing agreements; $200,677 was owed to the investors who had paid for trailers that had never been manufactured; $71,805 was owed to trade and other general creditors; and $285,277 was owed-to respondent’s officers and directors.
Under the proposed plan of arrangement submitted by respondent the investor-trailer owners were to exchange their entire interests (their rights in the trailers as well as the amounts owed them under the rental agreements) for stock of-Capitol on the basis of one share of stock for each $2 of “remaining capital investment in the trailers,” which sum was to be determined by deducting from the original purchase price of the trailers the amount, if any, which the owners had received as rental payments. Respondent’s officers and directors, as well as trade and other general creditors, were to receive one share of stock for each $3.50 of their claims. Respondent, itself, in exchange for transferring to Capitol its trailer-rental system, was to receive 107,000 shares which it would then distribute to its stockholders. Finally, obligations to two banks, totaling $55,558, although clearly unsecured, were to be paid 'in full, presumably because the officers and directors of respondent would otherwise, have been Hable as guarantors of these obHgations.
If this plan were approved and all of the investor-trailer owners participated, a total of approximately 866,000 shares of Capitol’s stock would be issued to them, but approximately 81,500 shares would be issued directly to the officers and directors of respondent, 22,400 to. trade and other general creditors, and 107,000 to respondent itself to be distributed to its stockholders. More than 60% of respondent’s stock was held by eight men, seven of whom are officers and directors and the eighth one of the original-promoters of the venture.
The SEC then filed a motion, under § 328 of the Bankruptcy Act, to dismiss the Chapter XI proceeding or, in effect, transfer it to Chapter X on the ground that it should have been brought under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act and thus Chapter XI is not available. A referee in bankruptcy to whom, as a special master, the motion was referred, recommended that it be denied on the grounds that the Commission had.not made “a sufficient showing to warrant the granting of the Section 328 motion.” At his hearing on this matter, the District Judge recognized that, in light of the fact that the investor-trailer owners were widely scattered and the nature of their' individual holdings was small, the proposed plan’s issuance of approximately 15% of Capitol’s stock to respondents officers and directors would mean that they, rather than the investor-trailer owners, would have effective control over Capitol, and expressed his “disapproval” of such a result. He also expressed disapproval of preferential treatment of the banks in order to avoid the obligations of the officer and director guarantors. The District Court, however, “accepted and adopted” the referee’s findings and denied the motion without a written opinion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, “since the granting of the motion rests in the discretion of the [district] court, while we think this is a border-line case, it does not appear that the S. E. C. has shown that adequate relief is not obtainable in Chapter XI proceedings or that there has been an abuse of that discretion warranting reversal.” 325 F. 2d 47, 52. We granted certiorari, 376 U. S. 948.
II.
The background and operative procedures of Chapter X and Chapter XI and the interrelationship between them have been reviewed by this Court in SEC v. United States Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U. S. 434, and General Stores Corp. v. Shlensky, 350 U. S. 462. This background was detailed in United States Realty, supra, as follows:
Before passage, in 1934, of § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, 48 Stat. 912, bankruptcy procedures offered no facilities for corporate rehabilitation, which, therefore, was left to equity receiverships, with their attendant paraphernalia of creditors’ and security holders’ committees, and of rival plans of reorganization,. Lack of judicial control of the conditions attending formulation of the plans, inadequate protection of widely scattered security holders, frequent adoption of plans which favored management at the expense of other interests and which afforded the corporation only temporary respite from financial collapse, so often characteristic of equity receivership reorganizations, led to the enactment of § 77B. See S. Doc. No. 65, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 90; H. R. Rep. No. 1409, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2. As does the present Chapter X, § 77B permitted the adjustment of all interests in the debtor, secured creditors, unsecured creditors, and stockholders.
The day preceding the enactment of §.77B, Congress had created the Securities and Exchange Commission as a special agency charged with the function of protecting the investing public, 48 Stat. 885, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78d (1958 ed.). At the urging of, and based on extensive studies by the SEC, § 77B was, in 1938, revised and enacted in changed form as Chapter X. 52 Stat. 883-905. The aims of Chapter X as thus revised were to afford greater protection to creditors and stockholders by providing greater judicial control over the entire proceedings and impartial and expert administrative assistance in corporate reorganizations through appointment of a disinterested trustee and the active participation of the SEC. The trustee in a Chapter X proceeding is required to make a thorough examination and study of the debtor’s financial problems and management, Bankruptcy Act, §§ 167 (3), (5), and then transmit his independent report to the creditors, stockholders, the SEC, and others. Following this, the trustee gives notice to all creditors and stockholders to submit to him proposals for a plan of reorganization. §§167 (5), (6). The trustee then formulates a plan of reorganization which he presents to the court. If the court finds the plan worthy of consideration, it may refer it to the SEC for its opinion and must so refer it where the debtor’s liabilities exceed $3,000,000. § 172. When the proposed plan, after approval by the court, is finally submitted to the debtor’s creditors and stockholders, it is accompanied by the advisory report of the SEC, as well as the opinion of the judge who approved the plan. § 175. As to each class of creditors and stockholders whose rights are affected by the plan, the plan must receive the approval of the holders of two-thirds in amount of each class of creditors’ claims and, if the debtor has not been found to be insolvent, the holders of a majority of each class of stock. § 179. The plan becomes effective upon final confirmation by the court, based on a finding, inter alia, that “the plan is fair and equitable.” §221.
As part of the, same Act in which Chapter X was enacted Congress álso, in 1938, enacted Chapter XI. 52 Stat. 905-916. Chapter XI is a statutory variation of the common-law composition of creditors and, unlike the broader scope of Chapter X, is limited to an adjustment of unsecured debts. It was sponsored by the National Association of Credit Men and other groups of creditors’ representatives whose experience had been in representing trade creditors in small and middle-sized commercial failures. See Hearings before the House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 6439 (reintroduced as H. R. 8046 and enacted in 1938), 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 31, 35; 13 J. N. A. Ref. Bankr. 17 (1938). The contrast between the provisions of Chapter X, carefully designed to protect the creditor and stockholder interests involved, and the summary provisions of Chapter XI is quite marked. The formulation of the plan of arrangement, and indeed the entire Chapter XI proceeding, for all practical purposes is.in the hands of the debtor, subject only to the requisite consent of a majority in number and amount of unsecured creditors, § 362, and the ultimate finding by the court that the plan is, inter alia, “for the best interests of the creditors,” § 366. “The process of formulating an arrangement and the solicitation of consent of creditors, sacrifices to speed and economy every safeguard, in the interest of thoroughness and distinterestedness, provided in Chapter X.” United States Realty, supra, at 450-451. The debtor generally remains in possession and operates the business under court supervision, § 342. A trustee is only provided in the very limited situation where á trustee in bankruptcy has previously been appointed, § 332. There is no requirement for a receiver, but the Court “may” appoint one if it finds it to be “necessary,” § 332. The plan of arrangement is proposed by, and only by, the debtor, §§ 306 (1), 323, 357, and creditors have only the choice of accepting or rejecting it. Acceptances may be solicited by the debtor even before filing of the Chapter XI petition and, in fact, must be solicited before court review of the plan, § 336 (4). There are no provisions for an independent study by the court or a trustee, or for advice by them being given to creditors in advance of the acceptance of the arrangement. In short, Chapter XI provides a summary procedure whereby judicial confirmation is obtained on a plan that has been formulated and accepted with only a bare minimum of independent control or supervision. This, of course, is consistent with the basic purpose of Chapter XI: to provide a quick and economical means of facilitating simple compositions among general creditors who have been deemed by Congress to need only the minimal disinterested protection provided by that Chapter.
In enacting these two distinct methods of corporate rehabilitations, Congress has made it quite clear that Chapters X and XI are not alternate routes, the choice of which is in the hands of the debtor. Rather, they are legally, mutually exclusive paths to attempted financial rehabilitation. A Chapter X petition may not be filed unless “adequate relief” is not obtainable under Chapter XI, § 146 (2). Likewise, a Chapter XI petition is to be dismissed, or in effect transferred, if the proceedings “should have been brought” under Chapter X_, § 328.
III.
The SEC here contends that, as an absolute rule, all proceedings for the financial rehabilitation of a corporate debtor which would alter the rights of public investor creditors must be in Chapter X. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that there is no such absolute rule and that the determination of whether proceedings, on the facts of a particular case, should be in Chapter X or in Chapter XI rests in the discretion of the District Court, which discretion should not be reversed unless it is found to have been clearly abused. Both parties rely on United States Realty, supra, and General Stores Corp., supra, for their respective contentions.
United States Realty- involved a corporation with publicly owned debentures, publicly owned mortgage certificates, and publicly owned stock, which proposed a plan of arrangement that would have left the debentures’and stock unaffected but would have both extended the time for payment of the publicly held mortgage certificates and reduced their interest rate. The SEC there argued that Chapter X is the exclusive avenue for financial rehabilitation of large corporations with many stockholders. While rejecting this argument as an absolute matter, the Court recognized that “in general... the two chapters were specifically devised to afford different procedures, the one [Chapter X] adapted to the reorganization of corporations with complicated debt structures and many stockholders, the other [Chapter XI] to composition of debts of small individual business and corporations with few stockholders....” 310 U. S., at 447. The Court then held that, as the proposed plan of arrangement adversely affected the rights of many, widely scattered public creditors, to wit, the holders of mortgage certificates, the formulation of a plan with the judicial control, statutory SEC participation, and employment of disinterested trustees, assured by Chapter X, would better serve “the public and private interests concerned including those of the debtor,” id., at 455, than would the formulation of a Chapter XI plan under the almost complete control of the debtor. In reaching this result, the Court explored at great length the safeguards of Chapter X and their protection of public investors:
“The basic assumption of Chapter X and other acts administered by the Commission is that the investing public dissociated from control or active participation in the management, needs impartial and expert administrative assistance in the ascertainment of facts, in theidetection of fraud, and in the understanding of complex financial problems.” Id., at 448-449, n. 6.
Applying these principles, the Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the District Court’s refusal to dismiss a Chapter XI proceeding which the SEC had challenged on the grounds that it should have been brought under Chapter X.
It should be noted that, prior to United States Realty, a bill had been introduced in Congress to draw a numerical line that would close Chapter XI to any corporation which had any class of its securities owned by 100 or more creditors or stockholders. See Hearing before Special Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and Reorganization of the House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 9864, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. In reporting out. the bill, the Subcommittee stated: •
“Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the bill, which are eliminated by the last of your committee’s amendments, provided for amendments to chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act which were designed to prevent corporations which are publicly indebted or owned from filing a petition for an arrangement under, chapter XI, rather than a petition for reorganization under chapter X, the chapter specially designed for the reorganization of such corporations,.and to establish a numerical test of such 'public’ indebtedness or ownership.
“Your committee believes that, while the amendments proposed by sections 4,.5, 6, and 7 are desirable, the element of emergency requiring their immediate passage has been eliminated by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. U. S. Realty and Improvement Company. That decision was rendered on May 27, 1940, after the introduction of the bill. Since immediate action on these proposals does not appear to be necessary, the last of your committee’s amendments provides for the striking.out of sections 4, 5, 6, and 7. The committee’s conclusion is supported by all of the'witnesses who testified at the. hearings before the committee’s Subcommittee' on Bankruptcy and Reorganization and also by the report of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the bill.” H. R. Rep. No. 2372, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 2.
In General Stores Corp. v. Shlensky, supra, a corporation with over 2,000,000 shares of common stock, held by-over 7,000 shareholders, but with no publicly held debt of any kind, petitioned under Chapter XI for an arrangement of its unsecured debt, consisting of obligations to trade creditors and one private investor. The District Court had held, with the Court of Appeals affirming, that Chapter XI was unavailable as the debtor needed more extensive reorganization than merely a simple arrangement with unsecured creditors. This Court affirmed. In so doing, the Court again rejected the SEC’s argument that, as an absolute matter, Chapter XI is not available where the debtor is publicly owned.
The Court stated:
“It may well be that in most cases where the debtor’s securities are publicly held c. X will afford the more appropriate remedy. But that is not necessarily so. A large company with publicly held securities may have as much need for.a simple composition of unsecured debts as a smaller company. And there is no reason we can see. why c. XI may not serve that end. The essential difference is not between the small company and the large company but between the needs to be served.” 350 U. S., at 466.
The Court pointéd out that the “needs to be served” included such factors as requirements of fairness to public debt holders, need for a trustee’s evaluation of an accounting from management or determination that new management is necessary, and the need to readjust a complicated debt structure requiring more than a simple composition of unsecured debt. Id., at 466-467.
IV.
' We agree with the parties that the principles of United States Realty and General Stores apply to and govern the result in this case. We reaffirm the holdings of these cases that there is no absolute rule that Chapter X must be utilized in every case in which the corporate debtor is publicly owned. As this Court has recognized, Congress has drawn no such hard-and-fast line between the two Chapters. The SEC, purporting to bow to these holdings, urges in this case, however, a variation of its absolute-rule argument that, while not requiring Chapter X in all cases in which the debtor is publicly owned, would require the use of Chapter X in 100% of the cases involving the rights of public investor creditors.
It argues, in support of this variation of its absolute rule, that to hold otherwise would deprive the investor creditors of Chapter X’s protection of the “fair and equitable” requirement of a plan. As noted above, whereas Chapter X contains the proviso that a plan must be “fair and equitable,” Chapter XI only requires that it be “for the best interests of' the creditors.” The words “fair arid equitable” are “words of art” which mean that senior interests are entitled to full priority over junior ones and, in particular, “that in any plan of corporate reorganization unsecured creditors are entitled to priority over stockholders to the full extent of their debts and that any scaling down of the claims, of creditors without some fair compensating advantage to them which is prior to the rights of stockholders is inadmissible.” United States Realty, supra, at 452. The SEC’s argument, however, is premised on the assertion, for which we can firid no support.in either the language or legislative history of Chapters X and XI, that Congress has deemed it necessary in all cases involving public investor creditors that they have the protection of the “fair and equitable” doctrine. In fact, the requirement that a plan be “fair and equitable” was part of Chapter XI, as well as Chapter X, until 1952, when Congress deleted it from Chapter XI and replaced it with the requirement that the plan be “for the best interests of the creditors.” Congress clearly deemed this latter requirement to be sufficient protection in a proceeding properly in Chapter XI in light of the general philosophy of Chapter XI to expedite “simple” compositions. See S. Rep. No. 1395, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 10, 11-12; H. R. Rep. No. 2320, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 19, 20-21. There is no indication that in so doing, Congress intended in' any way to change the law on the interrelationship between Chapters X and XI. In fact, the history is just the opposite. In the same Act that deleted the “fair and equitable” requirement from Chapter XI, Congress expressly codified, in § 328, the rule of United States Realty providing for dismissal, or, in effect transfer, of a Chapter XI proceeding if it “should have been brought” in Chapter X. Nothing in this even suggests transfer as an absolute rule to give Chapter X’s “fair and equitable” protection to all cases involving public investors, which presumably if Congress had so intended, it would have so stated. Moreover, as noted above, supra, pp. 608-609, a House subcommittee previously approved the United States Realty holding of a general, but not absolute, rule, and had not reported out a bill that would have drawn an absolute line.
The SEC further argues that Chapter X is required in all cases involving public investor creditors, because its right to intervene in a Chapter XI proceeding is limited solely to moving under § 328 for a transfer to Chapter X. We reject this argument. The District Court, in this case, quite properly recognized that th¿ SEC was not so limited in a Chapter XI proceeding, and we hold that, under the statutory scheme, while not charged with express statutory rights and responsibilities as in Chapter X, the SEC is entitled to intervene and be heard in a Chapr ter XI proceeding. We therefore reject the SEC’s variation of its absolute-rule argument, advanced in this case, that would require the use of Chapter X in all cases in which the rights of public investor creditors are involved. The short answer is that, as with the SEC’s original absolute-rule argument, Congress has drawn no such absolute line of demarcation between Chapters X and XI.
This does not mean, however, that we disagree with the holding of United States Realty that, although there is no absolute rule requiring that Chapter X be utilized in every case in which the debtor is publicly owned, or even where publicly held debt is adjusted, as a general rule Chapter X is the appropriate proceeding for adjustment of publicly held debt. See SEC v. Canandaigua Enterprises Corp., 339 F. 2d 14 (C. A. 2d Cir.). Not only do we not disagree with this holding, but we expressly reaffirm it. Public investors are, as here, generally widely scattered and are far less likely than trade creditors to be aware of the financial condition and cause of the collapse of the debtor. They are less commonly organized in groups or committees capable of protecting their interests. They do not have the same interest as do trade creditors in continuing the business relations with the debtor. Where debt is publicly held, the SEC is likely, as here, to have become familiar with the debtor’s finances, indicating the desirability of its performing its full Chapter X functions. It seems clear that in enacting Chapter X Congress had the protection of public investors, and not trade creditors, primarily in mind. As noted above, Chapter X is one of many Acts in which the; SEC has the statutory right and responsibility to protect public investors. Finally, again it is clear that Congress was thinking of Chapter XI as primarily concerned with adjustment of the rights of trade creditors when it deemed the “fair and equitable” doctrine to be unnecessary to “simple” compositions in Chapter XI.
General Stores indicates the narrow limits within which there are exceptions to this general rule that the rights of public investor creditors are to be adjusted only under Chapter X. “Simple” compositions are still to be effected under Chapter XI.. Such a situation, even where public debt is directly affected may exist, for example, where the public investors are few in number and familiar with the operations of the debtor, or where, although the public investors are greater in number, the adjustment of their debt is relatively minor, consisting, for example, of a short extension of time for payment.
On the other hand, General Stores also makes it clear that even though there may be no public debt materially and directly affected, Chapter X is still, the appropriate proceeding where the débtor has widespread public stockholders and the protections of the public and private interests involved afforded by Chapter X are required because, for example,, there is evidence of management misdeeds for which an accounting might be made, there is a need for new management, or the financial condition of the debtor requires more than a simple composition of its unsecured debts.
Applying.the above principles, it is obvious that Chapter X is the appropriate proceeding for the attempted rehabilitation of respondent in this case. Here public debts are being adjusted. The investors are many and widespread, not few. in number intimately connected with the debtor, and the adjustment is quite major and certainly not minor. These facts alone would require Chapter X proceedings under the above-stated principles. In addition there is here, as we have previously pointed out, substantial evidence of misappropriation of assets, and not only is there a need for a complete corporate reorganization, but it is obvious that the proposed plan of arrangement is just that. The trailer owners are exchanging their entire interests, including a sale of their trailers, in exchange for stock in a new corporation, in which other creditors of respondent, including respondent’s officers and directors, as well as respondent itself will have substantial interests. Indeed, this is the same complete reorganization, except that the plan here gives the public investor creditors even less than was previously offered, see noté 5, supra, that the SEC previously stopped as a public offering on the grounds that the offering material contained false and misleading information. The Court of Appeals itself recognized, 325 F. 2d, at 53, “that if the stock involved here were nut part of an arrangement, the disclosures made with regard to it’ | in soliciting the trailer owners’ consents to the plan] would be clearly inadequate. No authority has been found which would indicate- that recipients of stock issued in connection with an arrangement are not entitled to as much information as are those persons acquiring stock under ordinary conditions.” We agree.
Indeed, the facts of this case aptly demonstrate the need for Chapter X protection as a general rule on the above-stated principles. There is clearly a need for a stúdy by a disinterested trustee to make a thorough examination of respondent’s.financial problems and management and submit á full report to the public-investor creditors. Respondent has never operated profitably, has always been in precarious financial condition, and apparently was hopelessly insolvent, in both the bankruptcy and equity sense, when the arrangement was proposed. At an earlier period, its management apparently misappropriated substantial corporate funds. Most of the trailers were purchased from an affiliated company; a large number of them, although paid for, were either not manufactured or, if manufactured, were not delivered. The affiliated company is bankrupt. Only approximately two-thirds of the $3,587,439 contributed by the public investors for the purchase of trailers was used for that purpose; the balance apparently having been drained off in high commissions taken by the management on the sale of the trailers to the public. Portions of these commissions on new trailer sales were, in turn, used by the management to pay prior purchasers of trailers the rentals which they had been promised.' When respondent filed its petition for an arrangement, its stated liabilities of $1,367,890 were approximately double its stated assets of $685,608;- with even most of the latter ($500,000) representing the alleged “estimated” value of the trailer-rental system, i. e., the debtor’s arrangements with the service station operators. The District Court itself recognized that “there may be in this situation need for new management, and there certainly is some question... as to whether or not the. management that, is-presently... operating it, would continue tó do so for the best interests of the investors.” It did not find, however, that Chapter X was necessary since this need for new management had “not been clearly established yet.” One of the purposes of Chapter X is to give the independent trustee the opportunity to conduct a searching inquiry so as to “clearly establish” whether or not new management is necessary, when there is, as here, a substantial basis for such a belief. See General Stores, supra, at 466. Finally, it is clear that there is need for an independent investigation of possible causes of action against the past and present management of respondent, and it is as true now as when Chapter X was énacted, that “a debtor in possession cannot be expected to investigate itself.” Hearings before House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 6439, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 176 (my Brother Douglas then testifying as Chairman of the SEC).
Respondent, however, contends that Chapter X is not here appropriate as the time and expense involved in such a proceeding would be too great. This is, however, just another way of stating the natural preference of a debtor’s management for the “speed and economy” of Chapter XI, to the “thoroughness and disinterestedness” of Chapter X. In this area, as with other statutes designed, to protect the investing public, Congress has made the determination that the disinterested protection of the public investor outweighs the self-interest “needs” of corporate management for so-called “speed and. economy.” In fact, experience in this area has confirmed the view of Congress that the thoroughness and disinterestedness assured by Chapter X not only result in greater protection for the investing public, but often in greater ultimate savings for all interests, public and private, than do the so-called “speed and economy” of Chapter XI. See Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the SEC 98 (1963); Twenty-Ninth Annual Report of the SEC 90-91 (1964); Note, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 352, 357-360 (1955). Moreover, the requirements of Chapter X are themselves sufficiently flexible so that the District Court can act to keep expenses within proper bounds and insure expedition in the proceedings. We also reject respondent’s further argument that the time and expense of a Chapter X proceeding would be so great that the ultimate result might be straight bankruptcy liquidation, which, respondent contends, “would mean probable total loss for [the] trailer owners.” In addition to the above answers to respondent’s general-time-and-expense argument, we feel compelled to point out, without indicating any opinion as to the ultimate outcome of the attempted financial rehabilitation in this case, that it must be recognized that Chapters X and XI were not designed to prolong — without good reason and 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: | 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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action by a union, pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, to compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. The major questions presented are (1) whether a corporate employer must arbitrate with a union under a bargaining agreement between the union and another corporation which has merged with the employer, and, if so, (2) whether the courts or the arbitrator is the appropriate body to decide whether procedural prerequisites which, under the bargaining agreement, condition the duty to arbitrate have been met. Because of the importance of both questions to the realization of national labor policy, we granted certiorari (373 U. S. 908) to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals directing arbitration (313 F. 2d 52), in reversal of the District Court which had refused such relief (203 F. Supp. 171). We affirm the judgment below, but, with respect to the first question above, on grounds which may differ from those of the Court of Appeals, whose answer to that question is unclear.
I.
District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Interscience Publishers, Inc., a publishing firm, for a term expiring on January 31, 1962. The agreement did not contain an express provision making it binding on successors of Interscience. On October 2, 1961, Interscience merged with the petitioner, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., another publishing firm, and ceased to do business as a separate entity. There is no suggestion that the merger was not for genuine business reasons.
At the time of the merger Interscience had about 80 employees, of whom 40 were represented by this Union. It had a single plant in New York City, and did an annual business of somewhat over $1,000,000. Wiley was a much larger concern, having separate office and warehouse facilities and about 300 employees, and doing an annual business of more than $9,000,000. None of Wiley’s employees was represented by a union.
In discussions before and after the merger, the Union and Interscience (later Wiley) were unable to agree on the effect of the merger on the collective bargaining agreement and on the rights under it of those covered employees hired by Wiley. The Union’s position was that despite the merger it continued to represent the covered Interscience employees taken over by Wiley, and that Wiley was obligated to recognize certain rights of such employees which had “vested” under the Inter-science bargaining agreement. Such rights, more fully described below, concerned matters typically covered by collective bargaining agreements, such as seniority status, severance pay, etc. The Union contended also that Wiley was required to make certain pension fund payments called for under the Interscience bargaining agreement.
Wiley, though recognizing for purposes of its own pension plan the Interscience service of the former Inter-science employees, asserted that the merger terminated the bargaining agreement for all purposes. It refused to recognize the Union as bargaining agent or to accede to the Union’s claims on behalf of Interscience employees. All such employees, except a few who ended their Wiley employment with severance pay and for whom no rights are asserted here, continued in Wiley’s employ.
No satisfactory solution having been reached, the Union, one week before the expiration date of the Inter-science bargaining agreement, commenced this action to compel arbitration.
II.
The threshold question in this controversy is who shall decide whether the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement survived the Wiley-Interscience merger, so as to be operative against Wiley. Both parties urge that this question is for the courts. Past cases leave no doubt that this is correct. “Under our decisions, whether or not the company was bound to arbitrate, as well as what issues it must arbitrate, is a matter to be determined by the Court on the basis of the contract entered into by the parties.” Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U. S. 238, 241. Accord, e. g., United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574, 582. The problem in those cases was whether an employer, concededly party to and bound by a contract which contained an arbitration provision, had agreed to arbitrate disputes of a particular kind. Here, the question is whether Wiley, which did not itself sign the collective bargaining agreement on which the Union’s claim to arbitration depends, is bound at all by the agreement’s arbitration provision. The reason requiring the courts to determine the issue is the same in both situations. The duty to arbitrate being of contractual origin, a compulsory submission to arbitration cannot precede judicial determination that the collective bargaining agreement does in fact create such a duty. Thus, just as an employer has no obligation to arbitrate issues which it has not agreed to arbitrate, so a fortiori, it cannot be compelled to arbitrate if an arbitration clause does not bind it at all.
The unanimity of views about who should decide the question of arbitrability does not, however, presage the parties’ accord about what is the correct decision. Wiley, objecting to arbitration, argues that it never was a party to the collective bargaining agreement, and that, in any event, the Union lost its status as representative of the former Interscience employees when they were mingled in a larger Wiley unit of employees. The Union argues that Wiley, as successor to Interscience, is bound by the latter’s agreement, at least sufficiently to require it to arbitrate. The Union relies on § 90 of the N. Y. Stock Corporation Law, which provides, among other things, that no “claim or demand for any cause” against a constituent corporation shall be extinguished by a consolidation. Alternatively, the Union argues that, apart from § 90, federal law requires that arbitration go forward, lest the policy favoring arbitration frequently be undermined by changes in corporate organization.
Federal law, fashioned “from the policy of our national labor laws,” controls. Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 456. State law may be utilized so far as it is of aid in the development of correct principles or their application in a particular case, id,., at 457, but the law which ultimately results is federal. We hold that the disappearance by merger of a corporate employer which has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union does not automatically terminate all rights of the employees covered by the agreement, and that, in appropriate circumstances, present here, the successor employer may be required to arbitrate with the union under the agreement.
This Court has in the past recognized the central role of arbitration in effectuating national labor policy. Thus, in Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra, at 578, arbitration was described as “the substitute for industrial strife,” and as “part and parcel of the collective bargaining process itself.” It would derogate from “the federal policy of settling labor disputes by arbitration,” United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593, 596, if a change in the corporate structure or ownership of a business enterprise had the automatic consequence of removing a duty to arbitrate previously established; this is so as much in cases like the present, where the contracting employer disappears into another by merger, as in those in which one owner replaces another but the business entity remains the same.
Employees, and the union which represents them, ordinarily do not take part in negotiations leading to a change in corporate ownership. The negotiations will ordinarily not concern the well-being of the employees, whose advantage or disadvantage, potentially great, will inevitably be incidental to the main considerations. The objectives of national labor policy, reflected in established principles of federal law, require that the rightful prerogative of owners independently to rearrange their businesses and even eliminate themselves as employers be balanced by some protection to the employees from a sudden change in the employment relationship. The transition from one corporate organization to another will in most cases be eased and industrial strife avoided if employees’ claims continue to be resolved by arbitration rather than by “the relative strength ... . of the contending forces,” Warrior & Gulf, supra, at 580.
The preference of national labor policy for arbitration as a substitute for tests of strength between contending forces could be overcome only if other considerations compellingly so demanded. We find none. While the principles of law governing ordinary contracts would not bind to a contract an unconsenting successor to a contracting party, a collective bargaining agreement is not an ordinary contract. “. . . [I] t is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. . . . The collective agreement covers the whole employment relationship. It calls into being a new common law — the common law of a particular industry or of a particular plant.” Warrior & Gulf, supra, at 578-579 (footnotes omitted). Central to the peculiar status and function of a collective bargaining agreement is the fact, dictated both by circumstance, see id., at 580, and by the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act, that it is not in any real sense the simple product of a consensual relationship. Therefore, although the duty to arbitrate, as we have said, supra, pp. 546-547, must be founded on a contract, the impressive policy considerations favoring arbitration are not wholly overborne by the fact that Wiley did not sign the contract being construed. This ease cannot readily be assimilated to the category of those in which there is no contract whatever, or none which is reasonably related to the party sought to be obligated. There was a contract, and Interscience, Wiley’s predecessor, was party to it. We thus find Wiley’s obligation to arbitrate this dispute in the Interscience contract construed in the context of a national labor policy.
We do not hold that in every case in which the ownership or corporate structure of an enterprise is changed the duty to arbitrate survives. As indicated above, there may be cases in which the lack of any substantial continuity of identity in the business enterprise before and after a change would make a duty to arbitrate something imposed from without, not reasonably to be found in the particular bargaining agreement and the acts of the parties involved. So too, we do not rule out the possibility that a union might abandon its right to arbitration by failing to make its claims known. Neither of these situations is before the Court. Although Wiley was substantially larger than Interscience, relevant similarity and continuity of operation across the change in ownership is adequately evidenced by the wholesale transfer of Inter-science employees to the Wiley plant, apparently without difficulty. The Union made its position known well before the merger and never departed from it. In addition, we do not suggest any view on the questions surrounding a certified union’s claim to continued representative status following a change in ownership. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Aluminum Tubular Corp., 299 F. 2d 595, 598-600; Labor Board v. McFarland, 306 F. 2d 219; Cruse Motors, Inc., 105 N. L. R. B. 242, 247. This Union does not assert that it has any bargaining rights independent of the Interscience agreement; it seeks to arbitrate claims based on that agreement, now expired, not to negotiate a new agreement.
III.
Beyond denying its obligation to arbitrate at all, Wiley urges that the Union’s grievances are not within the scope of the arbitration clause. The issues which the Union sought to arbitrate, as set out in the complaint, are:
“(a) Whether the seniority rights built up by the Interscience employees must be accorded to said employees now and after January 30, 1962.
“(b) Whether, as part of the wage structure of the employees, the Company is under an obligation to continue to make contributions to District 65 Security Plan and District 65 Security Plan Pension Fund now and after January 30, 1962.
“(c) Whether the job security and grievance provisions of the contract between the parties shall continue in full force and effect.
“(d) Whether the Company must obligate itself to continue liable now and after January 30, 1962 as to severance pay under the contract.
“(e) Whether the Company must obligate itself to continue liable now and after January 30, 1962 for vacation pay under the contract.”
Section 16.0 of the collective bargaining agreement provides for arbitration as the final stage of grievance procedures which are stated to be the “sole means of obtaining adjustment” of “any differences, grievance or dispute between the Employer and the Union arising out of or relating to this agreement, or its interpretation or application, or enforcement . . . .” There are a number of specific exceptions to the coverage of the grievance procedures, none of which is applicable here. Apart from them, the intended wide breadth of the arbitration clause is reflected by § 16.9 of the agreement which provides, with an irrelevant exception;
“. . . [T]he arbitration procedure herein set forth is the sole and exclusive remedy of the parties hereto and the employees covered hereby, for any claimed violations of this contract, and for any and all acts or omissions claimed to have been committed by either party during the term of this agreement, and such arbitration procedure shall be (except to enforce, vacate, or modify awards) in lieu of any and all other remedies, forums at law, in equity or otherwise which will or may be available to either of the parties. . . .”
All of the Union’s grievances concern conditions of employment typically covered by collective bargaining agreements and submitted to arbitration if other grievance procedures fail. Specific provision for each of them is made in the Interscience agreement. There is thus no question that had a dispute concerning any of these subjects, such as seniority rights or severance pay, arisen between the Union and Interscience prior to the merger, it would have been arbitrable. Wiley argues, however, that the Union’s claims are plainly outside the scope of the arbitration clause: first, because the agreement did not embrace post-merger claims, and, second, because the claims relate to a period beyond the limited term of the agreement.
In all probability, the situation created by the merger was one not expressly contemplated by the Union or Interscience when the agreement was made in 1960. Fairly taken, however, the Union’s demands collectively raise the question which underlies the whole litigation: What is the effect of the merger on the rights of covered employees? It would be inconsistent with our holding that the obligation to arbitrate survived the merger were we to hold that the fact of the merger, without more, removed claims otherwise plainly arbitrable from the scope of the arbitration clause.
It is true that the Union has framed its issues to claim rights not only “now” — after the merger but during the term of the agreement — but also after the agreement expired by its terms. Claimed rights during the term of the agreement, at least, are unquestionably within the arbitration clause; we do not understand Wiley to urge that the Union’s claims to all such rights have become moot by reason of the expiration of the agreement. As to claimed rights “after January 30, 1962,” it is reasonable to read the claims as based solely on the Union’s construction of the Interscience agreement in such a way that, had there been no merger, Interscience would have been required to discharge certain obligations notwithstanding the expiration of the agreement. We see no reason why parties could not if they so chose agree to the accrual of rights during the term of an agreement and their realization after the agreement had expired. Of course, the Union may not use arbitration to acquire new rights against Wiley any more than it could have used arbitration to negotiate a new contract with Inter-science, had the existing contract expired and renewal negotiations broken down.
Whether or not the Union’s demands have merit will be determined by the arbitrator in light of the fully developed facts. It is sufficient for present purposes that the demands are not so plainly unreasonable that the subject matter of the dispute must be regarded as non-arbitrable because it can be seen in advance that no award to the Union could receive judicial sanction. See Warrior & Gulf, supra, at 582-583.
IV.
Wiley’s final objection to arbitration raises the question of so-called “procedural arbitrability.” The Interscience agreement provides for arbitration as the third stage of the grievance procedure. “Step 1” provides for “a conference between the affected employee, a Union Steward and the Employer, officer or exempt supervisory person in charge of his department.” In “Step 2,” the grievance is submitted to “a conference between an officer of the Employer, or the Employer’s representative designated for that purpose, the Union Shop Committee and/or a representative of the Union.” Arbitration is reached under “Step 3” “in the event that the grievance shall not have been resolved or settled in ‘Step 2.’ ” Wiley argues that since Steps 1 and 2 have not been followed, and since the duty to arbitrate arises only in Step 3, it has no duty to arbitrate this dispute. Specifically, Wiley urges that the question whether “procedural” conditions to arbitration have been met must be decided by the court and not the arbitrator.
We think that labor disputes of the kind involved here cannot be broken down so easily into their “substantive” and “procedural” aspects. Questions concerning the procedural prerequisites to arbitration do not arise in a vacuum; they develop in the context of an actual dispute about the rights of the parties to the contract or those covered by it. In this case, for example, the Union argues that Wiley’s consistent refusal to recognize the Union’s representative status after the merger made it “utterly futile — and a little bit ridiculous to follow the grievance steps as set forth in the contract.” Brief, p. 41. In addition, the Union argues that time limitations in the grievance procedure are not controlling because Wiley’s violations of the bargaining agreement were “continuing.” These arguments in response to Wiley’s “procedural” claim are meaningless unless set in the background of the merger and the negotiations surrounding it.
Doubt whether grievance procedures or some part of them apply to a particular dispute, whether such procedures have been followed or excused, or whether the unexcused failure to follow them avoids the duty to arbitrate cannot ordinarily be answered without consideration of the merits of the dispute which is presented for arbitration. In this case, one’s view of the Union’s responses to Wiley’s “procedural” arguments depends to a large extent on how one answers questions bearing on the basic issue, the effect of the merger; e. g., whether or not the merger was a possibility considered by Interscience and the Union during the negotiation of the contract. It would be a curious rule which required that intertwined issues of “substance” and “procedure” growing out of a single dispute and raising the same questions on the same facts had to be carved up between two different forums, one deciding after the other. Neither logic nor considerations of policy compel such a result.
Once it is determined, as we have, that the parties are obligated to submit the subject matter of a dispute to arbitration, “procedural” questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition should be left to the arbitrator. Even under a contrary rule, a court could deny arbitration only if it could confidently be said not only that a claim was strictly “procedural,” and therefore within the purview of the court, but also that it should operate to bar arbitration altogether, and not merely limit or qualify an arbitral award. In view of the policies favoring arbitration and the parties’ adoption of arbitration as the preferred means of settling disputes, such cases are likely to be rare indeed. In all other cases, those in which arbitration goes forward, the arbitrator would ordinarily remain free to reconsider the ground covered by the court insofar as it bore on the merits of the dispute, using the flexible approaches familiar to arbitration. Reservation of “procedural” issues for the courts would thus not only create the difficult task of separating related issues, but would also produce frequent duplication of effort.
In addition, the opportunities for deliberate delay and the possibility of well-intentioned but no less serious delay created by separation of the “procedural” and “substantive” elements of a dispute are clear. While the courts have the task of determining “substantive arbitra-bility,” there will be cases in which arbitrability of the subject matter is unquestioned but a dispute arises over the procedures to be followed. In all of such cases, acceptance of Wiley’s position would produce the delay attendant upon judicial proceedings preliminary to arbitration. As this case, commenced in January 1962 and not yet committed to arbitration, well illustrates, such delay may entirely eliminate the prospect of a speedy arbitrated settlement of the dispute, to the disadvantage of the parties (who, in addition, will have to bear increased costs) and contrary to the aims of national labor policy.
No justification for such a generally undesirable result is to be found in a presumed intention of the parties. Refusal to order arbitration of subjects which the parties have not agreed to arbitrate does not entail the fractionating of disputes about subjects which the parties do wish to have submitted. Although a party may resist arbitration once a grievance has arisen, as does Wiley here, we think it best accords with the usual purposes of an arbitration clause and with the policy behind federal labor law to regard procedural disagreements not as separate disputes but as aspects of the dispute which called the grievance procedures into play.
With the reservation indicated at the outset (p. 544 and p. 546, note 1, supra), the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Wiley argues that the Court of Appeals decided that the effect of the merger on the obligation to arbitrate was a question for the arbitrator. The opinion below is unclear. It first states that “the question of 'substantive arbitrability’ is for the court not for the arbitrator to decide.” 313 F. 2d, at 55. At another point, it says: “We merely hold that, as we interpret the collective bargaining agreement before us in the light of Supreme Court decisions enunciating the federal policy of promoting industrial peace and stability, especially with reference to arbitration procedures set up in collective bargaining agreements, we cannot say that it was intended that this consolidation should preclude this Union from proceeding to arbitration to determine the effect of the consolidation on the contract and on the rights of the employees arising under the contract.” 313 F. 2d, at 56-57.
Elsewhere, however, the opinion states: "... [W]e think and hold . . . that it is not too much to expect and require that this employer proceed to arbitration with the representatives of the Union to determine whether the obligation to arbitrate regarding the substantive terms of the contract survived the consolidation on October 2, 1961, and, if so, just what employee rights, if any, survived the consolidation.” 313 F. 2d, at 57 (footnote omitted). Judge Kaufman, concurring separately, plainly thought that the court had left to the arbitrator the question of whether Wiley was obligated to arbitrate at all. 313 F. 2d, at 65, 66.
“The rights of creditors of any constituent corporation shall not in any manner be impaired, nor shall any liability or obligation due or to become due, or any claim or demand for any cause existing against any such corporation or against any stockholder thereof be released or impaired by any such consolidation; but such consolidated corporation shall be deemed to have assumed and shall be liable for all liabilities and obligations of each of the corporations consolidated in the same manner as if such consolidated corporation had itself incurred such liabilities or obligations. The stockholders of the respective constituent corporations shall continue subject to all the liabilities, claims and demands existing against them as such, at or before the consolidation; and no action or proceeding then pending before any court or tribunal in which any constituent corporation is a party, or in which any such stockholder is a party, shall abate or be discontinued by reason of such consolidation, but may be prosecuted to final judgment, as though no consolidation had been entered into; or such consolidated corporation may be substituted as a party in place of any constituent corporation, by order of the court in which such action or proceeding may be pending.”
But cf. the general rule that in the case of a merger the corporation which survives is liable for the debts and contracts of the one which disappears. 15 Fletcher, Private Corporations (1961 rev. ed.), §7121.
Compare the principle that when a contract is scrutinized for evidence of an intention to arbitrate a particular kind of dispute, national labor policy requires, within reason, that “an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute,” Warrior & Gulf, supra, pp. 582-583, be favored.
The fact that the Union does not represent a majority of an appropriate bargaining unit in Wiley does not prevent it from representing those employees who are covered by the agreement which is in dispute and out of which Wiley’s duty to arbitrate arises. Retail Clerks Int’l Assn., Local Unions Nos. 128 & 633, v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 369 U. S. 17. There is no problem of conflict with another union, cf. L. B. Spear & Co., 106 N. L. R. B. 687, since Wiley-had no contract with any union covering the unit of employees which received the former Interscience employees.
Problems might be created by an arbitral award which required Wiley to give special treatment to the former Interscience employees because of rights found to have accrued to them under the Inter-science contract. But the mere possibility of such problems cannot cut off the Union’s right to press the employees’ claims in arbitration. While it would be premature at this stage to speculate on how to avoid such hypothetical problems, we have little doubt that within the flexible procedures of arbitration a solution can be reached which would avoid disturbing labor relations in the Wiley plant.
Section 16.5 provides:
“It is agreed that, in addition to other provisions elsewhere contained in this agreement which expressly deny arbitration to specific events, situations or contract provisions, the following matters shall not be subject to the arbitration provisions of this agreement:
“(1) the amendment or modification of the terms and provisions of this agreement;
“(2) salary or minimum wage rates as set forth herein;
“(3) matters not covered by this agreement; and
“(4) any dispute arising out of any question pertaining to the renewal or extension of this agreement.”
Other provisions of the agreement “which expressly deny arbitration to specific events” are §§4.2, 4.4, 6.4.1, 14.4, 16.9.
See Art. VI: Seniority; Art. XV: Welfare Security Benefits; Art. VII: Discharges and Lay-offs; Art. XXIII: Severance Pay; Art. XII: Vacations.
Wiley apparently concedes the possibility that a right to severance pay might accrue before the expiration of the contract but be payable “at some future date.” Brief, p. 38.
Wiley apparently so construes at least part of one of the Union’s claims. See note 8, supra.
All of these provisions are contained in § 16.0 of the Interscience agreement.
In addition to the failure to follow the procedures of Steps 1 and 2, Wiley objects to the Union’s asserted failure to comply with § 16.6, which provides: “Notice of any grievance must be filed with the Employer and with the Union Shop Steward within four (4) weeks after its occurrence or latest existence. The failure by either party to file the grievance within this time limitation shall be construed and be deemed to be an abandonment of the grievance.”
The Courts of Appeals have disagreed on this issue. The First and Seventh Circuits have held that the courts determine whether procedural conditions to arbitration have been met. Boston Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Insurance Agents’ Int’l Union, 258 F. 2d 516; Brass & Copper Workers Federal Labor Union No. 19322 v. American Brass Co., 272 F. 2d 849. The Third, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits agree with the Second Circuit’s decision in this case that the question of “procedural arbitrability” is for the arbitrator. Radio Corporation of America v. Association of Professional Engineering Personnel, 291 F. 2d 105; Deaton Truck Line, Inc., v. Local Union 612, 314 F. 2d 418; Local 748 v. Jefferson City Cabinet Co., 314 F. 2d 192.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
This case was heretofore held for, and presents the same issues involved in, American Communications Association v. Douds, and United Steelworkers of America v. Labor Board, decided May 8, 1950, 339 U. S. 382. In these cases the Court upheld the constitutionality of § 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, 146, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. III) §§ 141, 159 (h), which provides:
“No investigation shall be made by the [National Labor Relations] Board of any question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsection (c) of this section, no petition under subsection (e) (1) of this section shall be entertained, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 160 of this title, unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods.”
With regard to that part of the section which is concerned with membership in, or affiliation with, the Communist Party, the Court holds the requirement to be constitutional. Mr. Justice Black dissents for reasons stated in his dissent in American Communications Association v. Douds, supra.
With regard to the constitutionality of other relevant parts of the section, the Court is equally divided. Mr. Justice Minton joins in the views expressed by The Chief Justice, who was joined by Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burton in the cases above cited. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Jackson adhere to their opinions in those cases. Mr. Justice Douglas joins the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Jackson insofar as they hold unconstitutional the portion of the oath dealing with beliefs, and being of the view that provisions of the oath are not separable votes to reverse. He therefore does not find it necessary to reach the question of the constitutionality of the other part of the oath. The judgment of the District Court is therefore
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from imposing a “ 'grossly excessive’ ” punishment on a tortfeasor. TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U. S. 443, 454 (1993) (and cases cited). The wrongdoing involved in this case was the decision by a national distributor of automobiles not to advise its dealers, and hence their customers, of predelivery damage to new cars when the cost of repair amounted to less than 3 percent of the car’s suggested retail price. The question presented is whether a $2 million punitive damages award to the purchaser of one of these cars exceeds the constitutional limit.
t — (
In January 1990, Dr. Ira Gore, Jr. (respondent), purchased a black BMW sports sedan for $40,750.88 from an authorized BMW dealer in Birmingham, Alabama. After driving the car for approximately nine months, and without noticing any flaws in its appearance, Dr. Gore took the car to “Slick Finish,” an independent detailer, to make it look “ ‘snazzier than it normally would appear.’ ” 646 So. 2d 619, 621 (Ala. 1994). Mr. Slick, the proprietor, detected evidence that the car had been repainted. Convinced that he had been cheated, Dr. Gore brought suit against petitioner BMW of North America (BMW), the American distributor of BMW automobiles. Dr. Gore alleged, inter alia, that the failure to disclose that the car had been repainted constituted suppression of a material fact. The complaint prayed for $500,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, and costs.
At trial, BMW acknowledged that it had adopted a nationwide policy in 1983 concerning cars that were damaged in the course of manufacture or transportation. If the cost of repairing the damage exceeded 3 percent of the car’s suggested retail price, the car was placed in company service for a period of time and then sold as used. If the repair cost did not exceed 3 percent of the suggested retail price, however, the car was sold as new without advising the dealer that any repairs had been made. Because the $601.37 cost of repainting Dr. Gore’s car was only about 1.5 percent of its suggested retail price, BMW did not disclose the damage or repair to the Birmingham dealer.
Dr. Gore asserted that his repainted car was worth less than a car that had not been refinished. To prove his actual damages of $4,000, he relied on the testimony of a former BMW dealer, who estimated that the value of a repainted BMW was approximately 10 percent less than the value of a new car that had not been damaged and repaired. To support his claim for punitive damages, Dr. Gore introduced evidence that since 1983 BMW had sold 983 refinished cars as new, including 14 in Alabama, without disclosing that the cars had been repainted before sale at a cost of more than $300 per vehicle. Using the actual damage estimate of $4,000 per vehicle, Dr. Gore argued that a punitive award of $4 million would provide an appropriate penalty for selling approximately 1,000 cars for more than they were worth.
In defense of its disclosure policy, BMW argued that it was under no obligation to disclose repairs of minor damage to new cars and that Dr. Gore’s car was as good as a car with the original factory finish. It disputed Dr. Gore’s assertion that the value of the car was impaired by the repainting and argued that this good-faith belief made a punitive award inappropriate. BMW also maintained that transactions in jurisdictions other than Alabama had no relevance to Dr. Gore’s claim.
The jury returned a verdict finding BMW liable for compensatory damages of $4,000. In addition, the jury assessed $4 million in punitive damages, based on a determination that the nondisclosure policy constituted “gross, oppressive or malicious” fraud. See Ala. Code §§6-11-20, 6-11-21 (1993).
BMW filed a post-trial motion to set aside the punitive damages award. The company introduced evidence to establish that its nondisclosure policy was consistent with the laws of roughly 25 States defining the disclosure obligations of automobile manufacturers, distributors, and dealers. The most stringent of these statutes required disclosure of repairs costing more than 3 percent of the suggested retail price; none mandated disclosure of less costly repairs. Relying on these statutes, BMW contended that its conduct was lawful in these States and therefore could not provide the basis for an award of punitive damages.
BMW also drew the court’s attention to the fact that its nondisclosure policy had never been adjudged unlawful before this action was filed. Just months before Dr. Gore’s case went to trial, the jury in a similar lawsuit filed by another Alabama BMW purchaser found that BMW’s failure to disclose paint repair constituted fraud. Yates v. BMW of North America, Inc., 642 So. 2d 937 (Ala. 1993). Before the judgment in this case, BMW changed its policy by taking steps to avoid the sale of any refinished vehicles in Alabama and two other States. When the $4 million verdict was returned in this case, BMW promptly instituted a nationwide policy of full disclosure of all repairs, no matter how minor.
In response to BMW’s arguments, Dr. Gore asserted that the policy change demonstrated the efficacy of the punitive damages award. He noted that while no jury had held the policy unlawful, BMW had received a number of customer complaints relating to undisclosed repairs and had settled some lawsuits. Finally, he maintained that the disclosure statutes of other States were irrelevant because BMW had failed to offer any evidence that the disclosure statutes supplanted, rather than supplemented, existing causes of action for common-law fraud.
The trial judge denied BMW’s post-trial motion, holding, inter alia, that the award was not excessive. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court also rejected BMW’s claim that the award exceeded the constitutionally permissible amount. 646 So. 2d 619 (1994). The court’s excessiveness inquiry applied the factors articulated in Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby, 539 So. 2d 218, 223-224 (Ala. 1989), and approved in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1, 21-22 (1991). 646 So. 2d, at 624-625. Based on its analysis, the court concluded that BMW’s conduct was “reprehensible”; the nondisclosure was profitable for the company; the judgment “would not have a substantial impact upon [BMW’s] financial position”; the litigation had been expensive; no criminal sanctions had been imposed on BMW for the same conduct; the award of no punitive damages in Yates reflected “the inherent uncertainty of the trial process”; and the punitive award bore a “reasonable relationship” to “the harm that was likely to occur from [BMW’s] conduct as well as... the harm that actually occurred.” 646 So. 2d, at 625-627.
The Alabama Supreme Court did, however, rule in BMW’s favor on one critical point: The court found that the jury improperly computed the amount of punitive damages by multiplying Dr. Gore’s compensatory damages by the number of similar sales in other jurisdictions. Id., at 627. Having found the verdict tainted, the court held that “a constitutionally reasonable punitive damages award in this case is $2,000,000,” id., at 629, and therefore ordered a remittitur in that amount. The court’s discussion of the amount of its remitted award expressly disclaimed any reliance on “acts that occurred in other jurisdictions”; instead, the court explained that it had used a “comparative analysis” that considered Alabama cases, “along with cases from other jurisdictions, involving the sale of an automobile where the seller misrepresented the condition of the vehicle and the jury awarded punitive damages to the purchaser.” Id., at 628.
Because we believed that a review of this case would help to illuminate “the character of the standard that will identify unconstitutionally excessive awards” of punitive damages, see Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U. S. 415, 420 (1994), we granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 1125 (1995).
II
Punitive damages may properly be imposed to further a State’s legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 350 (1974); Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247, 266-267 (1981); Haslip, 499 U. S., at 22. In our federal system, States necessarily have considerable flexibility in determining the level of punitive damages that they will allow in different classes of cases and in any particular case. Most States that authorize exemplary damages afford the jury similar latitude, requiring only that the damages awarded be reasonably necessary to vindicate the State’s legitimate interests in punishment and deterrence. See TXO, 509 U. S., at 456; Haslip, 499 U. S., at 21, 22. Only when an award can fairly be categorized as “grossly excessive” in relation to these interests does it enter the zone of arbitrariness that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. TXO, 509 U. S., at 456. For that reason, the federal excessiveness inquiry appropriately begins with an identification of the state interests that a punitive award is designed to serve. We therefore focus our attention first on the scope of Alabama’s legitimate interests in punishing BMW and deterring it from future misconduct.
No one doubts that a State may protect its citizens by prohibiting deceptive trade practices and by requiring automobile distributors to disclose presale repairs that affect the value of a new car. But the States need not, and in fact do not, provide such protection in a uniform manner. Some States rely on the judicial process to formulate and enforce an appropriate disclosure requirement by applying principles of contract and tort law. Other States have enacted various forms of legislation that define the disclosure obligations of automobile manufacturers, distributors, and dealers. The result is a patchwork of rules representing the diverse policy judgments of lawmakers in 50 States.
That diversity demonstrates that reasonable people may disagree about the value of a full disclosure requirement. Some legislatures may conclude that affirmative disclosure requirements are unnecessary because the self-interest of those involved in the automobile trade in developing and maintaining the goodwill of their customers will motivate them to make voluntary disclosures or to refrain from selling cars that do not comply with self-imposed standards. Those legislatures that do adopt affirmative disclosure obligations may take into account the cost of government regulation, choosing to draw a line exempting minor repairs from such a requirement. In formulating a disclosure standard, States may also consider other goals, such as providing a “safe harbor” for automobile manufacturers, distributors, and dealers against lawsuits over minor repairs.
We may assume, arguendo, that it would be wise for every State to adopt Dr. Gore’s preferred rule, requiring full disclosure of every presale repair to a car, no matter how trivial and regardless of its actual impact on the value of the car. But while we do not doubt that Congress has ample authority to enact such a policy for the entire Nation, it is clear that no single State could do so, or even impose its own policy choice on neighboring States. See Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592, 594 (1881) (“No State can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction.... Each State is independent of all the others in this particular”). Similarly, one State’s power to impose burdens on the interstate market for automobiles is not only subordinate to the federal power over interstate commerce, Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 194-196 (1824), but is also constrained by the need to respect the interests of other States, see, e. g., Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U. S. 324, 335-336 (1989) (the Constitution has a “special concern both with the maintenance of a national economic union unfettered by state-imposed limitations on interstate commerce and with the autonomy of the individual States within their respective spheres” (footnote omitted)); Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U. S. 624, 643 (1982).
We think it follows from these principles of state sovereignty and comity that a State may not impose economic sanctions on violators of its laws with the intent of changing the tortfeasors’ lawful conduct in other States. Before this Court Dr. Gore argued that the large punitive damages award was necessary to induce BMW to change the nationwide policy that it adopted in 1983. But by attempting to alter BMW’s nationwide policy, Alabama would be infringing on the policy choices of other States. To avoid such encroachment, the economic penalties that a State such as Alabama inflicts on those who transgress its laws, whether the penalties take the form of legislatively authorized fines or judicially imposed punitive damages, must be supported by the State’s interest in protecting its own consumers and its own economy. Alabama may insist that BMW adhere to a particular disclosure policy in that State. Alabama does not have the power, however, to punish BMW for conduct that was lawful where it occurred and that had no impact on Alabama or its residents. Nor may Alabama impose sanctions on BMW in order to deter conduct that is lawful in other jurisdictions.
In this case, we accept the Alabama Supreme Court’s interpretation of the jury verdict as reflecting a computation of the amount of punitive damages “based in large part on conduct that happened in other jurisdictions.” 646 So. 2d, at 627. As the Alabama Supreme Court noted, neither the jury nor the trial court was presented with evidence that any of BMW’s out-of-state conduct was unlawful. “The only testimony touching the issue showed that approximately 60% of the vehicles that were refinished were sold in states where failure to disclose the repair was not an unfair trade practice.” Id., at 627, n. 6. The Alabama Supreme Court therefore properly eschewed reliance on BMW’s out-of-state conduct, id., at 628, and based its remitted award solely on conduct that occurred within Alabama. The award must be analyzed in the light of the same conduct, with consideration given only to the interests of Alabama consumers, rather than those of the entire Nation. When the scope of the interest in punishment and deterrence that an Alabama court may appropriately consider is properly limited, it is apparent—for reasons that we shall now address—that this award is grossly excessive.
Ill
Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose. Three guideposts, each of which indicates that BMW did not receive adequate notice of the magnitude of the sanction that Alabama might impose for adhering to the nondisclosure policy adopted in 1983, lead us to the conclusion that the $2 million award against BMW is grossly excessive: the degree of reprehensibility of the nondisclosure; the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by Dr. Gore and his punitive damages award; and the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. We discuss these considerations in turn.
Degree of Reprehensibility
Perhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct. As the Court stated nearly 150 years ago, exemplary damages imposed on a defendant should reflect “the enormity of his offense.” Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 371 (1852). See also St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Williams, 251 U. S. 63, 66-67 (1919) (punitive award may not be “wholly disproportioned to the offense”); Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257, 301 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (reviewing court “should examine the gravity of the defendant’s conduct and the harshness of the award of punitive damages”). This principle reflects the accepted view that some wrongs are more blameworthy than others. Thus, we have said that “nonviolent crimes are less serious than crimes marked by violence or the threat of violence.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 292-293 (1983). Similarly, “trickery and deceit,” TXO, 509 U. S., at 462, are more reprehensible than negligence. In TXO, both the West Virginia Supreme Court and the Justices of this Court placed special emphasis on the principle that punitive damages may not be “grossly out of proportion to the severity of the offense.” Id., at 453, 462. Indeed, for Justice Kennedy, the defendant’s intentional malice was the decisive element in a “close and difficult” case. Id., at 468.
In this case, none of the aggravating factors associated with particularly reprehensible conduct is present. The harm BMW inflicted on Dr. Gore was purely economic in nature. The presale refinishing of the car had no effect on its performance or safety features, or even its appearance for at least nine months after his purchase. BMW’s conduct evinced no indifference to or reckless disregard for the health and safety of others. To be sure, infliction of economic injury, especially when done intentionally through affirmative acts of misconduct, id., at 453, or when the target is financially vulnerable, can warrant a substantial penalty. But this observation does not convert all acts that cause economic harm into torts that are sufficiently reprehensible to justify a significant sanction in addition to compensatory damages.
Dr. Gore contends that BMW’s conduct was particularly reprehensible because nondisclosure of the repairs to his car formed part of a nationwide pattern of tortious conduct. Certainly, evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing or suspecting that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendant’s disrespect for the law. See id., at 462, n. 28. Our holdings that a recidivist may be punished more severely than a first offender recognize that repeated misconduct is more reprehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance. See Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728, 732 (1948).
In support of his thesis, Dr. Gore advances two arguments. First, he asserts that the state disclosure statutes supplement, rather than supplant, existing remedies for breach of contract and common-law fraud. Thus, according to Dr. Gore, the statutes may not properly be viewed as immunizing from liability the nondisclosure of repairs costing less than the applicable statutory threshold. Brief for Respondent 18-19. Second, Dr. Gore maintains that BMW should have anticipated that its failure to disclose similar repair work could expose it to liability for fraud. Id., at 4-5.
We recognize, of course, that only state courts may authoritatively construe state statutes. As far as we are aware, at the time this action was commenced no state court had explicitly addressed whether its State’s disclosure statute provides a safe harbor for nondisclosure of presumptively minor repairs or should be construed instead as supplementing common-law duties. A review of the text of the statutes, however, persuades us that in the absence of a state-court determination to the contrary, a corporate executive could reasonably interpret the disclosure requirements as establishing safe harbors. In California, for example, the disclosure statute defines “material” damage to a motor vehicle as damage requiring repairs costing in excess of 3 percent of the suggested retail price or $500, whichever is greater. Cal. Veh. Code Ann. § 9990 (West Supp. 1996). The Illinois statute states that in cases in which disclosure is not required, “nondisclosure does not constitute a misrepresentation or omission of fact.” Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 815, §710/5 (1994). Perhaps the statutes may also be interpreted in another way. We simply emphasize that the record contains no evidence that BMW’s decision to follow a disclosure policy that coincided with the strictest extant state statute was sufficiently reprehensible to justify a $2 million award of punitive damages.
Dr. Gore’s second argument for treating BMW as a recidivist is that the company should have anticipated that its actions would be considered fraudulent in some, if not all, jurisdictions. This contention overlooks the fact that actionable fraud requires a material misrepresentation or omission. This qualifier invites line-drawing of just the sort engaged in by States with disclosure statutes and by BMW. We do not think it can be disputed that there may exist minor imperfections in the finish of a new car that can be repaired (or indeed, left unrepaired) without materially affecting the car’s value. There is no evidence that BMW acted in bad faith when it sought to establish the appropriate line between presumptively minor damage and damage requiring disclosure to purchasers. For this purpose, BMW could reasonably rely on state disclosure statutes for guidance. In this regard, it is also significant that there is no evidence that BMW persisted in a course of conduct after it had been adjudged unlawful on even one occasion, let alone repeated occasions.
Finally, the record in this case discloses no deliberate false statements, acts of affirmative misconduct, or concealment of evidence of improper motive, such as were present in Haslip and TXO. Haslip, 499 U. S., at 5; TXO, 509 U. S., at 453. We accept, of course, the jury’s finding that BMW suppressed a material fact which Alabama law obligated it to communicate to prospective purchasers of repainted cars in that State. But the omission of a material fact may be less reprehensible than a deliberate false statement, particularly when there is a good-faith basis for believing that no duty to disclose exists.
That conduct is sufficiently reprehensible to give rise to tort liability, and even a modest award of exemplary damages does not establish the high degree of culpability that warrants a substantial punitive damages award. Because this case exhibits none of the circumstances ordinarily associated with egregiously improper conduct, we are persuaded that BMW’s conduct was not sufficiently reprehensible to warrant imposition of a $2 million exemplary damages award.
Ratio
The second and perhaps most commonly cited indicium of an unreasonable or excessive punitive damages award is its ratio to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff. See TXO, 509 U. S., at 459; Haslip, 499 U. S., at 23. The principle that exemplary damages must bear a “reasonable relationship” to compensatory damages has a long pedigree. Scholars have identified a number of early English statutes authorizing the award of multiple damages for particular wrongs. Some 65 different enactments during the period between 1275 and 1753 provided for double, treble, or quadruple damages. Our decisions in both Haslip and TXO endorsed the proposition that a comparison between the compensatory award and the punitive award is significant.
In Haslip we concluded that even though a punitive damages award of “more than 4 times the amount of compensatory damages” might be “close to the line,” it did not “cross the line into the area of constitutional impropriety.” 499 U. S., at 23-24. TXO, following dicta in Haslip, refined this analysis by confirming that the proper inquiry is “ 'whether there is a reasonable relationship between the punitive damages award and the harm likely to result from the defendant’s conduct as well as the harm that actually has occurred.’” TXO, 509 U. S., at 460 (emphasis in original), quoting Haslip, 499 U. S., at 21. Thus, in upholding the $10 million award in TXO, we relied on the difference between that figure and the harm to the victim that would have ensued if the tortious plan had succeeded. That difference suggested that the relevant ratio was not more than 10 to l.
The $2 million in punitive damages awarded to Dr. Gore by the Alabama Supreme Court is 500 times the amount of his actual harm as determined by the jury. Moreover, there is no suggestion that Dr. Gore or any other BMW purchaser was threatened with any additional potential harm by BMW’s nondisclosure policy. The disparity in this case is thus dramatically greater than those considered in Haslip and TXO.
Of course, we have consistently rejected the notion that the constitutional line is marked by a simple mathematical formula, even one that compares actual and potential damages to the punitive award. TXO, 509 U. S., at 458. Indeed, low awards of compensatory damages may properly support a higher ratio than high compensatory awards, if, for example, a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages. A higher ratio may also be justified in cases in which the injury is hard to detect or the monetary value of noneconomic harm might have been difficult to determine. It is appropriate, therefore, to reiterate our rejection of a categorical approach. Once again, “we return to what we said... in Haslip: We need not, and indeed we cannot, draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable that would fit every case. We can say, however, that [a] general concer[n] of reasonableness... properly enters] into the constitutional calculus.’” Id., at 458 (quoting Haslip, 499 U. S., at 18). In most cases, the ratio will be within a constitutionally acceptable range, and remittitur will not be justified on this basis. When the ratio is a breathtaking 500 to 1, however, the award must surely “raise a suspicious judicial eyebrow.” TXO, 509 U. S., at 481 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).
Sanctions for Comparable Misconduct
Comparing the punitive damages award and the civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct provides a third indicium of excessiveness. As Justice O’Connor has correctly observed, a reviewing court engaged in determining whether an award of punitive damages is excessive should “accord ‘substantial deference’ to legislative judgments concerning appropriate sanctions for the conduct at issue.” Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S., at 301 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). In Haslip, 499 U. S., at 23, the Court noted that although the exemplary award was “much in excess of the fine that could be imposed,” imprisonment was also authorized in the criminal context. In this case the $2 million economic sanction imposed on BMW is substantially greater than the statutory fines available in Alabama and elsewhere for similar malfeasance.
The maximum civil penalty authorized by the Alabama Legislature for a violation of its Deceptive Trade Practices Act is $2,000; other States authorize more severe sanctions, with the maxima ranging from $5,000 to $10,000. Significantly, some statutes draw a distinction between first offenders and recidivists; thus, in New York the penalty is $50 for a first offense and $250 for subsequent offenses. None of these statutes would provide an out-of-state distributor with fair notice that the first violation — or, indeed the first 14 violations — of its provisions might subject an offender to a multimillion dollar penalty. Moreover, at the time BMW’s policy was first challenged, there does not appear to have been any judicial decision in Alabama or elsewhere indicating that application of that policy might give rise to such severe punishment.
The sanction imposed in this case cannot be justified on the ground that it was necessary to deter future misconduct without considering whether less drastic remedies could be expected to achieve that goal. The fact that a multimillion dollar penalty prompted a change in policy sheds no light on the question whether a lesser deterrent would have adequately protected the interests of Alabama consumers. In the absence of a history of noncompliance with known statutory requirements, there is no basis for assuming that a more modest sanction would not have been sufficient to motivate full compliance with the disclosure requirement imposed by the Alabama Supreme Court in this case.
IV
We assume, as the juries in this case and in the Yates case found, that the undisclosed damage to the new BMW’s affected their actual value. Notwithstanding the evidence adduced by BMW in an effort to prove that the repainted cars conformed to the same quality standards as its other cars, we also assume that it knew, or should have known, that as time passed the repainted cars would lose their attractive appearance more rapidly than other BMW’s. Moreover, we of course accept the Alabama courts’ view that the state interest in protecting its citizens from deceptive trade practices justifies a sanction in addition to the recovery of compensatory damages. We cannot, however, accept the conclusion of the Alabama Supreme Court that BMW’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to justify a punitive sanction that is tantamount to a severe criminal penalty.
The fact that BMW is a large corporation rather than an impecunious individual does not diminish its entitlement to fair notice of the demands that the several States impose on the conduct of its business. Indeed, its status as an active participant in the national economy implicates the federal interest in preventing individual States from imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce. While each State has ample power to protect its own consumers, none may use the punitive damages deterrent as a means of imposing its regulatory policies on the entire Nation.
As in Haslip, we are not prepared to draw a bright line marking the limits of a constitutionally acceptable punitive damages award. Unlike that case, however, we are fully convinced that the grossly excessive award imposed in this case transcends the constitutional limit. Whether the appropriate remedy requires a new trial or merely an independent determination by the Alabama Supreme Court of the award necessary to vindicate the economic interests of Alabama consumers is a matter that should be addressed by the state court in the first instance.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The top, hood, trunk, and quarter panels of Dr. Gore’s car were repainted at BMW’s vehicle preparation center in Brunswick, Georgia. The parties presumed that the damage was caused by exposure to acid rain during transit between the manufacturing plant in Germany and the preparation center.
Dr. Gore also named the German manufacturer and the Birmingham dealership as defendants.
Alabama codified its common-law cause of action for fraud in a 1907 statute that is still in effect. Hackmeyer v. Hackmeyer, 268 Ala. 329, 333, 106 So. 2d 245, 249 (1958). The statute provides: “Suppression of a material fact which the party is under an obligation to communicate constitutes fraud. The obligation to communicate may arise from the confidential relations of the parties or from the particular circumstances of the case.” Ala. Code §6-5-102 (1993); see Ala. Code §4299 (1907).
The dealer who testified to the reduction in value is the former owner of the Birmingham dealership sued in this action. He sold the dealership approximately one year before the trial.
Dr. Gore did not explain the significance of the $300 cutoff.
The jury also found the Birmingham dealership liable for Dr. Gore’s compensatory damages and the German manufacturer liable for both the compensatory and punitive damages. The dealership did not appeal the judgment against it. The Alabama Supreme Court held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the German manufacturer and therefore reversed the judgment against that defendant.
BMW acknowledged that a Georgia statute enacted after Dr. Gore purchased his car would require disclosure of similar repairs to a car before it was sold in Georgia. Ga. Code Ann. §§ 40 — 1—5(b)—(e) (1994).
While awarding a comparable amount of compensatory damages, the Yates jury awarded no punitive damages at all. In Yates, the plaintiff also relied on the 1983 nondisclosure policy, but instead of offering evidence of 983 repairs costing more than $300 each, he introduced a bulk exhibit containing 5,856 repair bills to show that petitioner had sold over 5,800 new BMW vehicles without disclosing that they had been repaired.
Prior to the lawsuits filed by Dr. Yates and Dr. Gore, BMW and various BMW dealers had been sued 14 times concerning presale paint or damage repair. According to the testimony of BMW’s in-house counsel at the postjudgment hearing on damages, only one of the suits concerned a car repainted by BMW.
The Alabama Supreme Court did not indicate whether the $2 million figure represented the court’s independent assessment of the appropriate level of punitive damages, or its determination of the maximum amount that the jury could have awarded consistent with the Due Process Clause.
Other than Yates v. BMW of North America, Inc., 642 So. 2d 937 (1993), in which no punitive damages were awarded, the Alabama Supreme Court cited no such cases. In another portion of its opinion, 646 So. 2d, at 629, the court did cite five Alabama eases, none of which involved either a dispute arising out of the purchase of an automobile or an award of punitive damages. G. M. Mosley Contractors, Inc. v. Phillips, 487 So. 2d 876, 879 (1986); Hollis v. Wyrosdick, 508 So. 2d 704 (1987); Campbell v. Burns, 512 So. 2d 1341, 1343 (1987); Ashbee v. Brock, 510 So. 2d 214 (1987); and Jawad v. Granade, 497 So. 2d 471 (1986). All of these cases support the proposition that appellate courts in Alabama presume that jury verdicts are correct. In light of the Alabama Supreme Court’s conclusion that (1) the jury had computed its award by multiplying $4,000 by the number of refinished vehicles sold in the United States and (2) that the award should have been based on Alabama conduct, respect for the error-free portion of the jury verdict would seem to produce an award of $56,000 ($4,000 multiplied by 14, the number of repainted vehicles sold in Alabama).
See, e. g., Rivers v. BMW of North America, Inc., 214 Ga. App. 880, 449 S. E. 2d 337 (1994) (nondisclosure of presale paint repairs that occurred before state disclosure statute enacted); Wedmore v. Jordan Motors, Inc., 589 N. E. 2d 1180 (Ind. App. 1992) (same).
Four States require disclosure of vehicle repairs costing more than 3 percent of suggested retail price. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-1304.03 (1989); N. C. Gen. Stat. §20-305.1(d)(5a) (1995); S. C. Code §56-32-20 (Supp. 1995); Va. Code Ann. §46.2-1571(D) (Supp. 1995). An additional three States mandate disclosure when the cost of repairs exceeds 3 percent or $500, whichever is greater. Ala. Code § 8-19-5(22)(c) (1993); Cal. Veh. Code Ann. §§9990-9991 (West Supp. 1996); Okla. Stat., Tit. 47, §1112.1 (1991). Indiana imposes a 4 percent disclosure threshold. Ind. Code §§9-23-4-4, 9-23-4-5 (1993). Minnesota requires disclosure of repairs costing more than 4 percent of suggested retail price or $500, whichever is greater. Minn. Stat. §325F.664 (1994). New York requires disclosure when the cost of repairs exceeds 5 percent of suggested retail price. N. Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 396-p
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, codefendants at trial, made timely motions for appointment of separate counsel, based on the representations of their appointed counsel that, because of confidential information received from the codefendants, he was confronted with the risk of representing conflicting interests and could not, therefore, provide effective assistance for each client. We granted certiorari to decide whether petitioners were deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by the denial of those motions. 430 U. S. 965 (1977).
I
Early in the morning of June 1, 1975, three men entered a Little Rock, Ark., restaurant and robbed and terrorized the five employees of the restaurant. During the course of the robbery, one of the two female employees was raped once; the other, twice. The ensuing police investigation led to the arrests of the petitioners.
On July 29, 1975, the three defendants were each charged with one count of robbery and two counts of rape. On August 5, the trial court appointed Harold Hall, a public defender, to represent all three defendants. Petitioners were then arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Two days later, their cases were set for a consolidated trial to' commence September 4.
On August 13, Hall moved the court to appoint separate counsel for each petitioner because “the defendants ha[d] stated to him that there is a possibility of a conflict of interest in each of their cases ...” After conducting a hearing on this motion, and on petitioners’ motions for a severance, the court declined to appoint separate counsel.
Before trial, the same judge who later presided at petitioners’ trial conducted a Jackson v. Denno hearing to determine the admissibility of a confession purportedly made by petitioner Campbell to two police officers at the time of his arrest. The essence of the confession was that Campbell had entered the restaurant with his codefendants and had remained, armed with a rifle, one flight of stairs above the site of the robbery and rapes (apparently serving as a lookout), but had not taken part in the rapes. The trial judge ruled the confession admissible, but ordered deletion of the references to Campbell’s codefendants. At trial one of the arresting officers testified to Campbell’s confession.
On September 4, before the jury was empaneled, Hall renewed the motion for appointment of separate counsel “on the grounds that one or two of the defendants may testify and, if they do, then I will not be able to cross-examine them because I have received confidential information from them.” The court responded, “I don’t know why you wouldn’t,” and again denied the motion.
The prosecution then proceeded to present its case. The manager of the restaurant identified petitioners Holloway and Campbell as two of the robbers. Another male employee identified Holloway and petitioner Welch. A third identified only Holloway. The victim of the single rape identified Holloway and Welch as two of the robbers but was unable to identify the man who raped her. The victim of the double rape identified Holloway as the first rapist. She was unable to identify the second rapist but identified Campbell as one of the robbers.
On the second day of trial, after the prosecution had rested its case, Hall advised the court that, against his recommendation, all three defendants had decided to testify. He then stated:
“Now, since I have been appointed, I had previously filed a motion asking the Court to appoint a separate attorney for each defendant because of a possible conflict of interest. This conflict will probably be now coming up since each one of them wants to testify.
“THE COURT: That’s all right; let them testify. There is no conflict of interest. Every time I try more than one person in this court each one blames it on the other one.
“MR. HALL: I have talked to each one of these defendants, and I have talked to them individually, not collectively.
“THE COURT: Now talk to them collectively.”
The court then indicated satisfaction that each petitioner understood the nature and consequences of his right to testify on his own behalf, whereupon Hall observed:
“I am in a position now where I am more or less muzzled as to any cross-examination.
“THE COURT: You have no right to cross-examine your own witness.
“MR. HALL: Or to examine them.
“THE COURT: You have a right to examine them, but have no right to cross-examine them. The prosecuting attorney does that.
“MR. HALL: If one '[defendant] takes the stand, somebody needs to protect the other two’s interest while that one is testifying, and I can’t do that since I have talked to each one individually.
“THE COURT: Well, you have talked to them, I assume, individually and collectively, too. They all say they want to testify. I think it’s perfectly alright [sic] for them to testify if they want to, or not. It’s their business.
“Each defendant said he wants to testify, and there will be no cross-examination of these witnesses, just a direct examination by you.
“MR. HALL: Your Honor, I can’t even put them on direct examination because if I ask them—
“THE COURT: (Interposing) You can just put them on the stand and tell the Court that you have advised them of their rights and they want to testify; then you tell the man to go ahead and relate what he wants to. That’s all you need to do.”
Holloway took the stand on his own behalf, testifying that during the time described as the time of the robbery he was at his brother’s home. His brother had previously given similar testimony. When Welch took the witness stand, the record shows Hall advised him, as he had Holloway, that “I cannot ask you any questions that might tend to incriminate any one of the three of you .... Now, the only thing I can say is tell these ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you know about this case . . . .” Welch responded that he did not “have any kind of speech ready for the jury or anything. I thought I was going to be questioned.” When Welch denied, from the witness stand, that he was at the restaurant the night of the robbery, Holloway interrupted, asking:
“Your Honor, are we allowed to make an objection?
“THE COURT: No, sir. Your counsel will take care of any objections.
“MR. HALL: Your Honor, that is what I am trying to say. I can’t cross-examine them.
“THE COURT: You proceed like I tell you to, Mr. Hall. You have no right to cross-examine your own witnesses anyhow.”
Welch proceeded with his unguided direct testimony, denying any involvement in the crime and stating that he was at his home at the time it occurred. Campbell gave .similar testimony when he took the stand. He also denied making any confession to the arresting officers.
The jury rejected the versions of events presented by the three defendants and the alibi witness, and returned guilty verdicts on all counts. On appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, petitioners raised the claim that their representation by a single appointed attorney, over their objection, violated federal constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel. In resolving this issue, the court relied on what it characterized as the majority rule:
“[T]he record must show some material basis for an alleged conflict of interest, before reversible error occurs in single representation of co-defendants.” 260 Ark. 250, 256, 539 S. W. 2d 435, 439 (1977).
Turning to the record in the case, the court observed that Hall had failed to outline to the trial court both the nature of the confidential information received from his clients and the manner in which knowledge of that information created conflicting loyalties. Because none of the petitioners had incriminated codefendants while testifying, the court concluded that the record demonstrated no actual conflict of interests or prejudice to the petitioners, and therefore affirmed.
II
More than 35 years ago, in Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60 (1942), this Court held that by requiring an attorney to represent two codefendants whose interests were in conflict the District Court had denied one of the defendants his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. In that case the Government tried five codefendants in a joint trial for conspiracy to defraud the United States. Two of the defendants, Glasser and Kretske, were represented initially by separate counsel. On the second day of trial, however, Kretske became dissatisfied with his attorney and dismissed him. The District Judge thereupon asked Glasser’s attorney, Stewart, if he would also represent Kretske. Stewart responded by noting a possible conflict of interests: His representation of both Glasser and Kretske might lead the jury to link the two men together. Glasser also made known that he objected to the proposal. The District Court nevertheless appointed Stewart, who continued as Glasser’s retained counsel, to represent Kretske. Both men were convicted.
Glasser contended in this Court that Stewart’s representation at trial was ineffective because of a conflict between the interests of his two clients. This Court held that “the ‘assistance of counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment contemplates that such assistance be untrammeled and unimpaired by a court order requiring that one lawyer should simultaneously represent conflicting interests.” Id., at 70. The record disclosed that Stewart failed to cross-examine a Government witness whose testimony linked Glasser with the conspiracy and failed to object to the admission of arguably inadmissible evidence. This failure was viewed by the Court as a result of Stewart’s desire to protect Kretske’s interests, and was thus “indicative of Stewart’s struggle to serve two masters . . . .” Id., at 75. After identifying this conflict of interests, the Court declined to inquire whether the prejudice flowing from it was harmless and instead ordered Glasser’s conviction reversed. Kretske’s conviction, however, was affirmed.
One principle applicable here emerges from Glasser without ambiguity. Requiring or permitting a single attorney to represent codefendants, often referred to as joint representation, is not per se violative of constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel. This principle recognizes that in some cases multiple defendants can appropriately be represented by one attorney; indeed, in some cases, certain advantages might accrue from joint representation. In Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s view: “Joint representation is a means of insuring against reciprocal recrimination. A common defense often gives strength against a common attack.” Glasser v. United States, supra, at 92 (dissenting opinion).
Since Glasser was decided, however, the courts have taken divergent approaches to two issues commonly raised in challenges to joint representation where — unlike this case — trial counsel did nothing to advise the trial court of the actuality or possibility of a conflict between his several clients’ interests. First, appellate courts have differed on how strong a showing of conflict must be made, or how certain the reviewing court must be that the asserted conflict existed, before it will conclude that the defendants were deprived of their right to the effective assistance of counsel. Compare United States ex rel. Hart v. Davenport, 478 F. 2d 203 (CA3 1973); Lollar v. United States, 126 U. S. App. D. C. 200, 376 F. 2d 243 (1967); People v. Chacon, 69 Cal. 2d 765, 447 P. 2d 106 (1968); and State v. Kennedy, 8 Wash. App. 633, 508 P. 2d 1386 (1973), with United States v. Lovano, 420 F. 2d 769, 773 (CA2 1970); see also cases collected in Annot., 34 A. L. R. 3d 470, 477-507 (1970). Second, courts have differed with respect to the scope and nature of the affirmative duty of the trial judge to assure that criminal defendants are not deprived of their right to the effective assistance of counsel by joint representation of conflicting interests. Compare United States v. Lawriw, 568 F. 2d 98 (CA8 1977); United States v. Carrigan, 543 F. 2d 1053 (CA2 1976); and United States v. Foster, 469 F. 2d 1 (CA1 1972), with Foxworth v. Wainwright, 516 F. 2d 1072 (CA5 1975), and United States v. Williams, 429 F. 2d 158 (CA8 1970).
We need not resolve these two issues in this case, however. Here trial counsel, by the pretrial motions of August 13 and September 4 and by his accompanying representations, made as an officer of the court, focused explicitly on the probable risk of a conflict of interests. The judge then failed either to appoint separate counsel or to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk was too remote to warrant separate counsel. We hold that the failure, in the face of the representations made by counsel weeks before trial and again before the jury was empaneled, deprived petitioners of the guarantee of “assistance of counsel.”
This conclusion is supported by the Court’s reasoning in Glasser:
“Upon the trial judge rests the duty of seeing that the trial is conducted with solicitude for the essential rights of the accused. . . . The trial court should protect the right of an accused to have the assistance of counsel. . . .
“Of equal importance with the duty of the court to see that an accused has the assistance of counsel is its duty to refrain from embarrassing counsel in the defense of an accused by insisting, or indeed, even suggesting, that counsel undertake to concurrently represent interests which might diverge from those of his first client, when the possibility of that divergence is brought home to the court.” 315 U. S., at 71, 76 (emphasis added).
This reasoning has direct applicability in this case where the “possibility of [petitioners’] inconsistent interests” was “brought home to the court” by formal objections, motions, and defense counsel’s representations. It is arguable, perhaps, that defense counsel might have presented the requests for appointment of separate counsel more vigorously and in greater detail. As to the former, however, the trial court’s responses hardly encouraged pursuit of the separate-counsel claim; and as to presenting the basis for that claim in more detail, defense counsel was confronted with a risk of violating, by more disclosure, his duty of confidentiality to his clients.
Additionally, since the decision in Glosser, most courts have held that an attorney’s request for the appointment of separate counsel, based on his representations as an officer of the court regarding a conflict of interests, should be granted. See, e. g., Shuttle v. Smith, 296 F. Supp. 1315 (Vt. 1969); State v. Davis, 110 Ariz. 29, 514 P. 2d 1025 (1973); State v. Brazile, 226 La. 254, 75 So. 2d 856 (1954); but see Commonwealth v. LaFleur, 1 Mass. App. 327, 296 N. E. 2d 517 (1973). In so holding, the courts have acknowledged and given effect to several interrelated considerations. An “attorney representing two defendants in a criminal matter is in the best position professionally and ethically to determine when a conflict of interest exists or will probably develop in the course of a trial.” State v. Davis, supra, at 31, 514 P. 2d, at 1027. Second, defense attorneys have the obligation, upon discovering a conflict of interests, to advise the court at once of the problem. Ibid. Finally, attorneys are officers of the court, and “ ‘when they address the judge solemnly upon a matter before the court, their declarations are virtually made under oath.’ ” State v. Brazile, supra, at 266, 75 So. 2d, at 860-861. (Emphasis deleted.) We find these considerations persuasive.
The State argues, however, that to credit Hall’s representations to the trial court would be tantamount to transferring to defense counsel the authority of the trial judge to rule on the existence or risk of a conflict and to appoint separate counsel. In the State’s view, the ultimate decision on those matters must remain with the trial judge; otherwise unscrupulous defense attorneys might abuse their “authority,” presumably for purposes of delay or obstruction of the orderly conduct of the trial.
The State has an obvious interest in avoiding such abuses. But our holding does not undermine that interest. When an untimely motion for separate counsel is made for dilatory purposes, our holding does not impair the trial court’s ability to deal with counsel who resort to such tactics. Cf. United States v. Dardi, 330 F. 2d 316 (CA2), cert. denied, 379 U. S. 845 (1964); People v. Kroeger, 61 Cal. 2d 236, 390 P. 2d 369 (1964). Nor does our holding preclude a trial court from exploring the adequacy of the basis of defense counsel’s representations regarding a conflict of interests without improperly requiring disclosure of the confidential communications of the client. See State v. Davis, supra. In this case the trial court simply failed to take adequate steps in response to the repeated motions, objections, and representations made to it, and no prospect of dilatory practices was present to justify that failure.
Ill
The issue remains whether the error committed at petitioners’ trial requires reversal of their convictions. It has generally been assumed that Glasser requires reversal, even in the absence of a showing of specific prejudice to the complaining codefendant, whenever a trial court improperly permits or requires joint representation. See Austin v. Erickson, 477 F. 2d 620 (CA8 1973); United States v. Gougis, 374 F. 2d 758 (CA7 1967); Hall v. State, 63 Wis. 2d 304, 217 N. W. 2d 352 (1974); Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 406 Pa. 45, 176 A. 2d 641 (1962); Note, Criminal Codefendants and the Sixth Amendment: The Case for Separate Counsel, 58 Geo. L. J. 369, 387 (1969). Some courts and commentators have argued, however, that appellate courts should not reverse automatically in such cases but rather should affirm unless the defendant can demonstrate prejudice. See United States v. Woods, 544 F. 2d 242 (CA6 1976), cert, denied, 430 U. S. 969 (1977); Geer, Representation of Multiple Criminal Defendants: Conflicts of Interest and the Professional Responsibilities of the Defense Attorney, 62 Minn. L. Rev. 119, 122-125 (1978). This argument rests on two aspects of the Court’s decision in Glasser. First, although it had concluded that Stewart was forced to represent conflicting interests, the Court did not reverse the conviction of Kretske, Stewart’s other client, because Kretske failed to “show that the denial of Glasser’s constitutional rights prejudiced [him] in some manner.” 315 U. S., at 76 (emphasis added). Second, the Court justified the reversal of Glasser’s conviction, in part, by emphasizing the weakness of the Government’s evidence against him; with guilt a close question, “error, which under some circumstances would not be ground for reversal, cannot be brushed aside as immaterial, since there is a real chance that it might have provided the slight impetus which swung the scales toward guilt.” Id., at 67 (emphasis added). Assessing the strength of the prosecution’s evidence against the defendant is, of course, one step in applying a harmless-error standard. See Schneble v. Florida, 405 U. S. 427 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969).
We read the Court’s opinion in Glasser, however, as holding that whenever a trial court improperly requires joint representation over timely objection reversal is automatic. The Glasser Court stated: This language presupposes that the joint representation, over his express objections, prejudiced the accused in some degree. But from the cases cited it is clear that the prejudice is presumed regardless of. whether it was independently shown. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927), for example, stands for the principle that “[a] conviction must be reversed if [the asserted trial error occurred], even if no particular prejudice is shown and even if the defendant was clearly guilty.” Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 43 (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring); see also id., at 23, and n. 8 (opinion of the Court). The Court’s refusal to reverse Kretske’s conviction is not contrary to this interpretation of Glosser. Kretske did not raise his own Sixth Amendment challenge to the joint representation. 315 U. S., at 77; see Brief for Petitioner Kretske in Glasser v. United States, O. T. 1941, No. 31. As the Court’s opinion indicates, some of the codefendants argued that the denial of Glasser’s right to the effective assistance of counsel prejudiced them as alleged co-conspirators. 315 U. S., at 76-77. In that context, the Court required a showing of prejudice; finding none, it affirmed the convictions of the codefendants, including Kretske.
“To determine the precise degree of prejudice sustained by Glasser as a result of the [district] court’s appointment of Stewart as counsel for Kretske is at once difficult and unnecessary. The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 116; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 535; Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276, 292.” 315 U. S., at 75-76.
Moreover, this Court has concluded that the assistance of counsel is among those “constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” Chapman v. California, supra, at 23. Accordingly, when a defendant is deprived of the presence and assistance of his attorney, either throughout the prosecution or during a critical stage in, at least, the prosecution of a capital offense, reversal is automatic. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 (1961); White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 (1963).
That an attorney representing multiple defendants with conflicting interests is physically present at pretrial proceedings, during trial, and at sentencing does not warrant departure from this general rule. Joint representation of conflicting interests is suspect because of what it tends to prevent the attorney from doing. For example, in this case it may well have precluded defense counsel for Campbell from exploring possible plea negotiations and the possibility of an agreement to testify for the prosecution, provided a lesser charge or a favorable sentencing recommendation would be acceptable. Generally speaking, a conflict may also prevent an attorney from challenging the admission of evidence prejudicial to one client but perhaps favorable to another, or from arguing at the sentencing hearing the relative involvement and culpability of his clients in order to minimize the culpability of one by emphasizing that of another. Examples can be readily multiplied. The mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee when the advocate’s conflicting obligations have effectively sealed his lips on crucial matters.
Finally, a rule requiring a defendant to show that a conflict of interests — which he and his counsel tried to avoid by timely objections to the joint representation — prejudiced him in some specific fashion would not be susceptible of intelligent, evenhanded application. In the normal case where a harmless-error rule is applied, the error occurs at trial and its scope is readily identifiable. Accordingly, the reviewing court can undertake with some confidence its relatively narrow task of assessing the likelihood that the error materially affected the deliberations of the jury. Compare Chapman v. California, supra, at 24-26, with Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 108 (1974), and United States v. Valle-Valdes, 554 F. 2d 911, 914-917 (CA9 1977). But in a case of joint representation of conflicting interests the evil — it bears repeating — is in what the advocate finds himself compelled to refrain from doing, not only at trial but also as to possible pretrial plea negotiations and in the sentencing process. It may be possible in some cases to identify from the record the prejudice resulting from an attorney’s failure to undertake certain trial tasks, but even with a record of the sentencing hearing available it would be difficult to judge intelligently the impact of a conflict on the attorney’s representation of a client. And to assess the impact of a conflict of interests on the attorney’s options, tactics, and decisions in plea negotiations would be virtually impossible. Thus, an inquiry into a claim of harmless error here would require, unlike most cases, unguided speculation.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
No transcript of this hearing is included in the record, and we are not informed whether the hearing was transcribed.
See Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964).
It is probable that the judge’s response, “I don’t know why you wouldn’t,” referred back to counsel’s statement, “I will not be able to cross-examine them . . . .” If the response is so read, the judge’s later statements, see infra, at 479 and 480, .are directly contradictory.
The record reveals that both the trial court and defense counsel were alert to defense counsel’s obligation to avoid assisting in the presentation of what counsel had reason to believe was false testimony, or, at least, testimony contrary to the version of facts given to him earlier and in confidence. Cf. ABA Project on Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, The Defense Function § 7.7 (c), p. 133 (1974).
By inquiring in Glasser whether there had been a waiver, the Court also confirmed that a defendant may waive his right to the assistance of an attorney unhindered by a conflict of interests. 315 U. S., at 70. In this case, however, Arkansas does not contend that petitioners waived that right.
See ABA Project on Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, The Function of the Trial Judge § 3.4 (b), p. 171 (1974):
“Whenever two or more defendants who have been jointly charged, or whose cases have been consolidated, are represented by the same attorney, the trial judge should inquire into potential conflicts which may jeopardize the right of each defendant to the fidelity of his counsel.”
There is no indication in the record, and the State does not suggest, that the hearing held in response to the motion of August 13 disclosed information demonstrating the insubstantiality of Hall’s September 4 representations — based, as nearly as can be ascertained, on the codefendants’ newly formed decision to testify — respecting a probable conflict of interests. So far as we can tell from this record, the trial judge cut off any opportunity of defense counsel to do more than make conclusory representations. During oral argument in this Court, Hall represented that the trial court did not request him to disclose the basis for his representations as to a conflict of interests. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 14r-15.
There is no occasion in this case to determine the constitutional significance, if any, of the trial court’s response to petitioners’ midtrial objections.
The American Bar Association in its Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, The Defense Function § 3.5(b), p. 123 (1974) cautions:
“Except for preliminary matters such as initial hearings or applications for bail, a lawyer or lawyers who. are associated in practice should not undertake to defend more than one defendant in the same criminal case if the duty to. one of the defendants may conflict with the duty to. another. The potential for conflict of interest in representing multiple defendants is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to act for more than one of several co-defendants except in unusual situations when, after careful investigation, it is clear that no conflict is likely to. develop and when the several defendants give an informed consent to such multiple representation.”
When a considered representation regarding a conflict in clients’ interests comes from an officer of the court, it should be given the weight commensurate with the grave penalties risked for misrepresentation.
Such risks are undoubtedly present; they are inherent in the adversary system. But courts have abundant power to deal with attorneys who misrepresent facts.
This case does not require an inquiry into the extent of a court’s power to compel an attorney to disclose confidential communications that he concludes would be damaging to his client. Cf. ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, HR 4AL01 (C) (2) (1969). Such compelled disclosure creates significant risks of unfair prejudice, especially when the disclosure is to a judge who may be called upon later to impose sentences on the attorney’s clients.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV and footnote 6.
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305 (2009), this Court held that a forensic laboratory report stating that a suspect substance was cocaine ranked as testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The report had been created specifically to serve as evidence in a criminal proceeding. Absent stipulation, the Court ruled, the prosecution may not introduce such a report without offering a live witness competent to testify to the truth of the statements made in the report.
In the case before us, petitioner Donald Bullcoming was arrested on charges of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Principal evidence against Bullcoming was a forensic laboratory report certifying that Bullcoming’s blood-alcohol concentration was well above the threshold for aggravated DWI. At trial, the prosecution did not call as a witness the analyst who signed the certification. Instead, the State called another analyst who was familiar with the laboratory’s testing procedures, but had neither participated in nor observed the test on Bullcoming’s blood sample. The New Mexico Supreme Court determined that, although the blood-alcohol analysis was “testimonial,” the Confrontation Clause did not require the certifying analyst’s in-court testimony. Instead, New Mexico’s high court held, live testimony of another analyst satisfied the constitutional requirements.
The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification — made for the purpose of proving a particular fact — through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement. The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.
I
A
In August 2005, a vehicle driven by petitioner Donald Bullcoming rear ended a pickup truck at an intersection in Farmington, New Mexico. When the truckdriver exited his vehicle and approached Bullcoming to exchange insurance information, he noticed that Bullcoming’s eyes were bloodshot. Smelling alcohol on Bullcoming’s breath, the truck-driver told his wife to call the police. Bullcoming left the scene before the police arrived, but was soon apprehended by an officer who observed his performance of field sobriety tests. Upon failing the tests, Bullcoming was arrested for driving a vehicle while “under the influence of intoxicating liquor” (DWI), in violation of N. M. Stat. Ann. § 66-8-102 (2004).
Because Bullcoming refused to take a breath test, the police obtained a warrant authorizing a blood-alcohol analysis. Pursuant to the warrant, a sample of Bullcoming’s blood was drawn at a local hospital. To determine Bullcoming’s blood-alcohol concentration (BAC), the police sent the sample to the New Mexico Department of Health, Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD). In a standard SLD form titled “Report of Blood Alcohol Analysis,” participants in the testing were identified, and the forensic analyst certified his finding. App. 62.
' SLD’s report contained in the top block “information... filled in by [the] arresting officer.” Ibid, (capitalization omitted). This information included the “reason [the] suspect [was] stopped” (the officer checked “Accident”), and the date (“8.14.05”) and time (“18:25 PM”) the blood sample was drawn. Ibid, (capitalization omitted). The arresting officer also affirmed that he had arrested Bullcoming and witnessed the blood draw. Ibid. The next two blocks contained certifications by the nurse who drew Bullcoming’s blood and the SLD intake employee who received the blood sample sent to the laboratory. Ibid.
Following these segments, the report presented the “certificate of analyst,” ibid, (capitalization omitted), completed and signed by Curtis Caylor, the SLD forensic analyst assigned to test Bullcoming’s blood sample, id., at 62, 64-65. Caylor recorded that the BAC in Bullcoming’s sample was 0.21 grams per hundred milliliters, an inordinately high level. Id., at 62. Caylor also affirmed that “[t]he seal of th[e] sample was received intact and broken in the laboratory,” that “the statements in [the analyst’s block of the report] are correct,” and that he had “followed the procedures set out on the reverse of th[e] report.” Ibid. Those “procedures” instructed analysts, inter alia, to “retai[n] the sample container and the raw data from the analysis,” and to “not[e] any circumstance or condition which might affect the integrity of the sample or otherwise affect the validity of the analysis.” Id., at 65. Finally, in a block headed “certificate of reviewer,” the SLD examiner who reviewed Caylor’s analysis certified that Caylor was qualified to conduct the BAC test, and that the “established procedure” for handling and analyzing Bullcoming’s sample “ha[d] been followed.” Id., at 62 (capitalization omitted).
SLD analysts use gas chromatograph machines to determine BAC levels. Operation of the machines requires specialized knowledge and training. Several steps are involved in the gas chromatograph process, and human error can occur at each step.
Caylor’s report that Bullcoming’s BAC was 0.21 supported a prosecution for aggravated DWI, the threshold for which is a BAC of 0.16 grams per hundred milliliters, § 66-8-102(D)(1). The State accordingly charged Bullcoming with this more serious crime.
B
The case was tried to a jury in November 2005, after our decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004), but before Melendez-Diaz. On the day of trial, the State announced that it would not be calling SLD analyst Curtis Caylor as a witness because he had “very recently [been] put on unpaid leave” for a reason not revealed. 2010-NMSC-007, ¶ 8, 147 N. M. 487, 492, 226 P. 3d 1, 6 (internal quotation marks omitted); App. 58. A startled defense counsel objected. The prosecution, she complained, had never disclosed, until trial commenced, that the witness “out there... [was] not the analyst [of Bullcoming’s sample].” Id., at 46. Counsel stated that, “had [she] known that the analyst [who tested Bullcoming’s blood] was not available," her opening, indeed, her entire defense “may very well have been dramatically different.” Id., at 47. The State, however, proposed to introduce Caylor’s finding as a “business record” during the testimony of Gerasimos Razatos, an SLD scientist who had neither observed nor reviewed Caylor’s analysis. Id., at 44.
Bullcoming’s counsel opposed the State’s proposal. Id., at 44-45. Without Caylor’s testimony, defense counsel maintained, introduction of the analyst’s finding would violate Bullcoming’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Ibid. The trial court overruled the objection, id., at 46-47, and admitted the SLD report as a business record, id., at 44-46, 57. The jury convicted Bullcoming of aggravated DWI, and the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, concluding that “the blood alcohol report in the present case was non-testimonial and prepared routinely with guarantees of trustworthiness.” 2008-NMCA-097, ¶ 17, 144 N. M. 546, 552,189 P. 3d 679, 685.
C
While Bullcoming’s appeal was pending before the New Mexico Supreme Court, this Court decided Melendez-Diaz. In that case, “[t]he Massachusetts courts [had] admitted into evidence affidavits reporting the results of forensic analysis which showed that material seized by the police and connected to the defendant was cocaine.” 557 U. S., at 307. Those affidavits, the Court held, were “ ‘testimonial,’ rendering the affiants ‘witnesses’ subject to the defendant’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.” Ibid.
In light of Melendez-Diaz, the New Mexico Supreme Court acknowledged that the blood-alcohol report introduced at Bullcoming’s trial qualified as testimonial evidence. Like the affidavits in Melendez-Diaz, the court observed, the report was “functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing precisely what a witness does on direct examination.” 147 N. M., at 494, 226 P. 3d, at 8 (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 310-311). Nevertheless, for two reasons, the court held that admission of the report did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
First, the court said certifying analyst Caylor “was a mere scrivener,” who “simply transcribed the results generated by the gas chromatograph machine.” 147 N. M., at 494-495, 226 P. 3d, at 8-9. Second, SLD analyst Razatos, although he did not participate in testing Bullcoming's blood, “qualified as an expert witness with respect to the gas chromato-graph machine.” Id., at 495, 226 P. 3d, at 9. “Razatos provided live, in-court testimony,” the court stated, “and, thus, was available for cross-examination regarding the operation of the... machine, the results of [Bullcoming’s] BAC test, and the SLD’s established laboratory procedures.” Ibid. Razatos’ testimony was crucial, the court explained, because Bullcoming could not cross-examine the machine or the written report. Id., at 496,226 P. 3d, at 10. But “[Bullcoming’s] right of confrontation was preserved,” the court concluded, because Razatos was a qualified analyst, able to serve as a surrogate for Caylor. Ibid.
We granted certiorari to address this question: Does the Confrontation Clause permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made in order to prove a fact at a criminal trial, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification. 561 U. S. 1058 (2010). Our answer is in line with controlling precedent: As a rule, if an out-of-court statement is testimonial in nature, it may not be introduced against the accused at trial unless the witness who made the statement is unavailable and the accused has had a prior opportunity to confront that witness. Because the New Mexico Supreme Court permitted the testimonial statement of one witness, i. e., Caylor, to enter into evidence through the in-court testimony of a second person, i. e., Razatos, we reverse that court’s judgment.
I
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause confers upon the accused, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions,... the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In a pathmarking 2004 decision, Crawford v. Washington, we overruled Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 (1980), which had interpreted the Confrontation Clause to allow admission of absent witnesses’ testimonial statements based on a judicial determination of reliability. See id., at 66. Rejecting Roberts’ “amorphous notions of ‘reliability,’ ” Crawford, 541 U. S., at 61, Crawford held that fidelity to the Confrontation Clause permitted admission of “[tjestimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial... only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine,” id., at 59. See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U. S. 344, 354 (2011) (“[F]or testimonial evidence to be admissible, the Sixth Amendment ‘demands what the common law required: unavailability [of the witness] and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.’” (quoting Crawford, 541 U. S., at 68)). Melendez-Diaz, relying on Crawford’s, rationale, refused to create a “forensic evidence” exception to this rule. 557 U. S., at 317-321. An analyst’s certification prepared in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution, the Court held, is “testimonial,” and therefore within the compass of the Confrontation Clause. Id., at 321-324.
The State in the instant case never asserted that the analyst who signed the certification, Curtis Caylor, was unavailable. The record showed only, that Caylor was placed on unpaid leave for an undisclosed reason. See supra, at 655. Nor did Bullcoming have an opportunity to cross-examine Caylor. Crawford and Melendez-Diaz, therefore, weigh heavily in Bullcoming’s favor. The New Mexico Supreme Court, however, although recognizing that the SLD report was testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, considered SLD analyst Razatos an adequate substitute for Caylor. We explain first why Razatos’ appearance did not meet the Confrontation Clause requirement. We next address the State’s argument that the SLD report ranks as “nontestimonial,” and therefore “[was] not subject to the Confrontation Clause” in the first place. Brief for Respondent 7 (capitalization omitted).
A
The New Mexico Supreme Court held surrogate testimony adequate to satisfy the Confrontation Clause in this case because analyst Caylor “simply transcribed the resul[t] generated by the gas chromatograph machine,” presenting no interpretation and exercising no independent judgment. 226 R 3d, at 8. Bullcoming’s “true ‘accuser,’” the court said, was the machine, while testing analyst Caylor’s role was that of “mere scrivener.” Id., at 9. Caylor’s certification, however, reported more than a machine-generated number. See supra, at 653.
Caylor certified that he received Bullcoming's blood sample intact with the seal unbroken, that he checked to make sure that the forensic report number and the sample number “correspond[ed],” and that he performed on Bullcoming’s sample a particular test, adhering to a precise protocol. App. 62-65. He further represented, by leaving the “[Remarks” section of the report blank, that no “circumstance or condition... a£fect[ed] the integrity of the sample or... the validity of the analysis.” Id., at 62, 65. These representations, relating to past events and human actions not revealed in raw, machine-produced data, are meet for cross-examination.
The potential ramifications of the New Mexico' Supreme Court's reasoning, furthermore, raise red flags. Most witnesses, after all, testify to their observations of factual conditions or events, e. g., “the light was green,” “the hour was noon.” Such witnesses may record, on the spot, what they observed. Suppose a police report recorded an objective fact — Bullcoming’s counsel posited the address above the front door of a house or the readout of a radar gun. See Brief for Petitioner 35. Could an officer other than the one who saw the number on the house or gun present the information in court — so long as that officer was equipped to testify about any technology the observing officer deployed and the police department’s standard operating procedures? As our precedent makes plain, the answer is emphatically “No.” See Davis v. Washington, 547 U. S. 813, 826 (2006) (Confrontation Clause may not be “evaded by having a note-taking police [officer] recite the... testimony of the declarant” (emphasis deleted)); Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 334 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“The Court made clear in Davis that it will not permit the testimonial statement of one witness to enter into evidence through the in-court testimony of a second.”).
The New Mexico Supreme Court stated that the number registered by the gas chromatograph machine called for no interpretation or exercise of independent judgment on Caylor’s part. 147 N. M., at 494-495, 226 P. 3d, at 8-9. We have already explained that Caylor certified to more than a machine-generated number. See supra, at 653. In any event, the comparative reliability of an analyst’s testimonial report drawn from machine-produced data does not overcome the Sixth Amendment bar. This Court settled in Crawford that the “obviou[s] reliability]” of a testimonial statement does not dispense wiLh the Confrontation Clause. 541 U. S., at 62; see id., at 61 (Clause “commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing [the evidence] in the crucible of cross-examination”). Accordingly, the analysts who write reports that the prosecution introduces must be made available for confrontation even if they possess “the scientific acumen of Mme. Curie and the veracity of Mother Teresa.” Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 319-320, n. 6.
B
Recognizing that admission of the blood-alcohol analysis depended on “live, in-court testimony [by] a qualified analyst,” 147 N. M., at 496, 226 P. 3d, at 10, the New Mexico Supreme Court believed that Razatos could substitute for Caylor because Razatos “qualified as an expert witness with respect to the gas chromatograph machine and the SLD’s laboratory procedures,” id., at 495, 226 P. 3d, at 9. But surrogate testimony of the kind Razatos was equipped to give could not convey what Caylor knew or observed about the events his certification concerned, i. e., the particular test and testing process he employed. Nor could such surrogate testimony expose any lapses or lies on the certifying analyst's part. Significant here, Razatos had no knowledge of the reason why Caylor had been placed on unpaid leave. With Caylor on the stand, Bullcoming’s counsel could have asked questions designed to reveal whether incompetence, evasiveness, or dishonesty accounted for Caylor’s removal from his workstation. Notable in this regard, the State never asserted that Caylor was "unavailable”; the prosecution conveyed only that Caylor was on uncompensated leave. Nor did the State assert that Razatos had any "independent opinion” concerning Bullcoming’s BAC. See Brief for Respondent 58, n. 15. In this light, Caylor’s live testimony could hardly be typed "a hollow formality,” post, at 677.
More fundamentally, as this Court stressed in Crawford, “[t]he text of the Sixth Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions from the confrontation requirement to be developed by the courts.” 541 U. S., at 54. Nor is it “the role of courts to extrapolate from the words of the [Confrontation Clause] to the values behind it, and then to enforce its guarantees only to the extent they serve (in the courts’ views) those underlying values.” Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 353, 375 (2008) (plurality). Accordingly, the Clause does not tolerate dispensing with confrontation simply because the court believes that questioning one witness about another’s testimonial statements provides a fair enough opportunity for cross-examination.
A recent decision involving another Sixth Amendment right — the right to counsel — is instructive. In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U. S. 140 (2006), the Government argued that illegitimately denying a defendant his counsel of choice did not violate the Sixth Amendment where “substitute counsel’s performance” did not demonstrably prejudice the defendant. Id., at 144-145. This Court rejected the Government’s argument. “[T]rue enough,” the Court explained, “the purpose of the rights set forth in [the Sixth] Amendment is to ensure a fair trial; but it does not follow that the rights can be disregarded so long as the trial is, on the whole, fair.” Id., at 145. If a “particular guarantee” of the Sixth Amendment is violated, no substitute procedure can cure the violation, and “[n]o additional showing of prejudice is required to make the violation ‘complete.’ ” Id., at 146. If representation by substitute counsel does not satisfy the Sixth Amendment, neither does the opportunity to confront a substitute witness.
In short, when the Slate elected to introduce Gaylor’s certification, Caylor became a witness Bullcoming had the right to confront. Our precedent cannot sensibly be read any other way. See Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 334 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (Court’s holding means “the... analyst who must testify is the person who signed the certificate”).
III
We turn, finally, to the State s contention that SLD s blood-alcohol analysis reports are nontestimonial in character, therefore no Confrontation Clause question even arises in this case. Melendez-Diaz left no room for that argument, the New Mexico Supreme Court concluded, see 147 N. M., at 494, 226 P. 3d, at 7-8; supra, at 656-657, a conclusion we find inescapable.
In Melendez-Diaz, a state forensic laboratory, on police request, analyzed seized evidence (plastic bags) and reported the laboratory’s analysis to the police (the substance found in the bags contained cocaine). 557 U. S., at 308. The “certificates of analysis” prepared by the analysts who tested the evidence in Melendez-Diaz, this Court held, were “incontrovertibly... affirmation[s] made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact” in a criminal proceeding. Id., at 310 (internal quotation marks omitted). The same purpose was served by the certificate in question here.
The State maintains that the affirmations made by analyst Caylor were not “adversarial” or “inquisitorial,” Brief for Respondent 27-33; instead, they were simply observations of an “independent scientis[t]” made “according to a non-adversarial public duty,” id., at 32-33. That argument fares no better here than it did in Melendez-Diaz. A document created solely for an “evidentiary purpose,” Melendez-Diaz clarified, made in aid of a police investigation, ranks as testimonial. 557 U. S., at 311 (forensic reports available for use at trial are “testimonial statements” and certifying analyst is a “‘witnes[s]’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment”).
Distinguishing Bullcoming’s case from Melendez-Diaz, where the analysts’ findings were contained in certificates “sworn to before a notary public,” id., at 308, the State emphasizes that the SLD report of Bullcoming’s BAC was “un-sworn.” Brief for Respondent 13; post, at 676 (“only sworn statement” here was that of Razatos, “who was present and [did] testif[y]”). As the New Mexico Supreme Court recognized, “ The absence of [an] oath [i]s not dispositive’ in determining if a statement is testimonial.” 147 N. M., at 494, 226 P. 3d, at 8 (quoting Crawford, 541 U. S., at 52). Indeed, in Crawford, this Court rejected as untenable any construction of the Confrontation Clause that would render inadmissible only sworn ex parte affidavits, while leaving admission of formal, but unsworn statements “perfectly OK.” Id., at 52-53, n. 3. Reading the Clause in this “implausible” manner, ibid., the Court noted, would make the right to confrontation easily erasable. See Davis, 547 U. S., at 830-831, n. 5; id., at 838 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
In all material respects, the laboratory report in this case resembles those in Melendez-Diaz. Here, as in Melendez- Diaz, a law-enforcement officer provided seized evidence to a state laboratory required by law to assist in police investigations, N. M. Stat. Ann. § 29-3-4 (2004). Like the analysts in Melendez-Diaz, analyst Caylor tested the evidence and prepared a certificate concerning the result of his analysis. App. 62. Like the Melendez-Diaz certificates, Caylor’s certificate is “formalized” in a signed document, Davis, 547 U. S., at 837, n. 2 (opinion of Thomas, J.), headed a “report,” App. 62. Noteworthy as well, the SLD report form contains a legend referring to municipal and magistrate courts’ rules that provide for the admission of certified blood-alcohol analyses.
In sum, the formalities attending the “report of blood alcohol analysis” are more than adequate to qualify Caylor’s assertions as testimonial. The absence of notarization does not remove his certification from Confrontation Clause governance. The New Mexico Supreme Court, guided by Melendez-Diaz, correctly recognized that Caylor’s report ‘Tell within the core class of testimonial statements,” 147 N. M., at 493, 226 P. 3d, at 7, described in this Court’s leading Confrontation Clause decisions: Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 310; Davis, 547 U. S., at 830; Crawford, 541 U. S., at 51-52.
IV
The State and its amici urge that unbending application of the Confrontation Clause to forensic evidence would impose an undue burden on the prosecution. This argument, also advanced in the dissent, post, at 683, largely repeats a refrain rehearsed and rejected in Melendez-Diaz. See 557 U. S., at 325-328. The constitutional requirement, we reiterate, “may not [be] disregarded]... at our convenience,” id., at 325, and the predictions of dire consequences, we again observe, are dubious, see ibid.
New Mexico law, it bears emphasis, requires the laboratory to preserve samples, which can be retested by other analysts, see N. M. Admin. Code § 7.33.2.15(A)(4)-(6) (2010), available at http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/_title07/ T07C033.htm, and neither party questions SLD’s compliance with that requirement. Retesting “is almost always an option... in [DWI] cases,” Brief for Public Defender Service for District of Columbia et al. as Amici Curiae 25 (hereinafter PDS Brief), and the State had that option here: New Mexico could have avoided any Confrontation Clause problem by asking Razatos to retest the sample, and then testify to the results of his retest rather than to the results of a test he did not conduct or observe.
Notably, New Mexico advocates retesting as an effective means to preserve a defendant’s confrontation right “when the [out-of-court] statement is raw data or a mere transcription of raw data onto a public record.” Brief for Respondent 53-54. But the State would require the defendant to initiate retesting. Id., at 55; post, at 677 (defense “remains free to... call and examine the technician who performed a test”); post, at 681 (“free retesting” is available to defendants). The prosecution, however, bears the burden of proof. Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 324 (“[T]he Confrontation Clause imposes a burden on the prosecution to present its witnesses, not on the defendant to bring those adverse witnesses into court.”). Hence the obligation to propel retesting when the original analyst is unavailable is the State’s, not the defendant’s. See Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400, 410, n. 14 (1988) (Confrontation Clause’s requirements apply “in every case, whether or not the defendant seeks to rebut the case against him or to present a case of his own”).
Furthermore, notice-and-demand procedures, long in effect in many jurisdictions, can reduce burdens on forensic laboratories. Statutes governing these procedures typically “render... otherwise hearsay forensic reports admissible[,] while specifically preserving a defendant’s right to demand that the prosecution call the author/analyst of [the] report.” PDS Brief 9; see Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 326 (observing that notice-and-demand statutes “permit the defendant to assert (or forfeit by silence) his Confrontation Clause right after receiving notice of the prosecution’s intent to use a forensic analyst’s report”).
Even before this Court’s decision in Crawford, moreover, it was common prosecutorial practice to call the forensic analyst to testify. Prosecutors did so “to bolster the persuasive power of [the State’s] case[,]... [even] when the defense would have preferred that the analyst did not testify.” PDS Brief 8.
We note also the “small fraction of... cases” that “actually proceed to trial.” Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 325 (citing estimate that “nearly 95% of convictions in state and federal courts are obtained via guilty plea”). And, “when cases in which forensic analysis has been conducted [do] go to trial,” defendants “regularly... [stipulate] to the admission of [the] analysis.” PDS Brief 20. “[A]s a result, analysts testify in only a very small percentage of cases,” id., at 21, for “[i]t is unlikely that defense counsel will insist on live testimony whose effect will be merely to highlight rather than cast doubt upon the forensic analysis.” Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 328.
Tellingly, in jurisdictions in which “it is the [acknowledged] job of... analysts to testify in court... about their test results,” the sky has not fallen. PDS Brief 23. State and municipal laboratories “make operational and staffing decisions” to facilitate analysts’ appearance at trial. Ibid. Prosecutors schedule trial dates to accommodate analysts’ availability, and trial courts liberally grant continuances when unexpected conflicts arise. Id., at 24-25. In rare cases in which the analyst is no longer employed by the laboratory at the time of trial, “the prosecution makes the effort to bring that analyst... to court.” Id., at 25. And, as is the practice in New Mexico, see supra, at 665-666, laboratories ordinarily retain additional samples, enabling them to run tests again when necessary.
H» ^
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the New Mexico Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan join all but Part IV of this opinion. Justice Thomas joins all but Part IV and footnote 6.
Gas chromatography is a widely used scientific method of quantitatively analyzing the constituents of a mixture. See generally H. McNair & J. Miller, Basic Gas Chromatography (2d ed. 2009) (hereinafter McNair). Under SLD’s standard testing protocol, the analyst extracts two blood samploo and inserto them into vialo containing an “internal standard” — a chemical additive. App. 53. See McNair 141-142. The analyst then “cap[s] the [two] sample[s],” “erimp[s] them with an aluminum top,” and placeo the vialo into the gaa chromatograph machine. App. 53-54. Within a few hours, thio device produces a printed graph a chromatogram — along with calculations representing a software generated inter pretation of the data. See Brief for New Mexico Department of Health, SLD, as Amicus Curiae 16-17.
Although the State presented testimony that obtaining an accurate BAC measurement merely entails “look[ing] at the [gas chromatograph] machine and rocord[ing] the resultn,” App. 54, authoritative sources reveal that the matter is not so simple or certin. “In order to perform quantita tive analyses satisfactorily and... support the results under rigorous examination in court, the analyst must be aware of, and adhere to, good analytical prácticos and understand what is being done and why.” Stafford, Chromatography, in Principles of Forensic Toxicology 91, 114 (B. Levine 2d ed. 2006). See also McNair 137 (“Errors that occur in any step can invalidate the best chromatographic analysis, go attention must bo paid to all steps.”); D. Bartell, M. McMurray, & A. ImObersteg, Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests §16:80 (2d revision 2010) (stating that 93% of erroro in laboratory tests for BAC levels arc human errora that occur cither before or after machines analyze samples). Even after the machine has produced its printed result, a review of the chromatogram may indicate that the test was not valid. See McNair 207-214.
Nor is the risk of human error so remote as to be negligible. Amici inform usj for example, that in neighboring Colorado, a single forensic laboratory produced at least 206 flawed blood alcohol readings over a throe-year span, prompting the diamisoal of several criminal prosecutions. See Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae 32-33. An analyst had used improper amounts of the internal standard, causing the chromatograph machine systematically to in-fiate BAC measurements. The analyst’s error, a supervisor said, was “fairly complex.” Ensslin, Final Tally on Flawed DUI: 206 Errors, 9 Tossed or Reduced, Colorado Springs Gazette, Apr. 19, 2010, pp. 1,2 (internal quotation marko omitted), available at http://www.gazette.com/articloo/ report-97354-police-discuss.html. (All Internet materials as visited June 21, 2011, and included in Clerk of Court’s ease file.)
The State called as witnesses the arresting officer and the nurse who drew Bullcoming’s blood. Bullcoming did not object to the State’s failure to call the SLD intake employee or the reviewing analyst. “It is up to the prosecution,” the Court observed in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305, 311, n. 1 (2009), “to decide what steps in the chain of custody arc so crucial as to require evidence; but what testimony ia introduced must (if the defendant objects) be introduced live.”
The trial judge noted that, when he started out in law practice, “there were no breath tests or blood tests. They just brought in the cop, and the cop said, ‘Yeah, he was drunk.’” App. 47.
The dissent makes plain that its objection is less to the application of the Court’s docisiono in Crawford and Melendez-Diaz to this case than to those pathmarking decisions themselves. See post, at 678 (criticizing the Crawford “line of cases” for rejecting “reliable evidence”); post, at 681, 684 (deploring “Crawford’s rejection of the [reliability-centered] regime of Ohio v. Roberts”).
In 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: | 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.
A federal criminal statute forbidding “Aggravated identity theft” imposes a mandatory consecutive 2-year prison term upon individuals convicted of certain other crimes if, during (or in relation to) the commission of those other crimes, the offender “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” 18 U. S. C. § 1028A(a)(l) (emphasis added). The question is whether the statute requires the Government to show that the defendant knew that the “means of identification” he or she unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used, in fact, belonged to “another person.” We conclude that it does.
I
A
The statutory provision in question references a set of predicate crimes, including, for example, theft of government property, fraud, or engaging in various unlawful activities related to passports, visas, and immigration. §1028A(c). It then provides that if any person who commits any of those other crimes (in doing so) “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person,” the judge must add two years’ imprisonment to the offender’s underlying sentence. § 1028A(a)(l). All parties agree that the provision applies only where the offender knows that he is transferring, possessing, or using something. And the Government reluctantly concedes that the offender likely must know that he is transferring, possessing, or using that something without lawful authority. But they do not agree whether the provision requires that a defendant also know that the something he has unlawfully transferred is, for example, a real ID belonging to another person rather than, say, a fake ID (1 e., a group of numbers that does not correspond to any real Social Security number).
Petitioner Ignacio Flores-Figueroa argues that the statute requires that the Government prove that he knew that the “means of identification” belonged to someone else, i. e., was “a means of identification of another person.” The Government argues that the statute does not impose this particular knowledge requirement. The Government concedes that the statute uses the word “knowingly,” but that word, the Government claims, does not modify the statute’s last phrase (“a means of identification of another person”) or, at the least, it does not modify the last three words of that phrase (“of another person”).
B
The facts of this case illustrate the legal problem. Ignacio Flores-Figueroa is a citizen of Mexico. In 2000, to secure employment, Flores gave his employer a false name, birth date, and Social Security number, along with a counterfeit alien registration card. The Social Security number and the number on the alien registration card were not those of a real person. In 2006, Flores presented his employer with new counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards; these cards (unlike Flores’ old alien registration card) used his real name. But this time the numbers on both cards were in fact numbers assigned to other people.
Flores’ employer reported his request to U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Customs discovered that the numbers on Flores’ new documents belonged to other people. The United States then charged Flores with two predicate crimes, namely, entering the United States without inspection, 8 U. S. C. § 1325(a), and misusing immigration documents, 18 U. S. C. § 1546(a). And it charged him with aggravated identity theft, 18 U. S. C. § 1028A(a)(l), the crime at issue here.
Flores moved for a judgment of acquittal on the “aggravated identity theft” counts. He claimed that the Government could not prove that he knew that the numbers on the counterfeit documents were numbers assigned to other people. The Government replied that it need not prove that knowledge, and the District Court accepted the Government’s argument. After a bench trial, the court found Flores guilty of the predicate crimes and aggravated identity theft. The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s determination. 274 Fed. Appx. 501 (CA8 2008) (per curiam). And we granted certiorari to consider the “knowledge” issue — a matter about which the Circuits have disagreed. Compare United States v. Godin, 534 F. 3d 51 (CA1 2008) (knowledge requirement applies to “of another person”); United States v. Miranda-Lopez, 532 F. 3d 1034 (CA9 2008) (same); United States v. Villanueva-Sotelo, 515 F. 3d 1234 (CADC 2008) (same), with United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 520 F. 3d 912 (CA8 2008) (knowledge requirement does not apply to “of another person”); United States v. Hurtado, 508 F. 3d 603 (CA11 2007) (per curiam) (same); United States v. Montejo, 442 F. 3d 213 (CA4 2006) (same).
II
There are strong textual reasons for rejecting the Government’s position. As a matter of ordinary English grammar, it seems natural to read the statute’s word “knowingly” as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime. The Government cannot easily claim that the word “knowingly” applies only to the statute’s first four words, or even its first seven. It makes little sense to read the provision’s language as heavily penalizing a person who “transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority” a something, but does not know, at the very least, that the “something” (perhaps inside a box) is a “means of identification.” Would we apply a statute that makes it unlawful “knowingly to possess drugs” to a person who steals a passenger’s bag without knowing that the bag has drugs inside?
The Government claims more forcefully that the word “knowingly” applies to all but the statute’s last three words, i. e., “of another person.” The statute, the Government says, does not require a prosecutor to show that the defendant knows that the means of identification the defendant has unlawfully used in fact belongs to another person. But how are we to square this reading with the statute’s language?
In ordinary English, where a transitive verb has an object, listeners in most contexts assume that an adverb (such as knowingly) that modifies the transitive verb tells the listener how the subject performed the entire action, including the object as set forth in the sentence. Thus, if a bank official says, “Smith knowingly transferred the funds to his brother’s account,” we would normally understand the bank official’s statement as telling us that Smith knew the account was his brother’s. Nor would it matter if the bank official said “Smith knowingly transferred the funds to the account of his brother.” In either instance, if the bank official later told us that Smith did not know the account belonged to Smith’s brother, we should be surprised.
Of course, a statement that does not use the word “knowingly” may be unclear about just what Smith knows. Suppose Smith mails his bank draft to Tegucigalpa, which (perhaps unbeknownst to Smith) is the capital of Honduras. If the bank official says, “Smith sent a bank draft to the capital of Honduras,” he has expressed next to nothing about Smith’s knowledge of that geographic identity. But if the official were to say, “Smith knowingly sent a bank draft to the capital of Honduras,” then the official has suggested that Smith knows his geography.
Similar examples abound. If a child knowingly takes a toy that belongs to his sibling, we assume that the child not only knows that he is taking something, but that he also knows that what he is taking is a toy and that the toy belongs to his sibling. If we say that someone knowingly ate a sandwich with cheese, we normally assume that the person knew both that he was eating a sandwich and that it contained cheese. Or consider the Government’s own example, “‘John knowingly discarded the homework of his sister.’” Brief for United States 9. The Government rightly points out that this sentence “does not necessarily” imply that John knew whom the homework belonged to. Ibid, (emphasis added). But that is what the sentence, as ordinarily used, does imply.
At the same time, dissimilar examples are not easy to find. The Government says that “knowingly” modifies only the verbs in the statute, while remaining indifferent to the subject’s knowledge of at least part of the transitive verb’s object. In certain contexts, a listener might understand the word “knowingly” to be used in that way. But the Government has not provided us with a single example of a sentence that, when used in typical fashion, would lead the hearer to believe that the word “knowingly” modifies only a transitive verb without the full object, i. e., that it leaves the hearer gravely uncertain about the subject’s state of mind in respect to the full object of the transitive verb in the sentence. The likely reason is that such sentences typically involve special contexts or themselves provide a more detailed explanation of background circumstances that call for such a reading. As Justice Alito notes, the inquiry into a sentence’s meaning is a contextual one. See post, at 661 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). No special context is present here. See infra, at 654-657.
The manner in which the courts ordinarily interpret criminal statutes is fully consistent with this ordinary English usage. That is to say courts ordinarily read a phrase in a criminal statute that introduces the elements of a crime with the word “knowingly” as applying that word to each element. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U. S. 64, 79 (1994) (Stevens, J., concurring). For example, in Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419 (1985), this Court interpreted a federal food stamp statute that said, “ ‘[wjhoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses coupons or authorization cards in any manner not authorized by [law]’ ” is subject to imprisonment. Id., at 420, n. 1. The question was whether the word “knowingly” applied to the phrase “in any manner not authorized by [law].” Id., at 423. The Court held that it did, id., at 433, despite the legal cliche “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
More recently, we had to interpret a statute that penalizes “[a]ny person who — (1) knowingly transports or ships [using any means or facility of] interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails, any visual depiction, if — (A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” 18 U. S. C. § 2252(a)(1)(A). X-Citement Video, supra. In issue was whether the term “knowingly” in paragraph (1) modified the phrase “the use of a minor” in subparagraph (A). Id., at 69. The language in issue in X-Citement Video (like the language in Liparota) was more ambiguous than the language here not only because the phrase “the use of a minor” was not the direct object of the verbs modified by “knowingly,” but also because it appeared in a different subsection. 513 U. S., at 68-69. Moreover, the fact that many sex crimes involving minors do not ordinarily require that a perpetrator know that his victim is a minor supported the Government’s position. Nonetheless, we again found that the intent element applied to “the use of a minor.” Id., at 72, and n. 2. Again the Government, while pointing to what it believes are special features of each of these cases, provides us with no convincing counterexample, although there may be such statutory instances.
The Government correctly points out that in these cases more was at issue than proper use of the English language. But if more is at issue here, what is it? The Government makes a further textual argument, a complex argument based upon a related provision of the statute. That provision applies “Aggravated identity theft” where the predicate crime is terrorism. See § 1028A(a)(2). The provision uses the same language as the provision before us up to the end, where it adds the words “or a false identification document.” Thus, it penalizes anyone who “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person or a false identification document.” Ibid.
The Government’s argument has four steps. Step One: We should not interpret a statute in a manner that makes some of its language superfluous. See, e. g., TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 (2001). Step Two: A person who knows that he is transferring, possessing, or using a “ ‘means of identification’” “‘without lawful authority,’” must know that the document either (1) belongs “ ‘to another person’ ” or (2) is a “ ‘false identification document’ ” because “ ‘there are no other choices.’ ” Brief for United States 14 (emphasis added). Step Three: Requiring the offender to know that the “means of identification” belongs to another person would consequently be superfluous in this terrorism provision. Step Four: We should not interpret the same phrase (“of another person”) in the two related sections differently.
If we understand the argument correctly, it seems to suffer two serious flaws. If the two listed circumstances (where the ID belongs to another person; where the ID is false) are the only two circumstances possibly present when a defendant (in this particular context) unlawfully uses a “means of identification,” then why list them at all? Why not just stop after criminalizing the knowing unlawful use of a “means of identification”? (Why specify that Congress does not mean the statute to cover, say, the use of dog tags?) The fact is, however, that the Government’s reasoning at Step Two is faulty. The two listed circumstances are not the only two circumstances possibly present when a defendant unlawfully uses a “means of identification.” One could, for example, verbally provide a seller or an employer with a made-up Social Security number, not an “identification document,” and the number verbally transmitted to the seller or employer might, or might not, turn out to belong to another person. The word “knowingly” applied to the “other person” requirement (even in a statute that similarly penalizes use of a “false identification document”) would not be surplus.
The Government also considers the statute’s purpose to be a circumstance showing that the linguistic context here is special. It describes that purpose as “providing] enhanced protection for individuals whose identifying information is used to facilitate the commission of crimes.” Id., at 5. And it points out that without the knowledge requirement, potential offenders will take great care to avoid wrongly using IDs that belong to others, thereby enhancing the protection that the statute offers.
The question, however, is whether Congress intended to achieve this enhanced protection by permitting conviction of those who do not know the ID they unlawfully use refers to a real person, i. e., those who do not intend to cause this further harm. And, in respect to this latter point, the statute’s history (outside of the statute’s language) is inconclusive.
On the one hand, some statements in the legislative history offer the Government a degree of support. The relevant House Report refers, for example, both to “identity theft” (use of an ID belonging to someone else) and to “identity fraud” (use of a false ID), often without distinguishing between the two. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 108-528, p. 25 (2004) (statement of Rep. Coble). And, in equating fraud and theft, Congress might have meant the statute to cover both — at least where the fraud takes the form of using an ID that (without the offender’s knowledge) belongs to someone else.
On the other hand, Congress separated the fraud crime from the theft crime in the statute itself. The title of one provision (not here at issue) is “Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information.” 18 U. S. C. § 1028. The title of another provision (the provision here at issue) uses the words “identity theft.” §1028A (emphasis added). Moreover, the examples of theft that Congress gives in the legislative history all involve instances where the offender would know that what he has taken identifies a different real person. H. R. Rep. No. 108-528, at 4-5 (identifying as examples of “identity theft” “ ‘dumpster diving,’ ” “accessing information that was originally collected for an authorized purpose,” “hack[ingj into computers,” and “steal[ing] paperwork likely to contain personal information”).
Finally, and perhaps of greatest practical importance, there is the difficulty in many circumstances of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant has the necessary knowledge. Take an instance in which an alien who unlawfully entered the United States gives an employer identification documents that in fact belong to others. How is the Government to prove that the defendant knew that this was so? The Government may be able to show that such a defendant knew the papers were not his. But perhaps the defendant did not care whether the papers (1) were real papers belonging to another person or (2) were simply counterfeit papers. The difficulties of proof along with the defendant’s necessary guilt of a predicate crime and the defendant’s necessary knowledge that he has acted “without lawful authority,” make it reasonable, in the Government’s view, to read the statute’s language as dispensing with the knowledge requirement.
We do not find this argument sufficient, however, to turn the tide in the Government’s favor. For one thing, in the classic case of identity theft, intent is generally not difficult to prove. For example, where a defendant has used another person’s identification information to get access to that person’s bank account, the Government can prove knowledge with little difficulty. The same is true when the defendant has gone through someone else’s trash to find discarded credit card and bank statements, or pretends to be from the victim’s bank and requests personal identifying information. Indeed, the examples of identity theft in the legislative history (dumpster diving, computer hacking, and the like) are all examples of the types of classic identity theft where intent should be relatively easy to prove, and there will be no practical enforcement problem. For another thing, to the extent that Congress may have been concerned about criminalizing the conduct of a broader class of individuals, the concerns about practical enforceability are insufficient to outweigh the clarity of the text. Similar interpretations that we have given other similarly phrased statutes also created practical enforcement problems. See, e. g., X-Citement Video, 513 U. S. 64; Liparota, 471 U. S. 419. But had Congress placed conclusive weight upon practical enforcement, the statute would likely not read the way it now reads. Instead, Congress used the word “knowingly” followed by a list of offense elements. And we cannot find indications in statements of its purpose or in the practical problems of enforcement sufficient to overcome the ordinary meaning, in English or through ordinary interpretive practice, of the words that it wrote.
We conclude that §1028A(a)(l) requires the Government to show that the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person. 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 Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that to convict petitioner for “knowingly transferring], possessing], or us[ing], without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person,” 18 U. S. C. § 1028A(a)(l), the Government must prove that he “knew that the ‘means of identification’ he . . . unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used, in fact, belonged to ‘another person.’” Ante, at 647. “Knowingly” is not limited to the statute’s verbs, ante, at 650. Even the Government must concede that. See United States v. Villanueva-Sotelo, 515 F. 3d 1234, 1237 (CADC 2008) (“According to the government, this text is unambiguous: the statute’s knowledge requirement extends only so far as ‘means of identification’ ”). But once it is understood to modify the object of those verbs, there is no reason to believe it does not extend to the phrase which limits that object (“of another person”). Ordinary English usage supports this reading, as the Court’s numerous sample sentences amply demonstrate. See ante, at 650-651.
But the Court is not content to stop at the statute’s text, and I do not join that further portion of the Court’s opinion. First, the Court relies in part on the principle that “courts ordinarily read a phrase in a criminal statute that introduces the elements of a crime with the word ‘knowingly’ as applying that word to each element.” Ante, at 652. If that is meant purely as a description of what most cases do, it is perhaps true, and perhaps not. I have not canvassed all the cases and am hence agnostic. If it is meant, however, as a normative description of what courts should ordinarily do when interpreting such statutes — and the reference to Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U. S. 64, 79 (1994), suggests as much — then I surely do not agree. The structure of the text in X-Citement Video plainly separated the “use of a minor” element from the “knowingly” requirement, wherefore I thought (and think) that case was wrongly decided. See id., at 80-81 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It is one thing to infer the common-law tradition of a mens rea requirement where Congress has not addressed the mental element of a crime. See Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 605 (1994); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 437-438 (1978). It is something else to expand a mens rea requirement that the statutory text has carefully limited.
I likewise cannot join the Court’s discussion of the (as usual, inconclusive) legislative history. Ante, at 655. Relying on the statement of a single Member of Congress or an unvoted-upon (and for all we know unread) Committee Report to expand a statute beyond the limits its text suggests is always a dubious enterprise. And consulting those incunabula with an eye to making criminal what the text would otherwise permit is even more suspect. See United States v. R. L. C., 503 U. S. 291, 307-309 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Indeed, it is not unlike the practice of Caligula, who reportedly “wrote his laws in a very small character, and hung them up upon high pillars, the more effectually to ensnare the people,” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 46 (1765).
The statute’s text is clear, and I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals on that ground alone.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Basing his complaint on the Illinois wrongful death statute, appellant administrator brought this action in the Wisconsin state court to recover damages for the death of Harold Hughes, who was fatally injured in an automobile accident in Illinois. The allegedly negligent driver and an insurance company were named as defendants. On their motion the trial court entered summary judgment “dismissing the complaint on the merits.” It held that a Wisconsin statute, which creates a right of action only for deaths caused in that state, establishes a local public policy against Wisconsin’s entertaining suits brought under the wrongful death acts of other states. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, notwithstanding the contention that the local statute so construed violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Art. IV, § 1 of the Constitution. The case is properly here on appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257.
We are called upon to decide the narrow question whether Wisconsin, over the objection raised, can close the doors of its courts to the cause of action created by the Illinois wrongful death act. Prior decisions have established that the Illinois statute is a “public act” within the provision of Art. IV, § 1 that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts ... of every other State.” It is also settled that Wisconsin cannot escape this 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. We have recognized, however, that full faith and credit does not automatically compel a forum state to subordinate its own statutory policy to a conflicting public act of another state; rather, it is for this Court to choose in each case between the competing public policies involved. The clash of interests in cases of this type has usually been described as a conflict between the public policies of two or more states. The more basic conflict involved in the present appeal, however, is as follows: On the one hand is the strong unifying principle embodied in the Full Faith and Credit Clause looking toward maximum enforcement in each state of the obligations or rights created or recognized by the statutes of sister states; on the other hand is the policy of Wisconsiri, as interpreted by its highest court, against permitting Wisconsin courts to entertain this wrongful death action.
We hold that Wisconsin’s policy must give way. That state has no real feeling of antagonism against wrongful death suits in general. To the contrary, a forum is regularly provided for cases of this nature, the exclusionary rule extending only so far as to bar actions for death not caused locally. The Wisconsin policy, moreover, cannot be considered as an application of the jorum non con-veniens doctrine, whatever effect that doctrine might be given if its use resulted in denying enforcement to public acts of other states. Even if we assume that Wisconsin could refuse, by reason of particular circumstances, to hear foreign controversies to which nonresidents were parties, the present case is not one lacking a close relationship with the state. For not only were appellant, the decedent and the individual defendant all residents of Wisconsin, but also appellant was appointed administrator and the corporate defendant was created under Wisconsin laws. We also think it relevant, although not crucial here, that Wisconsin may well be the only jurisdiction in which service could be had as an original matter on the insurance company defendant. And while in the present case jurisdiction over the individual defendant apparently could be had in Illinois by substituted service, in other cases Wisconsin’s exclusionary statute might amount to a deprivation of all opportunity to enforce valid death claims created by another state.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that Wisconsin’s statutory policy which excludes this Illinois cause of action is forbidden by the national policy of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Smith-Hurd’s Ill. Ann. Stat., 1936, c. 70, §§ 1, 2.
Wis. Stat., 1949, §331.03. This section contains language typically found in wrongful death acts but concludes as follows: “provided, that such action shall be brought for a death caused in this state.”
257 Wis. 35,42 N. W. 2d 452.
The parties concede, as they must, that if the same cause of action had previously been reduced to judgment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause would compel the courts of Wisconsin to entertain an action to enforce it. Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U. S. 411.
E. g., Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U. S. 629, 644; Bradford Elec. Co. v. Clapper, 286 U. S. 145, 154-155; John Hancock Ins. Co. v. Yates, 299 U. S. 178, 183.
E. g., Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U. S. 629, 642-643; Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U. S. 243, 260-261; cf. Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U. S. 411, 415; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183, 188. The reliance of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on Chambers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 207 U. S. 142, was misplaced. That case does not hold that one state, consistently with Art. IV, § 1, can exclude from its courts causes of action created by another state for, as pointed out in Broderick v. Rosner, supra at 642, n. 3, in Chambers “no claim was made under the full faith and credit clause.”
E. g., Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express, 314 U. S. 201, 210-211; Pacific Ins. Co. v. Commission, 306 U. S. 493, 502; Alaska Packers Assn. v. Commission, 294 U. S. 532, 547.
See, e. g., Alaska Packers Assn. v. Commission, 294 U. S. 532, 547-550.
This clause “altered the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore rights and obligations created under the laws or established by the judicial proceedings of the others, by making each an integral part of a single nation . . . .” Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U. S. 430, 439. See also Milwaukee County v. White Co., 296 U. S. 268, 276-277; Order of Travelers v. Wolfe, 331 U. S. 586.
The present case is not one where Wisconsin, having entertained appellant’s lawsuit, chose to apply its own instead of Illinois’ statute to measure the substantive rights involved. This distinguishes the present case from those where we have said that “Prima facie every state is entitled to enforce in its own courts its own statutes, lawfully enacted.” Alaska Packers Assn. v. Commission, 294 U. S. 532, 547; see also, Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 295-296.
It may well be that the wrongful death acts of Wisconsin and Illinois contain different provisions in regard to such matters as maximum recovery and disposition of the proceeds of suit. Such differences, however, are generally considered unimportant. See cases collected 77 A. L. R. 1311, 1317-1324.
See note 2, supra.
See Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U. S. 629, 643; compare Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Co., 191 U. S. 373, with Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U. S. 411.
Cf. Tennessee Coal Co. v. George, 233 U. S. 354, 359-360.
Smith-Hurd’s Ill. Ann. Stat., 1950, c. 95%, § 23.
In certain previous cases, e. g., Pacific Ins. Co. v. Commission, 306 U. S. 493, 502; Alaska Packers Assn. v. Commission, 294 U. S. 532, 547, this Court suggested that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause a forum state might make a distinction between statutes and judgments of sister states because of Congress’ failure to prescribe the extra-state effect to be accorded public acts. Subsequent to these decisions the Judicial Code was revised so as to provide: “Such Acts [of the legislature of any state] . . . and judicial proceedings . . . shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have ... in the courts of such State . . . from which they are taken.” (Italics added.) 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. Ill) § 1738. In deciding the present appeal, however, we have found it unnecessary to rely on any changes accomplished by the Judicial Code revision.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether a covenant not to enforce a trademark against a competitor’s existing products and any future “colorable imitations” moots the competitor’s action to have the trademark declared invalid.
I
Respondent Nike designs, manufactures, and sells athletic footwear, including a line of shoes known as Air Force Is. Petitioner Already also designs and markets athletic footwear, including shoe lines known as “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys.” Nike, alleging that the Soulja Boys infringed and diluted the Air Force 1 trademark, demanded that Already cease and desist its sale of those shoes. When Already refused, Nike filed suit in federal court alleging that the Soulja Boys as well as the Sugars infringed and diluted its Air Force 1 trademark. Already denied these allegations and filed a counterclaim contending that the Air Force 1 trade-' mark is invalid.
In March 2010, eight months after Nike filed its complaint, and four months after Already counterclaimed, Nike issued a “Covenant Not to Sue.” App. 95a. Its preamble stated that “Already’s actions ... no longer infringe or dilute the NIKE Mark at a level sufficient to warrant the substantial time and expense of continued litigation.” Id., at 96a. The covenant promised that Nike would not raise against Already or any affiliated entity any trademark or unfair competition claim based on any of Already’s existing footwear designs, or any future Already designs that constituted a “colorable imitation” of Already’s current products. Id., at 96a-97a.
After issuing this covenant, Nike moved to dismiss its claims with prejudice, and to dismiss Already’s invalidity counterclaim without prejudice on the ground that the covenant had extinguished the case or controversy. Already opposed dismissal of its counterclaim, arguing that Nike had not established that its voluntary cessation had mooted the case. In support, Already presented an affidavit from its president, stating that Already had plans to introduce new versions of its shoe lines into the market; affidavits from three potential investors, asserting that they would not consider investing in Already until Nike’s trademark was invalidated; and an affidavit from one of Already’s executives, stating that Nike had intimidated retailers into refusing to carry Already’s shoes.
The District Court dismissed Already’s counterclaim, stating that because Already sought “to invoke the Court’s declaratory judgment jurisdiction, it bears the burden of demonstrating that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over its counterclaim!!].” Civ. No. 09-6366 (SDNY, Jan. 20, 2011), App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a. The court read the covenant “broad[ly],” concluding that “any of [Already’s] future products that arguably infringed the Nike Mark would be ‘colorable imitations’” of Already’s current footwear and therefore protected by the covenant. Id., at 29a-30a, n. 2. Finding no evidence that Already sought to develop any shoes not covered by the covenant, the court held there was no longer “a substantial controversy ... of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Id., at 34a (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U. S. 118, 127 (2007); internal quotation marks omitted).
The Second Circuit affirmed. It held that in determining whether a covenant not to sue “eliminates a justiciable case or controversy,” courts should look to the totality of the circumstances, including “(1) the language of the covenant, (2) whether the covenant covers future, as well as past, activity and products, and (3) evidence of intention ... on the part of the party asserting jurisdiction” to engage in conduct not covered by the covenant. 663 F. 3d 89, 96 (2011) (footnote omitted). Noting that the covenant covers “both past sales and future sales of both existing products and colorable imitations,” the Second Circuit found it hard to conceive of a shoe that would infringe the Air Force 1 trademark yet not fall within the covenant. Id., at 97. Given that Already “ha[d] not asserted any intention to market any such shoe,” the court concluded that Already could not show any continuing injury, and that therefore no justiciable controversy remained. Ibid. We granted certiorari. 567 U. S. 933 (2012).
II
Article III of the Constitution grants the Judicial Branch authority to adjudicate “Cases” and “Controversies.” In our system of government, courts have “no business” deciding legal disputes or expounding on law in the absence of such a case or controversy. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 341 (2006). That limitation requires those who invoke the power of a federal court to demonstrate standing—a “personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984). We have repeatedly held that an “actual controversy” must exist not only “at the time the complaint is filed,” but through “all stages” of the litigation. Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U. S. 87, 92 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 67 (1997) (“To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, ‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed’” (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U. S. 395, 401 (1975))).
A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a “Case” or “Controversy” for purposes of Article III—“when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U. S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam) (some internal quotation marks omitted). No matter how vehemently the parties continue to dispute the lawfulness of the conduct that precipitated the lawsuit, the case is moot if the dispute “is no longer embedded in any actual controversy about the plaintiffs’ particular legal rights.” Alvarez, supra, at 93.
We have recognized, however, that a defendant cannot automatically moot a case simply by ending its unlawful conduct once sued. City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289 (1982). Otherwise, a defendant could engage in unlawful conduct, stop when sued to have the case declared moot, then pick up where he left off, repeating this cycle until he achieves all his unlawful ends. Given this concern, our cases have explained that “a defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 190 (2000).
HH HH HH
At the outset of this litigation, both parties had standing to pursue their competing claims in court. Nike had standing to sue because Already’s activity was allegedly infringing its rights under trademark law. Already had standing to file its counterclaim because Nike was allegedly pressing an invalid trademark to halt Already’s legitimate business activity. See MedImmune, supra, at 126-187 (a genuine threat of enforcement of intellectual property rights that inhibits commercial activity may support standing). But then Nike dismissed its claims with prejudice and issued its covenant, calling into question the existence of any continuing case or controversy.
Under our precedents, it was Nike’s burden to show that it “could not reasonably be expected” to resume its enforcement efforts against Already. Friends of the Earth, supra, at 190. Nike makes a halfhearted effort to avoid this test. Relying on Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 198 (1988), it argues that “when a defendant makes a judicially enforceable commitment to avoid the conduct that forms the basis for an Article III controversy, there is no reason to apply a special rule premised on the defendant’s unfettered ability to ‘return to [its] old ways.’ ” Brief for Respondent 42.
Nike’s reliance on Deakins is misplaced. In Deakins, the Court did not disavow the voluntary cessation doctrine; the Court employed precisely the analysis required by that test. It found the case was moot because the challenged action—pursuing a claim in court—could not be resumed in “this or any subsequent action” and because it was entirely “speculative” that any similar claim would arise in the future. 484 U. S., at 201, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). It distinguished that situation from one in which a defendant is “free to return to his old ways.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). That is the question the voluntary cessation doctrine poses: Could the allegedly wrongful behavior reasonably be expected to recur? Nike cannot avoid its “formidable burden” by assuming the answer to that question. Friends of the Earth, supra, at 190.
<5
A
Having determined that the voluntary cessation doctrine applies, we begin our analysis with the terms of the covenant:
“[Nike] unconditionally and irrevocably covenants to refrain from making any elaim(s) or demand(s)... against Already or any of its . . . related business entities . . . [including] distributors . . . and employees of such entities and all customers ... on account of any possible cause of action based on or involving trademark infringement, unfair competition, or dilution, under state or federal law . . . relating to the NIKE Mark based on the appearance of any of Already’s current and/or previous footwear product designs, and any colorable imitations thereof, regardless of whether that footwear is produced ... or otherwise used in commerce before or after the Effective Date of this Covenant.” App. 96a-97a (emphasis added).
The breadth of this covenant suffices to meet the burden imposed by the voluntary cessation test. The covenant is unconditional and irrevocable. Beyond simply prohibiting Nike from filing suit, it prohibits Nike from making any claim or any demand. It reaches beyond Already to protect Already’s distributors and customers. And it covers not just current or previous designs, but any colorable imitations.
In addition, Nike originally argued that the Sugars and Soulja Boys infringed its trademark; in other words, Nike believed those shoes were “colorable imitations” of the Air Force Is. See Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), §32, 60 Stat. 437, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1114. Nike’s covenant now allows Already to produce all of its existing footwear designs—including the Sugar and Soulja Boy—and any “col-orable imitation” of those designs. We agree with the Court of Appeals that “it is hard to imagine a scenario that would potentially infringe [Nike’s trademark] and yet not fall under the Covenant.” 663 F. 3d, at 97. Nike, having taken the position in court that there is no prospect of such a shoe, would be hard pressed to assert the contrary down the road. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U. S. 742, 749 (2001) (“ ‘[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him’ ” (quoting Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S. 680, 689 (1895))). If such a shoe exists, the parties have not pointed to it, there is no evidence that Already has dreamt of it, and we cannot conceive of it. It sits, as far as we can tell, on a shelf between Dorothy’s ruby slippers and Perseus’s winged sandals.
Given Nike’s demonstration that the covenant encompasses all of its allegedly unlawful conduct, it was incumbent on Already to indicate that it engages in or has sufficiently concrete plans to engage in activities not covered by the covenant. After all, information about Already’s business activities and plans is uniquely within its possession. The case is moot if the court, considering the covenant’s language and the plaintiff’s anticipated future activities, is satisfied that it is “absolutely clear” that the allegedly unlawful activity cannot reasonably be expected to recur.
But when given the opportunity before the District Court, Already did not assert any intent to design or market a shoe that would expose it to any prospect of infringement liability. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a (finding that there was “no indication” of any such intent); 663 F. 3d, at 97, n. 5 (noting the “absence of record evidence that [Already] intends to make any arguably infringing shoe that is not unambiguously covered by the Covenant”). The only affidavit it submitted to the District Court on that question was from its president, saying little more than that Already currently has plans to introduce new shoe lines and make modifications to existing shoe lines. It never stated that these shoes would arguably infringe Nike’s trademark yet fall outside, the scope of the covenant. Nor did it do so on appeal to the Second Circuit. And again, it failed to do so here, even when counsel for Already was asked at oral argument whether his client had any intention to design or market a shoe that would even arguably fall outside the covenant. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-8. Given the covenant’s broad language, and given that Already has asserted no concrete plans to engage in conduct not covered by the covenant, we can conclude the case is moot because the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur.
The authorities on which Already relies are not on point. In Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., we affirmed the unremarkable proposition that a court’s “decision to rely on one of two possible alternative grounds (noninfringement rather than invalidity) did not strip it of power to decide the second question, particularly when its decree was subject to review by this Court.” 508 U. S. 83, 98 (1993). In essence, when a court has jurisdiction to review a case, and decides the issue on two independent grounds, the first half of its opinion does not moot the second half, or vice versa. Here the issue is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the claim in the first place.
This case is also unlike Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U. S. 359 (1943). There, patent holders brought suit against licensees for specific performance of a license. The licensees counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents were invalid. The Court of Appeals, after finding that the license was no longer in force and the devices at issue did not infringe, dismissed the licensees’ counterclaim as moot. We reversed, finding the controversy still live because the licensees continued to “manufacturfe] and sell[] additional articles claimed to fall under the patents,” and the patent holders continued to “demand[]... royalties” for those products. Id., at 364-365. Here of course the whole point is that Already is free to sell its shoes without any fear of a trademark claim.
B
Already argues, however, that there are alternative theories of Article III injuries that save the case from mootness. First, it argues that so long as Nike remains free to assert its trademark, investors will be apprehensive about investing in Already. Second, it argues that given Nike’s decision to sue in the first place, Nike’s trademarks will now hang over Already’s operations like a Damoclean sword. Finally, and relatedly, Already argues that, as one of Nike’s competitors, it inherently has standing to challenge Nike’s intellectual property.
The problem for Already is that none of these injuries suffices to support Article III standing. Although the voluntary cessation standard requires the defendant to show that the challenged behavior cannot reasonably be expected to. recur, we have never held that the doctrine—by imposing this burden on the defendant—allows the plaintiff to rely on theories of Article III injury that would fail to establish standing in the first place.
We begin with Already’s argument that Nike’s trademark registration “gives false color to state and federal trademark claims which expose [Already’s] business to substantial and unpredictable risks,” deterring investors. Brief for Petitioner 31. To demonstrate this, Already presented affidavits from potential investors stating that Nike’s lawsuit dissuaded them from investing in Already or prompted them to withdraw prior investments, and that they would “consider” investing in Already only if Nike’s trademark were struck down. App. to Pet. for Cert. 33a. Already argues that like the plaintiffs in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926)—who had standing to challenge án ordinance because it reduced their property value—Already should have standing to challenge the trademark because its mere existence hampers its ability to attract capital.
But once it is “absolutely clear” that challenged conduct cannot “reasonably be expected to recur,” Friends of the Earth, 528 U. S., at 190, the fact that some individuals may base decisions on “conjectural or hypothetical” speculation does not give rise to the sort of “concrete” and “actual” injury necessary to establish Article III standing, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Euclid, we reasoned that, assuming the merits of plaintiff’s claim, “the ordinance, in effect, constitutes a present invasion of [plaintiff’s] property rights.” 272 U. S., at 386. Here there is no such present invasion; in fact there is a covenant promising no invasion. In addition, unlike the plaintiffs in Euclid, Already does not claim that Nike’s Air Force 1 infringes any of its property rights.
Already has also pointed to an affidavit from a vice president stating that Nike has “suggested” to Already’s retailers that they refrain from carrying Already’s shoes, lest “Nike . . . cancel its account or take other actions against the retailer, e. g., delay shipment of the retailer’s Nike order or Tose’ the retailer’s Nike order.” App. 177a. Even if a plaintiff may bring an invalidity claim based on a reasonable expectation that a trademark holder will take action against the plaintiff’s retailers, the covenant here extends protection to Already’s distributors and customers. And even if Nike were engaging in harassment or unfair trade practices, Already has not explained how invalidating Nike’s trademark would do anything to stop it.
Already also complains that it can no longer “just blithely go about its shoe business as if there were no risk of being sued again.” Reply Brief 14. As counsel told us at oral argument: “once bitten, twice shy.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. But we have never held that a plaintiff has standing to pursue declaratory relief merely on the basis of being “once bitten.” Quite the opposite. See, e.g., Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 109 (1983) (holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a choke-hold). Given our conclusion that Nike has met its burden of demonstrating there is no reasonable risk that Already will be sued again, there is no reason for Already to be so shy. It is the only one of Nike’s competitors with a judicially enforceable covenant protecting it from litigation relating to the Air Force 1 trademark. Insofar as the injury is a threat of Air Force 1 trademark litigation, Already is Nike’s least injured competitor.
Already falls back on a sweeping argument: In the context of registered trademarks, “[n]o covenant, no matter how broad, can eradicate the effects” of a registered but invalid trademark. Brief for Petitioner 33-34. According to Already, allowing Nike to unilaterally moot the case “subverts” the important role federal courts play in the administration of federal patent and trademark law. Id., at 40. It allows companies like Nike to register and brandish invalid trademarks to intimidate smaller competitors, avoiding judicial review by issuing covenants in the rare case where the little guy fights back. Already and its amici thus contend that Already, “[a]s a company engaged in the business of designing and marketing athletic shoes,” has standing to challenge Nike’s trademark. See id., at 21; see also Brief for Intellectual Property Professors as Amici Curiae 3 (suggesting that standing extends to all “participants in that field”); Brief for Public Patent Foundation as Amicus Curiae 12 (“[T]he public has standing to challenge the validity of any issued patent or registered trademark in court”).
Under this approach, Nike need not even have threatened to sue first. Already, even with no plans to make anything resembling the Air Force 1, could sue to invalidate the trademark simply because Already and Nike both compete in the athletic footwear market. Taken to its logical conclusion, the theory seems to be that a market participant is injured for Article III purposes whenever a competitor benefits from something allegedly unlawful—whether a trademark, the awarding of a contract, a landlord-tenant arrangement, or so on. We have never accepted such a boundless theory of standing. The cases Already cites for this remarkable proposition stand for no such thing. In each of those cases, standing was based on an injury more particularized and more concrete than the mere assertion that something unlawful benefited the plaintiff’s competitor. Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U. S. 656 (1993); Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U. S. 115 (1974).
Already’s arguments boil down to a basic policy objection that dismissing this case allows Nike to bully small innovators lawfully operating in the public domain. This concern cannot compel us to adopt Already’s broad theory of standing.
First of all, granting covenants not to sue may be a risky long-term strategy for a trademark holder. See, e. g., 3 J. McCarthy, Trademarks & Unfair Competition §18:48, p. 18-112 (4th ed. 2012) (“[UJncontrolled and ‘naked’ licensing can result in such a loss of significance of a trademark that a federal registration should be cancelled”); Sun Banks of Fla., Inc. v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 651 F. 2d 311, 316 (CA5 1981) (finding that “extensive third-party use of the [mark was] impressive evidence that there would be no likelihood of confusion”). In addition, the Lanham Act provides some check on abusive litigation practices by providing for an award of attorney’s fees in “exceptional cases.” 15 U. S. C. § 1117(a); cf., e. g., Gwaltney of Smithfteld, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U. S. 49, 67, n. 6 (1987) (explaining that an award of litigation costs can protect “from the suddenly repentant defendant”).
Accepting Already’s theory may benefit the small competitor in this case. But lowering the gates for one party lowers the gates for all. As a result, larger companies with more resources will have standing to challenge the intellectual property portfolios of their more humble rivals—not because they are threatened by any particular patent or trademark, but simply because they are competitors in the same market. This would further encourage parties to employ litigation as a weapon against their competitors rather than as a last resort for settling disputes.
Already’s only legally cognizable injury—the fact that Nike took steps to enforce its trademark—is now gone and, given the breadth of the covenant, cannot reasonably be expected to recur. There being no other basis on which to find a live controversy, the case is clearly moot.
V
The Solicitor General asks us to “remand the case for further proceedings in which the parties can develop the record on both the scope of the covenant and petitioner’s business activities, and the courts below can apply the proper standard to the record.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28.
Such a remand would serve no purpose. The scope of the covenant is clear. Already’s argument is not that the covenant could be drafted more broadly, but instead that no covenant would ever do. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12-13.
As for business activities, it is plain that Already has said all it has to say. The District Court held a hearing on whether the case was mooted by the covenant. There, and at every stage of the proceedings thereafter, Already steadfastly refused to suggest that it has any plans to create any arguably infringing shoe that does not unambiguously fall within the scope of the covenant—this despite every incentive, opportunity, and invitation to do so. As noted, the District Court expressly found “no indication” that Already had any such plans, App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a, and Already never challenged this finding. It did not challenge that finding on appeal to the Second Circuit, even though its significance was clear. The Court of Appeals expressly found that Already “has not asserted any intention to market any such shoe.” 663 F. 3d, at 97. Already declined to challenge these conclusions before us, despite questions from .the bench addressing that particular issue. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7-8.
The courts below did not expressly invoke the voluntary cessation standard, as articulated in our cases. But the analysis in their opinions addressed the same questions we have addressed today under that standard. In determining the case was moot, they relied, as we have, on the breadth of the covenant and the absence of any indication that Already would produce an infringing shoe. The District Court explained that “[w]hether a covenant not to sue will divest the trial court of jurisdiction depends on what is covered by the covenant.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a (internal quotation marks omitted). It read the covenant “broadly,” id., at 34a, and found “no indication that any of [Already’s] forthcoming models would extend beyond this broad language,” id., at 31a. It even concluded that from Already’s perspective, there was “little difference” between invalidating the trademark and the scope of protection already afforded by the covenant. Id., at 34a.
Likewise, the Court of Appeals asked “whether the covenant covers future, as well as past, activity and products,” and inquired into “evidence of intention or lack of intention, on the part of the party asserting jurisdiction, to engage in new activity or to develop new potentially infringing products that arguably are not covered by the covenant.” 663 F. 3d, at 96. It concluded that “[t]he breadth of the Covenant renders the threat of litigation remote or nonexistent” because it could not envision a shoe that would be within Nike’s trademark yet not protected by the covenant, noting that Already “has not asserted any intention to market any such shoe.” Id., at 97.
Under such circumstances, a remand would serve no purpose. Cf., e. g., Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U. S. 754, 766-771 (2011) (announcing new standard and directly applying standard to affirm the jury verdict); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986) (announcing and applying new standard). The uncontested findings made by the District Court, and confirmed by the Second Circuit, make it “absolutely clear” this case is moot.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Sotomayor join, concurring.
As the Court now holds and as the precedents instruct, when respondent Nike invoked the covenant not to sue to show the case is moot, it had the burden to establish that proposition. The burden was not on Already to show that a justiciable controversy remains. Under the voluntary cessation doctrine, Nike bears the “formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 190 (2000). In the circumstances here, then, Nike must demonstrate that the covenant not to sue is of sufficient breadth and force that Already can have no reasonable anticipation of a future trademark infringement claim from Nike.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals issued their rulings on the erroneous premise that it was for Already to make the relevant showing. When a court has imposed the burden to establish a certain proposition on the wrong party, remand from a reviewing court is often appropriate to determine whether the outcome would have been different had the proper rulé been applied. Here, however, the Court concludes the case must be deemed moot in all events, based on the terms and scope of the covenant and on Already’s seeming insistence that no matter how it might be worded, a covenant drawn by the trademark holder cannot moot the ease. Brief for Petitioner 33-34; Tr. of Oral Arg. 10-13. For reasons the Court states, this goes too far. Already appears also to disclaim any need to determine whether there is a real likelihood it will produce a new product that, first, is not a colorable imitation of its existing product line, and, second, might be thought to infringe Nike’s trademark.
This brief, separate concurrence is written to underscore that covenants like the one Nike filed here ought not to be taken as an automatic means for the party who first charged a competitor with trademark infringement suddenly to abandon the suit without incurring the risk of an ensuing adverse adjudication. Courts should be well aware that charges of trademark infringement can be disruptive to the good business relations between the manufacturer alleged to have been an infringer and its distributors, retailers, and investors. The mere pendency of litigation can mean that other actors in the marketplace may be reluctant to have future dealings with the alleged infringer. Nike appears to have been well aware of that dynamic in this case. In referring to Already it stated at one point: “[Ojver the past eight months, Nike has cleared out the worst offending infringers. Now Already remains as one of the last few companies that was identified on that top ten list of infringers.” App. 114a.
Any demonstrated reluctance by investors, distributors, and retailers to maintain good relations with the alleged in-fringer might, in an appropriate case, be an indication that the market itself anticipates that a new line of products could be outside the covenant not to sue yet still within a zone of alleged infringement. And, as noted at the outset, it is the trademark holder who has the burden to show that this is not the case. It is not the burden of the alleged infringer to prove that the covenant not to sue is inadequate to protect its current and future products from a trademark enforcement action.
In later cases careful consideration must be given to the consequences of using a covenant not to sue as the basis for a motion to dismiss as moot. If the holder of an alleged trademark can commence suit against a competitor; in mid-course file a covenant not to sue; and then require the competitor and its business network to engage in costly, satellite proceedings to demonstrate that future production or sales might still be compromised, it would seem that the trademark holder’s burden to show the case is moot may fall well short of being formidable. The very suit the trademark holder initiated and later seeks to declare moot may still cause disruption and costs to the competition. The formidable burden to show the case is moot ought to require the trademark holder, at the outset, to make a substantial showing that the business of the competitor and its supply network will not be disrupted or weakened by satellite litigation over mootness or by any threat latent in the terms of the covenant itself. It would be most unfair to allow the party who commences the suit to use its delivery of a covenant not to sue as an opportunity to force a competitor to expose its future business plans or to otherwise disadvantage .the competitor and its business network, all in aid of deeming moot a suit the trademark holder itself chose to initiate.
There are relatively few cases that have discussed the meaning and effect of covenants not to sue in the context of ongoing litigation. See, e. g., Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 556 F. 3d 1294 (CA Fed. 2009); Caraco Pharmaceutical Labs., Ltd. v. Forest Labs., Inc., 527 F. 3d 1278 (CA Fed. 2008). Courts should proceed with caution before ruling that they can be used to terminate litigation. An insistence on the proper allocation of the formidable burden on the party asserting, mootness is one way to ensure that covenants are not automatic mechanisms for trademark holders to use courts to intimidate competitors without, at the same time, assuming the risk that their trademark will be found invalid and unenforceable.
While there still may be some doubts that Nike’s showing below would suffice in other circumstances, here Already’s litigation stance does seem to have made further proceedings on the mootness issue unnecessary. In addition, as the Court notes, in any future trademark proceeding Nike will be bound by the lower courts’ broad reading of this particular covenant, thus barring suit against Already for any shoe that is not an exact copy or counterfeit version of the Air Force 1 shoe. See ante, at 98-94, and n. (citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U. S. 742, 749 (2001)).
With these observations, I join the opinion and judgment of the Court.
Nike has “acknowledged that if [Already] were to manufacture an exact copy of the Air Force 1 shoe . . . Nike could claim that the Covenant permits an infringement suit on the ground that a counterfeit differs from a colorable imitation under the Lanham Act.” 663 F. 3d, at 97, n. 5. Already, however, has never asserted any intent to make counterfeit Air Force Is. Ibid. Moreover, because a counterfeit would presumably include Nike’s swoosh, an independently registered trademark not at issue here, invalidating the Air Force 1 trademark may not be sufficient to allow Already to proceed to make counterfeits. See 16 U. S. C. § 1127 (defining a counterfeit as a “spurious mark which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark”).
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
announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun joined.
East Cleveland’s housing ordinance, like many throughout the country, limits occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. § 1351.02. But the ordinance contains an unusual and complicated definitional section that recognizes as a “family” only a few categories of related individuals. § 1341.08. Because her family, living together in her home, fits none of those categories, appellant stands convicted of a criminal offense. The question in this case is whether the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
Appellant, Mrs. Inez Moore, lives in her East Cleveland home together with her son, Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons, Dale, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. The two boys are first cousins rather than brothers; we are told that John came to live with his grandmother and with the elder and younger Dale Moores after his mother’s death.
In early 1973, Mrs. Moore received a notice of violation from the city, stating that John was an “illegal occupant” and directing her to comply with the ordinance. When she failed to remove him from her home, the city filed a criminal charge. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss, claiming that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled, and upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied review. We noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal, 425 U. S. 949 (1976).
II
The city argues that our decision in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U. S. 1 (1974), requires us to sustain the ordinance attacked here. Belle Terre, like East Cleveland, imposed limits on the types of groups that could occupy a single dwelling unit. Applying the constitutional standard announced in this Court’s leading land-use case, Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926), we sustained the Belle Terre ordinance on the ground that it bore a rational relationship to permissible state objectives.
But one overriding factor sets this case apart from Belle Terre. The ordinance there affected only unrelated individuals. It expressly allowed all who were related by “blood, adoption, or marriage” to live together, and in sustaining the ordinance we were careful to note that it promoted “family needs” and “family values.” 416 U. S., at 9. East Cleveland, in contrast, has chosen to regulate the occupancy of its housing by slicing deeply into the family itself. This is no mere incidental result of the ordinance. On its face it selects certain categories of relatives who may live together and declares that others may not. In particular, it makes a crime of a grandmother’s choice to live with her grandson in circumstances like those presented here.
When a city undertakes such intrusive regulation of the family, neither Belle Terre nor Euclid governs; the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate. “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one'oT the* liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639-640 (1974). A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399-401 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925), have consistently acknowledged a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944). See, e. g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 152-153 (1973); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 231-233 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 639 (1968); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); id., at 495-496 (Goldberg, J., concurring); id., at 502-503 (White, J., concurring); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 542-544, 549-553 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting); cf. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967); May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 533 (1953); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). Of course, the family is not beyond regulation. See Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166. But when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation. See Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 554 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
When thus examined, this ordinance cannot survive. The city seeks to justify it as a means of preventing overcrowding, minimizing traffic and parking congestion, and avoiding an undue financial burden on East Cleveland's school system. Although these are legitimate goals, the ordinance before us serves them marginally, at best. For example, the ordinance permits any family consisting only of husband, wife, and unmarried children to live together, even if the family contains a half dozen licensed drivers, each with his or her own car. At the same time it forbids an adult brother and sister to share a household, even if both faithfully use public transportation. The ordinance would permit a grandmother to live with a single dependent son and children, even if his school-age children number a dozen, yet it forces Mrs. Moore to find another dwelling for her grandson John, simply because of the presence of his uncle and cousin in the same household. We need not labor the point. Section 1341.08 has but a tenuous relation to alleviation of the conditions mentioned by the city.
Ill
The city would distinguish the cases based on Meyer and Pierce. It points out that none of them “gives grandmothers any fundamental rights with respect to grandsons,” Brief for Appellee 18, and suggests that any constitutional right to live together as a family extends only to the nuclear family— essentially a couple and their dependent children.
To be sure, these cases did not expressly consider the family relationship presented here. They were immediately concerned with freedom of choice with respect to childbearing, e. g., LaFleur, Roe v. Wade, Griswold, supra, or with the rights of parents to the custody and companionship of their own children, Stanley v. Illinois, supra, or with traditional parental authority in matters of child rearing and education. Yoder, Ginsberg, Pierce, Meyer, supra. But unless we close our eyes to the basic reasons why certain rights associated with the family have been accorded shelter under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, we cannot avoid applying the force and rationale of these precedents to the family choice involved in this case.
Understanding those reasons requires careful attention to this Court’s function under the Due Process Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan described it eloquently:
“Due process has not been reduced to any formula; its content cannot be determined by reference to any code. The best that can be said is that through the course of this Court’s decisions it has represented the balance which our Nation, built upon postulates of respect for the liberty of the individual, has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society. If the supplying of content to this Constitutional concept has of necessity been a rational process, it certainly has not been one where judges have felt free to roam where unguided speculation might take them. The balance of which I speak is the balance struck by this country, having regard to what history teaches are the traditions from which it developed as well as the traditions from which it broke. That tradition is a living thing. A decision of this Court which radically departs from it could not long survive, while a decision which builds on what has survived is likely to be sound. No formula could serve as a substitute, in this area, for judgment and restraint.
“. . . [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.” Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 542-543 (dissenting opinion).
Substantive due process has at times been a treacherous field for this Court. There are risks when the judicial branch gives enhanced protection to certain substantive liberties without the guidance of the more specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. As the history of the Lochner era demonstrates, there is reason for concern lest the only limits to such judicial intervention become the predilections of those who happen at the time to be Members of this Court. That history counsels caution and restraint. But it does not counsel abandonment, nor does it require what the city urges here: cutting off any protection of family rights at the first convenient, if arbitrary boundary — the boundary of the nuclear family.
Appropriate limits on substantive due process come not from drawing arbitrary lines but rather from careful “respect for the teachings of history [and] solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S., at 501 (Harlan, J., concurring). See generally Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 672-674, and nn. 41, 42. (1977); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 162-163 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.
Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition. Over the years millions of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it. Even if conditions of modern society have brought about a decline in extended family households, they have not erased the accumulated wisdom of civilization, gained over the centuries and honored throughout our history, that supports a larger conception of the family. Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. Decisions concerning child rearing, which Yoder, Meyer, Pierce and other cases have recognized as entitled to constitutional protection, long have been shared with grandparents or other relatives who occupy the same household — ■ indeed who may take on major responsibility for the rearing of the children. Especially in times of adversity, such as the death of a spouse or economic need, the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life. This is apparently what-happened here.
Whether or not such a household is established because of personal tragedy, the choice of relatives in this degree of kinship to live together may not lightly be denied by the State. Pierce struck down an Oregon law requiring all children to attend the State’s public schools, holding that the Constitution “excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” 268 U. S., at 535. By the same token the Constitution prevents East Cleveland from standardizing its children — and its adults — by forcing all to live in certain narrowly defined family patterns.
Reversed.
All citations by section number refer to the Housing Code of the city of East Cleveland, Ohio.
Section 1341.08 (1966) provides:
“ ‘Family’ means a number of individuals related to the nominal head of the household or to the spouse of the nominal head of the household living as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling unit, but limited to the following:
“(a) Husband or wife of the nominal head of the household.
“(b) Unmarried children of the nominal head of the household or of the spouse of the nominal head of the household, provided, however, that such unmarried children have no children residing with them.
“(c) Father or mother of the nominal head of the household or of the spouse of the nominal head of the household.
“(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) hereof, a family may include not more than one dependent married or unmarried child of the nominal head of the household or of the spouse of the nominal head of the household and the spouse and dependent children of such dependent child. For the purpose of this subsection, a dependent person is one who has more than fifty percent of his total support furnished for him by the nominal head of the household and the spouse of the nominal head of the household.
“(e) A family may consist of one individual.”
Appellant also claims that the ordinance contravenes the Equal Protection Clause, but it is not necessary for us to reach that contention.
Brief for Appellant 4, 25. John’s father, John Moore, Sr., has apparently been living with the family at least since the time of trial. Whether he was living there when the citation was issued is in dispute. Under the ordinance his presence too probably would be a violation. But we take the case as the city has framed it. The citation that led to prosecution recited only that John Moore, Jr., was in the home in violation of the ordinance.
The dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice suggests that Mrs. Moore should be denied a hearing in this Court because she failed to seek discretionary administrative relief in the form of a variance, relief that is no longer available. There are sound reasons for requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies in some situations, but such a requirement is wholly inappropriate where the party is a criminal defendant in circumstances like those present here. See generally McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185 (1969). Mrs. Moore defends against the State’s prosecution on the ground that the ordinance is facially invalid, an issue that the zoning review board lacks competency to resolve. In any event, this Court has never held that a general principle of exhaustion could foreclose a criminal defendant from asserting constitutional invalidity of the statute under which she is being prosecuted. See, e. g., Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 446-447 (1944).
Moreover, those cases that have denied certain nonconstitutional defenses to criminal defendants for failure to exhaust remedies did so pursuant to statutes that implicitly or explicitly mandated such a holding. See, e. g., Falbo v. United States, 320 U. S. 549 (1944); Yakus v. United States, supra; McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479 (1971). Because of the statutes the defendants were on notice that failure to pursue available administrative relief might result in forfeiture of a defense in an enforcement proceeding. But here no Ohio statute or ordinance .required exhaustion or gave Mrs. Moore any such warning. Indeed, the Ohio courts entertained all her claims, perceiving no denigration of state administrative process in according full judicial review.
Euclid held that land-use regulations violate the Due Process Clause if they are “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” 272 U. S., at 395. See Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U. S. 183, 188 (1928). Later cases have emphasized that the general welfare is not to be narrowly understood; it embraces a broad range of governmental purposes. See Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954). But our cases have not departed from the requirement that the government’s chosen means must rationally further some legitimate state purpose.
It is significant that East Cleveland has another ordinance specifically addressed to the problem of overcrowding. See United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 536-537 (1973). Section 1351.03 limits population density directly, tying the maximum permissible occupancy of a dwelling to the habitable floor area. Even if John, Jr., and his father both remain in Mrs. Moore’s household, the family stays well within these limits.
8 This explains why Meyer and Pierce have survived and enjoyed frequent reaffirmanee, while other substantive due process cases of the same era have been repudiated — including a number written, as were Meyer and Pierce, by Mr. Justice McReynolds.
Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905). See North Dakota Pharmacy Bd. v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U. S. 156, 164-167 (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 514-527 (1965) (Black, J., dissenting); Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726 (1963); Baldwin v. Missouri, 281 U. S. 586, 595 (1930) (Holmes, J., dissenting); G. Gunther, Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law 550-596 (9th ed. 1975).
A similar restraint marks our approach to the questions whether an asserted substantive right is entitled to heightened solicitude under the Equal Protection Clause because it is “explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution,” San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 33-34 (1973), and whether or to what extent a guarantee in the Bill of Rights should be “incorporated” in the Due Process Clause because it is “necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149-150, n. 14 (1968); see Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 372 n. 9 (1972) (opinion of Powell, J.).
For a recent suggestion that the holding in Griswold is best understood in this fashion, see Pollak, Comment, 84 Yale L. J. 638, 650-653 (1975). “[I]n due course we will see Griswold as a reaffirmation of the Court’s continuing obligation to test the justifications offered by the state for state-imposed constraints which significantly hamper those modes of individual fulfillment which are at the heart of a free society.” Id., at 653.
In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972), the Court rested its holding in part on the constitutional right of parents to assume the primary role in decisions concerning the rearing of their children. That right is recognized because it reflects a “strong tradition” founded on “the history and culture of Western civilization,” and because the parental role “is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Id., at 232. In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968), the Court spoke of the same right as “basic in the structure of our society.” Id., at 639. Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, struck down Connecticut’s antieontraception statute. Three concurring Justices, relying on both the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, emphasized that “the traditional relation of the family” is “a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization.” 381 U. S., at 496 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C. J., and Brennan, J., concurring). Speaking of the same statute as that involved in Griswold, Mr. Justice Harlan wrote, dissenting in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 551-552 (1961): “[H]ere we have not an intrusion into the home so much as on the life which characteristically has its place in the home. . . . The home derives its pre-eminence as the seat of family life. And the integrity of that life is something so fundamental that it has been found to draw to its protection the principles of more than one explicitly granted Constitutional right.”
Although he agrees that the Due Process Clause has substantive content, Mr. Justice White in dissent expresses the fear that our recourse to history and tradition will “broaden enormously the horizons of the Clause.” Post, at 549-550. To the contrary, an approach grounded in history imposes limits on the judiciary that are more meaningful than any based on the abstract formula taken from Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937), and apparently suggested as an alternative. Cf. Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, at 149-150, n. 14 (rejecting the Palko formula as the basis for deciding what procedural protections are required of a State, in favor of a historical approach based on the Anglo-American legal tradition). Indeed, the passage cited in Mr. Justice White’s dissent as “most accurately reflect[ing] the thrust of prior decisions” on substantive due process, post, at 545, expressly points to history and tradition as the source for “supplying .. . content to this Constitutional concept.” Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 542 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
See generally Wilkinson & White, Constitutional Protection for Personal Lifestyles, 62 Cornell L. Rev. 563, 623-624 (1977).
See generally B. Yorburg, The Changing Family (1973); Bronfenbrenner, The Calamitous Decline of the American Family, Washington Post, Jan. 2, 1977, p. Cl. Recent census reports bear out the importance of family patterns other than the prototypical nuclear family. In 1970, 26.5% of all families contained one or more members over 18 years of age, other than the head of household and spouse. U. S. Department of Commerce, 1970 Census of Population, vol. 1, pt. 1, Table 208. In 1960 the comparable figure was 26.1%. U. S. Department of Commerce, 1960 Census of Population, vol. 1, pt. 1, Table 187. Earlier data are not available.
Cf. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), which spoke broadly of family authority as against the State, in a case where the child was being reared by her aunt, not her natural parents.
We are told that the mother of John Moore, Jr., died when he was less than one year old. He, like uncounted others who have suffered a similar tragedy, then came to live with the grandmother to provide the infant with a substitute for his mother’s care and to establish a more normal home environment. Brief for Appellant 25.
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA or Act), 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., provides compensation for the death or disability of any person engaged in “maritime employment,” §902(3), if the disability or death results from an injury incurred upon the navigable waters of the United States or any adjoining pier or other area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel, § 903(a). Thus, a worker claiming under the Act must satisfy both a “status” and a “situs” test. The court below held that respondent Robert Gray, a welder working on a fixed offshore oil-drilling platform in state territorial waters, was entitled to benefits under the Act. We reverse for the reason that Gray was not engaged in maritime employment.
I-H
Respondent Gray worked for Herb s Welding, Inc., m the Bay Marchand oil and gas field off the Louisiana coast. Herb’s Welding provided welding services to the owners of drilling platforms. The field was located partly in Louisiana territorial waters, i. e., within three miles of the shore, and partly on the Outer Continental Shelf. Gray ate and slept on a platform situated in Louisiana waters. He spent roughly three-quarters of his working time on platforms in state waters and the rest on platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf. He worked exclusively as a welder, building and replacing pipelines and doing general maintenance work on the platforms.
On July 11, 1975, Gray was welding a gas flow line on a fixed platform located in Louisiana waters. He burnt through the bottom of the line and an explosion occurred. Gray ran from the area, and in doing so hurt his knee. He sought benefits under the LHWCA for lost wages, disability, and medical expenses. When petitioner United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., the workers’ compensation carrier for Herb’s Welding, denied LHWCA benefits, Gray filed a complaint with the Department of Labor. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), relying on our decision in Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U. S. 352 (1969), ruled that because Gray’s work was totally involved in the exploration for, and development and transmission of, oil and gas from submerged lands, it was not relevant to traditional maritime law and lacked any significant maritime connection. Gray therefore did not satisfy the LHWCA’s status requirement.
The Benefits Review Board reversed on other grounds. 12 BRBS 752 (1980). By a vote of 2-1, it concluded that irrespective of the nature of his employment, Gray could recover by virtue of a provision of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq. (Lands Act), that grants LHWCA benefits to offshore oil workers injured on the Outer Continental Shelf. Although Gray had been injured in state waters, the Board felt that his injury nonetheless could be said to have occurred, in the words of the statute, “as a result of” operations on the outer shelf. It considered his work “integrally related” to such operations. 12 BRBS, at 757. The dissenting Board member argued that the Lands Act provides LHWCA benefits only for injuries actually occurring in the geographic area of the outer shelf. Id., at 761-763.
The Board reaffirmed its position after the case was remanded to the ALJ for entry of judgment and calculation of benefits, and petitioners sought review in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court affirmed, relying directly on the LHWCA rather than on the Lands Act. 703 F. 2d 176 (1983). With regard to the Act’s situs requirement, it noted that this Court had compared drilling platforms to wharves in Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra. Given that the 1972 Amendments to the LHWCA extended coverage to accidents occurring on wharves, it would be incongruous if they did not also reach accidents occurring on drilling platforms. Also, since workers injured on movable barges, on fixed platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf, or en route to fixed platforms, are all covered, there would be a “curious hole” in coverage if someone in Gray’s position was not. 703 F. 2d, at 177-178. As for Gray’s status, the Court of Appeals, differing with the ALJ, held that Gray’s work bore “a realistically significant relationship to traditional maritime activity involving navigation and commerce on navigable waters,” id., at 179-180, because it was an integral part of the offshore drilling process, which, the court had held in Pippen v. Shell Oil Co., 661 F. 2d 378 (1981), was itself maritime commerce. We granted certiorari. 465 U. S. 1098 (1984).
hH I — I
A
When extractive operations first moved offshore, all claims for injuries on fixed platforms proceeded under state workers’ compensation schemes. See Hearings, at 396, 409, 411. See also Robertson 993. With the 1953 passage of the Lands Act, Congress extended LHWCA coverage to oil workers more than three miles offshore. 43 U. S. C. § 1333(b). Because until 1972 the LHWCA itself extended coverage only to accidents occurring on navigable waters, 33 U. S. C. § 903 (1970 ed.), and because stationary rigs were considered to be islands, Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., swpra, oil rig workers inside the 3-mile limit were left to recover under state schemes. See, e. g., Freeman v. Chevron Oil Co., 517 F. 2d 201 (CA5 1975); Gifford v. Aurand Mfg. Co., 207 So. 2d 160 (La. App. 1968). Any worker, inside or outside the 3-mile limit, who qualified as a seaman was not covered by the LHWCA, but could sue under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. §688, the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U. S. C. §761 et seq., and the general maritime law. Hearings, at 411-414, 450-459, 487; see n. 1, supra. See also Wright, Jurisdiction in the Tidelands, 32 Tulane L. Rev. 175, 186 (1958).
So matters stood when Congress amended the LHWCA in 1972. What is known about the congressional intent behind that legislation has been amply described in our prior opinions. See, e. g., Director, OWCP v. Perini North River Associates, 459 U. S. 297 (1983); Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 447 U. S. 715, 717-722 (1980); Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U. S. 249, 256-265 (1977). The most important of Congress’ concerns, for present purposes, was the desire to extend coverage to longshoremen, harbor-workers, and others who were injured while on piers, docks, and other areas customarily used to load and unload ships or to repair or build ships, rather than while actually afloat. Whereas prior to 1972 the Act reached only accidents occurring on navigable waters, the amended 33 U. S. C. §903 expressly extended coverage to “adjoining area[s].” At the same time, the amended definition of an “employee” limited coverage to employees engaged in “maritime employment.”
The Act, as amended, does not mention offshore drilling rigs or the workers thereon. The legislative history of the amendments is also silent, although early in the legislative process, a bill was introduced to extend the Act to all offshore oil workers. The bill died in Committee. While hardly dispositive, it is worth noting that the same Committee considered the 1972 Amendments to the LHWCA, and the possible extension of the Lands Act’s application of the LHWCA to drilling platforms, apparently without it ever occurring to anyone that the two might have been duplicative. The concurrent but independent reconsideration of both the Lands Act and the LHWCA, the congressional view that the amendments to the latter involved the “[extension of [coverage to [s]horeside [ajreas,” H. R. Rep. No 92-1441, p. 10 .(1972), and the absence of any mention of drilling platforms in the discussion of the LHWCA, combine to suggest that the 1972 Congress at least did not intentionally extend the LHWCA to workers such as Gray.
B
The rationale of the Court of Appeals was that offshore drilling is maritime commerce and that anyone performing any task that is part and parcel of that activity is in maritime employment for LHWCA purposes. Since it is doubtful that an offshore driller will pay and maintain a worker on an offshore rig whose job is unnecessary to the venture, this approach would extend coverage to virtually everyone on the stationary platform. We think this construction of the Act is untenable.
The Act does not define the term “maritime employment,” but our cases and the legislative history of the amendments foreclose the Court of Appeals’ reading. Rodrigue involved two men killed while working on an offshore drilling rig on the Outer Continental Shelf. Their families brought third-party negligence suits in federal court, claiming recovery under both the Death on the High Seas Act and the state law of Louisiana. The District Court ruled that resort could not be had to state law and that the High Seas Act provided the exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the men had been engaged in maritime activity on the high seas and that maritime law was the exclusive source of relief. We reversed. First, the platforms involved were artificial islands and were to be treated as though they were federal enclaves in an upland State. Federal law was to govern accidents occurring on these islands; but, contrary to the Court of Appeals, we held that the Lands Act and borrowed state law, not the maritime law, constituted the controlling federal law. The platforms “were islands, albeit artificial ones, and the accidents had no more connection with the ordinary stuff of admiralty than do accidents on piers.” 395 U. S., at 360. Indeed, observing that the Court had previously “held that drilling platforms are not within admiralty jurisdiction,” we indicated that drilling platforms were not even suggestive of traditional maritime affairs. Id., at 360-361.
We also went on to examine the legislative history of the Lands Act and noted (1) that Congress was of the view that maritime law would not apply to fixed platforms unless a statute expressly so provided; and (2) that Congress had seriously considered applying maritime law to these platforms but had rejected that approach because it considered maritime law to be inapposite, a view that would be untenable if drilling from a fixed platform is a maritime operation. The history of the Lands Act at the very least forecloses the Court of Appeals’ holding that offshore drilling is a maritime activity and that any task essential thereto is maritime employment for LHWCA purposes.
We cannot assume that Congress was unfamiliar with Rodrigue and the Lands Act when it referred to “maritime employment” in defining the term “employee” in 1972. It would have been a significant departure from prior understanding to use that phrase to reach stationary drilling rigs generally.
The Fifth Circuit’s expansive view of maritime employment is also inconsistent with our prior cases under the 1972 Amendments to the LHWCA. The expansion of the definition of navigable waters to include rather large shoreside areas necessitated an affirmative description of the particular employees working in those areas who would be covered. This was the function of the maritime employment requirement. But Congress did not seek to cover all those who breathe salt air. Its purpose was to cover those workers on the situs who are involved in the essential elements of loading and unloading; it is “clear that persons who are on the situs but not engaged in the overall process of loading or unloading vessels are not covered.” Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U. S., at 267. While “maritime employment” is not limited to the occupations specifically mentioned in §2(3), neither can it be read to eliminate any requirement of a connection with the loading or construction of ships. As we have said, the “maritime employment” requirement is “an occupational test that focuses on loading and unloading.” P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U. S. 69, 80 (1979). The Amendments were not meant “to cover employees who are not engaged in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel, just because they are injured in an area adjoining navigable waters used for such activity.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-1441, p. 11 (1972); S. Rep. No. 92-1125, p. 13 (1972). We have never read “maritime employment” to extend so far beyond those actually involved in moving cargo between ship and land transportation. Both Caputo and P. C. Pfeiffer Co. make this clear and lead us to the conclusion that Gray was not engaged in maritime employment for purposes of the LHWCA.
Gray was a welder. His work had nothing to do with the loading or unloading process, nor is there any indication that he was even employed in the maintenance of equipment used in such tasks. Gray’s welding work was far removed from traditional LHWCA activities, notwithstanding the fact that he unloaded his own gear upon arriving at a platform by boat. Tr. of Oral Arg. 56. He built and maintained pipelines and the platforms themselves. There is nothing inherently maritime about those tasks. They are also performed on land, and their nature is not significantly altered by the marine environment, particularly since exploration and development of the Continental Shelf are not themselves maritime commerce.
The dissent emphasizes that Gray was generally on or near the water and faced maritime hazards. Post, at 445-449. To the extent this is so, it is relevant to “situs,” not “status.” To hold that Gray was necessarily engaged in maritime employment because he was on a drilling platform would ignore Congress’ admonition that not everyone on a covered situs automatically satisfies the status test. See S. Rep. No. 92-1125, p. 13 (1972). The dissent considers “[t]he maritime nature of the occupation . . . apparent from examining its location in terms of the expanded situs coverage of the 1972 Amendments.” Post, at 446. We recognize that the nature of a particular job is defined in part by its location. But to classify Gray’s employment as maritime because he was on a covered situs, post, at 448, or in a “maritime environment,” post, at 450, would blur together requirements Congress intended to be distinct. We cannot thus read the status requirement out of the statute.
t — i HH J — i
Respondents, and the dissenters, object that denying coverage to someone in Gray’s position will result in exactly the sort of inconsistent, checkered coverage that Congress sought to eliminate in 1972. In the words of the court below, it creates a “curious hole” in coverage, 703 F. 2d, at 178, because Gray would have been covered had he been injured on navigable waters or on the outer shelf.
We do not find the argument compelling. First, this submission goes far beyond Congress’ undoubted desire to treat equally all workers engaged in loading or unloading a ship, whether they were injured on the ship or on an adjoining pier or dock. The former were covered prior to 1972; the latter were not. Both are covered under the 1972 Amendments. Second, there will always be a boundary to coverage, and there will always be people who cross it during their employment. Nacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson, 396 U. S. 212, 223-224 (1969). If that phenomenon was enough to require coverage, the Act would have to reach much further than anyone argues that it does or should. Third, the inconsistent coverage here results primarily from the explicit geographic limitation to the Lands Act’s incorporation of the LHWCA. Gray would indeed have been covered for a significant portion of his work-time, but because of the Lands Act, not because he fell within the terms of the LHWCA. Congress’ desire to make LHWCA coverage uniform reveals little about the position of those for whom partial coverage results from a separate statute. This is especially true because that statute draws a clear geographical boundary that will predictably result in workers moving in and out of coverage.
As we have said before in this area, if Congress’ coverage decisions are mistaken as a matter of policy, it is for Congress to change them. We should not legislate for them. See Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U. S. 202, 216 (1971).
> 1 — I
Because Gray’s employment was not “maritime, he does not qualify for benefits under the LHWCA. We need not determine whether he satisfied the Act’s situs requirement. We express no opinion on his argument that he is covered by 43 U. S. C. § 1333(b). The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 2(3) of the Act, 86 Stat. 1251, 33 U. S. C. §902(3), provides: “The term ‘employee’ means any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker, but such term does not include a master or member of a crew of any vessel, or any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net.”
Section 3(a) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 903(a), provides in part:
“Compensation shall be payable under this chapter in respect of disability or death of an employee, but only if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel).”
Offshore oil rigs are of two general sorts: fixed and floating. Hearings on S. 2318 et al. before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 395-396, 480-486 (1972) (hereinafter Hearings). Floating structures have been treated as vessels by the lower courts. E. g., Producers Drilling Co. v. Gray, 361 F. 2d 432, 437 (CA5 1966). Workers on them, unlike workers on fixed platforms, see Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U. S. 352 (1969), enjoy the same remedies as workers on ships. If permanently attached to the vessel as crewmembers, they are regarded as seamen; if not, they are covered by the LHWCA because they are employed on navigable waters. See generally Robertson, Injuries to Marine Petroleum Workers: A Plea for Radical Simplification, 55 Texas L. Rev. 973, 982-992 (1977) (hereinafter Robertson). Gray is not in a position to take advantage of this line of eases. All, or almost all, the platforms in the field were fixed production platforms rather than floating rigs. Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 77-LHCA-1308, before Benefits Review Board, p. 12. There has never been any dispute that Gray was injured on a fixed platform, nor any contention that he should be considered to have been on a vessel at the time of his injury. The only question, therefore, is whether Gray is limited to state workers’ compensation remedies or may also recover under the LHWCA.
Gray did recover under the Louisiana workers’ compensation scheme, receiving weekly benefits totalling $3,172.50 over two years as well as $1,696.14 for medical expenses. These payments were credited against his later LHWCA recovery. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A-45. State workers’ compensation and the LHWCA are not mutually exclusive remedies. Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 447 U. S. 715 (1980).
The relevant section provides:
“With respect to disability or death of an employee resulting from any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing or transporting by pipeline the natural resources, or involving rights to the natural resources, of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, compensation shall be payable under the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.” 67 Stat. 463, as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 1333(b).
Petitioners view Congress’ failure to extend LHWCA coverage to all offshore oil workers as an explicit rejection of the position adopted by the court below. However, it appears that the bill, S. 1547, was designed not so much to increase the benefits of those not covered, as to limit the remedies of those workers who could qualify as seamen and so were not confined to the workers’ compensation scheme. See 117 Cong. Rec. 10490-10491 (1971) (statement of Sen. Tower); Hearings, at 396-403, 418-419, 602. The bill was opposed because it would limit recoveries by those who did better without LHWCA coverage. Id., at 589-590, 602. See generally Boudreaux v. American Workover, Inc., 680 F. 2d 1034, 1053 (CA5 1982).
The dissent finds “substantial irony” in this analogy in light of the 1972 LHWCA Amendments, which extended coverage landward to piers. Post, at 433-434. The irony dissipates in light of the fact that while Rodrigue did observe that offshore platforms are like piers, its holding was that they are islands. 395 U. S., at 360. It has not been suggested that workers on islands are covered by the amended LHWCA.
The dissent considers the Lands Act’s extension of the LHWCA to platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf an indication that work thereon is maritime employment. Post, at 437-438. However, as the dissent acknowledges, the LHWCA has been extended to several emphatically non-maritime locales. Undeterred, the dissent points out that Congress left regulation of offshore platforms to the Coast Guard. Yet one would not have expected otherwise, since geographically the platforms fall within the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction. No one contends that offshore platforms are not offshore.
We note also that the LHWCA covered an employee injured on navigable waters if his employer had at least one employee engaged in “maritime employment.” In contrast, in providing for LHWCA coverage of employees working in offshore oil fields, the Lands Act defined the term “employer” as “an employer any of whose employees are employed in such operations,” i. e., “exploring for, developing, removing, or transporting by pipeline the natural resources ... of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf_” 43 U. S. C. § 1333(b).
The LHWCA covers “any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker.” By the use of the term “including,” Congress indicated that the specifically mentioned occupations are not exclusive. See P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U. S. 69, 77-78, n. 7 (1979); H. R. Rep. No. 92-1441, p. 11 (1972).
There have been occasional legislative efforts to limit the definition of “maritime employment” to enumerated tasks. For example, in 1980 Representative Erlenborn proposed deleting the “maritime employment” language and limiting coverage to “a longshoreman, ship repairman, ship builder, ship breaker, or harbor worker” who “was directly engaged in activities relating to such employment” when injured. H. R. 7610, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., §2(a) (1980). His bill specifically excluded “any person who, at the time of injury, was engaged in administration, clerical, custodial, delivery, maintenance, or repair of gear or equipment ... or any other employments not direct and integral parts of vessel loading, unloading, repairing, building, or breaking.” Ibid. The bill was referred to Committee, 126 Cong. Rec. 15417 (1980), and was never reported by the Committee.
This view of “maritime employment” does not preclude benefits for those whose injury would have been covered before 1972 because it occurred “on navigable waters.” Director, OWCP v. Perini North River Associates, 459 U. S. 297 (1983). No claim is made that Gray was injured “on navigable waters.” Indeed, it was agreed by all counsel at oral argument that prior to 1972 Gray would not have been covered, except arguably by operation of the Lands Act. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, 46, 52-54. See also 703 F. 2d, at 179.
In light of the dissent’s reliance on Perini, post, at 442-443, we point out that that decision was carefully limited to coverage of an employee “injured while performing his job upon actual navigable waters.” 459 U. S., at 299; see id,., at 305, 311-312, 315, 324. The Court’s rationale was that, first, any employee injured on navigable waters would have been covered prior to 1972, and, second, Congress did not intend to restrict coverage in adopting its “maritime employment” test. The holding was, “of course,” limited to workers covered prior to 1972, id., at 324, n. 34, a group to which Gray does not belong. The opinion says nothing about the contours of the status requirement as applied to a worker, like Gray, who was not injured on navigable waters. To hold that enactment of the status requirement did not constrict prior coverage is wholly different from refusing to view that requirement as a meaningful limit on the Act’s extended coverage.
The general counsel to the International Association of Drilling Contractors stated to the Senate Subcommittee in 1972:
“Irrespective of design, bottom resting, semi-submersible, or full floating, these structures [drilling platforms] perform only as a base from which the drilling industry conducts its operations. The operations, once the structure is in place, are no different from that which takes place on dry land. All of the equipment and methods utilized in the drilling operations are identical to our land based operations. The exposure to employee injuries are the same. Accident frequency rates and severity of injury are no greater, in fact less, because of crew selection and confinement to an area permits concentrated training and safety programs.” Hearings, at 410-411.
Throughout these proceedings, Gray has argued that he need not satisfy the status/situs test because he falls within the Lands Act’s incorporation of LHWCA benefits. See 43 U. S. C. § 1333(b). The Benefits Review Board so held. He repeats that argument in this Court, as he is free to do. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U. S. 159, 166, n. 8 (1977). However, it has not been fully briefed and argued here and was not discussed by the Court of Appeals. We therefore decline to consider it. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475-476, n. 6 (1970). It is open to the Court of Appeals on remand.
Gray traveled between platforms by boat and might have been covered, before or after 1972, had he been injured while in transit. See Director, OWCP v. Perini North River Associates, 459 U. S., at 324. But see id., at 324, n. 34 (“We express no opinion whether such coverage extends to a worker injured while transiently or fortuitously upon actual navigable waters”). Even if he would have been covered for some small fraction of his time independent of the Lands Act, however, he is a far cry from the paradigmatic longshoreman who walked in and out of coverage during his workday and spent substantial amounts of his time “on navigable waters.” Any coverage attributable to the LHWCA itself was de minimis. We also note in passing a substantial difference between a worker performing a set of tasks requiring him to be both on and off navigable waters, and a worker whose job is entirely land-based but who takes a boat to work.
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Customs officials, acting with “reasonable cause to suspect” a violation of customs laws, opened for inspection incoming international letter-class mail without first obtaining a search warrant. A divided Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held, contrary to every other Court of Appeals which has considered the matter, that the Fourth Amendment forbade the opening of such mail without probable cause and a search warrant. 176 U. S. App. D. C. 67, 538 F. 2d 415. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari to resolve this Circuit conflict. 429 U. S. 815. We now reverse.
I
Charles W. Ramsey and James W. Kelly jointly commenced a heroin-by-mail enterprise in the Washington, D. C., area. The process involved their procuring of heroin, which was mailed in letters from Bangkok, Thailand, and sent to various locations in the District of Columbia area for collection. Two of their suppliers, Sylvia Bailey and William Ward, who were located in West Germany, were engaged in international narcotics trafficking during the latter part of 1973 and the early part of 1974. West German agents, pursuant to court-authorized electronic surveillance, intercepted several transAtlantic conversations between Bailey and Ramsey during which their narcotics operation was discussed. By late January 1974, Bailey and Ward had gone to Thailand. Thai officials, alerted to their presence by West German authorities, placed them under surveillance. Ward was observed mailing letter-sized envelopes in six different mail boxes; five of these envelopes were recovered; and one of the addresses in Washington, D. C., was later linked to respondents. Bailey and Ward were arrested by Thai officials on February 2, 1974; among the items seized were eleven heroin-filled envelopes addressed to the Washington, D. C., area, and later connected with respondents.
Two days after this arrest of Bailey and Ward, Inspector George Kallnischkies, a United States customs officer in New York City, without any knowledge of the foregoing events, inspecting a sack of incoming international mail from Thailand, spotted eight envelopes that were bulky and which he believed might’contain merchandise. The envelopes, all of which appeared to him to have been typed on the same typewriter, were addressed to four different locations in the Washington, D. C., area. Inspector Kallnischkies, based on the fact that the letters were from Thailand, a known source of narcotics, and were “rather bulky,” suspected that the envelopes might contain merchandise or contraband rather than correspondence. He took the letters to an examining area in the post office, and felt one of the letters: It “felt like there was something in there, in the envelope. It was not just plain paper that the envelope is supposed to contain.” He weighed one of the envelopes, and found it weighed 42 grams, some three to six times the normal weight of an airmail letter. Inspector Kallnischkies then opened that envelope:
“In there I saw some cardboard and between the cardboard, if I recall, there was a plastic bag containing a white powdered substance, which, based on experience, I knew from Thailand would be heroin.
“I went ahead and removed a sample. Gave it a field test, a Marquis Reagent field test, and I had a positive reaction for heroin.” App. 32.
He proceeded to open the other seven envelopes which “in a lot of ways were identical”; examination revealed that at least the contents were in fact identical: each contained heroin.
The envelopes were then sent to Washington in a locked pouch where agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration, after obtaining a search warrant, opened the envelopes again and removed most of the heroin. The envelopes were then resealed, and six of them were delivered under surveillance. After Kelly collected the envelopes from the three different addressees, rendezvoused with Ramsey, and gave Ramsey a brown paper bag, federal agents arrested both of them. The bag contained the six envelopes with heroin, $1,100 in cash, and “cutting” material for the heroin. The next day, in executing a search upon warrant of Ramsey’s residence, agents recovered, inter alia, two pistols.
Ramsey and Kelly were indicted, along with Bailey and Ward, in a 17-count indictment. Respondents moved to suppress the heroin and the two pistols. The District Court denied the motions, and after a bench trial on the stipulated record, respondents were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for what is in effect a term of 10 to 30 years. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, one judge dissenting, reversed the convictions, holding that the “border search exception to the warrant requirement” applicable to persons, baggage, and mailed packages did not apply to the routine opening of international letter mail, and held that the Constitution requires that “before international letter mail is opened, a showing of probable cause be made to and a warrant secured from a neutral magistrate.” 176 U. S. App. D. C., at 73, 538 F. 2d, at 421.
II
Congress and the applicable postal regulations authorized the actions undertaken in this case. Title 19 U. S. C. § 482, a recodification of Rev. Stat. § 3061, and derived from § 3 of the Act of July 18, 1866, 14 Stat. 178, explicitly deals with the search of an “envelope”:
“Any of the officers or persons authorized to board or search vessels may... search any trunk or envelope, wherever found, in which he may have a reasonable cause to suspect there is merchandise which was imported contrary to law....”
This provision authorizes customs officials to inspect, under the circumstances therein stated, incoming international mail. The “reasonable cause to suspect” test adopted by the statute is, we think, a practical test which imposes a less stringent requirement than, that of “probable cause” imposed by the Fourth Amendment as a requirement for the issuance of warrants. See United States v. King, 517 F. 2d 350, 352 (CA5 1975); cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 8, 21-22, 27 (1968). Inspector Kallnischkies, at the time he opened the letters, knew that they were from Thailand, were bulky, were many times the weight of a normal airmail letter, and “felt like there was something in there.” Under these circumstances, we have no doubt that he had reasonable “cause to suspect” that there was merchandise or contraband in the envelopes. The search, therefore, was plainly authorized by the statute.
Since the search in this case. was authorized by statute, we are left simply with the question of whether the search, nevertheless violated the Constitution. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 877 (1975). Specifically, we need not decide whether Congress conceived the statute as a necessary precondition to the validity of the search or whether it was viewed, instead, as a limitation on otherwise existing authority of the Executive. Having acted pursuant to, and within the scope of, a congressional Act, Inspector Kallnischkies’ searches were permissible unless they violated the Constitution.
Ill
A
That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration. The Congress which proposed the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789, 1 Stat. 97, had, some two months prior to that proposal, enacted the first customs statute, Act of July 31, 1789, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29. Section 24 of this statute granted customs officials “full power and authority” to enter and search “any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed....” This acknowledgment of plenary customs power wras differentiated from the more limited power to enter and search “any particular dwelling-house, store, building, or other place...” where a warrant upon “cause to suspect” was required. The historical importance of the enactment of this customs statute by the same Congress which proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we think, manifest. This Court so concluded almost a century ago. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 623 (1886), this Court observed:
“The seizure of stolen goods is authorized by the common law; and the seizure of goods forfeited for a breach of the revenue laws, or concealed to avoid the duties payable on them, has been authorized by English statutes for at least two centuries past; and the like seizures have been authorized by our own revenue acts from the commencement of the government. The first statute passed by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, the act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29, 43, contains provisions to this effect. As this act was passed by the same Congress which proposed for adoption the original amendments to the Constitution, it is clear that the members of that body did not regard searches and seizures of this kind as ‘unreasonable,’ and they are not embraced within the prohibition of the amendment.” (Emphasis supplied.)
This interpretation, that border searches were not subject to the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment and were “reasonable” within the meaning of that Amendment, has been faithfully adhered to by this Court. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), after noting that “[t]he Fourth Amendment does not denounce all searches or seizures, but only such as are unreasonable,” id., at 147, recognized the distinction between searches within this country, requiring probable cause, and border searches, id., at 153-154:
“It would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search. Travellers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary because of national self protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in. But those lawfully within the country... have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise.” (Emphasis supplied.)
More recently, we noted this longstanding history in United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 376 (1971):
“But a port of entry is not a traveler’s home. His right to be let alone neither prevents the search of his luggage nor the seizure of unprotected, but illegal, materials when his possession of them is discovered during such a search. Customs officials characteristically inspect luggage and their power to do so is not questioned in this case; it is an old practice and is intimately associated with excluding illegal articles from the country.”
In United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123, 125 (1973), we observed: “Import restrictions and searches of persons or packages at the national borders rest on different considerations and different rules of constitutional law from domestic regulations. The Constitution gives Congress broad, comprehensive powers ‘[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.’ Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Historically such broad powers have been necessary to prevent smuggling and to prevent prohibited articles from entry.” Finally, citing Carroll and Boyd, this Court stated in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266, 272 (1973), that it was “without doubt” that the power to exclude aliens “can be effectuated by routine inspections and searches of individuals or conveyances seeking to cross our borders.” See also id., at 288 (White, J., dissenting).
Border searches, then, from before the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, have been considered to be “reasonable” by the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside. There has never been any additional requirement that the reasonableness of a border search depended on the existence of probable cause. This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless “reasonable” has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself. We reaffirm it now.
B
Respondents urge upon us, however, the position that mailed letters are somehow different, and, whatever may be the normal rule with respect to border searches, different considerations, requiring the full panoply of Fourth Amendment protections, apply to international mail. The Court of Appeals agreed, and felt that whatever the rule may be with respect to travelers, their baggage, and even mailed packages, it would not “extend” the border-search exception to include mailed letter-size envelopes. 176 U. S. App. D. C., at 73, 538 F. 2d, at 421. We do not agree that this inclusion of letters within the border-search exception represents any “extension” of that exception.
The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country. It is clear that there is nothing in the rationale behind the border-search exception which suggests that the mode of entry will be critical. It was conceded at oral argument that customs officials could search, without probable cause and without a warrant, envelopes carried by an entering traveler, whether in his luggage or on his person. Tr. of Oral Arg. 43-44. Surely no different constitutional standard should apply simply because the envelopes were mailed, not carried. The critical fact is that the envelopes cross the border and enter this country, not that they are brought in by one mode of transportation rather than another. It is their entry into this country from without it that makes a resulting search “reasonable.”
Almost a century ago this Court rejected such a distinction in construing a protocol to the Treaty of Berne, 19 Stat. 604, which prohibited the importation of letters which might contain dutiable items. Cotzhausen v. Nazro, 107 U. S. 215 (1883). Condemning the unsoundness of any distinction between entry by mail and entry by other means, Mr. Justice Miller, on behalf of a unanimous Court, wrote, id., at 218:
“Of what avail would it be that every passenger, citizen and foreigner, without distinction of country or sex, is compelled to sign a declaration before landing, either that his trunks and satchels in hand contain nothing liable to duty, or if they do, to state what it is, and even the person may be subjected to a rigid examination, if the mail is to be left unwatched, and all its sealed contents, even after delivery to the person to whom addressed, are to be exempt from seizure, though laces, jewels, and other dutiable matter of great value may thus be introduced from foreign countries.”
The historically recognized scope of the border-search doctrine, suggests no distinction in constitutional doctrine stemming from the mode of transportation across our borders. The contrary view of the Court of Appeals and respondents stems, we think, from an erroneous reading of Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S., at 153, under which the Court of Appeals reasoned that “the rationale of the border search exception... is based upon... the difficulty of obtaining a warrant when the subject of the search is mobile, as a car or person....” 176 U. S. App. D. C., at 70, 538 F. 2d, at 418.
The fundamental difficulty with this position is that the “border search” exception is not based on the doctrine of “exigent circumstances” at all. It is a longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendent’s general principle that a warrant be obtained, and in this respect is like the similar “search incident to lawful arrest” exception treated in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224 (1973). We think that the language in Carroll v. United States, supra, makes this point abundantly clear. The Carroll Court quoted verbatim the above-quoted language from Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), including the reference to customs searches and seizures of the kind authorized by 1 Stat. 29, 43, as being neither “unreasonable” nor “embraced within the prohibition of the [Fourth] [A]mendment.” Later in the opinion, the Court commented that having “established that contraband goods concealed and illegally transported in an automobile or other vehicle may be searched for without a warrant, we come now to consider under what circumstances such search may be made.” 267 U. S., at 153 (emphasis supplied). It then, in the passage quoted supra, at 618, distinguished, among these types of searches which required no warrant, those which required probable cause from those which did not: border searches did not; vehicular searches inside the country did. Carroll thus recognized that there was no “probable cause” requirement at the border. This determination simply has nothing to do with “exigent circumstances.”
The Court of Appeals also relied upon what it described as this Court’s refusal in recent years twice “to take an expansive view of the border search exception or the authority of the Border Patrol. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873... (1975); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266... (1973).” 176 U. S. App. D. C., at 72, 538 F. 2d, at 420. But, as the language from each of these opinions suggests, 422 U. S., at 876, 884; 413 U. S., at 272-273, plenary border-search authority was not implibated by our refusal to uphold searches and stops made at places in the interior of the country; the express premise for each holding was that the checkpoint or stop in question was not the border or its “functional equivalent.”
In view of the wealth of authority establishing the border search as “reasonable” within the Fourth Amendment even though there be neither probable cause nor a warrant, we reject the distinctions made by the Court of Appeals in its opinion.
Nor do we agree that, under the circumstances presented by this case, First Amendment considerations dictate a full panoply of Fourth Amendment rights prior to the border search of mailed letters. There is, again, no reason to distinguish between letters mailed into the country, and letters carried on the traveler’s person. More fundamentally, however, the existing system of border searches has not been shown to invade protected First Amendment rights, and hence there is no reason to think that the potential presence of correspondence makes the otherwise constitutionally reasonable search “unreasonable.”
The statute in question requires that there be “reasonable cause to believe” the customs laws are being violated prior to the opening of envelopes. Applicable postal regulations flatly prohibit, under all circumstances, the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant, 19 CFR § 145.3 (1976):
“No customs officer or employee shall read or authorize or allow any other person to read any correspondence contained in sealed letter mail of foreign origin unless a search warrant has been obtained in advance from an appropriate judge or U. S. magistrate which authorizes such action.”
Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 1702.
We are unable to agree with the Court of Appeals that the opening of international mail in search of customs violations, under the above guidelines, impermissibly chills the exercise of free speech. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to consider the constitutional reach of the First Amendment in this area in the absence of the existing statutory and regulatory protection. Here envelopes are opened at the border only when the customs officers have reason to believe they contain other than correspondence, while the reading of any correspondence inside the envelopes is forbidden. Any “chill” that might exist under these circumstances may fairly be considered not only “minimal,” United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 560, 562 (1976); cf. United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311, 316-317 (1972), but also wholly subjective.
We therefore conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not interdict the actions taken by Inspector Kallnischkies in opening and searching the eight envelopes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore,
Reversed.
Several Courts of Appeals have held that international letter-class mail may be opened, pursuant to a border search, without probable cause and without a warrant. United States v. Milroy, 538 F. 2d 1033 (CA4), cert. denied, 426 U. S. 924 (1976); United States v. King, 517 F. 2d 350 (CA5 1975); United States v. Barclift, 514 F. 2d 1073 (CA9), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 842 (1975); United States v. Bolin, 514 F. 2d 554 (CA7 1975); United States v. Odland, 502 F. 2d 148 (CA7), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1088 (1974). Several other Courts of Appeals, in approving the warrantless opening of mailed packages crossing the borders, have indicated that-the opening of international letter-class mail should be governed by the same standards. United States v. Doe, 472 F. 2d 982 (CA2), cert. denied, sub nom. Rodriguez v. United States, 411 U. S. 969 (1973); United States v. Beckley, 335 F. 2d 86 (CA6 1964), cert. denied, sub nom. Stone v. United States, 380 U. S. 922 (1965). The First Circuit has reserved the question of letters. United States v. Emery, 541 F. 2d 887, 888-889 (1976).
The mail was inspected at the General Post Office in New York City, where incoming international air mail landing at Kennedy Airport is taken for routing and customs inspections. There is no dispute that this is the “border” for purposes of border searches, see n. 11, infra.
Inspector Kallnischkies also testified that his “normal procedure,” when examining envelopes from certain countries which were of a certain weight and bulkiness, was to “shake it a little,” and “if it moves, I know there is something in there that is not correspondence. It is merchandise and I have to open it to cheek it out.” App. 48-49. He was unable to specifically recall, however, whether or not he had followed the “normal procedure” in this case.
The Government does not seek to justify the original discovery of the heroin on the basis of this warrant: “[A] post-opening warrant obviously does not justify the original opening.” Brief for United States 4 n. 2. We accordingly accord no significance to the obtaining of this subsequent warrant.
Bailey and Ward, although indicted, were not tried, as they have remained outside the United States.
The Government acknowledges that “[t]he weapons were found as a result of respondents’ arrests and so are ‘fruit’ of the discovery of the heroin. The convictions consequently must stand or fall with the heroin offenses.” Id., at 5 n. 4.
Neither court below considered whether Ramsey or Kelly had standing to object to the opening of the envelopes in light of the fact that none of the envelopes were addressed to them. The Government, however, did not raise the issue below, and consequently we do not reach it. United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38, 41 n. 2 (1976).
Postal regulations have implemented this authority. See 19 CFR § 145.2 (1976); 39 CFR § 61.1 (1975). The regulations were promulgated in 1971; prior to that time existing regulations did not implement the statutory authority. The fact that postal authorities did not open incoming international letter-class mail upon “reasonable cause to suspect” prior to 1971 does not change our analysis.
Title 39 U. S. C. §3623 (d), which prohibits the opening of first-class mail of “domestic origin,” “except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law...,” has, by its own terms, no application to international mail of any class. A proposed amendment, which would have imposed similar statutory requirements on the opening of international mail, was defeated on the floor of the House, 116 Cong. Rec. 20482-20483 (1970).
Our dissenting Brethren find no fewer than five separate reasons for refusing to follow the unambiguous language of the statutory section. The first is the longstanding respect Congress has shown for “the individual’s interest in private communication.” Post, at 626. But as we examine it, infra, at 616-619, no such support may be garnered from the history of the Fourth Amendment insofar as border searches are concerned. Insofar as they rely on the First Amendment, they ignore the limitations imposed on the search by the statute, infra, at 623-624, as well as by the regulations. Postulating a sensitive concern for First Amendment values as of 1866 is a difficult historical exercise on the basis of available materials from that time. Cf. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727 (1878) (Fourth Amendment analysis only). Most puzzling of all, however, is the dissent’s reliance on the defeated amendment, offered in 1970, when there is no dearth of available materials, which would have imposed a specific warrant requirement on the opening of international letter-class mail. Contrary to the tenor of the dissent, the amendment was defeated, not passed. The one bit of legislative history the dissent quotes, a statement of Congressman Derwinski, reflects only the concern that with the amendment “ ‘the problem of stopping the flow of narcotics and pornography would be greatly compounded.’ ” Post, at 626 n. 2. We do not see how any solace whatever for the dissenting position may be derived from this sort of legislative history.
The dissent also relies on a brief colloquy on the floor. of the Senate during the debate on the 1866 Act. The colloquy is notable both for its brevity and for its ambiguity. It does not distinguish between mailed packages and mailed letters; it refers generally to the “‘examination of... the United States mails.’ ” Post, at 627. Yet, by that time, the “mail” encompassed both. See 12 Stat. 704. (To the extent the colloquy was meant to encompass any intrusion on the “mails,” the statute has long since been interpreted otherwise. Cotzhausen v. Nazro, 107 U. S. 215, 219 (1883).) Perhaps because of its brevity, the colloquy does not distinguish between domestic and international mail, nor does it distinguish between the searching of envelopes for contraband and the possible reading of enclosed communications. It explicitly manifests a concern with §2 as well as with §3 of the bill. But §2 allowed customs inspectors “to go on board of any vessel... and to inspect, search, and examine the same, and any person, trunk, or envelope on board....” Section 3, however, contains a “reasonable cause to suspect” requirement that is not found in § 2, and the colloquy may have simply referred to a concern about the wholesale opening, and reading, of letters. Cf. Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 3440-3441 (1866). The colloquy by no means indicates to us that Congress was concerned only with detecting smuggling that would be carried in “trunk”-sized packages. It is at best insufficient to overcome the precise and clear statutory language Congress actually enacted.
The dissent additionally relies on the language of the statute in its entirety as demonstrating a concern only with “packages of the kind normally used to import dutiable merchandise.” Post, at 628. But this assertion — assuming we as judges know what size packages dutiable merchandise usuqlly comes in — is wholly contrary to the thrust of the purpose, and the language, of the Act. The purpose of the Act is “to Prevent Smuggling.” Nowhere does this purpose, however and wherever articulated, reflect a concern with the physical size of the container employed in smuggling, nor do we possess any reliable indication that only large items were smuggled into this country in 1866. As for the word “envelope,” it is difficult to see how our dissenting Brethren derive comfort from its use in the statute. The contemporary dictionary source they cite states that the most common use of the word “envelope” is in the sense of “ ‘the cover or wrapper of a document, as of a letter.’ ” Post, at 630 n. 5. We are quite unable to see how this, the most common usage of the word, reinforces the view that Congress intended only a narrow definition when it used the word without restriction.
The dissent also relies on a “consistent construction” over 105 years by the Executive. Post, at 631. To the extent it relies on a construction that things entering by mail are not covered by the statute, this reliance founders on the opinion of a former Acting Attorney General. See 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 457 (1886). To the extent it is referring only to letter-sized mail, the dissent nowhere demonstrates any actual interpretation by anyone that the congressional authority was perceived as an affirmative limitation on the power of the Executive to open letters at the border when there existed “reasonable cause” to suspect a violation of customs laws. The evidence marshaled by our dissenting Brethren on this point could be called “consistent” only by the most generous appraiser of such material.
The dissent’s final reliance is on the assertion that asking the addressee for consent to open a letter had not been proved unworkable. Presumably the conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Executive’s reason for a change in its policy is weak. But this is beside the point; it reflects not at all on Congress’ words or intent in 1866 or at any other time. That the Executive Branch may have relied on a less-than-cogent reason in its 1971 regulatory change has nothing to do with the interpretation of an Act of Congress.
Underlying all of these reasons, apparently, is the fear that “[i]f the Government is allowed to exercise the power it claims, the door will be open to the wholesale, secret examination of all incoming international letter mail.” Post, at 632. That specter is simply not presented by this case. As we observe, infra, at 623-624, the opening of mail is limited by a “reasonable cause” requirement, while the reading of letters is totally interdicted by regulation. It is this unwarranted speculation, and not the policy followed by the Executive, that poses the “serious constitutional question” to be avoided.
The Court of Appeals, it should be noted, evidently believed that Inspector Kallnischkies possessed sufficient information at the time the envelopes were opened to meet the stricter “probable cause” requirement; it believed "that the facts in this case are such that, had they been presented to a magistrate, issuance of a search warrant permitting opening of the envelopes would have been appropriate.” 176 U. S. App. D. C. 67, 73 n. 8, 538 F. 2d 415, 421 n. 8. Because of our disposition of this case, we do not reach that question.
In light of our conclusion that there existed “reasonable cause to suspect” a violation of the customs laws, we need not, and do not, decide whether the search would have nonetheless been authorized by other statutory grants of authority urged alternatively upon us by the Government. Title 19 U. S. C. §482 also authorizes customs officials to “stop, search, and examine... any vehicle, beast, or person, on which or whom... they shall suspect there is merchandise which is subject to duty, or shall have been introduced into the United States in any manner contrary to law, whether by the person in possession or charge, or by, in, or upon such vehicle or beast, or otherwise....” Title 19 U. S. C. § 1582 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe regulations for the search of persons and baggage... ; and all persons coming into the United States from foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by authorized officers or agents of the Government under such regulations.”
Although the statutory authority authorizes searches of envelopes “wherever found,” 19 U. S. C. § 482, the envelopes were searched at the New York City Post Office as the mail was entering the United States. We, therefore, do not have before us the question, recently addressed in other contexts, of the geographical limits to border searches. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973). Nor do we need to decide whether the broad statutory authority subjects such mail to customs inspection at a place other than the point of entry into this country. See United States v. King, 517 F. 2d, at 354 (“[T]he envelopes had passed an initial stage in the customs process when they were routed to Alabama, but they were still in the process of being delivered, and still subject to customs inspection”).
Section 23 of this customs statute provided, in pertinent part:
“[I]t shall be lawful for the collector, or other officer of the customs, after entry made of any goods, wares or merchandise, on suspicion of fraud, to open and examine, in the presence of two or more reputable merchants, any package or packages thereof....”
Section 24 of this customs statute provided, in pertinent part:
“[E]very collector, naval officer and surveyor, or other person specially appointed by either of them for that purpose, shall have full power and authority, to enter any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed; and therein to search for, seize, and secure any such goods, wares or merchandise; and if they shall have cause to suspect a concealment thereof, in any particular dwelling-house, store, building, or other place, they or either of them shall, upon application on oath or affirmation to any justice of the peace, be entitled to a warrant to enter such house, store, or other place (in the day time only) and there to search for such goods, and if any shall be found, to seize and secure the same for trial....”
We do not decide whether, and under what circumstances, a border search might be deemed “unreasonable” because of the particularly offensive manner in which it is carried out. Cf. Kremen v. United States, 353 U. S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 356-358 (1931)
The opinion in Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149 (1925), itself reminds us that “[t]he Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant, Ungar, was adjudged guilty of criminal contempt for his conduct as a witness in a state criminal trial in a hearing presided over by the judge before whom the contempt occurred at trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 12 N. Y. 2d 1013,1104, 189 N. E. 2d 629, 190 N. E. 2d 539, and we noted probable jurisdiction to consider whether the procedures seemingly authorized by §§ 750 and 751 of the New York Judiciary Law were consistent with the Due Process-Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 375 U. S. 809. We have decided that the constitutional objections which this record shows to have been seasonably tendered to the New York courts and decided by them are without merit.
I.
The contempt proceeding grew out of the trial of Huían Jack for conspiracy to obstruct justice and for violation of New York’s conflict of interests laws. Ungar, a lawyer, was an important prosecution witness, familiar with the matters on which the charges were based and immune from prosecution for his testimony on these matters before the grand jury. From the outset of the second Jack trial, Ungar, a hostile prosecution witness, engaged in much wrangling with the prosecutor over the form of the questions asked and was unresponsive to various questions. Although counsel for the defendant did not object, the witness believed that the prosecutor’s questions presented the defendant’s case in a bad light or failed to elicit the whole truth. On several occasions the trial judge instructed the witness to answer the questions as they were asked, if he could, but not to rephrase the questions or to offer testimony gratuitously. When Ungar failed to heed these instructions, the judge admonished him in chambers “to confine his answers to the questions” and to leave the defense to the accused's counsel; he warned the witness that he would hold him to the natural consequences of his acts. The pattern, however, continued. On November 25, the third day Ungar was on the stand, the court instructed him to give a responsive answer to a question of apparent significance to the State’s case. Thereupon Ungar, before answering, requested a recess, claiming that he was being “pressured and coerced and intimidated into testifying” and that he was being “badgered by the Court and by the District Attorney.” When the court granted a short recess but refused Ungar permission to leave the stand, the following ensued:
“The Witness: I can’t testify, I’m sorry, your Honor. I am not in any physical or mental condition to testify.
“The Court: Mr. Witness, no one asked you anything. Nobody is questioning you. You are not testifying. We have taken a recess for about three minutes of silence, and we will take a few more minutes.
“The Witness: I would like to leave the stand, your Honor.
“The Court: No, you may not leave the stand.
“The Court: Proceed, Mr. Scotti.
“The Witness: I am not going to answer questions, your Honor. I am not going to testify in this confusion, and the Court nor anyone else will make me testify in this emotional state. I am absolutely unfit to testify because of your Honor’s attitude and conduct towards me. I am being coerced and intimidated and badgered. The Court is suppressing the evidence.
“The Court: You are not only contemptuous but disorderly and insolent.”
The judge called a recess, during which counsel for the defendant requested the court to appoint a doctor to determine whether Ungar was malingering or incapable of testifying. Upon resumption, Ungar represented that he obtained his own medical assistance, the court agreed with Ungar that he was competent to testify, and denied the request. Ungar testified for another day without further incident.
The Jack trial ended on December 6, 1960, and during the afternoon of December 8, 1960, Judge Sarafite, the trial judge, pursuant to the New York procedure governing nonsummary trial of contempts, had served on Ungar a show-cause order charging that Ungar’s remarks from the stand on November 25 constituted a willful and disruptive contempt of court and ordering that the appellant appear on December 13 at 10 a. m. to defend against the charges. Judge Sarafite, presiding at the hearing, denied several motions for a continuance, and Ungar’s retained counsel was permitted to withdraw upon informing the court that he had agreed to undertake the defense only if Ungar could obtain a continuance. After exhibits material to the charges were admitted into evidence, Ungar was asked to defend. He declined, arguing that a continuance and a hearing before another judge should be granted. The court found Ungar guilty of contempt and, taking into consideration Ungar’s emotional state from the stress of the Jack trial, sentenced him to 10 days’ imprisonment and imposed a fine.
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the state procedure for review of nonsummary contempt proceedings, and denied the petition under Article 78, Civil Practice Act, the procedure for review of summary contempt convictions, both without opinion. 16 App. Div. 2d 617. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, also without opinion. 12 N. Y. 2d 1013, 189 N. E. 2d 629. It denied the appellant’s motion for reargument, the only part of the record before this Court in which appellant’s federal constitutional claims were asserted, and granted in part appellant’s motion to amend the remittitur to show that certain constitutional questions were passed upon in the appeal. Treating both the appeal and the Article 78 proceeding identically, the Court of Appeals ruled in the amended remittitur that rights under the Fourteenth Amendment had been raised and passed upon and stated that “appellant argued that such rights were violated by (1) the trial judge’s refusal to grant an adjournment of the contempt proceeding upon proof of the engagement of his counsel; (2) the trial judge’s invoking of summary power under § 751 of the Judiciary Law seven days after the end of the trial during which the contempt was committed, and (3) the same trial judge’s presiding in the resulting contempt proceeding even though he was the judge ‘personally attacked.’ ” In response to the third contention, the court ruled that the appellant’s remarks were not a personal attack upon the judge. 12 N. Y. 2d 1104, 190 N. E. 2d 539.
II.
We have determined that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Jurisdictional Statement contains a statutory attack on the validity of § 750, Judiciary Law, as unduly vague, and on § 751 as authorizing a judge who is personally attacked to preside over a contempt hearing and as authorizing summary proceedings after the trial in which the contempt occurs. Nothing in the record shows that these issues were tendered to the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals prior to the motion for reargument or to amend the remittitur. Only the latter was granted and then only in part. Therefore the amended remittitur is determinative in this Court on the constitutional issues raised and necessarily passed upon in the state courts. Bailey v. Anderson, 326 U. S. 203. That remittitur speaks of rights asserted and passed upon under the Fourteenth Amendment and does not indicate that a state statute was “drawn in question” and sustained over constitutional objections. See Mer-genthaler Linotype Co. v. Davis, 251 U. S. 256, 259; Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Alderson, 324 U. S. 182, 185-186. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Treating the appeal as a petition for certiorari, certiorari is granted, 28 U. S. C. § 2103, Anonymous v. Baker, 360 U. S. 287, limited, however, to the three constitutional issues which the amended remittitur states petitioner had argued and which, we assume, were the constitutional questions the New York Court of Appeals passed upon.
III.
Petitioner, Ungar, claims his constitutional rights to a fair hearing were violated because his contemptuous remarks were a personal attack on the judge which necessarily, and without more, biased the judge and disqualified him from presiding at the post-trial contempt hearing. The New York Court of Appeals rejected the claim and we see no error in this conclusion. Assuming that there are criticisms of judicial conduct which are so personal and so probably productive of bias that the judge must disqualify himself to avoid being the judge in his own case, we agree with the New York court that this is not such a case.
It is true that Ungar objected strongly to the orders of the court and to its conduct of the trial during his examination. His final outburst, the subject of the contempt, was a flat refusal to answer, when directed by the court, together with an intemperate and strongly worded comment on the propriety of the court’s ruling. But we are unwilling to bottom a constitutional rule of disqualification solely upon such disobedience to court orders and criticism of its rulings during the course of a trial. See Nilva v. United States, 352 U. S. 385. We cannot assume that judges are so irascible and sensitive that they cannot fairly and impartially deal with resistance to their authority or with highly charged arguments about the soundness of their decisions. Apparently because Ungar was being required to answer the questions asked rather than some others which he would rather have answered and because he was directed to cease volunteering testimony, Ungar claimed he was being “badgered” and “coerced” and that the court was “suppressing the evir dence.” This was disruptive, recalcitrant and disagreeable commentary, but hardly an insulting attack upon the integrity of the judge carrying such potential for bias as to require disqualification.
Nor is there anything else of substance in this record which shows any deprivation of petitioner’s right to be tried by an unbiased and impartial judge without a direct personal interest in the outcome of the hearing. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510. In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133. The Court in the latter case held that a judge acting as a one-man grand jury investigating crime could not convict for contempt witnesses who he believed testified falsely or inadequately before him in secret grand jury proceedings and is not controlling here. For both In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, and Murchison make abundantly clear that the Court was not dealing therein with the traditional category of contempts committed in open court, which cannot be likened to the so-called contempts committed in in camera grand jury proceedings, especially when the latter are founded upon perjury charges.
Unlike Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, and Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, which were contempt cases from lower federal courts in which the Court found personal bias sufficient to disqualify the judge from convicting for contempt, this record does not leave us with an abiding impression that the trial judge permitted himself to become personally embroiled with petitioner. Whatever disagreement there was between petitioner and the judge stemmed from the petitioner’s resistance to the authority of the judge and its exercise during the trial. Petitioner was strongly admonished that his conduct was disruptive and disorderly and that he would be held to the natural consequences of his acts. But requiring petitioner to answer the questions put to him and to cease caviling with the prosecutor'was fully in accord with the judicial obligation to maintain the orderly administration of justice and to protect the rights of the defendant on trial. Neither in the courtroom nor in the privacy of chambers did the judge become embroiled in intemperate wrangling with petitioner. The judge dealt firmly with Ungar, but without animosity, and petitioner’s final intemperate outburst provoked no emotional reflex in the judge. See Fisher v. Pace, 336 U. S. 155. The characterization of the petitioner’s conduct as contemptuous, disorderly, and malingering was at most a declaration of a charge against the petitioner, based on the judge’s observations, which, without more, was not a constitutionally disqualifying prejudgment of guilt, just as issuance of a show-cause order in any criminal contempt case, based on information brought to the attention of a judge, is not such a prejudgment of guilt. Moreover, Judge Sarafite, although believing that Ungar’s conduct was disruptive of the trial, did not purport to proceed summarily during or at the conclusion of the trial, but gave notice and afforded an opportunity for a hearing which was conducted dispassionately and with a decorum befitting a judicial proceeding. In these circumstances, we cannot say there was bias, or such a likelihood of bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused.
IV.
Petitioner’s additional attack upon the hearing afforded him centers upon the denial of his motion for a continu-anee which is said to have deprived him of his constitutional right to engage counsel and to defend against the charge. The State, among other arguments, denies Ungar’s right to any hearing at all, relying upon Sacher v. United, States, 343 U. S. 1, as permitting the judge summarily to convict for contempt at the conclusion of trial. We do not and need not, however, deal with the circumstances in which a trial judge may or may not constitutionally resort to summary proceedings after trial. For in this instance, assuming a nonsummary hearing was required, the hearing afforded petitioner satisfied the requirements of due process. In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257; In re Green, 369 U. S. 689.
The matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge, and it is not every denial of a request for more time that violates due process even if the party fails to offer evidence or is compelled to defend without counsel. Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444. Contrariwise, a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face.of a justifiable request for delay can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality. Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U. S. 3. There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case,-particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied. Nilva v. United States, 352 U. S. 385; Torres v. United States, 270 F. 2d 252 (C. A. 9th Cir.); cf. United States v. Arlen, 252 F. 2d 491 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
Ungar was served with a show-cause order on Thursday at about 5 p. m., the hearing being scheduled for the following Tuesday at 10 a. m. Ungar appeared with counsel at the appointed time. Two short continuances were then granted to allow another lawyer to appear for Ungar. When the latter arrived, the case was again called and counsel requested a one-week delay, informing the court that he was unfamiliar with the case because he had not been contacted until Saturday and because he was then busily engaged in trying another case. The court denied the motion for adjournment, being of the view that Ungar had been afforded sufficient time to hire counsel who would be available at the time of the scheduled hearing. We cannot say that this decision, in light of all the circumstances, denied petitioner due process. The five days’ notice given petitioner was not a constitutionally inadequate time to hire counsel and prepare a defense to a case in which the evidence was fresh, the witnesses and the evidence readily available, the issues limited and clear-cut and the charge revolving about one statement made by Ungar during a recently completed trial. Furthermore, the motion for continuance was not made until the day of the scheduled hearing and Ungar himself was a lawyer familiar with the court’s practice of not granting adjournments.
After denial of the motion, counsel was permitted to withdraw and the hearing proceeded. Ungar himself then argued for a continuance on the same ground as his counsel and on the additional ground that a few hours were needed to enable him to present medical proof and expert testimony showing no contempt was intended. He also referred to a snowstorm on the previous Sunday and Monday which allegedly had prevented any preparation with counsel. The motion was again denied and again we can find no denial of due process. Ungar asserted no reason why the testimony and medical proof, which he conceded were readily available and producible within hours, was not obtained between Thursday and Tuesday and presented in court at the time of the scheduled hearing, nor did he name the witnesses he would call nor did he give the substance of their testimony. The trial judge could reasonably have concluded that petitioner’s reliance upon inclement weather was less than candid since Ungar’s counsel’s previous statement that he could not represent Ungar without an adjournment was grounded upon his engagement in another trial. These matters are, of course, arguable, and other judges in other courts might well grant a continuance in these circumstances. But the fact that something is arguable does not make it unconstitutional. Given the deference necessarily due a state trial judge in regard to the denial or granting of continuances, we cannot say these denials denied Ungar due process of láw.
The judgments are
Affirmed.
In explaining his conduct at trial, Ungar stated in his petition to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division:
“On the basis of facts known to petitioner, it is petitioner’s belief and opinion that Huían E. Jack is absolutely innocent of each and every of the crimes charged against him, including those of which he was found guilty at the second Jack trial. Petitioner believes that in truth and in fact evidence available to the District Attorney of New York County, which would have created a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Jack’s guilt or innocence, was deliberately and wilfully suppressed, as will appear more fully hereinafter. One of the grounds of petitioner’s conviction for criminal contempt is petitioner’s statement to the foregoing effect during a moment of great emotional stress and physical and mental exhaustion at the second trial of Huían E. Jack on November 25, 1960.”
The following incidents are typical:
“Q. You had discussions?
“A. A preliminary discussion with Mr. Gale. If you want me to tell you what he said I will be glad to.
“Q. Mr. Ungar, just confine your answers to my questions.
“A. I am sorry.
“Q. You discussed this matter of the lease with Mr. Gale and with Mr. Cymrot, is that correct?
“A. No. I can’t accept the way you put that question. I discussed—
“The Court: No.
“The Witness: No, I can’t accept that.
“The Court: It is not a question of whether you accept it, it is a question of whether you can answer it.
“The Witness: I can’t answer that question that way.
“The Court: Next question.
“Q. The point is, you did discuss the matter of the lease with Mr. Cymrot and Mr. Gale, am I correct?
“A. I don’t know how to answer that question the way you frame it because—
“The Court: That is enough. Next question, Mr. Scotti. Did you talk to these people? {Footnote 2 continued on pp. 578-679']
“The Witness: Yes.
“The Court: Did they talk to you?
“The Witness: Yes.
“The Court: About the lease, the terms of the lease?
“The Witness: No.
“Q. Let me put this question to you, then: Did there come a time while you were discussing with the owners of 299 Broadway — I withdraw the question. When the lease, the proposed lease had been submitted by the Bureau of Beal Estate to the Board of Estimate for their consideration, and before the scheduled date for a hearing before the Board of Estimate, which was October 24, 1957, is that when you discussed this matter of the proposed lease with the defendant, Mr. Jack? . . .
“A. I can say only at this time I do not remember. I can only remember what you refreshed my recollection about, as to the testimony I gave in the Grand Jury on this subject.
“Q. You say that when you are mindful of the fact that I had refreshed your memory with respect to this matter?
“A. No, I am mindful of the fact that you read to me certain testimony that I had given before the Grand Jury on this matter, but I cannot recall the conversations. I didn’t recall it the last time and I do not recall them now, but I will adopt what you said in the Grand Jury if I said it there.
“Mr. Baker thereupon requested a conference at the bench. Counsel for both sides had a discussion with the judge at the bench out of the hearing of the jury, after which the following took place on the record in open court in the presence of the jury:
“The Court: Now, Mr. Witness, the subject matter discussed at the bench with the Court related to your volunteering about the Grand Jury, concerning which you were not asked anything, and it created a problem here which the lawyers discussed, which Mr. Baker raised with the Court. There would have been no such problem if you had not referred to Grand Jury testimony.
“Now, may I please ask you when you are asked a question, just answer yes or no, please. Don’t volunteer anything.
“Proceed.
“A. Yes.
“Q. Now, you did testify that you probably mentioned casually to him that you were buying this property and that the city was the lessee, and do you recall saying this at the last trial—
“Q. T can’t tell you in substance because I have no independent recollection of any conversation. I probably mentioned casually to him that I was buying this property, and that the city is the lessee, and I think I said that half a dozen times too.’
“Q. Was that correct?
“A. Just a minute. I don’t know what you mean by the last part of what you are reading. I probably said in my testimony half a dozen times, not that I spoke to him, the defendant, a half a dozen times.
“The Court: Mr. AVitness, try not to do that, please. Just listen to the question. The questioner is asking you, ‘Did you testify as follows at the last trial?’ Try to confine your answer to that question.
“A. No, I don’t have the figures in front of me at this point.
“I would like to explain the matter, which I think could simplify it very quickly.
“The Court: No, no, no, Mr. Ungar. Please don’t volunteer statements like that.
“As I indicated to you before, we have lawyers who conduct litigation. They have a right to phrase questions. It is not for you to volunteer anything. If you want to explain, or if the question is not satisfactory to you, that’s none of your business.
“Now, please, keep that in mind, will you.”
Section 750, Judiciary Law of New York, defines criminal contempt as:
“1. Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during [the court’s] sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings, or to impair the respect due to its authority. . . .”
Douglas v. Adel, 269 N. Y. 144, 199 N. E. 35; Negus v. Dwyer, 90 N. Y. 402; Pugh v. Winter, 253 App. Div. 295, 2 N. Y. S. 2d 9; Brewer v. Platzek, 133 App. Div. 25, 117 N. Y. S. 852.
Decisions of the New York courts make clear that a contempt committed in the presence of the court may be punished by the non-summary procedure applicable to other contempts of court. Goodman v. Sala, 268 App. Div. 826, 49 N. Y. S. 2d 245; Choate v. Barrett, 56 Hun 351, 9 N. Y. S. 321, aff’d, 121 N. Y. 678, 24 N. E. 1095.
Appellant concedes that the vagueness objection to the state statute was not explicitly argued to the Court of Appeals. The trial judge did not purport to invoke summary power under § 751, Judiciary Law, and the Court of Appeals expressly declined to construe § 751 to authorize a trial judge personally attacked to preside at the contempt proceedings.
See also Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 42 (b): “Disposition Upon Notice and Hearing. A criminal contempt [except one subject to summary disposition] . . . shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. ... If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant’s consent.”
The following excerpt from the discussion in the judge’s chamber following persistent resistance to instructions to answer questions is probably the most intense disagreement between petitioner and the judge that occurred during the trial.
“The Court: Now, Mr. Witness, this case was tried once before and took considerable time. You were a witness for many days. A number of incidents occurred in that trial which, in my judgment, directly tended to interrupt the proceedings of the Court and to impair the respect due to the authority of the Court, and you were the one who created those incidents, in my judgment.
“I told you then, at the first trial, that you were creating a very serious problem for the Court and that, as a lawyer, I assumed you knew what the problem was.
“I should like very much to avoid any repetition of what happened the last time.
“We each have a function to perform here. Whether it is an agreeable function or a disagreeable function is of no concern.
“Now I have said to you up to now on a number of occasions that you should confine your answers to the questions, not to volunteer, not to get into any dispute or discussions, not to try to indicate what you think the question should be or how you should answer it.
“This is a trial before the jury, not before the Court alone. As a judge, I must rule in accordance with my understanding of the law, which I am doing.
“I hope you understand what I am saying, Mr. Ungar. Do you?
“The Witness: Well, I would like to say a word, if I may.
“The Court: No.
“The Witness: I can’t understand what your Honor is saying.
“The Court: Then if you can’t understand—
“The Witness: I understand what your Honor is saying—
“The Court: I don’t want anything further, Mr. Ungar. All I want to add to what I have said, since you said you do not understand what I am saying—
“The Witness: I understand what your Honor is saying.
“The Court: You said you didn’t.
“The Witness: But I cannot understand it in a vacuum; that’s what I am trying to say, your Honor.
“The Court: Don’t argue with me, Mr. Ungar.
“The Witness: I have got to understand the question, in order to answer it. I can’t answer a question merely if your Honor says, ‘Answer it,’ if it doesn’t make sense to me or if it’s creating a false impression— [Footnote 7 continued on pp. 587-588]
“The Court: Will you desist. You see, it’s none of your business whether it creates in your judgment a false impression or not. The defendant is represented here by a lawyer, and the People are represented by a lawyer. It is for them to conduct this litigation, and not you.
“Now I am only going to make one more statement and we will return to the courtroom.
“There is a rule of law that every man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. I am going to hold you to that standard. And whether you tell me that you understand what I said or not will not be the test that I shall use in whatever action I propose to take.”
“Not only should you, as a man and a citizen, be held to intend the natural consequences of your act, but you as a lawyer should be held to a higher standard of knowing that you are responsible for the natural consequences of your act.
“Also, there is a rule that every citizen is presumed to know the law. I take it that every citizen does not know the rules of the law of evidence. But as a lawyer, you certainly know the rules of law of evidence.
“Let’s return to the courtroom.
“The Witness: I think I have a right, if your Honor please—
“The Court: I shall not—
“The Witness: —to have a statement made.
“Your Honor has made a statement which is intimidating. Your Honor has made a statement which is coercive, and I think I have a right to make a statement.
“Now if your Honor intends to take action against me, I submit that the action should be taken here and now. But I insist upon a right, and think that I am justified as a witness to make a statement before your Honor takes any action.
“I have a right to understand any question that’s propounded to me, and I have a right, if a question is framed in such a way which creates a reflection upon me and which is not a fact — I have a right—
“The Court: Keep your voice down, Mr. Ungar. I kept my voice down.
“The Witness: I’m sorry, I apologize.
“The Court; And stop doing that. Don’t raise your voice. And you have said enough. I have your point.
“Now the Court is not intimidating you. It is not coercing you, and it is not threatening you.
“The Witness: I disagree with your Honor.
“The Court: I didn’t ask you whether you disagreed.
“And I suggest to you, Mr. Ungar, that you speak when you are asked to speak, from now on — please.
“Now the purpose of calling you in here was not to intimidate you or coerce you in the slightest. But the purpose is to avoid a repetition in the courtroom of the unseemly performance of the last trial, which I shall not tolerate.
“Now let’s return to the courtroom.
“The Witness: I believe I have tried—
“The Court: I told you to speak when you were asked to speak.
“The Witness: Have I a right—
“The Court: No.
“The Witness: Have I a right to understand questions?
“The Court: Let’s return to the Courtroom.
“The Witness: I am asking the Court if I have a right to ask the question — ”
This disposes of petitioner’s second argument set out in the amended remittitur of the Court of Appeals that the invocation of summary power seven days after the end of the trial during which the contempt was committed denied due process.
These requirements include the right to be adequately advised of charges, a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges by way of defense or mitigation, representation by counsel, and an adequate opportunity to call witnesses.
Ungar was also told after his outburst on November 25 “to keep himself available” for further proceedings.
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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Justice Black.
This case presents the question of the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of a penal ordinance of the City of Lockport, New York, which forbids the use of sound amplification devices except with permission of the Chief of Police.
Appellant is a minister of the religious sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. He obtained from the Chief of Police permission to use sound equipment, mounted atop his car, to amplify lectures on religious subjects. The lectures were given at a fixed place in a public park on designated Sundays. When this permit expired, he applied for another one but was refused on the ground that complaints had been made. Appellant nevertheless used his equipment as planned on four occasions, but without a permit. He was tried in Police Court for violations of the ordinance. It was undisputed that he used his equipment to amplify speeches in the park and that they were on religious subjects. Some witnesses testified that they were annoyed by the sound, though not by the content of the addresses; others were not disturbed by either. The court upheld the ordinance against the contention that it violated appellant’s rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and worship under the Federal Constitution. Fines and jail sentences were imposed. His convictions were affirmed without opinion by the County Court for Niagara County and by the New York Court of Appeals, 297 N. Y. 659, 76 N. E. 2d 323. The case is here on appeal.
We hold that § 3 of this ordinance is unconstitutional on its face, for it establishes a previous restraint on the right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against State action. To use a loud-speaker or amplifier one has to get a permit from the Chief of Police. There are no standards prescribed for the exercise of his discretion. The statute is not narrowly drawn to regulate the hours or places of use of loud-speakers, or the volume of sound (the decibels) to which they must be adjusted. The ordinance therefore has all the vices of the ones which we struck down in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444; and Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496.
In the Cantwell case a license had to be obtained in order to distribute religious literature. What was religious was left to the discretion of a public official. We held that judicial review to rectify abuses in the licensing system did not save the ordinance from condemnation on the grounds of previous restraint. Lovell v. Griffin, supra, held void on its face an ordinance requiring a license for the distribution of literature. That ordinance, like the present one, was dressed in the garb of the control of a “nuisance.” But the Court made short shrift of the argument, saying that approval of the licensing system would institute censorship “in its baldest form.” In Hague v. C. I. O., supra, we struck down a city ordinance which required a license from a local official for a public assembly on the streets or highways or in the public parks or public buildings. The official was empowered to refuse the permit if in his opinion the refusal would prevent “riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage.” We held that the ordinance was void on its face because it could be made “the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free expression of views on national affairs.” 307 U. S. p. 516.
The present ordinance has the same defects. The right to be heard is placed in the uncontrolled discretion of the Chief of Police. He stands athwart the channels of communication as an obstruction which can be removed only after criminal trial and conviction and lengthy appeal. A more effective previous restraint is difficult to imagine. Unless we are to retreat from the firm positions we have taken in the past, we must give freedom of speech in this case the same preferred treatment that we gave freedom of religion in the Cantwell case, freedom of the press in the Griffin case, and freedom of speech and assembly in the Hague case.
Loud-speakers are today indispensable instruments of effective public speech. The sound truck has become an accepted method of political campaigning. It is the way people are reached. Must a candidate for governor or the Congress depend on the whim or caprice of the Chief of Police in order to use his sound truck for campaigning? Must he prove to the satisfaction of that official that his noise will not be annoying to people?
The present ordinance would be a dangerous weapon if it were allowed to get a hold on our public life. Noise can be regulated by regulating decibels. The hours and place of public discussion can be controlled. But to allow the police to bar the use of loud-speakers because their use can be abused is like barring radio receivers because they too make a noise. The police need not be given the power to deny a man the use of his radio in order to protect a neighbor against sleepless nights. The same is true here.
Any abuses which loud-speakers create can be controlled by narrowly drawn statutes. When a city allows an official to ban them in his uncontrolled discretion, it sanctions a device for suppression of free communication of ideas. In this case a permit is denied because some persons were said to have found the sound annoying. In the next one a permit may be denied because some people find the ideas annoying. Annoyance at ideas can be cloaked in annoyance at sound. The power of censorship inherent in this type of ordinance reveals its vice.
Courts must balance the various community interests in passing on the constitutionality of local regulations of the character involved here. But in that process they should be mindful to keep the freedoms of the First Amendment in a preferred position. See Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501, 509.
Reversed.
The ordinance, insofar as pertinent, reads as follows:
"Section 2. Radio devices, etc. It shall be unlawful for any person to maintain and operate in any building, or on any premises or on any automobile, motor truck or other motor vehicle, any radio device, mechanical device, or loud speaker or any device of any kind whereby the sound therefrom is cast directly upon the streets and public places and where such device is maintained for advertising purposes or for the purpose of attracting the attention of the passing public, or which is so placed and operated that the sounds coming therefrom can be heard to the annoyance or inconvenience of travelers upon any street or public places or of persons in neighboring premises.
“Section 3. Exception. Public dissemination, through radio loudspeakers, of items of news and matters of public concern and athletic activities shall not be deemed a violation of this section provided that the same be done under permission obtained from the Chief of Police.”
Appellant’s conduct was regarded throughout as falling within the types of activity enumerated in § 3. We take the ordinance as construed by the State courts.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 577-578, did not depart from the rule of these earlier cases but re-emphasized the vice of the type of ordinance we have here. Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43, was distinguished in the Hague case, 307 U. S. pp. 514-516, which likewise involved an ordinance regulating the use of public streets and parks. It was there said, “We have no occasion to determine whether, on the facts disclosed, the Davis case was rightly decided, but we cannot agree that it rules the instant case. Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in. the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”
We adhere to that view. Though the statement was that of only three Justices, it plainly indicated the route the majority followed, who on the merits did not consider the Davis case to be controlling.
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the effect of the Act of July 23, 1959, 73 Stat. 243 (Finality Act), upon orders issued by the Federal Trade Commission under § 11 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 734, prior to the date of the former Act. The respondent claims that the Finality Act repealed the enforcement provisions of § 11 of the Clayton Act, 15 U: S. C. § 21 (1958 ed.), and that orders of the Commission entered prior to the enactment of the Finality Act are not now enforceable. The Court of Appeals agreed, held that it had no jurisdiction to enforce such orders and directed that the proceeding be dismissed. 356 F. 2d 253. In view of the pendency of almost 400 such orders and the conflict among the circuits on the point, we granted certiorari. 385 U. S. 810.
I.
The facts are not disputed, save on points not relevant here, and will not be stated in detail. Jantzen manufactures men’s, women’s, and children’s apparel. On September 4, 1958, it was charged by the Commission with having violated § 2 (d) of the Clayton Act by allowing discriminatory advertising and promotional allowances to certain of its customers. Jantzen did not answer the complaint. However, it Consented to the entry of a cease-and-desist order against it prohibiting further discrimination in advertising and promotional activities. This agreement and a form of order were approved by a hearing examiner and on January 16, 1959., the order was adopted by the Commission. On July 22, 1964, some five years after the adoption of the Finality Act, the Commission ordered an investigation into charges that Jantzen had violated the 1959 consent order. Jantzen stipulated before a hearing examiner that it had violated the consent order by granting discriminatory allowances to customers in Chattanooga, Temí., and Brooklyn, N. Y. The Commission thereafter concluded that Jantzen had violated the order. -It then applied to the Court of Appeals for an order affirming and enforcing the original order. The application was based on the provisions of the third paragraph of § 11 of the original Clayton Act, which authorized the Commission, in the event spch an order was not obeyed, to apply to a court of appeals for its “enforcement.” Jantzen claimed that the amendment of § 11 by the Finality Act resulted in a repeal of the Commission’s authority to seek, and the courts’ to grant, affirmance and enforcement of such orders. The Court of Appeals agreed and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse and remand the proceedings for further consideration in light of this opinion.
II.
We start with the proposition that the Congress intended by its enactment of the Finality Act of 1959 to strengthen the hand of the Commission in the enforcement of the Clayton Act. As the report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate stated: “The effectiveness of the Clayton Act . . . has' long been handicapped by the absence of adequate enforcement provisions. ... S. 726 would put teeth' into Clayton Act orders and would fill the enforcement void which has existed for many years.” S. Rep. No. 83, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1959). The procedures existing prior to the adoption of the Finality Act required the Commission to investigate, and after complaint, prove a violation of the Clayton Act before it could issue a cease-and-desist order. After its issuance a violation of the order had to be investigated and proved before the Commission might obtain an order compelling its obédience. Only then could a court of appeals order enforcement. And under Federal Trade Comm’n v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U. S. 470 (1952), a contempt proceeding would not lie except on allegations of violation of the Act a third time and proof of a failure or refusal to obey the Commission’s order, previously affirmed.
The Finality Act eliminated these “laborious, time consuming, and very expensive” procedures. S. Rep. No. 83, supra, at 2. As Congressman Huddleston, one of the principal supporters of the bill which later became the Act, stated to the House:
“The bill ... is in effect a perfecting amendment to the Clayton Act. It has no other purpose than to effect the will of Congress with respect to the role of the Federal Trade Commission in Clayton Act enforcement in the same manner and to the same degree that the will of Congress was effectuated by the Wheeler-Lea amendments to the Federal Trade Commission Act.” 105 Cong. Rec. 12732.
The remarks of Congressman Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, of Congressman Roosevelt and of other supporters of the bill were substantially the same. 105 Cong. Rec. 12730-12733.
The Wheeler-Lea Amendment clarified the procedures of the Federal Trade Commission Act but did not amend those of the Clayton Act. Under the Wheeler-Lea Amendment orders issued by the Commission were to become final 60 days after their issuance or upon affirmance by a court of appeals in which a petition for review had been filed. However, § 5 (a) of the Amendment expressly provided that orders outstanding at the time of the adoption of the Amendment would become final 60 days after the latter date or upon affirmance in review proceedings instituted during that 60-day .period. 52 Stat. 117. The Finality Act instead of using the language of § 5 (a) of the Wheeler-Lea Amendment contains' a special provision, § 2, which reads as follows:
“The amendments made by section 1 shall have no application to any proceeding initiated before the date of enactment of this Act under the third or fourth paragraph of section 11 of1 the [Clayton] Act .... Each such proceeding shall be governed by the provisions of such section as they existed on the day preceding the date of enactment of this Act.”
The Court of Appeals thought the use of this language was significant in that, unlike § 5 (a), it “does not deal with cease and desist orders issued before its effective date, nor provide for their becoming final within the meaning of ■ the amended Act. It deals solely with proceedings begun in a Court of Appeals .... Thus the third paragraph [of § 11] is expressly continued in effect for this very limited purpose, namely, the completion of proceedings for enforcement initiated by the Commission in a Court of Appeals... . . [T]his. is a strong indication that the Congress knew, and intended, that it was repealed for other purposes.” The Court of Appeals buttressed this reading of the Finality Act by noting that the Commission originally took the position “that existing Clayton Act orders would become final within 60 days, under the new law, just as under the Wheeler-Lea Act 356 F. 2d, at 257. See Sperry Rand Corp. v. F. T. C., 110 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 288 F. 2d 403 (1961); F. T. C. v. Nash-Finch Co., 110 U. S. App. D. C. 5, 288 F. 2d 407 (1961). From this, the court indicated that this change of position by the Commission pointed- up its conclusion that “the repeal in this case was express.” 356 F. 2d, at 257.
III.
We cannot agree. 'One error of the Court of Appeals seems to be the limited scope it gives the phrase “proceeding initiated before the date of enactment of this Act.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals thought this included only the application for enforcement under paragraph three or the petition for review under paragraph four of the original § 11 of the Act. We think not. We believe the word “proceeding” was used in the sense that it was employed throughout § 11 prior to the Amendment, namely the action brought by the Commission against the alleged violator of the Clayton Act. It follows that the “proceeding initiated” meant the filing of the “proceeding” before the Commission and was not limited to the application for enforcement or petition for review. This is made clear to us by the last sentence of § 2: “Each such proceeding shall be governed by the provisions of such section [§ 11 of the Clayton Act] as they existed on the day preceding the date of enactment of this Act.” We emphasize that here the Congress said “section^’ not paragraphs 3-7, inclusive, of the section. It follows that the provisions of the entire section were preserved intact and governed all orders predating the Finality Act. The apparent reason for this Variance from the procedure of the Wheeler-Lea Act was because of the heavy penalties which the Congress attached to the violation of final orders of the Commission under the Finality Act. It, therefore, wished to make clear that not only applications for enforcement of pre-Finality Act orders and petitions for review of such orders but any action of the Commission with reference to pre-Finality Act orders would be governed by the provisions of § 11 of the Clayton Act “as they existed on the day preceding the date of enactment of this [Finality] Act.” We believe that this interpretation is implicit in our opinion on the second review by this Court of Federal Trade Comm’n v. Henry Broch & Co., 368 U. S. 360 (1962), where Mr. Justice Brennan held that the 1959 amendments to § 11 of the Clayton Act “do not apply to enforcement of the instant order.” At 365. In note 5, on p. 365, the opinion pointed out that the order “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.” It is significant that Sperry Rand specifically held that “[enforcement due to any violation of the [pre-Finality Act] consent order which might occur is left to the provisions of the statute as they existed at the time the order was entered.” At 4, 288 F. 2d, at 406. Such a holding here is supported by the fact that the Finality Act nowhere denies the Commission the power to enforce preexisting orders. At most its provisions are silent with regard to such authority. Furthermore, the caption of the Finality Act itself as well as the legislative history gives added weight to our interpretation. The caption recites the purpose of the Act to be “to provide for the more expeditious enforcement of cease and desist orders . . . .” 73 Stat. 243. Such á purpose would certainly not include making approximately 400 orders dead letters. As we have noted previously the legislative history shows beyond contradiction that not only its sponsors but the responsible committees reporting the bill for passage believed “that this legislation will strengthen the enforcement provisions of section 11 of the Clayton Act ....”• S. Rep. No. 83, supra, at 3. Giving some 400 proven violators absolution from prior orders of the Commission would hardly comport with such a congressional intent. The Court of Appeals bottomed its opinion on the language used in the opening sentence of subsection (c) of the Finality Act reading that the “third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs of” § 11 of the Clayton Act “are amended to read as follows.” But we must read the Act as a whole as we have § 2 heretofore. And in so doing we cannot, as Mr. Justice Douglas said, ignore the “common sense, precedent, and legislative history” of the setting that gave it birth. United States v. Standard Oil Co., 384 U. S. 224, 225 (1966). And as Mr. Justice Holmes said many years ago:
“The Legislature has the power to decide what the policy of the law shall be, and if it has intimated its will, .however indirectly, that will should be recognized and obeyed. The major premise of the conclusion expressed in a statute, the change of policy that induces the enactment, may not be set out in terms, but it is not an adequate discharge of duty for courts to say: We see what you are driving at, but you have not said it, and therefore we shall go on as before.”' Johnson v. United States, 163 F. 30, 32 (1908).
But whether or not we are correct in our application and interpretation we have concluded that a sensible construction of the Finality Act compels the opposite result to that reached by the Court of Appeals. That- court would grant review and enforcement of proceedings under the old procedures where the petition for review or the application for enforcement was filed prior to the date of the enactment of the Finality Act but orders from which no petition or application was ever filed would not be capable of enforcement. This would subject violators who sought review to the sanctions of the section but those who had not sought review would be free to violate orders against them with impunity. Consequently, almost 400 separate violators would be forgiven. It is no answer to say that the Commission could file new complaints which would eome under the new procedures. The fact is that some 400 particularized orders written to correct specific mischief violative of the Clayton Act would be unenforceable. There is quite a difference between proving a violation of the Clayton Act and a failure to obey a specific order of the Commission. Long, tedious, and costly investigation, proof of injury to competition as well as other affirmative requirements necessary to the issuance of an order and many defenses such as cost justification, meeting competition,, exclusive dealing, etc., are all avoided. Particularly in merger cases would the enforcement of prior orders be simplified and expedited.
In view of all of these considerations we cannot say that the author of the Finality Act and its sponsors — all stalwart champions of effective antitrust enforcement— would have intended to strip the Commission of all of its enforcement vyeapons with reference to some 400 concerns already adjudged to be Clayton Act violators. Nor could we ascribe to a Congress that has so clearly expressed its will any such result. We.can only say that as between choices Congress rejected only one, namely, that of the Wheeler-Lea Act’s 60-day review provision. Certainly it intended that the old procedures would apply to proceedings on. petition for review or application for enforcement. There is no evidence that it intended to put the pre-1959 orders into the discard. We remain more faithful to the Act, we think, when we find that they too are enforceable under the old procedures.
Reversed and remanded.
See Federal Trade Comm’n v. Pacific-Gamble-Robinson Co., No. 18260 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1962); Federal Trade Comm’n v. Benrus Watch Co., No. 27752 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1962), and the instant case.
The penalties were raised to $5,000 for each day in which a violation continued.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to resolve conflicts in the Circuits as to whether monetary obligations that have accrued under a prehire contract authorized by § 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 73 Stat. 545, 29 U. S. C. § 158(f), can be enforced, prior to the repudiation of such a contract, in a suit brought by a union against an employer under §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, absent proof that the union represented a majority of the employees.
I
Petitioner is engaged in the construction industry and, in September 1978, was a subcontractor on a jobsite in southern California. The general contractor was contractually bound to the Master Labor Agreement negotiated between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 12, and the Southern California General Contractors Associations. The Master Labor Agreement provided that work at the jobsite was to be performed only by subcontractors who had signed a labor agreement with the Union. The Master Labor Agreement also contained a union security clause requiring covered employees, including those of subcontractors, to become members of the Union. At the time petitioner began work on the jobsite as a subcontractor, it was not a signatory to a labor agreement with the Union and none of its employees on the jobsite were members of the Union.
On September 13, 1978, petitioner’s president, McNeff, was approached on the jobsite by a representative of the Union who informed him that in order to remain on the project he was required to sign the Master Labor Agreement. McNeff refused. Later that day, the Union representative returned with a representative of the general contractor who also informed McNeff that he was required to sign the agreement in order to remain on the project. McNeff then signed the agreement on behalf of petitioner. Petitioner’s employees signed union cards that same day.
The Master Labor Agreement required petitioner to make monthly contributions to fringe benefit trust funds on behalf of each covered employee. From October 1978 through March 1979 petitioner submitted required monthly reports to the trust funds, but made no contributions. Each form was submitted by petitioner with the false notation that “no members of this craft were employed during this month.” In November 1978, after petitioner had filed the first of such reports, respondents, the trustees of the funds, requested permission from petitioner to audit its records to verify the statements made in its monthly report. Petitioner purported to agree, but postponed the audit several times. On April 4, 1979, respondents brought this suit under §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185, to compel an accounting and payment of any contributions found to be due the trust funds. An audit performed in pretrial discovery proceedings revealed that petitioner had five employees covered by the agreement during the period October 1978 through March 1979 and therefore owed a total of $5,316.79 in trust fund contributions for that period.
The District Court for the Central District of California granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment and ordered payment of the unpaid trust fund contributions. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 667 F. 2d 800 (1982).
We granted certiorari, 458 U. S. 1120 (1982), in part to resolve Circuit conflicts on this issue, and we affirm.
II
By authorizing so-called “prehire” agreements like that at issue in this case, § 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158(f), exempts construction industry employers and unions from the general rule precluding a union and an employer from signing “a collective-bargaining agreement recognizing the union as the exclusive bargaining representative when in fact only a minority of the employees have authorized the union to represent their interests.” NLRB v. Iron Workers, 434 U. S. 335, 344-345 (1978) (Higdon). See Garment Workers v. NLRB, 366 U. S. 731, 737-738 (1961). Section 8(f) provides in pertinent part:
“It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building and construction industry to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or who, upon their employment, will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization of which building and construction employees are members . . . because (1) the majority status of such labor organization has not been established under the provisions of section 9 of this Act prior to the making of such agreement. . . : Provided . . . That any agreement which would be invalid, but for clause (1) of this subsection, shall not be a bar to a petition filed pursuant to section 9(c) or 9(e).” 73 Stat. 545.
Thus, § 8(f) allows construction industry employers and unions to enter into agreements setting the terms and conditions of employment for the workers hired by the signatory employer without the union’s majority status first having been established in the manner provided for under § 9 of the Act. One factor prompting Congress to enact § 8(f) was the uniquely temporary, transitory, and sometimes seasonal nature of much of the employment in the construction industry. Congress recognized that construction industry unions often would not be able to establish majority support with respect to many bargaining units. See S. Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 55-56 (1959), 1 NLRB, Legislative History of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, pp. 451-452 (Leg. Hist.). Congress was also cognizant of the construction industry employer’s need to “know his labor costs before making the estimate upon which his bid will be based” and that “the employer must be able to have available a supply of skilled craftsmen for quick referral.” H. R. Rep. No. 741, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 19 (1959), 1 Leg. Hist. 777. See generally, Higdon, supra, at 348-349.
We first addressed the enforceability of a § 8(f) prehire agreement in Higdon. In response to the employer’s violation of a prehire agreement, the minority union in that case picketed the employer for more than 30 days without filing an election petition. The National Labor Relations Board concluded that such picketing violated § 8(b)(7)(C). Section 8(b)(7)(C) was intended to ensure voluntary, uncoerced selection of a bargaining representative by employees; unless a union is the certified representative of the employees in the relevant unit, it prohibits picketing to force an employer “to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees.” In Higdon, we affirmed the Board’s view that a prehire agreement does not make a union the “representative of [an employer’s] employees” as that language is used in § 8(b)(7)(C):
“[Absent] majority credentials . . . , the collective-bargaining relationship and the union’s entitlement to act as the exclusive bargaining agent had never matured. Picketing to enforce the § 8(f) contract was the legal equivalent of picketing to require recognition as the exclusive agent, and § 8(b)(7)(C) was infringed when the union failed to request an élection within 30 days.” 434 U. S., at 346.
III
We did not decide in Higdon whether prehire agreements are enforceable in a § 301 action. There is a critical distinction between an employer’s obligation under the Act to bargain with the representative of the majority of its employees and its duty to satisfy lawful contractual obligations that accrued after it enters a prehire contract. Only the former obligation was treated in Higdon.
In upholding the Board’s view that a union commits an unfair labor practice by picketing to enforce a prehire agreement before it has attained majority status, we noted in Higdon that this view protects two interests that Congress intended to uphold when it enacted § 8(f). First, our holding in Higdon protects the § 7 rights of employees to select their own bargaining representative. To be sure, § 8(f) affects the § 7 rights of employees by allowing a minority union to reach an agreement with the employer setting the terms and conditions of employment. This is the direct and intended consequence of § 8(f) and, in any event, is limited by the final proviso in § 8(f) that permits employees — and other parties mentioned in §§ 9(c) and (e) of the Act — to challenge a prehire agreement at any time by petitioning the Board for a. representative election. If, however, an employer could be compelled by picketing to treat a minority union as the exclusive bargaining agent of employees, the § 7 rights of those employees would be undermined to an extent not contemplated by Congress. As we noted in Higdon, 434 U. S., at 338, a union that is the certified representative of the employees in the relevant unit does not commit an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(7)(C) by picketing to compel compliance with a collective-bargaining agreement. Consequently, freeing a minority union from the confines of § 8(b)(7)(C) would grant that union power otherwise accorded only to certified bargaining representatives chosen by a majority of the affected employees. It is up to those employees to decide what organization, if any, will enter into a collective-bargaining agreement on their behalf and have the consequent right to engage in picketing, if necessary, to enforce it; the union signatory to a prehire agreement cannot arrogate such power to itself until it “successfully seeks majority support.” Higdon, supra, at 350.
Second, our decision in Higdon promotes Congress’ “intention . . . that prehire agreements were to be arrived at voluntarily . . . .” Higdon, 434 U. S., at 348, n. 10. In accord with this intention, we approved the Board’s conclusion that a “prehire agreement is voidable” “until and unless [the union] attains majority support in the relevant unit.” Id., at 341. Allowing the union to picket to enforce a prehire agreement before it attains majority status is plainly inconsistent with the voidable nature of a prehire agreement.
The concerns with the §7 rights of employees to select their own bargaining representative and our fidelity to Congress’ intent that prehire agreements be voluntary — and voidable — that led to our decision in Higdon are not present in this case. Union enforcement, by way of a § 301 suit, of monetary obligations incurred by an employer under a prehire contract prior to its repudiation does not impair the right of employees to select their own bargaining agent. Unlike the situation in Higdon, enforcement of accrued obligations in a § 301 suit does not mean that the union represents a majority of the employer’s employees. In a §301 suit, the District Court merely enforces a contract entered into by the employer — a contract that Congress has legitimated to meet a special situation even though employees themselves have no part in its negotiation or execution. Such enforcement does not grant the plaintiff union a right otherwise enjoyed only by a majority union except in the very narrow sense, expressly intended by Congress, that employers and minority unions in the construction industry do not violate the Act by entering into prehire agreements. There is no sense in which respondents’ contract action has a recognitional purpose like that forbidden in Higdon.
Neither does respondents’ § 301 action trench on the voluntary and voidable characteristics of a § 8(f) prehire agreement. It is clear in this case that petitioner entered into the prehire agreement voluntarily. Moreover, although the voidable nature of prehire agreements clearly gave petitioner the right to repudiate the contract, it is equally clear that petitioner never manifested an intention to void or repudiate the contract. For the relevant period of time, the record shows conclusively that petitioner accepted the benefits of the prehire agreement and misled the union of its true intention never to fulfill its contractual obligations. Whatever may be required of a party wishing to exercise its undoubted right to repudiate a prehire agreement before the union attains majority support in the relevant unit, no appropriate action was taken by petitioner to do so in this case. Consequently, respondents’ suit does not enervate the voluntary and voidable characteristics of the prehire agreement.
Apart from not offending the concerns noted in Higdon, allowing a minority union to enforce overdue obligations accrued under a prehire agreement prior to its repudiation vindicates the policies Congress intended to implement in § 8(f). Congress clearly determined that prehire contracts should be lawful to meet problems unique to the construction industry. However limited the binding effect of a prehire agreement may be, it strains both logic and equity to argue that a party to such an agreement can reap its benefits and then avoid paying the bargained-for consideration. Nothing in the legislative history of § 8(f) indicates Congress intended employers to obtain free the benefits of stable labor costs, labor peace, and the use of the union hiring hall. Having had the music, he must pay the piper.
By the same token, the union cannot simply accept the employer’s performance under a prehire contract without upholding its end of the bargain. Neither party is compelled to enter into a § 8(f) agreement. But when such an agreement is voluntarily executed, both parties must abide by its terms until it is repudiated.
IV
A § 8(f) prehire agreement is subject to repudiation until the union establishes majority status. However, the monetary obligations assumed by an employer under a prehire contract may be recovered in a §301 action brought by a union prior to the repudiation of the contract, even though the union has not attained majority support in the relevant unit. There having been no repudiation in this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Article IV, § D, of the agreement provides:
“The Contractor agrees that neither he nor any of his subcontractors on the jobsite will subcontract any work to be done at the site of construction, alteration, painting or repair of a building, structure or other work (including quarries, rock, sand and gravel plants, asphalt plants, ready-mix concrete plants, established on or adjacent to the jobsite to process or supply materials for the convenience of the Contractor for jobsite use), except to a person, firm or corporation, party to an appropriate, current labor agreement with the appropriate Union, or subordinate body signatory to this Agreement.” App. 39.
Article II, §§ D and E, of the agreement provide:
“D. Employees employed by one or more of the Contractors for a period of eight (8) days continuously or accumulatively under the work jurisdiction of a particular Union as that term is defined herein shall be or become on the eighth (8th) day or eight (8) days after the effective date of this Agreement, whichever is later, members of such Union and shall remain members of such Union as a condition of continued employment. Membership in such Union shall be available upon terms and qualifications not more burdensome than those applicable at such times to other applicants for membership to such Union.
“E. The Contractor shall discharge any employee pursuant to the foregoing section upon written notice from the Union of such employee’s nonpayment of initiation fees or dues.” App. 38.
Specifically, petitioner entered into an agreement that adopted the Master Labor Agreement “in its entirety,” with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this case. Id., at 9-13.
The agreement provides:
“The undersigned employer by his signature acknowledges receipt of a true and correct copy of the Agreement establishing the Operating Engineers Trusts:
“AND, further by his signature, accepts all of the terms and conditions of said Trust Agreements and agrees to be bound thereto in every way, including the obligation to make periodic contributions and payments pursuant to the requirement of the Board of Trustees consistent with said Trust Agreements and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between said employer and Local 12, International Union of Operating Engineers.” Id., at 12-13.
The record shows that McNeff initialed petitioner’s acceptance of the following trust fund obligations: (1) pension trust; (2) health and welfare trust; (3) vacation-holiday trust; (4) apprentice trust; (5) journeyman training trust; and (6) industry fund trust. Id., at 13.
Section 301(a) provides:
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, 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.” 61 Stat. 156.
Compare Washington Area Carpenters’ Welfare Fund, v. Overhead Door Co. of Metropolitan Washington, 220 U. S. App. D. C. 273, 681 F. 2d 1 (1982); 667 F. 2d 800 (CA9 1982) (case below); W. C. James, Inc. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, 646 F. 2d 1292 (CA8 1981); New Mexico District Council of Carpenters v. Mayhew Co., 664 F. 2d 215 (CA10 1981); and Contractors, Laborers, Teamsters & Engineers Health & Welfare Plan v. Associated Wrecking Co., 638 F. 2d 1128 (CA8 1981), with Laborers District Council of Alabama v. McDowell Contractors, Inc., 680 F. 2d 94 (CA11 1982), and Baton Rouge Building & Construction Trades Council v. E. C. Schafer Construction Co., 657 F. 2d 806 (CA5 1981).
In Higdon, we addressed the question whether holding a prehire contract to be unenforceable in a § 301 suit would be contrary to Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 369 U. S. 17 (1962). In Lion Dry Goods the Court stated that § 301(a) confers jurisdiction on the federal courts to entertain suits on contracts between an employer and a minority union, as well as suits on contracts between an employer and actual collective-bargaining agents. Section 8(f) contracts were noted as being within a federal court’s § 301(a) jurisdiction. Id., at 29. In Higdon, we merely noted that “[i]t would not be inconsistent with Lion Dry Goods for a court to hold that the union’s majority standing is subject to litigation in a § 301 suit to enforce a § 8(f) contract . . . and that absent a showing that the union is the majority’s chosen instrument, the contract is unenforceable.” 434 U. S., at 361-362. This statement was intended to show that the question of jurisdiction under §301 is different from the question of enforceability of a prehire agreement in a § 301 action. We did not decide the latter question.
Section 7 of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 157, guarantees employees the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. Section 9(a) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 159(a), provides that the bargaining agent for all employees in the appropriate unit must be the representative “designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees . . . .” It is an unfair labor practice for an employer under §§ 8(a)(1) and (2) and for a union under § 8(b)(1)(A) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to select their representative. See generally Garment Workers v. NLRB, 366 U. S. 731 (1961).
There is no merit to petitioner’s claim that it was coerced into entering the agreement. Petitioner was simply informed that the general contractor on the jobsite was bound by a union signatory subcontracting clause in its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. That clause required petitioner to enter into a similar agreement with the Union if it wanted to stay on the jobsite. Such clauses are lawful under the construction industry proviso of § 8(e) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 168(e). As we said in Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U. S. 645 (1982), whatever pressures petitioner complains of as a result of the union signatory subcontracting clause are “implicit in the construction industry proviso.” Id., at 663. Petitioner cannot rely on such “pressure,” made lawful by the construction industry proviso, to support its contention that it entered the prehire agreement at issue in this case involuntarily.
The only time period relevant to this case is that between September 13, 1978 (the date the prehire agreement was entered into), and April 26, 1979 (the date respondents’ § 301 suit was filed). The District Court entered judgment for respondents for the trust fund obligations incurred by petitioner for this period of time only. App. to Pet. for Cert. 10-11. Respondents did not appeal the amount of their recovery.
It is not necessary to decide in this case what specific acts would effect the repudiation of a prehire agreement — sending notice to the union, engaging in activity overtly and completely inconsistent with contractual obligations, or, as respondents suggest, precipitating a representation election pursuant to the final proviso in § 8(f) that shows the union does not enjoy majority support.
Petitioner received another benefit not expressly contemplated by Congress. Here, the Union had a collective-bargaining agreement with the general contractor requiring that work at the jobsite was to be performed only by subcontractors who had signed an agreement with the Union. See n. 1, supra. Thus, the direct consequence of petitioner’s entering into the prehire agreement was to enable petitioner to remain on the job.
We need not consider in this case whether considerations properly cognizable by a court under § 301 might prevent either party, in particular circumstances, from exercising its option under § 8(f) to repudiate a prehire agreement before the union demonstrates majority status.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to substitute Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Delaware corporation, in the place of Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Texas corporation, as a party respondent, is granted. The motions of Public Service Electric and Gas Company and the Alabama League of Municipalities for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, are granted.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cases are remanded to that court with directions to remand the cases to the Federal Power Commission for reconsideration and redetermination in the light of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 360 U. S. 378.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Reversed. Sinclair Rjg. Co. v. Atkinson, ante, p. 195.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents, American shipping companies using the Panama Canal, brought this suit in the District Court to compel petitioner, the Panama Canal Co., to prescribe new tolls for the use of the Canal and to refund tolls which it was alleged had been illegally collected in the past. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter. 143 F. Supp. 539. The Court of Appeals refused relief for a refund but on other phases of the complaint entered a summary judgment for the respondent. 243 F. 2d 844. The cases are here on petitions for certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the questions presented. 355 U. S. 810.
Petitioner was created by Congress in 1950. 64 Stat. 1041. It holds the assets of the Panama Canal and has the duty of operating and maintaining it. It may sue and be sued in its corporate name. Canal Zone Code, Tit. 2, § 248, 62 Stat. 1078, as amended, 64 Stat. 1038. Prior to 1950 the Panama Canal was operated by the President through the Governor of the Canal Zone. 37 Stat. 561. Business activities incident to that operation were conducted by the Panama Railroad Co., a federal corporation, 62 Stat. 1076, which was an agency and instrumentality of the United States, ibid. Those auxiliary business activities were “designed and used to aid” in the management and operation of the Canal. See New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, 299 U. S. 401, 406. Since 1950 all those business activities have been carried on by petitioner, the Panama Canal Co., all of whose stock is held by the President or his designee, Canal Zone Code, Tit. 2, § 246 (a), the present designee being the Secretary of the Army.
The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, proclaimed February 22, 1902, 32 Stat. 1903, provided in Article III that the “charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.” Under the original Panama Canal legislation, 37 Stat. 562, the President was authorized to fix the tolls on six months’ notice by proclamation. Under that Act the tolls were to be not less than 750 nor more than $1.25 per net registered ton. In 1937 the ceiling was lowered to $1 per net vessel ton, the minimum of 750 being retained. 50 Stat. 750. When President Truman in 1948 sought to increase the toll rate to the statutory maximum, 62 Stat. 1494, Congress asked the President to withhold action until the entire problem could be studied. See H. R. Rep. No. 1304, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 7. President Truman agreed by revoking his proclamation, 64 Stat. A433, and agreeing to the study.
On the basis of that study Congress separated the governmental functions of the Canal from its transit and business functions, the latter to be operated by petitioner. See H. R. Doc. No. 460, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2935, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. It was learned that if the Canal were operated at cost, the tolls would have to be raised to a prohibitive level. Congress therefore undertook to reduce the financial burden that was imposed upon the users of the Canal. The interest on the capital investment of the United States was reduced and interest accrued during the construction period was to be disregarded for the purposes of computing interest on the capital investment. Free transits of government-owned vessels were eliminated for accounting purposes. The supporting business activities previously operated by the Panama Railroad Co. were to bear a proportionate share of the cost of the Canal Zone Government from which they had been exempted. H. R. Doc. No. 460, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. And the “net costs of operation of the Canal Zone Government” were declared by Congress “to form an integral part of the costs of operation of the Panama Canal enterprise as a whole.” See Canal Zone Code, Tit. 2, § 246 (e), 64 Stat. 1041.
It was to carry out these provisions that the Congress merged the functions of operating and maintaining the Canal with the business activities formerly carried on by the Panama Railroad Co. At the same time, the Congress, by the Act of September 26, 1950, 64 Stat. 1038, Canal Zone Code, Tit. 2, §§ 411, 412, made changes in the provisions for the fixing of tolls.
Section 411 provides:
“The Panama Canal Company is authorized to prescribe and from time to time change (1) the rules for the measurement of vessels for the Panama Canal, and (2), subject to the provisions of the section next following, the tolls that shall be levied for the use of the Panama Canal: Provided, however, That the rules of measurement, and the rates of tolls, prevailing on the effective date of this amended section shall continue in effect until changed as provided in this section: Provided further, That the said corporation shall give six months’ notice, by publication in the Federal Register, of any and all proposed changes in basic rules of measurement and of any and all proposed changes in rates of tolls, during which period a public hearing shall be conducted: And provided further, That changes in basic rules of measurement and changes in rates of tolls shall be subject to, and sliall take effect upon, the approval of the President of the United States, whose action in such matter shall be final and conclusive.”
Section 412 (b) provides the formula which petitioner must employ in computing new tolls:
“Tolls shall be prescribed at a rate or rates calculated to cover, as nearly as practicable, all costs of maintaining and operating the Panama Canal, together with the facilities and appurtenances related thereto, including interest and depreciation, and an appropriate share of the net costs of operation of the agency known as the Canal Zone Government. In the determination of such appropriate share, substantial weight shall be given to the ratio of the estimated gross revenues from tolls to the estimated total gross revenues of the said corporation exclusive of the cost of commodities resold, and exclusive of revenues arising from transactions within the said corporation or from transactions with the Canal Zone Government.”
By § 412 (c) vessels operated by the United States, including naval ships, may “in the discretion of the President” be required to pay tolls. In the event they do not, tolls shall nevertheless be computed for that use and the amounts thereof “shall be treated as revenues of the Panama Canal Company for the purpose of prescribing the rates of tolls.”
A Committee of the Congress in 1953 directed petitioner to determine the adequacy of the canal tolls. See H. R. Rep. No. 889, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 10. Petitioner in reply stated that no increase in tolls was at that time indicated but that, should canal traffic decline, and should the decline appear likely to continue for an appreciable length of time, “the Company will promptly take the steps available to it to increase the rates of tolls.”
Petitioner, being a wholly owned government corporation, is subject to annual audit by the General Accounting Office. 59 Stat. 599, 31 U. S. C. § 850. And it is provided that the Comptroller General shall report on this audit to the Congress with “such comments and information as may be deemed necessary to keep Congress informed of the operations and financial condition” of the corporation, “together with such recommendations” as the Comptroller General may deem advisable. 31 U. S. C. § 851.
The Comptroller General in 1955 expressed the view that the petitioner had allocated too high a share of the costs of the Canal Zone Government, of the corporate overhead, and of interest payments to the operations of the Canal and too little to its supporting or auxiliary activities. H. R. Doc. No. 160, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. According to his method of cost allocation, the canal operations showed a large surplus, the auxiliary or supporting activities a deficit. Ibid. He also claimed that the prices charged for the latter activities were inadequate. Ibid. He went on to give his construction of § 412 (b) of the Canal Zone Code, which was that the tolls must be computed exclusively on the basis of the cost of operating the Canal without reference to the losses incident to the auxiliary or supporting operations. Ibid. He thought this result to be unsound and recommended that § 412 (b) be amended to provide specifically that any losses of the auxiliary or supporting activities be included in the cost basis for the determination of the canal tolls. Ibid.
Petitioner vigorously opposes that construction of § 412 (b), maintaining that the Comptroller’s methods of cost allocation and his conclusions violate both sound accounting practices and the Act. Petitioner in particular objects to the Comptroller General’s view that the Act requires the computation of toll rates without regard to any deficit in the operation of the auxiliary or supporting business activities. Petitioner concludes that the downward revision of the tolls recommended by the Comptroller General is not in harmony with the congressional program and that no change in the toll formula is needed.
It was shortly after the Comptroller General’s Report for 1954 was submitted to the Congress that respondents instituted this suit.
It is, we think, impermissible to conclude that, because petitioner may sue and be sued, this suit can be maintained. We deal here with a problem in the penumbra of the law where generally the Executive and the Legislative are supreme. We do not say, for we are not called upon to do so, that no justiciable issues can arise out of the toll-making procedure for the Panama Canal. All we hold is that the controversy at present is not one appropriate for judicial action.
Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 243, 5 U. S. C. § 1009, excludes from the categories of cases subject to judicial review “agency action” that is “by law committed to agency discretion.” We think the initiation of a proceeding for readjustment of the tolls of the Panama Canal is a matter that Congress has left to the discretion of the Panama Canal Co. Petitioner is, as we have seen, an agent or spokesman of the President in these matters. It is “authorized” to prescribe tolls and to change them. Canal Zone Code, Tit. 2, § 411. But the exercise of that authority is far more than the performance of a ministerial act. As we have seen, the present conflict rages over questions that at heart involve problems of statutory construction and cost accounting: whether an operating deficit in the auxiliary or supporting activities is a legitimate cost in maintaining and operating the Canal for purpose of the toll formula. These are matters on which experts may disagree; they involve nice issues of judgment and choice, New York v. United States, 331 U. S. 284, 335, which require the exercise of informed discretion. Cf. United States ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U. S. 414; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Humboldt S. S. Co., 224 U. S. 474, 484-485. The case is, therefore, quite unlike the situation where a statute creates a duty to act and an equity court is asked to compel the agency to take the prescribed action. Cf. Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515, 551; Kansas City So. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 U. S. 178. We put the matter that way since the relief sought in this action is to compel petitioner to fix new tolls. The principle at stake is no different than if mandamus were sought — a remedy long restricted, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 166; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497, 514-517, in the main, to situations where ministerial duties of a nondiscretionary nature are involved. Where the matter is peradventure clear, where the- agency is clearly derelict in failing to act, where the inaction or action turns on a mistake of law, then judicial relief is often available. Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U. S. 579, is a recent example. There the Secretary of the Army issued less than “honorable” discharges to soldiers, based on their activities prior to induction. The Court held that the “records,” prescribed by Congress as the basis for his action, were only records of military service. But where the duty to act turns .on matters of doubtful or highly debatable inference from large or loose statutory terms, the very construction of the statute is a distinct and profound exercise of discretion. See Work v. Rives, 267 U. S. 175, 183; Wilbur v. Kadrie, 281 U. S. 206, 219; United States ex rel. Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 294 U. S. 50, 62-63. We then must infer that the decision to act or not to act is left to the expertise of the agency burdened with the responsibility for decision.
We think this case is in that area. The petitioner, as agent of the President, is given questions of judgment requiring close analysis and nice choices. Petitioner is not only agent for the President but a creature of Congress. It is on close terms with its committees, reporting to the Congress, airing its problems before them, looking to Congress for guidance and direction. It is at least arguable that Congress to date has sided with petitioner and against the Comptroller General in construing §§411 and 412 of the Code. For Congress, fully advised of the Comptroller General’s views in his Report for 1954, approved the budgets for the Panama Canal Co. for 1956, 1957, and 1958, based on petitioner’s interpretation of the statute and its methods of accounting and cost allocation, 69 Stat. 235-237, 70 Stat. 322-324, 71 Stat. 78. That does not necessarily mean that the construction of the Act, pressed on us and on Congress by petitioner, is the correct one. It does, however, indicate that the question is so wide open and at large as to be left at this stage to agency discretion. The matter should be far less cloudy, much more clear for courts to intrude.
Reversed.
In No. 251 we granted the Panama Canal Co.’s petition for certiorari and in No. 252 we granted a cross-petition filed by the respondents in No. 251. The Panama Canal Co. will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner. It is not necessary to discuss the petitions separately under the view we take of these cases.
The reply was in the form of a letter to the Speaker of the House from J. S. Seybold, President of petitioner, 100 Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) A1995, stating, inter alia:
“An initial study of the adequacy of tolls rates under the new legislation has now been completed by the Company. This study reveals that, largely as a result of the very high level of traffic using the canal in recent years without a corresponding increase in costs, the tolls rates that have been in effect since 1938 are still sufficient to cover all operating costs, including interest and depreciation, as required by the tolls statutes. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, who under the law must approve the valuation of the assets transferred to the Company from the agency formerly known as the Panama Canal, will concur generally in the valuations tentatively established by the Company upon which the interest and depreciation requirements for the most part have been based.
“In recent months, chiefly as the result of the cessation of hostilities in Korea, there has been some drop in traffic transiting the canal. The Company’s study indicates that a further and more substantial decline in the volume of canal traffic during the next few years is to be expected primarily as the result of changing economic factors affecting world movements of petroleum and its products, iron ore, and coal. It is possible that by sometime during the fiscal year 1955 canal traffic will have declined to a point where revenues at existing rates will no longer be adequate to cover all charges. Should this condition materialize and should it appear reasonably certain that it will continue for an appreciable length of time, the Company will promptly take the steps available to it to increase the rates of tolls.
“In computing the tolls requirements for purposes of this study the Company has made what it believes to be an adequate allowance for depreciation giving due consideration to the factors of obsolescence and potential inadequacy of the capital assets includable in the tolls base. Estimates of the service lives used for the principal classes of plant and equipment have been approved by independent engineering consultants. A depreciation rate of 1 percent per annum from date of service has been used for the investment in the channel, harbors, lock structures, dams, breakwaters and similar long-lived facilities. Including this accrual the annual depreciation requirements of the Company are presently approximately $9 million.
“The tentative valuations used in the study result in a net interest-bearing investment of the Government in the Canal enterprise, as defined by law, of $274 million. At the rate of 2.342 percent currently established for repayment of interest costs as required by the Company’s charter annual interest payments to the Treasury will amount to $6.4 million. It is expected that this amount will increase somewhat in the future years as the result of the generally rising trend of long term interest rates.
“No depreciation or return on the capital value of interest during the 1904-14 construction period has been included in the study because the legislative history of the present tolls statutes clearly indicates the intent of the Congress to exclude this item entirely from the tolls base. Likewise no provision has been made for amortization of lands and treaty rights because of lack of statutory authority, although these assets have been included in the investment for interest purposes.
“Using the tentative plant valuations developed by the Company and recomputing the operating costs and expenses accordingly, the aggregate net income of the Company from all sources for the 4-year period from the reorganization to June 30, 1955, under present tolls rates is estimated to be approximately $9 million after providing for all charges currently authorized and required by law. As previously indicated however, it appears that a possible decline in volume of Canal traffic coupled with rising interest and wage rates may necessitate an increase in the tolls rates in the near future. Current indications are that such an increase may be necessary by July 1, 1955, in which case public announcement of the new rates would be made 6 months earlier or January 1, 1955, as required by law.”
Congress has been repeatedly informed of the basic problem involved here, indeed of this very litigation. See, e. g., Reports on Audit of Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government, by the Comptroller General: For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1954, H. R. Doc. No. 160, 84th. Cong., 1st Sess. 1-3, 8-9, 12-18; For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30,1955, H. R. Doc. No. 465, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, 9-10, 17-24; For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1956, H. R. Doc. No. 210, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-5, 15-21. See also, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Panama Canal of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on H. R. 6917, 7645, and 7697, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 159-165; Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on S. 2167, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 23, 68-70, 89-92, 101-102.
A bill was introduced in the Senate in 1955, S. 2167, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., by Senator Magnuson which would give judicial review of agency action in fixing tolls. That bill was reported favorably by the Committee, S. Rep. No. 2375, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. But it never came to a vote. See 102 Cong. Rec. 11541, 12791, 13901.
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we are called on to determine whether § 2012 of the New York Education Law is constitutional. The legislation provides that in certain New York school districts residents who are otherwise eligible to vote in state and federal elections may vote in the school district election only if they (1) own (or lease) taxable real property within the district, or (2) are parents (or have custody of) children enrolled in the local public schools. Appellant, a bachelor who neither owns nor leases taxable real property, filed suit in federal court claiming that § 2012 denied him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. With one judge dissenting, a three-judge District Court dismissed appellant’s complaint. Finding that § 2012 does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we reverse.
I.
New York law provides basically three methods of school board selection. In some large city districts, the school board is appointed by the mayor or city council. N. Y. Educ. Law § 2553, subds. 2, 4 (1953), as amended (Supp. 1968). On the other hand, in some cities, primarily those with less than 125,000 residents, the school board is elected at general or municipal elections in which all qualified city voters may participate. N. Y. Educ. Law §§ 2502, subd. 2, 2553, subd. 3 (1953). Cf. N. Y. Educ. Law § 2531 (1953). Finally, in other districts such as the one involved in this case, which are primarily rural and suburban, the school board is elected at an annual meeting of qualified school district voters.
The challenged statute is applicable only in the districts which hold annual meetings. To be eligible to vote at an annual district meeting, an otherwise qualified district resident must either (1) be the owner or lessee of taxable real property located in the district, (2) be the spouse of one who owns or leases qualifying property, or (3) be the parent or guardian of a child enrolled for a specified time during the preceding year in a local district school.
Although the New York State Department of Education has substantial responsibility for education in the State, the local school districts maintain significant control over the administration of local school district affairs. Generally, the board of education has the basic responsibility for local school operation, including prescribing the courses of study, determining the textbooks to be used, and even altering and equipping a former schoolhouse for use as a public library. N. Y. Educ. Law § 1709 (1953). Additionally, in districts selecting members of the board of education at annual meetings, the local voters also pass directly on other district matters. For example, they must approve the school budget submitted by the school board. N. Y. Educ. Law §§ 2021, 2022 (1953). Moreover, once the budget is approved, the governing body of the villages within the school district must raise the money which has been declared “necessary for teachers’ salaries and the ordinary contingent expenses [of the schools].” N. Y. Educ. Law § 1717 (1953). The voters also may “authorize such acts and vote such taxes as they shall deem expedient . . . for . . . equipping for library use any former schoolhouse . . . [and] for the purchase of land and buildings for agricultural, athletic, playground or social center purposes . . . .” N. Y. Educ. Law § 416 (1953).
Appellant is a 31-year-old college-educated stockbroker who lives in his parents’ home in the Union Free School District No. 15, a district to which § 2012 applies. He is a citizen of the United States and has voted in federal and state elections since 1959. However, since he has no children and neither owns nor leases taxable real property, appellant’s attempts to register for and vote in the local school district elections have been unsuccessful. After the school district rejected his 1965 application, appellant instituted the present class action challenging the constitutionality of the voter eligibility requirements.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied appellant’s request (made pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281) that a three-judge district court be convened, and granted appellees’ motion to dismiss appellant’s complaint. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 259 F. Supp. 164 (D. C. E. D. N. Y. 1966). On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, ruling appellant’s complaint warranted convening a three-judge court. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 379 F. 2d 491 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1967). On remand, the three-judge court ruled that § 2012 is constitutional and dismissed appellant’s complaint. 282 F. Supp. 70. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, appellant filed a direct appeal with this Court; we noted probable jurisdiction. 393 U. S. 818 (1968).
II.
At the outset, it is important to note what is not at issue in this case. The requirements of § 2012 that school district voters must (1) be citizens of the United States, (2) be bona fide residents of the school district, and (3) be at least 21 years of age are not challenged. Appellant agrees that the States have the power to impose reasonable citizenship, age, and residency requirements on the availability of the ballot. Cf. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91 (1965); Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621 (1904). The sole issue in this case is whether the additional requirements of § 2012 — requirements which prohibit some district residents who are otherwise qualified by age and citizenship from participating in district meetings and school board elections — violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that no State shall deny persons equal protection of the laws.
“In determining whether or not a state law violates the Equal Protection Clause, we must consider the facts and circumstances behind the law, the interests which the State claims to be protecting, and the interests of those who are disadvantaged by the classification.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30 (1968). And, in this case, we must give the statute a close and exacting examination. “[S]ince the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 562 (1964). See Williams v. Rhodes, supra, at 31; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 17 (1964). This careful examination is necessary because statutes distributing the franchise constitute the foundation of our representative society. Any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government.
Thus, state apportionment statutes, which may dilute the effectiveness of some citizens’ votes, receive close scrutiny from this Court. Reynolds v. Sims, supra. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968). No less rigid an examination is applicable to statutes denying the franchise to citizens who are otherwise qualified by residence and age. Statutes granting the franchise to residents on a selective basis always pose the danger of denying some citizens any effective voice in the governmental affairs which substantially affect their lives. Therefore, if a challenged state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise to others, the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. See Carrington v. Rash, supra, at 96.
And, for these reasons, the deference usually given to the judgment of legislators does not extend to decisions concerning which resident citizens may participate in the election of legislators and other public officials. Those decisions must be carefully scrutinized by the Court to determine whether each resident citizen has, as far as is possible, an equal voice in the selections. Accordingly, when we are reviewing statutes which deny some residents the right to vote, the general presumption of constitutionality afforded state statutes and the traditional approval given state classifications if the Court can conceive of a “rational basis” for the distinctions made are not applicable. See Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 670 (1966). The presumption of constitutionality and the approval given “rational” classifications in other types of enactments are based on an assumption that the institutions of state government are structured so as to represent fairly all the people. However, when the challenge to the statute is in effect a challenge of this basic assumption, the assumption can no longer serve as the basis for presuming constitutionality. And, the assumption is no less under attack because the legislature which decides who may participate at the various levels of political choice is fairly elected. Legislation which delegates decision making to bodies elected by only a portion of those eligible to vote for the legislature can cause unfair representation. Such legislation can exclude a minority of voters from any voice in the decisions just as effectively as if the decisions were made by legislators the minority had no voice in selecting.
The need for exacting judicial scrutiny of statutes distributing the franchise is undiminished simply because, under a different statutory scheme, the offices subject to election might have been filled through appointment. States do have latitude in determining whether certain public officials shall be selected by election or chosen by appointment and whether various questions shall be submitted to the voters. In fact, we have held that where a county school board is an administrative, not legislative, body, its members need not be elected. Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education, 387 U. S. 105, 108 (1967). However, “once the franchise is granted to the electorate, fines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, supra, at 665.
Nor is the need for close judicial examination affected because the district meetings and the school board do not have “general” legislative powers. Our exacting examination is not necessitated by the subject of the election; rather, it is required because some resident citizens are permitted to participate and some are not. For example, a city charter might well provide that the elected city council appoint a mayor who would have broad administrative powers. Assuming the council were elected consistent with the commands of the Equal Protection Clause, the delegation of power to the mayor would not call for this Court’s exacting review. On the other hand, if the city charter made the office of mayor subject to an election in which only some resident citizens were entitled to vote, there would be presented a situation calling for our close review.
III.
Besides appellant and others who similarly live in their parents’ homes, the statute also disenfranchises the following persons (unless they are parents or guardians of children enrolled in the district public school): senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; clergy, military personnel, and others who live on tax-exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither own nor lease qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school; parents who neither own nor lease qualifying property and whose children attend private schools.
Appellant asserts that excluding him from participation in the district elections denies him equal protection of the laws. He contends that he and others of his class are substantially interested in and significantly affected by the school meeting decisions. All members of the community have an interest in the quality and structure of public education, appellant says, and he urges that “the decisions taken by local boards . . . may have grave consequences to the entire population.” Appellant also argues that the level of property taxation affects him, even though he does not own property, as property tax levels affect the price of goods and services in the community.
We turn therefore to question whether the exclusion is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. First, appellees argue that the State has a legitimate interest in limiting the franchise in school district elections to “members of the community of interest” — those “primarily interested in such elections.” Second, appel-lees urge that the State may reasonably and permissibly conclude that “property taxpayers” (including lessees of taxable property who share the tax burden through rent payments) and parents of the children enrolled in the district’s schools are those “primarily interested” in school affairs.
We do not understand appellees to argue that the State is attempting to limit the franchise to those “subjectively concerned” about school matters. Rather, they appear to argue that the State’s legitimate interest is in restricting a voice in school matters to those “directly affected” by such decisions. The State apparently reasons that since the schools are financed in part by local property taxes, persons whose out-of-pocket expenses are “directly” affected by property tax changes should be allowed to vote. Similarly, parents of children in school are thought to have a “direct” stake in school affairs and are given a vote.
Appellees argue that it is necessary to limit the franchise to those “primarily interested” in school affairs because “the ever increasing complexity of the many interacting phases of the school system and structure make it extremely difficult for the electorate fully to understand the whys and wherefores of the detailed operations of the school system.” Appellees say that many communications of school boards and school administrations are sent home to the parents through the district pupils and are “not broadcast to the general public”; thus, nonparents will be less informed than parents. Further, appellees argue, those who are assessed for local property taxes (either directly or indirectly through rent) will have enough of an interest “through the burden on their pocketbooks, to acquire such information as they may need.”
We need express no opinion as to whether the State in some circumstances might limit the exercise of the franchise to those “primarily interested” or “primarily affected.” Of course, we therefore do not reach the issue of whether these particular elections are of the type in which the franchise may be so limited. For, assuming, arguendo, that New York legitimately might limit the franchise in these school district elections to those “primarily interested in school affairs,” close scrutiny of the § 2012 classifications demonstrates that they do not accomplish this purpose with sufficient precision to justify denying appellant the franchise.
Whether classifications allegedly limiting the franchise to those resident citizens “primarily interested” deny those excluded equal protection of the laws depends, inter alia, on whether all those excluded are in fact substantially less interested or affected than those the statute includes. In other words, the classifications must be tailored so that the exclusion of appellant and members of his class is necessary to achieve the articulated state goal. Section 2012 does not meet the exacting standard of precision we require of statutes which selectively distribute the franchise. The classifications in § 2012 permit inclusion of many persons who have, at best, a remote and indirect interest in school affairs and, on the other hand, exclude others who have a distinct and direct interest in the school meeting decisions.
Nor do appellees offer any justification for the exclusion of seemingly interested and informed residents — other than to argue that the § 2012 classifications include those “whom the State could understandably deem to be the most intimately interested in actions taken by the school board/’ and urge that “the task of . . . balancing the interest of the community in the maintenance of orderly school district elections against the interest of any individual in voting in such elections should clearly remain with the Legislature.” But the issue is not whether the legislative judgments are rational. A more exacting standard obtains. The issue is whether the § 2012 requirements do in fact sufficiently further a compelling state interest to justify denying the franchise to appellant and members of his class. The requirements of § 2012 are not sufficiently tailored to limiting the franchise to those “primarily interested” in school affairs to justify the denial of the franchise to appellant and members of his class.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is therefore reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Section 2012, New York Education Law:
“A person shall be entitled to vote at any school meeting for the election of school district officers, and upon all other matters which may be brought before such meeting, who is: 1. A citizen of the United States.
“2. Twenty-one years of age.
“3. A resident within the district for a period of thirty-days next preceding the meeting at which he offers to vote; and who in addition thereto possesses one of the following three qualifications:
“a. Owns or is the spouse of an owner, leases, hires, or is in the possession under a contract of purchase or is the spouse of one who leases, hires or is in possession under a contract of purchase of, real property in such district liable to taxation for school purposes, but the occupation of real property by a person as lodger or boarder shall not entitle such person to vote, or
“b. Is the parent of a child of school age, provided such a child shall have attended the district school in the district in which the meeting is held for a period of at least eight weeks during the year preceding such school meeting, or
“c. Not being the parent, has permanently residing with him a child of school age who shall have attended the district school for a period of at least eight weeks during the year preceding such meeting.
“No person shall be deemed to be ineligible to vote at any such meeting, by reason of sex, who has the other qualifications required by this section.”
In some districts the election takes place on the Wednesday-following the district meeting. N. Y. Educ. Law § 2013 (Supp. 1968).
The statute also requires that a voter be a citizen of the United States and at least 21 years of age. Appellant meets these requirements and does not challenge the citizenship, age, or residency requirements of §2012. See infra, at 625. The statute is set out in the Appendix, infra.
“But while the administration of schools and the formulation of general policies have been centralized in the State Education Department . . . the immediate control and operation of the schools in New York have to a large extent been vested in the localities. The thousands of districts . . . possess a high degree of authority in education. They decide matters of local taxation for school purposes, elect trustees and other school officials, purchase buildings and sites, employ teachers and . . . maintain discipline . . ..” Graves, Development of the Education Law in New York, 16 Consolidated Laws of New York (Education Law) xxiii (McKinney 1953). See R. Pyle, Some Aspects of Education in New York 9-13 (1967).
In districts which do not have annual meetings, the budget is not submitted to district voters. Thus, in city districts where the board of education is elected by all the voters, the board has the power to set the budget and assess taxes to meet expenditures. In large city districts, where the board is appointed, the board must submit requests to the city government, much as would any other city department. R. Pyle, Some Aspects of Education in New York 11 (1967).
The legislation provides that the money shall be raised through a “tax, to be levied upon all the real property in [the] village . . . .” And, the “corporate authorities shall have no power to withhold the sums so declared to be necessary . . . .” N. Y. Educ. Law §1717 (1953).
This case presents an issue different from the one we faced in McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs of Chicago, 394 U. S. 802 (1969). The present appeal involves an absolute denial of the franchise. In McDonald, on the other hand, we were reviewing a statute which made casting a ballot easier for some who were unable to come to the polls. As we noted, there was no evidence that the statute absolutely prohibited anyone from exercising the franchise; at issue was not a claimed right to vote but a claimed right to an absentee ballot. Id., at 807-808.
Of course, the effectiveness of any citizen’s voice in governmental affairs can be determined only in relationship to the power of other citizens’ votes. For example, if school board members are appointed by the mayor, the district residents may effect a change in the board’s membership or policies through their votes for the mayor. Cf. N. Y. Educ. Law § 2553, subds. 2, 4 (1953), as amended (Supp. 1968). Each resident’s formal influence is perhaps indirect, but it is equal to that of other residents. However, when the school board positions are filled by election and some otherwise qualified city electors are precluded from voting, the excluded residents, when compared to the franchised residents, no longer have an effective voice in school affairs. This is precisely the situation with regard to the size of the school budget in districts where § 2012 applies. See n. 4, supra.
See, e. g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 425-428 (1961); Allied Stores v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522, 527 (1959); Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552, 556 (1947).
Of course, we have long held that if the basis of classification is inherently suspect, such as race, the statute must be subjected to an exacting scrutiny, regardless of the subject matter of the legislation. See, e. g., McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 192 (1964); Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410, 420 (1948); Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 640 (1948).
Thus, statutes structuring local government units receive no less exacting an examination merely because the state legislature is fairly elected. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474, 481, n. 6 (1968).
Similarly, no less a showing of a compelling justification for disenfranchising residents is required merely because the questions scheduled for the election need not have been submitted to the voters.
In Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education, 387 U. S. 105 (1967), each local school board sent one delegate to a biennial meeting at which the members of the county board of education were selected. We noted that “the choice of members of the county school board did not involve an election.” Id., at 111. However, we also pointed out that the members of the local school boards, who in effect made the county board appointments, were elected, but that “no constitutional complaint [was] raised respecting that election.” Ibid.
The Union Free School District No. 15 and each member of its board of education were named as defendants. The Attorney General of New York intervened as an appellee.
Of course, if the exclusions are necessary to promote the articulated state interest, we must then determine whether the interest promoted by limiting the franchise constitutes a compelling state interest. We do not reach that issue in this case.
For example, appellant resides with his parents in the school district, pays state and federal taxes and is interested in and affected by school board decisions; however, he has no vote. On the other hand, an uninterested unemployed young man who pays no state or federal taxes, but who rents an apartment in the district, can participate in the election.
We were informed at oral argument, however, that a very small proportion of the eligible voters attend the meetings.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Washington established the Promise Scholarship Program to assist academically gifted students with postsecondary education expenses. In. accordance with the State Constitution, students may not use the scholarship at an institution where they are pursuing a degree in devotional theology. We hold that such an exclusion from an otherwise inclusive aid program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The Washington State Legislature found that “[s]tudents who work hard . . . and successfully complete high school with high academic marks may not have the financial ability to attend college because they cannot obtain financial aid or the financial aid is insufficient.” Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §28B.119.005 (West Supp. 2004). In 1999, to assist these high-achieving students, the legislature created the Promise Scholarship Program, which provides a scholarship, renewable for one year, to eligible students for postsecond-ary education expenses. Students may spend their funds on any education-related expense, including room and board. The scholarships are funded through the State’s general fund, and their amount varies each year depending on the annual appropriation, which is evenly prorated among the eligible students. Wash. Admin. Code §250-80-050(2) (2003). The scholarship was worth $1,125 for academic year 1999-2000 and $1,542 for 2000-2001.
To be eligible for the scholarship, a student must meet academic, income, and enrollment requirements. A student must graduate from a Washington public or private high school and either graduate in the top 15% of his graduating class, or attain on the first attempt a cumulative score of 1,200 or better on the Scholastic Assessment Test I or a score, of 27 or better on the American College Test. §§250-80-020(12)(a) to (d). The student’s family income must be less than 135% of the State’s median. §250-80-020(12)(e). Finally, the student must enroll “at least half time in an eligible postsecondary institution in the state of Washington,” and may not pursue a degree in theology at that institution while receiving the scholarship. §§250-80-020(12)(f) to (g); see also Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §28B. 10.814 (West 1997) (“No aid shall be awarded to any student who is pursuing a degree in theology”). Private institutions, including those religiously affiliated, qualify as “ ‘[eligible postsecondary institution[s]’ ” if they are accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body. See Wash. Admin. Code §250-80-020(13). A “degree in theology” is not defined in the statute, but, as both parties concede, the statute simply codifies the State’s constitutional prohibition on providing funds to students to pursue degrees that are “devotional in nature or designed to induce religious faith.” Brief for Petitioners 6; Brief for Respondent 8; see also Wash. Const., Art. I, § 11.
A student who applies for the scholarship and meets the academic and income requirements is notified that he is eligible for the scholarship if he meets the enrollment requirements. E. g., App. 95. Once the student enrolls at an eligible institution, the institution must certify that the student is enrolled at least half time and that the student is not pursuing a degree in devotional theology. The institution, rather than the State, determines whether the student’s major is devotional. Id., at 126, 131. If the student meets the enrollment requirements, the scholarship funds are sent to the institution for distribution to the student to pay for tuition or other educational expenses. See Wash. Admin. Code §250-80-060.
Respondent, Joshua Davey, was awarded a Promise Scholarship, and chose to attend Northwest College. Northwest is a private, Christian college affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination, and is an eligible institution under the Promise Scholarship Program. Davey had “planned for many years to attend a Bible college and to prepare [himself] through that college training for a lifetime of ministry, specifically as a church pastor.” App. 40. To that end, when he enrolled in Northwest College, he decided to pursue a double major in pastoral ministries and business management/administration. Id., at 43. There is no dispute that the pastoral ministries degree is devotional and therefore excluded under the Promise Scholarship Program.
At the beginning of the 1999-2000 academic year, Davey met with Northwest’s director of financial aid. He learned for the first time at this meeting that he could not use his scholarship to pursue a devotional theology degree. He was informed that to receive the funds appropriated for his use, he must certify in writing that he was not pursuing such a degree at Northwest. He refused to sign the form and did not receive any scholarship funds.
Davey then brought an action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against various state officials (hereinafter State) in the District Court for the Western District of Washington to enjoin the State from refusing to award the scholarship solely because a student is pursuing a devotional theology degree, and for damages. He argued the denial of his scholarship based on his decision to pursue a theology degree violated, inter alia, the Free Exercise, Establishment, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the District Court denied Davey’s request for a preliminary injunction, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court rejected Davey’s constitutional claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the State.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 299 F. 3d 748 (2002). The court concluded that the State had singled out religion for unfavorable treatment and thus under our decision in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520 (1993), the State’s exclusion of theology majors must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. 299 F. 3d, at 757-758. Finding that the State’s own antiestablishment concerns were not compelling, the court declared Washington's Promise Scholarship Program unconstitutional. Id., at 760. We granted certiorari, 538 U. S. 1031 (2003), and now reverse.
The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two Clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, are frequently in tension. See Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455, 469 (1973) (citing Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 677 (1971)). Yet we have long said that “there is room for play in the joints” between them. Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 669 (1970). In other words, there are some state actions permitted by the Establishment Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause.
This case involves that “play in the joints” described above. Under our Establishment Clause precedent, the link between government funds and religious training is broken by the independent and private choice of recipients. See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 652 (2002); Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U. S. 1, 13-14 (1993); Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474 U. S. 481, 487 (1986); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388, 399-400 (1983). As such, there is no doubt that the State could, consistent with the Federal Constitution, permit Promise Scholars to pursue a degree in devotional theology, see Witters, supra, at 489, and the State does not contend otherwise. The question before us, however, is whether Washington, pursuant to its own constitution, which has been authoritatively interpreted as prohibiting even indirectly funding religious instruction that will prepare students for the ministry, see Witters v. State Comm’n for the Blind, 112 Wash. 2d 363, 369-370, 771 P. 2d 1119, 1122 (1989) (en banc); cf. Witters v. State Comm’n for the Blind, 102 Wash. 2d 624, 629, 689 P. 2d 53, 56 (1984) (en banc) (“It is not the role of the State to pay for the religious education of future ministers”), rev’d, 474 U. S. 481 (1986), can deny them such funding without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
Davey urges us to answer' that question in the negative. He contends that under the rule we enunciated in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, supra, the program is presumptively unconstitutional because it is not facially neutral with respect, to religion. We reject his claim of presumptive unconstitutionality, however; to do otherwise would extend the Lukumi line of cases well beyond not only their facts but their reasoning. In Lukumi, the city of Hialeah made it a crime to engage in certain kinds of animal slaughter. We found that the law sought to suppress ritualistic animal sacrifices of the Santería religion. . 508 U. S., at 535. In the present case, the State’s disfavor of religion (if it can be called that) is of a far milder kind. It imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite. It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. See McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978). And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. See ibid.; Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U. S. 136 (1987); Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 460 U. S. 707 (1981); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963). The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction.
Justice Scalia argues, however, that generally available benefits are part of the “baseline against which burdens on religion are measured.” Post, at 726 (dissenting opinion). Because the Promise Scholarship Program funds training for .all secular professions, Justice Scalia contends the State must also fund training for religious professions. See post, at 726-727. But training for religious professions and training for secular professions are not fungible. Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor. Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit. See Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v. Board of Regents, 72 Wash. 2d 912, 919, 436 P. 2d 189, 193 (1967) (en banc) (holding public funds may not be expended for “that category of instruction that resembles worship and manifests a devotion to religion and religious principles in thought, feeling, belief, and conduct”); App. 40 (Davey stating his “religious beliefs [were] the only reason for [him] to seek a college degree”). And the subject of religion is one in which both the United States and state constitutions embody distinct views — in favor of free exercise, but opposed to establishment — that find no counterpart with respect to other callings or professions. That a State would deal differently with religious education for the ministry than with education for other callings is a product of these views, not evidence of hostility toward religion.
Even though the differently worded Washington Constitution draws a more stringent line than that drawn by the United States Constitution, the interest it seeks to further is scarcely novel. In fact, we can think of few areas in which a State’s antiestablishment interests come more into play. Since the founding of our country, there have been popular uprisings against procuring taxpayer funds to support church leaders, which was one of the hallmarks of an “established” religion. See R. Butts, The American Tradition in Religion and Education 15-17, 19-20, 26-37 (1950); F. Lambert, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America 188 (2003) (“In defending their religious liberty against overreaching clergy, Americans in all regions found that Radical Whig ideas best framed their argument that state-supported clergy undermined liberty of conscience and should be opposed”); see also J. Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, reprinted in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 65, 68 (1947) (appendix to dissent of Rutledge, J.) (noting the dangers to civil liberties from supporting clergy with public funds).
Most States that sought to avoid an establishment of religion around the time of the founding placed in their constitutions formal prohibitions against using tax funds to support the ministry. E. g., Ga. Const., Art. IV, §5 (1789), reprinted in 2 Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws 789 (F. Thorpe ed. 1909) (reprinted 1993) (“All persons shall have the free exercise of religion, without being obliged to contribute to the support of any religious profession but their own”); Pa. Const., Art. II (1776), in 5 id., at 3082 (“[N]o man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent”); N. J. Const., Art. XVIII (1776), in id., at 2597 (similar); Del. Const., Art. I, § 1 (1792), in 1 id., at 568 (similar); Ky. Const., Art. XII, § 3 (1792), in 3 id., at 1274 (similar); Vt. Const., Ch. I, Art. 3 (1793), in 6 id., at 3762 (similar); Tenn. Const., Art. XI, §3 (1796), in id., at 3422 (similar); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, § 3 (1802), in 5 id., at 2910 (similar). The plain text of these constitutional provisions prohibited any tax dollars from supporting the clergy. We have found nothing to indicate, as Justice Scalia contends, post, at 728, n. 1, that these provisions would not have applied so long as the State equally supported other professions or if the amount at stake was de minimis. That early state constitutions saw no problem in explicitly excluding only the ministry from receiving state dollars reinforces our conclusion that religious instruction is of a different ilk.
Far from evincing the hostility toward religion which was manifest in Lukumi, we believe that the entirety of the Promise Scholarship Program goes a long way toward including religion in its benefits. The program permits students to attend pervasively religious schools, so long as they are accredited. As Northwest advertises, its “concept of education is distinctly Christian in the evangelical sense.” App. 168. It prepares all of its students, “through instruction, through modeling, [and] through [its] classes, to use . . . the Bible as their guide, as the truth,” no matter their chosen profession. Id., at 169. And under the Promise Scholarship Program’s current guidelines, students are still eligible to take devotional theology courses. Davey notes all students at Northwest are required to take at least four devotional courses, “Exploring the Bible,” “Principles of Spiritual Development,” “Evangelism in the Christian Life,” and “Christian Doctrine,” Brief for Respondent 11, n. 5; see also App. 151, and some students may have additional religious requirements as part of their majors. Brief for Respondent 11, n. 5; see also App. 150-151.
In short, we find neither in the history or text of Article I, § 11, of the Washington Constitution, nor in the operation of the Promise Scholarship Program, anything that suggests animus toward religion. Given the historic and substantial state interest at issue, we therefore cannot conclude that the denial of funding for vocational religious instruction alone is inherently constitutionally suspect.
Without a presumption of unconstitutionality, Davey’s claim must fail. The State’s interest in not funding the pursuit of devotional degrees is substantial and the exclusion of such funding places a relatively minor burden on Promise Scholars. If any room exists between the two Religion Clauses, it must be here. We need not venture further into this difficult area in order to uphold the Promise Scholarship Program as currently operated by the State of Washington.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
The State does not require students to certify anything or sign any forms. App. 86, 89.
The relevant provision of the Washington Constitution, Art. I, §11, states:
“Religious Freedom. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment.”
Davey, relying on Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995), contends that the Promise Scholarship Program is an unconstitutional viewpoint restriction on speech. But the Promise Scholarship Program is not a forum for speech. The purpose of the Promise Scholarship Program is to assist students from low- and middle-income families with the cost of postsecondary education, not to “‘encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.’” United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U. S. 194, 206 (2003) (plurality opinion) (quoting Rosenberger, swpra, at 834). Our cases dealing with speech forums are simply inapplicable. See American Library Assn., supra; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 805 (1985).
Davey also argues that the Equal discrimination on the basis of religion. Because we hold, infra, at 725, that the program is not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, however, we apply rational-basis scrutiny to his equal protection claims. Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 375, n. 14 (1974); see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978) (reviewing religious discrimination claim under the Free Exercise Clause). For the reasons stated herein, the program passes such review.
Promise Scholars may still use their scholarship to pursue a secular degree at a different institution from where they are studying devotional theology.
Justice Scalia notes that the State’s “philosophical preference” to protect individual conscience is potentially without limit, see post, at 730; however, the only interest at issue here is the State’s interest in not funding the religious training of clergy. Nothing in our opinion suggests that the State may justify any interest that its “philosophical preference” commands.
Perhaps the most famous example of public backlash is the defeat of “A Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion” in the Virginia Legislature. The bill sought to assess a tax for “Christian teachers,” reprinted in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 72, 74 (1947) (supplemental appendix to dissent of Rutledge, J.); see also Rosenberger, supra, at 853 (Thomas, J., concurring) (purpose of the bill was to support “clergy in the performance of their function of teaching religion”), and was rejected after a public outcry. In its stead, the “Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty,” which was originally written by Thomas Jefferson, was enacted. This bill guaranteed “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, reprinted in 2 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 546 (J. Boyd ed. 1950).
The amici contend that Washington’s Constitution was born of religious bigotry because it contains a so-called “Blaine Amendment,” which has been linked with anti-Catholicism. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23, n. 5; Brief for Becket Fund for Religious Liberty et al. as Amici Curiae; see also Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U. S. 793, 828 (2000) (plurality opinion). As the State notes and Davey does not dispute, however, the provision in question is not a Blaine Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5; see Reply Brief for Petitioners 6-7. The enabling Act of 1889, which authorized the drafting of the Washington Constitution, required the state constitution to include a provision “for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be ... free from sectarian control.” Act of Feb. 22, 1889, ch. 180, §4, ¶ Fourth, 25 Stat. 676. This provision was included in Article IX, § 4, of the Washington Constitution (“All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence”), and is not at issue in this case. Neither Davey nor amici have established a credible connection between the Blaine Amendment and Article I, § 11, the relevant constitutional provision. Accordingly, the Blaine Amendment’s history is simply not before us.
Washington has also been solicitous in ensuring not hostile toward religion, see State ex rel. Gallwey v. Grimm, 146 Wash. 2d 445, 470, 48 P. 3d 274, 286 (2002) (en banc) (“[I]t was never the intention that our constitution should be construed in any manner indicating any hostility toward religion” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and at least in some respects, its constitution provides greater protection of religious liberties than the Free Exercise Clause, see First Covenant Church of Seattle v. Seattle, 120 Wash. 2d 203, 223-229, 840 P. 2d 174, 186-188 (1992) (en banc) (rejecting standard in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), in favor of more protective rule); Munns v. Martin, 131 Wash. 2d 192, 201, 930 P. 2d 318, 322 (1997) (en banc) (holding a city ordinance that imposed controls on demolition of historic structures inapplicable to the Catholic Church’s plan to demolish an old school building and build a new pastoral center because the facilities are intimately associated with the church’s religious mission). We have found nothing in Washington’s overall approach that indicates it “single[s] out” anyone “for special burdens on the basis of. . . religious calling,” as Justice Scalia contends, post, at 731.
The State notes that it is an open question whether the Washington Constitution prohibits nontheology majors from taking devotional theology courses. At this point, however, the Program guidelines only exclude students who are pursuing a theology degree. Wash. Admin. Code § 250— 80-020(12)(g) (2003).
Although we have sometimes characterized the Establishment Clause as prohibiting the State from “disapproving] of a particular religion or of religion in general,” Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 532 (1993) (citing cases), for the reasons noted supra, the State has not impermissibly done so here.
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.
The question we decide in this case is whether unfair labor practice complaints, whose charges against these petitioners were sustained by the National Labor Relations Board, were barred by the six-month statute of limitations contained in § 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 146, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (b). That section reads in pertinent part:
“Provided... no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months 'prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made...
On August 10, 1954, petitioners Bryan Manufacturing Company and the International Association of Machinists, AFL, entered into a collective bargaining agreement for a unit of Bryan’s employees. The agreement, as later supplemented in certain respects not material to this litigation, contained the conventional provisions, of which two are relevant here: the “recognition” clause, by which the Union was recognized as “the sole and exclusive bargaining agency for all employees” in the unit; and the “union security” clause, by which all employees were required, subject to a 45-day grace period, to become and remain members of the- Union. On August 30, 1955, a new agreement was entered into, with Bryan, the Union, and petitioner Local Lodge No. 1424, IAM, as signatories, replacing the old agreement and applying additionally to employees at a newly opened plant as well as to those covered by the original agreement.
When the original agreement was executed on August 10, 1954, the Union did not represent a majority of the employees covered by it. Under § § 7 and 8 of the Act the Board has evolved the principle, not drawn in question here, that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer and a labor organization to enter into a collective bargaining agreement which contains a union security clause, if at the time of original execution the union does not represent a majority of the employees in the unit. The maintaining of such an agreement in force is a continuing violation of the Act, and the “majority status” of the union at any subsequent date — including the date of execution of any renewals of the original agreement — is immaterial, for it is presumed that subsequent acquisition of a majority status is attributable to the earlier unlawful assistance received from the original agreement.
In June and August 1955, 10 months and 12 months after the execution of the original agreement, charges were filed with the Board and served upon the petitioners, alleging the Union’s lack of majority status at the time of execution and the consequent illegality of the continued enforcement of the agreement. Complaints were thereafter issued by the Board’s General Counsel against the Union and the Company. Petitioners contended before the Board that the complaints were barred by the limitations proviso of § 10 (b), set forth above. The Board, two members dissenting, held that the complaints were not barred by limitations, 119 N. L. R. B. 502, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. 105 U. S. App. D. C. 102, 264 F. 2d 575. We granted cer-tiorari, 360 U. S. 916, because of the importance of the question in the proper administration of the National Labor Relations Act. For reasons given in this opinion we hold that the complaints against these petitioners are barred by time.
We first note the opposing contentions of the parties. The Board starts with the premise that a collective bargaining agreement which contains a union security clause valid on its face, but which was entered into when the Union did not have a majority status, gives rise to two independent unfair labor practices, one being the execution of the agreement, the other arising from its continued enforcement. Conceding that a complaint predicated on the execution of the agreement here challenged was barred by limitations, the Board contends that its complaint was nonetheless timely since it was “based upon” the parties’ continued enforcement, within the period of limitations, of the union security clause. It is then said that even though the former was itself time-barred, the unlawful execution of the agreement was nevertheless “relevant in determining whether conduct within the 6-month period was unlawful,” 119 N. L. R. B., at 504; and that evidence as to it was admissible because § 10 (b) is a statute of limitations, and not a rule of evidence.
On the other hand, petitioners contend that, standing alone, the union security clause and its enforcement were wholly innocent; that they were tainted only by virtue of the original unlawful execution of the agreement; and that since a complaint based upon that unfair labor practice was barred by limitations, that event itself could not be utilized to infuse with illegality the otherwise legal union security clause or its enforcement. They say, in short, that to apply in this situation the doctrine that § 10 (b) is a statute of limitations, and not a rule of evidence, is to circumvent the purposes of the section, and that acceptance of the Board’s position would mean that the statute of limitations would never run in a case of this kind. We think petitioners’ position represents the correct view of the matter.
It is doubtless true that § 10 (b) does not prevent all use of evidence relating to.events transpiring more than six months before the filing and service of an unfair labor practice charge. However, in applying rules of evidence as to the admissibility of past events, due regard for the purposes of § 10 (b) requires that two different kinds of situations be distinguished. The first is one where occurrences within the six-month limitations period in and of themselves may constitute, as a substantive matter, unfair labor practices. There, earlier events may be utilized to shed light on the true character of matters occurring within the limitations period; and for that purpose § 10 (b) ordinarily does not bar such evidentiary use of anterior events. The second situation is that where conduct occurring within the limitations period can be charged to be an unfair labor practice only through reliance on an earlier unfair labor practice. There the use of the earlier unfair labor practice is not merely “eviden-tiary,” since it does not simply lay bare a putative current unfair labor practice. Rather, it serves to cloak with illegality that which was otherwise lawful. And where a complaint based upon that earlier event is time-barred, to permit the event itself to be so used in effect results in reviving a legally defunct unfair labor practice.
The situation before us is of this latter variety, for the entire foundation of the unfair labor practice charged was the Union’s time-barred lack of majority status when the original collective bargaining agreement was signed. In the absence of that fact enforcement of this otherwise valid union security clause was wholly benign. The Trial Examiner, whose findings were adopted by the Board, observed: Where, as here, a collective bargaining agreement and its enforcement are both perfectly lawful on the face of things, and an unfair labor practice cannot be made out except by reliance on the fact of the agreement’s original unlawful execution, an event which, because of limitations, cannot itself be made the subject of an unfair labor practice complaint, we. think that permitting resort to the principle that § 10 (b) is not a rule of evidence, in order to convert what is otherwise legal into something illegal, would vitiate the policies underlying that section. These policies are to bar litigation over past events “after records have been destroyed, witnesses have gone elsewhere, and recollections of the events in question have become dim and confused,” H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 40, and of course to stabilize existing bargaining relationships.
“The General Counsel concedes that the 6-month limitation of Section 10 (b) of the Act precludes currently finding the execution of the 1954 agreement to be an unfair labor practice, and also precludes currently finding its enfor cement to' be an unfair labor practice... at any time prior to the... periods beginning 6 months prior to the... charges.... However, this concession in no way detracts from the crucial nature of the earlier events, because at the core of the General Counsel’s contentions as to all of the unfair labor practices is his fundamental position that, because of the circumstances prevailing when made, the original union-security agreement of 1954 has never been valid or legal, since it has never met certain overriding requirements of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.” 119 N. L. R. B., at 530. (Emphasis added, except as indicated.)
Our view of the matter is lent support by the attitude of the Board itself, whose previous decisions, albeit not always with unanimity among its members or even perhaps with perfect consistency, have recognized that evidentiary rules as to past events must be regarded differently in the two situations we have already depicted. Compare, e. g., Potlatch Forests, Inc., 87 N. L. R. B. 1193, where evidence as to events during the barred period was used to illuminate current conduct claimed in itself to be an unfair labor practice, with Bowen Products Corp., 113 N. L. R. B. 731, and Greenville Cotton Oil Co., 92 N. L. R. B. 1033, aff’d sub nom. American Federation of Grain Millers, A. F. L. v. Labor Board, 197 F. 2d 451, where the gravamen of the unfair labor practice complained of lay in a fact or event occurring during the barred period.
Indeed, some Board cases have gone even further and held § 10 (b) a bar in circumstances when, although none of the material elements of the charge in a timely complaint need necessarily be proved through reference to the barred period — so that utilization of evidence from that period is ostensibly only for the purpose of giving color to what is involved in the complaint — yet the evidence in fact marshalled from within the six-month period is not substantial, and the merit of the allegations in the complaint is shown largely by reliance on the earlier events. See, e. g., News Printing Co., 116 N. L. R. B. 210, 212; Universal Oil Products Co., 108 N. L. R. B. 68; Tennessee Knitting Mills, Inc., 88 N. L. R. B. 1103.
However, we express no view on the problem raised by such cases, for here we need not go beyond saying that a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period is directly at odds with the purposes of the § 10 (b) proviso.
The applicability of these principles cannot be avoided here by invoking the doctrine of continuing violation. It may be conceded that the continued enforcement, as well as the execution, of this collective bargaining agreement constitutes an unfair labor practice, and that these are two logically separate violations, independent in the sense that they can be described in discrete terms. Nevertheless, the vice in the enforcement of this agreement is manifestly not independent of the legality of its execution, as would be the case, for example, with an agreement invalid on its face or with one validly executed, but unlawfully administered. As the dissenting Board members in this case recognized, in dealing with an agreement claimed to be void by reason of the union's lack of majority status at the time of its execution,
“... the circumstances which cause the agreement to be invalid existed only at the point in time in the past when the agreement was executed and are not thereafter repeated. For this reason, therefore, the continuing invalidity of the agreement is directly related to and is based solely on its initial invalidity, and has no continuing independent basis.” 119 N. L. R. B., at 516.
In any real sense, then, the complaints in this case are “based upon” the unlawful execution of the agreement, for its enforcement, though continuing, is a continuing violation solely by reason of circumstances existing only at the date of execution. To justify reliance on those circumstances on the ground that the maintenance in effect of the agreement is a continuing violation is to support a lifting of the limitations bar by a characterization which becomes apt only when that bar has already been lifted. Put another way, if the § 10 (b) proviso is to be given effect, the enforcement, as distinguished from the execution, of such an agreement as this constitutes a suable unfair labor practice only for six months following the making of the agreement.
The Board's ruling is further sought to be supported on the ground that it did not rest on a formal finding that the.execution of the 1954 agreement constituted an unfair labor practice. The Court of Appeals, while stating that the Board could not draw “any legal conclusion with regard to events outside the statutory period,” distinguished the decision here as resting on the “mere existence [of the facts surrounding the making of the 1954 contract] rather than on ascribing legal significance to those facts standing alone.” 105 U. S. App. D. C., at 108, 264 F. 2d, at 581 (emphasis by the court). This distinction sacrifices the policy of the Act to procedural formalities. If, as is not disputable, the § 10 (b) limitation was prompted by “complaint that people were being brought to book upon stale charges,” Labor Board v. Pennwoven, Inc., 194 F. 2d 521, 524, it is a particular use of the pre-limitations facts or conduct at which the section is aimed, and it can hardly be thought relevant that the proscribed use has not been labeled as such. The applicability of the policy of § 10 (b) in the Grain Millers case, supra, where in the particular circumstances of that case, and not because of anything arising from § 10 (b), the challenged acts within the limitations period could not be condemned as unlawful without an express declaration that earlier conduct constituted an unfair labor practice (see note 12, ante), was not greater than it is here, where although there was no “finding” that execution of the agreement constituted an unfair labor practice, it is manifest that were that not in fact the case enforcement of the agreement would carry no taint of illegality. The availability of the repose sought to be assured by § 10 (b) cannot turn on the vagaries of any such hypertechnical distinctions, bearing no relation to the purpose of the legislation.
It is apparently not disputed that the Board’s position would withdraw virtually all limitations protection from collective bargaining agreements attacked on the ground asserted here. For, once the principle on which the decision below rests is accepted, so long as the contract— or any renewal thereof — is still in effect, the six-month period does not even begin to run. Cf. Bowen Products Corp., supra, at 732. In Lively Photos, Inc., 123 N. L. R. B. 1054, the Board unhesitatingly applied the doctrine of the case at bar to an attack upon an agreement executed more than three and one-half years prior to the filing of the charge. The cease-and-desist order entered in that case directed the severance of a bargaining relationship which had been initiated five years earlier. A doctrine which does such disservice to stability of bargaining relationships could be upheld, in light of the language and evident purpose of § 10 (b), only by a convincing showing that Congress did not intend that provision to be applied so as to bar attacks on collective agreements with unions lacking majority status unless brought within six months of their execution. Far from providing such a showing, the legislative history contains affirmative evidence that Congress was specifically advertent to the problem of agreements with minority unions, had previously been at pains to protect such agreements from belated attack, and manifested an intention, in enacting § 10 (b), not to withdraw that protection.
Four years prior to the enactment of the Taft-Hartley amendments, of which the § 10 (b) limitations proviso was one, Congress barred the Board from proceeding, under certain conditions not here relevant, in cases “arising over an agreement between management and labor which has been in existence for three months or longer without complaint being filed.” National Labor Relations Board Appropriation Act, 1944, 57 Stat. 515. This legislation was enacted with specific reference to agreements with minority unions, and was re-enacted in each succeeding session through 1947 At the time the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare reported S. 1126 (the Senate version of the proposed legislation enacted as the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947), a rider to the appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1948 (H. R. 2700, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.) was pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee, having been previously reported by the House Appropriations Committee in language identical with that of its predecessors. The Labor Committee’s discussion of the proposed § 10 (b) amendment is illuminating:
“The principal substantive change in this section is a provision for a 6-month period of limitations upon the filing of charges. The Board itself by adopting a doctrine of laches has to some extent discouraged dilatory filing of charges, and a rider to the current appropriations bill (which if this amendment was adopted would no longer be necessary) contains a 3-month period of limitations with respect to certain kinds of unfair labor practices.” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 26. (Emphasis added.)
This language cannot be squared with an interpretation of § 10 (b) which would ascribe to Congress, in enacting for the first time a general limitations provision, a purpose to eliminate the then-existing all-embracing limitation specifically applicable to agreements with minority unions.
In sustaining the Board’s position, the Court of Appeals also relied on the public character of the right sought to be vindicated by the Board, and the limited scope of judicial review of Board determinations. Observing that “in interpreting, applying and administering a statute of limitations prescribed by Congress in this context [the field of labor relations], the Board — and the courts — are not confronted by precisely the same considerations as apply to statutes of limitations affecting the private rights of two individual litigants,” the Court reasoned that “[t]he Board may have thought that the interests of [employee] self determination outweighed otherwise important competing considerations of burying stale disputes.” 105 U. S. App. D. C., at 108-109, 264 F. 2d, at 581-582. We think this analysis inadmissible here, for the reason that the accommodation between these competing factors has already been made by Congress. It is a commonplace, but one too easily lost sight of, that labor legislation traditionally entails the adjustment and compromise of competing interests which in the abstract or from a purely partisan point of view may seem irreconcilable. The “policy of the Act” is embodied in the totality of that adjustment, and not necessarily in any single demand which may have figured, however weightily, in it. Cf. note 7, ante. It may be asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the interest in employee freedom of choice is one of those given large recognition by the Act as amended. But neither can one disregard the interest in “industrial peace which it is the overall purpose of the Act to secure.” Labor Board v. Childs Co., 195 F. 2d 617, 621-622 (concurring opinion of L. Hand, J.). Cf. Colgate Co. v. Labor Board, 338 U. S. 355, 362-363. As expositor of the national interest, Congress, in the judgment that a six-month limitations period did “not seem unreasonable,” H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 40, barred the Board from dealing with past conduct after that period had run, even at the expense of the vindication of statutory rights. “It is not necessary for us to justify the policy of Congress. It is enough that we find it in the statute. That policy cannot be defeated by the Board’s policy....” Colgate Co. v. Labor Board, supra, at 363. Cf. Southern S. S. Co. v. Labor Board, 316 U. S. 31, 47.
Reversed.
It was so found by the Board, and petitioners have not challenged that finding.
Section 7 (61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 157) 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).”
Section 8 (61 Stat. 140, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158) provides:
“(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;
“(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it:....
“(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,... if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section 9 (a), in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made;...
“(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:...
“(2) to cause' or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a) (3)....”
The same doctrine is applied to an agreement containing only a “recognition” clause making a union the exclusive bargaining agent -’for all employees in the unit covered by the agreement. See Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp., 122 N. L. R. B. 1289; Charles W. Carter Co., 115 N. L. R. B. 251, 262; International Metal Products Co., 104 N. L. R. B. 1076; John B. Shriver Co., 103 N. L. R. B. 23, 38; and see the Trial Examiner’s discussion in the present case, 119 N. L. R: B. 502, 555, n. 98. The agreement now in question contained both a union security and a recognition clause, but for convenience we shall deal with the matter in terms of the union security clause alone.
See 119 N. L. R. B., at 546, 548.
The petition for certiorari also raised an issue as to the propriety of the relief ordered by the Board. Because of our view of the case it becomes unnecessary to reach that question.
The most frequently cited Board expression of this principle is that found in Axelson Mfg. Co., 88 N. L. R. B. 761, 766:
“As I interpret the statute however, Section 10 (b) enacts a statute of limitations and not a rule of evidence. It forbids the issuance of complaints and, consequently, findings of violation of the statute in conduct not within the 6 months’ period. But it does not, as I construe it, forbid the introduction of relevant evidence bearing on the issue as to whether a violation has occurred during the 6 months’ period. Events obscure, ambiguous, or even meaningless when viewed in isolation may, like the component parts of an equation, become clear, definitive, and informative when considered in relation to other action. Conduct, like language, takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it occurs. Congress can scarcely have intended that the Board, in the performance of its duty to decide the validity of conduct within the 6 months’ period, should ignore reliable, probative, and substantial evidence as to the meaning and the nature of the conduct. Had such been the intent, it seems reasonable to assume that it would have been stated.”
The Board, however, has developed certain limits on the applicability of this principle. See p. 421, post, and note 13.
It was the view of one member of the Board majority that a presumption of illegality should attend the enforcement of a union security clause, so that sufficient proof of violation results merely from a showing that such a clause is operative, thus putting on the parties to the agreement the burden to defend by proving compliance with the requirements of the proviso to § 8 (a) (3) of the Act, 61 Stat. 140, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a) (3), see note 2, ante, including majority status at the time of execution. 119 N. L. R. B., at 510. While acceptance of this view would concededly support the result reached below, it was not adopted by the Board, as the concurring member acknowledged. Id., at 511. We too reject it. It rests on the mistaken judgment that the proviso to § 8 (a) (3) permits the inclusion of union security provisions “in derogation of the rights guaranteed employees in the definitive statement of national policy contained in Section 7,” id., at 510, and on the principle that, exoneration of certain types of union security clauses having been granted in a proviso, the burden of proving the proviso's applicability rests on him asserting it. The latter principle need not detain us; insights derived from syntactical analysis form a hazardous basis for the explication of major legislative enactments.. As to the argument drawn from § 7, it would be enough to note that that very provision is in terms limited by the scope of the § 8 (a) (3) proviso. (See note 2, ante.) More to the heart of the matter, it is the entire Act, and not merely one portion of it, which embodies “the definitive statement of national policy.” It is well known, and the legislative history of the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments plainly shows, that § 8 (a) (3)— including its proviso — represented the Congressional response to the competing demands of employee freedom of choice and union security. Had Congress thought one or the other overriding, it would doubtless have found words adequate to express that judgment. It did not do so; it accommodated both interests, doubtless in a manner unsatisfactory to the extreme partisans of each, by drawing a line it thought reasonable. It is not for the administrators of the Congressional mandate to approach either side of that line grudgingly.
Emphasis here by the Trial Examiner.
These observations were accepted both by the Board and the Court of Appeals. 119 N. L. R. B., at 503-504; 105 U. S. App. D. C., at 106, 264 F. 2d, at 579. See also Lively Photos, Inc., 123 N. L. R. B. 1054.
The Examiner’s Report shows the pertinency of this statutory purpose in the present case. In his analysis of the evidence, he observed:
“It is evident that with many witnesses testifying as to numerous different matters, it would protract this report greatly to summarize all of the testimony, or to spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein, much of which is not too surprising, in view of the fact that, with respect to the events of August 1954 [the events “at the core” of the allegations of illegality], there had been a lapse of almost 15 months before testimony was given in November 1955.” 119 N. L. R. B., at 529.
In that case, in explaining his consideration of “relevant evidence” antedating the six-month period, the Trial Examiner, whose report was confirmed by the Board, said: “The Respondent’s earlier conduct has been considered here merely for the purpose of bringing into clearer focus the conduct in issue. Even without such consideration, however, the allegations of discrimination would have been found amply supported by such undisputed record facts as bear directly upon the layoffs of [the employees involved within the six-month period].” 87 N. L. R. B., at 1211. See also Local 1418, International Longshoremen’s Assn., 102 N. L. R. B. 720, 729-730, relied on by the Board, and Labor Board v. General Shoe Corp., 192 F. 2d 504; Labor Board v. Clausen, 188 F. 2d 439; and Superior Engraving Co. v. Labor Board, 183 F. 2d 783, cited by a dissenting opinion here.
In Bowen Products an employee recalled from layoff was dis-criminatorily placed at the bottom of the relevant seniority list. He unsuccessfully attempted to obtain his proper seniority rating,' and several months later was included in an economic reduction in force. Had his seniority originally been properly computed, he would not have been laid off at that time. The charge was filed and served within six months of the layoff, but more than six months after the original determination of seniority status..Finding that the only basis for a holding of unlawful layoff would be a finding that that determination had been a violation of the Act, the Board dismissed the complaint.
Greenville Cotton Oil (American Federation of Grain Millers) dealt with an alleged discriminatory refusal to reinstate strikers. Conceding that the respondent had engaged permanent replacements, the strikers demanded reinstatement on the ground that the strike had been caused or prolonged by an unfair labor practice committed by the employer prior to the hiring of the replacements. The acts alleged to have cónstituted such unfair practices having taken place more than six months prior to the filing and service of the charge, the Board held § 10 (b) a bar to an order of reinstatement.
The complaint in News Printing Co. alleged that a refusal to grant wage increases to certain employees had been motivated by displeasure at their union activities. As a substantive matter, this allegation turned on the respondent’s motive at the time of the refusal, which was within the limitations period. However, the General Counsel was unable to produce sufficient evidence, from within that period, to prove discriminatory motive, and the Board refused to permit reliance on evidence relating to acts occurring prior to the six-month period. The contention that such earlier acts could be referred to in order to justify the inference that the “pattern of unlawful conduct... continued on into the present situation” was rejected. 116 N. L. R. B., at 211. Compare Paramount Cap Mfg. Co., 119 N. L. R. B. 785, 786, 799, enforcement granted, 260 F. 2d 109, where the presence of substantial post-limitations evidence was held to justify resort to evidence of earlier conduct.
The Universal Oil Products and Tennessee Knitting Mills cases concerned allegations that respondent employers had dominated or assisted labor organizations. Here again, the material issue was as to the relationship of the respondents to the unions involved, as of the date of the charge. Yet in both cases, because the evidence from within the statutory period was too sketchy to warrant a finding of unlawful conduct, the Board refused to permit reference to evidence from the earlier period, declining to rely on an inference that earlier unlawful relationships continued.
While it is true that in Paint, Varnish & Lacquer Makers Union (Andrew Brown Co.), 120 N. L. R. B. 1425, the Board found union picketing during the six-month-period to have been undertaken for the unlawful purpose of obtaining recognition, although the only affirmative evidence of such purpose was based on acts done prior to that period, the decision is not inconsistent, so far as presently relevant, with the cases discussed above. Substantial evidence of purpose from within the limitations period was found in reliance on the inference that the earlier motive had continued unchanged. Id., at 1428, 1438. While the permissibility of an inference of this nature was rejected in the preceding cases, we need not now inquire into this seeming disparity of treatment, for it affects the minor premise only, and does not impair the accuracy of the proposition that, however marshalled, acts within the limitations period must under Board doctrine yield some substantial evidence of unlawful conduct.
Katz v. Labor Board, 196 F. 2d 411, and Labor Board v. Gaynor News Co., 197 F. 2d 719, relied on below and in dissent here, arose under provisions of the Act (§8 (a)(3), 61 Stat. 140) since repealed (65 Stat. 601), which permitted union security agreements only with unions which possessed a Board certificate that a union security clause had been authorized at a special election of the employees involved. While the language, and perhaps the approach, of these cases may be considered inconsistent with the principles we deem governing here, the decisions on their facts present no such difficulty. Proof of the nonexistence of such a certificate, which of course was a continuing fact, plainly did not require resort to testimony about past events; rather the issue was much like one arising out of an agreement illegal on its face, the only difference being that a separate instrument was involved.
We think the rule in conspiracy cases, where the statute of limitations only begins to run upon the commission of the last overt act in furtherance thereof, does not furnish a useful analogy in this case. The statute in question here bars issuance of a complaint “based upon any unfair labor practice” which occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; it does not merely bar proceedings against an unfair labor practice which are not commenced within six months after that unfair labor practice has been committed. Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 3282. Our conclusion that the complaints giving rise to the judgment under review are of necessity “based upon” the unfair labor practice of execution of the agreement, and are barred by time, has drawn on this statute’s purpose and history, and we do not assert the universal applicability of our resolution of the particular question presented for decision. In any event, the commission of an overt act pursuant to a conspiratorial agreement represents a renewed affirmation of the unlawful purpose of the conspiracy. The acts constituting enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement cannot well be so characterized. Beyond that, one may question the appropriateness of analogizing this situation, where proper application of a particular statute of limitations involves taking into account competing values, to one which involves an unlawful agreement of a kind unreservedly condemned, and the entire undoing of which is the undiluted purpose of the criminal law. Indeed, the rule advanced in dissent cannot be squared with the Board’s own approach to the statute. See the cases discussed in notes 12 and 13, ante.
The immediate impetus to the legislation was the pendency of an N. L. R. B. proceeding involving a closed-shop agreement in effect at the Kaiser shipbuilding yards at Portland, Oregon. The agreement, though executed at a time when only 66 workers were employed, was being applied to a 20,000-man work force. The debates show
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Michael Crawford stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. At his trial, the State played for the jury Sylvia’s tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing, even though he had no opportunity for cross-examination. The Washington Supreme Court upheld petitioner’s conviction after determining that Sylvia’s statement was reliable. The question presented is whether this procedure complied with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
I
On August 5,1999, Kenneth Lee was stabbed at his apartment. Police arrested petitioner later that night. After giving petitioner and his wife Miranda warnings, detectives interrogated each of them twice. Petitioner eventually confessed that he and Sylvia had gone in search of Lee because he was upset over an earlier incident in which Lee had tried to rape her. The two had found Lee at his apartment, and a fight ensued in which Lee was stabbed in the torso and petitioner’s hand was cut.
Petitioner gave the following account of the fight:
“Q. Okay. Did you ever see anything in [Lee’s] hands?
“A. I think so, but I’m not positive.
“Q. Okay, when you think so, what do you mean by that?
“A. I could a swore I seen him goin’ for somethin’ before, right before everything happened. He was like reaching fiddlin’ around down here and stuff... and I just... I don’t know, I think, this is just a possibility, but I think, I think that he pulled somethin’ out and I grabbed for it and that’s how I got cut... but I’m not positive. I, I, my mind goes blank when things like this happen. I mean, I just, I remember things wrong, I remember things that just doesn’t, don’t make sense to me later.” App. 155 (punctuation added).
Sylvia generally corroborated petitioner’s story about the events leading up to the fight, but her account of the fight itself was arguably different — particularly with respect to whether Lee had drawn a weapon before petitioner assaulted him:
“Q. Did Kenny do anything to fight back from this assault?
“A. (pausing) I know he reached into his pocket... or somethin’... I don’t know what.
“Q. After he was stabbed?
“A. He saw Michael coming up. He lifted his hand... his chest open, he might [have] went to go strike his hand out or something and then (inaudible).
“Q. Okay, you, you gotta speak up.
“A. Okay, he lifted his hand over his head maybe to strike Michael’s hand down or something and then he put his hands in his... put his right hand in his right pocket... took a step back... Michael proceeded to stab him... then his hands were like... how do you explain this... open arms... with his hands open and he fell down... and we ran (describing subject holding hands open, palms toward assailant).
“Q. Okay, when he’s standing there with his open hands, you’re talking about Kenny, correct?
“A. Yeah, after, after the fact, yes.
“Q. Did you see anything in his hands at that point?
“A. (pausing) um um (no).” Id., at 137 (punctuation added).
The State charged petitioner with assault and attempted murder. At trial, he claimed self-defense. Sylvia did not testify because of the state marital privilege, which generally bars a spouse from testifying without the other spouse’s consent. See Wash. Rev. Code §5.60.060(1) (1994). In Washington, this privilege does not extend to a spouse’s out-of-court statements admissible under a hearsay exception, see State v. Burden, 120 Wash. 2d 371, 377, 841 P. 2d 758, 761 (1992), so the State sought to introduce Sylvia’s tape-recorded statements to the police as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense. Noting that Sylvia had admitted she led petitioner to Lee’s apartment and thus had facilitated the assault, the State invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest, Wash. Rule Evid. 804(b)(3) (2003).
Petitioner countered that, state law notwithstanding, admitting the evidence would violate his federal constitutional right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” Arndt. 6. According to our description of that right in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 (1980), it does not bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement against a criminal defendant if the statement bears “adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’” Id., at 66. To meet that test, evidence must either fall within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bear “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Ibid. The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76-77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault.
The Washington Court of Appeals reversed. It applied a nine-factor test to determine whether Sylvia’s statement bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, and noted several reasons why it did not: The statement contradicted one she had previously given; it was made in response to specific questions; and at one point she admitted she had shut her eyes during the stabbing. The court considered and rejected the State’s argument that Sylvia’s statement was reliable because it coincided with petitioner’s to such a degree that the two “interlocked.” The court determined that, although the two statements agreed about the events leading up to the stabbing, they differed on the issue crucial to petitioner’s self-defense claim: “[Petitioner’s] version asserts that Lee may have had something in his hand when he stabbed him; but Sylvia’s version has Lee grabbing for something only after he has been stabbed.” App. 32.
The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, unanimously concluding that, although Sylvia’s statement did not fall under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, it bore guarantees of trustworthiness: “‘[Wjhen a codefendant’s confession is virtually identical [to, i. e., interlocks with,] that of a defendant, it may be deemed reliable.’ ” 147 Wash. 2d 424, 437, 54 P. 3d 656, 663 (2002) (quoting State v. Rice, 120 Wash. 2d 549, 570, 844 P. 2d 416, 427 (1993)). The court explained:
“Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the statements were contradictory, upon closer inspection they appear to overlap....
“[B]oth of the Crawfords’ statements indicate that Lee was possibly grabbing for a weapon, but they are equally unsure when this event may have taken place. They are also equally unsure how Michael received the cut on his hand, leading the court to question when, if ever, Lee possessed a weapon. In this respect they overlap....
“[N.jeither Michael nor Sylvia clearly stated that Lee had a weapon in hand from which Michael was simply defending himself. And it is this omission by both that interlocks the statements and makes Sylvia’s statement reliable.” 147 Wash. 2d, at 438-439, 54 P. 3d, at 664 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We granted certiorari to determine whether the State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause. 539 U. S. 914 (2003).
II
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” We have held that this bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 406 (1965). As noted above, Roberts says that an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement may be admitted so long as it has adequate indicia of reliability — i. e., falls within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” 448 U. S., at 66. Petitioner argues that this test strays from the original meaning of the Confrontation Clause and urges us to reconsider it.
A
The Constitution’s text does not alone resolve this case. One could plausibly read “witnesses against” a defendant to mean those who actually testify at trial, cf. Woodsides v. State, 3 Miss. 655, 664-665 (1837), those whose statements are offered at trial, see 3 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1397, p. 104 (2d ed. 1923) (hereinafter Wigmore), or something in-between, see infra, at 52-53. We must therefore turn to the historical background of the Clause to understand its meaning.
The right to confront one’s accusers is a concept that dates back to Roman times. See Coy v. Iowa, 487 U. S. 1012, 1015 (1988); Herrmann & Speer, Facing the Accuser: Ancient and Medieval Precursors of the Confrontation Clause, 34 Va. J. Int’l L. 481 (1994). The founding generation’s immediate source of the concept, however, was the common law. English common law has long differed from continental civil law in regard to the manner in which witnesses give testimony in criminal trials. The common-law tradition is one of live testimony in court subject to adversarial testing, while the civil law condones examination in private by judicial officers. See 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 373-374 (1768).
Nonetheless, England at times adopted elements of the civil-law practice. Justices of the peace or other officials examined suspects and witnesses before trial. These examinations were sometimes read in court in lieu of live testimony, a practice that “occasioned frequent demands by the prisoner to have his ‘accusers,’ i. e. the witnesses against him, brought before him face to face.” 1 J. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England 326 (1883). In some cases, these demands were refused. See 9 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 216-217, 228 (3d ed. 1944); e. g., Raleigh’s Case, 2 How. St. Tr. 1, 15-16, 24 (1603); Throckmorton’s Case, 1 How. St. Tr. 869, 875-876 (1554); cf. Lilburn’s Case, 3 How. St. Tr. 1315, 1318-1322, 1329 (Star Chamber 1637).
Pretrial examinations became routine under two statutes passed during the reign of Queen Mary in the 16th century, 1 & 2 Phil. & M., c. 13 (1554), and 2 & 3 id., c. 10 (1555). These Marian bail and committal statutes required justices of the peace to examine suspects and witnesses in felony cases and to certify the results to the court. It is doubtful that the original purpose of the examinations was to produce evidence admissible at trial. See J. Langbein, Prosecuting Crime in the Renaissance 21-34 (1974). Whatever the original purpose, however, they came to be used as evidence in some cases, see 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 284 (1736), resulting in an adoption of continental procedure. See 4 Holdsworth, supra, at 528-530.
The most notorious instances of civil-law examination occurred in the great political trials of the 16th and 17th centuries. One such was the 1603 trial of Sir Walter Raleigh for treason. Lord Cobham, Raleigh’s alleged accomplice, had implicated him in an examination before the Privy Council and in a letter. At Raleigh’s trial, these were read to the jury. Raleigh argued that Cobham had lied to save himself: “Cobham is absolutely in the King’s mercy; to excuse me cannot avail him; by accusing me he may hope for favour.” 1 D. Jardine, Criminal Trials 435 (1832). Suspecting that Cobham would recant, Raleigh demanded that the judges call him to appear, arguing that “[t]he Proof of the Common Law is by witness and jury: let Cobham be here, let him speak it. Call my accuser before my face....” 2 How. St. Tr., at 15-16. The judges refused, id., at 24, and, despite Raleigh’s protestations that he was being tried “by the Spanish Inquisition,” id., at 15, the jury convicted, and Raleigh was sentenced to death.
One of Raleigh’s trial judges later lamented that “/the justice of England has never been so degraded and injured as by the condemnation of Sir Walter Raleigh.’” 1 Jardine, supra, at 520. Through a series of statutory and judicial reforms, English law developed a right of confrontation that limited these abuses. For example, treason statutes required witnesses to confront the accused “face to face” at his arraignment. E.g., 13 Car. 2, c. 1, §5 (1661); see 1 Hale, supra, at 306. Courts, meanwhile, developed relatively strict rules of unavailability, admitting examinations only if the witness was demonstrably unable to testify in person. See Lord Morley’s Case, 6 How. St. Tr. 769, 770-771 (H. L. 1666); 2 Hale, supra, at 284; 1 Stephen, supra, at 358. Several authorities also stated that a suspect’s confession could be admitted only against himself, and not against others he implicated. See 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, ch. 46, § 3, pp. 603-604 (T. Leach 6th ed. 1787); 1 Hale, supra, at 585, n. (k); 1 G. Gilbert, Evidence 216 (C. Lofft ed. 1791); cf. Tong’s Case, Kel. J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (treason). But see King v. Westbeer, 1 Leach 12, 168 Eng. Rep. 108, 109 (1739).
One recurring question was whether the admissibility of an unavailable witness’s pretrial examination depended on whether the defendant had had an opportunity to cross-examine him. In 1696, the Court of King’s Bench answered this question in the affirmative, in the widely reported misdemeanor libel case of King v. Paine, 5 Mod. 163, 87 Eng. Rep. 584. The court ruled that, even though a witness was dead, his examination was not admissible where “the defendant not being present when [it was] taken before the mayor... had lost the benefit of a cross-examination.” Id., at 165, 87 Eng. Rep., at 585. The question was also debated at length during the infamous proceedings against Sir John Fenwick on a bill of attainder. Fenwick’s counsel objected to admitting the examination of a witness who had been spirited away, on the ground that Fenwick had had no opportunity to cross-examine. See Fenwick’s Case, 13 How. St. Tr. 537, 591-592 (H. C. 1696) (Powys) (“[T]hat which they would offer is something that Mr. Goodman hath sworn when he was examined... ; sir J. F. not being present or privy, and no opportunity given to cross-examine the person; and I conceive that cannot be offered as evidence...”); id., at 592 (Shower) (“[N]o deposition of a person can be read, though beyond sea, unless in cases where the party it is to be read against was privy to the examination, and might have cross-examined him.... [Q]ur constitution is, that the person shall see his accuser”). The examination was nonetheless admitted on a closely divided vote after several of those present opined that the common-law rules of procedure did not apply to parliamentary attainder proceedings — one speaker even admitting that the evidence would normally be inadmissible. See id., at 603-604 (Williamson); id., at 604-605 (Chancellor of the Exchequer); id., at 607; 3 Wigmore §1364, at 22-23, n. 54. Fenwick was condemned, but the proceedings “must have burned into the general consciousness the vital importance of the rule securing the right of cross-examination.” Id., § 1364, at 22; cf. Carmell v. Texas, 529 U. S. 513, 526-530 (2000).
Paine had settled the rule requiring a prior opportunity for cross-examination as a matter of common law, but some doubts remained over whether the Marian statutes 'prescribed an exception to it in felony cases. The statutes did not identify the circumstances under which examinations were admissible, see 1 & 2 Phil. & M., c. 13 (1554); 2 & 3 id., c. 10 (1555), and some inferred that no prior opportunity for cross-examination was required. See Westbeer, supra, at 12, 168 Eng. Rep., at 109; compare Fenwick’s Case, 13 How. St. Tr., at 596 (Sloane), with id., at 602 (Musgrave). Many who expressed this view acknowledged that it meant the statutes were in derogation of the common law. See King v. Eriswell, 3 T. R. 707, 710, 100 Eng. Rep. 815, 817 (K. B. 1790) (Grose, J.) (dicta); id., at 722-723, 100 Eng. Rep., at 823-824 (Kenyon, C. J.) (same); compare 1 Gilbert, Evidence, at 215 (admissible only “by Force ‘of the Statute’”), with id., at 65. Nevertheless, by 1791 (the year the Sixth Amendment was ratified), courts were applying the cross-examination rule even to examinations by justices of the peace in felony cases. See King v. Dingler, 2 Leach 561, 562-563, 168 Eng. Rep. 383, 383-384 (1791); King v. Woodcock, 1 Leach 500, 502-504, 168 Eng. Rep. 352, 353 (1789); cf. King v. Radbourne, 1 Leach 457, 459-461, 168 Eng. Rep. 330, 331-332 (1787); 3 Wigmore § 1364, at 23. Early 19th-century treatises confirm that requirement. See 1 T. Starkie, Evidence 95 (1826); 2 id., at 484-492; T. Peake, Evidence 63-64 (3d ed. 1808). When Parliament amended the statutes in 1848 to make the requirement explicit, see 11 & 12 Vict., c. 42, § 17, the change merely “introduced in terms” what was already afforded the defendant “by the equitable construction of the law.” Queen v. Beeston, 29 Eng. L. & Eq. R. 527, 529 (Ct. Crim. App. 1854) (Jervis, C. J.).
B
Controversial examination practices were also used in the Colonies. Early in the 18th century, for example, the Virginia Council protested against the Governor for having “privately issued several commissions to examine witnesses against particular men ex parte,” complaining that “the person accused is not admitted to be confronted with, or defend himself against his defamers.” A Memorial Concerning the Maladministrations of His Excellency Francis Nicholson, reprinted in 9 English Historical Documents 253, 257 (D. Douglas ed. 1955). A decade before the Revolution, England gave jurisdiction over Stamp Act offenses to the admiralty courts, which followed civil-law rather than common-law procedures and thus routinely took testimony by deposition or private judicial examination. See 5 Geo. 3, c. 12, §57 (1765); Pollitt, The Right of Confrontation: Its History and Modern Dress, 8 J. Pub. L. 381, 396-397 (1959). Colonial representatives protested that the Act subverted their rights “by extending the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty beyond its ancient limits.” Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress §8th (Oct. 19, 1765), reprinted in Sources of Our Liberties 270, 271 (R. Perry & J. Cooper eds. 1959). John Adams, defending a merchant in a high-profile admiralty case, argued: “Examinations of witnesses upon Interrogatories, are only by the Civil Law. Interrogatories are unknown at common Law, and Englishmen and common Lawyers have an aversion to them if not an Abhorrence of them.” Draft of Argument in Sewall v. Hancock (Oct. 1768-Mar. 1769), in 2 Legal Papers of John Adams 194, 207 (L. Wroth & H. Zobel eds. 1965).
Many declarations of rights adopted around the time of the Revolution guaranteed a right of confrontation. See Virginia Declaration of Rights § 8 (1776); Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights § IX (1776); Delaware Declaration of Rights §14 (1776); Maryland Declaration of Rights §XIX (1776); North Carolina Declaration of Rights § VII (1776); Vermont Declaration of Rights Ch. I, § X (1777); Massachusetts Declaration of Rights § XII (1780); New Hampshire Bill of Rights §XV (1783), all reprinted in 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History.235, 265, 278, 282, 287, 323, 342, 377 (1971). The proposed Federal Constitution, however, did not. At the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Abraham Holmes objected to this omission precisely on the ground that it would lead to civil-law practices: “The mode of trial is altogether indetermined;... whether [the defendant] is to be allowed to confront the witnesses, and have the advantage of cross-examination, we are not yet told----[W]e shall find Congress possessed of powers enabling them to institute judicatories little less inauspicious than a certain tribunal in Spain,... the Inquisition.” 2 Debates on the Federal Constitution 110-111 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1863). Similarly, a prominent Antifederalist writing under the pseudonym Federal Farmer criticized the use of “written evidence” while objecting to the omission of a vicinage right: “Nothing can be more essential than the cross examining [of] witnesses, and generally before the triers of the facts in question.... [W]ritten evidence... [is] almost useless; it must be frequently taken ex parte, and but very seldom leads to the proper discovery of truth.” R. Lee, Letter IV by the Federal Farmer (Oct. 15, 1787), reprinted in 1 Schwartz, supra, at 469, 473. The First Congress responded by including the Confrontation Clause in the proposal that became the Sixth Amendment.
Early state decisions shed light upon the original understanding of the common-law right. State v. Webb, 2 N. C. 103 (Super. L. & Eq. 1794) (per curiam), decided a mere three years after the adoption of the Sixth Amendment, held that depositions could be read against an accused only if they were taken in his presence. Rejecting a broader reading of the English authorities, the court held: “[I]t is a rule of the common law, founded on natural justice, that no man shall be prejudiced by evidence which he had not the liberty to cross examine.” Id., at 104.
Similarly, in State v. Campbell, 30 S. C. L. 124 (App. L. 1844), South Carolina’s highest law court excluded a deposition taken by a coroner in the absence of the accused. It held: “[I]f we are to decide the question by the established rules of the common law, there could not be a dissenting voice. For, notwithstanding the death of the witness, and whatever the respectability of the court taking the depositions, the solemnity of the occasion and the weight of the testimony, such depositions are ex parte, and, therefore, utterly incompetent.” Id., at 125. The court said that one of the “indispensable conditions” implicitly guaranteed by the State Constitution was that “prosecutions be carried on to the conviction of the accused, by witnesses confronted by him, and subjected to his personal examination.” Ibid.
Many other decisions are to the same effect. Some early cases went so far as to hold that prior testimony was inadmissible in criminal cases even if the accused had a previous opportunity to cross-examine. See Finn v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. 701, 708 (1827); State v. Atkins, 1 Tenn. 229 (Super. L. & Eq. 1807) (per curiam). Most, courts rejected that view, but only after reaffirming that admissibility depended on a prior opportunity for cross-examination. See United States v. Macomb, 26 F. Cas. 1132, 1133 (No. 15,702) (CC Ill. 1851); State v. Houser, 26 Mo. 431, 435-436 (1858); Kendrick v. State, 29 Tenn. 479, 485-488 (1850); Bostick v. State, 22 Tenn. 344, 345-346 (1842); Commonwealth v. Richards, 35 Mass. 434, 437 (1837); State v. Hill, 20 S. C. L. 607, 608-610 (App. 1835); Johnston v. State, 10 Tenn. 58, 59 (Err. & App. 1821). Nineteenth-century treatises confirm the rule. See 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure § 1093, p. 689 (2d ed. 1872); T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations *318.
Ill
This history supports two inferences about the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.
A
First, the principal evil at which*the Confrontation Clause was directed was the civil-law mode of criminal procedure, and particularly its use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused. It was these practices that the Crown deployed in notorious treason cases like Raleigh’s; that the Marian statutes invited; that English law’s assertion of a right to confrontation was meant to prohibit; and that the founding-era rhetoric decried. The Sixth Amendment must be interpreted with this focus in mind.
Accordingly, we once again reject the view that the Confrontation Clause applies of its own force only to in-court testimony, and that its application to out-of-court statements introduced at trial depends upon “the law of Evidence for the time being.” 3 Wigmore § 1397, at 101; accord, Dutton v. Evans, 400 U. S. 74, 94 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring in result). Leaving the regulation of out-of-court statements to the law of evidence would render the Confrontation Clause powerless to prevent even the most flagrant inquisitorial practices. Raleigh was, after all, perfectly free to confront those who read Cobham’s confession in court.
This focus also suggests that not all hearsay implicates the Sixth Amendment’s core concerns. An off-hand, overheard remark might be unreliable evidence and thus a good candidate for exclusion under hearsay rules, but it bears little resemblance to the civil-law abuses the Confrontation Clause targeted. On the other hand, ex parte examinations might sometimes be admissible under modern hearsay rules, but the Framers certainly would not have condoned them.
The text of the Confrontation Clause reflects this focus. It applies to “witnesses” against the accused — in other words, those who “bear testimony.” 2 N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). “Testimony,” in turn, is typically “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” Ibid. An accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not. The constitutional text, like the history underlying the common-law right of confrontation, thus reflects an especially acute concern with a specific type of out-of-court statement.
Various formulations of this core class of “testimonial” statements exist: “ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent — that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used proseeuto-rially,” Brief for Petitioner 23; “extrajudicial statements... contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions,” White v. Illinois, 502 U. S. 346, 365 (1992) (Thomas, J., joined by Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); “statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial,” Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae 3. These formulations all share a common nucleus and then define the Clause’s coverage at various levels of abstraction around it. Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition — for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing.
Statements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations are also testimonial under even a narrow standard. Police interrogations bear a striking resemblance to examinations by justices of the peace in England. The statements are not sworn testimony, but the absence of oath was not dispositive. Cobham’s examination was unsworn, see 1 Jardine, Criminal Trials, at 430, yet Raleigh’s trial has long been thought a paradigmatic confrontation violation, see, e. g., Campbell, 30 S. C. L., at 130. Under the Marian statutes, witnesses were typically put on oath, but suspects were not. See 2 Hale, Pleas of the Crown, at 52. Yet Hawkins and others went out of their way to caution that such un-sworn confessions were not admissible against anyone but the confessor. See supra, at 45.
That interrogators are police officers rather than magistrates does not change the picture either. Justices of the peace conducting examinations under the Marian statutes were not magistrates as we understand that office today, but had an essentially investigative and prosecutorial function. See 1 Stephen, Criminal Law of England, at 221; Langbein, Prosecuting Crime in the Renaissance, at 34-45. England did not have a professional police force until the 19th century, see 1 Stephen, supra, at 194-200, so it is not surprising that other government officers performed the investigative functions now associated primarily with the police. The involvement of government officers in the production of testimonial evidence presents the same risk, whether the officers are police or justices of the peace.
In sum, even if the Sixth Amendment is not solely concerned with testimonial hearsay, that is its primary object, and interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class.
B
The historical record also supports a second proposition: that the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The text of the Sixth Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions from the confrontation requirement to be developed by the courts. Rather, the “right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” Amdt. 6, is most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. See Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 243 (1895); cf. Houser, 26 Mo., at 433-435. As the English authorities above reveal, the common law in 1791 conditioned admissibility of an absent witness’s examination on unavailability and a prior opportunity to cross-examine. The Sixth Amendment therefore incorporates those limitations. The numerous early state decisions applying the same test confirm that these principles were received as part of the common law in this country.
We do not read the historical sources to say that a prior opportunity to cross-examine was merely a sufficient, rather than a necessary, condition for admissibility of testimonial statements. They suggest that this requirement was dis-positive, and not merely one of several ways to establish reliability. This is not to deny, as The Chief Justice notes, that “[t]here were always exceptions to the general rule of exclusion” of hearsay evidence. Post, at 73. Several had become well established by 1791. See 3 Wigmore § 1397, at 101; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13, n. 5. But there is scant evidence that exceptions were invoked to admit testimonial statements against the accused in a criminal case. Most of the hearsay exceptions covered statements that by their nature were not testimonial — for example, business records or statements in furtherance of a conspiracy. We do not infer from these that the Framers thought exceptions would apply even to prior testimony. Cf. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U. S. 116, 134 (1999) (plurality opinion) (“[Accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule”).
IV
Our case law has been largely consistent with these two principles. Our leading early decision, for example, involved a deceased witness’s prior trial testimony. Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237 (1895). In allowing the statement to be admitted, we relied on the fact that the defendant had had, at the first trial, an adequate opportunity to confront the witness: “The substance of the constitutional protection is preserved to the prisoner in the advantage he has once had of seeing the witness face to face, and of subjecting him to the ordeal of a cross-examination. This, the law says, he shall under no circumstances be deprived of....” Id., at 244.
Our later cases conform to Matto
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict as to whether a donor who makes a gift of property on condition that the donee pay the resulting gift tax receives taxable income to the extent that the gift tax paid by the donee exceeds the donor’s adjusted basis in the property transferred. 454 U. S. 813 (1981). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the donor realized income. 643 F. 2d 499 (1981). We affirm.
I
A
Diedrich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
In 1972 petitioners Victor and Frances Diedrich made gifts of approximately 85,000 shares of stock to their three children, using both a direct transfer and a trust arrangement. The gifts were subject to a condition that the donees pay the resulting federal and state gift taxes. There is no dispute concerning the amount of the gift tax paid by the donees. The donors’ basis in the transferred stock was $51,073; the gift tax paid in 1972 by the donees was $62,992. Petitioners did not include as income on their 1972 federal income tax returns any portion of the gift tax paid by the donees. After an audit the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that petitioners had realized income to the extent that the gift tax owed by petitioners but paid by the donees exceeded the donors’ basis in the property. Accordingly, petitioners’ taxable income for 1972 was increased by $5,959. Petitioners filed a petition in the United States Tax Court for re-determination of the deficiencies. The Tax Court held for the taxpayers, concluding that no income had been realized. 39 TCM 433 (1979).
B
United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
In 1970 and 1971 Mrs. Frances Grant gave 90,000 voting trust certificates to her son on condition that he pay the resulting gift tax. Mrs. Grant’s basis in the stock was $8,742.60; the gift tax paid by the donee was $232,620.09 As in Diedrich, there is no dispute concerning the amount of the gift tax or the fact of its payment by the donee pursuant to the condition.
Like the Diedrichs, Mrs. Grant did not include as income on her 1970 or 1971 federal income tax returns any portion of the amount of the gift tax owed by her but paid by the donee. After auditing her returns, the Commissioner determined that the gift of stock to her son was part gift and part sale, with the result that Mrs. Grant realized income to the extent that the amount of the gift tax exceeded the adjusted basis in the property. Accordingly, Mrs. Grant’s taxable income was increased by approximately $112,000. Mrs. Grant filed a petition in the United States Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiencies. The Tax Court held for the taxpayer, concluding that no income had been realized. Grant v. Commissioner, 39 TCM 1088 (1980).
C
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit consolidated the two appeals and reversed, concluding that “to the extent the gift taxes paid by donees” exceeded the donors’ adjusted bases in the property transferred, “the donors realized taxable income.” 643 F. 2d, at 504. The Court of Appeals rejected the Tax Court’s conclusion that the taxpayers merely had made a “net gift” of the difference between the fair market value of the transferred property and the gift taxes paid by the donees. The court reasoned that a donor receives a benefit when a donee discharges a donor’s legal obligation to pay gift taxes. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commissioner in rejecting the holding in Turner v. Commissioner, 49 T. C. 356 (1968), aff’d per curiam, 410 F. 2d 752 (CA6 1969), and its progeny, and adopted the approach of Johnson v. Commissioner, 59 T. C. 791 (1973), aff’d, 495 F. 2d 1079 (CA6), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1040 (1974), and Estate of Levine v. Commissioner, 72 T. C. 780 (1979), aff’d, 634 F. 2d 12 (CA2 1980). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, and we affirm.
II
A
Pursuant to its constitutional authority, Congress has defined "gross income” as income “from whatever source derived,” including “[ijncome from discharge of indebtedness.” 26 U. S. C. § 61 (12). This Court has recognized that “income” may be realized by a variety of indirect means. In Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U. S. 716 (1929), the Court held that payment of an employee’s income taxes by an employer constituted income to the employee. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Taft concluded that “[t]he payment of the tax by the employe[r] was in consideration of the services rendered by the employee and was a gain derived by the employee from his labor.” Id., at 729. The Court made clear that the substance, not the form, of the agreed transaction controls. “The discharge by a third person of an obligation to him is equivalent to receipt by the person taxed.” Ibid. The employee, in other words, was placed in a better position as a result of the employer’s discharge of the employee’s legal obligation to pay the income taxes; the employee thus received a gain subject to income tax.
The holding in Old Colony was reaffirmed in Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U. S. 1 (1947). In Crane the Court concluded that relief from the obligation of a nonrecourse mortgage in which the value of the property exceeded the value of the mortgage constituted income to the taxpayer. The taxpayer in Crane acquired depreciable property, an apartment building, subject to an unassumed mortgage. The taxpayer later sold the apartment building, which was still subject to the nonrecourse mortgage, for cash plus the buyer’s assumption of the mortgage. This Court held that the amount of the mortgage was properly included in the amount realized on the sale, noting that if the taxpayer transfers subject to the mortgage,
“the benefit to him is as real and substantial as if the mortgage were discharged, or as if a personal debt in an equal amount had been assumed by another.” Id., at 14.
Again, it was the “reality,” not the form, of the transaction that governed. Ibid. The Court found it immaterial whether the seller received money prior to the sale in order to discharge the mortgage, or whether the seller merely transferred the property subject to the mortgage. In either case the taxpayer realized an economic benefit.
B
The principles of Old Colony and Crane control. A common method of structuring gift transactions is for the donor to make the gift subject to the condition that the donee pay the resulting gift tax, as was done in each of the cases now before us. When a gift is made, the gift tax liability falls on the donor under 26 U. S. C. § 2502(d). When a donor makes a gift to a donee, a “debt” to the United States for the amount of the gift tax is incurred by the donor. Those taxes are as much the legal obligation of the donor as the donor’s income taxes; for these purposes they are the same kind of debt obligation as the income taxes of the employee in Old Colony, supra. Similarly, when a donee agrees to discharge an indebtedness in consideration of the gift, the person relieved of the tax liability realizes an economic benefit. In short, the donor realizes an immediate economic benefit by the donee’s assumption of the donor’s legal obligation to pay the gift tax.
An examination of the donor’s intent does not change the character of this benefit. Although intent is relevant in determining whether a gift has been made, subjective intent has not characteristically been a factor in determining whether an individual has realized income. Even if intent were a factor, the donor’s intent with respect to the condition shifting the gift tax obligation from the donor to the donee was plainly to relieve the donor of a debt owed to the United States; the choice was made because the donor would receive a benefit in relief from the obligation to pay the gift tax.
Finally, the benefit realized by the taxpayer is not diminished by the fact that the liability attaches during the course of a donative transfer. It cannot be doubted that the donors were aware that the gift tax obligation would arise immediately upon the transfer of the property; the economic benefit to the donors in the discharge of the gift tax liability is indistinguishable from the benefit arising from discharge of a preexisting obligation. Nor is there any doubt that had the donors sold a portion of the stock immediately before the gift transfer in order to raise funds to pay the expected gift tax, a taxable gain would have been realized. 26 U. S. C. § 1001. The fact that the gift tax obligation was discharged by way of a conditional gift rather than from funds derived from a pregift sale does not alter the underlying benefit to the donors.
C
Consistent with the economic reality, the Commissioner has treated these conditional gifts as a discharge of indebtedness through a part gift and part sale of the gift property transferred. The transfer is treated as if the donor sells the property to the donee for less than the fair market value. The “sale” price is the amount necessary to discharge the gift tax indebtedness; the balance of the value of the transferred property is treated as a gift. The gain thus derived by the donor is the amount of the gift tax liability less the donor’s adjusted basis in the entire property. Accordingly, income is realized to the extent that the gift tax exceeds the donor’s adjusted basis in the property. This treatment is consistent with § 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides that the gain from the disposition of property is the excess of the amount realized over the transferor’s adjusted basis in the property.
Ill
We recognize that Congress has structured gift transactions to encourage transfer of property by limiting the tax consequences of a transfer. See, e. g., 26 U. S. C. §102 (gifts excluded from donee’s gross income). Congress may obviously provide a similar exclusion for the conditional gift. Should Congress wish to encourage “net gifts,” changes in the income tax consequences of such gifts lie within the legislative responsibility. Until such time, we are bound by Congress’ mandate that gross income includes income “from whatever source derived.” We therefore hold that a donor who makes a gift of property on condition that the donee pay the resulting gift taxes realizes taxable income to the extent that the gift taxes paid by the donee exceed the donor’s adjusted basis in the property.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is
Affirmed.
Subtracting the stock basis of $51,073 from the gift tax paid by the do-nees of $62,992, the Commissioner found that petitioners had realized a long-term capital gain of $11,919. After a 50% reduction in long-term capital gain, 26 U. S. C. § 1202, the Diedrichs’ taxable income increased by $5,959.
The gift taxes were $232,630.09. Subtracting the adjusted basis of $8,742.60, the Commissioner found that Mrs. Grant realized a long-term capital gain of $223,887.49. After a 50% reduction for long-term capital gain, 26 U. S. C. § 1202, Mrs. Grant’s taxable income increased by $111,943.75.
During pendency of this lawsuit, Mrs. Grant died and the United Missouri Bank of Kansas City, the decedent’s executor, was substituted as petitioner.
The United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income “from whatever source derived.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 1; Arndt. 16.
In Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U. S. 461, 469 (1940), the Court noted:
“While it is true that economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset. Gain may occur as a result of exchange of property, payment of the taxpayer’s indebtedness, relief from a liability, or other profit realized from the completion of a transaction.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In Crane the taxpayer received favorable tax treatment for the loan and was allowed depreciation on the property. The Court concluded that the taxpayer could not then later escape taxation after having received these benefits when the loan obligation was assumed by another.
Whether income would have been realized in Crane if the value of the property at the time of transfer had been less than the amount of the mortgage need not be considered here. See Crane, 331 U. S., at 14, n. 37.
Although the Commissioner has argued consistently that payment of gift taxes by the donee results in income to the donor, several courts have rejected this interpretation. See, e. g., Turner v. Commissioner, 49 T. C. 356 (1968), aff'd per curiam, 410 F. 2d 752 (CA6 1969); Hirst v. Commissioner, 572 F. 2d 427 (CA4 1978) (en banc). Cf. Johnson v. Commissioner, 495 F. 2d 1079 (CA6), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1040 (1974).
It should be noted that the gift tax consequences of a conditional gift will be unaffected by the holding in this case. When a conditional “net” gift is given, the gift tax attributable to the transfer is to be deducted from the value of the property in determining the value of the gift at the time of transfer. See Rev. Rul. 75-72,1975-1 Cum. Bull. 310 (general formula for computation of gift tax on conditional gift); Rev. Rul. 71-232,1971-1 Cum. Bull. 275.
“The tax imposed by section 2501 shall be paid by the donor.” Section 6321 imposes a lien on the personal property of the donor when a tax is not paid when due. The donee is secondarily responsible for payment of the gift tax should the donor fail to pay the tax. 26 U. S. C. § 6324(b). The donee’s liability, however, is limited to the value of the gift. Ibid. This responsibility of the donee is analogous to a lien or security. Ibid. See also S. Rep. No. 665,. 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 42 (1932); H. R. Rep. No. 708, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 30 (1932).
Several courts have found it highly significant that the donor intended to make a gift. Turner v. Commissioner, supra; Hirst v. Commissioner, supra. It is not enough, however, to state that the donor intended simply to make a gift of the amount which will remain after the donee pays the gift tax. As noted above, subjective intent has not characteristically been a factor in determining whether an individual has realized income. In Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U. S. 278, 286 (1960), the Court noted that “the donor’s characterization of his action is not determinative.” See also Minnesota Tea Co. v. Helvering, 302 U. S. 609, 613 (1938) (“A given result at the end of a straight path is not made a different result because reached by following a devious path”).
The existence of the “condition” that the gift will be made only if the donee assumes the gift tax consequences precludes any characterization that the payment of the taxes was simply a gift from the donee back to the donor.
A conditional gift not only relieves the donor of the gift tax liability, but also may enable the donor to transfer a larger sum of money to the donee than would otherwise be possible due to such factors as differing income tax brackets of the donor and donee.
Section 1001 provides:
“(a) Computation of gain or loss. — The gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for determining gain, and the loss shall be the excess of the adjusted basis provided in such section for determining loss over the amount realized.
“(b) Amount realized. — The amount realized from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the sum of any money received plus the fair market value of the property (other than money) received. . . .”
“By treating conditional gifts as a part gift and part sale, income is realized only when highly appreciated property is transferred, for only highly appreciated property will result in a gift tax greater than the adjusted basis.”
Petitioners argue that even if this Court holds that a donor realizes income on a conditional gift to the extent that the gift tax exceeds the adjusted basis, that holding should be applied prospectively and should not apply to the taxpayers in this case. In this case, however, there was no dispositive Eighth Circuit holding prior to the decision on review. In addition, this Court frequently has applied decisions which have altered the tax law and applied the clarified law to the facts of the case before it. See, e. g., United States v. Estate of Donnelly, 397 U. S. 286, 294-295 (1970).
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the program administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and cooperating state agencies pursuant to the Food Stamp Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 703, 7 U. S. C. § 2011 et seg. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), certain low-income households are entitled to purchase food coupons at a discount. The price an eligible household must pay for food stamps is determined, in part, by its “income” as defined in the applicable federal and state regulations. Under those regulations a transportation allowance, which appellee receives from the State of Iowa .and uses to defray the cost of commuting to a nurses’ training program, is treated as “income.” The questions presented on this appeal are whether those regulations are authorized by the statute and, if so, whether they are constitutional.
Appellee Hein, a divorced woman with custody of two children, is the head of a household receiving assistance. Prior to September 1972, she paid only $46 for food stamps with a retail value of $92. Thereafter she received a grant from the State which paid her tuition at a nurses’ training school, plus a transportation allowance of $44 per month. The actual monthly expense of commuting between her residence in Muscatine, Iowa, and the school in Davenport amounted to at least $44. The allowance nevertheless increased the “income” which determined the price of her food stamps, resulting in a $12 price increase.
After exhausting state administrative remedies, appellee filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Iowa regulations requiring that transportation allowances be included in income. Because the constitutionality of the regulations was challenged, a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281. The District Court originally held the Iowa regulation invalid as inconsistent with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. 371 F. Supp. 1091 (1974). While the State’s appeal was pending in this Court, the Secretary promulgated a clarifying amendment eliminating the basis for the District Court’s holding. We therefore vacated the original judgment, 419 U. S. 989.
On remand, the Secretary of Agriculture was joined as an additional defendant. The District Court then held both the state and the federal regulations invalid. 402 F. Supp. 398 (1975). The court could identify no rational basis for treating as income a training allowance which is fully expended for its intended purpose. Consequently, the court reasoned, the regulation did not implement the statutory objective of providing adequate nutrition for low-income families. Since the allowance did not increase appellee’s “food purchasing power,” the District Court felt that it was totally irrational for the allowance to increase the cost of appellee’s food stamps. This analysis led to the conclusion that the regulation conflicted with the Food Stamp Act and discriminated against recipients of transportation allowances in violation of the equal protection guarantee explicit in the Fourteenth Amendment and implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
We are persuaded that the statute authorized the Secretary and the State of Iowa to issue the challenged regulations and that the regulations are constitutional.
The salutary purpose and the broad outlines of the federal food stamp program are well known. The Food Stamp Act authorizes the Secretary to “formulate and administer a food stamp program” which will provide an eligible household “an opportunity to obtain a nutritionally adequate diet,” 7 U. S. C. § 2013 (a). He is to “prescribe the amounts of household income and other financial resources, including both liquid and nonliquid assets, to be used as criteria of eligibility,” 7 U. S. C. § 2014 (b)'(1970 ed., Supp. V). The charge for the coupons is to “represent a reasonable investment on the part of the household, but in no event more than 30 per centum of the household’s income . . . .” § 2016 (b). Finally, the Secretary “shall issue such regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, as he deems necessary or appropriate for the effective and efficient administration of the food stamp program.” § 2013(c).
Under the statute’s broad delegation of authority, the Secretary might have defined income in a variety of ways. He might, for example, have treated wages differently from training allowances. He decided, however, to adopt a definition of income which includes wages, welfare payments, training allowances, and most other monetary receipts. Only a few specific deductions are allowed. These deductions do not include any itemized deduction for commuting expenses of either students or workers. Instead, there is a standardized deduction of 10% of the wages or training allowance (including tuition grants and travel allowances), which is intended to cover incidental expenses.
The District Court was correct that the regulations operate somewhat unfairly in appellee’s case. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that they are the product of a valid exercise of the Secretary’s statutory authority. Perhaps it might have been more equitable to allow a deduction for all commuting expenses, or for the expenses of commuting to a training program, or — as the order of the District Court provides — just for such expenses covered by state transportation allowances. But the availability of alternatives does not render the Secretary’s choice invalid. Moreover, a plainly acceptable reason exists for rejecting each of these possible alternatives.
Allowing a deduction for all transportation expenses would create significant administrative costs as well as risks of disparate treatment. Disparate treatment of trainees and wage earners could be criticized as unfairly discriminating against the worker. Similar criticism can be leveled against the order entered by the District Court in this case, under which members of the class would fare better than workers with equally low receipts and equally high expenses.
The District Court’s primary reason for invalidating the regulations was its view that transportation grants do not increase food purchasing power. But the grant does give a household more food purchasing power than another household which receives no grant but incurs similar nondeductible expenses related to training or employment. Moreover, nothing in the statute requires that deductions include all necessary nonfood expenditures. On the contrary, the requirement in § 2016 (b) that the price of the food stamps shall not exceed 30% of the household’s income, assumes that 70% of that income may be expended on nonfood necessities. Thus, there is a built-in allowance for necessary expenses beyond the specific deductions.
We conclude that the federal regulations defining income were reasonably adopted by the Secretary in the performance of his statutory duty to “formulate and administer a food stamp program’’ and are therefore within the Secretary’s statutory authority. Since there is no question about the constitutionality of the statute itself, the implementation of the statutory purpose provides a sufficient justification for both the federal regulations and the parallel state regulations to avoid any violation of equal protection guarantees. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 768-770; Mathews v. De Castro, ante, at 185. Nor do the regulations embody any conclusive presumption. They merely represent two reasonable judgments: first, that recipients of state travel allowances should be treated like other trainees and like wage earners; and second, that the standard 10% deduction, coupled with the 30% ceiling on coupon purchase prices, provides an acceptable mechanism for dealing with ordinary expenses such as commuting. The Constitution requires no more. See Salfi, supra, at 771-777.
Reversed.
It was stipulated that prior to November 28, 1973, Ms. Hein had no savings and only the following elements of income:
“a. $28.75 a month rent from a house in which she owns a part interest;
“b. $220 ADC;
“c. $44 Work and Training Allowance; and
“d. $36 food stamp bonus.” App. 24r-25.
This assistance was granted under the Iowa Work and Training Program, authorized by Iowa Code Ann. §§249C.l, et seq. (Supp. 1976). The program is partially funded by the State and partially by the Federal Government. Such funding is now provided under Title XX of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1397a et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V).
The record is actually somewhat unclear on this point. However, the District Court construed a stipulation regarding appellee’s “allowance for necessary commuting” as indicating that she actually was required to spend that amount. For purposes of decision, we accept the District Court’s construction. It should be noted, however, that if appellee was a full-time student, she would receive the full $44 even if her actual expenses were less. If she was a part-time student, she would be reimbursed on the basis of mileage, up to a maximum of $44 per month. The record does not disclose whether she was a full-time or part-time student.
Under the regulations the tuition payment and the transportation allowance were both added to income. Then, an amount equal to the full tuition cost, plus 10% of the tuition payment and 10% of the transportation allowance, was deducted from income. The record does not disclose the tuition cost, or whether the proper deduction of 10% of that amount was made.
The District Court defined the class represented by appellee to include all persons receiving transportation allowances pursuant to individual education and training plans whose allowances were included in, and not deducted from, income for purposes of determining the price they had to pay for food stamps. 371 F. Supp. 1091, 1093 n. 1 (1974).
Under 7 U. S. C. § 2014, state “plans of operation” submitted to the Secretary are not to be approved “unless the standards of eligibility meet those established by the Secretary.” The Secretary’s regulations set out the standards of eligibility which must be applied by the state agency. 7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1976). The validity of the state regulations is at issue because they formed the direct basis for the change in appellee’s food stamp price; the federal regulations are challenged because they now authorize the state regulations. See n. 7, infra.
The clarifying amendment specifically precluded “deductions ... for any other educational expenses such as . . . transportation.” 7 CFR §271.3 (c) (1) (iii) (f) (1976).
The District Court ordered the defendants to cease including in income “any amount received ... as reimbursement for necessary commuting expenses, pursuant to an Individual Education and Training Plan, unless such amount is deducted from such person’s monthly net income in determining such person’s adjusted net income.” 402 F. Supp. 398, 408 (1975). The court also ordered defendants to recompute the amounts which members of the class should have paid for food stamps and to allow them a credit against future purchases in the amount of the past overcharge.
“The federal food stamp program was established in 1964 in an effort to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among the more needy segments of our society. 7 U. S. C. § 2011. Eligibility for participation in the program is determined on a household rather than an individual basis. 7 CFR § 271.3 (a). An eligible household purchases sufficient food stamps to provide that household with a nutritionally adequate diet. The household pays for the stamps at a reduced rate based upon its size and cumulative income. The food stamps are then used to purchase food at retail stores, and the Government redeems the stamps at face value, thereby paying the difference between the actual cost of the food and the amount paid by the household for the stamps. See 7 U. S. C. §§ 2013 (a), 2016, 2025 (a).” United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 529-530.
The regulation provides, in part, that income includes:
“(a) All compensation for services performed as an employee
“(f) Payments received from federally aided public assistance programs, general assistance programs, or other assistance programs based on need;
“(g) Payments received from Government-sponsored programs such as . . . the Work Incentive Program, or Manpower Training Program
“(i) Cash gifts or awards ... for support, maintenance, or the expenses of education . . .
“(1) Rents, dividends, interest, royalties, and all other payments from any source whatever which may be construed to be a gain or benefit 7 CFR §271.3 (c)(1) (i) (1976).
The deductions which are relevant for present purposes are these:
“(a) Ten per centum of income from compensation for services performed as an employee or training allowance not to exceed $30 per household per month. This deduction shall be made before the following deductions . . .
“(d) The payments necessary for the care of a child or other persons when necessary for a household member to accept or continue employment, or training or education which is preparatory for employment . . . .”
“(f) Tuition and mandatory fees assessed by educational institutions (no deductions shall be made for any other education expenses such as, but not limited to, the expense of books, school supplies, meals at school, and transportation).” 7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1) (iii) (1976).
These regulations have undergone change during the course of this litigation. The express exclusion of transportation expenses as a possible educational deduction was added in response to the District Court’s holding at a prior stage of the litigation that such a deduction was required by the regulations. See supra, at 290-291. More recently, the system of itemized deductions set forth in the text was replaced by a standardized deduction for all households. 41 Fed. Reg. 18788 (1976). We are told that enforcement of the new regulations has been enjoined. Brief for Appellant in No. 75-1261, p. 5 n. 3. This case would not become moot if the new regulations go into effect, because of the compensatory relief ordered by the District Court. See n. 8, supra.
7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1) (iii) (a) (1976). A separate deduction is allowed for job- or training-related child-care expenses. 7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1) (iii) (d) (1976).
Deductions for such incidental expenses are allowed in calculating income from self-employment. See 7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1) (i) (6) (1976). Appellee does not contend that the Secretary is required to take this approach with respect to wage earners. The statute before us, unlike that considered in Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S. 251, contains no indication that Congress meant to require individualized consideration of employment-related expenses. Given that the treatment of wage earners is valid, it follows that similar treatment of trainees is valid.
The Court’s recent comment on a regulatory choice made by the Federal Reserve Board in its administration of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq., is relevant. In Mourning v. Family Publications Serv., Inc., 411 U. S. 356, 371-372, the Court stated:
“That some other remedial provision might be preferable is irrelevant. We have consistently held that where reasonable minds may differ as to which of several remedial measures should be chosen, courts should defer to the informed experience and judgment of the agency to whom Congress delegated appropriate authority. Northwestern Co. v. FPC, 321 U. S. 119, 124 (1944); National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190, 224 (1943); American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, 299 U. S. 232, 236 (1936).”
The record includes a letter dated March 11, 1974, from the Deputy-General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture explaining the reasoning underlying a portion of the regulations. He stated:
“When these regulations were originally under consideration, it was administratively determined that tuition and mandatory fees are readily determinable, are uniform for all students, and are the primary costs of education (particularly college education) over and above a student’s ordinary costs of living. It was also determined that the administrative burden of determining and verifying the expenses for the infinite variety of other outlays which may be incurred for education would be undue. Further, these other expenses, because of personal preference or otherwise, vary greatly from person to person and thus from household to household.”
The fact that the Internal Revenue Code does not allow a deduction from income for commuting expenses lends support to the view that there is some reasonable basis for the Secretary’s judgment in formulating these regulations. See Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U. S. 465.
For some full-time students’ who are members of the class this reasoning rests on a faulty premise; for them, the grant may exceed actual transportation expenses.
We are informed that the “average purchase requirement for a food stamp household is now 24 percent of net income,” Jurisdictional Statement in No. 75-1261, pp. 10-11, n. 3. See also 7 CFR § 271.10, App. A (1976).
The District Court also believed that an exclusion from income was required by what it perceived to be the Act’s policy favoring education. This policy was thought to be embodied in 7 U. S. C. § 2014 (c), which exempts bona fide students from the requirement that able-bodied adults register for work as a prerequisite to receiving food stamps. 402 F. Supp., at 405. This section expresses, if anything, only a policy that students and trainees not be treated less favorably than workers. Allowing trainees an exclusion for travel allowances would give them more favorable treatment than wage earners, who do not get a deduction for commuting expenses.
It is also contended that the regulations at issue work at cross-purposes with Title XX of the Social Security Act, which provides funding for the state program under which the travel allowance was paid. This contention is true only in the sense that the net benefit of the travel allowance is reduced by the increase in food stamp prices. But this is equally true of other government benefits, such as AFDC, which appellee concedes are properly included in income. Brief for Appellee 23-24. We find no indication that Congress intended different treatment for training allowances. Cf. 42 U. S. C. § 4636; Hamilton v. Butz, 520 F. 2d 709 (CA9 1975).
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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case the United States District Court directed a verdict for respondent because petitioner failed to present evidence of either a breach of contract or resulting damages sufficient to sustain a verdict for petitioner. The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the judgment on the ground that the alleged contract was unenforceable. For the reasons hereafter stated, we agree with the District Court that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the alleged breach of contract. Accordingly, we do not reach or pass upon the other grounds discussed by the Court of Appeals.
In 1948, the crops of Irish potatoes in the United States and Canada were among the largest on record. As a result, the United States, in § 1 (b) of the Agricultural Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 1247,1248, obligated itself to support the sale of such potatoes at 90% of their parity price. This program was carried out through agreements of the Commodity Credit Corporation to purchase, from eligible growers or dealers in the United States, all Irish potatoes harvested before January 1, 1949, provided such potatoes could not be sold commercially at 90% of parity. As the unsupported Canadian prices were lower than the supported prices in the United States, it became profitable to import Canadian potatoes despite the tariff and freight charges. Recognizing that fact, Congress authorized investigations by the Tariff Commission, under the President’s direction, which might lead to imposing quantitative limitations on imports or to increasing import fees. 62 Stat. 1248-1250, 7 U. S. C. § 624.
However, without resorting to that procedure, the United States acted through diplomatic channels. Its Acting Secretary of State and the Canadian Ambassador exchanged notes on November 23, 1948, purporting to consummate an executive agreement effective at once. For their text see Appendix, infra, at 305-309. Of special significance to this litigation are the undertakings made by Canada, in its note, to place its Irish potatoes under export control, to withhold export permits for the movement of table stock potatoes to the United States, and to issue export permits for the shipment of Canadian certified seed potatoes to the United States only under specified circumstances. Those circumstances were that the shipments be limited to specified States where there was a legitimate demand for certified seed potatoes and to a short period before the normal seeding time. Permits were to be granted only to exporters having firm orders from legitimate United States users of Canadian seed potatoes, and those exporters were “to have included in any contract into which they might enter with a United States seed potato importer a clause in which the importer would give an assurance that the potatoes would not be diverted or reconsigned for table stock purposes.” Appendix, infra, at 306. The agreement terminated June 20, 1949.
In December 1948, Guy W. Capps, Inc., a Virginia corporation, respondent herein, bought 48,544 one-hundred-pound bags of Canadian certified Irish seed potatoes from H. B. Willis, Inc., of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, a Canadian exporter. Before the exporter's shipment of them on the S. S. Empire Gangway to respondent at Jacksonville, Florida, respondent wired the exporter as follows: “Certified seed potatoes loaded on S. S. Gangway are for planting in Florida and Georgia.” The shipment arrived at Jacksonville January 9, 1949. On January 11, the potatoes were all invoiced by respondent to the Atlantic Commission Company at Jacksonville as “48,544 Sax Canada No. 1 Seed Potatoes @ $3.35 f. o. b.”
In January 1951, the United States filed the instant action against respondent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming that the above circumstances constituted a contract between the exporter and respondent for the benefit of the United States. The complaint alleged further, upon information and belief, that, in January 1949, respondent, in violation of such contract, “sold the 48,544 sacks of seed potatoes for table stock purposes” to the damage of the United States in the amount of approximately $150,486, “in that for each quantity of potatoes so imported from Canada and sold for table stock in the United States, a substantially equivalent quantity of potatoes produced in the United States was offered for sale to the Department of Agriculture, and had to be and was purchased by the Department under the Agricultural Act of 1948.”
Respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted was denied. 100 F. Supp. 30. However, at the close of petitioner’s case and after argument of counsel, the court directed a verdict for respondent. Judgment was entered accordingly. The court’s findings of fact and con-elusions of law were contained in its oral opinion. That opinion, which has not been published, included the following highly significant statements:
“The action here is for breach of contract made between a Canadian exporter and Capps, the American importer, and specifically of a stipulation placed in that contract which the Court has held was for the benefit of the United States.
“The expression constituting that stipulation is that certified seed potatoes loaded on the S. S. Gangway are for planting in Florida and Georgia. Now, assuming that the Court is correct in holding that that stipulation is an agreement within the meaning of the Executive Treaty or an assurance, as it is called in the Executive Treaty, to the effect that the potatoes would not be diverted or reconsigned for table stock purposes — I say assuming that the Court is correct in holding that this provision is an assurance, there is no proof here sufficient to go to the jury that there has been such a diversion or reconsignment, or that there has been a lack of diligence or care on the part of this defendant to see to it that its assurance was carried out.
“In the first place, the only diversion or recon-signment was from the defendant to the Atlantic Commission Company. Now that was not a diversion or reconsignment for table stock purposes. Nor does it evidence any want of care on the part of the defendant to see that the assurance was kept, because the evidence shows that this defendant had from year to year sold to Atlantic, potatoes exclusively for seed purposes. The evidence does not justify or would not justify the jury in drawing a conclusion that it was a reckless abandonment by the defendant of its obligation to see to the use of these potatoes because the defendant had the right to rely upon its previous experiences.
“But going further, and assuming that it was incumbent upon the defendant to follow up and see that this reconsignment did not lead to the use of the potatoes for table purposes, we find that the A & P, to whom Atlantic sold, did sell seed potatoes. It is true that it was not its entire trade in potatoes, but it did sell a large amount, described as its secondary function, for seed purposes, and the other sales by Atlantic to wholesalers or to the trade, as it is spoken of, were to firms which used potatoes for seed purposes or disposed of them for seed purposes, so that the sales by the defendant here were equally consistent with the compliance as with the violation of the assurance.”
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court on the above points. However, it affirmed the judgment on the ground that the international agreement, which the contract between respondent and the exporter sought to carry out, was void. The court regarded it as not authorized by Congress and as contravening the provision for procedure through the Tariff Commission. The court also held that the suit must fail because no cause of action had been created by Congress for this type of injury. 204 F. 2d 655, 658-661. We granted certiorari to determine whether the significant constitutional and statutory questions discussed by the Court of Appeals were necessary for the decision of the case and, if so, to give them consideration. 346 U. S. 884.
We have first examined the record in order to pass upon the preliminary questions on which the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court. See Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U. S. 545, 547, 550, and see also, Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Co., 282 U. S. 555, 560, 567-568.
Respondent's alleged obligation is stated in its first telegram, which must be read in the light of the above-mentioned correspondence between the United States and Canada. That correspondence recognized that importations of Canadian seed potatoes, as well as of Canadian table stock potatoes, might displace eligible American potatoes in American commercial markets and thus might add to the burden of the American price-support program. The correspondence, nevertheless, did not seek to exclude Canadian seed potatoes. On the contrary, it provided for the continuance of shipments of seed potatoes to specified States in the United States, during a short period immediately prior to the normal seeding time. In addition, Canada agreed to require its exporters to secure assurance from each importer of Canadian seed potatoes that such potatoes would not be diverted or reconsigned for table stock purposes. In effect, this agreement stopped the regular Canadian-American trade in Canadian table stock potatoes, while preserving such trade in Canadian seed potatoes. There was no suggestion that each importer, during the short open season for Canadian seed potatoes, had to take any new or extraordinary affirmative steps to see to it that the ultimate purchasers never ate their seed potatoes, or that each American retailer of Canadian seed potatoes, in its usual course of business, segregated such potatoes from table stock potatoes in any manner not customary in the sale of seed potatoes.
The undisputed evidence showed that the entire shipment to Jacksonville was made in containers with markings and tags identifying the potatoes as “Canadian No. 1 seed potatoes.” There was no showing that this identification was separated from the potatoes at any point short of the ultimate offering of some of the potatoes at retail. There was, in short, no evidence that any of the potatoes were at any time reconsigned or otherwise treated except as had been customary in prior commercial dealings in seed potatoes.
At Jacksonville the entire shipment was invoiced by respondent to the Atlantic Commission Company as “Canada No. 1 Seed Potatoes.” Most of the 10,000 sacks (which, at the time of their delivery to that company in Jacksonville, were resold by it to respondent) were invoiced by respondent to other customers in a like manner. The Atlantic Commission Company, in turn, invoiced to its purchasers, in the same manner, the sacks which it received from respondent. Of them, 13,627 sacks were invoiced by the Commission Company to its parent company, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, at three points in Florida and one in Georgia, but 1,641 sacks were invoiced to points in Alabama. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company primarily sold foodstuffs but also dealt in vegetables for planting purposes, such as seed potatoes, onion sets and cabbage sets. It sold seed potatoes not only to home gardeners but to planters of small commercial acreages. The Commission Company invoiced the remaining 24,926 sacks to over 30 separate dealers in Florida and Georgia, but invoiced 2,309 to points in Alabama. All of the consignees were dealers in vegetables and groceries, and the primary volume of their trade was in articles for food. But there was testimony that some of these dealers customarily handled seed potatoes for planting purposes and there was no evidence that any of them did not. Respondent previously had sold seed potatoes to the Atlantic Commission Company and that company had used channels of distribution comparable to those used in this instance. There was no evidence of the reconsignment of any of these seed potatoes for table stock, or of the diversion of any of them from the commercial channels theretofore usually used for sales of seed potatoes in this area during the planting season. Exception has not been taken to the States designated or to the times when the sales were to be made.
The evidence also did not support the suggestion that some of these potatoes were unsuitable for planting in the areas designated. It was not enough that one witness said that only 20% of the original shipment consisted of potatoes belonging to the three most popular varieties grown in Florida in that year.
There was no evidence of bad faith, neglect or carelessness on the part of respondent in performing its contractual obligations. There was no evidence of any intent of respondent that the potatoes be sold for table use. It freely acknowledged the existence of the international agreement and declared its purpose to cooperate with it.
It was conceded that these potatoes were specially suited for use as seed but also that they were of high-grade edible quality. There was, however, no evidence that any substantial part of these potatoes ultimately was eaten. The most that appeared was that ten pounds of the seed potatoes were sold by a grocery in St. Augustine, Florida, to two women who appeared to be housewives buying for home use. There was also evidence that a few potatoes, probably from the shipment, were sold to customers of the same type by a Jacksonville store and by an A & P market in Atlanta, Georgia.
In sum, all that respondent did was to sell seed potatoes, labeled as seed potatoes, in seeding time to concerns which normally dealt in seed potatoes. Under these circumstances, the District Court was not clearly in error in making the findings it did or in directing the verdict for respondent on the ground that no breach of contract was shown. Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U. S. 545.
In view of the foregoing, there is no occasion for us to consider the other questions discussed by the Court of Appeals. The decision in this case does not rest upon them.
Affirmed.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Exchange of notes between the Canadian Ambassador to the United States and the Acting Secretary of State of the United States, November 23, 1948:
“The Canadian Ambassador to the Secretary oj State
“CANADIAN EMBASSY “AMBASSADE DU CANADA
“Washington, D. C.,
“No. 538 “November 83rd, 1948.
“Sir,
“I have the honour to refer to the discussions which have taken place between the representatives of the Government of Canada and of the Government of the United States of America regarding the problems which would confront the Government of the United States in the operation of its price support and other programmes for potatoes if the imports of Canadian potatoes, during this current crop year, were to continue to be unrestricted. After careful consideration of the various representations which have been made to the Canadian Government on this subject, the Canadian Government is prepared to:
“1. Include Irish potatoes in the list of commodities for which an export permit is required under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act.
“2. Withhold export permits for the movement of table stock potatoes to the United States proper, excluding Alaska.
“3. Issue export permits for the shipment of Canadian certified seed potatoes to the United States; but only-under the following circumstances:
“(a) Export permits will be issued to Canadian exporters for shipments to specified States in the United States and such permits will only be granted within the structure of a specific schedule. The schedule is designed to direct the shipment of Canadian certified seed potatoes into those States where there is a legitimate demand for certified seed potatoes and only during a short period immediately prior to the normal seeding time. A draft of this schedule is now being jointly prepared by Canadian and United States officials.
“(b) Export permits would only be granted to Canadian exporters who could give evidence that they had firm orders from legitimate United States users of Canadian seed potatoes. Canadian exporters would also be required to have included in any contract into which they might enter with a United States seed potato importer a clause in which the importer would give an assurance that the potatoes would not be diverted or reconsigned for table stock purposes.
“(c) The Canadian Government would survey the supply of Canadian certified seed potatoes by class and consider the possibility of giving precedence to the export of Foundation and Foundation A classes of certified seed.
“(d) The names and addresses of the consignees entered on the export permit would be compiled periodically and this information would be forwarded to the United States Government.
“In instituting a system which has the effect of restricting exports of Canadian potatoes to the United States, the Canadian Government recognizes a responsibility to the Canadian commercial grower in certain surplus potato areas and is prepared to guarantee a minimum return on gradable potatoes for which the grower cannot find a sales outlet. Although the details of such a programme have not been finalized, it is anticipated that the Canadian Government will announce, at approximately the same time as potatoes are placed under export control, a floor price which will be effective April 1st, 1949 for certain carlot shipping areas in the East. To implement this programme the Canadian Government would inspect the potato holdings of commercial growers in Prince Edward Island, and several counties of New Brunswick, on or after April 1st and would undertake to pay a fixed price for every hundred pounds of Canada No. 1 potatoes found in the bins. It is not anticipated that any actual payment would be made at that time and it would be understood that if any of the potatoes examined were subsequently sold or used for seed purposes the owner would forfeit any claim for assistance on such potatoes. In other words, the Canadian Government would make no payment on potatoes which move into export trade, or which are used for seed purposes.
“It should be noted that the Canadian proposals to institute export permit control on Canadian potatoes and to inaugurate a price support programme are contingent upon assurances from the United States Government that:
“a) The United States Government will not hereafter impose any quantitative limitations or fees on Canadian potatoes of the 1948 crop exported to the United States under the system of regulating the movement of potatoes from Canada to the United States outlined herein.
“b) The Canadian Government proposal, as outlined herein, to guarantee a floor price to certain commercial growers in the Maritime Provinces would not be interpreted by United States authorities as either a. direct or indirect subsidy and that in consequence there would be no grounds for the imposition of countervailing duties under Section 303 of the United States Tariff Act of 1930.[]
“If the United States Government in its replying note accepts the Canadian proposals and gives to the Canadian Government the assurances required, as outlined above, this note and the reply thereto will constitute an agreement on this subject.
“Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
“H H Wrong
“The Honourable George C. Marshall,
“Secretary of State of the United States,
“Washington, D. C.
“The Acting Secretary of State to the Canadian Ambassador
“November 23, 1948
“Excellency:
“The Government of the United States appreciates the assurance of the Government of Canada contained in your note no. 538 of November 23, 1948, that the Government of Canada is prepared, contingent upon the receipt of certain assurances from the Government of the United States, to establish the controls outlined therein over the exportation of potatoes from Canada to the United States.
“In view of the adverse effect which unrestricted imports of Canadian potatoes would have on the potato programs of the United States and the fact that it is anticipated that the Canadian proposal will substantially reduce the quantity of potatoes which would otherwise be imported into the United States, and in the interest of international trade between the United States and Canada and other considerations, the United States Government assures the Canadian Government that it will not hereafter impose any quantitative limitations or fees on Canadian potatoes of the 1948 crop imported into the United States under the system of regulating the movement of potatoes to the United States outlined in the Canadian proposal.
“The Government of the United States also wishes to inform the Canadian Government with respect to that Government’s proposal to guarantee a floor price to certain commercial growers in the Maritime Provinces, that in the opinion of the Treasury Department, the operation of such a proposal as outlined by the Canadian Government would not be considered as a payment or bestowal, directly or indirectly, of any bounty or grant upon the manufacture, production, or export of the potatoes concerned and no countervailing duty would, therefore, be levied, under the provisions of Section 303, Tariff Act of 1930, as a result of such operation of the proposal on potatoes imported from Canada.
“The United States Government agrees that your note under reference, together with this reply, will constitute an agreement on this subject.
“Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
“Robert A. Lovett
“Acting Secretary oj State of the United States of America
“His Excellency
“Hume Wrong,
“Ambassador of Canada.”
Treaties and Other International Acts Series 1896, Department of State, Publication 3474.
January 10, 1949, the Acting Chief of the Potato Division, Fruit and Vegetable Branch of the United States Department of Agriculture, wired respondent:
“Have been informed ACCO [Atlantic Commission Company] representative, Jacksonville, Florida, claiming you have special permission from Department to sell Canadian seed for edible use, if no demand for seed. Please advise basis for claim. Account such disposition is contrary to the intent of U. S. Canadian agreement and to Canadian requirement regarding diversion or reeonsignment.”
January 11, 1949, respondent wired in reply: “Have not made such statement. Only put seed [potatoes] Jacksonville for seed purposes” and, later, on the same day:
“I realize fully the agreement with Canada, its intent and want tó and expect to cooperate with the program. I am only bringing in seed for seed purposes. Canadian dealers are now quoting seed same territory I am selling. Have had quotations as low as 365 hundredweight delivered Norfolk, past week.”
“Less 10,000 Sax Canada No. 1 Seed Potatoes @ $3.65 f. o. b.” These 10,000 sacks were immediately resold by the Atlantic Commission Company to respondent. Of them, 8,730 were invoiced by respondent on the same day as “Canada No. 1 Seed Potatoes” in seven lots to four separate dealers in Florida and Georgia, at prices between $3.75 and $4 per cwt. There was no evidence as to the disposition of the remaining 1,270 sacks.
“We have little difficulty in seeing in the evidence. breach of contract on the part of defendant and damage resulting to the United States from the breach.” 204 F. 2d, at 658.
See note 2, supra.
46 Stat. 687.
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.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
On July 3, 2009, the Pennsylvania State Police Department received a report that a man named Michael Zita had stolen a car and two loaded handguns. The report also said that Zita might have fled to the home of Andrew and Karen Carman. The department sent Officers Jeremy Carroll and Brian Roberts to the Carmans' home to investigate. Neither officer had been to the home before. 749 F.3d 192, 195 (C.A.3 2014).
The officers arrived in separate patrol cars around 2:30 p.m. The Carmans' house sat on a corner lot-the front of the house faced a main street while the left (as viewed from the front) faced a side street. The officers initially drove to the front of the house, but after discovering that parking was not available there, turned right onto the side street. As they did so, they saw several cars parked side-by-side in a gravel parking area on the left side of the Carmans' property. The officers parked in the "first available spot," at "the far rear of the property." Ibid.(quoting Tr. 70 (Apr. 8, 2013)).
The officers exited their patrol cars. As they looked toward the house, the officers saw a small structure (either a carport or a shed) with its door open and a light on. Id.,at 71. Thinking someone might be inside, Officer Carroll walked over, "poked [his] head" in, and said "Pennsylvania State Police." 749 F.3d, at 195(quoting Tr. 71 (Apr. 8, 2013); alteration in original). No one was there, however, so the officers continued walking toward the house. As they approached, they saw a sliding glass door that opened onto a ground-level deck. Carroll thought the sliding glass door "looked like a customary entryway," so he and Officer Roberts decided to knock on it. 749 F.3d, at 195 (quoting Tr. 83 (Apr. 8, 2013)).
As the officers stepped onto the deck, a man came out of the house and "belligerent[ly] and aggressively approached" them. 749 F.3d, at 195. The officers identified themselves, explained they were looking for Michael Zita, and asked the man for his name. The man refused to answer. Instead, he turned away from the officers and appeared to reach for his waist. Id.,at 195-196. Carroll grabbed the man's right arm to make sure he was not reaching for a weapon. The man twisted away from Carroll, lost his balance, and fell into the yard. Id.,at 196.
At that point, a woman came out of the house and asked what was happening. The officers again explained that they were looking for Zita. The woman then identified herself as Karen Carman, identified the man as her husband, Andrew Carman, and told the officers that Zita was not there. In response, the officers asked for permission to search the house for Zita. Karen Carman consented, and everyone went inside. Ibid.
The officers searched the house, but did not find Zita. They then left. The Carmans were not charged with any crimes.Ibid.
The Carmans later sued Officer Carroll in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Among other things, they alleged that Carroll unlawfully entered their property in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he went into their backyard and onto their deck without a warrant. 749 F.3d, at 196.
At trial, Carroll argued that his entry was lawful under the "knock and talk" exception to the warrant requirement. That exception, he contended, allows officers to knock on someone's door, so long as they stay "on those portions of [the] property that the general public is allowed to go on." Tr. 7 (Apr. 8, 2013). The Carmans responded that a normal visitor would have gone to their front door, rather than into their backyard or onto their deck. Thus, they argued, the "knock and talk" exception did not apply.
At the close of Carroll's case in chief, the parties each moved for judgment as a matter of law. The District Court denied both motions, and sent the case to a jury.
As relevant here, the District Court instructed the jury that the "knock and talk" exception "allows officers without a warrant to knock on a resident's door or otherwise approach the residence seeking to speak to the inhabitants, just as any private citizen might." Id.,at 24 (Apr. 10, 2013). The District Court further explained that "officers should restrict their movements to walkways, driveways, porches and places where visitors could be expected to go." Ibid.The jury then returned a verdict for Carroll.
The Carmans appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed in relevant part. The court held that Officer Carroll violated the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law because the "knock and talk" exception "requires that police officers begin their encounter at the front door, where they have an implied invitation to go." 749 F.3d, at 199. The court also held that Carroll was not entitled to qualified immunity because his actions violated clearly established law. Ibid.The court therefore reversed the District Court and held that the Carmans were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Carroll petitioned for certiorari. We grant the petition and reverse the Third Circuit's determination that Carroll was not entitled to qualified immunity.
A government official sued under § 1983is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2080, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011). A right is clearly established only if its contours are sufficiently clear that "a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson v. Creighton,483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). In other words, "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." al-Kidd,563 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2083. This doctrine "gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments," and "protects 'all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Id.,at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2085(quoting Malley v. Briggs,475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)).
Here the Third Circuit cited only a single case to support its decision that Carroll was not entitled to qualified immunity-Estate of Smith v. Marasco,318 F.3d 497 (C.A.3 2003). Assuming for the sake of argument that a controlling circuit precedent could constitute clearly established federal law in these circumstances, see Reichle v. Howards,566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2094, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012), Marascodoes not clearly establish that Carroll violated the Carmans' Fourth Amendment rights.
In Marasco,two police officers went to Robert Smith's house and knocked on the front door. When Smith did not respond, the officers went into the backyard, and at least one entered the garage. 318 F.3d, at 519. The court acknowledged that the officers' "entry into the curtilage after not receiving an answer at the front door might be reasonable." Id.,at 520. It held, however, that the District Court had not made the factual findings needed to decide that issue. Id.,at 521. For example, the Third Circuit noted that the record "did not discuss the layout of the property or the position of the officers on that property," and that "there [was] no indication of whether the officers followed a path or other apparently open route that would be suggestive of reasonableness." Ibid.The court therefore remanded the case for further proceedings.
In concluding that Officer Carroll violated clearly established law in this case, the Third Circuit relied exclusively on Marasco's statement that "entry into the curtilage after not receiving an answer at the front door might be reasonable." Id.,at 520; see 749 F.3d, at 199(quoting Marasco, supra,at 520). In the court's view, that statement clearly established that a "knock and talk" must begin at the front door. But that conclusion does not follow. Marascoheld that an unsuccessful "knock and talk" at the front door does not automatically allow officers to go onto other parts of the property. It did not hold, however, that knocking on the front door is requiredbefore officers go onto other parts of the property that are open to visitors. Thus, Marascosimply did not answer the question whether a "knock and talk" must begin at the front door when visitors may also go to the back door. Indeed, the house at issue seems not to have even had a back door, let alone one that visitors could use. 318 F.3d, at 521.
Moreover, Marascoexpressly stated that "there [was] no indication of whether the officers followed a path or other apparently open route that would be suggestive of reasonableness." Ibid.That makes Marascowholly different from this case, where the jury necessarily decided that Carroll "restrict[ed] [his] movements to walkways, driveways, porches and places where visitors could be expected to go." Tr. 24 (Apr. 10, 2013).
To the extent that Marascosays anything about this case, it arguably supports Carroll's view. In Marasco,the Third Circuit noted that "[o]fficers are allowed to knock on a residence's door or otherwise approach the residence seeking to speak to the inhabitants just as any private citizen may." 318 F.3d, at 519. The court also said that, " 'when the police come on to private property ... and restrict their movements to places visitors could be expected to go (e.g.,walkways, driveways, porches), observations made from such vantage points are not covered by the Fourth Amendment.' " Ibid.(quoting 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.3(f) (3d ed. 1996 and Supp. 2003)(footnotes omitted)). Had Carroll read those statements before going to the Carmans' house, he may have concluded-quite reasonably-that he was allowed to knock on any door that was open to visitors.
The Third Circuit's decision is even more perplexing in comparison to the decisions of other federal and state courts, which have rejected the rule the Third Circuit adopted here. For example, in United States v. Titemore,437 F.3d 251 (C.A.2 2006), a police officer approached a house that had two doors. The first was a traditional door that opened onto a driveway; the second was a sliding glass door that opened onto a small porch. The officer chose to knock on the latter. Id.,at 253-254. On appeal, the defendant argued that the officer had unlawfully entered his property without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id.,at 255-256. But the Second Circuit rejected that argument. As the court explained, the sliding glass door was "a primary entrance visible to and used by the public." Id.,at 259.
Thus, "[b]ecause [the officer] approached a principal entrance to the home using a route that other visitors could be expected to take," the court held that he did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id.,at 252.
The Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. James,40 F.3d 850 (1994), vacated on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1022, 116 S.Ct. 664, 133 L.Ed.2d 515 (1995), provides another example. There, police officers approached a duplex with multiple entrances. Bypassing the front door, the officers "used a paved walkway along the side of the duplex leading to the rear side door." 40 F.3d, at 862. On appeal, the defendant argued that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they went to the rear side door. The Seventh Circuit rejected that argument, explaining that the rear side door was "accessible to the general public" and "was commonly used for entering the duplex from the nearby alley." Ibid.In situations "where the back door of a residence is readily accessible to the general public," the court held, "the Fourth Amendment is not implicated when police officers approach that door in the reasonable belief that it is a principal means of access to the dwelling." Ibid.See also, e.g., United States v. Garcia,997 F.2d 1273, 1279-1280 (C.A.9 1993)("If the front and back of a residence are readily accessible from a public place, like the driveway and parking area here, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated when officers go to the back door reasonably believing it is used as a principal entrance to the dwelling"); State v. Domicz,188 N.J. 285, 302, 907 A.2d 395, 405 (2006)("when a law enforcement officer walks to a front or back door for the purpose of making contact with a resident and reasonably believes that the door is used by visitors, he is not unconstitutionally trespassing on to the property").
We do not decide today whether those cases were correctly decided or whether a police officer may conduct a "knock and talk" at any entrance that is open to visitors rather than only the front door. "But whether or not the constitutional rule applied by the court below was correct, it was not 'beyond debate.' " Stanton v. Sims,571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 3, 7, 187 L.Ed.2d 341 (2013)(per curiam) (quoting al-Kidd,563 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2083). The Third Circuit therefore erred when it held that Carroll was not entitled to qualified immunity.
The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In a footnote, the Court of Appeals "recognize[d] that there may be some instances in which the front door is not theentrance used by visitors," but noted that "this is not one such instance." 749 F.3d 192, 198, n. 6 (2014) (emphasis added). This footnote still reflects the Third Circuit's view that the "knock and talk" exception is available for only one entrance to a dwelling, "which in most circumstances is the front door." Id.,at 198. Cf. United States v. Perea-Rey,680 F.3d 1179, 1188 (C.A.9 2012) ("Officers conducting a knock and talk ... need not approach only a specific door if there are multiple doors accessible to the public.").
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
To the victor belong only those spoils that may be constitutionally obtained. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 (1976), and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U. S. 507 (1980), decided that the First Amendment forbids government officials to discharge or threaten to discharge public employees solely for not being supporters of the political party in power, unless party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the position involved. Today we are asked to decide the constitutionality of several related political patronage practices — whether promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions involving low-level public employees may be constitutionally based on party affiliation and support. We hold that they may not.
I — I
The petition and cross-petition before us arise from a lawsuit protesting certain employment policies and practices instituted by Governor James Thompson of Illinois. On November 12, 1980, the Governor issued an executive order proclaiming a hiring freeze for every agency, bureau, board, or commission subject to his control. The order prohibits state officials from hiring any employee, filling any vacancy, creating any new position, or taking any similar action. It affects approximately 60,000 state positions. More than 5,000 of these become available each year as a result of resignations, retirements, deaths, expansions, and reorganizations. The order proclaims that “no exceptions” are permitted without the Governor’s “express permission after submission of appropriate requests to [his] office.” Governor’s Executive Order No. 5 (Nov. 12, 1980), Brief for Petitioners and Cross-Respondents 11 (emphasis added).
Requests for the Governor’s “express permission” have allegedly become routine. Permission has been granted or withheld through an agency expressly created for this purpose, the Governor’s Office of Personnel (Governor’s Office). Agencies have been screening applicants under Illinois’ civil service system, making their personnel choices, and submitting them as requests to be approved or disapproved by the Governor’s Office. Among the employment decisions for which approvals have been required are new hires, promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs.
By means of the freeze, according to petitioners and cross-respondents, the Governor has been using the Governor’s Office to operate a political patronage system to limit state employment and beneficial employment-related decisions to those who are supported by the Republican Party. In reviewing an agency’s request that a particular applicant be approved for a particular position, the Governor’s Office has looked at whether the applicant voted in Republican primaries in past election years, whether the applicant has provided financial or other support to the Republican Party and its candidates, whether the applicant has promised to join and work for the Republican Party in the future, and whether the applicant has the support of Republican Party officials at state or local levels.
Five people (including the three petitioners) brought suit against various Illinois and Republican Party officials in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. They alleged that they had suffered discrimination with respect to state employment because they had not been supporters of the State’s Republican Party and that this discrimination violates the First Amendment. Cynthia B. Rutan has been working for the State since 1974 as a rehabilitation counselor. She claims that since 1981 she has been repeatedly denied promotions to supervisory positions for which she was qualified because she had not worked for or supported the Republican Party. Franklin Taylor, who operates road equipment for the Illinois Department of Transportation, claims that he was denied a promotion in 1983 because he did not have the support of the local Republican Party. Taylor also maintains that he was denied a transfer to an office nearer to his home because of opposition from the Republican Party chairmen in the counties in which he worked and to which he requested a transfer. James W. Moore claims that he has been repeatedly denied state employment as a prison guard because he did not have the support of Republican Party officials.
The two other plaintiffs, before the Court as cross-respondents, allege that they were not recalled after layoffs because they lacked Republican credentials. Ricky Stande-fer was a state garage worker who claims that he was not recalled, although his fellow employees were, because he had voted in a Democratic primary and did not have the support of the Republican Party. Dan O’Brien, formerly a dietary manager with the mental health department, contends that he was not recalled after a layoff because of his party affiliation and that he later obtained a lower paying position with the corrections department only after receiving support from the chairman of the local Republican Party.
The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 641 F. Supp. 249 (1986). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit initially issued a panel opinion, 848 F. 2d 1396 (1988), but then reheard the appeal en banc. The court affirmed the District Court’s decision in part and reversed in part. 868 F. 2d 943 (1989). Noting that this Court had previously determined that the patronage practice of discharging public employees on the basis of their political affiliation violates the First Amendment, the Court of Appeals held that other patronage practices violate the First Amendment only when they are the “substantial equivalent of a dismissal.” Id., at 955. The court explained that an employment decision is equivalent to a dismissal when it is one that would lead a reasonable person to resign. Ibid. The court affirmed the dismissal of Moore’s claim because it found that basing hiring decisions on political affiliation does not violate the First Amendment, but remanded the remaining claims for further proceedings.
Rutan, Taylor, and Moore petitioned this Court to review the constitutional standard set forth by the Seventh Circuit and the dismissal of Moore’s claim. Respondents cross-petitioned this Court, contending that the Seventh Circuit’s remand of four of the five claims was improper because the employment decisions alleged here do not, as a matter of law, violate the First Amendment. We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 807 (1989), to decide the important question whether the First Amendment’s proscription of patronage dismissals recognized in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 (1976), and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U. S. 507 (1980), extends to promotion, transfer, recall, or hiring decisions involving public employment positions for which party affiliation is not an appropriate requirement.
II
A
In Elrod, swpra, we decided that a newly elected Democratic sheriff could not constitutionally engage in the patronage practice of replacing certain office staff with members of his own party “when the existing employees lack or fail to obtain requisite support from, or fail to affiliate with, that party.” Id., at 351, 373 (plurality opinion), and 375 (Stewart, J., joined by Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment). The plurality explained that conditioning public employment on the provision of support for the favored political party “unquestionably inhibits protected belief and association.” Id., at 359. It reasoned that conditioning employment on political activity pressures employees to pledge political allegiance to a party with which they prefer not to associate, to work for the election of political candidates they do not support, and to contribute money to be used to further policies with which they do not agree. The latter, the plurality noted, had been recognized by this Court as “tantamount to coerced belief.” Id., at 355 (citing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976)). At the same time, employees are constrained from joining, working for, or contributing to the political party and candidates of their own choice. Elrod, supra, at 355-356. “[Political belief and association constitute the core of those activities protected by the First Amendment,” the plurality emphasized. 427 U. S., at 356. Both the plurality and the concurrence drew support from Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972), in which this Court held that the State’s refusal to renew a teacher’s contract because he had been publicly critical of its policies imposed an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of a public benefit. See Elrod, supra, at 359 (plurality opinion) and 375 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment); see also Branti, supra, at 514-516.
The Court then decided that the government interests generally asserted in support of patronage fail to justify this burden on First Amendment rights because patronage dismissals are not the least restrictive means for fostering those interests. See Elrod, supra, at 372-373 (plurality opinion) and 375 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). The plurality acknowledged that a government has a significant interest in ensuring that it has effective and efficient employees. It expressed doubt, however, that “mere difference of political persuasion motivates poor performance” and concluded that, in any case, the government can ensure employee effectiveness and efficiency through the less drastic means of discharging staff members whose work is inadequate. 427 U. S., at 365-366. The plurality also found that a government can meet its need for politically loyal employees to implement its policies by the less intrusive measure of dismissing, on political grounds, only those employees in policy-making positions. Id., at 367. Finally, although the plurality recognized that preservation of the democratic process “may in some instances justify limitations on First Amendment freedoms,” it concluded that the “process functions as well without the practice, perhaps even better.” Patronage, it explained, “can result in the entrenchment of one or a few parties to the exclusion of others” and “is a very effective impediment to the associational and speech freedoms which are essential to a meaningful system of democratic government.” Id., at 368-370.
Four years later, in Branti, supra, we decided that the First Amendment prohibited a newly appointed public defender, who was a Democrat, from discharging assistant public defenders because they did not have the support of the Democratic Party. The Court rejected an attempt to distinguish the case from Elrod, deciding that it was immaterial whether the public defender had attempted to coerce employees to change political parties or had only dismissed them on the basis of their private political beliefs. We explained that conditioning continued public employment on an employee’s having obtained support from a particular political party violates the First Amendment because of “the coercion of belief that necessarily flows from the knowledge that one must have a sponsor in the dominant party in order to retain one’s job.” 445 U. S., at 516. “In sum,” we said, “there is no requirement that dismissed employees prove that they, or other employees, have been coerced into changing, either actually or ostensibly, their political allegiance.” Id., at 517. To prevail, we concluded, public employees need show only that they were discharged because they were not affiliated with or sponsored by the Democratic Party. Ibid.'
B
We first address the claims of the four current or former employees. Respondents urge us to view Elrod and Branti as inapplicable because the patronage dismissals at issue in those cases are different in kind from failure to promote, failure to transfer, and failure to recall after layoff. Respondents initially contend that the employee petitioners’ and cross-respondents’ First Amendment rights have not been infringed because they have no entitlement to promotion, transfer, or rehire. We rejected just such an argument in Elrod, 427 U. S., at 359-360 (plurality opinion) and 375 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment), and Branti, 445 U. S., at 514-515, as both cases involved state workers who were employees at will with no legal entitlement to continued employment. In Perry, 408 U. S., at 596-598, we held explicitly that the plaintiff teacher’s lack of a contractual or tenure right to re-employment was immaterial to his First Amendment claim. We explained the viability of his First Amendment claim as follows:
“For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise nf those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to ‘produce a result which [it] could not command directly.’ Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 [(1958)]. Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible.” Id., at 597 (emphasis added).
Likewise, we find the assertion here that the employee petitioners and cross-respondents had no legal entitlement to promotion, transfer, or recall beside the point.
Respondents next argue that the employment decisions at issue here do not violate the First Amendment because the decisions are not punitive, do not in any way adversely affect the terms of employment, and therefore do not chill the exercise of protected belief and association by public employees. This is not credible. Employees who find themselves in dead-end positions due to their political backgrounds are adversely affected. They will feel a significant obligation to support political positions held by their superiors, and to refrain from acting on the political views they actually hold, in order to progress up the career ladder. Employees denied transfers to workplaces reasonably close to their homes until they join and work for the Republican Party will feel a daily pressure from their long commutes to do so. And employees who have been laid off may well feel compelled to engage in whatever political activity is necessary to regain regular paychecks and positions corresponding to their skill and experience.
The same First Amendment concerns that underlay our decisions in Elrod, supra, and Branti, supra, are implicated here. Employees who do not compromise their beliefs stand to lose the considerable increases in pay and job satisfaction attendant to promotions, the hours and maintenance expenses that are consumed by long daily commutes, and even their jobs if they are not rehired after a “temporary” layoff. These are significant penalties and are imposed for the exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Unless these patronage practices are narrowly tailored to further vital government interests, we must conclude that they im-permissibly encroach on First Amendment freedoms. See Elrod, supra, at 362-363 (plurality opinion) and 375 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment); Branti, supra, at 515-516.
We find, however, that our conclusions in Elrod, supra, and Branti, supra, are equally applicable to the patronage practices at issue here. A government’s interest in securing effective employees can be met by discharging, demoting, or transferring staff members whose work is deficient. A government’s interest in securing employees who will loyally implement its policies can be adequately served by choosing or dismissing certain high-level employees on the basis of their political views. See Elrod, supra, at 365-368 (plurality opinion); Branti, supra, at 518, and 520, n. 14. Likewise, the “preservation of the democratic process” is no more furthered by the patronage promotions, transfers, and rehires at issue here than it is by patronage dismissals. First, “political parties are nurtured by other, less intrusive and equally effective methods.” Elrod, supra, at 372-373 (plurality opinion). Political parties have already survived the substantial decline in patronage employment practices in this century. See Elrod, supra, at 369, and n. 23 (plurality opinion); see also L. Sabato, Goodbye to Good-time Charlie 67 (2d ed. 1983) (“The number of patronage positions has significantly decreased in virtually every state”); Congressional Quarterly Inc., State Government, CQ’s Guide to Current Issues and Activities 134 (T. Beyle ed. 1989-1990) (“Linkage[s] between political parties and government office-holding . . . have died out under the pressures of varying forces [including] the declining influence of election workers when compared to media and money-intensive campaigning, such as the distribution of form letters and advertising”); Sorauf, Patronage and Party, 3 Midwest J. Pol. Sci. 115,118-120 (1959) (many state and local parties have thrived without a patronage system). Second, patronage decidedly impairs the elective process by discouraging free political expression by public employees. See Elrod, 427 U. S., at 372 (plurality opinion) (explaining that the proper functioning of a democratic system “is indispensably dependent on the unfettered judgment of each citizen on matters of political concern”). Respondents, who include the Governor of Illinois and other state officials, do not suggest any other overriding government interest in favoring Republican Party supporters for promotion, transfer, and rehire.
We therefore determine that promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs based on political affiliation or support are an impermissible infringement on the First Amendment rights of public employees. In doing so, we reject the Seventh Circuit’s view of the appropriate constitutional standard by which to measure alleged patronage practices in government employment. The Seventh Circuit proposed that only those employment decisions that are the “substantial equivalent of a dismissal” violate a public employee’s rights under the First Amendment. 868 F. 2d, at 954-957. We find this test unduly restrictive because it fails to recognize that there are deprivations less harsh than dismissal that nevertheless press state employees and applicants to conform their beliefs and associations to some state-selected orthodoxy. See Elrod, supra, at 356-357 (plurality opinion); West Virginia Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943). The First Amendment is not a tenure provision, protecting public employees from actual or constructive discharge. The First Amendment prevents the government, except in the most compelling circumstances, from wielding its power to interfere with its employees’ freedom to believe and associate, or to not believe and not associate.
Whether the four employees were in fact denied promotions, transfers, or rehires for failure to affiliate with and support the Republican Party is for the District Court to decide in the first instance. What we decide today is that such denials are irreconcilable with the Constitution and that the allegations of the four employees state claims under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1982 ed.) for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore, although we affirm the Seventh Circuit’s judgment to reverse the District Court’s dismissal of these claims and remand them for further proceedings, we do not adopt the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning.
C
Petitioner James W. Moore presents the closely related question whether patronage hiring violates the First Amendment. Patronage hiring places burdens on free speech and association similar to those imposed by the patronage practices discussed above. A state job is valuable. Like most employment, it provides regular paychecks, health insurance, and other benefits. In addition, there may be openings with the State when business in the private sector is slow. There are also occupations for which the government is a major (or the only) source of employment, such as social workers, elementary school teachers, and prison guards. Thus, denial of a state job is a serious privation.
Nonetheless, respondents contend that the burden imposed is not of constitutional magnitude. Decades of decisions by this Court belie such a claim. We premised Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488 (1961), on our understanding that loss of a job opportunity for failure to compromise one’s convictions states a constitutional claim. We held that Maryland could not refuse an appointee a commission for the position of notary public on the ground that he refused to declare his belief in God, because the required oath “unconstitutionally invades the appellant’s freedom of belief and religion.” Id., at 496. In Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of New York, 385 U. S. 589, 609-610 (1967), we held a law affecting appointment and retention of teachers invalid because it premised employment on an unconstitutional restriction of political belief and association. In Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11, 19 (1966), we struck down a loyalty oath which was a prerequisite for public employment.
Almost half a century ago, this Court made clear that the government “may not enact a regulation providing that no Republican . . . shall be appointed to federal office.” Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 100 (1947). What the First Amendment precludes the government from commanding directly, it also precludes the government from accomplishing indirectly. See Perry, 408 U. S., at 597 (citing Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958)); see supra, at 72. Under our sustained precedent, conditioning hiring decisions on political belief and association plainly constitutes an unconstitutional condition, unless the government has a vital interest in doing so. See Elrod, 427 U. S., at 362-363 (plurality opinion) and 375 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment); Branti, 445 U. S., at 515-516; see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963) (unemployment benefits); Speiser v. Randall, supra (tax exemption). We find no such government interest here, for the same reasons that we found that the government lacks justification for patronage promotions, transfers, or recalls. See supra, at 71-76.
The court below, having decided that the appropriate inquiry in patronage cases is whether the employment decision at issue is the substantial equivalent of a dismissal, affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Moore’s claim. See 868 F. 2d, at 954. The Court of Appeals reasoned that “rejecting an employment application does not impose a hardship upon an employee comparable to the loss of [a] job.” Ibid., citing Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education, 476 U. S. 267 (1986) (plurality opinion). Just as we reject the Seventh Circuit’s proffered test, see supra, at 75-76, we find the Seventh Circuit’s reliance on Wygant to distinguish hiring from dismissal unavailing. The court cited a passage from the plurality opinion in Wygant explaining that school boards attempting to redress past discrimination must choose methods that broadly distribute the disadvantages imposed by affirmative-action plans among innocent parties. The plurality said that race-based layoffs placed too great a burden on individual members of the nonminority race, but suggested that discriminatory hiring was permissible, under certain circumstances, even though it burdened white applicants, because the burden was less intrusive than the loss of an existing job. 476 U. S., at 282-284. See also id., at 294-295 (White, J., concurring in judgment).
Wygant has no application to the question at issue here. The plurality’s concern in that case was identifying the least harsh means of remedying past wrongs. It did not question that some remedy was permissible when there was sufficient evidence of past discrimination. In contrast, the Governor of Illinois has not instituted a remedial undertaking. It is unnecessary here to consider whether not being hired is less burdensome than being discharged, because the government is not pressed to do either on the basis of political affiliation. The question in the patronage context is not which penalty is more acute but whether the government, without sufficient justification, is pressuring employees to discontinue the free exercise of their First Amendment rights.
If Moore’s employment application was set aside because he chose not to support the Republican Party, as he asserts, then Moore’s First Amendment rights have been violated. Therefore, we find that Moore’s complaint was improperly dismissed.
Ill
We hold that the rule of Elrod and Branti extends to promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions based on party affiliation and support and that all of the petitioners and cross-respondents have stated claims upon which relief may be granted. We affirm the Seventh Circuit insofar as it remanded Rutan’s, Taylor’s, Standefer’s, and O’Brien’s claims. However, we reverse the Seventh Circuit’s decision to uphold the dismissal of Moore’s claim. All five claims are remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The cases come to us in a preliminary posture, and the question is limited to whether the allegations of petitioners Rutan et al. state a cognizable First Amendment claim sufficient to withstand respondents’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Therefore, for purposes of our review we must assume that petitioners’ well-pleaded allegations are true. Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U. S. 531, 540 (1988).
Three of the five original plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit — Rutan, Taylor, and Moore — are petitioners in No. 88-1872, and we refer to them as “petitioners.” The defendants in the lawsuit are various Illinois and Republican Party officials. We refer to them as “respondents” because they are the respondents in No. 88-1872. They are also the cross-petitioners in No. 88-2074. Four of the five original plaintiffs — Rutan, Taylor, Standefer, and O’Brien — are named as cross-respondents in No. 88-2074.
The five originally brought this action both individually and on behalf of those similarly situated. The Seventh Circuit, noting that the District Court had failed to address the class-action questions, reviewed the case as one brought by individuals only. 868 F. 2d 943, 947 (1989). We therefore have only the claims of the individuals before us.
The Seventh Circuit explained that Standefer’s and O’Brien’s claims might be cognizable if there were a formal or informal system of rehiring employees in their positions, 868 F. 2d, at 956-957, but expressed considerable doubt that Rutan and Taylor would be able to show that they suffered the “substantial equivalent of a dismissal” by being denied promotions and a transfer. Id., at 955-956.
Justice Scalia’s lengthy discussion of the appropriate standard of review for restrictions the government places on the constitutionally protected activities of its employees to ensure efficient and effective operations, see post, at 94-102, is not only questionable, it offers no support for his conclusion that patronage practices pass muster under the First Amendment. The interests that Justice Scalia regards as potentially furthered by patronage practices are not interests that the government has in its capacity as an employer. Justice Scalia describes the possible benefits of patronage as follows: “patronage stabilizes political parties and prevents excessive political fragmentation,” post, at 104; patronage is necessary to strong, disciplined party organizations, post, at 104-105; patronage “fosters the two-party system,” post, at 106; and patronage is “a powerful means of achieving the social and political integration of excluded groups,” post, at 108. These are interests the government might have in the structure and functioning of society as a whole. That the government attempts to use public employment to further such interests does not render those interests employment related. Therefore, even were Justice Scalia correct that less-than-strict scrutiny is appropriate when the government takes measures to ensure the proper functioning of its internal operations, such a rule has no relevance to the restrictions on freedom of association and speech at issue in these cases.
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U. S. 507 (1980), also refined the exception created by Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 (1976), for certain employees. In Elrod, we suggested that policymaking and confidential employees probably could be dismissed on the basis of their political views. Id., at 367 (plurality opinion) and 375 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). In Branti, we said that a State demonstrates a compelling interest in infringing First Amendment rights only when it can show that “party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.” Branti, supra, at 518. The scope of this exception does not concern us here as respondents concede that the five employees who brought this suit are not within it.
Respondents’ reliance on Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 480 U. S. 616 (1987), to this effect is misplaced. The question in Johnson was whether the Santa Clara County affirmative-action program violated the antidiscrimination requirement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that context, we said that the denial of a promotion did not unsettle any legitimate, firmly rooted expectations. We did not dispute, however, that it placed a burden on the person to whom the promotion was denied. We considered Johnson’s expectations in discussing whether the plan unnecessarily trammeled the rights of male employees — ?'. e., whether its goal was pursued with an excessive, rather than reasonable, amount of dislocation. Our decision that promotion denials are not such an imposition that Title VII prevented Santa Clara from considering gender in order to redress past discrimination does not mean that promotion denials are not enough of an imposition to pressure employees to affiliate with the favored party.
The complaint in this case states that Dan O’Brien was driven to do exactly this. After being rejected for recall by the Governor's Office, he allegedly pursued the support of a Republican Party official, despite his previous interest in the Democratic Party.
The Seventh Circuit’s proffered test was not based on that court’s determination that other patronage practices do not burden the free exercise of First Amendment rights. Rather, the court chose to defer to the political process in an area in which it felt this Court had not yet spoken clearly. 868 F. 2d, at 953-954. The court also expressed concern that the opposite conclusion would open state employment to excessive interference by the Federal Judiciary. Ibid. We respect but do not share this concern.
Our decision does not impose the Federal Judiciary’s supervision on any state government activity that is otherwise immune. The federal courts have long been available for protesting unlawful state employment decisions. Under Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e(a), (f), and 2000e-2(a) (1982 ed.), it is a violation of federal law to discriminate in any way in state employment (excepting certain high-level positions) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Moreover, the First Amendment, as the court below noted, already protects state employees not only from patronage dismissals but also from “even an act of retaliation as trivial as failing to hold a birthday party for a public employee . . . when intended to punish her for exercising her free speech rights.” 868 F. 2d, at 954, n. 4.
To the extent that respondents also argue that Moore has not been penalized for the exercise of protected speech and association rights because he had no claim of right to employment in the first place, that argument is foreclosed by Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972). See supra, at 72.
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners were arrested in February 1954 on John Doe warrants and subsequently were indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, with two others, for violations of the local lottery laws and for conspiracy to carry on a lottery. After indictment each filed a pre-trial motion under Rule 41 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asking for the suppression of evidence seized from his person at the time of his arrest. The District Court granted petitioners’ motions to suppress, on the ground that probable cause had been lacking for the issuance of the arrest warrants directed against them. 126 F. Supp. 620. The Government appealed the order for suppression to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The indictment against petitioners had not been dismissed, but the Government informed the Court of Appeals that, without the “numbers” paraphernalia seized and suppressed, it would lack sufficient evidence to proceed on any of the counts involving petitioners and therefore would have to dismiss the indictment. Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to hear an appeal by the Government from an order of the District Court granting a motion to suppress that was made while an indictment was pending in the same District Court. The Court of Appeals sustained its jurisdiction on the authority of its prior decision in United States v. Cefaratti, and reversed the district judge on the merits, holding that there had been probable cause to justify the issuance of warrants for the arrest of petitioners. 98 U. S. App. D. C. 244, 234 F. 2d 679. We granted certiorari, limited to the question of appealability of the suppression order, because of the importance of that question to the administration of the federal criminal laws. 352 U. S. 906.
The Government contends, most broadly, that the suppression order of any District Court is “final” and sufficiently separable and collateral to the criminal case to be appealable under the general authority of 28 U. S. C. § 1291, notwithstanding that such an order is not listed among the few types of orders in criminal cases from which the Government may appeal pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3731. More narrowly, failing acceptance of the position just stated, the Government maintains that an order of suppression is, within the criminal case, a “final” order and thus appealable under the statutory provisions for appeals by the Government in criminal cases that are applicable exclusively in the District of Columbia. It will be convenient to discuss the issues in the same order.
I.
It is axiomatic, as a matter of history as well as doctrine, that the existence of appellate jurisdiction in a specific federal court over a given type of case is dependent upon authority expressly conferred by statute. And since the jurisdictional statutes prevailing at any given time are so much a product of the whole history of both growth and limitation of federal-court jurisdiction since the First Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 73, they have always been interpreted in the light of that history and of the axiom that clear statutory mandate must exist to found jurisdiction. It suffices to cite as authority for these principles some of the cases in which they have been applied to the general problem now before us, the availability of appellate review sought by the Government in criminal cases. E. g., United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159; United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310; In re Heath, 144 U. S. 92; Cross v. United States, 145 U. S. 571; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U. S. 159.
There is a further principle, also supported by the history of federal appellate jurisdiction, that importantly pertains to the present problem. That is the concept that in the federal jurisprudence, at least, appeals by the Government in criminal cases are something unusual, exceptional, not favored. The history shows resistance of the Court to the opening of an appellate route for the Government until it was plainly provided by the Congress, and after that a close restriction of its uses to those authorized by the statute. Indeed, it was 100 years before the defendant in a criminal case, even a capital case, was afforded appellate review as of right. And after review on behalf of convicted defendants was made certain by the Acts of 1889 and 1891, the Court continued to withhold an equivalent remedy from the Government, despite the existence of colorable statutory authority for permitting the Government to appeal in those important cases where a prosecution was dismissed upon the trial court’s opinion of the proper construction or the constitutional validity of a federal statute. When the Congress responded to the problem of such cases, in the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907, now 18 U. S. C. § 3731, it did so with careful expression of the limited types of orders in criminal cases as to which the Government might thenceforth have review. It was as late as 1942 before the Criminal Appeals Act was amended to permit appeals by the Government from decisions, granting dismissal or arrest of judgment, other than those grounded by the trial court upon the construction or invalidity of a statute.
It is true that certain orders relating to a criminal case may be found to possess sufficient independence from the main course of the prosecution to warrant treatment as plenary orders, and thus be appealable on the authority of 28 U. S. C. § 1291 without regard to the limitations of 18 U. S. C. § 3731, just as in civil litigation orders of equivalent distinctness are appealable on the same authority without regard to the limitations of 28 U. S. C. § 1292. The instances in criminal cases are very few. The only decision of this Court applying to a criminal case the reasoning of Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, held that an order relating to the amount of bail to be exacted falls into this category. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1. Earlier cases illustrated, sometimes without discussion, that under certain conditions orders for the suppression or return of illegally seized property are appealable at once, as where the motion is made prior to indictment, or in a different district from that in which the trial will occur, or after dismissal of the case, or perhaps where the emphasis is on the return of property rather than its suppression as evidence. In such cases, as appropriate, the Government as well as the moving person has been permitted to appeal from an adverse decision. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465.
But a motion made by a defendant after indictment and in the district of trial has none of the aspects of independence just noted, as the Court held in Cogen v. United States, 278 U. S. 221. As the opinion by Mr. Justice Brandéis explains, the denial of a pre-trial motion in this posture is interlocutory in form and real effect, and thus not appealable at the instance of the defendant. We think the granting of such a motion also has an interlocutory character, and therefore cannot be the subject of an appeal by the Government. In the present case the Government argues, as it offered to stipulate below, that the effect of suppressing the evidence seized from petitioners at their arrests will be to force dismissal of the indictment for lack of evidence on which to go forward. But that is not a necessary result of a suppression order relating to particular items of evidence, nor have we been shown whether it will be the result in practice in the generality of cases. Appeal rights cannot depend on the facts of a particular case. The Congress necessarily has had to draw the jurisdictional statutes in terms of categories. To fit an order granting suppression before trial in a criminal case into the category of “final decisions” requires a straining that is not permissible in the light of the principles and the history concerning criminal appeals, especially Government appeals, that are outlined above and more fully set forth in the cases cited. Other Courts of Appeals that have considered the problem have concluded that this order is not “final” or appealable at the behest of the Government.
The Government exhorts us not to exalt form over substance, in contending that the present order has virtually the same attributes as the suppression orders found reviewable in earlier cases. We do not agree that the order entered in a pending criminal case has the same characteristics of independence and completeness as a suppression order entered under other circumstances. Moreover, in a limited sense, form is substance with respect to ascertaining the existence of appellate jurisdiction. While it is always necessary to categorize a situation realistically, to place a given order according to its real effect, it remains true that the categories themselves were defined by the Congress in terms of form. Many interlocutory decisions of a trial court may be of grave importance to a litigant, yet are not amenable to appeal at the time entered, and some are never satisfactorily reviewable. In particular is this true of the Government in a criminal case, for there is no authority today for interlocutory appeals, and even if the Government had a general right to review upon an adverse conclusion of a case after trial, much of what it might complain of would have been swallowed up in the sanctity of the jury’s verdict.
If there is serious need for appeals by the Government from suppression orders, or unfairness to the interests of effective criminal law enforcement in the distinctions we have referred to, it is the function of the Congress to decide whether to initiate a departure from the historical pattern of restricted appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases. We must decide the case on the statutes that exist today, in the light of what has been the development of the jurisdiction. It is only through legislative resolution, furthermore, that peripheral questions regarding the conduct of government appeals in this situation can be regulated. Some of the problems directed at legislative judgment involve such particulars as confinement or bail of the defendant, acceleration of the Government’s appeal, and discretionary limitation of the right to take the appeal.
II.
The Court of Appeals sustained its jurisdiction on the basis of statutory provisions peculiar to the District of Columbia. Here again, the jurisdictional statutes are a product of historical development, and must be interpreted in that light. During the century from 1801 to 1901 the Congress several times organized and reorganized the courts of the District of Columbia, independently of the federal courts in the States. It is not necessary here to relate the chronology of shuffled jurisdictions and nomenclature. It is sufficient to note that from 1838 on, review of a final judgment of conviction in the criminal trial court was available in the appellate tribunal of the District. However, the appellate judgment was not further reviewable in this Court in any manner during this period. In re Heath, 144 U. S. 92; Cross v. United States, 145 U. S. 571. When the Acts of 1889 and 1891 opened up appellate review of criminal convictions in the federal courts throughout the country, at first directly to this Court, it was held that those statutes did not apply to cases originating in the District of Columbia. Ibid.
In 1901 the Congress codified the laws of the District of Columbia, including those relating to the judicial system. District of Columbia Code, 31 Stat. 1189. Criminal jurisdiction was vested in the trial court of general jurisdiction, then known as the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. A single section of the statute, § 226, conferred appellate jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals over decisions of the Supreme Court in general terms, apparently including criminal decisions. A party aggrieved could take an appeal from a final order or judgment, and was entitled to allowance of an appeal from an interlocutory order affecting possession of property. In addition, the Court of Appeals could allow an appeal, in its discretion, from any other interlocutory order when it was shown “that it will be in the interest of justice to allow such appeal.”
Section 935 of the Code of 1901 established this new provision:
“In all criminal prosecutions the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, shall have the same right of appeal that is given to the defendant, including the right to a bill of exceptions: Provided, That if on such appeal it shall be found that there was error in the rulings of the court during the trial, a verdict in favor of the defendant shall not be set aside.” 31 Stat. 1341.
The legislative history of the Code does not indicate why the Government was now given a right of appeal, but we may surmise that the draftsmen of the Code desired to adopt a procedural technique that was then in force in a large number of States. The “same right of appeal that is given to the defendant” would be defined by reference to § 226, of course, in cases coming up from the Supreme Court. After the Congress conferred on the United States a more limited right of appeal from the District Courts in the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907, running directly to this Court, it was held that the 1907 Act was not applicable to cases decided in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. There § 935 provided “the complete appellate system.” United States v. Burroughs, 289 U. S. 159, 164. When the Criminal Appeals Act was broadened in 1942, it was then first made applicable to the District of Columbia. But the text of § 935 was not repealed at that time, nor was it repealed in connection with the 1948 revisions of the Judicial Code and the Criminal Code. It may be concluded, then, that even today criminal appeals by the Government in the District of Columbia are not limited to the categories set forth in 18 U. S. C. § 3731, although as to cases of the type covered by that special jurisdictional statute, its explicit directions will prevail over the general terms of § 935, now found in the District of Columbia Code, 1951 Edition, as § 23-105. United States v. Hoffman, 82 U. S. App. D. C. 153, 161 F. 2d 881, decided on merits, 335 U. S. 77.
Meanwhile, under the general provisions of § 226 of the 1901 Code, the practice had developed of allowing appeals from interlocutory orders in criminal cases. A particular instance disturbed the Congress in 1926, and it immediately passed a statute to eliminate the practice. It is apparent from the legislative history that it was interlocutory appeals for the defendant that were considered anomalous in a federal court and undesirable from the viewpoint of prompt dispatch of criminal prosecutions, but the new provision in terms applied equally to the possibility of an interlocutory appeal being allowed to the Government through the combined provisions of § 226 and § 935. The 1926 enactment, as it now reads in the District of Columbia Code, 1951 Edition, § 17-102, states:
“Nothing contained in any Act of Congress shall be construed to empower the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to allow an appeal from any interlocutory order entered in any criminal action or proceeding or to entertain any such appeal heretofore or hereafter allowed or taken.” 44 Stat. 831, as amended, 48 Stat. 926.
The allowance of appeal technique no longer exists as to cases coming from the District Court (the former Supreme Court), but if this section does not continue to have life by force of the words “or hereafter... taken,” it does not matter, for § 226 itself was replaced in 1949 by the nationwide appellate jurisdiction provisions of Title 28 of the U. S. Code, § 1291 and § 1292, which do not authorize interlocutory appeals in criminal cases.
Thus the statutory context in which the court below made its ruling is seen to be this: Subject to stated limitations, the Government has the “same right of appeal” as the defendant in criminal cases in the District Court for the District of Columbia, but no party can appeal an interlocutory order in such cases. In United States v. Cefaratti, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 297, 202 F. 2d 13, the Court of Appeals reconciled these rules by holding:
“Since defendants may appeal from ‘final decisions,’ to say that ‘the United States... shall have the same right of appeal that is given to the defendant...’ means that... the United States may appeal from final decisions. It does not mean that the United States cannot appeal from a final decision unless it so happens that an opposite decision would also have been final.” 91 U. S. App. D. C., at 302, 202 F. 2d, at 17.
Applying this reasoning to orders for the suppression of evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that such an order had the requisite finality and independence of the criminal case to be appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. In the present case, the court below reaffirmed its Cefaratti analysis. Insofar as these decisions, resting on opinions of this Court, imply a reviewability for suppression orders that would be general to cases from all Federal District Courts, we have already indicated our disagreement earlier in this opinion.
But the Government contends that appealability under the District of Columbia statutes, though it requires a “final decision,” does not call for the independent or separable character of the orders in the cases relied on by the Court of Appeals, because here it is not essential to characterize an order as plenary or disassociated from the criminal case, inasmuch as the Government has a comprehensive right of appeal within a criminal case in the District of Columbia. We do not agree that the standard of “final decisions” as prerequisite to appeal is something less or different under 28 U. S. C. § 1291 as the successor to § 226 of the District of Columbia Code of 1901 than it is under § 1291 as the successor to the nationally applicable appeal provisions of the Judicial Code. Cf. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1, 6, 12. By this we do not mean to say that § 935 of the 1901 Code is no broader than 18 U. S. C. § 3731, but merely that the underlying concepts of finality are the same in each case.
As the outline of the statutory development demonstrates, both this Court and the Congress have been strict in confining rights of appeal in criminal cases in the District of Columbia to those plainly authorized by statute. We do not believe that the combined provisions of the 1901 and 1926 enactments permit the Government to appeal in any situation where the decision against it may have some characteristics of finality, yet does not either terminate the prosecution or pertain to an independent peripheral matter such as would be appealable in other federal courts on the authority of Stack v. Boyle, supra. The 1901 Code gave the Government “the same right of appeal that is given to the defendant,” while the 1926 amendment to the Code restricted the defendant’s right of appeal to those decisions of the Supreme Court (now District Court) that have a “final” effect, as that term is understood in defining appellate jurisdiction. We conclude that full force cannot be given to the limitations imposed on criminal appeals in the District of Columbia unless the Government is restricted as is the defendant. This is not to say “that the United States cannot appeal from a final decision unless it so happens that an opposite decision would also have been final,” as the Court of Appeals suggested in Cefaratti. Quite to the contrary, our holding is that the statutory provisions applicable to the District of Columbia, subject to the further limitations stated therein, afford the Government an appeal only from an order against it which terminates a prosecution or makes a decision whose distinct or plenary character meets the standards of the precedents applicable to finality problems in all federal courts.
In thus defining the Government’s appeal rights under § 935 of the 1901 Code, we are mindful of the considerations that motivated the Congress to specify in 1926 that interlocutory appeals in criminal cases were not possible:
“Promptness in the dispatch of the criminal business of the courts is by all recognized as in the highest degree desirable. Greater expedition is demanded by a wholesome public opinion.” S. Rep. No. 926, 69th Cong., 1st Sess.
And cf. H. R. Rep. No. 1363, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. Delays in the prosecution of criminal cases are numerous and lengthy enough without sanctioning appeals that are not plainly authorized by statute. We cannot do so here without a much clearer mandate than exists in the present terms and the historical development of the relevant provisions. Cf. United States v. Burroughs, 289 U. S. 159; United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Petitioners were charged with carrying on a lottery known as the “numbers game,” a violation of D. C. Code, 1951, §22-1501; with knowing possession of lottery slips, a violation of §22-1502; and with conspiracy to carry on a lottery, a violation of 18 U. S. C. §371. Since the substantive offense of carrying on a lottery was a felony under § 22-1501, the conspiracy charge was also a felony, by the terms of 18 U. S. C. § 371.
Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., 41:
“(e) MotioN for Return of Property and to Suppress Evidence. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that... (4) there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued,.... If the motion is granted the property shall be restored unless otherwise subject to lawful detention and it shall not be admissible in evidence at any hearing or trial....”
Petitioners’ individual motions were each captioned “Motion to Suppress ‘Arrest Warrant’ ” and asked only for suppression of the evidence taken from the person at the arrest. The District Court also granted in part a motion, made on behalf of all the defendants, relating to the seizure of evidence under search warrants at two homes. The Government makes some point of characterizing this as a motion for the return of property. It was captioned “Motion to Suppress Evidence and Return Property,” but the body of the motion asked only that the evidence seized at those places be suppressed. We find it unnecessary to decide whether this was a motion “for return of property,” or whether that would make a difference in the question of appealability on these facts, for the Court of Appeals, when it reached the merits of the issue of probable cause, dealt only with the warrants for the arrest of petitioners. Hence we limit our consideration of the case to that aspect of the District Court’s order for suppression.
91 U. S. App. D. C. 297, 202 F. 2d 13, as explained in United States v. Stephenson, 96 U. S. App. D. C. 44, 45, 223 F. 2d 336, 337.
28 U. S. C. §1291:
“The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts... except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”
18 U. S. C. §3731:
“An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district courts direct to the Supreme Court of the United States in all criminal cases in the following instances:
“From a decision or judgment setting aside, or dismissing any indictment or information, or any count thereof, where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded.
“From a decision arresting a judgment of conviction for insufficiency of the indictment or information, where such decision is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded.
“From the decision or judgment sustaining a motion in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy.
“An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district courts to a court of appeals in all criminal cases, in the following instances:
“From a decision or judgment setting aside, or dismissing any indictment or information, or any count thereof except where a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided by this section.
“From a decision arresting a judgment of conviction except where a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided by this section.
“The appeal in all such cases shall be taken within thirty days after the decision or judgment has been rendered and shall be diligently prosecuted.
“Pending the prosecution and determination of the appeal in the foregoing instances, the defendant shall be admitted to bail on his own recognizance....”
The references in the above statutes to “courts of appeals” and “district courts” encompass the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 28 U. S. C. §§43, 132, 451; 62 Stat. 991, as amended, 63 Stat. 107. See also 56 Stat. 271.
D. C. Code, 1951, § 23-105:
“In all criminal prosecutions the United States... shall have the same right of appeal that is given to the defendant, including the right to a bill of exceptions: Provided, That if on such appeal it shall be found that there was error in the rulings of the court during a trial, a verdict in favor of the defendant shall not be set aside.”
D. C. Code, 1951, § 17-102:
“Nothing contained in any Act of Congress shall be construed to empower the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to allow an appeal from any interlocutory order entered in any criminal action or proceeding or to entertain any such appeal heretofore or hereafter allowed or taken.”
See also Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323; Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, 178-182.
As to the development in state law of statutes in derogation of the common-law principle against appeal by the prosecution, see United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310, 312-318; S. Rep. No. 5650, 59th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 45, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-3. See also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319.
The Act of February 6, 1889, 25 Stat. 656, authorized direct review in the Supreme Court by writ of error “in all cases of conviction of crime the punishment of which provided by law is death, tried before any court of the United States...." Two years later the Circuit Courts of Appeals Act extended the jurisdiction for direct review to all “cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime.” 26 Stat. 827. The burden upon this Court of hearing the large number of criminal cases led, in 1897, to transfer of the jurisdiction over convictions in noncapital cases to the Circuit Courts of Appeals. 29 Stat. 492. Section 238 of the Judicial Code completed the retrenchment in 1911 by eliminating direct review of capital cases. 36 Stat. 1157. See Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court (1928), 109-113.
Prior to the Acts of 1889 and 1891, there was no jurisdictional provision for appeal or writ of error in criminal cases. United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159; see United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310, 319. A question of law arising in a case tried by a Circuit Court of two judges, if they disagreed on the question, could be brought here upon a certificate of division of opinion, at the request of either party, and (except during one two-year period) without awaiting the final outcome of the ease in the Circuit Court. 2 Stat. 159; 17 Stat. 196; R. S. § 651. See United States v. Sanges, supra, at 320-321. The availability of this procedure for review, haphazard at best because dependent on disagreement between the two sitting judges, came to be very much diluted by the increasing frequency with which the Circuit Courts were conducted by a single judge. See Frankfurter and Landis, 79, 109.
The Act of 1891 included as a category of cases subject to direct review by this Court, “any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States... is drawn in question.” 26 Stat. 828. But in United States v. Sanges, supra, the Court related the history of repeated rejections of Government criminal appeals, noted that the Act expressly conferred appellate jurisdiction in “eases of conviction,” and held that the Act did not sufficiently demonstrate congressional intent to have criminal cases reviewed at the behest of the Government, either in this Court or in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The Court said: “It is impossible to presume an intention on the part of Congress to make so serious and far-reaching an innovation in the criminal jurisprudence of the United States.” 144 U. S., at 323.
Similarly, after review of noncapital convictions was again committed to the Circuit Courts of Appeals in 1897, it was held that upon a reversal of a conviction by that court, the Government could not bring the case here through the certiorari jurisdiction that had also been created by the Act of 1891. United States v. Dickinson, 213 U. S. 92. Section 240 of the Judicial Code later conferred this jurisdiction explicitly. 36 Stat. 1157.
The 1907 enactment, 34 Stat. 1246, authorized direct review in this Court by writ of error in the same three classes of cases, roughly speaking, as are listed in the first four paragraphs of 'the present 18 U. S. C. § 3731, quoted in note 5, supra. The original Act also included the provisions protective of the defendant in the last two paragraphs quoted there, relating to expedition of the Government appeal and bail on his own recognizance, and the original Act had additional cautionary provisions, commanding precedence for these cases and barring the writ of error "in any case where there has been a verdict in favor of the defendant.”
The legislative history emphasizes the awareness of the Congress that Government appeals in criminal cases were a sharp innovation and congressional concern that such jurisdiction should go no farther at that time than the immediate problem of affording review for trial court opinions as to the construction or validity of federal statutes. In brief, the development of the Criminal Appeals Act was this: The House bill proposed adoption of the language of the District of Columbia Code of 1901, which had given the Government “the same right of appeal that is given to the defendant....” (Quoted, note 6, supra, and discussed later in this opinion.) The Senate Committee on the Judiciary substituted a more specifically drawn measure, dividing the jurisdiction between this Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals along the line the 1891 Act had drawn for civil cases. After lengthy floor debate, in which various objections to the measure were put forth, it was amended on the floor by narrowing the classes of cases in which the Government could seek review, by limiting the jurisdiction to direct review here, and by adding the protective provisions noted above. The House accepted the Senate product. See H. R. Rep. No. 2119, 59th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 3922, 59th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 5650, 59th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 8113, 59th Cong., 2d Sess.; 40 Cong. Rec. 8695, 9032-9033; 41 Cong. Rec. 2190-2197, 2745-2763, 2818-2825, 3044-3047. See also Frankfurter and Landis, 114-119.
56 Stat. 271. See H. R. Rep. No. 45, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. In these new categories of cases the appeal was directed to the Court of Appeals. The present version of the added language is quoted, as the fifth through seventh paragraphs of 18 U. S. C. § 3731, in note 5, supra.
Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 545-547; Swift & Co. v. Compania Caribe, 339 U. S. 684, 688-689; and cases cited.
E. g., Perlman v. United States, 247 U. S. 7; Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344.
Cf. Dier v. Banton, 262 U. S. 147. Rule 41 (e) explicitly authorizes making the motion in a different district:
“A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained.... The motion to suppress evidence may also be made in the district where the trial is to be had....”
E. g., Dickhart v. United States, 57 App. D. C. 5, 16 F. 2d 345. That was a motion, after acquittal in a ease under the National Prohibition Act, 41 Stat. 305, to regain possession of liquor that had been seized. See also note 17, infra.
E. g., Steele v. United States No. 1, 267 U. S. 498; United States v. Kirschenblatt, 16 F. 2d 202; cf. also Steele v. United States No. 2, 267 U. S. 505; Dowling v. Collins, 10 F. 2d 62. We do not suggest that a motion made under Rule 41 (e) gains or loses appealability simply upon whether it asks return or suppression or both. The cases just cited arose under the National Prohibition Act, which provided an independent proceeding to secure the return of property seized under a search warrant that had been issued wrongfully. 41 Stat. 315, adopting 40 Stat. 228. That factor underlay the discussion of this category of orders as appealable in Cogen v. United States, 278 U. S. 221, 225-227. The “essential character and the circumstances under which it is made” determine whether a motion is an independent proceeding or merely a step in the criminal case. Id., at 225; cf. United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U. S. 793, 801-803.
We think that a contemporary illustration of this category is United States v. Ponder, 238 F. 2d 825, where the suppression order related to a plenary proceeding that had been brought in order to impound election records for investigation by the Department of Justice and the grand jury.
See especially United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310; Cross v. United States, 145
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 Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a deportation ease. It presents a narrow and vexing problem of statutory construction. The principal question here is which, if less than all, of several entries into this country by the alien petitioner was "the time of entering the United States,” within the meaning of § 4 (a) of the Anarchist Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950. 64 Stat. 1008.
The facts are clear and undisputed. Petitioner, an alien who was born in France of Italian parentage, was admitted to the United States for permanent residence on November 1, 1923, at the age of 15. He became a member of the Communist Party of the United States at Los Angeles in 1932 and remained a member to the end of 1936, when he voluntarily ceased paying dues and left the Party. He never rejoined it. On June 28, 1937, he departed the United States — abandoning all rights of residence here — and went to Spain to fight with the Spanish Republican Army. He fought in that army for one year, was wounded in action and suffered the loss of his left foot. On September 19, 1938, he came to the United States as a new or “quota immigrant,” and applied for admission for permanent residence. He was detained at Ellis Island. A hearing was held by a Board of Special Inquiry on the issue of his admissibility. At that hearing he freely admitted that he had been a member of the Communist Party of the United States at Los Angeles, California, from 1932 to 1936, and had voluntarily left the United States on June 28, 1937, to go to Spain and fight in the Spanish Republican Army. The Board ordered him excluded, but its order was reversed on an administrative appeal, and on October 8, 1938, he was admitted to the United States “for permanent residence as a quota immigrant.” He has since continuously resided in the United States (California), except for a one-day visit to Tijuana, Mexico, in September 1939. “[A]t the time of entering the United States” on October 8, 1938, he was not, and has not since been, a member of the Communist Party.
In October 1951, proceedings were instituted to deport him under §§ 1 and 4 (a) of the Anarchist Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, as an “alien who had been a member of the Communist Party of the United States after entry into the United States.” After a hearing, disclosing the facts above recited, the hearing officer ordered him deported, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
Petitioner then brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against respondent, praying that the order of deportation be set aside. Respondent moved for summary judgment. The district judge sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal the Court of Appeals, finding that after petitioner’s first admission for permanent residence on November 1, 1923, he admittedly had been a member of the Communist Party of the United States from 1932 through 1936, affirmed the judgment. 99 U. S. App. D. C. 386, 240 F. 2d 624. We granted certiorari. 355 U. S. 901.
The parties agree that petitioner’s past Communist Party membership did not make him excludable “at the time of entering the United States” on October 8, 1938, nor when, after his one-day visit to Mexico, he re-entered in September 1939.
Section 1 of the Anarchist Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, deals with the subject of exclusion of aliens from admission and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“[Sec. 1] That any alien who is a member of any one of the following classes shall be excluded from admission into the United States:
“(1) . . . ;
“(2) Aliens who, at any time, shall be or shall have been, members of any of the following classes:
“(C) Aliens who are members of . . . the Communist Party of the United States ....
“(H) . . . (Emphasis added.)
Section 4 (a) of the Anarchist Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, deals with the subject of deportation and, in pertinent part, provides:
“Any alien who was at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time thereafter ... a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumerated in section 1 (2) of this Act, shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported in the manner provided in the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to the classes of aliens mentioned in this Act, irrespective of the time of their entry into the United States.” (Emphasis added.)
The sense of the two amended sections, as applied to this case, is this: Any alien who was at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time thereafter, a member of the Communist Party of the United States shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported in the manner provided in the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917.
Petitioner contends that it was his entry of October 8, 1938, made after the administrative adjudication of that date that he was admissible “as a quota immigrant for permanent residence” — not his entry of November 1, 1923 — that constitutes “the time of entering the United States,” within the meaning of § 4 (a); and inasmuch as he was not then, and has not since been, a member of the Communist Party he is not deportable under that section. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that § 4 (a) applies to any “entry into the United States” by petitioner, including that of November 1, 1923, and that inasmuch as he was a member of the Communist Party of the United States from 1932 to 1936 before departing from, and abandoning all rights to reside in, the United States on June 28, 1937, he is deportable under that section as an alien who has been, after entering the United States, a member of the Communist Party.
To decide the question presented it is necessary to examine and construe the statutes involved. It seems plain that the reference in § 4 (a) to the “classes of aliens enumerated in § 1 (2)” incorporates only the classes enumerated in subsections (A) through (H), and that the only one of those classes which is applicable here is class “(C),” namely, “Aliens who are members of . . . the Communist Party of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) There being no question about the fact that petitioner was not a member of the Communist Party at the time of entering the United States on October 8,1938, or at any time thereafter, the question is whether that entry — as affected, if at all, by his re-entry as a returning resident alien after his one-day trip to Mexico in September 1939 — or the one of November 1, 1923, constituted “the time of [his] entering the United States,” within the meaning of § 4 (a), as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950. If it was the latter he is deport-able, but if the former he is not.
It is obvious that Congress in enacting these statutes did not contemplate the novel factual situation that confronts us, and that these statutes are, to say the least, ambiguous upon the question we must now decide. Our study of the problem, in the light of the facts of this case, has brought us to these conclusions: The first phrase of § 4 (a) — “Any alien who was at the time of entering the United States” — necessarily refers to “the time” of petitioner’s adjudicated lawful admission, as affected, if at all, by his re-entry as a returning resident alien after his one-day trip to Mexico in September 1939, under which he claims the right to remain-. The next phrase — “or has been at any time thereafter” — necessarily refers to all times subsequent to such lawful admission. Thus the two phrases, when read together, refer to the particular time the alien was lawfully permitted to make the entry under which he claims the status and right of lawful presence that is sought to be annulled by his deportation, and to any time subsequent thereto. Inasmuch as petitioner claims no right of lawful presence under his entry of November 1, 1923, and respondent does not by the deportation order here seek to annul any right of presence acquired under that entry, we must hold that petitioner’s entry of October 8, 1938 — as affected, if at all, by his returning from Mexico in September 1939 — constituted “the time of entering the United States,” within the meaning of § 4 (a). Since petitioner was not a member of the Communist Party “at the time of entering the United States” on October 8, 1938, and has not been a member “at any time thereafter,” including, of course, the time of his returning entry from Mexico in September 1939, he is not deportable under § 4 (a), as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950.
In a different context this Court has said that the word entry “includes any coming of an alien from a foreign country into the United States whether such coming be the first or any subsequent one.” United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422, 425. While that holding is quite correct, it is not here apposite or controlling, for the question here is not whether petitioner’s coming to the United States in 1923 constituted an entry. Admittedly it did. Rather, our question is whether it was that entry, or the adjudicated lawful entry of October 8, 1938, as affected, if at all, by petitioner’s re-entry as a returning resident alien in September 1939, which constituted the time of petitioner’s entry upon which his present status depends. In the novel circumstances here we think it evident that it could not be his entry of November 1, 1923, since petitioner had abandoned all rights of residence under that entry. Volpe did not involve any question of abandonment.
Of course, if petitioner had become a member of the Communist Party after the entry of October 8, 1938, or the re-entry of September 1939, he would have been deportable under § 4 (a). Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522. But it is admitted that he was not a member of that party at those times or “at any time thereafter.” Likewise, if he had applied for entry after June 27, 1952, he would be excludable under § 212 (a) (28) (C) (iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 66 Stat. 182, 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a)(28)(C)(iv).
The Government argues that the construction which we adopt would enable a resident alien, who after lawfully entering the United States for permanent residence became a member of the Communist Party, to avoid deportation for that cause simply by quitting the party and thereafter stepping across the border and returning. While a resident alien who leaves the country for any period, however brief, does make a new entry on his return, he is then subject nevertheless to all current exclusionary laws, one of which, at present, excludes from admission any alien who has ever been a member of the Communist Party. Section 212 (a) (28) (C) (iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, supra. If he enters when excludable, he is deportable, even though he would not have been subject to deportation if he had not left the country. Hence, our construction of the statutes here involved does not enable an alien resident to evade the deportation laws by leaving the country and returning after a brief period, for if at the time of his return he is within an excluded class he would be excludable, or, if he nevertheless enters, he would be deport-able. It is admitted that when petitioner returned from Mexico after his one-day trip in September 1939 he was not excludable under then current exclusionary laws. That entry, being lawful, can only support our conclusion in this case.
Though §§ 1 and 4 (a) of the Anarchist Act of 1918, as amended by the Internal Security Act of 1950, are quite ambiguous in their application to the question here presented, we believe that our interpretation of them is the only fair and reasonable construction that their cloudy provisions will permit under the rare and novel facts of this case. “When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. And this not out of any sentimental consideration, or for want of sympathy with the purpose of Congress in proscribing evil or antisocial conduct. It may fairly be said to be a presupposition of our law to resolve doubts . . . against the imposition of a harsher punishment.” Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, 83. And we cannot “assume that Congress meant to trench on [an alien’s] freedom beyond that which is required by the narrowest of several possible meanings of the words used.” Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U. S. 6, 10. Cf. Barber v. Gonzales, 347 U. S. 637, 642-643; Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388, 391.
As applied to the circumstances of this case, we hold that the phrase in § 4 (a), “Any alien who was at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time thereafter,” refers to the time the alien was lawfully permitted to make the entry and re-entry under which he acquired the status and right of lawful presence that is sought to be annulled by his deportation. Petitioner’s entry of October 8, 1938, as affected, if at all, by his subsequent entry in September 1939 as a returning resident alien, constituted “the time of entering the United States” within the meaning of § 4 (a). Inasmuch as petitioner was not on October 8, 1938, or at any time thereafter— including September 1939 — a member of the Communist Party, he is not deportable under §§ 1 and 4 (a) of the Anarchist Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and the judgment must be reversed for that reason.
Reversed.
40 Stat. 1012, as amended, 41 Stat. 1008, 54 Stat. 673, 8 U. S. C. § 137.
He stated that he did so because he felt that Franco was a tool of Mussolini and Hitler, and if the Kome-Berlin Axis was not stopped “they would go on from country to country until the World War would start.”
The statutory provision for exclusion from admission solely by reason of membership in the Communist Party was first enacted in the Internal Security Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 1006), and therefore, petitioner was not excludable from admission, on the ground of past membership in the Communist Party, at the time he entered the United States on October 8, 1938, or at the time he re-entered, after a one-day visit to Tijuana, Mexico, in September 1939.
See note 1.
64 Stat. 1008.
Although both §§ 1 and 4(a) were repealed by §403 (a) (16) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1962 (66 Stat. 163, 279), those sections nevertheless apply to this case under the saving clause (§405 (a)) of the 1952 Act, since the order of deportation involved here was issued prior to the effective date of the 1952 Act.
Cf. Berrebi v. Crossman, 208 F. 2d 498, and Klig v. Brownell (dissenting opinion), 100 U. S. App. D. C. 294, 299-300, 244 F. 2d 742, 747-748 (certiorari granted, 355 U. S. 809; judgment of the Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the cause as moot, sub nom. Klig v. Rogers, 355 U. S. 605).
Cf. Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291; United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U. S. 398; United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, 287 U. S. 129.
Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206; United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422; United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, 287 U. S. 129; United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U. S. 398; Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78; Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291; Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner is a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father, with whom he lived. Respondents are social workers and other local officials who received complaints that petitioner was being abused by his father and had reason to believe that this was the case, but nonetheless did not act to remove petitioner from his father’s custody. Petitioner sued respondents claiming that their failure to act deprived him of his liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We hold that it did not.
I — I
The facts of this case are undeniably tragic. Petitioner Joshua DeShaney was born in 1979. In 1980, a Wyoming court granted his parents a divorce and awarded custody of Joshua to his father, Randy DeShaney. The father shortly thereafter moved to Neenah, a city located in Winnebago County, Wisconsin, taking, the infant Joshua with him. There he entered into a second marriage, which also ended in divorce.
The Winnebago County authorities first learned that Joshua DeShaney might be a victim of child abuse in January 1982, when his father’s second wife complained to the police, at the time of their divorce, that he had previously “hit the boy causing marks and [was] a prime case for child abuse.” App. 152-153. The Winnebago County Department of Social Services (DSS) interviewed the father, but he denied the accusations, and DSS did not pursue them further. In January 1983, Joshua was admitted to a local hospital with multiple bruises and abrasions. The examining physician suspected child abuse and notified DSS, which immediately obtained an order from a Wisconsin juvenile court placing Joshua in the temporary custody of the hospital. Three days later, the county convened an ad hoc “Child Protection Team” — consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county’s lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel — to consider Joshua’s situation. At this meeting, the Team decided that there was insufficient evidence of child abuse to retain Joshua in the custody of the court. The Team did, however, decide to recommend several measures to protect Joshua, including enrolling him in a preschool program, providing his father with certain counselling services, and encouraging his father’s girlfriend to move out of the home. Randy DeShaney entered into a voluntary agreement with DSS in which he promised to cooperate with them in accomplishing these goals.
Based on the recommendation of the Child Protection Team, the juvenile court dismissed the child protection case and returned Joshua to the custody of his father. A month later, emergency room personnel called the DSS caseworker handling Joshua’s case to report that he had once again been treated for suspicious injuries. The caseworker concluded that there was no basis for action. For the next six months, the caseworker made monthly visits to the DeShaney home, during which she observed a number of suspicious injuries on Joshua’s head; she also noticed that he had not been enrolled in school, and that the girlfriend had not moved out. The caseworker dutifully recorded these incidents in her files, along with her continuing suspicions that someone in the DeShaney household was physically abusing Joshua, but she did nothing more. In November 1983, the emergency room notified DSS that Joshua had been treated once again for injuries that they believed to be caused by child abuse. On the caseworker’s next two visits to the DeShaney home, she was told that Joshua was too ill to see her. Still DSS took no action.
In March 1984, Randy DeShaney beat 4-year-old Joshua so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Emergency brain surgery revealed a series of hemorrhages caused by traumatic injuries to the head inflicted over a long pe-, riod of time. Joshua did not die, but he suffered brain damage so severe that he is expected to spend the rest of his life confined to an institution for the profoundly retarded. Randy DeShaney was subsequently tried and convicted of child abuse.
Joshua and his mother brought this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against respondents Winnebago County, DSS, and various individual employees of DSS. The complaint alleged that respondents had deprived Joshua of his liberty without due process of law, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, by failing to intervene to protect him against a risk of violence at his father’s hands of which they knew or should have known. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, 812 F. 2d 298 (1987), holding that petitioners had not made out an actionable § 1983 claim for two alternative reasons. First, the court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a state or local governmental entity to protect its citizens from “private violence, or other mishaps not attributable to the conduct of its employees.” Id., at 301. In so holding, the court specifically rejected the position endorsed by a divided panel of the Third Circuit in Estate of Bailey by Oare v. County of York, 768 F. 2d 503, 510-511 (1985), and by dicta in Jensen v. Conrad, 747 F. 2d 185, 190-194 (CA4 1984), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1052 (1985), that once the State learns that a particular child is in danger of abuse from third parties and actually undertakes to protect him from that danger, a “special relationship” arises between it and the child which imposes an affirmative constitutional duty to provide adequate protection. 812 F. 2d, at 303-304. Second, the court held, in reliance on our decision in Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277, 285 (1980), that the causal connection between respondents’ conduct and Joshua’s injuries was too attenuated to establish a deprivation of constitutional rights actionable under § 1983. 812 F. 2d, at 301-303. The court therefore found it unnecessary to reach the question whether respondents’ conduct evinced the “state of mind” necessary to make out a due process claim after Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327 (1986), and Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U. S. 344 (1986). 812 F. 2d, at 302.
Because of the inconsistent approaches taken by the lower courts in determining when, if ever, the failure of a state or local governmental entity or its agents to provide an individual with adequate protective services constitutes a violation of the individual’s due process rights, see Archie v. Racine, 847 F. 2d 1211, 1220-1223, and n. 10 (CA7 1988) (en banc) (collecting cases), cert, pending, No. 88-576, and the importance of the issue to the administration of state and local governments, we granted certiorari. 485 U. S. 958 (1988). We now affirm.
II
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Petitioners contend that the State deprived Joshua of his liberty interest in “free[dom] from . . . unjustified intrusions on personal security,” see Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 673 (1977), by failing to provide him with adequate protection against his father’s violence. The claim is one invoking the substantive rather than the procedural component of the Due Process Clause; petitioners do not claim that the State denied Joshua protection without according him appropriate procedural safeguards, see Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972), but that it was categorically obligated to protect him in these circumstances, see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 309 (1982).
But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, • not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law,” but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Nor does history support such an expansive reading of the constitutional text. Like its counterpart in the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent government “from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression,” Davidson v. Cannon, supra, at 348; see also Daniels v. Williams, supra, at 331 (“ ‘ “to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government,’”” and “to prevent governmental power from being ‘used for purposes of oppression’ ”) (internal citations omitted); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 549 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring in result) (to prevent the “affirmative abuse of power”). Its purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other. The Framers were content to leave the extent of governmental obligation in the latter area to the democratic political processes.
Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual. See, e. g., Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297, 317-318 (1980) (no obligation to fund abortions or other medical services) (discussing Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56, 74 (1972) (no obligation to provide adequate housing) (discussing Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment); see also Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, at 317 (“As a general matter, a State is under no constitutional duty to provide substantive services for those within its border”). As we said in Harris v. McRae: “Although the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference ... , it does not confer an entitlement to such [governmental aid] as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.” 448 U. S., at 317-318 (emphasis added). If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them. As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.
Petitioners contend, however, that even if the Due Process Clause imposes no affirmative obligation on the State to provide the general public with adequate protective services, such a duty may arise out of certain “special relationships” created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals. Brief for Petitioners 13-18. Petitioners argue that such a “special relationship” existed here because the State knew that Joshua faced a special danger of abuse at his father’s hands, and specifically proclaimed, by word and by deed, its intention to protect him against that danger. Id., at 18-20. Having actually undertakén to protect Joshua from this danger — which petitioners concede the State played no part in creating — the State acquired an affirmative “duty,” enforceable through the Due Process Clause, to do so in a reasonably competent fashion. Its failure to discharge that duty, so the argument goes, was an abuse of governmental power that so “shocks the conscience,” Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 172 (1952), as to constitute a substantive due process violation. Brief for Petitioners 20.
We reject this argument. It is true that in certain limited circumstances the Constitution imposes upon the State affirmative duties of care and protection with respect to particular individuals. In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976), we recognized that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962), requires the State to provide adequate medical care to incarcerated prisoners. 429 U. S., at 103-104. We reasoned that because the prisoner is unable “ ‘by reason of the deprivation of his liberty [to] care for himself,’” it is only “‘just’” that the State be required to care for him. Ibid., quoting Spicer v. Williamson, 191 N. C. 487, 490, 132 S. E. 291, 293 (1926).
In Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307 (1982), we extended this analysis beyond the Eighth Amendment setting, holding that the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires the State to provide involuntarily committed mental patients with such services as are necessary to ensure their “reasonable safety” from themselves and others. Id., at 314-325; see id., at 315, 324 (dicta indicating that the State is also obligated to provide such individuals with “adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care”). As we explained: “If it is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional [under the Due Process Clause] to confine the involuntarily committed — who may not be punished at all — in unsafe conditions.” Id., at 315-316; see also Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U. S. 239, 244 (1983) (holding that the Due Process Clause requires the responsible government or governmental agency to provide medical care to suspects in police custody who have been injured while being apprehended by the police).
But these cases afford petitioners no help. Taken together, they stand only for the proposition that when the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being. See Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, at 317 (“When a person is institutionalized — and wholly dependent on the State[,]... a duty to provide certain services and care does exist”). The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs — e. g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety — it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. See Estelle v. Gamble, supra, at 103-104; Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, at 315-316. The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. See Estelle v. Gamble, supra, at 103 (“An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met”). In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State’s, affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf— through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty — which is the “deprivation of liberty” triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.
The Estelle-Youngberg analysis simply has no applicability in the present case. Petitioners concede that the harms Joshua suffered occurred not while he was in the State’s custody, but while he was in the custody of his natural father, who was in no sense a state actor. While the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them. That the State once took temporary custody of Joshua does not alter the analysis, for when it returned him to his father’s custody, it placed him in no worse position than that in which he would have been had it not acted at all; the State does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual’s safety by having once offered him shelter. Under these circumstances, the State had no constitutional duty to protect Joshua.
It may well be that, by voluntarily undertaking to protect Joshua against a danger it concededly played no part in creating, the State acquired a duty under state tort law to provide him with adequate protection against that danger. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965) (one who undertakes to render services to another may in some circumstances be held liable for doing so in a negligent fashion); see generally W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 56 (5th ed. 1984) (discussing “special relationships” which may give rise to affirmative duties to act under the common law of tort). But the claim here is based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, as we have said many times, does not transform every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S., at 335-336; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S., at 544; Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277, 285 (1980); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137, 146 (1979); Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 701 (1976). A State may, through its courts and legislatures, impose such affirmative duties of care and protection upon its agents as it wishes. But not “all common-law duties owed by government actors were . . . constitutionalized by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Daniels v. Williams, supra, at 335. Because, as explained above, the State had no constitutional duty to protect Joshua against his father’s violence, its failure to do so — though calamitous in hindsight — simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.
Judges and lawyers, like other humans, are moved by natural sympathy in a case like this to find a way for Joshua and his mother to receive adequate compensation for the grievous harm inflicted upon them. But before yielding to that impulse, it is well to remember once again that the harm was inflicted not by the State of Wisconsin, but by Joshua’s father. The most that can be said of the state functionaries in this case is that they stood by and did nothing when suspicious circumstances dictated a more active role for them. In defense of them it must also be said that had they moved too soon to take custody of the son away from the father, they would likely have been met with charges of improperly intruding into the parent-child relationship, charges based on the same Due Process Clause that forms the basis for the present charge of failure to provide adequate protection.
The people of Wisconsin may well prefer a system of liability which would place upon the State and its officials the responsibility for failure to act in situations such as the present one. They may create such a system, if they do not' have it already, by changing the tort law of the State in accordance with the regular lawmaking process. But they should not have it thrust upon them by this Court’s expansion of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Affirmed.
As used here, the term “State” refers generically to state and local governmental entities and their agents.
Petitioners also argue that the Wisconsin child protection statutes gave Joshua an “entitlement” to receive protective services in accordance with the terms of the statute, an entitlement which would enjoy due process protection against state deprivation under our decision in Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972). Brief for Petitioners 24-29. But this argument is made for the first time in petitioners’ brief to this Court: it was not pleaded in the complaint, argued to the Court of Appeals as a ground for reversing the District Court, or raised in the petition for certiorari. We therefore decline to consider it here. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S., at 316, n. 19; Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 323, n. 1 (1977); Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195, 200 (1927); Old Jordan Mining Milling Co. v. Société Anonyme des Mines, 164 U. S. 261, 264-265 (1896).
The State may not, of course, selectively deny its protective services to certain disfavored minorities without violating the Equal Protection Clause. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886). But no such argument has been made here.
The genesis of this notion appears to lie in a statement in our opinion in Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277 (1980). In that case, we were asked to decide, inter alia, whether state officials could be held liable under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the death of a private citizen at the hands of a parolee. Rather than squarely confronting the question presented here — whether the Due Process Clause imposed upon the State an affirmative duty to protect — we affirmed the dismissal of the claim on the narrower ground that the causal connection between the state officials’ decision to release the parolee from prison and the murder was too attenuated to establish a “deprivation” of constitutional rights within the meaning of § 1983. Id,, at 284-285. But we went on to say: “[T]he parole board was not aware that appellants’ decedent, as distinguished from the public at large, faced any special danger. We need not and do not decide that a parole officer could never be deemed to ‘deprive’ someone of life by action taken in connection with the release of a prisoner on parole. But we do hold that at least under the particular circumstances of this parole decision, appellants' decedent’s death is too remote a consequence of the parole officers’ action to hold them responsible under the federal civil rights law.” Id., at 285 (footnote omitted).
Several of the Courts of Appeals have read this language as implying that once the State learns that a third party poses a special danger to an identified victim, and indicates its willingness to protect the victim against that danger, a “special relationship” arises between State and victim, giving rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process Clause, to render adequate protection. See Estate of Bailey by Oare v. County of York, 768 F. 2d 503, 510-511 (CA3 1985); Jensen v. Conrad, 747 F. 2d 185, 190-194, and n. 11 (CA4 1984) (dicta), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1052 (1985)); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 855 F. 2d 1421, 1425-1426 (CA9 1988). But see, in addition to the opinion of the Seventh Circuit below, Estate of Gilmore v. Buckley, 787 F. 2d 714, 720-723 (CA1), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 882 (1986); Harpole v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 820 F. 2d 923, 926-927 (CA8 1987); Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hospital Inc., 826 F. 2d 1030, 1034-1037 (CA11 1987).
To make out an Eighth Amendment claim based on the failure to provide adequate medical care, a prisoner must show that the state defendants exhibited “deliberate indifference” to his “serious” medical needs; the mere negligent or inadvertent failure to provide adequate care is not enough. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S., at 105-106. In Whitley v. Albers, 475 U. S. 312 (1986), we suggested that a similar state of mind is required to make out a substantive due process claim in the prison setting. Id., at 326-327.
The Eighth Amendment applies “only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. . . . [T]he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 671-672, n. 40 (1977); see also Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U. S. 239, 244 (1983); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 535, n. 16 (1979).
Even in this situation, we have recognized that the State “has considerable discretion in determining the nature and scope of its responsibilities.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S., at 317.
Of course, the protections of the Due Process Clause, both substantive and procedural, may be triggered when the State, by the affirmative acts of its agents, subjects an involuntarily confined individual to deprivations of liberty which are not among those generally authorized by his confinement. See, e. g., Whitley v. Albers, supra, at 326-327 (shooting inmate); Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, at 316 (shackling involuntarily committed mental patient); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U. S. 5, 11 (1980) (removing inmate from general prison population and confining him to administrative segregation); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 491-494 (1980) (transferring inmate to mental health facility).
Complaint ¶ 16, App. 6 (“At relevant times to and until March 8, 1984, [the date of the final beating,] Joshua DeShaney was in the custody and control of Defendant Randy DeShaney”). Had the State by the affirmative exercise of its power removed Joshua from free society and placed him in a foster home operated by its agents, we might have a situation sufficiently analogous to incarceration or institutionalization to give rise to an affirmative duty to protect. Indeed, several Courts of Appeals have held, by analogy to Estelle and Youngberg, that the State may be held liable under the Due Process Clause for failing to protect children in foster homes from mistreatment at the hands of their foster parents. See Doe v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 649 F. 2d 134, 141-142 (CA2 1981), after remand, 709 F. 2d 782, cert. denied sub nom. Catholic Home Bureau v. Doe, 464 U. S. 864 (1983); Taylor ex rel. Walker v. Ledbetter, 818 F. 2d 791, 794-797 (CA11 1987) (en banc), cert. pending Ledbetter v. Taylor, No. 87-521. We express no view on the validity of this analogy, however, as it is not before us in the present case.
Because we conclude that the Due Process Clause did not require the State to protect Joshua from his father, we need not address respondents’ alternative argument that the individual state actors lacked the requisite “state of mind” to make out a due process violation. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S., at 334, n. 3. Similarly, we have no occasion to consider whether the individual respondents might be entitled to a qualified immunity defense, see Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635 (1987), or whether the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to support a § 1983 claim against the county and DSS under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), and its progeny.
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.
United Gas Pipe Line Company and Continental Oil Company executed a contract effective January 31, 1953, providing for the sale by Continental and the purchase by United of gas produced from the Johnson Bayou Field in the State of Louisiana, at prices stated in the contract. The contract was to run for 10 years and from year to year thereafter unless terminated by either party on 90 days’ notice. To effectuate delivery to United’s nearby Mud Lake transmission line for transportation of the gas into the Beaumont, Texas, area, Continental constructed several thousand feet of pipeline, separators and storage tanks. United, for its part, constructed a short length of pipeline, a separator, a meter station and valves. United sought, was granted and accepted a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the continued transportation of gas from the Johnson Bayou Field and the construction and operation of the facilities necessary therefor. 14 F. P. C. 582. Likewise, Continental was issued a certificate authorizing the sale of gas to United under the terms of the contract. 15 F. P. C. 1650.
In October 1962 Continental elected to terminate the contract at the end of the primary term. Negotiations for a new contract were fruitless. Continental, after refusing United’s offer to continue purchasing on a day-today basis at the old contract rate, filed a rate increase with the Commission asking for an effective date of January 31, 1963. The Commission accepted the filing over United’s protest. United, after advance notice to Continental, then ceased purchasing gas from the Johnson Bayou Field on January 31, 1963, and has since refused to purchase gas from that source. Following a petition by Continental, an order to show cause issued by the Commission to United and a full hearing, the Commission found that United, by ceasing to take gas from the Johnson Bayou Field, had abandoned its facilities used for this purpose as well as the service rendered by these facilities, contrary to the provisions of § 7 (b) of the Natural Gas Act which forbid such abandonment without the consent of the Commission being first obtained. Accordingly, the Commission ordered United to “renew operation of its Johnson Bayou Field facilities used to purchase gas from Continental” and directed that the purchases by United were to be at Continental’s new rate and in volumes consistent with the terms of the contract previously in force. 31 F. P. C. 1079, 1086. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s order, 350 F. 2d 689, and we granted certiorari, 383 U. S. 924, because the case involved an important question concerning the Commission’s jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. We affirm.
We agree with the Commission and the Court of Appeals that United’s refusal to continue receiving gas from the Johnson Bayou Field constituted an abandonment of “facilities” and a “service” to which § 7 (b) applies. That section places conditions on the abandonment of facilities or of any service rendered thereby. The facilities covered by the section are those “subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission,” the further identification of which requires resort to other sections of the Act. Section 1 (b) declares that the provisions of the Act are to apply to: (1) the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, (2) the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption and (3) natural gas companies engaged in such transportation or sale. Under § 7 (c) no natural gas company is permitted to engage in the transportation or sale of natural gas, or to undertake the construction or extension of facilities therefor without a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing such acts or operations. Thus the “facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission” which are reached by the abandonment provisions of § 7 (b) are those facilities required for the interstate transportation of natural gas and for the interstate sale of gas for resale to the ultimate consumer. Conversely, it would seem beyond argument that the proscription of abandoning “any service” rendered by those facilities would include both transportation and sale, the twin functions which subject the facilities to the provisions of the Act.
We are convinced that United's Johnson Bayou Field facilities were subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. They were constructed solely for the purpose of the taking and interstate transportation of Johnson Bayou gas. They could not, therefore, be abandoned without the consent of the Commission and we do not understand United's position in this Court to be otherwise. United, however, insists that there has not in fact been a § 7 (b) “abandonment.” It is true that the Johnson Bayou Field facilities were neither removed nor disconnected. Their use could have been resumed at any time had United so desired. But the physical alteration of facilities is not a sine qua non restricting the Commission’s jurisdiction under § 7 (b). Here United ceased taking and transporting gas from the Johnson Bayou Field on January 31, 1963, has not taken that gas or used its facilities constructed for that purpose since that time and has no intention of doing so as long as Continental’s present rates continue in effect. United, the Commission found, had by its own action rendered its facilities “operationally dormant for a period of indefinite duration.” 31 F. P. C. 1079, 1083. In addition, the Commission found that its interest went beyond the physical alteration of facilities. “We have a regulatory responsibility to assure that gas once dedicated to the interstate market will continue to be available to that market so long as the public interest demands . . . .” 31 F. P. C. 1079, 1082. As the instant proceeding unmistakably revealed, the responsibility of the Commission could not adequately be met if it were powerless to assure that facilities “certificated to transport this gas,” ibid., continued to operate. To hold United’s conduct an abandonment within the meaning of § 7 (b) is a reasonable interpretation of the Act and we shall not disturb it.
The corollary conclusion, inescapably presented on the face of the Act itself, is that the consent of the Commission is necessary before United can cease taking and transporting Johnson Bayou gas, since this is a service United rendered through the facilities it constructed for that very purpose. United, however, contends that the words “any service” in § 7 (b) include only the sale of natural gas, not the taking and transportation of gas from any particular field. In its view it is free at any time to abandon the interstate transportation of gas from the Johnson Bayou Field, and to decide for itself wholly apart from the Commission what gas it will continue to transport interstate. But nothing in the Act, its legislative history or in our cases has been called to our attention which persuasively supports this narrow view or which would justify recognizing the sale of gas as a service but not the preceding transportation without which there would be no sale at all.
The Act gives the Commission jurisdiction over interstate transportation of natural gas as a separate and distinct matter, whether the transportation is for hire or for sale and whether the sale is for consumption or resale. FPC v. East Ohio Gas Co., 338 U. S. 464; FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 365 U. S. 1; Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. FPC, 359 F. 2d 675. Here, of course, the transportation is not for hire but for sale, some for consumption and some for resale. What is more, in Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. FPC, 364 U. S. 137, 149-150, the Court clearly recognized that the term “service” is not confined to sales but extends to the “movement of gas in interstate' commerce” and that one who engages in either the sale or the transportation of gas is performing a service within the meaning of both §§ 7 (e) and 7 (b). It could not be more clear that United here abandoned a “service,” the taking of Johnson Bayou Field gas and its transportation in interstate commerce. The statutory necessity of prior Commission approval, with its underlying findings, cannot be escaped.
Even so, United argues that the Act gives the Commission no authority over the purchase of natural gas, and that the Commission therefore exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering United to continue purchasing gas from Continental in amounts specified in an expired contract and at prices set unilaterally by Continental. It is true that the Act does not in so many words grant the same express authority over purchases to the Commission that it does over sales. Neither is there a blanket exemption of Commission jurisdiction over the purchase of gas, and there is express authority over transportation as well as sale. Under § 16, the Commission has the power “to perform any and all acts, and to . . . issue . . . such orders, rules, and regulations as it may find necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Act.” 52 Stat. 830, 15 U. S. C. § 717o. Where it is necessary to regulate the purchase of gas in some respects to carry out its expressly granted authority over transportation and sale, the Commission must have the power to do so. In the case before us, there has been a § 7 (b) abandonment of facilities or services without Commission consent. It is therefore quite proper for the Commission to order the facilities reactivated and the abandoned service restored, even though the resumption by United of the transportation of gas from the Johnson Bayou Field will entail the purchase of gas from Continental at the legally established price. Undoubtedly, the continued purchase of gas has been ordered but only as an incident to regulating transportation or sale. This is no more than the Act authorizes and no more than United undertook to do when it sought and received certification for the service it sought to perform.
After United had begun to purchase gas from the Johnson Bayou Field in 1953 and to transport it to markets in the State of Texas, United sought a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and use of the facilities it had built and the continued transportation of the Johnson Bayou gas. United then asserted that the public convenience and necessity required the issuance of such a certificate. Both the construction and operation of the facilities and the transportation of gas by means thereof were found by the Commission to be required by the public convenience and necessity. United was found “able and willing ... to perform the service . . .” for which it had volunteered. A certificate was accordingly issued and formally accepted by United. United now wishes to abandon the express service it agreed to perform — the continued transportation of Johnson Bayou gas — without a § 7 (b) finding by the Commission “that the present or future public convenience or necessity permit[s] such abandonment.” This is precisely what the Act forbids.
United claims that it does not need the Johnson Bayou gas to serve its customers and that the forced purchase of gas at prices set by Continental and approved by the Commission without regard to the prices at which United under contract or competition is bound to sell the gas deprives it of property without due process of law. In our view, these claims are premature. We do not hold that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to permit abandonment in this case if it is asked to do so and the necessary findings are made. We hold only that United has abandoned facilities and service without the consent of the Commission and that it must reactivate those facilities and restore the service until and unless the statutory consent is obtained. If United now resorts to the Commission, it will have every opportunity to present its economic and constitutional grounds for abandonment.
For the reasons herein stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
United unsuccessfully petitioned for rehearing of the Commission's order approving the rate increase, 29 F. P. C. 525, but did not seek judicial review of the order.
Section 7 (b) of the Act provides that “No natural-gas company shall abandon all or any portion of its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any service rendered by means of such facilities, without the permission and approval of the Commission first had and obtained, after due hearing, and a finding by the Commission that the available supply of natural gas is depleted to the extent that the continuance of service is unwarranted, or that the present 'or future public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment.” 52 Stat. 824, 15 U. S. C. §717f (b).
The text of the section provides: “The provisions of this Act shall apply to the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, to the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use, and to natural-gas companies engaged in such transportation or sale, but shall not apply to any other transportation or sale of natural gas or to the local distribution of natural gas or to the facilities used for such distribution or to the production or gathering of natural gas.” 52 Stat. 821, 15 U. S. C. §717 (b).
The text of the section, in relevant part, provides that “No natural-gas company or person which will be a natural-gas company upon completion of any proposed construction or extension shall engage in the transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or undertake the construction or extension of any facilities therefor, or acquire or operate any such facilities or extensions thereof, unless there is in force with respect to such natural-gas company a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission authorizing such acts or operations . . . .” Added by the Act of February 7, 1942, 56 Stat. S3, 15 TJ. S. C. § 7,17f (c).
What we have said, of course, does not imply that the Commission has the. power to compel initial purchases of gas. We reach only the question of the Commission’s power under § 7 (b) to order reactivation of abandoned facilities and service.
United’s application for the certificate, docketed September 20, 1954, appears in FPC Docket No. G-2818, United Gas Pipe Line Company.
The Commission’s complete order appears in Docket G-2818, supra, n. 6; an abbreviated version appears in 14 F. P. C. 582. (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: | 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.
These consolidated cases, sequels to Georgia v. Rachel, ante, p. 780, involve prosecutions on various state criminal charges against 29 people who were allegedly engaged in the spring and summer of 1964 in civil rights activity in Leflore County, Mississippi. In the first case, 14 individuals were charged with obstructing the public streets of the City of Greenwood in violation of Mississippi law. They filed petitions to remove their cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi under 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1964 ed.). Alleging that they were members of a civil rights group engaged, in a drive to encourage Negro voter registration in Leflore County, their petitions stated that they were denied or could not enforce in the courts of the State rights under laws providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, and that they were being prosecuted for acts done under color of authority of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U. S. C. § 1971 et seq. (1964 ed.). Additionally, their removal petitions alleged that the statute under which they were charged was unconstitutionally vague on its face, that it was ünconstitutionally applied to their conduct, and that its application was a part of a policy of racial discrimination fostered by the State of Mississippi and the City of Greenwood. The District Court sustained the motion of the City of Greenwood to remand the cases to the city police court for trial. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that “a good claim for removal under § 1443 (1) is stated by allegations that a state statute has been applied prior to trial so as to deprive an accused of his equal civil rights in that the arrest and charge under the statute were effected for reasons of racial discrimination.” Peacock v. City of Greenwood, 347 F. 2d 679, 684. Accordingly, the cases were remanded to the District Court for a hearing on the truth of the defendants’ allegations. At the same time, the Court of Appeals rejected the defendants’ contentions under 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (2), holding that removal under that subsection is available only to those who have acted in an official or quasi-official capacity under a federal law and who can therefore be said to have acted under “color of authority” of the law within the meaning of that provision.
In the second case, 15 people allegedly affiliated with a civil rights group were arrested at different times in July and August of 1964 and charged with various offenses against the laws of Mississippi or ordinances of the City of Greenwood. These defendants filed essentially identical petitions for removal in the District Court, denying that they had engaged in any conduct prohibited by valid laws and stating that their arrests and prosecutions were for the “sole purpose and effect of harassing Petitioners and of punishing them for and deterring them from the exercise of their constitutionally protected right to protest the conditions of racial discrimination and segregation” in Mississippi. As grounds for removal, the defendants specifically invoked 28 U. S. C. §§ 1443 (l) and 1443 (2). The District Court held that the cases had been improperly'removed and remanded them to the police court of the City of Greenwood. In a per curiam opinion finding the issues “identical with” those determined in the Peacock case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the cases to the District Court for a hearing on the truth of the defendants’ allegations under § 1443 (1). Weathers v. City of Greenwood, 347 F. 2d 986.
We granted certiorari to consider the important questions raised by the parties concerning the scope of the civil rights removal statute. 382 U. S. 971. As in Georgia v. Rachel, ante, p. 780, we deal here not with questions of congressional power, but with issues of statutory construction.
I.
The individual petitioners contend that, quite apart from 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1), they are entitled to remove their cases to the District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (2), which authorizes the removal of a civil action or criminal prosecution for “any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights....” The core of their contention is that the various federal constitutional and statutory provisions invoked in their removal petitions conferred “color of authority” upon them to perform the acts for which they are being prosecuted by the State. We reject this argument, because we have concluded that the history of § 1443 (2) demonstrates convincingly that this subsection of the removal statute is available only to federal officers and to persons assisting such officers in the performance of their official duties.
The progenitor of § 1443 (2) was § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. Insofar as it is relevant here, that section granted removal of all criminal prosecutions “commenced in any State court... against any officer, civil or military, or other person, for any arrest or imprisonment, trespasses, or wrongs done or committed by virtue or under color of authority derived from this act or the act establishing a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, and all acts amendatory thereof....” (Emphasis added.)
The statutory phrase “officer... or other person” characterizing the removal defendants in § 3 of the 1866 Act was carried forward without change through successive revisions of the removal statute until 1948, when the revisers, disavowing any substantive change, eliminated the phrase entirely. The definition of the persons entitled to removal under the present form of the statute is therefore appropriately to be read in the light of the more expansive language of the statute’s ancestor. See Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U. S. 556, 560, n. 12; Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 227-228.
In the context of its original enactment as part of § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the statutory language “officer... or other person” points squarely to the conclusion that the phrase “or other person” meant persons acting in association with the civil or military officers mentioned in the immediately preceding words of the statute. That interpretation stems from the obvious contrast between the “officer... or other person” phrase and the next preceding portion of the statute, the predecessor of the present § 1443 (1), which granted removal to “any... person” who was denied or could not enforce in the courts of the State his rights under § 1 of the 1866 Act. The dichotomy between “officer... or other person” and “any... person” in these correlative removal provisions persisted through successive statutory revisions until 1948, even though, were we to accept the individual petitioners’ contentions, the two phrases would in fact have been almost entirely co-extensive.
It is clear that the “other person” in the “officer... or other person” formula of § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was intended as an obvious reference to certain categories of persons described in the enforcement provisions, §§4-7, of the Act. 14 Stat. 28-29. Section 4 of the Act specifically charged both the officers and the agents of the Freedmen’s Bureau, among others, with the duty of enforcing the Civil Rights Act. As such, those officers and agents were required to arrest and institute proceedings against persons charged with violations of the Act. By the “color of authority” removal provision of § 3 of the Civil Rights Act, “agents” who derived their authority from the Freedmen’s Bureau legislation would be entitled as “other persons,” if not as “officers,” to removal of state prosecutions against them based upon their enforcement activities under both the Freedmen’s Bureau legislation and the Civil Rights Act. Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act, now 42 U. S. C. § 1989 (1964 ed.), specifically authorized United States commissioners to appoint “one or more suitable persons” to execute warrants and other process issued by the commissioners. These “suitable persons” were, in turn, specifically authorized “to summon and call to their aid the bystanders or posse comitatus of the proper county.” Section 6 of the Act provided criminal penalties for any individual who obstructed “any officer, or other person charged with the execution of any warrant or process issued under the provisions of this act, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him or them,” or who rescued or attempted to rescue prisoners “from the custody of the officer, other person or persons, or those lawfully assisting.” Finally, § 7 of the Act, now 42 U. S. C. § 1991 (1964 ed.), awarded a fee of five dollars for each individual arrested by the “person or persons authorized to execute the process” — i. e., the “one or more suitable persons” of § 5. Thus, the enforcement provisions of the 1866 Act were replete with references to “other persons” in contexts obviously relating to positive enforcement activity under the Act.
The derivation of the statutory phrase “For any act” in § 1443 (2) confirms the interpretation that removal under this subsection is limited to federal officers and those acting under them. The phrase “For any act” was substituted in 1948 for the phrase “for any arrest or imprisonment or other trespasses or wrongs.” Like the “officer... or other person” provision, the language specifying the acts on which removal could be grounded had, with minor changes, persisted until 1948 in the civil rights removal statute since its original introduction in the 1866 Act. The language of the original Civil Rights Act — “arrest or imprisonment, trespasses, or wrongs”— is pre-eminently the language of enforcement. The words themselves denote the very sorts of activity for which federal officers, seeking to enforce the broad guarantees of the 1866 Act, were likely to be prosecuted in the state courts. As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has put it, “ ‘Arrest or imprisonment, trespasses, or wrongs/ were precisely the probable charges against enforcement officers and those assisting them; and a statute speaking of such acts ‘done or committed by virtue of or under color of authority derived from’ specified laws reads far more readily on persons engaged in some sort of enforcement than on those whose rights were being enforced....” New York v. Galamison, 342 F. 2d 255, 262.
The language of the “color of authority” removal provision of § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was taken directly from the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863, 12 Stat. 755, which authorized the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and precluded civil and criminal liability of any person making a search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment under any order of the President during the rebellion. Section 5 of the 1863 Act provided for the removal of all suits or prosecutions “against any officer, civil or military, or against any other person, for any arrest or imprisonment made, or other trespasses or wrongs done or committed, or any act omitted to be done, at any time during the present rebellion, by virtue or under color of any authority derived from or exercised by or under the President of the United States, or any Act of Congress.” 12 Stat. 756. See The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247; Phillips v. Gaines, 131 U. S. App. clxix. Since the 1863 Act granted no rights to private individuals, its removal provision was concerned solely with the protection of federal officers and persons acting under them in the performance of their official duties. Thus, at the same time that Congress expanded the availability of removal by enacting the “denied or cannot enforce” clause in § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it repeated almost verbatim in the “color of authority” clause the language of the 1863 Act — language that was clearly limited to enforcement activity by federal officers and those acting under them.
For these reasons, we hold that the second subsection of § 1443 confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights. Accordingly, the individual petitioners in the case before us had no right of removal to the federal court under 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (2).
II.
We come, then, to the issues which this case raises as to the scope of 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1). In Georgia v. Rachel, decided today, we have held that removal of a state court trespass prosecution can be had under § 1443 (1) upon a petition alleging that the prosecution stems exclusively from the petitioners’ peaceful exercise of their right to equal accommodation in establishments covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 201, 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a (1964 ed.). Since that Act itself, as construed by this Court in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, 310, specifically and uniquely guarantees that the conduct alleged in the removal petition in Rachel may “not be the subject of trespass prosecutions,” the defendants inevitably are “denied or cannot enforce in the courts of [the] State a right under any law providing for... equal civil rights,” by merely being brought before a state court to defend such a prosecution. The present case, however, is far different.
In the first place, the federal rights invoked by the individual petitioners include some that clearly cannot qualify under the statutory definition as rights under laws providing for “equal civil rights.” The First Amendment rights of free expression, for example, so heavily relied upon in the removal petitions, are not rights arising under a law providing for “equal civil rights” within the meaning of § 1443 (1). The First Amendment is a great charter of American freedom, and the precious rights of personal liberty it protects are undoubtedly comprehended in the concept of “civil rights.” Cf. Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 531-532 (separate opinion of Stone, J.). But the reference in § 1443 (1) is to “equal civil rights.” That phrase, as our review in Rachel of its legislative history makes clear, does not include the broad constitutional guarantees of the First Amendment. A precise definition of the limitations of the phrase “any law providing for... equal civil rights” in § 1443 (1) is not a matter we need pursue to a conclusion, however, because we may proceed here on the premise that at least the two federal statutes specifically referred to in the removal petitions, 42 U. S. C. § 1971 and 42 U. S. C. § 1981, do qualify under the statutory definition.
The fundamental claim in this case, then, is that a case for removal is made under § 1443 (1) upon a petition alleging: (1) that the defendants were arrested by-state officers and charged with various offenses under state law because they were Negroes or because they were engaged in helping Negroes assert their rights under federal equal civil rights laws, and that they are completely innocent of the charges against them, or (2) that the defendants will be unable to obtain a fair trial in the state court. The basic difference between this case and Rachel is thus immediately apparent. In Rachel the defendants relied on the specific provisions of a preemptive federal civil rights law — §§ 201 (a) and 203 (c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000a (a) and 2000a-2 (c) (1964 ed.), as construed in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, supra—that, under the conditions alleged, gave them: (1) the federal statutory right to remain on the property of a restaurant proprietor after being ordered to leave, despite a state law making it a criminal offense not to leave, and (2) the further federal statutory right that no State should even attempt to prosecute them for their conduct. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as construed in Hamm thus specifically and uniquely conferred upon the defendants an absolute right to “violate” the explicit terms of the state criminal trespass law with impunity under the conditions alleged in the Rachel removal petition, and any attempt by the State to make them answer in a court for this conceded “violation” would directly deny their federal right “in the courts of [the] State.” The present case differs from Rachel in two significant respects. First, no federal law confers an absolute right on private citizens — on civil rights advocates, on Negroes, or on anybody else — to obstruct a public street, to contribute to the delinquency of a minor, to drive an automobile without a license, or to bite a policeman. Second, no federal law confers immunity from state prosecution on such charges.
To sustain removal of these prosecutions to a federal court upon the allegations of the petitions in this case would therefore mark a complete departure from the terms of the removal statute, which allow removal only when a person is “denied or cannot enforce” a specified federal right “in the courts of [the] State,” and a complete departure as well from the consistent line of this Court’s decisions from Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, to Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1. Those cases all stand for at least one basic proposition: It is not enough to support removal under § 1443 (1) to allege or show that the defendant’s federal equal civil rights have been illegally and corruptly denied by state administrative officials in advance of trial, that the charges against the defendant are false, or that the defendant is unable to obtain a fair trial in a particular state court. The motives of the officers bringing the charges may be corrupt, but that does not show that the state trial court will find the defendant guilty if he is innocent, or that in any other manner the defendant will be “denied or cannot enforce in the courts” of the State any right under a federal law providing for equal civil rights. The civil rights removal statute does not require and does not permit the judges of the federal courts to put their brethren of the state judiciary on trial. Under § 1443 (1), the vindication of the defendant’s federal rights is left to the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court. Georgia v. Rachel, ante; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303.
What we have said is not for one moment to suggest that the individual petitioners in this case have not alleged a denial of rights guaranteed to them under federal law. If, as they allege, they are being prosecuted on baseless charges solely because of their race, then there has been an outrageous denial of their federal rights, and the federal courts are far from powerless to redress the wrongs done to them. The most obvious remedy is the traditional one emphasized in the line of cases from Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, to Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1—vindication of their federal claims on direct review by this Court, if those claims have not been vindicated by the trial or reviewing courts of the State. That is precisely what happened in two of the cases in the Rives-Powers line of decisions, where removal under the predecessor of § 1443 (1) was held to be unauthorized, but where the state court convictions were overturned because of a denial of the defendants’ federal rights at their trials. That is precisely what has happened in countless cases this Court has reviewed over the years— cases like Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87, to name one at random decided in the present Term. “Cases where Negroes are prosecuted and convicted in state courts can find their way expeditiously to this Court, provided they present constitutional questions.” England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 434 (Douglas, J., concurring).
But there are many other remedies available in the federal courts to redress the wrongs claimed by the individual petitioners in the extraordinary circumstances they allege in their removal petitions. If the state prosecution or trial on the charge of obstructing a public street or on any other charge would itself clearly deny their rights protected by the First Amendment, they may under some circumstances obtain an injunction in the federal court. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479. If they go to trial and there is a complete absence of evidence against them, their convictions will be set aside because of a denial of düe process of law. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199. If at their trial they are in fact denied any federal constitutional rights, and these denials go uncorrected by other courts of the State, the remedy of federal habeas corpus is freely available to them. Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391. If their federal claims at trial have been denied through an unfair or deficient fact-finding process, that, too, can be corrected by a federal court. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293.
Other sanctions, civil and criminal, are available in the federal courts against officers of a State who violate the petitioners’ federal constitutional and statutory rights. Under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1964 ed.) the officers may be made to respond in damages not only for violations of rights conferred by federal equal civil rights laws, but for violations of other federal constitutional and statutory rights as well. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167. And only this Term we have held that the provisions of 18 U. S. C. § 241 (1964 ed.), a criminal law that imposes punishment of up to 10 years in prison, may be invoked against those who conspire to deprive any citizen of the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” by “causing the arrest of Negroes by means of false reports that such Negroes had committed criminal acts.” United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 756.
But the question before us now is not whether state officials in Mississippi have engaged in conduct for which they may be civilly or criminally liable under federal law. The question, precisely, is whether the individual petitioners are entitled to remove these state prosecutions to a federal court under the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1). Unless the words of this removal statute are to be disregarded and the previous consistent decisions of this Court completely repudiated, the answer must clearly be that no removal is authorized in this case. In the Rachel case, decided today, we have traced the course of those decisions against the historic background of the statute they were called upon to interpret. And in Rachel we have concluded that removal to the federal court in the narrow circumstances there presented would not be a departure from the teaching of this Court’s decisions, because the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in those narrow circumstances, “substitutes a right for a crime.” Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, 315.
We need not and do not necessarily approve or adopt all the language and all the reasoning of every one of this Court’s opinions construing this removal statute, from Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, to Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1. But we decline to repudiate those decisions, and we decline to do so not out of a blind adherence to the principle of stare decisis, but because after independent consideration we have determined, for the reasons expressed in this opinion and in Rachel, that those decisions were correct in their basic conclusion that the provisions of § 1443 (1) do not operate to work a wholesale dislocation of the historic relationship between the state and the federal courts in the administration of the criminal law.
It is worth contemplating what the result would be if the strained interpretation of § 1443 (1) urged by the individual petitioners were to prevail. In the fiscal year 1963 there were 14 criminal removal cases of all kinds in the entire Nation; in fiscal 1964 there were 43. The present case was decided by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 22, 1965, just before the end of the fiscal year. In that year, fiscal 1965, there were 1,079 criminal removal cases in the Fifth Circuit alone. But this phenomenal increase is no more than a drop in the bucket of what could reasonably be expected in the future. For if the individual petitioners should prevail in their interpretation of § 1443 (1), then every criminal case in every court of every State — on any charge from a five-dollar misdemeanor to first-degree murder — would be removable to a federal court upon a petition alleging (1) that the defendant was being prosecuted because of his race and that he was completely innocent of the charge brought against him, or (2) that he would be unable to obtain a fair trial in the state court. On motion to remand, the federal court would be required in every case to hold a hearing, which would amount to at least a preliminary trial of the motivations of the state officers who arrested and charged the defendant, of the quality of the state court or judge before whom the charges were filed, and of the defendant's innocence or guilt. And the federal court might, of course, be located hundreds of miles away from the place where the charge was brought. This hearing could be followed either by a full trial in the federal court, or by a remand order. Every remand order would be appealable as of right to a United States Court of Appeals and, if affirmed there, would then be reviewable by petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court. If the remand order were eventually affirmed, there might, if the witnesses were still available, finally be a trial in the state court, months or years after the original charge was brought. If the remand order were eventually reversed, there might finally be a trial in the federal court, also months or years after the original charge was brought.
We have no doubt that Congress, if it chose, could provide for. exactly such a system. We may assume that Congress has constitutional power to provide that all federal issues be tried in the federal courts, that all be tried in the courts of the States, or that jurisdiction of such issues be shared. And in the exercise of that power, we may assume that Congress is constitutionally fully free to establish the conditions under which civil or criminal proceedings involving federal issues may be removed from one court to another.
But before establishing the regime the individual petitioners propose, Congress would no doubt fully consider many questions. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has mentioned some of the practical questions that would be involved: “If the removal jurisdiction is to be expanded and federal courts are to try offenses against state laws, cases not originally cognizable in the federal courts, what law is to govern, who is to prosecute, under what law is a convicted defendant to be sentenced and to whose institution is he to be committed...?” Baines v. City of Danville, 357 F. 2d 756, 768-769. To these questions there surely should be added the very practical inquiry as to how many hundreds of new federal judges and other federal court personnel would have to be added in order to cope with the vastly increased caseload that would be produced.
We need not attempt to catalog the issues of policy that Congress might feel called upon to consider before making such an extreme change in the removal statute. But prominent among those issues, obviously, would be at least two fundamental, questions: Has the historic practice of holding state criminal trials in state courts— with power of ultimate review of any federal questions in this Court — been such a failure that the relationship of the state and federal courts should now be revolutionized? Will increased responsibility of the state courts in the area of federal civil rights be promoted and encouraged by denying those courts any power at all to exercise that responsibility?
We postulate these grave questions of practice and policy only to point out that if changes are to be made in the long-settled interpretation of the provisions of this century-old removal statute, it is for Congress and not for this Court to make them. Fully aware of the established meaning the removal statute had been given by a consistent series of decisions in this Court, Congress in 1964 declined to act on proposals to amend the law. All that Congress did was to make remand orders appeal-able, and thus invite a contemporary judicial consideration of the meaning of the unchanged provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 1443. We have accepted that invitation and have fully considered the language and history of those provisions. Having done so, we find that § 1443 does not justify removal of these state criminal prosecutions to a federal court. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The defendants were charged with violating paragraph one of §2296.5 of the Mississippi Code (1964 Cum. Supp.), Laws 1960, c. 244, § 1, which provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to wilfully obstruct the free, convenient and normal use of any public sidewalk, street, highway, alley, road, or other passageway by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding or restraining traffic or passage thereon, and any person or persons violating the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by confinement in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
“Civil rights cases.
“Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
“(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
“(2) For’any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.” 28 U. S. C. §1443 (1964 ed.). See Georgia v. Rachel, ante, p. 780.
The removal petitions specifically invoked rights to freedom of speech, petition, and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as additional rights under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth. Amendment. 42 U. S. C. §1971 (a)(1) (1964 ed.), which guarantees the right to vote, free from racial discrimination, provides:
“All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.”
42 U. S. C. § 1971 (b) (1964 ed.) provides:
“No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose....”
See also § 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 443, 42 U. S. C. § 1973i (b) (1964 ed., Supp. I).
“... § 1443 (2)... is limited to federal officers and those assisting them or otherwise acting in an official or quasi-official capacity.” Peacock v. City of Greenwood, 347 F. 2d 679, 686 (C. A. 5th Cir.). In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied strongly on the decision of the District Court in City of Clarksdale v. Gertge, 237 F. Supp. 213 (D. C. N. D. Miss.). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has also adopted this construction of § 1443 (2). Baines v. City of Danville, 357 F. 2d 756, 771-772. The Courts of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuits have refused to grant removal under § 1443 (2) on allegations comparable to those in the present case. New York v. Galamison, 342 F. 2d 255 (C. A. 2d Cir.); City of Chester v. Anderson, 347 F. 2d 823 (C. A. 3d Cir.). See also Arkansas v. Howard, 218 F. Supp. 626 (D. C. E. D. Ark.).
The several defendants were charged variously with assault, interfering with an officer in the performance of his duty, disturbing the peace, creating a disturbance in a public place, inciting to riot, parading without a permit, assault and battery by biting a police officer, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, operating a motor vehicle with improper license tags, reckless driving, and profanity and use of vulgar language.
Under § 1443 (1), the defendants alleged that they had been denied and could not enforce in the courts of the State rights under laws providing for equal civil rights, in that the courts and law enforcement officers of the State were prejudiced against them because of their race or their association with Negroes, and because of the commitment of the courts and officers to the State’s declared policy of racial segregation. The defendants also alleged that the trial would take place in a segregated courtroom, that Negro witnesses and attorneys would be addressed by their first names, that Negroes would be excluded from the juries, and that the judges and prosecutors who would participate in the trial had gained office at elections in which Negro voters were excluded. The defendants also urged that the statutes and ordinances under which they were charged were unconstitutionally vague on their face, and that the statutes and ordinances were unconstitutional as applied to the defendants’ conduct.
Under § 1443 (2), the defendants alleged that they had engaged solely in conduct protected by the First Amendment, by the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and by 42 U. S. C. § 1981 (1964 ed.), which provides:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
The City of Greenwood, petitioner in No. 471, challenges the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of § 1443 (
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.
This case involves a challenge to a rent control ordinance enacted by the city of San Jose, California, that allows a hearing officer to consider, among other factors, the “hardship to a tenant” when determining whether to approve a rent increase proposed by a landlord. Appellants Richard Pennell and the Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association sued in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County seeking a declaration that the ordinance, in particular the “tenant hardship” provisions, are “facially unconstitutional and therefore . . . illegal and void.” The Superior Court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellants, sustaining their claim that the tenant hardship provisions violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The California Court of Appeal affirmed this judgment, 154 Cal. App. 3d 1019, 201 Cal. Rptr. 728 (1984), but the Supreme Court of California reversed, 42 Cal. 3d 365, 721 P. 2d 1111 (1986), each by a divided vote. The majority of the Supreme Court rejected appellants’ arguments under the Takings Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; the dissenters in that court thought that the tenant hardship provisions were a “forced subsidy imposed on the landlord” in violation of the Takings Clause. Id., at 377, 721 P. 2d, at 1119. On appellants’ appeal to this Court we postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction, 480 U. S. 905 (1987), and now having heard oral argument we affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of California.
The city of San Jose enacted its rent control ordinance (Ordinance) in 1979 with the stated purpose of
“alleviating] some of the more immediate needs created by San Jose’s housing situation. These needs include but are not limited to the prevention of excessive and unreasonable rent increases, the alleviation of undue hardships Upon individual tenants, and the assurance to landlords of a fair and reasonable return on the value of their property.” San Jose Municipal Ordinance 19696, §5701.2.
At the heart of the Ordinance is a mechanism for determining the amount by which landlords subject to its provisions may increase the annual rent which they charge their tenants. A landlord is automatically entitled to raise the rent of a tenant in possession by as much as eight percent; if a tenant objects to an increase greater than eight percent, a hearing is required before a “Mediation Hearing Officer” to determine whether the landlord’s proposed increase is “reasonable under the circumstances.” The Ordinance sets forth a number of factors to be considered by the hearing officer in making this determination, including “the hardship to a tenant.” § 5703.28(c)(7). Because appellants concentrate their attack on the consideration of this factor, we set forth the relevant provision of the Ordinance in full:
“5703.29. Hardship to Tenants. In the case of a rent increase or any portion thereof which exceeds the standard set in Section 5703.28(a) or (b), then with respect to such excess and whether or not to allow same to be part of the increase allowed under this Chapter, the Hearing Officer shall consider the economic and financial hardship imposed on the present tenant or tenants of the unit or units to which such increases apply. If, on balance, the Hearing Officer determines that the proposed increase constitutes an unreasonably severe financial or economic hardship on a particular tenant, he may order that the excess of the increase which is subject to consideration under subparagraph (c) of Section 5703.28, or any portion thereof, be disallowed. Any tenant whose household income and monthly housing expense meets [certain income requirements] shall be deemed to be suffering under financial and economic hardship which must be weighed in the Hearing Officer’s determination. The burden of proof in establishing any other economic hardship shall be on the tenant.”
If either a tenant or a landlord is dissatisfied with the decision of the hearing officer, the Ordinance provides for binding arbitration. A landlord who attempts to charge or who receives rent in excess of the maximum rent established as provided in the Ordinance is subject to criminal and civil penalties.
Before we turn to the merits of appellants’ contentions we consider the claim of appellees that appellants lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Ordinance. The original complaint in this action states that appellant Richard Pennell “is an owner and lessor of 109 rental units in the City of San Jose.” Appellant Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association (Association) is said to be “an unincorporated association organized for the purpose of representing the interests of the owners and lessors of real property located in the City of San Jose.” App. 2-3. The complaint also states that the real property owned by appellants is “subject to the terms of” the Ordinance. But, appellees point out, at no time did appellants allege that either Pennell or any member of the Association has “hardship tenants” who might trigger the Ordinance’s hearing process, nor did they specifically allege that they have been or will be aggrieved by the determination of a hearing officer that a certain proposed rent increase is unreasonable on the ground of tenant hardship. As appellees put it, “[a]t this point in time, it is speculative” whether any of the Association’s members will be injured in fact by the Ordinance’s tenant hardship provisions. Thus, appellees contend, appellants lack standing under either the test for individual standing, see, e. g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) (individual standing requires an “‘actual injury redressable by the court’”), or the test for associational standing, see Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 343 (1977) (an association has standing on behalf of its members only when “its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right”).
We must keep in mind, however, that “application of the constitutional standing requirement [is not] a mechanical exercise,” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984), and that when standing is challenged on the basis of the pleadings, we “accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and . . . construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975); see also Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 109 (1979). Here, appellants specifically alleged in their complaint that appellants’ properties are “subject to the terms of” the Ordinance, and they stated at oral argument that the Association represents “most of the residential unit owners in the city and [has] many hardship tenants,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 42; see also id., at 7; Reply Brief for Appellants 2. Accepting the truth of these statements, which appellees do not contest, it is not “unadorned speculation,” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 44 (1976), to conclude that the Ordinance will be enforced against members of the Association. The likelihood of enforcement, with the concomitant probability that a landlord’s rent will be reduced below what he or she would otherwise be able to obtain in the absence of the Ordinance, is a sufficient threat of actual injury to satisfy Art. Ill’s requirement that “[a] plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement.” Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 298 (1979).
This said, we recognize that the record in this case leaves much to be desired in terms of specificity for purposes of determining the standing of appellants to challenge this Ordinance. Undoubtedly this is at least in part a reflection of the fact that the case originated in a state court where Art. Ill’s proscription against advisory opinions may not apply. We strongly suggest that in future cases parties litigating in this Court under circumstances similar to those here take pains to supplement the record in any manner necessary to enable us to address with as much precision as possible any question of standing that may be raised.
Turning now to the merits, we first address appellants’ contention that application of the Ordinance’s tenant hardship provisions violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition against taking of private property for public use without just compensation. In essence, appellants’ claim is as follows: §5703.28 of the Ordinance establishes the seven factors that a hearing officer is to take into account in determining the reasonable rent increase. The first six of these factors are all objective, and are related either to the landlord’s costs of providing an adequate rental unit, or to the condition of the rental market. Application of these six standards results in a rent that is “reasonable” by reference to what appellants contend is the only legitimate purpose of rent control: the elimination of “excessive” rents caused by San Jose’s housing shortage. When the hearing officer then takes into account “hardship to a tenant” pursuant to § 5703.28(c)(7) and reduces the rent below the objectively “reasonable” amount established by the first six factors, this additional reduction in the rent increase constitutes a “taking.” This taking is impermissible because it does not serve the purpose of eliminating excessive rents — that objective has already been accomplished by considering the first six factors — instead, it serves only the purpose of providing assistance to “hardship tenants.” In short, appellants contend, the additional reduction of rent on grounds of hardship accomplishes a transfer of the landlord’s property to individual hardship tenants; the Ordinance forces private individuals to shoulder the “public” burden of subsidizing their poor tenants’ housing. As appellants point out, “[i]t is axiomatic that the Fifth Amendment’s just compensation provision is ‘designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’” First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304, 318-319 (1987) (quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960)).
We think it would be premature to consider this contention on the present record. As things stand, there simply is no evidence that the “tenant hardship clause” has in fact ever
been relied upon by a hearing officer to reduce a rent below the figure it would have been set at on the basis of the other factors set forth in the Ordinance. In addition, there is nothing in the Ordinance requiring that a hearing officer in fact reduce a proposed rent increase on grounds of tenant hardship. Section 5703.29 does make it mandatory that hardship be considered — it states that “the Hearing Officer shall consider the economic hardship imposed on the present tenant” — but it then goes on to state that if “the proposed increase constitutes an unreasonably severe financial or economic hardship ... he may order that the excess of the increase” be disallowed. §5703.29 (emphasis added). Given the “essentially ad hoc, factual inquir[y]” involved in the takings analysis, Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 175 (1979), we have found it particularly important in takings cases to adhere to our admonition that “the constitutionality of statutes ought not be decided except in an actual factual setting that makes such a decision necessary.” Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 294-295 (1981). In Virginia Surface Mining, for example, we found that a challenge to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 447, 30 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq., was “premature,” 452 U. S., at 296, n. 37, and “not ripe for judicial resolution,” id., at 297, because the property owners in that case had not identified any property that had allegedly been taken by the Act, nor had they sought administrative relief from the Act’s restrictions on surface mining. Similarly, in this case we find that the mere fact that a hearing officer is enjoined to consider hardship to the tenant in fixing a landlord’s rent, without any showing in a particular case as to the consequences of that injunction in the ultimate determination of the rent, does not present a sufficiently concrete factual setting for the adjudication of the takings claim appellants raise here. Cf. CIO v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 472, 475-476 (1945) (declining to consider the validity of a state statute when the record did not show that the statute would ever be applied to any of the petitioner’s members).
Appellants also urge that the mere provision in the Ordinance that a hearing officer may consider the hardship of the tenant in finally fixing a reasonable rent renders the Ordinance “facially invalid” under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, even though no landlord ever has its rent diminished by as much as one dollar because of the application of this provision. The standard for determining whether a state price-control regulation is constitutional under the Due Process Clause is well established: “Price control is ‘unconstitutional ... if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt . . . .’” Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U. S. 747, 769-770 (1968) (quoting Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, 539 (1934)). In other contexts we have recognized that the government may intervene in the marketplace to regulate rates or prices that are artificially inflated as a result of the existence of a monopoly or near monopoly, see, e. g., FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U. S. 245, 250-254 (1987) (approving limits on rates charged to cable companies for access to telephone poles); FPC v. Texaco Inc., 417 U. S. 380, 397-398 (1974) (recognizing that federal regulation of the natural gas market was in response to the threat of monopoly pricing), or a discrepancy between supply and demand in the market for a certain product, see, e. g., Nebbia v. New York, supra, at 530, 538 (allowing a minimum price for milk to offset a “flood of surplus milk”). Accordingly, appellants do not dispute that the Ordinance’s asserted purpose of “preventing] excessive and unreasonable rent increases” caused by the “growing shortage of and increasing demand for housing in the City of San Jose,” §5701.2, is a legitimate exercise of appellees’ police powers. Cf. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 156 (1921) (approving rent control in Washington, D. C., on the basis of Congress’ finding that housing in the city was “monopolized”). They do argue, however, that it is “arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant,” Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, supra, at 769-770, for appellees to attempt to accomplish the additional goal of reducing the burden of housing costs on low-income tenants by requiring that “hardship to a tenant” be considered in determining the amount of excess rent increase that is “reasonable under the circumstances” pursuant to § 5703.28. As appellants put it, “[t]he objective of alleviating individual tenant hardship is . . . not a ‘policy the legislature is free to adopt’ in a rent control ordinance.” Reply Brief for Appellants 16.
We reject this contention, however, because we have long recognized that a legitimate and rational goal of price or rate regulation is the protection of consumer welfare. See, e. g., Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, supra, at 770; FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 610-612 (1944) (“The primary aim of [the Natural Gas Act] was to protect consumers against exploitation at the hands of natural gas companies”). Indeed, a primary purpose of rent control is the protection of tenants. See, e. g., Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 513, n. 9 (1944) (one purpose of rent control is “to protect persons with relatively fixed and limited incomes, consumers, wage earners . . . from undue impairment of their standard of living”). Here, the Ordinance establishes a scheme in which a hearing officer considers a number of factors in determining the reasonableness of a proposed rent increase which exceeds eight percent and which exceeds the amount deemed reasonable under either § 5703.28(a) or § 5703.28(b). The first six factors of § 5703.28(c) focus on the individual landlord — the hearing officer examines the history of the premises, the landlord’s costs, and the market for comparable housing. Section 5703.28(c)(5) also allows the landlord to bring forth any other financial evidence — including presumably evidence regarding his own financial status — to be taken into account by the hearing officer. It is in only this context that the Ordinance allows tenant hardship to be considered and, under §5703.29, “balance[d]” with the other factors set out in § 5703.28(c). Within this scheme, § 5703.28(c) represents a rational attempt to accommodate the conflicting interests of protecting tenants from burdensome rent increases while at the same time ensuring that landlords are guaranteed a fair return on their investment. Cf. Bowles v. Willingham, supra, at 517 (considering, but rejecting, the contention that rent control must be established “landlord by landlord, as in the fashion of utility rates”). We accordingly find that the Ordinance, which so carefully considers both the individual circumstances of the landlord and the tenant before determining whether to allow an additional increase in rent over and above certain amounts that are deemed reasonable, does not on its face violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
We also find that the Ordinance does not violate the Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Here again, the standard is deferential; appellees need only show that the classification scheme embodied in the Ordinance is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303 (1976). As we stated in Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93 (1979), “we will not overturn [a statute that does not burden a suspect class or a fundamental interest] unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational.” Id., at 97. In light of our conclusion above that the Ordinance’s tenant hardship provisions are designed to serve the legitimate purpose of protecting tenants, we can hardly conclude that it is irrational for the Ordinance to treat certain landlords differently on the basis of whether or not they have hardship tenants. The Ordinance distinguishes between landlords because doing so furthers the purpose of ensuring that individual tenants do not suffer “unreasonable” hardship; it would be inconsistent to state that hardship is a legitimate factor to be considered but then hold that appellees could not tailor the Ordinance so that only legitimate hardship cases are redressed. Cf. Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U. S. 138, 145 (1948) (Congress “need not control all rents or none. It can select those areas or those classes of property where the need seems the greatest”). We recognize, as appellants point out, that in general it is difficult to say that the landlord “causes” the tenant’s hardship. But this is beside the point — if a landlord does have a hardship tenant, regardless of the reason why, it is rational for appellees to take that fact into consideration under § 5703.28 of the Ordinance when establishing a rent that is “reasonable under the circumstances.”
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that it is premature to consider appellants’ claim under the Takings Clause and we reject their facial challenge to the Ordinance under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is accordingly
Affirmed.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In order to be consistent with the decisions below, we refer throughout this opinion to the sections of the Ordinance as originally designated. We note, however, that the San Jose Municipal Code has recently been recodified and the Ordinance now appears at Chapter 17.23 of the new Code.
Under § 5703.3, the Ordinance does not apply to rent or rent increases for new rental units first rented after the Ordinance takes effect, § 5703.3 (a), to the rental of a unit that has been voluntarily vacated, § 5703.3(b)(1), or to the rental of a unit that is vacant as a result of eviction for certain specified acts, § 5703.3(b)(2).
Our cases also impose two additional requirements for associational or representational standing: the interests the organization seeks to protect must be “germane to the organization’s purpose,” Hunt, 432 U. S., at 343, and “neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit,” ibid. See also Automobile Workers v. Brock, 477 U. S. 274, 281-282 (1986). Both of these requirements are satisfied here. The Association was “organized for the purpose of representing the interests of the owners and lessors of real property” in San Jose in this lawsuit, App. 3, and the facial challenge that the Association makes to the Ordinance does not require the participation of individual landlords.
Appellees also argue that Pennell lacks standing individually because in early 1987 he sold the properties he owned at the time the complaint in this action was filed. See Brief for Appellees 8. In a declaration submitted to the Court, Pennell admits that he sold these properties, but states that he recently repurchased and now owns one of the apartment buildings in San Jose that he formerly owned. Declaration of Richard Pennell ¶ 7. That property was and still is “subject to the Ordinance.” Id., ¶8. Because we conclude that the Association has standing and that therefore we have jurisdiction over this appeal, we find it unnecessary to decide whether Pennell’s sale and repurchase of the property affects his standing here.
For this reason we also decline to address appellants’ contention that application of § 5703.28(c)(7) to reduce an otherwise reasonable rent increase on the basis of tenant hardship violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection requirements. See Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U. S. 314, 335-336 (1981) (dismissing as “premature” a due process challenge to the civil penalty provision of the Surface Mining Act because “appellees have made no showing that they were ever assessed civil penalties under the Act, much less that the statutory prepayment requirement was ever applied to them or caused them any injury”).
Appellants and several amici also argue that the Ordinance’s combination of lower rents for hardship tenants and restrictions on a landlord’s power to evict a tenant amounts to a physical taking of the landlord’s property. We decline to address this contention not only because it was raised for the first time in this Court, but also because it, too, is premised on a hearing officer’s actually granting a lower rent to a hardship tenant.
Appellants do not claim, as do some amici, that rent control is per se a taking. We stated in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982), that we have “consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails.” Id., at 440 (citing, inter alia, Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 517-518 (1944)). And in FCC v. Florida Poiver Corp., 480 U. S. 245 (1987), we stated that “statutes regulating the. economic relations of landlords and tenants are not per se takings.” Id., at 252. Despite amici’s urgings, we see no need to reconsider the constitutionality of rent control per se.
As we noted above, see n. 5, supra, to the extent that appellants’ due process argument is based on the claim that the Ordinance forces landlords to subsidize individual tenants, that claim is premature and not presented by the facts before us.
The consideration of tenant hardship also serves the additional purpose, not stated on the face of the Ordinance, of reducing the costs of dislocation that might otherwise result if landlords were to charge rents to tenants that they could not afford. Particularly during a housing shortage, the social costs of the dislocation of low-income tenants can be severe. By allowing tenant hardship to be considered under § 5703.28(c), the Ordinance enables appellees to “fine tune” their rent control to take into account the risk that a particular tenant will be forced to relocate as a result of a proposed rent increase.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice joined, and in all but Part II-B of which Justice O’Con-nor joined.
This case presents the question whether the size of a governing authority is subject to a vote dilution challenge under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973.
I
The State of Georgia has 159 counties, one of which is Bleckley County, a rural county in central Georgia. Black persons make up nearly 20% of the eligible voting population in Bleckley County. Since its creation in 1912, the county has had a single-commissioner form of government for the exercise of “county governing authority.” See Ga. Code Ann. § 1 — 3—3(7) (Supp. 1993). Under this system, the Bleckley County Commissioner performs all of the executive and legislative functions of the county government, including the levying of general and special taxes, the directing and controlling of all county property, and the settling of all claims. Ga. Code Ann. §36-5-22.1 (1993). In addition to Bleckley County, about 10 other Georgia counties use the single-commissioner system; the rest have multimember commissions.
In 1985, the Georgia Legislature authorized Bleckley County to adopt a multimember commission consisting of five commissioners elected from single-member districts and a single chairman elected at large. 1985 Ga. Laws, p. 4406. In a referendum held in 1986, however, the electorate did not adopt the change to a multimember commission. (In a similar referendum four years earlier, county voters had approved a five-member district plan for the election of the county school board.)
In 1985, respondents (six black registered voters from Bleckley County and the Cochran/Bleckley County Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) challenged the single-commissioner system in a suit filed against petitioners (Jackie Holder, the incumbent county commissioner, and Probate Judge Robert Johnson, the superintendent of elections). The complaint raised both a constitutional and a statutory claim.
In their constitutional claim, respondents alleged that the county’s single-member commission was enacted or maintained with an intent to exclude or to limit the political influence of the county’s black community in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. At the outset, the District Court made extensive findings of fact about the political history and dynamics of Bleckley County. The court found, for example, that when the county was formed in 1912, few, if any, black citizens could vote. Indeed, until passage of federal civil rights laws, Bleckley County “enforced racial segregation in all aspects of local government — courthouse, jails, public housing, governmental services — and deprived its black citizens of the opportunity to participate in local government.” 757 F. Supp. 1560, 1562 (MD Ga. 1991). And even today, though legal segregation no longer exists, “more black than white residents of Bleckley County continue to endure a depressed socio-economic status.” Ibid. No black person has run for or been elected to the office of Bleckley County Commissioner, and the District Judge stated that, having run for public office himself, he “wouldn’t run if [he] were black in Bleckley [C]ounty.” See 955 F. 2d 1563, 1571 (CA11 1992).
The court rejected respondents’ constitutional contention, however, concluding that respondents “ha[d] failed to provide any evidence that Bleckley County’s single member county commission [wa]s the product of original or continued racial animus or discriminatory intent.” 757 F. Supp., at 1571. Nor was there evidence that the system was maintained “for tenuous reasons” or that the commissioner himself was unresponsive to the “particularized needs” of the black community. Id., at 1564. There was no “slating process” to stand as a barrier to black candidates, and there was testimony from respondents that they were unaware of any racial appeals in recent elections. Id., at 1562, n. 2, 1583.
In their statutory claim, respondents asserted that the county’s single-member commission violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §1973. Under the statute, the suit contended, Bleckley County must have a county commission of sufficient size that, with single-member election districts, the county’s black citizens would constitute a majority in one of the single-member districts. Applying the § 2 framework established in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986), the District Court found that respondents satisfied the first of the three Gingles preconditions because black voters were sufficiently numerous and compact that they could have constituted a majority in one district of a multimember commission. In particular, the District Court found that “[i]f the county commission were increased in number to six commissioners to be elected from five single member districts and if the districts were the same as the present school board election districts, a black majority ‘safe’ district... would result.” 757 F. Supp., at 1565. The court found, however, that respondents failed to satisfy the second and third Gingles preconditions — that whites vote as a bloc in a manner sufficient to defeat the black-preferred candidate and that blacks were politically cohesive.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the statutory claim. Relying on its decision in Carrollton Branch of NAACP v. Stallings, 829 F. 2d 1547 (1987), the court first held that a challenge to the single-commissioner system was subject to the same analysis as that used in Gingles. Applying that analysis, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that respondents had satisfied the first Gingles precondition by showing that blacks could constitute a majority of the electorate in one of five single-member districts. The court explained that it was “appropriate to consider the size and geographical compactness of the minority group within a restructured form of the challenged system when the existing structure is being challenged as dilutive.” 955 F. 2d, at 1569. The Court of Appeals further found that the District Court had erred in concluding that the second and third Gingles preconditions were not met. Turning to the totality of the circumstances, the court found that those circumstances supported a finding of liability under § 2. The court therefore concluded that respondents had proved a violation of § 2, and it remanded for formulation of a remedy, which, it suggested, “could well be modeled” after the system used to elect the Bleckley County school board. 955 F. 2d, at 1573-1574, and n. 20. Because of its statutory ruling, the Court of Appeals did not consider the District Court’s ruling on respondents’ constitutional claim.
We granted certiorari to review the statutory holding of the Court of Appeals. 507 U. S. 959 (1993).
II
A
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(a). In a § 2 vote dilution suit, along with determining whether the Gingles preconditions are met and whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of liability, a court must find a reasonable alternative practice as a benchmark against which to measure the existing voting practice. See post, at 887 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As Justice O’Con-nor explained in Gingles: “The phrase vote dilution itself suggests a norm with respect to which the fact of dilution may be ascertained .... [I]n order to decide whether an electoral system has made it harder for minority voters to elect the candidates they prefer, a court must have an idea in mind of how hard it should be for minority voters to elect their preferred candidates under an acceptable system.” 478 U. S., at 88 (opinion concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In certain cases, the benchmark for comparison in a §2 dilution suit is obvious. The effect of an anti-single-shot voting rule, for instance, can be evaluated by comparing the system with that rule to the system without that rule. But where there is no objective and workable standard for choosing a reasonable benchmark by which to evaluate a challenged voting practice, it follows that the voting practice cannot be challenged as dilutive under §2. See post, at 887-891 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
As the facts of this case well illustrate, the search for a benchmark is quite problematic when a § 2 dilution challenge is brought to the size of a government body. There is no principled reason why one size should be picked over another as the benchmark for comparison. Respondents here argue that we should compare Bleckley County’s sole commissioner system to a hypothetical five-member commission in order to determine whether the current system is dilutive. Respondents and the United States as amicus curiae give three reasons why the single-commissioner structure should be compared to a five-member commission (instead of, say, a 3-, 10-, or 15-member body): (1) because the five-member commission is a common form of governing authority in the State; (2) becaúse the state legislature had authorized Bleckley County to adopt a five-member commission if it so chose (it did not); and (3) because the county had moved from a single superintendent of education to a school board with five members elected from single-member districts. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17-18.
These referents do not bear upon dilution. It does not matter, for instance, how popular the single-member commission system is in Georgia in determining whether it dilutes the vote of a minority racial group in Bleckley County. That the single-member commission is uncommon in the State of Georgia, or that a five-member commission is quite common, tells us nothing about its effects on a minority group’s voting strength. The sole commissioner system has the same impact regardless of whether it is shared by none, or by all, of the other counties in Georgia. It makes little sense to say (as do respondents and the United States) that the sole commissioner system should be subject to a dilution challenge if it is rare — but immune if it is common.
That Bleckley County was authorized by the State to expand its commission, and that it adopted a five-member school board, are likewise irrelevant considerations in the dilution inquiry. At most, those facts indicate that Bleckley County could change the size of its commission with minimal disruption. But the county’s failure to do so says nothing about the effects the sole commissioner system has on the voting power of Bleckley County’s citizens. Surely a minority group’s voting strength would be no more or less diluted had the State not authorized the county to alter the size of its commission, or had the county not enlarged its school board. One gets the sense that respondents and the United States have chosen a benchmark for the sake of having a benchmark. But it is one thing to say that a benchmark can be found, quite another to give a convincing reason for finding it in the first place.
B
To bolster their argument, respondents point out that our § 5 cases may be interpreted to indicate that covered jurisdictions may not change the size of their government bodies without obtaining preclearance from the Attorney General or the federal courts. Brief for Respondents 29; see Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 501-503 (1992); City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U. S. 125, 131-132 (1983); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 161 (1980). Respondents contend that these §5 cases, together with the similarity in language between §§ 2 and 5 of the Act, compel the conclusion that the size of a government body must be subject to a dilution challenge under § 2. It is true that in Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U. S. 380, 401-402 (1991), we said that the coverage of §§2 and 5 is presumed to be the same (at least if differential coverage would be anomalous). We did not adopt a conclusive rule to that effect, however, and we do not think that the fact that a change in a voting practice must be precleared under § 5 necessarily means that the voting practice is subject to challenge in a dilution suit under §2.
To be sure, if the structure and purpose of §2 mirrored that of § 5, then the case for interpreting §§ 2 and 5 to have the same application in all cases would be convincing. But the two sections differ in structure, purpose, and application. Section 5 applies only in certain jurisdictions specified by Congress and “only to proposed changes in voting procedures.” Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 138 (1976); see 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(b) (specifying jurisdictions where §5 applies). In those covered jurisdictions, a proposed change in a voting practice must be approved in advance by the Attorney General or the federal courts. § 1973c. The purpose of this requirement “has always been to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” 425 U. S., at 141. Under § 5, then, the proposed voting practice is measured against the existing voting practice to determine whether retrogression would result from the proposed change. See ibid. The baseline for comparison is present by definition; it is the existing status. While there may be difficulty in determining whether a proposed change would cause retrogression, there is little difficulty in discerning the two voting practices to compare to determine whether retrogression would occur. See 28 CFR § 51.54(b) (1993).
Retrogression is not the inquiry in §2 dilution cases. 42 U. S. C. § 1973(a) (whether voting practice “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color”); S. Rep. No. 97-417, p. 68, n. 224 (1982) (“Plaintiffs could not establish a Section 2 violation merely by showing that a challenged reapportionment or annexation, for example, involved a retrogressive effect on the political strength of a minority group”). Unlike in §5 cases, therefore, a benchmark does not exist by definition in §2 dilution cases. And as explained above, with some voting practices, there in fact may be no appropriate benchmark to determine if an existing voting practice is dilutive under §2. For that reason, a voting practice that is subject to the preclearanee requirements of § 5 is not necessarily subject to a dilution challenge under § 2.
This conclusion is quite unremarkable. For example, in Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 388 (1971), we held that a town’s annexation of land was covered under § 5. Notwithstanding that holding, we think it quite improbable to suggest that a § 2 dilution challenge could be brought to a town’s existing political boundaries (in an attempt to force it to annex surrounding land) by arguing that the current boundaries dilute a racial group’s voting strength in comparison to the proposed new boundaries. Likewise, in McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S. 236 (1984), we indicated that a change from an appointive to an elected office was covered under §5. Here, again, we doubt Congress contemplated that a racial group could bring a §2 dilution challenge to an appointive office (in an attempt to force a change to an elective office) by arguing that the appointive office diluted its voting strength in comparison to the proposed elective office. We think these examples serve to show that a voting practice is not necessarily subject to a dilution challenge under § 2 even when a change in that voting practice would be subject to the preclearance requirements of § 5.
Ill
With respect to challenges to the size of a governing authority, respondents fail to explain where the search for reasonable alternative benchmarks should begin and end, and they provide no acceptable principles for deciding future cases. The wide range of possibilities makes the choice “inherently standardless,” post, at 889 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and we therefore conclude that a plaintiff cannot maintain a §2 challenge to the size of a government body, such as the Bleckley County Commission. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for consideration of respondents’ constitutional claim.
It is so ordered.
Gingles requires a showing that “the minority group ... is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district,” 478 U. S., at 50, that the minority group is politically cohesive, and that the majority group “votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it — in the absence of special circumstances... usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate,” id,., at 51.
Section 2 provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(a).
Section 5 requires preclearance approval by a court or by the Attorney General “[w]henever a [covered] State or political subdivision . . . shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting... different from that [previously] in force or effect” so as to ensure that it “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color ....” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c.
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 Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join.
Respondent Robert G. Lile is a convicted sex offender in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (Department). A few years before respondent was scheduled to reenter society, Department officials recommended that he enter a prison treatment program so that he would not rape again upon release. While there appears to be some difference of opinion among experts in the field, Kansas officials and officials who administer the United States prison system have made the determination that it is of considerable importance for the program participant to admit having committed the crime for which he is being treated and other past offenses. The first and in many ways most crucial step in the Kansas rehabilitation program thus requires the participant to confront his past crimes so that he can begin to understand his own motivations and weaknesses. As this initial step can be a most difficult one, Kansas offers sex offenders incentives to participate in the program.
Respondent contends this incentive system violates his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Kansas’ rehabilitation program, however, serves a vital pe-nological purpose, and offering inmates minimal incentives to participate does not amount to compelled self-incrimination prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.
I
In 1982, respondent lured a high school student into his car as she was returning home from school. At gunpoint, respondent forced the victim to perform oral sodomy on him and then drove to a field where he raped her. After the sexual assault, the victim went to her school, where, crying and upset, she reported the crime. The police arrested respondent and recovered on his person the weapon he used to facilitate the crime. State v. Lile, 237 Kan. 210, 211-212, 699 P. 2d 456, 457-458 (1985). Although respondent maintained that the sexual intercourse was consensual, a jury convicted him of rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated kidnaping. Both the Kansas Supreme Court and a Federal District Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain respondent’s conviction on all charges. See id., at 211, 699 P. 2d, at 458; 45 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1161 (Kan. 1999).
In 1994, a few years before respondent was scheduled to be released, prison officials ordered him to participate in a Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (SATP). As part of the program, participating inmates are required to complete and sign an “Admission of Responsibility” form, in which they discuss and accept responsibility for the crime for which they have been sentenced. Participating inmates also are required to complete a sexual history form, which details all prior sexual activities, regardless of whether such activities constitute uncharged criminal offenses. A polygraph examination is used to verify the accuracy and completeness of the offender’s sexual history.
While information obtained from participants advances the SATP’s rehabilitative goals, the information is not privileged. Kansas leaves open the possibility that new evidence might be used against sex offenders in future criminal proceedings. In addition, Kansas law requires the. SATP staff to report any uncharged sexual offenses involving minors to law enforcement authorities. Although there is no evidence that incriminating information has ever been disclosed under the SATP, the release of information is a possibility.
Department officials informed respondent that if he refused to participate in the SATP, his privilege status would be reduced from Level III to Level I. As part of this reduction, respondent’s visitation rights, earnings, work opportunities, ability to send money to family, canteen expenditures, aecess to a personal television, and other privileges automatically would be curtailed. In addition, respondent would be transferred to a maximum-security unit, where his movement would be more limited, he would be moved from a two-person to a four-person cell, and he would be in a potentially more dangerous environment.
Respondent refused to participate in the SATP on the ground that the required disclosures of his criminal history would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He brought this action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against the warden and the secretary of the Department, seeking an injunction to prevent them from withdrawing his prison privileges and transferring him to a different housing unit.
After the parties completed discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas entered summary judgment in respondent’s favor. 24 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (1998). The District Court noted that because respondent had testified at trial that his sexual intercourse with the victim was consensual, an acknowledgment of responsibility for the rape on the “Admission of Guilt” form would subject respondent to a possible charge of perjury. Id., at 1157. After reviewing the specific loss of privileges and change in conditions of confinement that respondent would face for refusing to incriminate himself, the District Court concluded that these consequences constituted coercion in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 224 F. 3d 1175 (2000). It held that the compulsion element of a Fifth Amendment claim can be established by penalties that do not constitute deprivations of protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause. Id., at 1183. It held that the reduction in prison privileges and housing accommodations was a penalty, both because of its substantial impact on the inmate and because that impact was identical to the punishment imposed by the Department for serious disciplinary infractions. In the Court of Appeals’ view, the fact that the sanction was automatic, rather than conditional, supported the conclusion that it constituted compulsion. Moreover, because all SATP files are subject to disclosure by subpoena, and an admission of culpability regarding the crime of conviction would create a risk of a perjury prosecution, the court concluded that the information disclosed by respondent was sufficiently incriminating. Id., at 1180. The Court of Appeals recognized that the Kansas policy served the State’s important interests in rehabilitating sex offend-, ers and promoting public safety. It concluded, however, that those interests could be served without violating the Constitution, either by treating the admissions of the inmates as privileged communications or by granting inmates use immunity. Id., at 1192..
We granted the warden’s petition for certiorari because the Court of Appeals has held that an important Kansas prison regulation violates the Federal Constitution. 582 U. S. 1018 (2001).
II
Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation. In 1995, an estimated 355,000 rapes and sexual assaults occurred nationwide. U. S. Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex Offenses and Offenders 1 (1997) (hereinafter Sex Offenses); U. S. Dept, of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 1999, Uniform Crime Reports 24 (2000). Between 1980 and 1994, the population of imprisoned sex offenders increased at a faster rate than for any other category of violent crime. See Sex Offenses 18. As in the present case, the victims of sexual assault are most often juveniles. In 1995, for instance, a majority of reported forcible sexual offenses were committed against persons under 18 years of age. University of New Hampshire, Crimes Against Children Research Center, Fact Sheet 5; Sex Offenses 24. Nearly 4 in 10 imprisoned violent sex offenders said their victims were 12 or younger. Id., at Hi.
When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault. See id., at 27; U. S. Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p. 6 (1997). States thus have a vital interest in rehabilitating convicted sex offenders.
Therapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism. See U. S. Dept, of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii (1988) (“[T]he rate of recidivism of treated sex offenders is fairly consistently estimated to be around 15%,” whereas the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%. “Even if both of these figures are exaggerated, there would still be a significant difference between treated and untreated individuals”). An important component of those rehabilitation programs requires participants to confront their past and accept responsibility for their misconduct. Id., at 73. “Denial is generally regarded as a main impediment to successful therapy,” and “[t]herapists depend on offenders’ truthful descriptions of events leading to past offences in order to determine which behaviours need to be targeted in therapy.” H. Barbaree, Denial and.Minimization Among Sex Offenders: Assessment and Treatment Outcome, 3 Forum on Corrections Research, No. 4, p. 30 (1991). Research indicates that offenders who deny all allegations of sexual abuse are three times more likely to fail in treatment than those who admit even partial complicity. See B. Maletzky & K. McGovern, Treating the Sexual Offender 253-255 (1991).
The critical first step in the Kansas SATP, therefore, is acceptance of responsibility for past offenses. This gives inmates a basis to understand why they are being punished and to identify the traits that cause such a frightening and high risk of recidivism. As part of this first step, Kansas requires each SATP participant to complete an “Admission of Responsibility” form, to fill out a sexual history form discussing their offending behavior, and to discuss their past behavior in individual and group counseling sessions.
The District Court found that the Kansas SATP is a valid “clinical rehabilitative program,” supported by a “legitimate penological objective” in rehabilitation. 24 F. Supp. 2d, at 1163. The SATP lasts for 18 months and involves substantial daily counseling. It helps inmates address sexual addiction; understand the thoughts, feelings, and behavior dynamics that precede their offenses; and develop relapse prevention skills. Although inmates are assured of a significant level of confidentiality, Kansas does not offer legal immunity from prosecution based on any statements made in the course of the SATP. According to Kansas, however, no inmate has ever been charged or prosecuted for any offense based on information disclosed during treatment. Brief for Petitioners 4-5. There is no contention, then, that the program is a mere subterfuge for the conduct of a criminal investigation.
As the parties explain, Kansas’ decision not to offer immunity to every SATP participant serves two legitimate state interests. First, the professionals who design and conduct the program have concluded that for SATP participants to accept full responsibility for their past actions, they must accept the proposition that those actions carry consequences. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11. Although no program participant has ever been prosecuted or penalized based on information revealed during the SATP, the potential for additional punishment reinforces the gravity of the participants’ offenses and thereby aids in their rehabilitation. If inmates know society will not punish them for their past offenses, they may be left with the false impression that society does not consider those crimes to be serious ones. The practical effect of guaranteed immunity for SATP participants would be to absolve many sex offenders of any and all cost for their earlier crimes. This is the precise opposite of the rehabilitative objective.
Second, while Kansas as a rule does not prosecute inmates based upon information revealed in the course of the program, the State confirms its valid interest in deterrence by keeping open the option to prosecute a particularly dangerous sex offender. Brief for 18 States as Amici Curiae 11. Kansas is not alone in declining to offer blanket use immunity as a condition of participation in a treatment program. The Federal Bureau of Prisons and other States conduct similar sex offender programs and do not offer immunity to the participants. See, e. g., Ainsworth v. Risley, 244 F. 3d 209, 214 (CA1 2001) (describing New Hampshire’s program).
The mere fact that Kansas declines to grant inmates use immunity does not render the SATP invalid. Asking at the outset whether prison administrators can or should offer immunity skips the constitutional inquiry altogether. If the State of Kansas offered immunity, the self-incrimination privilege would not be implicated. See, e. g., Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 453 (1972); Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 610 (1896). The State, however, does not offer immunity. So the central question becomes whether the State’s program, and the consequences for nonparticipation in it, combine to create a compulsion that encumbers the constitutional right. If there is compulsion, the State cannot continue the program in its present form; and the alternatives, as will be discussed, defeat the program’s objectives.
The SATP does not compel prisoners to incriminate themselves in violation of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause, which applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The “Amendment speaks of compulsion,” United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 427 (1943), and the Court has insisted that the “constitutional guarantee is only that the witness not be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony.” United States v. Washington, 431 U. S. 181, 188 (1977). The consequences in question here — a transfer to another prison where television sets are not placed in each inmate’s cell, where exercise facilities are not readily available, and where work and wage opportunities are more limited — are not ones that compel a prisoner to speak about his past crimes despite a desire to remain silent. The fact that these consequences are imposed on prisoners, rather than ordinary citizens, moreover, is important in weighing respondent’s constitutional claim.
The privilege against self-incrimination does not terminate at the jailhouse door, but the fact of a valid conviction and the ensuing restrictions on liberty are essential to the Fifth Amendment analysis. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U. S. 472, 485 (1995) (“[L]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). A broad range of choices that might infringe constitutional rights in a free society fall within the expected conditions of confinement of those who have suffered a lawful conviction.
The Court has instructed that rehabilitation is a legitimate penological interest that must be weighed against the exercise of an inmate’s liberty. See, e. g., O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U. S. 342, 348, 351 (1987). Since “most offenders will eventually return to society, [a] paramount objective of the corrections system is the rehabilitation of those committed to its custody.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 823 (1974). Acceptance of responsibility in turn demonstrates that an offender “is ready and willing to admit his crime and to enter the correctional system in a frame of mind that affords hope for success in rehabilitation over a shorter period of time than might otherwise be necessary.” Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 753 (1970).
The limitation on prisoners’ privileges and rights also follows from the need to grant necessary authority and capacity to federal and state officials to administer the prisons. See, e. g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987). “Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government.” Id., at 84-85. To respect these imperatives, courts must exercise restraint in supervising the minutiae of prison life. Ibid. Where, as here, a state penal system is involved, federal courts have “additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.” Ibid.
For these reasons, the Court in Sandin held that challenged prison conditions cannot give rise to a due process violation unless those conditions constitute “atypical and significant hardship[s] on [inmates] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” See 515 U. S., at 484. The determination under Sandin whether a prisoner’s liberty interest has been curtailed may not provide a precise parallel for determining whether there is compelled self-incrimination, but it does provide useful instruction for answering the latter inquiry. Sandin and its counterparts underscore the axiom that a convicted felon’s life in prison differs from that of an ordinary citizen. In the context of a legitimate rehabilitation program for prisoners, those same considerations are relevant to our analysis. The compulsion inquiry must consider the significant restraints already inherent in prison life and the State’s own vital interests in rehabilitation goals and procedures within the prison system. A prison clinical rehabilitation program, which is acknowledged to bear a rational relation to a legitimate penological objective, does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination if the adverse consequences an inmate faces for not participating are related to the program objectives and do not constitute atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
Along these lines, this Court has recognized that lawful conviction and incarceration necessarily place limitations on the exercise of a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination. See, e. g., Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308 (1976). Baxter declined to extend to prison disciplinary proceedings the rule of Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965), that the prosecution may not comment on a defendant’s silence at trial. 425 U. S., at 319-320. As the Court explained, “[disciplinary proceedings in state prisons... involve the correctional process and important state interests other than conviction for crime.” Id., at 319. The inmate in Baxter no doubt felt compelled to speak in one sense of the word. The Court, considering the level of compulsion in light of the prison setting and the State’s interests in rehabilitation and orderly administration, nevertheless rejected the inmate’s self-incrimination claim.
In the present case, respondent’s decision not to participate in the Kansas SATP did not extend his term of incarceration. Nor did his decision affect his eligibility for good-time credits or parole. 224 F. 3d, at 1182. Respondent instead complains that if he remains silent about his past crimes, he will be transferred from the medium-security Unit — where the program is conducted — to a less desirable maximum-security unit.
No one contends, however, that the transfer is intended to punish prisoners for exercising their Fifth Amendment rights. Rather, the limitation on these rights is incidental to Kansas’ legitimate penological reason for the transfer: Due to limited space, inmates who do not participate in their respective programs will be moved out of the facility where the programs are held to make room for other inmates. As the Secretary of Corrections has explained, “it makes no sense to have someone who’s not participating in a program taking up a bed in a setting where someone else who may be willing to participate in a program could occupy that bed and participate in a program.” App. 99.
It is well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 225 (1976). For this reason the Court has not required administrators to conduct a hearing before transferring a prisoner to a bed in a different prison, even if “life in one prison is much more disagreeable than in another.” Ibid. The Court has considered the proposition that a prisoner in a more comfortable facility might begin to feel entitled to remain there throughout his term of incarceration. The Court has concluded, nevertheless, that this expectation “is too ephemeral and insubstantial to trigger procedural due process protections as long as prison officials have discretion to transfer him for whatever reason or for no reason at all.” Id., at 228. This logic has equal force in analyzing respodent’s self-incrimination claim.
Respondent also complains that he will be demoted from Level III to Level I status as a result of his decision not to participate. This demotion means the loss of his personal television; less access to prison organizations and the gym area; a reduction in certain pay opportunities and canteen privileges; and restricted visitation rights. App. 27-28. An essential tool of prison administration, however, is the authority to offer inmates various incentives to behave. The Constitution accords prison officials wide latitude to bestow or revoke these perquisites as they see fit. Accordingly, Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460, 467, n. 4 (1983), held that an inmate’s transfer to another facility did not in itself implicate a liberty interest, even though that transfer resulted in the loss of “access to vocational, educational, recreational, and rehabilitative programs.” Respondent concedes that no liberty interest is implicated in this case. Tr. of Oral Arg. 45. To be sure, cases like Meachum and Hewitt involved the Due Process Clause rather than the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Those cases nevertheless underscore the axiom that, by virtue of their convictions, inmates must expect significant restrictions, inherent in prison life, on rights and privileges free citizens take for granted.
Respondent fails to cite a single case from this Court holding that the denial of discrete prison privileges for refusal to participate in a rehabilitation program amounts to unconstitutional compulsion. Instead, relying on the so-called penalty cases, respondent treats the fact of his incarceration as if it were irrelevant. See, e. g., Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967); Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511 (1967). Those cases, however, involved free citizens given the choice between invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege and sustaining their economic livelihood. See, e. g., id., at 516 •(“[T]hreat of disbarment and the loss of professional standing, professional reputation, and of livelihood are powerful forms of compulsion”). Those principles are not easily extended to the prison context, where inmates surrender upon incarceration their rights to pursue a livelihood and to contract freely with the State, as well as many other basic freedoms. The persons who asserted rights in Garrity and Spevack had not been convicted of a crime. It would come as a surprise if Spevack stands for the proposition that when a lawyer has been disbarred by reason of a final criminal conviction, the court or agency considering reinstatement of the right to practice law could not consider that the disbarred attorney has admitted his guilt and expressed contrition. Indeed, this consideration is often given dispositive weight by this Court itself on routine motions for reinstatement. The current case is more complex, of course, in that respondent is also required to discuss other criminal acts for which he might still be liable for prosecution. On this point, however, there is still a critical distinction between the instant case and Garrity or Spevack. Unlike those cases, respondent here is asked to discuss other past crimes as part of a legitimate rehabilitative program conducted within prison walls.
To reject out of hand these considerations would be to ignore the State’s interests in offering rehabilitation programs and providing for the efficient administration of its prisons. There is no indication that the SATP is an elaborate attempt to avoid the protections offered by the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Rather, the program serves an important social purpose. It would be bitter medicine to treat as irrelevant the State’s legitimate interests and to invalidate the SATP on the ground that it incidentally burdens an inmate’s right to remain silent.
Determining what constitutes unconstitutional compulsion involves a question of judgment: Courts must decide whether the consequences of an inmate’s choice to remain silent are closer to the physical torture against which the Constitution clearly protects or the de minimis harms against which it does not. The Sandin framework provides a reasonable means of assessing whether the response of prison administrators to correctional and rehabilitative necessities are so out of the ordinary that one could sensibly say they rise to the level of unconstitutional compulsion.
Prison context or not, respondent’s choice is marked less by compulsion than by choices the Court has held give no rise to a self-incrimination claim. The “criminal process, like the rest of the legal system, is replete with situations requiring the making of difficult judgments as to which course to follow. Although a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the Constitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose.” McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 213 (1971) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is well settled that the government need not make the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege cost free. See, e. g., Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U. S. 231, 238 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege prior to arrest may be used to impeach his credibility at trial); Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 84-85 (1970) (a criminal defendant may be compelled to disclose the substance of an alibi defense prior to trial or be barred from asserting it).
The cost to respondent of exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege — denial of certain perquisites that make his life in prison more tolerable — is much less than that borne by the defendant in McGautha. There, the Court upheld a procedure that allowed statements, which were made by a criminal defendant to mitigate his responsibility and avoid the death penalty, to be used against him as evidence of his guilt. 402 U. S., at 217. The Court likewise has held that plea bargaining does not violate the Fifth Amendment, even though criminal defendants may feel considerable pressure to admit guilt in order to obtain more lenient treatment. See, e. g., Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357 (1978); Brady, 397 U. S., at 751.
Nor does reducing an inmate’s prison wage and taking away personal television and gym access pose the same hard choice faced by the defendants in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308 (1976), Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U. S. 272 (1998), and Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420 (1984). In Baxter, a state prisoner objected to the fact that his silence at a prison disciplinary hearing would be held against him. The Court acknowledged that Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965), held that the Fifth Amendment prohibits courts from instructing a criminal jury that it may draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify. The Court nevertheless refused to extend the Griffin rule to the context of state prison disciplinary hearings because those proceedings “involve the correctional process and important state interests other than conviction for crime.” 425 U. S., at 319. Whereas the inmate in the present case faces the loss of certain privileges, the prisoner in Baxter faced 30 days in punitive segregation as well as the subsequent downgrade of his prison classification status. Id., at 313.
In Murphy, the defendant feared the possibility of additional jail time as a result of his decision to remain silent. The defendant’s probation officer knew the defendant had committed a rape and murder unrelated to his probation. One of the terms of the defendant’s probation required him to be truthful with the probation officer in all matters. Seizing upon this, the officer interviewed the defendant about the rape and murder, and the defendant admitted his guilt. The Court found no Fifth Amendment violation, despite the defendant’s fear of being returned to prison for 16 months if he remained silent. 465 U. S., at 422, 438.
In Woodard, the plaintiff faced not loss of a personal television and gym access, but loss of life. In a unanimous opinion just four Terms ago, this Court held that a death row inmate could be made to choose between incriminating himself at his clemency interview and having adverse inferences drawn from his silence. The Court reasoned that it “is difficult to see how a voluntary interview could ‘compel’ respondent to speak. He merely faces a choice quite similar to the sorts of choices that a criminal defendant must make in the course of criminal proceedings, none of which has ever been held to violate the Fifth Amendment.” 523 U. S., at 286. As here, the inmate in Woodard claimed to face a Hobson’s choice: He would damage his case for clemency no matter whether he spoke and incriminated himself, or remained silent and the clemency board construed that silence against him. Unlike here, the Court nevertheless concluded that the pressure the inmate felt to speak to improve his chances of clemency did not constitute unconstitutional compulsion. Id., at 287-288.
Woodard, Murphy, and Baxter illustrate that the consequences respondent faced here did not amount to unconstitutional compulsion. Respondent and the dissent attempt to distinguish Baxter, Murphy, and Woodard on the dual grounds that (1) the penalty here followed automatically from respondent’s decision to remain silent, and (2) respondent’s participation in the SATP was involuntary. Neither distinction would justify departing from this Court’s precedents, and the second is question begging in any event.
It is proper to consider the nexus between remaining silent and the consequences that follow. Plea bargains are not deemed to be compelled in part because a defendant who pleads not guilty still must be convicted. Cf. Brady, supra, at 751-752. States may award good-time credits and early parole for inmates who accept responsibility because silence in these circumstances does not automatically mean the parole board, which considers other factors as well, will deny them parole. See Baxter, supra, at 317-318. While the automatic nature of the consequence may be a necessary condition to finding unconstitutional compulsion, however, that is not a sufficient reason alone to ignore Woodard, Murphy, and Baxter. Even if a consequence follows directly from a person’s silence, one cannot answer the question whether the person has been compelled to incriminate himself without first considering the severity of the consequences.
Nor can Woodard be distinguished on the alternative ground that respondent’s choice to participate in the SATP was involuntary, whereas the death row inmate in Woodard chose to participate in clemency proceedings. This distinction assumes the answer to the compulsion inquiry. If respondent was not compelled to participate in the SATP, his participation was voluntary in the only sense necessary for our present inquiry. Kansas asks sex offenders to participate in SATP because, in light of the high rate of recidivism, it wants all, not just the few who volunteer, to receive treatment. Whether the inmates are being asked or ordered to participate depends entirely on the consequences of their decision not to do so. The parties in Woodard, Murphy, and Baxter all were faced with ramifications far worse than respondent faces here, and in each of those cases the Court determined that their hard choice between silence and the consequences was not compelled. It is beyond doubt, of course, that respondent would prefer not to choose between losing prison privileges and accepting responsibility for his past crimes. It is a choice, nonetheless, that does not amount to compulsion, and therefore one Kansas may require respondent to make.
The Federal Government has filed an amicus brief describing its sex offender treatment program. Were respondent’s position to prevail, the constitutionality of the federal program would be cast into serious doubt. The fact that the offender in the federal program can choose to participate without being given a new prisoner classification is not determinative. For, as the Government explains, its program is conducted at a single, 112-bed facility that is more desirable than other federal prisons. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22. Inmates choose at the outset whether to enter the federal program. Once accepted, however, inmates must continue to discuss and accept responsibility for their crimes if they wish to maintain the status quo and remain in their more comfortable accommodations. Otherwise they will be expelled from the program and sent to a less desirable facility. Id., at 27. Thus the federal program is different from Kansas’ SATP only in that it does not require inmates to sacrifice privileges besides housing as a consequence of nonpartic-ipation. The federal program is comparable to the Kansas program because it does not offer participants use immunity and because it conditions a desirable housing assignment on inmates’ willingness to accept responsibility for past behavior. Respondent’s theory cannot be confined in any meaningful way, and state and federal courts applying that view would have no principled means to determine whether these similarities are sufficient to render the federal program unconstitutional.
Respondent is mistaken as well to concentrate on the so-called reward/penalty distinction and the illusory baseline against which a change in prison conditions must be measured. The answer to the question whether the government is extending a benefit or taking away a privilege rests entirely in the eye of the beholder. For this reason, emphasis of any baseline, while superficially appealing, would be an inartful addition to an already confused area of jurisprudence. The prison warden in this case stated that it is largely a matter of chance where in a prison an inmate is assigned. App. 59-63. Even if Inmates A and B are serving the same sentence for the same crime, Inmate A could end up in a medium-security unit and Inmate B in a maximum-security unit based solely on administrative factors beyond their control. Under respondent’s view, however, the Constitution allows the State to offer Inmate B the opportunity to live in the medium-security unit conditioned on his participation in the SATP, but does not allow the State to offer Inmate A the opportunity to live in that same medium-security unit subject to the same conditions. The consequences for Inmates A and B are identical: They may participate and live in medium security or refuse and live in maximum security. Respondent, however, would have us say the Constitution puts Inmate A in a superior position to Inmate B solely by the accident of the initial assignment to a medium-security unit.
This reasoning is unsatisfactory. The Court has noted before that “[w]e doubt that a principled distinction may be drawn between ‘enhancing’ the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and denying him the ‘leniency’ he claims would be appropriate if he had cooperated.” Roberts v. United States, 445 U. S. 552, 557, n. 4 (1980). Respondent’s reasoning would provide States with perverse incentives to assign all inmates convicted of sex offenses to maximum security prisons until near the time of release, when the rehabilitation program starts. The rule would work to the detriment of the entire class of sex offenders who might not otherwise be placed in maximum-security facilities. And prison administrators would be forced, before making routine prison housing decisions, to identify each inmate’s so-called baseline and determine whether an adverse effect, however marginal, will result from the administrative decision. The easy alternatives that respondent predicts for prison administrators would turn out to be not so trouble free.
Respondent’s analysis also would call into question the constitutionality of an accepted feature of federal criminal law: the downward adjustment for acceptance of criminal responsibility provided in §3E1.1 of the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 2002). If the Constitution does not permit the government to condition the use of a personal television on the acceptance of responsibility for past crimes, it is unclear how it could permit the government to reduce the length of a prisoner’s term of incarceration based upon the same factor. By rejecting respondent’s theory, we do not, in this case, call these policies into question.
* * *
Acceptance of responsibility is the beginning of rehabilitation. And a recognition that there are rewards for those who attempt to reform is a vital and necessary step toward completion. The Court of Appeals’ ruling would defeat these objectives
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 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or Act), provides, with specified exceptions, that a "foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States...." 28 U.S.C. § 1604. One of the jurisdictional exceptions-the expropriation exception-says that
"[a] foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case ... (3) in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property ... is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state ... engaged in a commercial activity in the United States." § 1605(a)(3).
The question here concerns the phrase "case ... in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue."
Does this phrase mean that, to defeat sovereign immunity, a party need only make a "nonfrivolous" argument that the case falls within the scope of the exception? Once made, does the existence of that nonfrivolous argument mean that the court retains jurisdiction over the case until the court decides, say, the merits of the case? Or does a more rigorous jurisdictional standard apply? To put the question more generally: What happens in a case where the party seeking to rely on the expropriation exception makes a nonfrivolous, but ultimately incorrect, claim that his property was taken in violation of international law?
In our view, a party's nonfrivolous, but ultimately incorrect, argument that property was taken in violation of international law is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Rather, state and federal courts can maintain jurisdiction to hear the merits of a case only if they find that the property in which the party claims to hold rights was indeed "property taken in violation of international law." Put differently, the relevant factual allegations must make out a legally valid claim that a certain kind of right is at issue (property rights) and that the relevant property was taken in a certain way (in violation of international law). A good argument to that effect is not sufficient. But a court normally need not resolve, as a jurisdictional matter, disputes about whether a party actually held rights in that property; those questions remain for the merits phase of the litigation.
Moreover, where jurisdictional questions turn upon further factual development, the trial judge may take evidence and resolve relevant factual disputes. But, consistent with foreign sovereign immunity's basic objective, namely, to free a foreign sovereign from suit, the court should normally resolve those factual disputes and reach a decision about immunity as near to the outset of the case as is reasonably possible. See Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493-494, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983).
I
Since the mid-1970's a wholly owned Venezuela-incorporated subsidiary (Subsidiary) of an American company (Parent) supplied oil rigs to oil development entities that were part of the Venezuelan Government. In 2011 the American Parent company and its Venezuelan Subsidiary (the respondents here) brought this lawsuit in federal court against those foreign government entities. (The entities go by their initials, PDVSA, but we shall normally refer to them as "Venezuela" or the "Venezuelan Government.") The American Parent and the Venezuelan Subsidiary claimed that the Venezuelan Government had unlawfully expropriated the Subsidiary's oil rigs. And they sought compensation.
According to stipulated facts, by early 2010 the Venezuelan Government had failed to pay more than $10 million that it owed the Subsidiary. At that point the government sent troops to the equipment yard where the rigs were stored, prevented the Subsidiary from removing the rigs, and issued a " 'Decree of Expropriation' " nationalizing the rigs. App. 72-74. Subsequently, the president of the oil development entities led a rally at the Subsidiary's offices, where he referred to the Venezuelan Subsidiary as an " 'American company' " with " 'foreign gentlemen investors.' " Id ., at 54.
Venezuela asked the court to dismiss the case on the ground that Venezuela possessed sovereign immunity and that the court consequently lacked "jurisdiction" to hear the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604 ; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2) ; Verlinden, supra, at 485, n. 5, 103 S.Ct. 1962 (explaining that a court lacks "subject-matter" and "personal" jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign unless an FSIA exception applies). The companies replied that the case falls within the expropriation exception. Venezuela in turn argued that the Subsidiary's expropriation claim did not satisfy the exception because " 'international law does not cover expropriations of property belonging to a country's own nationals' "; the taking was not " 'in violation of international law,' " and the exception thus does not apply. Record in No. 11-cv-01735 (D DC), Doc. 22, p. 13. Venezuela further argued that the American Parent's nationality makes no difference because, "as a corporate parent, [it] does not own [the Subsidiary's] assets." Id., Doc. 24, at 12.
The parties agreed that the District Court should then decide whether the exception applies, and it should do so on the basis of governing law, taking all of the plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations as true and construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. App. 119. The court decided, in relevant part, that the exception did not apply to the Venezuelan Subsidiary's claim because the Subsidiary was a national of Venezuela. See 971 F.Supp.2d 49, 57-61 (2013). The court concluded that Venezuela consequently possessed sovereign immunity, and it dismissed the Subsidiary's claim on jurisdictional grounds. It rejected, however, Venezuela's argument that the Parent had no rights in property in the Subsidiary. It concluded that Venezuela's "actions have deprived [the Parent], individually, of its essential and unique rights as sole shareholder ... by dismantling its voting power, destroying its ownership, and frustrating its control over the company." Id., at 73.
The Venezuelan Subsidiary appealed the dismissal of its expropriation claim, and Venezuela appealed the court's refusal to dismiss the Parent's claim. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the District Court's conclusions. It decided that both the Subsidiary's and the Parent's claims fell within the exception.
With respect to the Subsidiary's claim, the court agreed that a sovereign's taking of its own nationals' property normally does not violate international law. But, the court said, there is an "exception" to this rule. And that exception applies when a sovereign's expropriation unreasonably discriminates on the basis of a company's shareholders' nationality, 784 F.3d 804, 812 (C.A.D.C.2015) (citing Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 307 F.2d 845 (C.A.2 1962) ). That exception, it added, might apply here, in which case the expropriation would violate international law, the FSIA's expropriation exception would apply, and the federal courts would possess jurisdiction over the case. 784 F.3d, at 813. With respect to the Parent's expropriation claim, the court agreed with the District Court that the expropriation exception applied because the Parent had " 'put its rights in property in issue in a non-frivolous way.' " Id., at 816.
For present purposes, it is important to keep in mind that the Court of Appeals did not decide (on the basis of the stipulated facts) that the plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to show their property was taken in violation of international law. It decided instead that the plaintiffs might have such a claim. And it made clear the legal standard that it would apply. It said that, in deciding whether the expropriation exception applies, it would set an "exceptionally low bar." Id., at 812. Any possible, i.e., " 'non-frivolous,' " ibid., claim of expropriation is sufficient, in the Court of Appeals' view, to bring a case within the scope of the FSIA's exception. In particular: If a plaintiff alleges facts and claims that permit the plaintiff to make an expropriation claim that is not " 'wholly insubstantial or frivolous, ' " then the exception permits the suit and the sovereign loses its immunity. Ibid. (emphasis added). Given the factual stipulations, the Court of Appeals did not suggest further factfinding on this jurisdictional issue but, rather, decided that the Subsidiary had "satisfied this Circuit's forgiving standard for surviving a motion to dismiss in an FSIA case." Id., at 813.
Venezuela filed a petition for certiorari asking us to decide whether the Court of Appeals had applied the correct standard in deciding that the companies had met the expropriation exception's requirements. We agreed to do so.
II
Foreign sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in this case because explicit statutory language makes it so. See § 1604 ("[A] foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided" by the FSIA's exceptions); § 1605(a) ("A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction" of federal and state courts if the exception at issue here is satisfied). Given the parties' stipulations as to all relevant facts, our inquiry poses a " 'pure question of statutory construction,' " Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 701, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004). In our view, the expropriation exception grants jurisdiction only where there is a valid claim that "property" has been "taken in violation of international law." § 1605(a)(3). A nonfrivolous argument to that effect is insufficient.
For one thing, the provision's language, while ambiguous, supports such a reading. It says that there is jurisdiction in a "case ... in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue." Ibid. Such language would normally foresee a judicial decision about the jurisdictional matter. And that matter is whether a certain kind of "right" is "at issue," namely, a property right taken in violation of international law. To take a purely hypothetical example, a party might assert a claim to a house in a foreign country. If the foreign country nationalized the house and, when sued, asserted sovereign immunity, then the claiming party would as a jurisdictional matter prove that he claimed "property" (which a house obviously is) and also that the property was "taken in violation of international law." He need not show as a jurisdictional matter that he, rather than someone else, owned the house. That question is part of the merits of the case and remains "at issue."
We recognize that merits and jurisdiction will sometimes come intertwined. Suppose that the party asserted a claim to architectural plans for the house. It might be necessary to decide whether the law recognizes the kind of right that he asserts, or whether it is a right in "property" that was "taken in violation of international law." Perhaps that is the only serious issue in the case. If so, the court must still answer the jurisdictional question. If to do so, it must inevitably decide some, or all, of the merits issues, so be it.
Our reading of the statute is consistent with its language. The case is one which the existence of "rights" remains "at issue" until the court decides the merits of the case. But whether the rights asserted are rights of a certain kind, namely, rights in "property taken in violation of international law," is a jurisdictional matter that the court must typically decide at the outset of the case, or as close to the outset as is reasonably possible.
Precedent offers a degree of support for our interpretation. In Permanent Mission of India to United Nations v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193, 127 S.Ct. 2352, 168 L.Ed.2d 85 (2007), we interpreted a different FSIA exception for cases "in which ... rights in immovable property situated in the United States are in issue." § 1605(a)(4). We held that there was jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff's lawsuit to enforce a tax lien "directly implicate [d]" the property rights described by the FSIA exception. See id., at 200-201, 127 S.Ct. 2352. We did not simply rely upon a finding that the plaintiff had made a nonfrivolous argument that the exception applied.
For another thing, one of the FSIA's basic objectives, as shown by its history, supports this reading. The Act for the most part embodies basic principles of international law long followed both in the United States and elsewhere. See Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 136-137, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) ; see also Verlinden, 461 U.S., at 493, 103 S.Ct. 1962 (explaining that the Act "comprehensively regulat[es] the amenability of foreign nations to suit in the United States"). Our courts have understood, as international law itself understands, foreign nation states to be "independent sovereign" entities. To grant those sovereign entities an immunity from suit in our courts both recognizes the "absolute independence of every sovereign authority" and helps to " 'induc[e]' " each nation state, as a matter of " 'international comity,' " to " 'respect the independence and dignity of every other,' " including our own.
Berizzi Brothers Co. v. S.S. Pesaro, 271 U.S. 562, 575, 46 S.Ct. 611, 70 L.Ed. 1088 (1926) (quoting The Parlement Belge, [1880] 5 P.D. 197, 214-215 (appeal taken from Admiralty Div.)).
In the mid-20th century, we, like many other nations, began to treat nations acting in a commercial capacity like other commercial entities. See Permanent Mission, supra, at 199-200, 127 S.Ct. 2352. And we consequently began to limit our recognition of sovereign immunity, denying that immunity in cases "arising out of a foreign state's strictly commercial acts," but continuing to apply that doctrine in "suits involving the foreign sovereign's public acts, " Verlinden, 461 U.S., at 487, 103 S.Ct. 1962 (emphasis added).
At first, our courts, aware of the expertise of the Executive Branch in matters of foreign affairs, relied heavily upon the advice of that branch when deciding just when and how this "restrictive" sovereign immunity doctrine applied. Ibid . See also H.R. Rep. No. 94-1487, pp. 8-9 (1976) (similar). But in 1976, Congress, at the urging of the Department of State and Department of Justice, began to codify the doctrine. The resulting statute, the FSIA, "starts from a premise of immunity and then creates exceptions to the general principle." Id., at 17; Verlinden, supra, at 493, 103 S.Ct. 1962. Almost all the exceptions involve commerce or immovable property located in the United States. E.g., §§ 1605(a)(2) and (4) ; see also § 1602 (expressing the finding that "[u]nder international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned"). The statute thereby creates a doctrine that by and large continues to reflect basic principles of international law, in particular those principles embodied in what jurists refer to as the "restrictive" theory of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 451, and Comment a (1986) (describing the restrictive theory of immunity); United Nations General Assembly, Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, Res. 59/38, Arts. 5, 10-12 (Dec. 2, 2004) (adopting a restrictive theory of immunity and withdrawing immunity for loss of property where, among other requirements, "the act or omission occurred in whole or in part in the territory of th[e] other State"); United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, Supp. A/59/22 No. 1, pp. 7-11 (Mar. 1-5, 2004) (same).
We have found nothing in the history of the statute that suggests Congress intended a radical departure from these basic principles. To the contrary, the State Department, which helped to draft the FSIA's language (and to whose views on sovereign immunity this Court, like Congress, has paid special attention, Altmann, 541 U.S., at 696, 124 S.Ct. 2240 ), told Congress that the Act was "drafted keeping in mind what we believe to be the general state of the law internationally, so that we conform fairly closely ... to our accepted international standards," Hearing on H.R. 3493 before the Subcommittee on Claims and Governmental Relations of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 18 (1973). The Department added that, by doing so, we would diminish the likelihood that other nations would each go their own way, thereby "subject[ing]" the United States "abroad" to more claims "than we permit in this country...." Ibid . It is consequently not surprising to find that the expropriation exception on its face emphasizes conformity with international law by requiring not only a commercial connection with the United States but also a taking of property "in violation of international law ."
We emphasize this point, embedded in the statute's language, history, and structure, because doing so reveals a basic objective of our sovereign immunity doctrine, which a "nonfrivolous-argument" reading of the expropriation exception would undermine. A sovereign's taking or regulating of its own nationals' property within its own territory is often just the kind of foreign sovereign's public act (a "jure imperii ") that the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity ordinarily leaves immune from suit. See Permanent Mission, 551 U.S., at 199, 127 S.Ct. 2352 (describing the FSIA's distinction between public acts, or jure imperii, and purely commercial ones); Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 712, at 196 (noting that, under international law, a state is responsible for a "taking of the property of a national of another state " (emphasis added)). See also Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 455, Reporter's Note 12, p. 9 (Tent. Draft No. 2, Mar. 22, 2016) (noting that "[n]o provision comparable" to the exception "has yet been adopted in the domestic immunity statutes of other countries" and that expropriations are considered acts jure imperii ); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 332, 57 S.Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937) ; B. Cheng & G. Schwarzberger, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 37-38 (1953) (collecting cases describing "the power of the sovereign State to expropriate" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy ), 2012 I.C.J. 99, 123-125, ¶¶ 56-60 (Judgt. of Feb. 3) (noting consistent state practice in respect to the distinction between public and commercial acts and describing an international law of immunity recognizing such a difference); Altmann, supra, at 708, 124 S.Ct. 2240 (BREYER, J., concurring) (describing the French Court of Appeals' decision about whether a King who has abdicated the throne is " 'entitled to claim ... immunity' " as " 'Hea[d] of State' " when his sovereign status at the time of suit was in doubt (quoting Ex-King Farouk of Egypt v. Christian Dior, 84 Clunet 717, 24 I.L.R. 228, 229 (CA Paris 1957))).
To be sure, there are fair arguments to be made that a sovereign's taking of its own nationals' property sometimes amounts to an expropriation that violates international law, and the expropriation exception provides that the general principle of immunity for these otherwise public acts should give way. But such arguments are about whether such an expropriation does violate international law. To find jurisdiction only where a taking does violate international law is thus consistent with basic international law and the related statutory objectives and principles that we have mentioned. But to find jurisdiction where a taking does not violate international law (e.g., where there is a nonfrivolous but ultimately incorrect argument that the taking violates international law) is inconsistent with those objectives. And it is difficult to understand why Congress would have wanted that result.
Moreover, the "nonfrivolous-argument" interpretation would, in many cases, embroil the foreign sovereign in an American lawsuit for an increased period of time. It would substitute for a more workable standard ("violation of international law") a standard limited only by the bounds of a lawyer's (nonfrivolous) imagination. It would create increased complexity in respect to a jurisdictional matter where clarity is particularly important. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94-95, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010). And clarity is doubly important here where foreign nations and foreign lawyers must understand our law.
Finally, the Solicitor General and the Department of State also warn us that the nonfrivolous-argument interpretation would "affron[t]" other nations, producing friction in our relations with those nations and leading some to reciprocate by granting their courts permission to embroil the United States in "expensive and difficult litigation, based on legally insufficient assertions that sovereign immunity should be vitiated." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21-22. (At any given time the Department of Justice's Office of Foreign Litigation represents the United States in about 1,000 cases in 100 courts around the world. Ibid .) See also National City Bank of N.Y. v. Republic of China, 348 U.S. 356, 362, 75 S.Ct. 423, 99 L.Ed. 389 (1955) (noting that our grant of immunity to foreign sovereigns dovetails with our own interest in receiving similar treatment).
III
The plaintiffs make two important arguments to the contrary. First, they point to the federal statute that gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331. They note that in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), this Court held that the "arising under" statute confers jurisdiction if a plaintiff can make a nonfrivolous argument that a federal law provides the relief he seeks-even if, in fact, it does not. See id ., at 685, 66 S.Ct. 773 (jurisdiction exists where, if the "Constitution and laws of the United States are given one construction," a claim will be "sustained," but if the laws are given a different construction, the claim "will be defeated"). And the plaintiffs say we should treat the expropriation exception similarly.
Section 1331, however, uses different language from the expropriation exception ("arising under") and focuses on different concerns. Section 1331 often simply determines which court's doors are open (federal or state). Cf. Mims v. ArrowFinancial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 375-379, 132 S.Ct. 740, 181 L.Ed.2d 881 (2012). Unlike the FSIA, neither that jurisdictional section nor related jurisdictional sections seeks to provide a sovereign foreign nation (or any party) with immunity-the basic FSIA objective. See Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 479, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003) (FSIA's objective is to give "protection from the inconvenience of suit as a gesture of comity"); Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 866, 128 S.Ct. 2180, 171 L.Ed.2d 131 (2008). And unlike the expropriation exception, the "arising under" statute's language does not suggest that consistency with international law is of particular importance.
Moreover, this Court has interpreted other jurisdictional statutes differently. Where jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship, for example, courts will look to see whether the parties are in fact diverse, not simply whether they are arguably so. See Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 69, 62 S.Ct. 15, 86 L.Ed. 47 (1941) ; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936) ; see also 13E C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3611 (2009). We do not believe either jurisdictional analogy ( 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332 ) is particularly helpful, but the expropriation exception's substantive goals suggest that the diversity jurisdiction example provides a marginally closer analogy.
Second, the plaintiffs argue that the nonfrivolous-argument approach will work little harm. They say that a court faced with an arguable, but ultimately incorrect, claim of jurisdiction can simply decide the same question-say, whether there was a "violation of international law"-as part of its decision on the merits. Thus a foreign sovereign defendant (in court because a plaintiff has made a nonfrivolous but incorrect argument that its property was taken in violation of international law) can simply move for judgment on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6), which provides for judgment where a plaintiff does not "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Or the defendant could move for summary judgment under Rule 56. In a word, the defendant may not need to undergo a full trial and judgment, remaining in court until the bitter end.
These alternatives, however, have their own problems. For one thing, they will sometimes mean increased delay, imposing increased burdens of time and expense upon the foreign nation. For another, where a district court decides that there is a "violation of international law" as a matter of jurisdiction, then (according to the Courts of Appeals) the losing sovereign nation can immediately appeal the decision as a collateral order. But the same decision made to dispose of, say, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 motion would not be a "collateral order." It would be a decision on the "merits." And the foreign sovereign would not enjoy a right to take an immediate appeal. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (permitting interlocutory appeal of a collateral order that "resolve [s] an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action"); Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006) (same). See also Intel Corp. v. Commonwealth Scientific, 455 F.3d 1364, 1366 (C.A.Fed.2006) (permitting collateral appeal of an FSIA jurisdictional decision denying immunity); Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 637 F.3d 783, 785 (C.A.7 2011) (same); Compania Mexicana de Aviacion v. Central Dist. of Cal., 859 F.2d 1354, 1356 (C.A.9 1988) (per curiam ) (same); Foremost-McKesson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438, 443 (C.A.D.C.1990) (same).
Moreover, what is a court to do in a case where a "violation of international law," while a jurisdictional prerequisite, is not an element of the claim to be decided on the merits? The Circuit has suggested that they arise when the plaintiffs' claim is not an "expropriation claim," but rather a simple common-law claim of conversion, restitution, or breach of contract, the merits of which do not involve the merits of international law. See Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127, 141-142 (C.A.D.C.2016). The Circuit has recognized that there are such cases, id., at 141, and a cursory survey of the principal district courts in which these cases are brought confirms the reality of the problem. See, e.g., Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, ---F.Supp.3d ----, 2017 WL 1207408 (D.D.C., Mar. 31, 2017) (deciding whether the expropriation exception is satisfied where the complaint pleads only common-law or statutory claims for relief); de Csepel v. Hungary, 169 F.Supp.3d 143 (D.D.C.2016) (similar); Pablo Star Ltd. v. Welsh Government, 170 F.Supp.3d 597 (S.D.N.Y.2016) (similar); Chettri v. Nepal, 2014 WL 4354668 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2014) (similar); Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss in Lu v. Central Bank of Republic of China, No. 2:12-cv-317 (CD Cal., June 13, 2013) (similar); Orkin v. Swiss Confederation, 770 F.Supp.2d 612 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (similar);
Hammerstein v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2011 WL 9975796 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2011) (similar); Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 461 F.Supp.2d 1157 (C.D.Cal.2006) (similar). Indeed, cases in which the jurisdictional inquiry does not overlap with the elements of a plaintiff's claims have been the norm in cases arising under other exceptions to the FSIA. E.g., Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 610, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992) (deciding whether a plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the commercial-activity exception, § 1605(a)(2) ).
To address the problem raised by these cases in which the "jurisdictional and merits inquiries" are not fully "overlap[ping]," the Circuit has held that a district court is not to apply its nonfrivolous-argument standard in such cases. Simon, 812 F.3d, at 141. Rather, a court is to ask "whether the plaintiffs' allegations satisfy the jurisdictional standard." Ibid.
We can understand why the Circuit has departed from its nonfrivolous-argument standard in these latter cases. For, unless it did so, how could a foreign nation ever obtain a decision on the merits of the nonfrivolous argument that a plaintiff has advanced? But what in the statutory provision suggests that sometimes courts should, but sometimes they should not, simply look to the existence of a nonfrivolous argument when they decide whether the requirements of the expropriation exception are satisfied? It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this bifurcated approach with the statute's language. It receives little, if any, support from the statute's history or purpose. And, it creates added complexity, making it more difficult for judges and lawyers, domestic and foreign, to understand the intricacies of the law.
IV
We conclude that the nonfrivolous-argument standard is not consistent with the statute. Where, as here, the facts are not in dispute, those facts bring the case within the scope of the expropriation exception only if they do show (and not just arguably show) a taking of property in violation of international law. Simply making a nonfrivolous argument to that effect is not sufficient. Moreover, as we have previously stated, a court should decide the foreign sovereign's immunity defense "[a]t the threshold" of the action. Verlinden, 461 U.S., at 493, 103 S.Ct. 1962. As we have said, given the parties' stipulations as to all relevant facts, the question before us is purely a legal one and can be resolved at the outset of the case. If a decision about the matter requires resolution of factual disputes, the court will have to resolve those disputes, but it should do so as near to the outset of the case as is reasonably possible.
* * *
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.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Holt is a small, largely rural, unincorporated community located on the northeastern outskirts of Tuscaloosa, the fifth largest city in Alabama. Because the community is within the three-mile police jurisdiction circumscribing Tuscaloosa’s corporate limits, its residents are subject to the city’s “police [and] sanitary regulations.” Ala. Code § 11-40-10 (1975). Holt residents are also subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the city’s court, Ala. Code § 12-14-1 (1975), and to the city’s power to license businesses, trades, and professions, Ala. Code § 11-51-91 (1975). Tuscaloosa, however, may collect from businesses in the police jurisdiction only one-half of the license fee chargeable to similar businesses conducted within the corporate limits. Ibid.
In 1973 appellants, an unincorporated civic association and seven individual residents of Holt, brought this statewide class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,' challenging the constitutionality of these Alabama statutes. They claimed that the city’s extraterritorial exercise of police powers over Holt residents, without a concomitant extension of the franchise on an equal footing with those residing within the corporate limits, denies residents of the police jurisdiction rights secured by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court denied appellants’ request to convene a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.) and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Characterizing the Alabama statutes as enabling Acts, the District Court held that the statutes lack the requisite statewide application necessary to convene a three-judge District Court. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered the convening of a three-judge court, finding that the police jurisdiction statute embodies “ ‘a policy of statewide concern.’ ” Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, 525 F. 2d 653, 655 (1975), quoting Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89, 94 (1935).
A three-judge District Court was convened, but appellants’ constitutional claims fared no better on the merits. Noting that appellants sought a declaration that extraterritorial regulation is unconstitutional per se rather than an extension of the franchise to police jurisdiction residents, the District Court held simply that “[e]qual protection has not been extended to cover such contention.” App. to Juris. Statement 2a. The court rejected appellants’ due process claim without comment. Accordingly, appellees’ motion to dismiss was granted.
Unsure whether appellants’ constitutional attack on the Alabama statutes satisfied the requirements of 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.) for convening a three-judge district court, we postponed consideration of the jurisdictional issue until the hearing of the case on the merits. 435 U. S. 914 (1978). We now conclude that the three-judge court was properly convened and that appellants’ constitutional claims were properly rejected.
I
Before its repeal, 28 U. S. C. §2281 (1970 ed.) required that a three-judge district court be convened in any case in which a preliminary or permanent injunction was sought to restrain “the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute . . . .” Our decisions have interpreted § 2281 to require the convening of a three-judge district court “where the challenged statute or regulation, albeit created or authorized by a state legislature, has statewide application or effectuates a statewide policy.” Board of Regents v. New Left Education Project, 404 U. S. 541, 542 (1972). Relying on Moody v. Flowers, 387 U. S. 97 (1967), appellees contend, and the original single-judge District Court held, that Alabama's police jurisdiction statutes lack statewide impact.
A three-judge court was improperly convened in Moody because the challenged state statutes had “limited application, concerning only a particular county involved in the litigation . . . .” Id., at 104. In contrast, appellants’ constitutional attack focuses upon a state statute that creates the statewide system under which Alabama cities exercise extraterritorial powers. In mandatory terms, the statute provides that municipal police and sanitary ordinances “shall have force and effect in the limits of the city or town and in the police jurisdiction thereof and on any property or rights-of-way belonging to the city or town.” Clearly, Alabama’s police jurisdiction statutes have statewide application. See, e. g., Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U. S. 105, 107 (1967). That the named defendants are local officials is irrelevant where, as here, those officials are “functioning pursuant to a statewide policy and performing a state function.” Moody v. Flowers, supra, at 102; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, supra, at 94-95. The convening of a three-judge District Court was proper.
II
Appellants’ amended complaint requested the District Court to declare the Alabama statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement insofar as they authorize the extraterritorial exercise of municipal powers. Seizing on the District Court’s observation that “ [appellants] do not seek extension of the franchise to themselves,” appellants suggest that their complaint was dismissed because they sought the wrong remedy.
The unconstitutional predicament in which appellants assertedly found themselves could be remedied in only two ways: (1) the city’s extraterritorial power could be negated by invalidating the State’s authorizing statutes or (2) the right to vote in municipal elections could be extended to residents of the police jurisdiction. We agree with appellants that a federal court should not dismiss a meritorious constitutional claim because the complaint seeks one remedy rather than another plainly appropriate one. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings.” Rule 54(c). Thus, although the prayer for relief may be looked to for illumination when there is doubt as to the substantive theory under which a plaintiff is proceeding, its omissions are not in and of themselves a barrier to redress of a meritorious claim. See, e. g., 6 J. Moore, W. Taggart, & J. Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 54.62, pp. 1261-1265 (2d ed. 1976). But while a meritorious claim will not be rejected for want of a prayer for appropriate relief, a claim lacking substantive merit obviously should be rejected. We think it is clear from the pleadings in this case that appellants have alleged no claim cognizable under the United States Constitution.
A
Appellants focus their equal protection attack on § 11-40-10, the statute fixing the limits of municipal police jurisdiction and giving extraterritorial effect to municipal police and sanitary ordinances. Citing Kramer v. Union Free School Dist., 395 U. S. 621 (1969), and cases following in its wake, appellants argue that the section creates a classification infringing on their right to participate in municipal elections. The State’s denial of the franchise to police jurisdiction residents, appellants urge, can stand only if justified by a compelling state interest.
At issue in Kramer was a New York voter qualification statute that limited the vote in school district elections to otherwise qualified district residents who (1) either owned or leased taxable real property located within the district, (2) were married to persons owning or leasing qualifying property, or (3) were parents or guardians of children enrolled in a local district school for a specified time during the preceding year. Without deciding whether or not a State may in some circumstances limit the franchise to residents primarily interested in or primarily affected by the activities of a given governmental unit, the Court held that the statute was not sufficiently tailored to meet that state interest since its classifications excluded many bona fide residents of the school district who had distinct and direct interests in school board decisions and included many residents whose interests in school affairs were, at best, remote and indirect.
On the same day, in Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969), the Court upheld an equal protection challenge to a Louisiana law providing that only "property taxpayers” could vote in elections called to approve the issuance of revenue bonds by a municipal utility system. Operation of the utility system affected virtually every resident of the city, not just property owners, and the bonds were in no way financed by property tax revenue. Thus, since the benefits and burdens of the bond issue fell indiscriminately on property owner and nonproperty owner alike, the challenged classification impermissibly excluded otherwise qualified residents who were substantially affected by and directly interested in the matter put to a referendum. The rationale of Cipriano was subsequently called upon to invalidate an Arizona law restricting the franchise to property taxpayers in elections to approve the issuance of general obligation municipal bonds. Phoenix v. Kolodsiejski, 399 U. S. 204 (1970).
Appellants also place heavy reliance on Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S. 419 (1970). In Evans the Permanent Board of Registry of Montgomery County, Md., ruled that persons living on the grounds of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal enclave located within the geographical boundaries of the State, did not meet the residency requirement of the Maryland Constitution. Accordingly, NIH residents were denied the right to vote in Maryland elections. This Court rejected the notion that persons living on NIH grounds were not residents of Maryland:
“Appellees clearly live within the geographical boundaries of the State of Maryland, and they are treated as state residents in the census and in determining congressional apportionment. They are not residents of Maryland only if the NIH grounds ceased to be a part of Maryland when the enclave was created. However, that 'fiction of a state within a state’ was specifically rejected by this Court in Howard v. Commissioners of Louisville, 344 U. S. 624, 627 (1953), and it cannot be resurrected here to deny appellees the right to vote.” Id., at 421-422.
Thus, because inhabitants of the NIH enclave were residents of Maryland and were "just as interested in and connected with electoral decisions as they were prior to 1953 when the area came under federal jurisdiction and as their neighbors who live off the enclave,” id., at 426, the State could not deny them the equal right to vote in Maryland elections.
From these and our other voting qualifications cases a common characteristic emerges: The challenged statute in each case denied the franchise to individuals who were physically resident within the geographic boundaries of the governmental entity concerned. See, e. g., Hill v. Stone, 421 U. S. 289 (1975) (invalidating provision of the Texas Constitution restricting franchise on general obligation bond issue to residents who had “rendered” or listed real, mixed, dr personal property for taxation in the election district); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 (1966) (invalidating Virginia statute conditioning the right to vote of otherwise qualified residents on payment of a poll tax); cf. Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346 (1970) (invalidating Georgia statute restricting county school board membership to residents owning real property in the county). No decision of this Court has extended the “one man, one vote” principle to individuals residing beyond the geographic confines of the governmental entity concerned, be it the State or its political subdivisions. On the contrary, our cases have uniformly recognized that a government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders. See, e. g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 343-344 (1972); Evans v. Comman, supra, at 422; Kramer v. Union Free School Dist., 395 U. S., at 625; Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91 (1965); Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621 (1904). Bona fide residence alone, however, does not automatically confer the right to vote on all matters, for at least in the context of special interest elections the State may constitutionally disfranchise residents who lack the required special interest in the subject matter of the election. See Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U. S. 719 (1973); Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec Watershed Improvement Dist., 410 U. S. 743 (1973).
Appellants’ argument that extraterritorial extension of municipal powers requires concomitant extraterritorial extension of the franchise proves too much. The imaginary line defining a city’s corporate limits cannot corral the influence of municipal actions. A city’s decisions inescapably affect individuals living immediately outside its borders. The granting of building permits for high rise apartments, industrial plants, and the like on the city’s fringe unavoidably contributes to problems of traffic congestion, school districting, and law enforcement immediately outside the city. A rate change in the city’s sales or ad valorem tax could well have a significant impact on retailers and property values in areas bordering the city. The condemnation of real property on the city’s edge for construction of a municipal garbage dump or waste treatment plant would have obvious implications for neighboring nonresidents. Indeed, the indirect extraterritorial effects of many purely internal municipal actions could conceivably have a heavier impact on surrounding environs than the direct regulation contemplated by Alabama’s police jurisdiction statutes. Yet no one would suggest that nonresidents likely to be affected by this sort of municipal action have a constitutional right to participate in the political processes bringing it about. And unless one adopts the idea that the Austinian notion of sovereignty, which is presumably embodied to some extent in the authority of a city over a police jurisdiction, distinguishes the direct effects of limited municipal powers over police jurisdiction residents from the indirect though equally dramatic extraterritorial effects of purely internal municipal actions, it makes little sense to say that one requires extension of the franchise while the other does not.
Given this country’s tradition of popular sovereignty, appellants’ claimed right to vote in Tuscaloosa elections is not without some logical appeal. We are mindful, however, of Mr. Justice Holmes’ observation in Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 355 (1908):
“All rights tend to declare themselve absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached. . . . The boundary at which the conflicting interests balance cannot be determined by any general formula in advance, but points in the line, or helping to establish it, are fixed by decisions that this or that concrete case falls on the nearer or farther side.”
The line heretofore marked by this Court’s voting qualifications decisions coincides with the geographical boundary of the governmental unit at issue, and we hold that appellants’ case, like their homes, falls on the farther side.
B
Thus stripped of its voting rights attire, the equal protection issue presented by appellants becomes whether the Alabama statutes giving extraterritorial force to certain municipal ordinances and powers bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 (1973). “The Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit legislation merely because it is special, or limited in its application to a particular geographical or political subdivision of the state.” Fort Smith Light Co. v. Paving Dist., 274 U. S. 387, 391 (1927). Rather, the Equal Protection Clause is offended only if the statute’s classification “rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 425 (1961); Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552, 556 (1947).
Government, observed Mr. Justice Johnson, “is the science of experiment,” Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 226 (1821), and a State is afforded wide leeway when experimenting with the appropriate allocation of state legislative power. This Court has often recognized that political subdivisions such as cities and counties are created by the State “as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them.” Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 178 (1907). See also, e. g., Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U. S., at 108; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 575 (1964). In Hunter v. Pittsburgh, the Court discussed at length the relationship between a State and its political subdivisions, remarking: “The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal] corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the State.” 207 U. S., at 178. While the broad statements as to state control over municipal corporations contained in Hunter have undoubtedly been qualified by the holdings of later cases such as Kramer v. Union Free School Dist., supra, we think that the case continues to have substantial constitutional significance in emphasizing the extraordinarily wide latitude that States have in creating various types of political subdivisions and conferring authority upon them.
The extraterritorial exercise of municipal powers is a governmental technique neither recent in origin nor unique to the State of Alabama. See R. Maddox, Extraterritorial Powers of Municipalities in the United States (1955). In this country 35 States authorize their municipal subdivisions to exercise governmental powers beyond their corporate limits. Comment, The Constitutionality of the Exercise of Extraterritorial Powers by Municipalities, 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 151 (1977). Although the extraterritorial municipal powers granted by these States vary widely, several States grant their cities more extensive or intrusive powers over bordering areas than those granted under the Alabama statutes.
In support of their .equal protection claim, appellants suggest a number of “constitutionally preferable” governmental alternatives to Alabama's system of municipal police jurisdictions. For example, exclusive management of the police jurisdiction by county officials, appellants maintain, would be more “practical.” From a political science standpoint, appellants’ suggestions may be sound, but this Court does not sit to determine whether Alabama has chosen the soundest or most practical form of internal government possible. Authority to make those judgments resides in the state legislature, and Alabama citizens are free to urge their proposals to that body. See, e. g., Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S., at 179. Our inquiry is limited to the question whether “any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify” Alabama's system of police jurisdictions, Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U. S., at 732, and in this case it takes but momentary reflection to arrive at an affirmative answer.
The Alabama Legislature could have decided that municipal corporations should have some measure of control over activities carried on just beyond their “city limit” signs, particularly since today’s police jurisdiction may be tomorrow’s annexation to the city proper. Nor need the city’s interests have been the only concern of the legislature when it enacted the police jurisdiction statutes. Urbanization of any area brings with it a number of individuals who long both for the quiet of suburban or country living and for the career opportunities offered by the city’s working environment. Unincorporated communities like Holt dot the rim of most major population centers in Alabama and elsewhere, and state legislatures have a legitimate interest in seeing that this substantial segment of the population does not go without basic municipal services such as police, fire, and health protection. Established cities are experienced in the delivery of such services, and the incremental cost of extending the city’s responsibility in these areas to surrounding environs may be substantially less than the expense of establishing wholly new service organizations in each community.
Nor was it unreasonable for the Alabama Legislature to require police jurisdiction residents to contribute through license fees to the expense of services provided them by the city. The statutory limitation on license fees to half the amount exacted within the city assures that police jurisdiction residents will not be victimized by the city government.
“Viable local governments may need many innovations, numerous combinations of old and new devices, great flexibility in municipal arrangements to meet changing urban conditions.” Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U. S., at 110-111. This observation in Sailors was doubtless as true at the turn of this century, when urban areas throughout the country were temporally closer to the effects of the industrial revolution. Alabama’s police jurisdiction statute, enacted in 1907, was a rational legislative response to the problems faced by the State’s burgeoning cities. Alabama is apparently content with the results of its experiment, and nothing in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that it try something new.
C
Appellants also argue that “governance without the franchise is a fundamental violation of the due process clause.” Brief for Appellants 28. Support for this proposition is alleged to come from United States v. Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234 (WD Tex.) (three-judge District Court), summarily aff’d, 384 U. S. 155 (1966), which held that conditioning the franchise of otherwise qualified voters on payment of a poll tax denied due process to many Texas voters. Appellants’ argument proceeds from the assumption, earlier shown to be erroneous, supra, at 66-70, that they have a right to vote in Tuscaloosa elections. Their conclusion falls with their premise.
Ill
In sum, we conclude that Alabama’s police jurisdiction statutes violate neither the Equal Protection Clause nor the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
The full text of § 11-40-10 provides:
“The police jurisdiction in cities having 6,000 or more inhabitants shall cover all adjoining territory within three miles of the corporate limits, and in cities having less than 6,000 inhabitants and in towns, such police jurisdiction shall extend also to the adjoining territory within a mile and a half of the corporate limits of such city or town.
“Ordinances of a city or town enforcing police or sanitary regulations and prescribing fines and penalties for violations thereof shall have force and effect in the limits of the city or town and in the police jurisdiction thereof and on any property or rights-of-way belonging to the city or town.”
“The municipal court shall have jurisdiction of all prosecutions for the breach of the ordinances of the municipality within its police jurisdiction.” Ala. Code § 12-14^1 (b) (1975).
In pertinent part § 11-51-91 provides:
“Any city or town within the state of Alabama may fix and collect licenses for any business, trade or profession done within the police jurisdiction of such city or town but outside the corporate limits thereof; provided, that the amount of such licenses shaE not be more than one half the amount charged and collected as a license for like business, trade or profession done within the corporate limits of such city or town, fees and penalties excluded . . . .”
Although not at issue here, Ala. Code § 11-52-8 (1975) imposes a duty on the municipal planning commission “to make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the municipality, including any areas outside of its boundaries which, in the commission’s judgment, bear relation to the planning of such municipality.” Under Ala. Code §§ 11-52-30 and 11-52-31 (1975), also not contested here, the municipal planning commission is required to adopt regulations governing the subdivision of land within its jurisdiction, which includes all land lying within five miles of the municipality’s corporate limits and not located within the corporate limits of any other municipality.
This suit was instituted prior to the 1975 recompilation of the Alabama Code. Other than minor stylistic changes, § 11-40-10 and § 11-51-91 are identical to their predecessors, Ala. Code, Tit. 37, §§ 9 and 733 (1958) respectively. Section 12-14-1 abolished the recorder’s courts created under is predecessor, Ala. Code, Tit. 37, §585 (1958), and replaced them with municipal courts having similar extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Pub. L. 94-381, § 1, Aug. 12,1976, 90 Stat. 1119.
Ala. Code § 11-40-10 (1975) (emphasis added). The Alabama Supreme Court has recognized the mandatory nature of § 11-40-10. In City of Leeds v. Town of Moody, 294 Ala. 496, 319 So. 2d 242 (1975), the court rejected the contention that the city of Leeds had, by discontinuing police and fire protection in its police jurisdiction, “waived and relinquished its police jurisdiction over the area.” Id., at 502, 319 So. 2d, at 246. “Since a municipality cannot barter away a governmental power specifically delegated to it by the legislature, ... it follows that it also cannot waive or relinquish such power.” Ibid. See also Trailway OH Co. v. Mobile, 271 Ala. 218, 224, 122 So. 2d 757, 762 (1960) (“[Section] 9 of Title 37 [now § 11-40-10], describing the territorial extent of the municipal police jurisdiction and the incidents thereof, and § 733 of Title 37 [now § 11-51-91], as amended, authorizing and regulating the fixing and collecting of licenses within the police jurisdiction of cities and towns, are general laws, and, as such, they are considered part of every municipal charter”); Coursey v. City of Andalusia, 24 Ala. App. 247, 247-248, 134 So. 671 (1931) (“Under the statute [§ 11-40-10] the police jurisdiction extends to all the adjoining territory within a mile and a half of the corporate limits of said city, and . . . ordinances of the city enforcing police or sanitary regulations . . . have force and effect not only in the limits of the city, but also in the police jurisdiction thereof”).
In this case residents of the police jurisdiction are excluded only from participation in municipal elections since they reside outside of Tuscaloosa’s corporate limits. This “denial of the franchise,” as appellants put it, does not have anything like the far-reaching consequences of the denial of the franchise in Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S. 419 (1970). There the Court pointed out that “[i]n nearly every election, federal, state, and local, for offices from the Presidency to the school board, and on the entire variety of other ballot propositions, appellees have a stake equal to that of other Maryland residents.” Id., at 426. Treatment of the plaintiffs in Evans as nonresidents of Maryland had repercussions not merely with respect to their right to vote in city elections, but with respect to their right to vote in national, state, school board, and referendum elections.
Municipalities in some States have almost unrestricted governmental powers over surrounding unincorporated territories. For example, South Dakota cities
“have power to exercise jurisdiction for all authorized purposes over all territory within the corporate limits . . . and in and over all plaees, except within the corporate limits of another municipality, within one mile of the corporate limits or of any public ground or park belonging to the municipality outside the corporate limits, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, and of enforcing its ordinances and resolutions relating thereto.” S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 9-29-1 (1967).
North Dakota’s statutory grant of extraterritorial municipal powers is similarly broad:
“Except as otherwise provided by law, a governing body of a municipality shall have jurisdiction:
“2. In and over all places within one-half mile of the municipal limits for the purpose of enforcing health and quarantine ordinances and regulations and police regulations and ordinances adopted to promote the peace, order, safety, and general welfare of the municipality.” N. D. Cent. Code §40-06-01 (2) (1968).
Cities in many States are statutorily authorized to zone extraterritorially, see, e. g., Ariz. Rev. -Stat. Ann. § 9-240-B-21 (c) (1977); Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.36 (1970); N. D. Cent. Code § 11-35-02 (1976), a power not afforded Alabama municipalities. See Roberson v. City of Montgomery, 285 Ala. 421, 233 So. 2d 69 (1970).
By setting forth these various state provisions respecting extraterritorial powers of cities, we do not mean to imply that every one of them would pass constitutional muster. We do not have before us, of course, a situation in which a city has annexed outlying territory in all but name, and is exercising precisely the same governmental powers over residents of surrounding unincorporated territory as it does over those residing within its corporate limits. See Little Thunder v. South Dakota, 518 F. 2d 1253 (CA8 1975). Nor do we have here a case like Evans v. Cornman, swpra, where NIH residents were subject to such “important aspects of state powers” as Maryland’s authority “to levy and collect [its] income, gasoline, sales, and use taxes” and were “just as interested in and connected with electoral decisions as . . . their neighbors who live[d] off the enclave.” 398 U. S., at 423, 424, 426.
Appellants have made neither an allegation nor a showing that the authority exercised by the city of Tuscaloosa within the police jurisdiction is no less than that exercised by the city within its corporate limits. The minute catalog of ordinances of the city of Tuscaloosa which have extraterritorial effect set forth by our dissenting Brethren, post, at 82-84, n. 10, is as notable for what it does not include as for what it does. While the burden was on appellants to establish a difference in treatment violative of the Equal Protection Clause, we are bound to observe that among the powers not included in the “addendum” to appellants’ brief referred to by the dissent are the vital and traditional authorities of cities and towns to levy ad valorem taxes, invoke the power of eminent domain, and zone property for various types of uses.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents questions regarding the administration of Florida’s capital sentencing statute. In particular, petitioner challenges the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses of capital murder. He also challenges the court’s imposition of a sentence of death when the jury had recommended life. We conclude that on the facts of this case, it was not error for the trial judge to refuse to give the lesser included offense instruction and that there is no constitutional requirement that the jury’s recommendation of life be final. We also reject petitioner’s argument that, as applied in this case, the Florida standards for overriding a jury’s sentencing recommendation are so broad and vague as to violate the constitutional requirement of reliability in capital sentencing.
I
Petitioner Joseph Robert Spaziano was indicted and tried for first-degree murder. The indictment was brought two years and one month after the alleged offense. Under the Florida statute of limitations in effect at the time of the alleged offense, August 1973, the limitations period for noncapital offenses was two years. Fla. Stat. §932.465(2) (1973). There was no statute of limitations for capital offenses, such as first-degree murder. §932.465(1).
The primary evidence against petitioner was given by a witness who testified that petitioner had taken him to a garbage dump in Seminole County, Fla., where petitioner had pointed out the remains of two women he claimed to have tortured and murdered. Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the witness’ recall and perception because of a substantial drug habit. The witness testified that he had not taken drugs on the day of the visit to the garbage dump, and he had been able to direct the police to the site. See Spaziano v. State, 393 So. 2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 1981).
At the close of the evidence, the trial court informed petitioner that it would instruct the jury on the lesser included, noncapital offenses of attempted first-degree murder, second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter, if petitioner would waive the statute of limitations as to those offenses. Tr. 751-755. Petitioner refused to waive the statute. The court accordingly instructed the jury solely on capital murder.
The jury deliberated somewhat more than six hours. It reported itself deadlocked, and the trial court gave an additional instruction, encouraging the jurors to resolve their differences and come to a common conclusion. Shortly thereafter, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder.
The trial court then convened a sentencing hearing before the same jury. Arguments were heard from both sides and evidence offered on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A majority of the jury recommended life imprisonment. In Florida, the jury’s sentencing recommendation in a capital case is only advisory. The trial court is to conduct its own weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and, “[notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury,” is to enter a sentence of life imprisonment or death; in the latter case, specified written findings are required. Fla. Stat. §921.141(3) (1983). The trial court concluded that, “notwithstanding the recommendation of the jury,... sufficient aggravating circumstances existed to justify and authorize a death sentence^]... the mitigating circumstances were insufficient to outweigh such aggravating circumstances and... a sentence of death should be imposed in this case.” App. 14. The two aggravating circumstances found by the court were that the homicide was especially heinous and atrocious and that the defendant had been convicted previously of felonies involving the use or threat of violence to the person. The trial court found no mitigating circumstance “except, perhaps, the age [28] of the defendant.” Id., at 14-15.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the conviction but reversed the death sentence. Spaziano v. State, 393 So. 2d 1119 (1981). In deciding whether to impose the death sentence, the trial judge had considered a confidential portion of the presentence investigation report that contained information about petitioner’s previous felony convictions as well as other charges for which petitioner had not been convicted. Neither party had received a copy of that confidential portion. Relying on Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977), the court concluded that it was error for the trial judge to rely on the confidential information in the presentence investigation report without first disclosing the information to petitioner and giving him an opportunity to present evidence in response.
In a memorandum of supplemental authority, petitioner also urged that Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980), required reversal of his conviction because of the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses absent a waiver of the statute of limitations on those offenses. The Supreme Court found Beck inapposite. Beck concerned an express statutory prohibition on instructions for lesser included offenses. The court found nothing in Beck requiring that the jury determine the guilt or innocence of lesser included offenses for which the defendant could not be convicted and adjudicated guilty. This Court denied certiorari. 454 U. S. 1037 (1981).
On remand, the trial court ordered a new presentence investigation report and scheduled a hearing to allow petitioner to present evidence in response to the report. At the hearing, petitioner offered no evidence. The State presented evidence that petitioner had been convicted previously of forcible carnal knowledge and aggravated battery. Although the State had attempted to introduce evidence of the prior conviction in petitioner’s initial sentencing hearing before the jury, the trial judge had excluded the evidence on the ground that the conviction was then on appeal. By the time of the Gardner rehearing, the conviction was final and the trial judge agreed that it was a proper consideration. Accordingly, he relied on that conviction in finding the aggravating circumstance that the defendant had been convicted previously of a felony involving the use of violence to the person. The judge also reaffirmed his conclusion that the crime was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel. He sentenced petitioner to death. App. 25.
The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed. 433 So. 2d 508 (1983). It rejected petitioner’s argument that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of a previous conviction not considered in the original sentencing phase. The court noted that the information was in the original presentence investigation report. The only reason it was not considered was that the trial court mistakenly thought that under Florida law it could not be considered, since the conviction was then on appeal.
The Supreme Court also found no constitutional infirmity in the procedure whereby the judge is allowed to override the jury’s recommendation of life. The court found no double jeopardy problem with the procedure, because the jury’s function is only advisory. The court added its understanding that allowing the jury’s recommendation to be binding would violate the requirements of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972).
Finally, the court found that in this case the evidence suggesting that the death sentence be imposed over the jury’s recommendation of life “meets the clear and convincing test to allow override of the jury’s recommendation in accordance with... Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1975).” 433 So. 2d, at 511. One judge dissented, finding “no compelling reason” to override the jury’s recommendation of life. Id., at 512.
We granted certiorari, 464 U. S. 1038 (1984), and we now affirm.
II
We turn first to the trial court’s refusal to give an instruction on lesser included offenses. In Beck v. Alabama, supra, the Court recognized the risk of an unwarranted conviction that is created when the jury is deprived of the “third option” of convicting the defendant of a lesser included offense. Id., at 637. See also Keeble v. United States, 412 U. S. 205, 212-213 (1973). We concluded that “[s]uch a risk cannot be tolerated in a case in which the defendant’s life is at stake” and that “if the unavailability of a lesser included offense instruction enhances the risk of an unwarranted conviction, [a State] is constitutionally prohibited from withdrawing that option from the jury in a capital case.” 447 U. S., at 637-638. The issue here is whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of both the lesser included offense instruction and an expired period of limitations on those offenses.
Petitioner urges that he should not be required to waive a substantive right — to a statute of limitations defense — in order to receive a constitutionally fair trial. Beck made clear that in a capital trial, a lesser included offense instruction is a necessary element of a constitutionally fair trial. Thus, petitioner claims, he is entitled to the benefit of the Beck rule regardless of whether the statute of limitations prevents him from actually being punished on a lesser included offense.
We, of course, have no quarrel with petitioner’s general premise that a criminal defendant may not be required to waive a substantive right as a condition for receiving an otherwise constitutionally fair trial. We do not agree that the premise fairly applies to petitioner’s situation. Petitioner would have us divorce the Beck rule from the reasoning on which it was based. The element the Court in Beck found essential to a fair trial was not simply a lesser included offense instruction in the abstract, but the enhanced rationality and reliability the existence of the instruction introduced into the jury’s deliberations. Where no lesser included offense exists, a lesser included offense instruction detracts from, rather than enhances, the rationality of the process. Beck does not require that result.
The Court in Beck recognized that the jury’s role in the criminal process is essentially unreviewable and not always rational. The absence of a lesser included offense instruction increases the risk that the jury will convict, not because it is persuaded that the defendant is guilty of capital murder, but simply to avoid setting the defendant free. In Beck, the Court found that risk unacceptable and inconsistent with the reliability this Court has demanded in capital proceedings. Id., at 643. The goal of the Beck rule, in other words, is to eliminate the distortion of the factfinding process that is created when the jury is forced into an all-or-nothing choice between capital murder and innocence. Id., at 638-643. Requiring that the jury be instructed on lesser included offenses for which the defendant may not be convicted, however, would simply introduce another type of distortion into the factfinding process.
We reaffirm our commitment to the demands of reliability in decisions involving death and to the defendant’s right to the benefit of a lesser included offense instruction that may reduce the risk of unwarranted capital convictions. But we are unwilling to close our eyes to the social cost of petitioner’s proposed rule. Beck does not require that the jury be tricked into believing that it has a choice of crimes for which to find the defendant guilty, if in reality there is no choice. Such a rule not only would undermine the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system, but it also would do a serious disservice to the goal of rationality on which the Beck rule is based.
If the jury is not to be tricked into thinking that there is a range of offenses for which the defendant may be held accountable, then the question is whether Beck requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given, with the defendant being forced to waive the expired statute of limitations on those offenses, or whether the defendant should be given a choice between having the benefit of the lesser included offense instruction or asserting the statute of limitations on the lesser included offenses. We think the better option is that the defendant be given the choice.
As the Court in Beck recognized, the rule regarding a lesser included offense instruction originally developed as an aid to the prosecution. If the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the crime charged, it might still persuade the jury that the defendant was guilty of something. Id., at 633. See also 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure §515, p. 20, n. 2 (2d ed. 1982). Although the Beck rule rests on the premise that a lesser included offense instruction in a capital case is of benefit to the defendant, there may well be cases in which the defendant will be confident enough that the State has not proved capital murder that he will want to take his chances with the jury. If so, we see little reason to require him not only to waive his statute of limitations defense, but also to give the State what he perceives as an advantage — an opportunity to convict him of a lesser offense if it fails to persuade the jury that he is guilty of capital murder. In this case, petitioner was given a choice whether to waive the statute of limitations on the lesser offenses included in capital murder. He knowingly chose not to do so. Under those circumstances, it was not error for the trial judge to refuse to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses.
Ill
Petitioner’s second challenge concerns the trial judge’s imposition of a sentence of death after the jury had recommended life imprisonment. Petitioner urges that allowing a judge to override a jury’s recommendation of life violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against “cruel and unusual punishments.” Because the jury’s verdict of life should be final, petitioner argues, the practice also violates the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 793-796 (1969). Finally, drawing on this Court’s recognition of the value of the jury’s role, particularly in a capital proceeding, petitioner urges that the practice violates the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Petitioner points out that we need not decide whether jury sentencing in all capital cases is required; this case presents only the question whether, given a jury verdict of life, the judge may override that verdict and impose death. As counsel acknowledged at oral argument, however, his fundamental premise is that the capital sentencing decision is one that, in all cases, should be made by a jury. Tr. of Oral Arg. 16-17. We therefore address that fundamental premise. Before doing so, however, it is useful to clarify what is not at issue here.
Petitioner does not urge that capital sentencing is so much like a trial on guilt or innocence that it is controlled by the Court’s decision in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968). In Duncan, the Court found that the right to jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is so “ ‘basic in our system of jurisprudence,’” id., at 149, quoting In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273 (1948), that it is also protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.
This Court, of course, has recognized that a capital proceeding in many respects resembles a trial on the issue of guilt or innocence. See Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430, 444 (1981). Because the “‘embarrassment, expense and ordeal’... faced by a defendant at the penalty phase of a... capital murder trial... are at least equivalent to that faced by any defendant at the guilt phase of a criminal trial,” the Court has concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the State from making repeated efforts to persuade a sentencer to impose the death penalty. Id., at 445, quoting Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187 (1957); Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203 (1984). The fact that a capital sentencing is like a trial in the respects significant to the Double Jeopardy Clause, however, does not mean that it is like a trial in respects significant to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial. The Court’s concern in Bullington was with the risk that the State, with all its resources, would wear a defendant down, thereby leading to an erroneously imposed death penalty. 451 U. S., at 445. There is no similar danger involved in denying a defendant a jury trial on the sentencing issue of life or death. The sentencer, whether judge or jury, has a constitutional obligation to evaluate the unique circumstances of the individual defendant and the sentencer’s decision for life is final. Arizona v. Rumsey, supra. More important, despite its unique aspects, a capital sentencing proceeding involves the same fundamental issue involved in any other sentencing proceeding — a determination of the appropriate punishment to be imposed on an individual. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604-605 (1978) (plurality opinion); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 304 (1976) (plurality opinion), citing Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U. S. 51, 55 (1937), and Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 247-249 (1949). The Sixth Amendment never has been thought to guarantee a right to a jury determination of that issue.
Nor does petitioner urge that this Court’s recognition of the “qualitative difference” of the death penalty requires the benefit of a jury. In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S., at 238, the Court struck down the then-existing capital sentencing statutes of Georgia and Texas, in large part because of its conclusion that, under those statutes, the penalty was applied arbitrarily and discriminatorily. See also Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 188 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). Since then, the Court has emphasized its pursuit of the “twin objectives” of “measured, consistent application and fairness to the accused.” Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 110-111 (1982). If a State has determined that death should be an available penalty for certain crimes, then it must administer that penalty in a way that can rationally distinguish between those individuals for whom death is an appropriate sanction and those for whom it is not. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 873-880 (1983); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S., at 294 (Brennan, J., concurring). It must also allow the sentencer to consider the individual circumstances of the defendant, his background, and his crime. Lockett v. Ohio, supra.
Nothing in those twin objectives suggests that the sentence must or should be imposed by a jury. While it is to be hoped that current procedures have greatly reduced the risk that jury sentencing will result in arbitrary or discriminatory application of the death penalty, see Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 190-195 (joint opinion), there certainly is nothingin the safeguards necessitated by the Court’s recognition of the qualitative difference of the death penalty that requires that the sentence be imposed by a jury.
Petitioner’s primary argument is that the laws and practice in most of the States indicate a nearly unanimous recognition that juries, not judges, are better equipped to make reliable capital sentencing decisions and that a jury’s decision for life should be inviolate. The reason for that recognition, petitioner urges, is that the nature of the decision whether a defendant should live or die sets capital sentencing apart and requires that a jury have the ultimate word. Noncapital sentences are imposed for various reasons, including rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrence. In contrast, the primary justification for the death penalty is retribution. As has been recognized, “the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community’s belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death.” Id., at 184. The imposition of the death penalty, in other words, is an expression of community outrage. Since the jury serves as the voice of the community, the jury is in the best position to decide whether a particular crime is so heinous that the community’s response must be death. If the answer is no, that decision should be final.
Petitioner’s argument obviously has some appeal. But it has two fundamental flaws. First, the distinctions between capital and noncapital sentences are not so clear as petitioner suggests. Petitioner acknowledges, for example, that deterrence may be a justification for capital as well as for non-capital sentences. He suggests only that deterrence is not a proper consideration for particular sentencers who are deciding whether the penalty should be imposed in a given case. The same is true, however, in noncapital cases. Whatever the sentence, its deterrent function is primarily a consideration for the legislature. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 186 (joint opinion). Similar points can be made about the other purposes of capital and noncapital punishment. Although incapacitation has never been embraced as a sufficient justification for the death penalty, it is a legitimate consideration in a capital sentencing proceeding. Id., at 183, n. 28; Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). While retribution clearly plays a more prominent role in a capital case, retribution is an element of all punishments society imposes, and there is no suggestion as to any of these that the sentence may not be imposed by a judge.
Second, even accepting petitioner’s premise that the retributive purpose behind the death penalty is the element that sets the penalty apart,'it does not follow that the sentence must be imposed by a jury. Imposing the sentence in individual cases is not the sole or even the primary vehicle through which the community’s voice can be expressed. This Court’s decisions indicate that the discretion of the sentencing authority, whether judge or jury, must be limited and reviewable. See, e. g., Gregg v. Georgia, supra; Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S., at 302-303; Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S., at 879-880. The sentencer is responsible for weighing the specific aggravating and mitigating circumstances the legislature has determined are necessary touchstones in determining whether death is the appropriate penalty. Thus, even if it is a jury that imposes the sentence, the “community’s voice” is not given free rein. The community’s voice is heard at least as clearly in the legislature when the death penalty is authorized and the particular circumstances in which death is appropriate are defined. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 183-184 (joint opinion); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S., at 394-395 (Burger, C. J., dissenting); id., at 452-454 (Powell, J., dissenting).
We do not denigrate the significance of the jury’s role as a link between the community and the penal system and as a bulwark between the accused and the State. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 181 (joint opinion); Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 100 (1970); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S., at 156; Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 519, n. 15 (1968). The point is simply that the purpose of the death penalty is not frustrated by, or inconsistent with, a scheme in which the imposition of the penalty in individual cases is determined by a judge.
We also acknowledge the presence of the majority view that capital sentencing, unlike other sentencing, should be performed by a jury. As petitioner points out, 30 out of 37 jurisdictions with a capital sentencing statute give the life- or-death decision to the jury, with only 3 of the remaining 7 allowing a judge to override a jury’s recommendation of life. The fact that a majority of jurisdictions have adopted a different practice, however, does not establish that contemporary standards of decency are offended by the jury override. The Eighth Amendment is not violated every time a State reaches a conclusion different from a majority of its sisters over how best to administer its criminal laws. “Although the judgments of legislatures, juries, and prosecutors weigh heavily in the balance, it is for us ultimately to judge whether the Eighth Amendment” is violated by a challenged practice. See Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 797 (1982); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 597 (1977) (plurality opinion). In light of the facts that the Sixth Amendment does not require jury sentencing, that the demands of fairness and reliability in capital cases do not require it, and that neither the nature of, nor the purpose behind, the death penalty requires jury sentencing, we cannot conclude that placing responsibility on the trial judge to impose the sentence in a capital case is unconstitutional.
As the Court several times has made clear, we are unwilling to say that there is any one right way for a State to set up its capital sentencing scheme. See Pulley v. Harris, 465 U. S. 37 (1984); Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S., at 884; Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 195 (joint opinion). The Court twice has concluded that Florida has struck a reasonable balance between sensitivity to the individual and his circumstances and ensuring that the penalty is not imposed arbitrarily or discriminatorily. Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S. 939 (1983); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 252 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). We are not persuaded that placing the responsibility on a trial judge to impose the sentence in a capital case is so fundamentally at odds with contemporary standards of fairness and decency that Florida must be required to alter its scheme and give final authority to the jury to make the life-or-death decision.
IV
Our determination that there is no constitutional imperative that a jury have the responsibility of deciding whether the death penalty should be imposed also disposes of petitioner’s double jeopardy challenge to the jury-override procedure. If a judge may be vested with sole responsibility for imposing the penalty, then there is nothing constitutionally wrong with the judge’s exercising that responsibility after receiving the advice of the jury. The advice does not become a judgment simply because it comes from the jury.
V
Petitioner’s final challenge is to the application of the standard the Florida Supreme Court has announced for allowing a trial court to override a jury’s recommendation of life. See Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (1975). This Court already has recognized the significant safeguard the Tedder standard affords a capital defendant in Florida. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 294-295 (1977). See also Proffitt, 428 U. S., at 249 (joint opinion). We are satisfied that the Florida Supreme Court takes that standard seriously and has not hesitated to reverse a trial court if it derogates the jury’s role. See Richardson v. State, 437 So. 2d 1091, 1095 (Fla. 1983); Miller v. State, 332 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1976). Our responsibility, however, is not to second-guess the deference accorded the jury’s recommendation in a particular case, but to ensure that the result of the process is not arbitrary or discriminatory.
We see nothing that suggests that the application of the jury-override procedure has resulted in arbitrary or discriminatory application of the death penalty, either in general or in this particular case. Regardless of the jury’s recommendation, the trial judge is required to conduct an independent review of the evidence and to make his own findings regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances. If the judge imposes a sentence of death, he must set forth in writing the findings on which the sentence is based. Fla. Stat. §921.141(3) (1983). The Florida Supreme Court must review every capital sentence to ensure that the penalty has not been imposed arbitrarily or capriciously. §921.141(4). As Justice Stevens noted in Barclay, there is no evidence that the Florida Supreme Court has failed in its responsibility to perform meaningful appellate review of each death sentence, either in cases in which both the jury and the trial court have concluded that death is the appropriate penalty or in cases when the jury has recommended life and the trial court has overridden the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the defendant to death. See Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S., at 971-972, and n. 23 (opinion concurring in judgment).
In this case, the trial judge based his decision on the presence of two statutory aggravating circumstances. The first, that the defendant had previously been convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person, §921.141(5), was based on evidence not available to the advisory jury but, under Florida law, was properly considered by the trial judge. See White v. State, 403 So. 2d 331, 339-340 (1981). Petitioner’s prior conviction was for rape and aggravated battery. The trial judge also found that the murder in this case was heinous, atrocious, and cruel. The witness who accompanied petitioner to the dump site where the victim’s body was found testified that the body was covered with blood and that there were cuts on the breasts, stomach, and chest. The witness also testified that petitioner had recounted his torture of the victim while she was still living. The trial judge found no mitigating circumstances.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed petitioner’s sentence and concluded that the death penalty was properly imposed under state law. It is not our function to decide whether we agree with the majority of the advisory jury or with the trial judge and the Florida Supreme Court. See Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S., at 968 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). Whether or not “reasonable people” could differ over the result here, we see nothing irrational or arbitrary about the imposition of the death penalty in this case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Under the current Florida statute, there is no limitation period on capital and life felonies. There are, however, a 4-year limitation period on first-degree felonies, and a 3-year limit on prosecutions for all other felonies. Fla. Stat. §775.15 (1983). Under Florida law, the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the alleged offense governs. Florida ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth, 293 So. 2d 345, 347 (Fla. 1974).
The court instructed the jury as follows:
“Ladies and gentlemen, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so without violating conscientiously held convictions that are based on the evidence or lack of evidence. No juror, from mere pride or opinion hastily formed or expressed, should refuse to agree. Yet, no juror, simply for the purpose of terminating a case, should acquiesce in a conclusion that is contrary to his own conscientiously held view of the evidence. You should listen to each other’s views, talk over your differences of opinion in a spirit of fairness and candor and, if possible, resolve your differences and come to a common conclusion, so that a verdict may be reached and that this case may be disposed of.” Tr. 817-818.
This instruction is commonly referred to as an Allen or “hammer” charge. See Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 492 (1896).
By agreement of the parties, the jury was not polled. Sentencing Tr. 28-29 (Jan. 26, 1976).
The Florida capital sentencing statute in effect at the time of petitioner’s trial, January 1976, is not identical to that currently in effect. In 1976, the statute directed the sentencer to determine whether statutory aggravating circumstances were outweighed by statutory mitigating circumstances. See 1972 Fla. Laws, ch. 72-724. The current statute directs the sentencer to determine whether statutory aggravating circumstances are outweighed by any mitigating circumstances. §§ 921.141(2)(b), (3)(b) (1983), as amended by 1979 Fla. Laws, ch. 79-353. There is no suggestion in this case that either the jury or the trial judge was precluded from considering any nonstatutory mitigating evidence. Cf. Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S. 939, 947, n. 2 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).
We note that although the Court has not specifically addressed the question presented here, it has assumed that if a defendant is constitutionally entitled to a lesser included offense instruction, the trial court has authority to convict him of the lesser included offense. See Keeble v. United States, 412 U. S. 205 (1973); id., at 215-217 (Stewart, J., dissenting on the ground that the Court’s decision improperly conferred jurisdiction in the federal district court over crimes not enumerated in the Major Crimes Act, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1153, 3242).
There is no doubt about petitioner’s understanding of the implications of his refusal to waive the statute of limitations. The following colloquy occurred in open court:
“THE COURT: Do you understand that while the statute of limitations has run on the Court submitting to the jury lesser included verdicts representing the charges of second-degree murder and third-degree murder, manslaughter, that you who has the benefit of the statute of limitations can waive that benefit and, of course — and then have the Court submit the ease to the jury on the first-degree, second-degree, third-degree and manslaughter.
“If you don’t waive the statute of limitations, then the Court would submit to the jury only on the one charge, the main charge, which is murder in the first degree, and the sentencing alternatives are as [defense counsel] stated them. Do you understand that?
“MR. SPAZIANO: Yes, your Honor.
“THE COURT: Are you sure?
“MR. SPAZIANO: I understand what I’m waiving. I was brought here on first-degree murder, and I figure if I’m guilty of this, I should be killed.” Tr. 753-754.
Because the death sentence is unique in its severity and in its irrevocability, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 187 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 286-291 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring), the Court has carefully scrutinized the States’ capital sentencing schemes to minimize the risk that the penalty will be imposed in error or in an arbitrary and capricious manner. There must be a valid penological reason for choosing from among the many criminal defendants the few who are sentenced to death. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 876-877 (1983); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 788-789 (1982); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420, 428-429 (1980); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349, 360-361 (1977) (plurality opinion); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 254-260 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 196-207; Furman v. Georgia, supra. At the same time, the Court has insisted that the sentencing decision be based on the facts and circumstances of the individual and his crime. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S., at 879; Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S., at 110
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 entitles foreign states to immunity from the jurisdiction of courts in the United States, 28 U. S. C. § 1604, subject to certain enumerated exceptions. § 1605. One is that a foreign state shall not be immune in any case “in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state.” § 1605(a)(2). We hold that respondents’ action alleging personal injury resulting from unlawful detention and torture by the Saudi Government is not “based upon a commercial activity” within the meaning of the Act, which consequently confers no jurisdiction over respondents’ suit.
I
Because this case comes to us on a motion to dismiss the complaint, we assume that we have truthful factual allegations before us, see United States v. Gaubert, 499 U. S. 315, 327 (1991), though many of those allegations are subject to dispute, see Brief for Petitioners 3, n. 3; see also n. 1, infra. Petitioner Kingdom of Saudi Arabia owns and operates petitioner King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, as well as petitioner Royspec Purchasing Services, the hospital’s corporate purchasing agent in the United States. App. 91. The Hospital Corporation of America, Ltd. (HCA), an independent corporation existing under the laws- of the Cayman Islands, recruits Americans for employment at the hospital under an agreement signed with Saudi Arabia in 1973. Id., at 73.
In its recruitment effort, HCA placed an advertisement in a trade periodical seeking applications for a position as a monitoring systems engineer at the hospital. The advertisement drew the attention of respondent Scott Nelson in September 1983, while Nelson was in the United States. After interviewing for the position in Saudi Arabia, Nelson returned to the United States, where he signed an employment contract with the hospital, id., at 4, satisfied personnel processing requirements, and attended an orientation session that HCA conducted for hospital employees. In the course of that program, HCA identified Royspec as the point of contact in the United States for family members who might wish to reach Nelson in an emergency. Id., at 33.
In December 1983, Nelson went to Saudi Arabia and began work at the hospital, monitoring all “facilities, equipment, utilities and maintenance systems to insure the safety of patients, hospital staff, and others.” Id., at 4. He did his job without significant incident until March 1984, when he discovered safety defects in the hospital’s oxygen and nitrous oxide lines that posed fire hazards and otherwise endangered patients’ lives. Id., at 57-58. Over a period of several months, Nelson repeatedly advised hospital officials of the safety defects and reported the defects to a Saudi Government commission as well. Id., at 4-5. Hospital officials instructed Nelson to ignore the problems. Id., at 58.
The hospital’s response to Nelson’s reports changed, however, on September 27, 1984, when certain hospital employees summoned him to the hospital’s security office where agents of the Saudi Government arrested him. The agents transported Nelson to a jail cell, in which they “shackled, tortured and bea[t]” him, id., at 5, and kept him four days without food, id., at 59. Although Nelson did not understand Arabic, government agents forced him to sign a statement written in that language, the content of which he did not know; a hospital employee who was supposed to act as Nelson’s interpreter advised him to sign “anything” the agents gave him to avoid further beatings. Ibid. Two days later, government agents transferred Nelson to the Al Sijan Prison “to await trial on unknown charges.” Ibid.
At the prison, Nelson was confined in an overcrowded cell area infested with rats, where he had to fight other prisoners for food and from which he was taken only once a week for fresh air and exercise. Ibid. Although police interrogators repeatedly questioned him in Arabic, Nelson did not learn the nature of the charges, if any, against him. Id., at 5. For several days, the Saudi Government failed to advise Nelson’s family of his whereabouts, though a Saudi official eventually told Nelson’s wife, respondent Vivian Nelson, that he could arrange for her husband’s release if she provided sexual favors. Ibid.
Although officials from the United States Embassy visited Nelson twice during his detention, they concluded that his allegations of Saudi mistreatment were “not credible” and made no protest to Saudi authorities. Id., at 64. It was only at the personal request of a United States Senator that the Saudi Government released Nelson, 39 days after his arrest, on November 5, 1984. Id., at 60. Seven days later, after failing to convince him to return to work at the hospital, the Saudi Government allowed Nelson to leave the country. Id., at 60-61.
In 1988, Nelson and his wife filed this action against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking damages for personal injury. The Nelsons’ complaint sets out 16 causes of action, which fall into three categories. Counts II through VII and counts X, XI, XIV, and XV allege that petitioners committed various intentional torts, including battery, unlawful detainment, wrongful arrest and imprisonment, false imprisonment, inhuman torture, disruption of normal family life, and infliction of mental anguish. Id., at 6-11, 15, 19-20. Counts I, IX, and XIII charge petitioners with negligently failing to warn Nelson of otherwise undisclosed dangers of his employment, namely, that if he attempted to report safety hazards the hospital would likely retaliate against him and the Saudi Government might detain and physically abuse him without legal cause. Id., at 5-6, 14, 18 — 19. Finally, counts VIII, XII, and XVI allege that Vivian Nelson sustained derivative injury resulting from petitioners’ actions. Id., at 11-12, 16, 20. Presumably because the employment contract provided that Saudi courts would have exclusive jurisdiction over claims for breach of contract, id., at 47, the Nelsons raised no such matters.
The District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1330,1602 et seq. It rejected the Nelsons’ argument that jurisdiction existed, under the first clause of § 1605(a)(2), because the action was one “based upon a commercial activity” that petitioners had “carried on in the United States.” Although HCA’s recruitment of Nelson in the United States might properly be attributed to Saudi Arabia and the hospital, the District Court reasoned, it did not amount to commercial activity “carried on in the United States” for purposes of the Act. Id., at 94-95. The court explained that there was no sufficient “nexus” between Nelson’s recruitment and the injuries alleged. “Although [the Nelsons] argu[e] that but for [Scott Nelson’s] recruitment in the United States, he would not have taken the job, been arrested, and suffered the personal injuries,” the court said, “this ‘connection’ [is] far too tenuous to support jurisdiction” under the Act. Id., at 97. Likewise, the court concluded that Royspec’s commercial activity in the United States, purchasing supplies and equipment for the hospital, id., at 93-94, had no nexus with the personal injuries alleged in the complaint; Royspec had simply provided a Way for Nelson’s family to reach him in an emergency, id., at 96.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 923 F. 2d 1628 (CA11 1991). It concluded that Nelson’s recruitment and hiring were commercial activities of Saudi Arabia and the hospital, carried on in the United States for purposes of the Act, id., at 1633, and that the Nelsons’ action was “based upon” these activities within the meaning of the statute, id., at 1633-1636. There was, the court reasoned, a sufficient nexus between those commercial activities and the wrongful acts that had allegedly injured the Nelsons: “the detention and torture of Nelson are so intertwined with his employment at the Hospital,” the court explained, “that they are ‘based upon’ his recruitment and hiring” in the United States. Id., at 1536. The court also found jurisdiction to hear the claims against Royspec. Id., at 1536. After the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ suggestion for rehearing en banc, App. 133, we granted certiorari, 604 U. S. 972 (1992). We now reverse.
II
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act “provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country.” Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U. S. 428, 443 (1989). Under the Act, a foreign state is presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts; unless a specified exception applies, a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign state. Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 488-489 (1983); see 28 U. S. C. § 1604; J. Dellapettna, Suing Foreign Governments and Their Corporations 11, and n. 64 (1988).
Only one such exception is said to apply here. The first clause of § 1605(a)(2) of the Act provides that a foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts in any case “in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state.” The Act defines such activity as “commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States,” § 1603(e), and provides that a commercial activity may be “either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act,” the “commercial character of [which] shall be determined by reference to” its “nature,” rather than its “purpose,” § 1603(d).
There is no dispute here that Saudi Arabia, the hospital, and Royspec all qualify as “foreign state[s]” within the meaning of the Act. Brief for Respondents 3; see 28 U. S. C. §§ 1603(a), (b) (term “ ‘foreign state’ ” includes “ ‘an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state’ ”). For there to be jurisdiction in this case, therefore, the Nelsons’ action must be "based Upon” some “commercial activity” by petitioners that had “substantial contact” with the United States within the meaning of the Act. Because we conclude that the suit is not based upon any commercial activity by petitioners, we need not reach the issue of substantial contact with the United States.
We begin our analysis by identifying the particular conduct on which the Nelsons’ action is “based” for purposes of the Act. See Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F. 2d 300, 308 (CA2 1981), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1148 (1982); Donoghue, Taking the “Sovereign” Out of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: A Functional Approach to the Commercial Activity Exception, 17 Yale J. Int’l L. 489, 500 (1992). Although the Act contains no definition of the phrase “based upon,” and the relatively sparse legislative history offers no assistance, guidance is hardly necessary. In denoting conduct that forms the “basis,” or “foundation,” for a claim, see Black’s Law Dictionary 151 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “base”); Random House Dictionary 172 (2d ed. 1987) (same); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 180, 181 (1976) (defining “base” and “based”), the phrase is read most naturally to mean those elements of a claim that, if proven, would entitle a plaintiff to relief under his theory of the case. See Callejo v. Bancomer, S. A., 764 F. 2d 1101, 1109 (CA5 1985) (focus should be on the “gravamen of the complaint”); accord, Santos v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, 934 F. 2d 890, 893 (CA7 1991) (“An action is based upon the elements that prove the claim, no more and no less”); Millen Industries, Inc. v. Coordination Council for North American Affairs, 272 U. S. App. D. C. 240, 246, 855 F. 2d 879, 885 (1988).
What the natural meaning of the phrase “based upon” suggests, the context confirms. Earlier, see n. 3, supra, we noted that § 1605(a)(2) contains two clauses following the one at issue here. The second allows for jurisdiction where a suit “is based ... upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere,” and the third speaks in like terms, allowing for jurisdiction where an action “is based ... upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States.” Distinctions among descriptions juxtaposed against each other are naturally understood to be significant, see Melkonyan v. Sulli van, 501 U. S. 89, 94-95 (1991), and Congress manifestly understood there to be a difference between a suit “based upon” commercial activity and one “based upon” acts performed “in connection with” such activity. The only reasonable reading of the former term calls for something more than a mere connection with, or relation to, commercial activity.
In this case, the Nelsons have alleged that petitioners recruited Scott Nelson for work at the hospital, signed an employment contract with him, and subsequently employed him. While these activities led to the conduct that eventually injured the Nelsons, they are not the basis for the Nelsons’ suit. Even taking each of the Nelsons’ allegations about Scott Nelson’s recruitment and employment as true, those facts alone entitle the Nelsons to nothing under their theory of the case. The Nelsons have not, after all, alleged breach of contract, see supra, at 354, but personal injuries caused by petitioners’ intentional wrongs and by petitioners’ negligent failure to warn Scott Nelson that they might commit those wrongs. Those torts, and not the arguably commercial activities that preceded their commission, form the basis for the Nelsons’ suit.
Petitioners’ tortious conduct itself fails to qualify as “commercial activity” within the meaning of the Act, although the Act is too “‘obtuse’” to be of much help in reaching that conclusion. Callejo, supra, at 1107 (citation omitted). We have seen already that the Act defines “commercial activity” as “either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act,” and provides that “[t]he commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.” 28 U. S. C. § 1603(d). If this is a definition, it is one distinguished only by its diffidence; as we observed in our most recent case on the subject, it “leaves the critical term ‘commercial’ largely undefined.” Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U. S. 607, 612 (1992); see Donoghue, supra, at 499; Lowenfeld, Litigating a Sovereign Immunity Claim—The Haiti Case, 49 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 377, 435, n. 244 (1974) (commenting on then-draft Act) (“Start with ‘activity,’ proceed via ‘conduct’ or ‘transaction’ to ‘character,’ then refer to ‘nature,’ and then go back to ‘commercial,’ the term you started out to define in the first place”); G. Born & D. Westin, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts 479-480 (2d ed. 1992). We do not, however, have the option to throw up our hands. The term has to be given some interpretation, and congressional diffidence necessarily results in judicial responsibility to determine what a “commercial activity” is for purposes of the Act.
We took up the task just last Term in Weltover, supra, which involved Argentina’s unilateral refinancing of bonds it had issued under a plan to stabilize its currency. Bondholders sued Argentina in federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the third clause of § 1605(a)(2). In the course of holding the refinancing to be a commercial activity for purposes of the Act, we observed that the statute “largely codifies the so-called ‘restrictive’ theory of foreign sovereign immunity first endorsed by the State Department in 1952.” 504 U. S., at 612. We accordingly held that the meaning of “commercial” for purposes of the Act must be the meaning Congress understood the restrictive theory to require at the time it passed the statute. See id., at 612-613.
Under the restrictive, as opposed to the “absolute,” theory of foreign sovereign immunity, a state is immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts as to its sovereign or public acts (jure imperii), but not as to those that are private or commercial in character (jure gestionis). Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S., at 487; Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U. S. 682, 698 (1976) (plurality opinion); see 28 U. S. C. § 1602; see also Dunhill, supra, at 711 (Appendix 2 to the opinion of the Court) (Letter to the Attorney General from Jack B. Tate, Acting Legal Adviser, Dept. of State, May 19, 1952); Hill, A Policy Analysis of the American Law of Foreign State Immunity, 50 Ford. L. Rev. 155, 168 (1981). We explained in Weltover, supra, at 614 (quoting Dunhill, supra, at 704), that a state engages in commercial activity under the restrictive theory where it exercises “ ‘only those powers that can also be exercised by private citizens,’ ” as distinct from those “ ‘powers peculiar to sovereigns.’ ” Put differently, a foreign state engages in commercial activity for purposes of the restrictive theory only where it acts “in the manner of a private player within” the market. 504 U. S., at 614; see Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 451 (1987) (“Under international law, a state or state instrumentality is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another state, except with respect to claims arising out of activities of the kind that may be carried on by private persons”).
We emphasized in Weltover that whether a state acts “in the manner of” a private party is a question of behavior, not motivation:
“[Bjecause the Act provides that the commercial character of an act is to be determined by reference to its ‘nature’ rather than its ‘purpose,’ the question is not whether the foreign government is acting with a profit motive or instead with the aim of fulfilling uniquely sovereign objectives. Rather, the issue is whether the particular actions that the foreign state performs (whatever the motive behind them) are the type of actions by which a private party engages in ‘trade and traffic or commerce.’” Weltover, supra, at 614 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
We did not ignore the difficulty of distinguishing “ ‘purpose’ (i. e., the reason why the foreign state engages in the activity) from ‘nature’ (i. e., the outward form of the conduct that the foreign state performs or agrees to perform),” but recognized that the Act “unmistakably commands” us to observe the distinction. 504 U. S., at 617 (emphasis in original). Because Argentina had merely dealt in the bond market in the manner of a private player, we held, its refinancing of the bonds qualified as a commercial activity for purposes of the Act despite the apparent governmental motivation. Ibid.
Unlike Argentina’s activities that we considered in Weltover, the intentional conduct alleged here (the Saudi Government’s wrongful arrest, imprisonment, and torture of Nelson) could not qualify as commercial under the restrictive theory. The conduct boils down to abuse of the power of its police by the Saudi Government, and however monstrous such abuse undoubtedly may be, a foreign state’s exercise of the power of its police has long been understood for purposes of the restrictive theory as peculiarly sovereign in nature. See Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corp., 621 F. 2d 1371,1379 (CA5 1980); Victory Transport Inc. v. Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes, 336 F. 2d 354, 360 (CA2 1964) (restrictive theory does extend immunity to a foreign state’s “internal administrative acts”), cert. denied, 381 U. S. 934 (1965); Herbage v. Meese, 747 F. Supp. 60, 67 (DC 1990), affirmance order, 292 U. S. App. D. C. 84, 946 F. 2d 1564 (1991); K. Randall, Federal Courts and the International Human Rights Paradigm 93 (1990) (the Act’s commercial-activity exception is irrelevant to cases alleging that a foreign state has violated human rights). Exercise of the powers of police and penal officers is not the sort of action by which private parties can engage in commerce. “[S]uch acts as legislation, or the expulsion of an alien, or a denial of justice, cannot be performed by an individual acting in his own name. They can be performed only by the state acting as such.” Lauterpacht, The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States, 28 Brit. Y. B. Int’l L. 220, 225 (1952); see also id., at 237.
The Nelsons and their amici urge us to give significance to their assertion that the Saudi Government subjected Nelson to the abuse alleged as retaliation for his persistence in reporting hospital safety violations, and argue that the character of the mistreatment was consequently commercial. One amicus, indeed, goes so far as to suggest that the Saudi Government “often uses detention and torture to resolve commercial disputes.” Brief for Human Rights Watch as Amicus Curiae 6. But this argument does not alter the fact that the powers allegedly abused were those of police and penal officers. In any event, the argument is off the point, for it goes to purpose, the very fact the Act renders irrelevant to the question of an activity’s , commercial character. Whatever may have been the Saudi Government’s motivation for its allegedly abusive treatment of Nelson, it remains the case that the Nelsons’ action is based upon a sovereign activity immune from the subject-matter jurisdiction of United States courts under the Act.
In addition to the intentionally tortious conduct, the Nelsons claim a separate basis for recovery in petitioners’ failure to warn Scott Nelson of the hidden dangers associated with his employment. The Nelsons allege that, at the time petitioners recruited Scott Nelson and thereafter, they failed to warn him of the possibility of severe retaliatory action if he attempted to disclose any safety hazards he might discover on the job. See supra, at 354. In other words, petitioners bore a duty to warn of their own propensity for tortious conduct. But this is merely a semantic ploy. For aught we can see, a plaintiff could recast virtually any claim of intentional tort committed by sovereign act as a claim of failure to warn, simply by charging the defendant with an obligation to announce its own tortious propensity before indulging it. To give jurisdictional significance to this feint of language would effectively thwart the Act’s manifest purpose to codify the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity. Cf. United States v. Shearer, 473 U. S. 52, 54-55 (1985) (opinion of Burger, C. J.).
Ill
The Nelsons’ action is not “based upon a commercial activity” within the meaning of the first clause of § 1605(a)(2) of the Act, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed.
It is so ordered.
Petitioners assert that the Saudi Government arrested Nelson because he had falsely represented to the hospital that he had received a degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and had provided the hospital with a forged diploma to verify his claim. Brief for Petitioners 4-5. The Nelsons concede these misrepresentations, but dispute that they occasioned Scott Nelson's arrest. Brief for Respondents 9.
The Court of Appeals expressly declined to address the act of state doctrine, 923 F. 2d, at 1636, and we do hot consider that doctrine here.
Ih full, § 1606(a)(2) provides that “ta] foreign state shall hot be Immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case . . . ih which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried oh ih the Uhited States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States, ih connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States.”
We do not mean to suggest that the first clause of § 1605(a)(2) necessarily requires that each and every element of a claim be commercial activity by a foreign state, and we do not address the case where a claim consists of both commercial and sovereign elements. We do conclude, however, that where a claim rests entirely upon activities sovereign in character, as here, see infra, at 361-363, jurisdiction will not exist under that clause regardless of any connection the sovereign acts may have with commercial activity.
The State Department’s practice prior to the passage of the "Act supports this understanding. Prior to the Act’s passage, the State Department would determine in the first instance whether a foreign state was entitled to immunity and make an appropriate recommendation to the courts. See Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 486-488 (1983). A compilation of available materials demonstrates that the Department recognized immunity with respect to claims involving the exercise of the power of the police or military of a foreign state. See Sovereign Immunity Decisions of the Department of State, May 1952 to January 1977 (M. Sandler, D. Vagts, & B. Ristau eds.), in 1977 Digest of United States Practice in International Law 1017, 1045-1046 (claim that Cuban armed guard seized cash from plaintiff at Havana airport); id., at 1053-1054 (claim that Saudi militia fired on plaintiffs and caused personal and property damage).
Justice White points to an episode in which the State Department declined to recognize immunity with respect to a claim by Jamaican nationals, working in the United States, against the British West Indies Central Labour Organization, a foreign governmental agency. See id., at 1062-1063; post, at 367-368, n. 3. In our view that episode bears little relation to this case, for the Jamaican nationals did not allege mistreatment by the police of a foreign state.
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In February 1973 plaintiffs — then enlisted members of the United States Marine Corps — brought this class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California challenging the authority of the military to try them at summary courts-martial without providing them with counsel. Five plaintiffs had been charged with “unauthorized absences” in violation of Art. 86, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 886, convicted at summary courts-martial, and sentenced, inter alia, to periods of confinement ranging from 20 to 30 days at hard labor. The other three plaintiffs, two of whom were charged, inter alia, with unauthorized absence and one with assault, Art. 128, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 928, had been ordered to stand trial at summary courts-martial which had not been convened. Those who were convicted had not been provided counsel — those who were awaiting trial had been informed that counsel would not be provided. All convicted plaintiffs were informed prior to trial that they would not be afforded counsel and that they could refuse trial by summary court-martial if they so desired. In the event of such refusal their cases would be referred to special courts-martial at which counsel would be provided. All plaintiffs consented in writing to proceed to trial by summary court-martial, without counsel. Plaintiffs’ court-martial records were reviewed and approved by the Staff Judge Advocate pursuant to Art. 65 (c), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 865 (c). Plaintiffs did not file a petition for review with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy pursuant to Art. 69, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 869.
In the District Court, plaintiffs brought a class action seeking habeas corpus (release from confinement), an injunction against future confinement resulting from un-counseled summary court-martial convictions, and an order vacating the convictions of those previously convicted.
The District Court allowed the suit to proceed as a class action, expunged all of plaintiffs’ convictions, released all plaintiffs and all other members of their class from confinement, and issued a worldwide injunction against summary courts-martial without counsel. Because of our disposition of this case on the merits, we have no occasion to reach the question of whether Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, providing for class actions, is applicable to petitions for habeas corpus, see Harris v. Nelson, 394 U. S. 286 (1969), or whether the District Court properly determined that its remedial order was entitled to be enforced outside of the territorial limits of the district in which the court sat.
The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the District Court, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Daigle v. Warner, 490 F. 2d 358 (CA9 1973). Daigle had held that there was no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in summary courts-martial, and likewise held that there was no absolute Fifth Amendment due process right to counsel in every case in which a military defendant might be imprisoned. However, citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), it did hold that counsel was required where the “accused makes a request based on a timely and colorable claim (1) that he has a defense, or (2) that there are mitigating circumstances, and the assistance of counsel is necessary in order adequately to present the defense or mitigating circumstances.” Daigle made an exception from this general rule for cases in which counsel "is not reasonably available,” in which instance it would not be required. 490 F. 2d, at 365. We granted certiorari. 419 U. S. 895 (1974).
I
The UCMJ provides four methods for disposing of cases involving offenses committed by servicemen: the general, special, and summary courts-martial, and disciplinary punishment administered by the commanding officer pursuant to Art. 15, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 815. General and special courts-martial resemble judicial proceedings, nearly always presided over by lawyer judges with lawyer counsel for both the prosecution and the defense. General courts-martial are authorized to award any lawful sentence, including death. Art. 18, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 818. Special courts-martial may award a bad-conduct discharge, up to six months’ confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, and in the case of an enlisted member, reduction to the lowest pay grade, Art. 19, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 819. Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused’s commanding officer, is an administrative method of dealing with the most minor offenses. Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 750 (1974).
The summary court-martial occupies a position between informal nonjudicial disposition under Art. 15 and the courtroom-type procedure of the general and special courts-martial. Its purpose, “is to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses under a simple form of procedure.” Manual for Courts-Martial ¶ 79a (1969) (MCM). It is an informal proceeding conducted by a single commissioned officer with jurisdiction only over noncommissioned officers and other enlisted personnel. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 820. The presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. The presiding officer must inform the accused of the charges and the name of the accuser and call all witnesses whom he or the accused desires to call. MCM ¶ 79d (1). The accused must consent to trial by summary court-martial; if he does not do so, trial may be ordered by special or general court-martial.
The maximum sentence elements which may be imposed by summary courts-martial are: one month’s confinement at hard labor; 45 days’ hard labor without confinement; two months’ restriction to specified limits; reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade; and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 820.
II
The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 123 (1866), said that “the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment, to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth.” In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 40 (1942), it was said that “ ‘cases arising in the land' or naval forces’... are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth.”
We find it unnecessary in this case to finally resolve the broader aspects of this question, since we conclude that even were the Sixth Amendment to be held applicable to court-martial proceedings, the summary court-martial provided for in these cases was not a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of that Amendment.
This conclusion, of course, does not answer the ultimate question of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to counsel at a summary court-martial proceeding, but it does shift the frame of reference from the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel “[i]n all criminal prosecutions” to the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972), held that the Sixth Amendment’s provision for the assistance of counsel extended to misdemeanor prosecutions in civilian courts if conviction would result in imprisonment. A summary court-martial may impose 30 days’ confinement at hard labor, which is doubtless the military equivalent of imprisonment. Yet the fact that the outcome of a proceeding may result in loss of liberty does not by itself, even in civilian life, mean that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is applicable. In Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), the respondent faced the prospect of being sent to prison as a result of the revocation of his probation, but we held that the revocation proceeding was nonetheless not a "criminal proceeding.” We took pains in that case to observe:
“[T]here are critical differences between criminal trials and probation or parole revocation hearings, and both society and the probationer or parolee have stakes in preserving these differences.
“In a criminal trial, the State is represented by a prosecutor; formal rules of evidence are in force; a defendant enjoys a number of procedural rights which may be lost if not timely raised; and, in a jury trial, a defendant must make a presentation understandable to untrained jurors. In short, a criminal trial under our system is an adversary proceeding with its own unique characteristics. In a revocation hearing, on the other hand, the State is represented, not by a prosecutor, but by a parole officer with the orientation described above; formal procedures and rules of evidence are not employed; and the members of the hearing body are familiar with the problems and practice of probation or parole.” Id., at 788-789.
In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967), involved a proceeding in which a juvenile was threatened with confinement. The Court,. although holding counsel was required, went on to say:
“ ‘We do not mean... to indicate that the hearing to be held must conform with all of the requirements of a criminal trial or even of the usual administrative hearing; but we do hold that the hearing must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.’ ” Id., at 30.
The Court’s distinction between various civilian proceedings, and its conclusion that, notwithstanding the potential loss of liberty, neither juvenile hearings nor probation revocation hearings are “criminal proceedings,” are equally relevant in assessing the role of the summary court-martial in the military.
The summary court-martial is, as noted above, one of four types of proceedings by which the military imposes discipline or punishment. If we were to remove the holding of Argersinger from its civilian context and apply it to require counsel before a summary court-martial proceeding simply because loss of liberty may result from such a proceeding, it would seem all but inescapable that counsel would likewise be required for the lowest level of military proceeding for dealing with the most minor offenses. For even the so-called Art. 15 “nonjudicial punishment,” which may be imposed administratively by the commanding officer, may result in the imposition upon an enlisted man of “correctional custody” with hard labor for not more than 30 consecutive days. 10 U. S. C. § 815 (b). But we think that the analysis made in cases such as Gagnon and Gault, as well as considerations peculiar to the military, counsel against such a mechanical application of Argersinger.
Admittedly Gagnon is distinguishable in that there the defendant had been earlier sentenced at the close of an orthodox criminal prosecution. But Gault is not so distinguishable: there the juvenile faced possible initial confinement as a result of the proceeding in question, but the Court nevertheless based its conclusion that counsel was required on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than on any determination that the hearing was a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.
It seems to us indisputably clear, therefore, that even in a civilian context the fact that a proceeding will result in loss of liberty does not ipso facto mean that the proceeding is a "criminal prosecution” for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Nor does the fact that confinement will be imposed in the first instance as a result of that proceeding make it a “criminal prosecution.” When we consider in addition the fact that a summary court-martial occurs in the military community, rather than the civilian community, we believe that the considerations supporting the conclusion that it is not a “criminal prosecution” are at least as strong as those which were held dispositive in Gagnon and Gault.
The dissent points out, post, at 56-57, n. 6, that in Gault the Court gave weight to the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile proceedings there involved, and that no such factor is present in summary courts-martial. Undoubtedly both Gault and Gagnon are factually distinguishable from the summary court-martial proceeding here. But together they surely stand for the proposition that even in the civilian community a proceeding which may result in deprivation of liberty is nonetheless not a “criminal proceeding” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment if there are elements about it which sufficiently distinguish it from a traditional civilian criminal trial. The summary court-martial proceeding here is likewise different from a traditional trial in many respects, the most important of which is that it occurs within the military community. This latter factor, under a long line of decisions of this Court, is every bit as significant, and every bit as entitled to be given controlling weight, as the fact in Gagnon that the defendant had been previously sentenced, or the fact in Gault that the proceeding had a rehabilitative purpose.
We have only recently noted the difference between the diverse civilian community and the much more tightly regimented military community in Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 749 (1974). We said there that the UCMJ “cannot be equated to a civilian criminal code. It, and the various versions of the Articles of War which have preceded it, regulate aspects of the conduct of members of the military which in the civilian sphere are left unregulated. While a civilian criminal code carves out a relatively small segment of potential conduct and declares it criminal, the Uniform Code of Military Justice essays more varied regulation of a much larger segment of the activities of the more tightly knit military community.” Ibid. Much of the conduct proscribed by the military is not “criminal” conduct in the civilian sense of the word. Id., at 749-751.
Here, for example, most of the plaintiffs were charged solely with “unauthorized absence," an offense which has no common-law counterpart and which carries little popular opprobrium. Conviction of such an offense would likely have no consequences for the accused beyond the immediate punishment meted out by the military, unlike conviction for such civilian misdemeanors as vagrancy or larceny which could carry a stamp of “bad character” with conviction.
By the same token, the penalties which may be meted out in summary courts-martial are limited to one month’s confinement at hard labor, 45 days’ hard labor without confinement, or two months’ restriction to specified limits. Sanctions which may be imposed affecting a property interest are limited to reduction in grade with attendant loss of pay, or forfeiture or detention of a portion of one month’s pay.
Finally, a summary court-martial is procedurally quite different from a criminal trial. In the first place, it is not an adversary proceeding. Yet the adversary nature of civilian criminal proceedings is one of the touchstones of the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel which we extended to petty offenses in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972).
Argersinger relied on Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), where we held:
“[I]n our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court... cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public’s interest in an orderly society....” Id., at 344.
The function of the presiding officer is quite different from that of any participant in a civilian trial. He is guided by the admonition in ¶ 79a of the MCM: “The function of a summary court-martial is to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses under a simple form of procedure. The summary court will thoroughly and impartially inquire into both sides of the matter and will assure that the interests of both the Government and the accused are safeguarded.” The presiding officer is more specifically enjoined to attend to the interests of the accused by these provisions of the same paragraph:
“The accused will be extended the right to cross-examine these witnesses. The summary court will aid the accused in the cross-examination, and, if the accused desires, will ask questions suggested by the accused. On behalf of the accused, the court will obtain the attendance of witnesses, administer the oath and examine them, and obtain such other evidence as may tend to disprove or negative guilt of the charges, explain the acts or omissions charged, show extenuating circumstances, or establish grounds for mitigation. Before determining the findings, he will explain to the accused his right to testify on the merits or to remain silent and will give the accused full opportunity to exercise his election.” MCM ¶ 79d (3).
We believe there are significant parallels between the Court’s description of probation and parole revocation proceedings in Gagnon and the summary court-martial, which parallels tend to distinguish both of these proceedings from the civilian misdemeanor prosecution upon which Argersinger focused. When we consider in addition that the court-martial proceeding takes place not in civilian society, as does the parole revocation proceeding, but in the military community with all of its distinctive qualities, we conclude that a summary court-martial is not a “criminal prosecution” for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.
III
The Court of Appeals likewise concluded that there was no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in summary court-martial proceedings such as this, but applying the due process standards of the Fifth Amendment adopted a standard from Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), which would have made the right to counsel depend upon the nature of the serviceman’s defense. We are unable to agree that the Court of Appeals properly applied Gagnon in this military context.
We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 556 (1974).
In making such an analysis we must give particular deference to the determination of Congress, made under its authority to regulate the land and naval forces, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, that counsel should not be provided in summary courts-martial. As we held in Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137, 140 (1953):
“[T]he rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty, and the civil courts are not the agencies which must determine the precise balance to be struck in this adjustment. The Framers especially entrusted that task to Congress.” (Footnote omitted.)
The United States Court of Military Appeals has held that Argersinger is applicable to the military and requires counsel at summary courts-martial. United States v. Alderman, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 298, 46 C. M. R. 298 (1973). Dealing with areas of law peculiar to the military branches, the Court of Military Appeals’ judgments are normally entitled to great deference. But the 2-to-l decision, in which the majority itself was sharply divided in theory, does not reject the claim of military necessity. Judge Quinn was of the opinion that Argersinger’s expansion of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was binding on military tribunals equally with civilian courts. Alderman, supra, at 300, 46 C. M. R., at 300. Judge Duncan, concurring in part, disagreed, reasoning that decisions such as Argersinger were not binding precedent if “there is demonstrated a military necessity demanding nonapplicability.” Id., at 303, 46 C. M. R., at 303. He found no convincing evidence of military necessity which would preclude application of Argersinger. Chief Judge Darden, dissenting, disagreed with Judge Quinn, and pointed to that court’s decisions recognizing “the need for balancing the application of the constitutional protection against military needs.” Id., at 307, 46 C. M. R., at 307. Taking issue as well with Judge Duncan, he stated his belief that the Court of Military Appeals “possesses no special competence to evaluate the effect of a particular procedure on morale and discipline and to require its implementation over and above the balance struck by Congress.” Id., at 308, 46 C. M. R., at 308.
Given that only one member of the Court of Military Appeals took issue with the claim of military necessity, and taking the latter of Chief Judge Darden’s statements as applying with at least equal force to the Members of this Court, we are left with Congress’ previous determination that counsel is not required. We thus need only decide whether the factors militating in favor of counsel at summary courts-martial are so extraordinarily weighty as to overcome the balance struck by Congress.
We first consider the effect of providing counsel at summary courts-martial. As we observed in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, at 787:
"The introduction of counsel into a... proceeding will alter significantly the nature of the proceeding. If counsel is provided for the [accused], the State in turn will normally provide its own counsel; lawyers, by training and disposition, are advocates and bound by professional duty to present all available evidence and arguments in support of their clients' positions and to contest with vigor all adverse evidence and views.”
In short, presence of counsel will turn a brief, informal hearing which may be quickly convened and rapidly concluded into an attenuated proceeding which consumes the resources of the military to a degree which Congress could properly have felt to be beyond what is warranted by the relative insignificance of the offenses being tried. Such a lengthy proceeding is a particular burden to the Armed Forces because virtually all the participants, including the defendant and his counsel, are members of the military whose time may be better spent than in possibly protracted disputes over the imposition of discipline.
As we observed in U. S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 17 (1955):
“[I]t is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise. But trial of soldiers to maintain discipline is merely incidental to an army’s primary fighting function. To the extent that those responsible for performance of this primary function are diverted from it by the necessity of trying cases, the basic fighting purpose of armies is not served.... [Military tribunals have not been and probably never can be constituted in such way that they can have the same kind of qualifications that the Constitution has deemed essential to fair trials of civilians in federal courts.”
However, the Court of Appeals did not find counsel necessary in all proceedings but only, pursuant to Daigle v. Warner, where the accused makes
“a timely and colorable claim (1) that he has a defense, or (2) that there are mitigating circumstances, and the assistance of counsel is necessary in order adequately to present the defense or mitigating circumstances." 490 F. 2d, at 365.
But if the accused has such a claim, if he feels that in order to properly air his views and vindicate his rights, a formal, counseled proceeding is necessary he may simply refuse trial by summary court-martial and proceed to trial by special or general court-martial at which he may have counsel. Thus, he stands in a considerably more favorable position than the probationer in Gagnon who, though subject to the possibility of longer periods of incarceration, had no such absolute right to counsel.
It is true that by exercising this option the accused subjects himself to greater possible penalties imposed in the special court-martial proceeding. However, we do not find that possible detriment to be constitutionally decisive. We have frequently approved the much more difficult decision, daily faced by civilian criminal defendants, to plead guilty to a lesser included offense. E. g., Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 749-750 (1970). In such a case the defendant gives up not only his right to counsel but his right to any trial at all. Furthermore, if he elects to exercise his right to trial he stands to be convicted of a more serious offense which will likely bear increased penalties.
Such choices are a necessary part of the criminal justice system:
“The criminal process, like the rest of the legal system, is replete with situations requiring 'the making of difficult judgments’ as to which course to follow. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S., at 769. Although a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the Constitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose.” McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 213 (1971).
We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Both parties have petitioned from the judgment of the court below. For simplicity we refer to the servicemen as “plaintiffs” and the federal parties as “defendants.”
Including two who were not among the original six plaintiffs but later intervened.
One of these plaintiffs was also charged with several other offenses, including assault on a superior noncommissioned officer, Art. 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. § 891.
Plaintiffs were so informed and consented pursuant to the terms of (Navy) Staff Judge Advocate Memorandum 10-72 which was in force at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station where all plaintiffs were stationed. Record 18.
For example, as to plaintiff Henry, the following entry appears in the record of his court-martial:
“The accused was advised that, if tried by Summary Court-Martial, he would not be represented by appointed military counsel; that instead, that Summary Court-Martial Officer would thoroughly and impartially inquire into both sides of the matter, and would assure that the interests of both the Government and the accused are safeguarded; that, if his case were that referred to a Special Courts-Martial [sic], he would be provided counsel. In addition, the accused, after being informed of the maximum punishment imposable in his case both by a Summary Courts-Martial [sic] and Special Courts-Martial [sic], he would be foregoing his statutory rights to counsel at a Special Courts-Martials [sic].” Id,., at 114.
At least one plaintiff, McLean, was found not guilty as to certain charges at the summary court-martial. Upon review at the supervisory authority level, guilty findings on certain other charges upon which he had been convicted were reversed.
These plaintiffs arguably failed to exhaust their military remedies. However, the defendants urge that exhaustion not be required here because the practice of the Judge Advocate General has been to defer consideration of any petitions on the right-to-counsel issue pending the completion of litigation on this issue in the federal courts.
Since the exhaustion requirement is designed to protect the military from undue interference by the federal courts, Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 758 (1975), the military can waive that requirement where it feels that review in the federal courts is necessary. See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 396-397, n. 3 (1975).
The class included all members of the Navy and Marine Corps who “were or are now or will be required after (the date of the order) to stand trial by summary courts-martial” and who had not been afforded counsel. 357 F. Supp. 495, 499 (1973).
These features are mandatory for general courts-martial.' Special courts-martial may be, but seldom are, convened without a military judge; in such cases, the senior member of the court presides. Appointed defense counsel at a special court-martial is required to be an attorney, unless an attorney cannot be obtained because of physical conditions or military exigencies. In addition to the appointed counsel at a general or special court-martial, the accused may retain civilian counsel at his own expense, or he may be represented by a military lawyer of his own selection, if such lawyer is “reasonably available.” Arts. 16, 25, 27 (b), 27 (c), 38 (b), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §§ 816, 825, 827 (b), 827 (c), 838 (b).
The maximum punishments which may be imposed under Art. 15 are: 30 days’ correctional custody; 60 days’ restriction to specified limits; 45 days’ extra duties; forfeiture of one-half of one month’s pay per month for two months; detention of one-half of one month’s pay per month for three months; reduction in grade. Enlisted members attached to or embarked on a vessel may be sentenced to three days’ confinement on bread and water or diminished rations. Correctional custody is not necessarily the same as confinement. It is intended to be served in a way which allows normal performance of duty, together with intensive counseling. Persons serving correctional custody, however, may be confined. Art. 15 (b). See Department of the Navy, SECNAV Inst. 1640.9, Corrections Manual, c. 7, June 1972; Department of the Army, Pamphlet No. 27-4, Correctional Custody, 1 June 1972; Department of the Air Force, Reg. 125-35, Correctional Custody, 7 Oct. 1970.
Additionally, the officer must inform the accused of his right to remain silent and allow him to cross-examine witnesses or have the summary court officer cross-examine them for him. The accused may testify and present evidence in his own behalf. If the accused is found guilty he may make a statement, sworn or unsworn, in extenuation or mitigation. MCM ¶ 79d.
The record of the trial is then reviewed by the convening officer, Art. 60, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 860, and thereafter by a Judge advocate. Art. 65 (c), UCMJ, 10.U. S. C. §865 (c).
Not all these sentence elements may be imposed in one sentence, and enlisted persons above the fourth enlisted pay grade may not be sentenced to confinement or hard labor by summary courts-martial, or reduced except to the next inferior grade. MCM ¶¶ 16b and 127c.
Compare, Wiener, Courts-Martial and the Bill of Rights: The Original Practice, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1958), which finds that there is no historic precedent for application of the right to counsel to courts-martial, with Henderson, Courts-Martial and the Constitution: The Original Understanding, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 293 (1957), which concludes that the original intent of the Framers was to apply the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the military. Compare Daigle v. Warner, 490 F. 2d 358 (CA9 1973), with Betonie v. Sizemore, 496 F. 2d 1001 (CA5 1974).
Since under our Brother Marshall’s analysis the Sixth Amendment applies to the military, it would appear that not only the right to counsel but the right to jury trial, which is likewise guaranteed by that Amendment, would come with it. While under Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), such a right would presumably not obtain in cases of summary courts-martial because of the short periods of confinement which they may impose, it would surely apply to special and general courts-martial, which are empowered to impose sentences far in excess of those held in Duncan to be the maximum which could be imposed without a jury. Whatever may be the merits of “selective incorporation” under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment makes absolutely no distinction between the right to jury trial and the right to counsel.
Chief Judge Darden, dissenting in United States v. Alderman, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 298, 46 C. M. R. 298 (1973), made a similar observation:
“While it may be argued that counsel should be required for summary courts-martial since they constitute criminal convictions and not for Article 15 proceedings as they are nonjudicial and corrective in nature, the effect of confinement under the former and correctional custody under the latter is difficult to distinguish. See In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967). Consequently, I would have difficulty in sus-taming the position that while counsel must be provided before summary courts-martial, they may be dispensed with in Article 15 proceedings that may result in correctional custody.” Id., at 308 n. 1, 46 C. M. R., at 308 n. 1.
This section provides that a commanding officer (of the grade of major or lieutenant commander or above) may impose, inter alia, not more than 30 consecutive days of “correctional custody,” § 815 (b) (2) (H) (ii), during duty or non-duty hours and may include “hard labor.” § 815 (b).
Our Brother MARSHALL argues, post, at 57-58, and nn. 8 and 9, that the military considers a summary court-martial conviction as “criminal.” But Admiral Hearn, the Navy Judge Advocate General, did not describe the convictions as “criminal”; he did state that a commanding officer’s decision to utilize a summary court-martial, as opposed to an Art. 15 administrative punishment, might turn on his judgment that it was “in the best interests of the service to begin to put on record [the] infractions” of a serviceman who had accumulated several Art. 15 punishments for the same type of offense. Joint Hearings on Military Justice before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and a Special Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 34 (1966) (1966 Hearings). The Army Assistant Judge Advocate General then pointed out that one advantage a summary court-martial held for the accused, over an Art. 15 proceeding, was that the latter was adjudged by the company commander, the “nominal accuser,” whereas “the summary court knows nothing about the case at all.” Ibid.
The dissent also refers us to the Army’s acknowledgment of “collateral consequences” flowing from a summary court-martial conviction. Post, at 58-59. But that which is quoted in the text is a portion of the Army’s written response in 1962 to the following question: “What are the effects on a serviceman’s career of conviction by summary or special court-martial?” The disjunctive in the question makes it impossible to tell whether the portion quoted is addressed to special or summary court-martial, or both.
Finally, whatever conclusions may have been drawn by the author of the article in 39 Va. L. Rev. 319 cited by the dissent, post, at 59 n. 11, as to the “impact of a summary court-martial conviction,” are 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: | 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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Stewart, and Justice Powell joined.
The question presented in this case is whether California’s “statutory rape” law, § 261.5 of the Cal. Penal Code Ann. (West Supp. 1981), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 261.5 defines unlawful sexual intercourse as “an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years.” The statute thus makes men alone criminally liable for the act of sexual intercourse.
In July 1978, a complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of Sonoma County, Cal., alleging that petitioner, then a 17%-year-old male, had had unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18, in violation of § 261.5. The evidence adduced at a preliminary hearing showed that at approximately midnight on June 3, 1978, petitioner and two friends approached Sharon, a 16%-year-old female, and her sister as they waited at a bus stop. Petitioner and Sharon, who had already been drinking, moved away from the others and began to kiss. After being struck in the face for rebuffing petitioner’s initial advances, Sharon submitted to sexual intercourse with petitioner. Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on both state and federal constitutional grounds, asserting that § 261.5 unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender. The trial court and the California Court of Appeal denied petitioner’s request for relief and petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court of California.
The Supreme Court held that “section 261.5 discriminates on the basis of sex because only females may be victims, and only males may violate the section.” 25 Cal. 3d 608, 611, 601 P. 2d 572, 574. The court then subjected the classification to “strict scrutiny,” stating that it must be justified by a compelling state interest. It found that the classification was “supported not by mere social convention but by the immutable physiological fact that it is the female exclusively who can become pregnant.” Ibid. Canvassing “the tragic human costs of illegitimate teenage pregnancies,” including the large number of teenage abortions, the increased medical risk associated with teenage .pregnancies, and the social consequences of teenage childbearing, the court concluded that the State has a compelling interest in preventing such pregnancies. Because males alone can “physiologically cause the result which the law properly seeks to avoid,” the court further held that the gender classification was readily justified as a means of identifying offender and victim. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the California Supreme Court.
As is evident from our opinions, the Court has had some difficulty in agreeing upon the proper approach and analysis in cases involving challenges to gender-based classifications. The issues posed by such challenges range from issues of standing, see Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268 (1979), to the appropriate standard of judicial review for the substantive classification. Unlike the California Supreme Court, we have not held that gender-based classifications are “inherently suspect” and thus we do not apply so-called “strict scrutiny” to those classifications. See Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S. 7 (1975). Our cases have held, however, that the traditional minimum rationality test takes on a somewhat “sharper focus” when gender-based classifications are challenged. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 210 n." (1976) (Powell, J., concurring). In Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), for example, the Court stated that a gender-based classification will be upheld if it bears a “fair and substantial relationship” to legitimate state ends, while in Craig v. Boren, supra, at 197, the Court restated the test to require the classification to bear a “substantial relationship” to “important governmental objectives.”
Underlying these decisions is the principle that a legislature may not “make overbroad generalizations based on sex which are entirely unrelated to any differences between men and women or which demean the ability or social status of the affected class.” Parham v. Hughes, 441 U. S. 347, 354 (1979) (plurality opinion of Stewart, J.). But because the Equal Protection Clause does not “demand that a statute necessarily apply equally to all persons” or require “ 'things which are different in fact... to be treated in law as though they were the same/ ” Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U. S. 305, 309 (1966), quoting Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S. 141, 147 (1940), this Court has consistently upheld statutes where the gender classification is not invidious, but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances. Parham v. Hughes, supra; Califano v. Webster, 430 U. S. 313 (1977); Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U. S. 498 (1975); Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S. 351 (1974). As the Court has stated, a legislature may “provide for the special problems of women.” Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 653 (1975).
Applying those principles to this case, the fact that the California Legislature criminalized the act of illicit sexual intercourse with a minor female is a sure indication of its intent or purpose to discourage that conduct. Precisely why the legislature desired that result is of course somewhat less clear. This Court has long recognized that “[¿Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter,” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383-384 (1968); Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217, 224 (1971), and the search for the “actual” or “primary” purpose of a statute is likely to be elusive. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 265 (1977); McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U. S. 263, 276-277 (1973). Here, for example, the individual legislators may have voted for the statute for a variety of reasons. Some legislators may have been concerned about preventing teenage pregnancies, others about protecting young females from physical injury or from the loss of “chastity,” and still others about promoting various religious and moral attitudes towards premarital sex.
The justification for the statute offered by the State, and accepted by the Supreme Court of California, is that the legislature sought to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies. That finding, of course, is entitled to great deference. Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369, 373-374 (1967). And although our cases establish that the State’s asserted reason for the enactment of a statute may be rejected, if it “could not have been a goal of the legislation,” Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, supra, at 648, n. 16, this is not such a case.
We are satisfied not only that the prevention of illegitimate pregnancy is at least one of the “purposes” of the statute, but also that the State has a strong interest in preventing such pregnancy. At the risk of stating the obvious, teenage pregnancies, which have increased dramatically over the last two decades, have significant social, medical, and economic consequences for both the mother and her child, and the State. Of particular concern to the State is that approximately half of all teenage pregnancies end in abortion. And of those children who are born, their illegitimacy makes them likely candidates to become wards of the State.
We need not be medical doctors to discern that young men and young women are not similarly situated with respect to the problems and the risks of sexual intercourse. Only women may become pregnant, and they suffer disproportionately the profound physical, emotional, and psychological consequences of sexual activity. The statute at issue here protects women from sexual intercourse at an age when those consequences are particularly severe.
The question thus boils down to whether a State may attack the problem of sexual intercourse and teenage pregnancy directly by prohibiting a male from having sexual intercourse with a minor female. We hold that such a statute is sufficiently related to the State’s objectives to pass constitutional muster.
Because virtually all of the significant harmful and inescapably identifiable consequences of teenage pregnancy fall on the young female, a legislature acts well within its authority when it elects to punish only the participant who, by nature, suffers few of the consequences of his conduct. It is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar natural sanctions deter males. A criminal sanction imposed solely on males thus serves to roughly “equalize” the deterrents on the sexes.
We are unable to accept petitioner’s contention that the statute is impermissibly underinclusive and must, in order to pass judicial scrutiny, be broadened so as to hold the female as criminally liable as the male. It is argued that this statute is not necessary to deter teenage pregnancy because a gender-neutral statute, where both male and female would be subject to prosecution, would serve that goal equally well. The relevant inquiry, however, is not whether the statute is drawn as precisely as it might have been, but whether the line chosen by the California Legislature is within constitutional limitations. Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S., at 356, n. 10.
In any event, we cannot say that a gender-neutral statute would be as effective as the statute California has chosen to enact. The State persuasively contends that a gender-neutral statute would frustrate its interest in effective enforcement. Its view is that a female is surely less likely to report violations of the statute if she herself would be subject to criminal prosecution. In an area already fraught with prose-cutorial difficulties, we decline to hold that the Equal Protection Clause requires a legislature to enact a statute so broad that it may well be incapable of enforcement.
We similarly reject petitioner’s argument that § 261.5 is impermissibly overbroad because it makes unlawful sexual intercourse with prepubescent females, who are, by definition, incapable of becoming pregnant. Quite apart from the fact that the statute could well be justified on the grounds that very young females are particularly susceptible to physical injury from sexual intercourse, see Rundlett v. Oliver, 607 F. 2d 495 (CA1 1979), it is ludicrous to suggest that the Constitution requires the California Legislature to limit the scope of its rape statute to older teenagers and exclude young girls.
There remains only petitioner’s contention that the statute is unconstitutional as it is applied to him because he, like Sharon, was under 18 at the time of sexual intercourse. Petitioner argues that the statute is flawed because it presumes that as between two persons under 18, the male is the culpable aggressor We find petitioner’s contentions unpersuasive. Contrary to his assertions, the statute does not rest on the assumption that males are generally the aggressors. It is instead an attempt by a legislature to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancy by providing an additional deterrent for men. The age of the man is irrelevant since young men are as capable as older men of inflicting the harm sought to be. prevented.
In upholding the California statute we also recognize that this is not a case where a statute is being challenged on the grounds that it “invidiously discriminates” against females. To the contrary, the statute places a burden on males which is not shared by females. But we find nothing to suggest that men, because of past discrimination or peculiar disadvantages, are in need of the special solicitude of the courts. Nor is this a case where the gender classification is made “solely for . . . administrative convenience,” as in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 690 (1973) (emphasis omitted), or rests on “the baggage of sexual stereotypes” as in Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S., at 283. As we have held, the statute instead reasonably reflects the fact that the consequences of sexual intercourse and pregnancy fall more heavily on the female than on the male.
Accordingly the judgment of the California Supreme Court is
Affirmed.
The lower federal courts and state courts have almost uniformly concluded that statutory rape laws are constitutional. See, e. g., Rundlett v. Oliver, 607 F. 2d 495 (CA1 1979); Hall v. McKenzie, 537 F. 2d 1232 (CA4 1976); Hall v. State, 365 So. 2d 1249, 1252-1253 (Ala. App. 1978), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 1253 (Ala. 1979); State v. Gray, 122 Ariz. 445, 446-477, 595 P. 2d 990, 991-992 (1979); People v. Mackey, 46 Cal. App. 3d 755, 760-761, 120 Cal. Rptr. 157, 160, cert. denied, 423 U. S. 951 (1975); People v. Salinas, 191 Colo. 171, 551 P. 2d 703 (1976); State v. Brothers, 384 A. 2d 402 (Del. Super. 1978); In re W. E. P., 318 A. 2d 286, 289-290 (DC 1974); Barnes v. State, 244 Ga. 302, 303-304, 260 S. E. 2d 40, 41-42 (1979); State v. Drake, 219 N. W. 2d 492, 495-496 (Iowa 1974); State v. Bell, 377 So. 2d 303 (La. 1979); State v. Rundlett, 391 A. 2d 815 (Me. 1978); Green v. State, 270 So. 2d 695 (Miss. 1972); In re J. D. G., 498 S. W. 2d 786, 792-793 (Mo. 1973); State v. Meloon, 116 N. H. 669, 366 A. 2d 1176 (1976); State v. Thompson, 162 N. J. Super. 302, 392 A. 2d 678 (1978); People v. Whidden, 51 N. Y. 2d 457, 415 N. E. 2d 927 (1980); State v. Wilson, 296 N. C. 298, 311-313, 250 S. E. 2d 621, 629-630 (1979); Olson v. State, 588 P. 2d 1018 (Nev. 1979); State v. Elmore, 24 Ore. App. 651, 546 P. 2d 1117 (1976); State v. Ware, - R. I. -, 418 A. 2d 1 (1980); Roe v. State, 584 S. W. 2d 257, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979); Ex parte Groves, 571 S. W. 2d 888, 892-893 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. McKenzie, 236 S. E. 2d 342, 342-343 (W. Ya. 1977) ; Flores v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 509, 510-511, 230 N. W. 2d 637, 638 (1975). Contra, Navedo v. Preisser, 630 F. 2d 636 (CA8 1980); United States v. Hicks, 625 F. 2d 216 (CA9 1980); Meloon v. Helgemoe, 564 F. 2d 602 (CA1 1977) (limited in Rundlett v. Oliver, supra), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 950 (1978).
The statute was enacted as part of California’s' first penal code in 1850, 1850 Cal. Stats., ch. 99, § 47, p. 234, and recodified and amended in 1970.
In 1976 approximately one million 15-to-19-year-olds became pregnant, one-tenth of all women in that age group. Two-thirds of the pregnancies were illegitimate. Illegitimacy rates for teenagers (births per 1,000 unmarried females ages 14 to 19) increased 75% for 14-to-17-year-olds between 1961 and 1974 and 33% for 18-to-19-year-olds. Alan Guttmacher Institute, 11 Million Teenagers 10, 13 (1976); C. Chilman, Adolescent Sexuality In a Changing American Society 195 (NIH Pub. No. 80-1426, 1980).
The risk of maternal death is 60% higher for a teenager under the age of 15 than for a women in her early twenties. The risk is 13% higher for 15-to-19-year-olds. The statistics further show that most teenage mothers drop out of school and face a bleak economic future. See, e. g., 11 Million Teenagers, supra, at 23, 25; Bennett & Bardon, The Effects of a School Program On Teenager Mothers and Their Children, 47 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 671 (1977); Phipps-Yonas, Teenage Pregnancy and Motherhood, 50 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 403, 414 (1980).
This is because teenagers are disproportionately likely to seek abortions. Center for Disease Control, Abortion Surveillance 1976, pp. 22-24 (1978). In 1978, for example, teenagers in California had approximately 54,000 abortions and 53,800 live births. California Center for Health Statistics, Reproductive Health Status of California Teenage Women 1, 23 (Mar. 1980).
The policy and intent of the California Legislature evinced in other legislation buttresses our view that the prevention of teenage pregnancy is a purpose of the statute. The preamble to the Pregnancy Freedom of Choice Act, for example, states: “The legislature finds that pregnancy among unmarried persons under 21 years of age constitutes an increasing social problem in the State of California.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. §16145 (West 1980).
Subsequent to the decision below, the California Legislature considered and rejected proposals to render § 261.5 gender neutral, thereby ratifying the judgment of the California Supreme Court-. That is enough to answer petitioner’s contention that the statute was the “ 'accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about females.’” Califano v. Webster, 430 U. S. 313, 320 (1977) (quoting Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 223 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)). Certainly this decision of the California Legislature is as good a source as is this Court in deciding what is “current” and what is “outmoded” in the perception of women.
Although petitioner concedes that the State has a “compelling” interest in preventing teenage pregnancy, he contends that the “true” purpose of § 261.5 is to protect the virtue and chastity of young .women. As such, the statute is unjustifiable because it rests on archaic stereotypes. What we have said above is enough to dispose of that- contention. The question for us — and the only question under the Federal/Constitution — is whether the legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether its supporters may have^endorsed it for reasons no longer generally accepted. Even if the preservation of female chastity were one of the motives of the statute, and even if that motive be impermissible, petitioner’s argument must fail because “[i]t is a familiar practice of constitutional law that this court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968). In Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268 (1979), for example, the Court rejected one asserted purpose as impermissible, but then considered other purposes to determine if they could justify the statute. Similarly, in Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 243 (1976), the Court distinguished Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217 (1971), on the grounds that the purposes of the ordinance there were not open to impeachment by evidence that the legislature was actually motivated by an impermissible purpose. See also Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 270, n. 21 (1977); Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 91 (1980) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).
We do not understand petitioner to question a State’s authority to make sexual intercourse among teenagers a criminal act, at least on a gender-neutral basis. In Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678, 694, n. 17 (1977) (plurality opinion of Brennan, J.), four Members of the Court assumed for the purposes of that case that a State may regulate the sexual behavior of minors, while four other Members of the Court more emphatically stated that such regulation would be permissible. Id., at 702, 703 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in result); id., at 705-707, 709 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 713 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 718 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). The Court has long recognized that a State has even broader authority to protect the physical, mental, and moral well-being of its youth, than of its adults. See, e. g., Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 72-74 (1976); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 639-640 (1968); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 170 (1944).
Petitioner contends that a gender-neutral statute would not hinder prosecutions because the prosecutor could take into account the relative burdens on females and males and generally only prosecute males. But to concede this is to concede all. If the prosecutor, in exercising discretion, will virtually always prosecute just the man and not the woman, we do not see why it is impermissible for the legislature to enact a statute to the same effect.
The question whether a statute is substantially related to its asserted goals is at best an opaque one. It can be plausibly argued that a gender-neutral statute would produce fewer prosecutions than the statute at issue here. See Stewart, J., concurring, post, at 481, n. 13. Justice Brennan’s dissent argues, on the other hand, that
“even assuming that a gender-neutral statute would be more difficult to enforce, . . . [cjommon sense . . . suggests that a gender-neutral statutory rape law is potentially a greater deterrent of sexual activity than a gender-based law, for the simple reason that a gender-neutral law subjects both men and women to criminal sanctions and thus arguably has a deterrent effect on twice as many potential violators.” Post, at 493-494 (emphasis deleted).
Where such differing speculations as to the effect of a statute are plausible, we think it appropriate to defer to the decision of the California Supreme Court, “armed as it was with the knowledge of the facts and circumstances concerning the passage and potential impact of [the statute], and familiar with the milieu in which that provision would operate.” Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 ü. S. 369, 378-379 (1967).
It should be noted that two of the three cases relied upon by Justice Brennan’s dissent are readily distinguishable from the instant one. See post, at 490, n. 3. In both Navedo v. Preisser, 630 F. 2d 636 (CA8 1980), and Meloon v. Helgemoe, 564 F. 2d 602 (CA1 1977), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 950 (1978), the respective governments asserted that the purpose of the statute was to protect young women from physical injury. Both courts rejected the justification on the grounds that there had been no showing that young females are more likely than males to suffer physical injury from sexual intercourse. They further held, contrary to our decision, that pregnancy prevention was not a “plausible” purpose of the legislation. Thus neither court reached the issue presented here, whether the statute is substantially related to the prevention of teenage pregnancy. Significantly, Meloon has been severely limited by Rundlett v. Oliver, 607 F. 2d 495 (CA1 1979), where the court upheld a statutory rape law on the ground that the State had shown that sexual intercourse physically injures young women more than males. Here, of course, even Justice Brennan’s dissent does not dispute that young women suffer disproportionately the deleterious consequences of illegitimate pregnancy.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was brought to trial in 1960 in Cook County, Illinois, upon a charge of murder. The jury found him guilty and fixed his penalty at death. At the time of his trial an Illinois statute provided:
“In trials for murder it shall be a cause for challenge of any juror who shall, on being examined, state that he has conscientious scruples against capital punishment, or that he is opposed to the same.”
Through this provision the State of Illinois armed the prosecution with unlimited challenges for cause in order to exclude those jurors who, in the words of the State’s highest court, “might hesitate to return a verdict inflicting [death].” At the petitioner’s trial, the prosecution eliminated nearly half the venire of prospective jurors by challenging, under the authority of this statute, any venireman who expressed qualms about capital punishment. From those who remained were chosen the jurors who ultimately found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied post-conviction relief, and we granted certiorari to decide whether the Constitution permits a State to execute a man pursuant to the verdict of a jury so composed.
I.
The issue before us is a narrow one. It does not involve the right of the prosecution to challenge for cause those prospective jurors who state that their reservations about capital punishment would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt. Nor does it involve the State’s assertion of a right to exclude from the jury in a capital case those who say that they could never vote to impose the death penalty or that they would refuse even to consider its imposition in the case before them. For the State of Illinois did not stop there, but authorized the prosecution to exclude as well all who said that they were opposed to capital punishment and all who indicated that they had conscientious scruples against inflicting it.
In the present case the tone was set when the trial judge said early in the voir dire, “Let’s get these conscientious objectors out of the way, without wasting any time on them.” In rapid succession, 47 veniremen were successfully challenged for cause on the basis of their attitudes toward the death penalty. Only five of the 47 explicitly stated that under no circumstances would they vote to impose capital punishment. Six said that they did not “believe in the death penalty” and were excused without any attempt to determine whether they could nonetheless return a verdict of death. Thirty-nine veniremen, including four of the six who indicated that they did not believe in capital punishment, acknowledged having “conscientious or religious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty” or against its infliction “in a proper case” and were excluded without any effort to find out whether their scruples would invariably compel them to vote against capital punishment.
Only one venireman who admitted to “a religious or conscientious scruple against the infliction of the death penalty in a proper case” was examined at any length. She was asked: “You don’t believe in the death penalty?” She replied: “No. It’s just I wouldn’t want to be responsible.” The judge admonished her not to forget her “duty as a citizen” and again asked her whether she had “a religious or conscientious scruple” against capital punishment. This time, she replied in the negative. Moments later, however, she repeated that she would not “like to be responsible for... deciding somebody should be put to death.” Evidently satisfied that this elaboration of the prospective juror’s views disqualified her under the Illinois statute, the judge told her to “step aside.”
II.
The petitioner contends that a State cannot confer upon a jury selected in this manner the power to determine guilt. He maintains that such a jury, unlike one chosen at random from a cross-section of the community, must necessarily be biased in favor of conviction, for the kind of juror who would be unperturbed by the prospect of sending a man to his death, he contends, is the kind of juror who would too readily ignore the presumption of the defendant’s innocence, accept the prosecution’s version of the facts, and return a verdict of guilt. To support this view, the petitioner refers to what he describes as “competent scientific evidence that death-qualified jurors are partial to the prosecution on the issue of guilt or innocence.”
The data adduced by the petitioner, however, are too tentative and fragmentary to establish that jurors not opposed to the death penalty tend to favor the prosecution in the determination of guilt. We simply cannot conclude, either on the basis of the record now before us or as a matter of judicial notice, that the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially increases the risk of conviction. In light of the presently available information, we are not prepared to announce a per se constitutional rule requiring the reversal of every conviction returned by a jury selected as this one was.
III.
It does not follow, however, that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. For in this case the jury was entrusted with two distinct responsibilities: first, to determine whether the petitioner was innocent or guilty; and second, if guilty, to determine whether his sentence should be imprisonment or death. It has not been shown that this jury was biased with respect to the petitioner’s guilt. But it is self-evident that, in its role as arbiter of the punishment to be imposed, this jury fell woefully short of that impartiality to which the petitioner was entitled under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 84—86; Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 722-723; Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466, 471-473.
The only justification the State has offered for the jury-selection technique it employed here is that individuals who express serious reservations about capital punishment cannot be relied upon to vote for it even when the laws of the State and the instructions of the trial judge would make death the proper penalty. But in Illinois, as in other States, the jury is given broad discretion to decide whether or not death is “the proper penalty” in a given case, and a juror’s general views about capital punishment play an inevitable role in any such decision.
A man who opposes the death penalty, no less than one who favors it, can make the discretionary judgment entrusted to him by the State and can thus obey the oath he takes as a juror. But a jury from which all such men have been excluded cannot perform the task demanded of it. Guided by neither rule nor standard, “free to select or reject as it [sees] fit,” a jury that must choose between life imprisonment and capital punishment can do little more — and must do nothing less — than express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death. Yet, in a nation less than half of whose people believe in the death penalty, a jury composed exclusively of such people cannot speak for the community. Culled of all who harbor doubts about the wisdom of capital punishment — of all who would be reluctant to pronounce the extreme penalty — such a jury can speak only for a distinct and dwindling minority.
If the State had excluded only those prospective jurors who stated in advance of trial that they would not even consider returning a verdict of death, it could argue that the resulting jury was simply “neutral” with respect to penalty. But when it swept from the jury all who expressed conscientious or religious scruples against capital punishment and all who opposed it in principle, the State crossed the line of neutrality. In its quest for a jury capable of imposing the death penalty, the State produced a jury uncommonly willing to condemn a man to die.
It is, of course, settled that a State may not entrust the determination of whether a man is innocent or guilty to a tribunal “organized to convict.” Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261, 294. See Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510. It requires but a short step from that principle to hold, as we do today, that a State may not entrust the determination of whether a man should live or die to a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death. Specifically, we hold 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. No defendant can constitutionally be put to death at the hands of a tribunal so selected.
Whatever else might be said of capital punishment, it is at least clear that its imposition by a hanging jury cannot be squared with the Constitution. The State of Illinois has stacked the deck against the petitioner. To execute this death sentence would deprive him of his life without due process of law.
Reversed.
Me. Justice Douglas.
My difficulty with the opinion of the Court is a narrow but important one. The Court permits a State to eliminate from juries some of those who have conscientious scruples against the death penalty; but it allows those to serve who have no scruples against it as well as those who, having such scruples, nevertheless are deemed able to determine after a finding of guilt whether the death penalty or a lesser penalty should be imposed. I fail to see or understand the constitutional dimensions of those distinctions.
The constitutional question is whether the jury must be “impartially drawn from a cross-section of the community,” or whether it can be drawn with systematic and intentional exclusion of some qualified groups, to use Mr. Justice Murphy’s words in his dissent in Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261, 296.
Fay v. New York, which involved a conviction of union leaders for extortion, was the “blue ribbon” jury case in which the jury was weighted in favor of propertied people more likely to convict for certain kinds of crimes. The decision was 5-4, Mr. Justice Murphy speaking for Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Rutledge, and myself:
“There is no constitutional right to a jury drawn from a group of uneducated and unintelligent persons. Nor is there any right to a jury chosen solely from those at the lower end of the economic and social scale. But there is a constitutional right to a jury drawn from a group which represents a cross-section of the community. And a cross-section of the community includes persons with varying degrees of training and intelligence and with varying economic and social positions. Under our Constitution, the jury is not to be made the representative of the most intelligent, the most wealthy or the most successful, nor of the least intelligent, the least wealthy or the least successful. It is a democratic institution, representative of all qualified classes of people.” Id., at 299-300.
The idea that a jury should be “impartially drawn from a cross-section of the community” certainly should not mean a selection of only those with a predisposition to impose the severest sentence or with a predisposition to impose the least one that is possible.
The problem is presented in different postures under several types of state laws. Many States, including Illinois, specifically grant the jury discretion as to penalty; in some, this discretion is exercised at a special penalty trial, convened after a verdict of guilt has been returned. In other States, death is imposed upon a conviction of first degree murder unless the jury recommends mercy or life imprisonment, although in these States the jury is allowed to find a lesser degree of murder (or to find manslaughter, if under state law there are no degrees of murder), if the evidence will permit, without regard to the formal charge. In some States, the death penalty is mandatory for certain types of crimes. In still others, it has been abolished either in whole or in part. And a few States have special rules which do not fit precisely into the above categories.
A fair cross-section of the community may produce a jury almost certain to impose the death penalty if guilt were found; or it may produce a jury almost certain not to impose it. The conscience of the community is subject to many variables, one of which is the attitude toward the death sentence. If a particular community were overwhelmingly opposed to capital punishment, it would not be able to exercise a discretion to impose or not impose the death sentence. A jury representing the conscience of that community would do one of several things depending on the type of state law governing it: it would avoid the death penalty by recommending mercy or it would avoid it by finding guilt of a lesser offense.
In such instance, why should not an accused have the benefit of that controlling principle of mercy in the community? Why should his fate be entrusted exclusively to a jury that was either enthusiastic about capital punishment or so undecided that it could exercise a discretion to impose it or not, depending on how it felt about the particular case?
I see no constitutional basis for excluding those who are so opposed to capital punishment that they would never inflict it on a defendant. Exclusion of them means the selection of jurors who are either protagonists of the death penalty or neutral concerning it. That results in a systematic exclusion of qualified groups, and the deprivation to the accused of a cross-section of the community for decision on both his guilt and his punishment.
The Court in Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 298, held that prospective jurors who had conscientious scruples concerning infliction of the death penalty were rightly challenged by the prosecution for cause, stating that such jurors would be prevented “from standing indifferent between the government and the accused, and from trying the case according to the law and the evidence....” That was a federal prosecution, the requirement being “an impartial jury” as provided in the Sixth Amendment, a requirement now applicable to the States by reason of the incorporation of the Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Duncan v. Louisiana, ante, p. 145.
But where a State leaves the fixing of the penalty to the jury, or provides for a lesser penalty on recommendation of mercy by the jury, or gives the jury power to find guilt in a lesser degree, the law leaves the jury great leeway. Those with scruples against capital punishment can try the case “according to the law and the evidence,” because the law does not contain the inexorable command of “an eye for an eye.” Rather “the law” leaves the degree of punishment to the jury. Logan v. United States in the setting of the present case does not state what I believe is the proper rule. Whether in other circumstances it states a defensible rule is a question we need not reach. Where the jury has the discretion to impose the death penalty or not to impose it, the Logan rule is, in my opinion, an improper one. For it results in weeding out those members of the community most likely to recommend mercy and to leave in those most likely not to recommend mercy.
Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges do not conflict with the constitutional right of the accused to trial by an “impartial jury.” No one is guaranteed a partial jury. Such challenges generally are highly individualized not resulting in depriving the trial of an entire class or of various shades of community opinion or of the “subtle interplay of influence” of one juror on another. Ballard v. United States, 329 U. S. 187, 193. In the present case, however, where the jury is given discretion in fixing punishment, the wholesale exclusion of a class that makes up a substantial portion of the population produces an unrepresentative jury.
Although the Court reverses as to penalty, it declines to reverse the verdict of guilt rendered by the same jury. It does so on the ground that petitioner has not demonstrated on this record that the jury which convicted him was “less than neutral with respect to guilt,” ante, at 520, n. 18, because of the exclusion of all those opposed in some degree to capital punishment. The Court fails to find on this record “an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt.” Ante, at 518. But we do not require a showing of specific prejudice when a defendant has been deprived of his right to a jury representing a cross-section of the community. See Ballard v. United States, 329 U. S. 187, 195; Ware v. United States, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 34, 356 F. 2d 787 (1965). We can as easily assume that the absence of those opposed to capital punishment would rob the jury of certain peculiar qualities of human nature as would the exclusion of women from juries. Ballard v. United States, 329 U. S., at 193-194. I would not require a specific showing of a likelihood of prejudice, for I feel that we must proceed on the assumption that in many, if not most, cases of class exclusion on the basis of beliefs or attitudes some prejudice does result and many times will not be subject to precise measurement. Indeed, that prejudice “is so subtle, so intangible, that it escapes the ordinary methods of proof.” Fay v. New York, 332 U. S., at 300 (dissenting opinion). In my view, that is the essence of the requirement that a jury be drawn from a cross-section of the community.
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, §743 (1959). The section was re-enacted in 1961 but was not expressly repeated in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 115-4 (d) (1967) now provides only that “[e]ach party may challenge jurors for cause,” but the Illinois Supreme Court has held that § 115-4 (d) incorporates former § 743. People v. Hobbs, 35 Ill. 2d 263, 274, 220 N. E. 2d 469, 475.
“In the trial of the case where capital punishment may be inflicted a juror who has religious or conscientious scruples against capital punishment might hesitate to return a verdict inflicting such punishment, and in the present proceedings [a post-sentence sanity hearing] a juror having such scruples might likewise hesitate in returning a verdict finding [the defendant] sane, which in effect confirms the death sentence.” People v. Carpenter, 13 Ill. 2d 470, 476, 150 N. E. 2d 100, 103. (Emphasis added.)
36 Ill. 2d 471, 224 N. E. 2d 259.
389 U. S. 1035.
Unlike the statutory provision in this case, statutes and rules disqualifying jurors with scruples against capital punishment are often couched in terms of reservations against finding a man guilty when the penalty might be death. See, e. g., Cal. Penal Code, § 1074, subd. 8. Yet, despite such language, courts in other States have sometimes permitted the exclusion for cause of jurors opposed to the death penalty even in the absence of a showing that their scruples would have interfered with their ability to determine guilt in accordance with the evidence and the law. See, e. g., State v. Thomas, 78 Ariz. 52, 58, 275 P. 2d 408, 412; People v. Nicolaus, 65 Cal. 2d 866, 882, 423 P. 2d 787, 798; Piccott v. State, 116 So. 2d 626, 628 (Fla.); Commonwealth v. Ladetto, 349 Mass. 237, 246, 207 N. E. 2d 536, 542; State v. Williams, 50 Nev. 271, 278, 257 P. 619, 621; Smith v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 282, 284, 114 P. 350, 351; State v. Jensen, 209 Ore. 239, 281, 296 P. 2d 618, 635; State v. Leuch, 198 Wash. 331, 333-337, 88 P. 2d 440, 441-442.
The State stresses the fact that the judge who presided during the voir dire implied several times that only those jurors who could never agree to a verdict of death should deem themselves disqualified because of their scruples against capital punishment. The record shows, however, that the remarks relied upon by the State were not made within the hearing of every venireman ultimately excused for cause under the statute. On the contrary, three separate venires were called into the courtroom, and it appears that at least 30 of the 47 veniremen eliminated in this case were not even present when the statements in question were made.
It is entirely possible, of course, that even a juror who believes that capital punishment should never be inflicted and who is irrevocably committed to its abolition could nonetheless subordinate his personal views to what he perceived to be his duty to abide by his oath as a juror and to obey the law of the State. See Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. 295, 298. See also Atkins v. State, 16 Ark. 568, 580; Williams v. State, 32 Miss. 389, 395-396; Rhea v. State, 63 Neb. 461, 472-473, 88 N. W. 789, 792.
Compare Smith v. State, 55 Miss. 410, 413-414: “The declaration of the rejected jurors, in this case, amounted only to a statement that they would not like... a man to be hung. Few men would. Every right-thinking man would regard it as a painful duty to pronounce a verdict of death upon his fellow-man.... For the error in improperly rejecting [these] two members of the special venire the case must be reversed.”
As the voir dire examination of this venireman illustrates, it cannot be assumed that a juror who describes himself as having “conscientious or religious scruples” against the infliction of the death penalty or against its infliction “in a proper case” (see People v. Bandhauer, 66 Cal. 2d 524, 531, 426 P. 2d 900, 905) thereby affirms that he could never vote in favor of it or that he would not consider doing so in the case before him. See also the voir dire in Rhea v. State, 63 Neb. 461, 466-468, 88 N. W. 789, 790. Cf. State v. Williams, 50 Nev. 271, 278, 257 P. 619, 621. Obviously many jurors “could, notwithstanding their conscientious scruples [against capital punishment], return... [a] verdict [of death] and... make their scruples subservient to their duty as jurors.” Stratton v. People, 5 Colo. 276, 277. Cf. Commonwealth v. Henderson, 242 Pa. 372, 377, 89 A. 567, 569. Yet such jurors have frequently been deemed unfit to serve in a capital case. See, e. g., Rhea v. State, supra, 63 Neb., at 470-471, 88 N. W., at 791-792. See generally Oberer, Does Disqualification of Jurors for Scruples Against Capital Punishment Constitute Denial of Fair Trial on Issue of Guilt?, 39 Tex. L. Rev. 545, 547-548 (1961); Comment, 1968 Duke L. J. 283, 295-299.
The critical question, of course, is not how the phrases employed in this area have been construed by courts and commentators. What matters is how they might be understood — or misunderstood — by prospective jurors. Any “layman... [might] say he has scruples if he is somewhat unhappy about death sentences.... [Thus] a general question as to the presence of... reservations [or scruples] is far from the inquiry which separates those who would never vote for the ultimate penalty from those who would reserve it for the direst cases.” Id., at 308-309. Unless a venireman states unambiguously that he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment no matter what the trial might reveal, it simply cannot be assumed that that is his position.
In his brief, the petitioner cites two surveys, one involving 187 college students, W. C. Wilson, Belief in Capital Punishment and Jury Performance (Unpublished Manuscript, University of Texas, 1964), and the other involving 200 college students, F. J. Goldberg, Attitude Toward Capital Punishment and Behavior as a Juror in Simulated Capital Cases (Unpublished Manuscript, Morehouse College, undated). In his petition for certiorari, he cited a study based upon interviews with 1,248 jurors in New York and Chicago. A preliminary, unpublished summary of the results of that study stated that “a jury consisting only of jurors who have no scruples against the death penalty is likely to be more prosecution prone than a jury on which objectors to the death penalty sit,” and that “the defendant’s chances of acquittal are somewhat reduced if the objectors are excluded from the jury.” H. Zeisel, Some Insights Into the Operation of Criminal Juries 42 (Confidential First Draft, University of Chicago, November 1957).
During the post-conviction proceedings here under review, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the prosecution-prone character of “death-qualified” juries presented “purely a legal question,” the resolution of which required “no additional proof” beyond “the facts... disclosed by the transcript of the voir dire examination....” Counsel sought an “opportunity to submit evidence” in support of several contentions unrelated to the issue involved here. On this issue, however, no similar request was made, and the studies relied upon by the petitioner in this Court were not mentioned. We can only speculate, therefore, as to the precise meaning of the terms used in those studies, the accuracy of the techniques employed, and the validity of the generalizations made. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the amicus curiae brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund finds it necessary to observe that, with respect to bias in favor of the prosecution on the issue of guilt, the record in this case is “almost totally lacking in the sort of factual information that would assist the Court.”
At the time of the petitioner’s trial, the jury’s penalty determination was binding upon the judge. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, §§ 360, 801 (1959). That is no longer the case in Illinois, for the trial judge is now empowered to reject a jury recommendation of death, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, §1-7 (c)(1) (1967), but nothing in our decision turns upon whether the judge is bound to follow such a recommendation.
See generally H. Kalven & H. Zeisel, The American Jury 435, 444, 448-449 (1966).
People v. Bernette, 30 Ill. 2d 359, 370, 197 N. E. 2d 436, 443.
It is suggested in a dissenting opinion today that the State of Illinois might “impose a particular penalty, including death, on all persons convicted of certain crimes.” Post, at 541. But Illinois has attempted no such thing. Nor has it defined a category of capital cases in which “death [is] the preferred penalty.” People v. Bernette, supra, at 369, 197 N. E. 2d, at 442. (Emphasis added.) Instead, it has deliberately “made... the death penalty... an optional form of punishment which [the jury remains] free to select or reject as it [sees] fit.” 30 Ill. 2d, at 370, 197 N. E. 2d, at 443. And one of the most important functions any jury can perform in making such a selection is to maintain a link between contemporary community values and the penal system — a link without which the determination of punishment could hardly reflect “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (opinion of The Chief Justice, joined by Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Whittaker). Cf. n. 19, infra.
It appears that, in 1966, approximately 42% of the American public favored capital punishment for convicted murderers, while 47% opposed it and 11% were undecided. Polls, International Review on Public Opinion, Vol. II, No. 3, at 84 (1967). In 1960, the comparable figures were 51% in favor, 36% opposed, and 13% undecided. Ibid.
Compare Arthur Koestler’s observation:
“The diviáon is not between rich and poor, highbrow and lowbrow, Christians and atheists: it is between those who have charity and those who have not.... The test of one’s humanity is whether one is able to accept this fact — not as lip service, but with the shuddering recognition of a kinship: here but for the grace of God, drop I.” Koestler, Reflections on Hanging 166-167 (1956).
Even so, a defendant convicted by such a jury in some future case might still attempt to establish that the jury was less than neutral with respect to guilt. If he were to succeed in that effort, the question would then arise whether the State’s interest in submitting the penalty issue to a jury capable of imposing capital punishment may be vindicated at the expense of the defendant’s interest in a completely fair determination of guilt or innocence— given the possibility of accommodating both interests by means of a bifurcated trial, using one jury to decide guilt and another to fix punishment. That problem is not presented here, however, and we intimate no view as to its proper resolution.
The amicus curiae brief filed in this case by the American Friends Service Committee et al. notes that the number of persons under sentence of death in this country climbed from 300 at the end of 1963 to 406 at the end of 1966, while the number of persons actually executed fell from 21 in 1963 to 15 in 1964, seven in 1965, and one in 1966. The brief suggests that this phenomenon might be explained in part by society’s “deep reluctance actually to inflict the death sentence” and by a widening “divergence of belief between the juries we select and society generally.”
It should be understood that much more is involved here than a simple determination of sentence. For the State of Illinois empowered the jury in this case to answer “yes” or “no” to the question whether this defendant was fit to live. To be sure, such a determination is different in kind from a finding that the defendant committed a specified criminal offense. Insofar as a determination that a man should be put to death might require “that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender,” Pennsylvania v. Ashe, 302 U. S. 51, 55, for example, it may be appropriate that certain rules of evidence with respect to penalty should differ from the corresponding evidentiary rules with respect to guilt. See, e. g., Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241. But this does not mean that basic requirements of procedural fairness can be ignored simply because the determination involved in this case differs in some respects from the traditional assessment of whether the defendant engaged in a proscribed course of conduct. See, e. g., Specht v. Patterson, 386 IT. S. 605. Cf. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U. S. 128.
One of those requirements, at least, is that the decision whether a man deserves to live or die must be made on scales that are not deliberately tipped toward death. It was in part upon such a premise that the Fourth Circuit recently invalidated a North Carolina murder conviction, noting that a juror who felt it his “duty” to sentence every convicted murderer to death was allowed to serve in that case, “while those who admitted to scruples against capital punishment were dismissed without further interrogation.” This “double standard,” the court concluded, “inevitably resulted in [a] denial of due process.” Crawford v. Bounds, 395 F. 2d 297, 303-304 (alternative holding). Cf. Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15, 20-21; on petition for rehearing, id., at 380, 381 (dictum).
Just as veniremen cannot be excluded for cause on the ground that they hold such views, so too they cannot be excluded for cause simply because they indicate that there are some kinds of cases in which they would refuse to recommend capital punishment. And a prospective juror cannot be expected to say in advance of trial whether he would in fact vote for the extreme penalty in the case before him. The most that can be demanded of a venireman in this regard is that he be willing to consider all of the penalties provided by state law, and that he not be 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. If the voir dire testimony in a given case indicates that veniremen were excluded on any broader basis than this, the death sentence cannot be carried out even if applicable statutory or case law in the relevant jurisdiction would appear to support only a narrower ground of exclusion. See nn. 5 and 9, supra.
We repeat, however, that nothing we say today bears upon the power of a State to execute a defendant sentenced to death by a jury from which the only veniremen who were in fact excluded for cause were those who made unmistakably clear (1) that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them, or (2) that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt. Nor does the decision in this case affect the validity of any sentence other than one of death. Nor, finally, does today’s holding render invalid the conviction, as opposed to the sentence, in this or any other case.
We have considered the suggestion, advanced in an amicus curiae brief filed by 27 States on behalf of Illinois, that we should “give prospective application only to any new constitutional ruling in this area,” particularly since a dictum in an 1892 decision of this Court approved the' practice of challenging for cause those jurors who expressed “conscientious scruples in regard to the infliction of the death penalty for crime.” Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 298. But we think it clear, Logan notwithstanding, that the jury-selection standards employed here necessarily undermined “the very integrity of the... process” that decided the petitioner’s fate, see Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 639, and we have concluded that neither the reliance of law enforcement officials, cf. Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 417; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 731, nor the impact of a retroactive holding on the administration of justice, cf. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 300, warrants a decision against the fully retroactive application of the holding we announce today.
“It is part of the established tradition in the use of juries as instruments of public justice that the jury be a body truly representative of the community.” Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128,
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.
The question in these cases is whether the Federal Power Commission has gone beyond the scope of its delegated authority in denying a certificate of public convenience and necessity under § 7 (e) of the Natural Gas Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 821, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717 et seq. The principal respondents are Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. (Transco), a pipeline company engaged in transporting natural gas in interstate commerce, and Consolidated Edison Co. (Con. Ed.), a public utility in New York City which uses gas under its boilers and also sells gas to domestic consumers. In 1957 Con. Ed. contracted to purchase gas from producers in the Nor-manna and Sejita fields in Texas at 19% cents per Mcf., the contracts of sale containing a prohibition on resale of the gas by Con. Ed. This transaction is commonly labeled a “direct” sale and, because it does not entail a sale for resale in interstate commerce, is not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction except insofar as § 7 requires the Commission to certificate the transportation of gas pursuant to the sale.
Con. Ed. then arranged with Transco for what is called in the record “X-20” service. Under the contract, Transco agreed to transport 50,000 Mcf. daily to Con. Ed. in New York for use under Con. Ed.’s boilers, principally two boilers at Con. Ed.’s Waterside station which were then being fired by coal. Additionally, during a 60-day peak period, Transco agreed to sell 50,000 Mcf. to Con. Ed. from Transco’s own reserves without restrictions as to resale. This 60-day supply was designed for use by Con. Ed.’s customers during the-winter period when heating demands were at their highest. Transco sought a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the proposed X-20 service in connection with its plan to conduct a major expansion of its pipeline capacity and storage facilities.
Before the hearing examiner, Transco’s application was opposed by the FPC staff and groups representing the coal industry. Con. Ed. intervened in favor of Transco’s proposal. Transco offered proof that its application met all the conventional tests — adequate gas reserves, pipeline facilities and market for the gas — and this showing, with one immaterial exception, has never been challenged. However, the FPC’s staff argued vigorously that the public interest would suffer were Transco’s petition granted. Among the grounds advanced were that the gas was to be transported for use under industrial boilers, this disposition being an “inferior” use from the standpoint of conserving a valuable natural resource; that authorization of this and similar direct sales to major industrial users would result in pre-emption of pipeline capacity and gas reserves to the detriment of domestic consumers competing for gas supply; and that the effect of this sale, as well as the resulting increase in direct sales, would effect a general rise in field prices. These contentions were presented as “policy” arguments and no testimony was taken in support. Con. Ed. contended in return that certification was in the public interest, principally because a firm supply of natural gas under the Waterside boilers would reduce the air pollution problem then being aggravated by fly-ash and sulphur dioxide emissions from these boilers. The Waterside station is located near the headquarters building of the United Nations, and Con. Ed. introduced expert testimony indicating that the Waterside boilers were major contributors to the air pollution problem in the area. Respondents also contended that the factors propounded by the FPC’s staff were not open for consideration in a § 7 proceeding. The hearing examiner agreed with respondents that his determination was limited to conventional factors and consequently recommended certification. He qualified his recommendation, however, with a statement that, if he were authorized to consider the policy argument related to the end use of the gas advanced by the FPC staff, he would come to the opposite conclusion. He indicated that respondents’ proof concerning the air pollution problem was not sufficienty compelling to overcome this contrary argument.
On review before the full FPC, the Commission held that the broad considerations advanced by its staff were cognizable in a § 7 proceeding. The Commission agreed with respondents that the “idea of ameliorating a smoke condition found unpleasant and annoying... is an attractive one” but concluded that “more weighty considerations compel the denial of the grant.” 21 F. P. C. 138, 142. Respondents sought a rehearing before the Commission and, upon denial of that petition, 21 F. P. C. 399, appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reinstated the conclusion of the hearing examiner that the policy considerations advanced by the FPC were outside the scope of a § 7 proceeding. The court relied principally on § 1 (b) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U. S. C. § 717 (b), which provides:
“The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, to the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use, and to natural-gas companies engaged in such transportation or sale, but shall not apply to any other transportation or sale of natural gas or to the local distribution of natural gas or to the facilities used for such distribution or to the production or gathering of natural gas.”
The court also expressed sympathy with respondents’ contention that the Commission had given inadequate weight to the air pollution factor; but the holding below does not appear to be based on that ground. 271 F. 2d 942.
The principal question before this Court, then, is whether Congress intended to preclude the Commission from denying certification on the basis of the policy considerations advanced by its staff. For purposes of analysis, the litigants have grouped these factors into two broad categories. The first has been, labeled the “end use” factor and reflects the Commission’s concern that Con. Ed.’s proposed “inferior” use of gas under its industrial boilers would be wasteful of gas committed to the Commission’s jurisdiction and, by the same token, would pre-empt space in pipelines that might otherwise be used for transportation of gas for superior uses. The second may be called the “price” consideration and involves the Commission’s fear that this sale — which was executed at a price higher than the maximum fixed by the Commission in the producing districts here involved — would increase the price of natural gas in the field, thus triggering a rise in the price provisions in other contracts.
In light of what this Court has said on prior occasions concerning the term “public convenience and necessity” in analogous statutes, the ready inference is that the Commission has the power to consider the “end use” and “price” factors. For example, in United States v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co., 326 U. S. 236, 241, the Court concluded that:
“The Commission is the guardian of the public interest in determining whether certificates of convenience and necessity shall be granted. For the performance of that function the Commission has been entrusted with a wide range of discretionary authority. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Parker, 326 U. S. 60. Its function is not only to appraise the facts and to draw inferences from them but also to bring to bear upon the problem an expert judgment and to determine from its analysis of the total situation on which side of the controversy the public interest lies. Its doubt that the public interest will be adequately served if resumption of service is left to existing carriers is entitled to the same respect as its expert judgment on other complicated transportation problems....” See Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Railway Labor Executives Assn., 315 U. S. 373, 376-377.
In fact, in interpreting this very section, we said that “§ 7 (e) requires the Commission to evaluate all factors bearing on the public interest.” Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 360 U. S. 378, 391. (Emphasis added.) However, respondents correctly point out that Congress, in enacting the Natural Gas Act, did not give the Commission comprehensive powers over every incident of gas production, transportation and sale. Rather, Congress was “meticulous” only to invest the Commission with authority over certain aspects of this field, leaving the residue for state regulation. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 332 U. S. 507. Therefore, it is necessary to consider with care whether, despite the accepted meaning of the term “public convenience and necessity,” the Commission has trod on forbidden ground in making its decision.
End use. No one disputes that natural gas is a wasting resource and that the necessity for conserving it is paramount. As we see it, the question in this case is whether the Commission, through its certification power, may prevent the waste of gas committed to its jurisdiction. One apparent method of preventing waste of gas is to limit the uses to which it may be put, uses for which another, more abundant fuel may serve equally well. Thus the Commission in this case, as it often has in the past, has declared that the use of gas under industrial boilers is an “inferior” use, the assumption being that other fuels, particularly coal, are an adequate substitute in areas where such other fuels abound. However, respondents, while conceding the premise that gas may be wasted where coal is readily available, argue that Congress has not awarded the' Commission any powers over conservation; rather, this authority has been reserved to the States. This contention is based on the legislative history of the Natural Gas Act.
When Congress initially enacted the Natural Gas Act in 1938, all the indications were that Congress intended the States to be the primary arbiters of conservation problems. The 1938 Act was based on a 1936 report rendered by the Federal Trade Commission and the section in that report devoted to conservation stresses the powers of state bodies to adopt corrective measures. The final recommendation of the Federal Trade Commission in regard to conservation contemplated primary state authority, with federal agencies being relegated to a reporting function. This recommendation formed the basis for § 11 of the Act as ultimately passed and that section reveals a secondary role for the Commission in this regard.
However, in 1940, the Commission reported its dissatisfaction with the limited scope of § 7. The 1938 version of § 7 restricted the Commission's jurisdiction to certification of transportation into areas where the market was already being served by another natural gas company; if a pipeline wished to extend service into virgin territory, the Commission had no power to act. The Commission felt that this limitation barred it from considering “the broad social and economic effect of the use of various fuels” in a § 7 proceeding, Kansas Pipe Line & Gas Co., 2 F. P. C. 29, 57, and, in its 1940 Annual Report, the Commission urged that the restriction be deleted in order that conservation considerations might be weighed. The language used by the Commission is particularly relevant to this case:
“The Natural Gas Act as presently drafted does not enable the Commission to treat fully the serious implications of such a problem. The question should be raised as to whether the proposed use of natural gas would not result in displacing a less valuable fuel and create hardships in the industry already supplying the market, while at the same time rapidly depleting the country’s natural-gas reserves. Although, for a period of perhaps 20 years, the natural gas could be so priced as to appear to offer an apparent saving in fuel costs, this would mean simply that social costs which must eventually be paid had been ignored.
“Careful study of the entire problem may lead to the conclusion that use of natural gas should be restricted by functions rather than by areas. Thus, it is especially adapted to space and water heating in urban homes and other buildings and to the various industrial heat processes which require concentration of heat, flexibility of control, and uniformity of results. Industrial uses to which it appears particularly adapted include the treating and annealing of metals, the operation of kilns in the ceramic, cement, and lime industries, the manufacture of glass in its various forms, and use as a raw material in the chemical industry. General use of natural gas under boilers for the production of steam is, however, under most circumstances of véry questionable social economy.” 20 F. P. C. Ann. Rep. 79 (1940).
The Commission implemented its recommendation by submitting to Congress a proposed amendment to § 7 with the restrictive language eliminated, and an amendment substantially similar to the one drafted by the Commission was enacted in 1942. During the course of the hearings on the amendment, the Commission reiterated the position it had taken in its 1940 report, Hearings before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H. R. 5249, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 82, and the language used by the Committees reporting the bill indicates that the amendment was framed in response to the Commission’s complaint. H. R. Rep. No. 1290, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 3; S. Rep. No. 948, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 1-2.
It is true, of course, that-the Committee reports do not set out the Commission’s position in haec verba. For example, the pertinent language of the House Committee Report states that:
“The bill, as amended, eliminates the objections to the present section 7 (c) above mentioned. By this legislation, the present jurisdictional disputes are eliminated, and the door is opened to the consideration by the Commission of the effect of construction and extensions upon the interests of producers of competing fuels and competitive transportation interests. This result is accomplished, moreover, without undue disturbance of existing operating arrangements of natural-gas companies.” H. R. Rep. No. 1290, supra.
Consequently, respondents argue that Congress only authorized the Commission to look at one side of the coin — the health of the coal industry — because that is the only point mentioned explicitly. However, this contention does not take adequate account of the position the Commission had consistently pressed upon Congress both prior to and during the hearings on the amendment — that the use of gas for purposes adequately served by other fuels was undesirable not only because it injured the competing industry but, what is more important, because it was wasteful to use a fuel in short supply in place of an abundant fuel. See 20 F. P. C. Ann. Rep. 79 (1940). The history of the amendment reveals no voice raised in opposition to the Commission’s position and there is no other indication that Congress was unwilling to give the chief proponent of the amendment anything less than it sought. Thus, it would be curious were we to infer such an intent from the language of the House Committee Report quoted above. Rather, we think it plain the Congress acquiesced in the Commission’s position and the excerpted language signifies acquiescence. It should be noted that this is not the first time this Court has addressed itself to the effect of the 1942 amendment to § 7. See Federal Power Comm’n v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 617, n. 30, and Federal Power Comm’n v. East Ohio Gas Co., 338 U. S. 464, 468-469. And, while it must be conceded that the language pertinent here was not necessary to the decision in either Hope or East Ohio, the clear conclusion of the Court in those cases is directly opposed to respondents’ present argument.
Respondents, however, vigorously contend that, subsequent to the 1942 amendment, the Commission itself has made statements on occasion which are inconsistent with the Commission’s position in this case. In particular, respondents point to an excerpt from the Commission’s 1944 Report to Congress, entitled The First Five Years Under the Natural Gas Act, where the Commission stated:
“In its hearings on certificate cases, under section 7 (c) of the act, as amended, the Commission has freely permitted the intervention of representatives of coal, railroad, labor, and other interests concerned with the production or transportation of competing fuels. These interests have presented extensive evidence on the economic, sociological, and technological aspects of fuel competition, and their representatives have strongly urged the Commission either to deny certificates on the general grounds of conservation or to attach restrictions which would severely limit the uses for which natural gas might be sold.
“It has been the unanimous view of the Commission that, inasmuch as the Congress had not given it comprehensive powers to deal with the end uses for which natural gas is consumed, and had granted the Commission no authority to regulate rates for the direct sales of natural gas to industry, it was the duty of the Commission not to seek to exercise such authority until the Congress amended the Natural Gas Act to confer on the Commission such specific powers as Congress desired it to exercise.” F. P. C., The First Five Years Under the Natural Gas Act 15.
This statement was relied on heavily by the Court of Appeals and it would be idle to contend that the report is irrelevant to the present inquiry. However, it is necessary to note the precise limit of the Commission’s admissions. The Commission said that it had not been given “comprehensive” authority to deal with “the end uses for which natural gas is consumed” and that it would not deny certification on that ground alone. The Commission did not say that it had no authority over the use to which certificated gas might be put nor did it say that end use was a factor beyond its power of notice. In view of contemporaneous statements by the Commission which would be inconsistent with the reading respondents press upon us, we think that the 1944 report should be construed as admitting only a lack of comprehensive power to formulate a flat rule against direct sales for use-under industrial boilers.
In this connection, it must be realized that the Commission’s powers under § 7 are, by definition, limited. See Koplin, Conservation and Regulation: The Natural Gas Allocation Policy of the Federal Power Commission, 64 Yale L. J. 840, 862. The Commission cannot order a natural gas company to sell gas to users that it favors; it can only exercise a veto power'over proposed transportation and it can only do this when a balance of all the circumstances weighs against certification. Moreover, the Commission has no authority over intrastate sales under any section of the Act and, since a large percentage of the gas sold for so-called “inferior” uses is sold within the producing States, this restriction further curtails the Commission’s power over conservation. In light of this, the Commission’s position since the 1942 amendment is both consistent and rational. On the one hand, the Commission has stated that it does have power to consider end use in a § 7 proceeding. On the other hand, the Commission has sought, but has not been awarded, comprehensive authority over all aspects of gas conservation. A most striking example of the Commission’s thinking is revealed by its reasons for opposition to H. R. 982, a bill proposed in 1949 which would have declared that:
.. the public interest requires the establishment of, and adherence to, a policy with respect to the transportation of natural gas and the sale thereof in interstate commerce, which will—
“(1) promote and safeguard, so far as possible, the national defense;
“(2) conserve the reserves of natural gas for utilization which affords the highest social benefits to the public, consistent with reasonable rates and adequate service.”
The Commission argued against passage on, among others, the following ground:
“The 10-point policy would—
“(2) Conserve the reserves of natural gas for utilization which affords the highest social benefits to the public, consistent with reasonable rates and adequate service;
“This, of course, proposes a limitation on the purposes for which gas may be utilized. In order to be fully effective it would be necessary to extend the Commission’s jurisdiction to intrastate sales because the great bulk of gas sold for so-called inferior industrial uses is either sold in the field or by distributing companies over which the Commission does not have jurisdiction. The Commission, however, is aware of the problem and in certificate cases it does give consideration to the proposed uses of the gas in question. The Commission believes that, under the present act, it may give proper consideration to this matter in certificate proceedings.”
In light of this language, it is clear that the Commission fully realizes the distinction between the power it enjoys under § 7 and complete allocation power. And we feel that this distinction entirely disposes of those contentions of respondents based on the Commission’s purported ambivalent behavior.
There is a broader principle here which also stands in opposition to respondents’ contentions. When Congress enacted the Natural Gas Act, it was motivated by a desire “to protect consumers against exploitation at the hands of natural gas companies.” Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 364 U. S. 137, 147. To that end, Congress “meant to create a comprehensive and effective regulatory scheme.” Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 332 U. S. 507, 520. See Public Utilities Comm’n v. United Fuel Gas Co., 317 U. S. 456, 467. It is true, of course, that Congress did not desire comprehensive federal regulation; much authority was reserved for the States. But, it is equally clear that Congress did not desire that an important aspect of this field be left unregulated. See Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, supra. Therefore, when a dispute arises over whether a given transaction is within the scope of federal or state regulatory authority, we are not inclined to approach the problem negatively, thus raising the possibility that a “no man’s land” will be created. Compare Guss v. Utah Labor Board, 353 U. S. 1. That is to say, in a borderline case where congressional authority is not explicit we must ask whether state authority can practicably regulate a given area and, if we find that it cannot, then we are impelled to decide that federal authority governs.
In this case, the dispute is over the “economic” waste of gas which has been committed to transportation in interstate commerce outside the producing State. The Commission has not attempted to exert its influence over such “physically” wasteful practices as improper well spacing and the flaring of unused gas which result in the entire loss of gas and are properly of concern to the producing State; nor has the Commission attempted to regulate the “economic” aspects of gas used within the producing State. Respondents contend that, even in this posture, the Commission has usurped the functions of state regulating bodies but we cannot agree.
In the 1936 Federal Trade Commission Report, upon which respondents so heavily rely, there was some mention of control of the end use of gas and, as we have said, this report was strongly oriented towards state regulation. However, as the Court of Appeals pointed out, the primary emphasis was on physical waste of gas within the producing State and the reference to end use probably contemplated the use of gas in gasoline extraction and the manufacture of carbon black. 271 F. 2d, at 947. There is no indication that the Federal Trade Commission or Congress was thinking in "terms of state-controlled “economic” conservation of gas committed to interstate commerce. Moreover, it is questionable whether any State could be expected to take the initiative in enforcing this type of “economic” conservation. A producing State might wish to prolong its gas reserves for as long as possible but producing States have no control over the use to which gas is put in another State. See Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Calvert, 347 U. S. 157; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553; Oklahoma v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229. Consuming States may control the end use of gas, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Michigan Public Service Comm’n, 341 U. S. 329, but the deficiencies of this system in the present context are apparent — -unless all States cooperate in enforcing a common regulation, the producer may pick a State which is sufficiently anxious for this scarce resource that it will take gas irrespective of the use. Therefore, it appears that, consistent with the congressional purpose of leaving no “attractive gap” in regulation, we must conclude that the “end-use” factor was properly of concern to the Commission.
Price. As we read the opinion, the Commission’s second objection to certification was based on its forecast that this and similar direct sales of gas at unregulated prices higher than those allowed in sales for resale would attract gas to the high-bidding direct purchasers and thus lever upwards field prices both in direct sales and sales for resale.
Respondents claim that this "policy” consideration masks the Commission’s true purpose in this proceeding, which, according to respondents, is to bar direct sales absolutely, thus forcing all gas transactions into regulated channels. And respondents argue that such an absolute bar runs contrary to the intent of Congress as expressed in § 1 (b) of the Natural Gas Act quoted supra, the section which limits the FPC’s jurisdiction to sales for resale in interstate commerce.
Were respondents correct in their interpretation of the Commission’s action in this case, we would be forced to agree that the Commission had overstepped its bounds. Certainly such action would be contrary to our previous statements that the term “public convenience and necessity” connotes a flexible balancing process, in the course of which all the factors are weighed prior to final determination. United States v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co., supra. Indeed, as respondents argue, such a fiat rule would be doubly objectionable here because Congress has not given the Commission jurisdiction over direct sales. However, we cannot agree that the Commission propounded an absolute rule in this case. Examination of the opinion reveals recurrent reference to the absence of any one controlling factor; as the Commission stated, “countervailing factors suffice to tip the balance against the grant of the authority requested by Transco.” 21 F. P. C., at 141. (Emphasis added.) It is difficult to find any indication of the flat rule mentioned by respondents in language such as this. Furthermore, if there were any lingering doubt on this point, it is dispelled by the fact that the Commission has, on many occasions, held that transportation of gas sold directly to the consumer is in the public interest when the reasons advanced by the applicant have been sufficiently strong. See, e. g., Houston Texas Gas & Oil Corp., 16 F. P. C. 118. On this point, the Commission’s actions speak louder than respondents’ unsupported allegations. See Northern Natural Gas Co., 15 F. P. C. 1634.
Respondents also argue that the Commission is opposed to this transaction merely because the underlying sale is a direct sale not subject to the Commission’s primary jurisdiction. However, a fair reading of the Commission’s opinion as a whole reveals that the Commission did not exalt form over substance in an attempt to aggrandize the scope of its jurisdiction; rather, whenever the Commission discussed the non jurisdictional nature of this sale, it tied this discussion into an analysis of one or the other of the substantive evils it was seeking to prevent — “inferior” use or increased prices to consumers generally.
The question for consideration in this section, therefore, is whether in a § 7 proceeding the Commission may consider sales price or, more accurately, the effect the inflated price charged in one sale will have on future field prices. We have recently answered this question in favor of the Commission’s jurisdiction. See Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, supra, at 391, where we stated that the Commission could decide whether:
“[T]he proposed price is not in keeping with the public interest because it is out of line or because its approval might result in a triggering of general price rises
However, respondents point out that the underlying sale in that case was a sale for resale and thus independently subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. Where such independent jurisdiction does not exist because of the bar in § 1 (b), respondents claim that the Commission’s power of notice is curtailed.
This Court has never been faced with precisely this problem, but on several occasions we have been called upon to consider arguments very similar to the one advanced here. For example, in Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 324 U. S. 581, it was held that, in fixing a rate base for the measurement of interstate wholesale rates, ■ the Commission might take into account the value of the pipeline company’s production and gathering facilities, even though the Commission had no direct jurisdiction over these facilities because of the bar in § 1 (b). The contention which was rejected in Colorado Interstate has a familiar ring in the present context: According to the unsuccessful litigant, when the FPC includes production and gathering facilities in a rate base, “it regulates the production and gathering of natural gas contrary to the provisions of § 1 (b) of the Act.” Id., at 600. Similarly, in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 324 U. S. 635, 646, it was said in dictum that:
“The Commission, while it lacks authority to fix rates for direct industrial sales, may take those rates into consideration when it fixes the rates for interstate wholesale sales which are subject to its jurisdiction.”
These cases, while not in themselves controlling, indicate at least that respondents’ argument is overly broad. However, to decide a particular case we must return to the consideration discussed in the previous section — the Act contemplates comprehensive regulation in the public interest and the critical inquiry is whether Congress intended state or federal authority to govern.
In the present case, the Commission was concerned with the effects this certification might have in the future on field prices generally. The Commission was attempting to consider not only the interests of consumers in New York but those in all States. To be compared with the problem before the Commission are the determinations that a consuming state commission may properly make in exercising authority over a direct sale. Certainly, the consuming State can regulate retail rates at which gas can be sold within the State. E. g., Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 332 U. S. 507. This power was recognized at the time the Act was passed, see Pow'ell, Note, Physics and Law — Commerce in Gas and Electricity, 58 Harv. L. Rev. 1072, and it is clear that Congress excepted federal regulation of direct sales precisely for this reason. See H. R. Rep. No. 709, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-2. But, in this case the Commission has not objected to the retail rate and we need not decide whether there are limits on the Commission’s power in this hypothetical situation. The very nature of the present problem, entailing as it does considerations that overstep the bounds of any one State, illustrates the improbability that state commissions could or would attempt to deal with it; it seems clear that considerations of this sort are uniquely fitted for federal scrutiny. Particularly relevant in this connection is this Court’s decision in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 332 U. S. 507. In that case, it was held that a state commission may regulate retail sales, even though the gas was brought from out-of-state sources. The pipeline company argued that conflicting regulations enforced by different state bodies, particularly regulations concerned with interruption of service, might place it in an untenable position. The Court answered this argument by stating that:
“There is no evidence thus far of substantial conflict in either respect and we do not see that the probability of serious conflict is so strong as to outweigh the vital local interests to which we have referred requiring regulation by the states. Moreover, if such conflict should develop, the matter of interrupting service is one largely related, as appellees say, to transportation and thus within the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission to control, in accommodation of any conflicting interests among various states.” Id., at 523. (Emphasis added.)
The point is, as we have stated, that Congress did not desire an “attractive gap” in its regulatory scheme; rather, Congress intended to impose a comprehensive regulatory system on the transportation, production, and sale of this valuable natural resource. Therefore, when we are presented with an attempt by the federal authority to control a problem that is not, by its very nature, one with which state regulatory commissions can be expected to deal, the conclusion is irresistible that Congress desired regulation by federal authority rather than nonregulation. See Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 232 F. 2d 467.
Respondents’ final argument on this point is that the Commission abused its discretion in denying certification because it took cognizance of facts dehors the record and because it did not pay sufficient attention to the recorded testimony of respondents’ expert concerning air pollution. The first objection — that the Commission erred in going outside the record — was rejected by the Court of Appeals and we concur in that conclusion. According to the statute, the Commission is required to determine whether certification is in the “present or future public convenience and necessity.” (Emphasis added.) Obedient to this command, the Commission did forecast the future and concluded that widespread direct sales at high prices would probably result in price increases. Respondents appear to be claiming that the Commission should have adduced testimonial and documentary evidence to the effect that this forecast would come true. However, we do not think that the Commission is so limited in its formulation of policy considerations. Rather, we think that a forecast of the direction in which future public interest lies necessarily involves deductions based on the expert knowledge of the agency. See Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, supra, at 391. It should also be noted that there has been a considerable showing made by the petitioners and state regulatory commissions appearing as amici curiae to the effect that the Commission’s forecast is well founded. Moreover, as a matter of common sense, it would seem difficult to deny that the channeling of vast quantities of a wasting resource into unregulated transactions at a high price will result in scarcity to other consumers and a general price increase. Cf. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 332 U. S. 507, 521, n. 19.
Respondents’ last point is that insufficient weight was afforded the evidence concerning air pollution. Con-cededly, the testimony of Con. Ed.’s expert witness, the Commissioner of the Department of Air Pollution Control in New York City, was entitled to great weight. However, as the New York Commissioner himself admitted, it was not possible for him to establish a definite relation between injury to health and the stack emissions at the Waterside station.. More importantly, it was not shown that other methods — particularly the use of gas presently available to Con. Ed. under other forms of service— could not be used to solve the problem. Consequently, we cannot say that the Commission acted irrationally in concluding that Con. Ed.’s proof was insufficient. See Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 98 U. S. App. D. C. 241, 234 F. 2d 62.
Neither this Court nor the Commission holds in this case that sales to pipelines are generally more in accord with the public interest than other sales; nor do we authorize the elimination of direct sales of gas under appropriate circumstances nor the denial of a certificate to any arbitrarily chosen group of purchasers. All we hold is that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in considering, among other factors, those of end use, preemption of pipeline facilities and price in deciding that the public convenience and necessity did not require the issuance of the certificate requested. The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be
Reversed.
Section 7 (e), 15 U. S. C. § 717f (e), provides:
“(e) Except in the cases governed by the provisos contained in subsection (c) of this section, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operation, sale, service, construction, extension, or acquisition covered by the application, if it is found that the applicant is able and willing properly to do the acts and to perform the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of the Act and the requirements, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder, and that the proposed
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.
Section 706 (k) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides:
“In any action or proceeding under this title the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney’s fee . ...”
The question in this case is under what circumstances an attorney’s fee should be allowed when the defendant is the prevailing party in a Title VII action' — a question about which the federal courts have expressed divergent views.
I
Two years after Rosa Helm had filed a Title VII charge of racial discrimination against the petitioner Christiansburg Garment Co. (company), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notified her that its conciliation efforts had failed and that she had the right to sue the company in federal court. She did not do so. Almost two years later, in 1972, Congress enacted amendments to Title VII. Section 14 of these amendments authorized the Commission to sue in its own name to prosecute “charges pending with the Commission” on the effective date of the amendments. Proceeding under this section, the Commission sued the company, alleging that it had engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the amended Act. The company moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that the Rosa Helm charge had not been “pending” before the Commission when the 1972 amendments took effect. The District Court agreed, and granted summary judgment in favor of the company. 376 F. Supp. 1067 (WD Va).
The company then petitioned for the allowance of attorney’s fees against the Commission pursuant to § 706 (k) of Title VII. Finding that “the Commission’s action in bringing the suit cannot be characterized as unreasonable or meritless/’ the District Court concluded that “an award of attorney’s fees to petitioner is not justified in this case.” A divided Court of Appeals affirmed, 550 F. 2d 949 (CA4), and we granted cer-tiorari to consider an important question of federal law, 432 U. S. 905.
II
It is the general rule in the United States that in the absence of legislation providing otherwise, litigants must pay their own attorney’s fees. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240. Congress has provided only limited exceptions to this rule “under selected statutes granting or protecting various federal rights.” Id., at 260. Some of these statutes make fee awards mandatory for prevailing plaintiffs; others make awards permissive but limit them to certain parties, usually prevailing plaintiffs. But many of the statutes are more flexible, authorizing the award of attorney’s fees to either plaintiffs or defendants, and entrusting the effectuation of the statutory policy to the discretion of the district courts. Section 706 (k) of Title VII of the Civil Nights Act of 1964 falls into this last category, providing as it does that a district court may in its discretion allow an attorney’s fee to the prevailing party.
In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S. 400, the Court considered a substantially identical statute authorizing the award of attorney’s fees under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that case the plaintiffs had prevailed, and the Court of Appeals had held that they should be awarded their attorney’s fees “only to- the extent that the respondents’ defenses had been advanced 'for purposes of delay and not in good faith.’ ” Id., at 401. We ruled that this “subjective standard” did not properly effectuate the purposes of the counsel-fee provision of Title II. Relying primarily on the intent of Congress to cast a Title II plaintiff in the role of “a 'private attorney general,’ vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority,” we held that a prevailing plaintiff under Title II “should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Id., at 402. We noted in passing that if the objective of Congress had been to permit the award of attorney’s fees only against defendants who h'ad acted in bad faith, “no new statutory provision would have been necessary,” since even the American common-law rule allows the award of attorney’s fees in those exceptional circumstances. Id., at 402 n. 4.
In Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, the Court made clear that the Piggie Park standard of awarding attorney’s fees to a successful plaintiff is equally applicable in an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 422 U. S., at 415. See also Northcross v. Memphis Board of Education, 412 U. S. 427, 428. It can thus be taken as established, as the parties in this case both acknowledge, that under § 706 (k) of Title VII a prevailing plaintiff ordinarily is to be awarded attorney’s fees in all but special circumstances.
Ill
The question in the case before us is what standard should inform a district court’s discretion in deciding whether to award attorney’s fees to a successful defendant in a Title VII action. Not surprisingly, the parties in addressing the question in their briefs and oral arguments have taken almost diametrically opposite positions.
The company contends that the Piggie Park criterion for a successful plaintiff should apply equally as a guide to the award of attorney’s fees to a successful defendant. Its submission, in short, is that every prevailing defendant in a Title VII action should receive an allowance of attorney’s fees “unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” The respondent Commission, by contrast, argues that the prevailing defendant should receive an award of attorney’s fees only when it is found that the plaintiff’s action was brought in bad faith. We have concluded that neither of these positions is correct.
A
Relying on what it terms “the plain meaning of the statute,” the company argues that the language of § 706 (k) admits of only one interpretation: “A prevailing defendant is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees on the same basis as a prevailing plaintiff.” But the permissive and discretionary language of the statute does not even invite, let alone require, such a mechanical construction. The terms of § 706 (k) provide no indication whatever of the circumstances under which either a plaintiff or a defendant should be entitled to' attorney’s fees. And a moment’s reflection reveals that there are at least two strong equitable considerations counseling an attorney’s fee award to a prevailing Title VII plaintiff that are wholly absent in the case of a prevailing Title VII defendant.
First, as emphasized so forcefully in Piggie Park, the plaintiff is the chosen instrument of Congress to vindicate “a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.” 390 U. S., at 402. Second, when a district court awards counsel fees to a prevailing plaintiff, it is awarding them against a violator of federal law. As the Court of Appeals clearly perceived, “these policy considerations which support the award of fees to a prevailing plaintiff are not present in the case of a prevailing defendant.” 550 F. 2d, at 951. A successful defendant seeking counsel fees under § 706 (k) must rely on quite different equitable considerations.
But if the company’s position is untenable, the Commission’s argument also misses the mark. It seems clear, in short, that in enacting § 706 (k) Congress did not intend to permit the award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant only in a situation where the plaintiff was motivated by bad faith in bringing the action. As pointed out in Piggie Park, if that had been the intent of Congress, no statutory provision would have been necessary, for it has long been established that even under the American -common-law rule attorney’s fees may be awarded against a party who has proceeded in bad faith.
Furthermore, while it was certainly the policy of Congress that Title VII plaintiffs should vindicate “a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority,” Piggie Park, 390 U. S., at 402, it is equally certain that Congress entrusted the ultimate effectuation of that policy to the adversary judicial process, Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355. A fair adversary process presupposes both a vigorous prosecution and a vigorous defense. It cannot be lightly assumed that in enacting § 706 (k), Congress intended to' distort that process by 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.
B
The sparse legislative history of § 706 (k) reveals little more than the barest outlines of a proper accommodation of the competing considerations we have discussed. The only specific reference to § 706 (k) in the legislative debates indicates that the fee provision was included to “make it easier for a plaintiff of limited means to bring a meritorious suit.” During the ¿Senate floor discussions of the almost identical attorney’s fee provision of Title II, however, several Senators explained that its allowance of awards to defendants would serve “to deter the bringing of lawsuits without foundation,” “to discourage frivolous suits,” and “to diminish the likelihood of unjustified suits being brought.” If anything can be gleaned from these fragments of legislative history, it is that while Congress wanted to clear the way for suits to be brought under the Act, it also wanted to protect defendants from burdensome litigation having no legal or factual basis. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seems to have drawn the maximum significance from the Senate debates when it concluded:
“[From these debates] two purposes for § 706 (k) emerge. First, Congress desired to 'make it easier for a plaintiff of limited means to bring a meritorious suit’.... But second, and equally important, Congress intended to 'deter the bringing of lawsuits without foundation’ by providing that the 'prevailing party’ — be it plaintiff or defendant — could obtain legal fees.” Grubbs v. Butz, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 18, 20, 648 F. 2d 973, 975.
The first federal appellate court to consider what criteria should govern the award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing Title VII defendant was the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 519 F. 2d 359. There a District Court had denied a fee award to a defendant that had successfully resisted a Commission demand for documents, the court finding that the Commission’s action had not been “ 'unfounded, meritless, frivolous or vexatiously brought.’ ” Id., at 363. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court had not abused its discretion in denying the award. Id., at 365. A similar standard was adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Carrion v. Yeshiva University, 535 F. 2d 722. In upholding an attorney’s fee award to a successful defendant, that court stated that such awards should be permitted “not routinely, not simply because he succeeds, but only where the action brought is found to be unreasonable, frivolous, meritless or vexatious.” Id., at 727.
To the extent that abstract words can deal with concrete cases, we think that the concept embodied in the language adopted by these two Courts of Appeals is correct. We would qualify their words only by pointing out that the term “merit-less” is to be understood as meaning groundless or without foundation, rather than simply that the plaintiff has ultimately lost his case, and that the term “vexatious” in no way implies that the plaintiff’s subjective bad faith is a necessary prerequisite to a fee award against him. In sum, a district court may in its discretion award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.
In applying these criteria, it is important that a district court resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. This kind of hindsight logic could discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success. No matter how honest one’s belief that he has been the victim of discrimination, no matter how meritorious one’s claim may appear at the outset, the course of litigation is rarely predictable. Decisive facts may not emerge until discovery or trial. The law may change or clarify in the midst of litigation. Even when the law or the facts appear questionable or unfavorable at the outset, a party may have an entirely reasonable ground for bringing suit.
That § 706 (k) allows fee awards only to prevailing private plaintiffs should assure that this statutory provision will not in itself operate as an incentive to the bringing of claims that have little chance of success. To take the further step of assessing attorney’s fees against plaintiffs simply because they do not finally prevail would substantially add to the risks inhering in most litigation and would undercut the efforts of Congress to promote the vigorous enforcement of the provisions of Title VII. Hence, a plaintiff should not be assessed his opponent’s attorney’s fees unless a court finds that his claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. And, needless to say, if a plaintiff is found to have brought or continued such a claim in had faith, there will be an even stronger basis for charging him with the. attorney’s fees incurred by the defense.
IV
In denying attorney’s fees to the company in this case, the District Court focused on the standards we have discussed. The court found that “the Commission’s action in bringing the suit cannot be characterized as unreasonable or meritless” because “the basis upon which petitioner prevailed was an issue of first impression requiring judicial resolution” and because the “Commission’s statutory interpretation of § 14 of the 1972 amendments was not frivolous.” The court thus exercised its discretion squarely within the permissible bounds of § 706 (k). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 706 (k) provides in full: “In any action or proceeding under this title the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.” 78 Stat. 261, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (k).
Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103.
The Commission argued that charges as to which no private suit had been brought as of the effective date of the amendments remained "pending” before the Commission so long as the complaint had not been dismissed and the dispute had not been resolved through conciliation. The Commission supported its construction of § 14 with references to the legislative history of the 1972 amendments.
The District Court concluded that when Rosa Helm was notified in 1970 that conciliation had failed and that she had a right to sue the company, the Commission had no further action legally open to it, and its authority over the case terminated on that date. Section 14’s reference to “pending” cases was held “to be limited to charges still in the process of negotiation and conciliation” on the effective date of the 1972 amendments. 376 F. Supp., at 1074.
The District Court rejected on the merits two additional grounds advanced by the company in support of its motion for summary judgment.
The opinion of the District Court dealing with the motion for attorney’s fees is reported at 12 FEP Cases 533.
See, e. g., Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. §15; Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1069, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 216 (b); Packers and Stockyards Act, 42 Stat. 165, 7 U. S. C. § 210 (f); Truth in Lending Act, 82 Stat. 157, 15 U. S. C. § 1640 (a); and Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 49 Stat. 2015, 46 U. S. C. § 1227.
See, e. g., Privacy Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1897, 5 U. S. C. § 552a (g) (2) (B) (1976 ed.); Fair Housing Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 88, 42 U. S. C. §3612 (c).
See, e. g., Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 1171, 15 U. S. C. § 77ooo (e); Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 889, 897, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78i (e), 78r (a); Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 86 Stat. 889, 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (d) (1970 ed., Supp. V); Clean Air Act, 84 Stat. 1706, 42 U. S. C. § 1857h-2 (d); Noise Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 1244, 42 U. S. C. § 4911 (d) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
“In any action commenced pursuant to this subchapter, 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, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-3 (b).
The propriety under the American common-law rule of awarding attorney’s fees against- a losing party who has acted in bad faith was expressly reaffirmed in Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 258-259.
Chastang v. Flynn & Emrich Co., 541 F. 2d 1040, 1045 (CA4) (finding “special circumstances” justifying no award to prevailing plaintiff); Carrion v. Yeshiva Univ., 535 F. 2d 722, 727 (CA2); Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F. 2d 714, 716 (CA5); Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 433 F. 2d 421, 429-430 (CA8).
Briefs by amici have also been filed in support of each party.
This was the view taken by Judge Widener, dissenting in the Court of Appeals, 550 F. 2d 949, 952 (CA4). At least two other federal courts have expressed the same view. EEOC v. Bailey Co., 563 F. 2d 439, 456 (CA6); United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, 558 F. 2d 742, 744 (CA5).
See n. 9, supra. Had Congress provided for attorney’s fee awards only to successful plaintiffs, an argument could have been made that the congressional action had pre-empted the common-law rule, and that, therefore, a successful defendant could not recover attorney’s fees even against a plaintiff who had proceeded in bad faith. Cf. Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Warren Concrete Products Co. of New Jersey, 374 F. 2d 649, 651 (CA3). But there is no indication whatever that the purpose of Congress in enacting § 706 (k) in the form’that it did was simply to foreclose such' an argument.
Remarks of Senator Humphrey,, 110 Cong. Rec. 12724 (1964).
Remarks of Senator Lausche, id.., at 13668.
Remarks of Senator Pastore, id., at 14214.
Remarks of Senator Humphrey, id., at 6534.
At least three other Circuits are in general agreement. See Bolton v. Murray Envelope Corp., 553 F. 2d 881, 884 n. 2 (CA5); Grubbs v. Butz, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 18, 20-21, 548 F. 2d 973, 975-976; Wright v. Stone Container Corp., 524 F. 2d 1058, 1063-1064 (CA8).
See remarks of Senator Miller, 110 Cong. Rec. 14214 (1964), with reference to the parallel attorney’s fee provision in Title II.
Initially, the Commission argued that the “costs” assessable against the Government under § 706 (k) did not include attorney’s fees. See, e. g., United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 519 F. 2d 359, 362 (CA3); Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 503 F. 2d 1131, 1132-1133 (CA9). But the Courts of Appeals rejected this position and, during the course of appealing this case, the Commission abandoned its contention that it was legally immune to adverse fee awards under § 706 (k). 550 F. 2d, at 951.
It has been urged that fee awards against the Commission should rest on a standard different from that governing fee awards against private plaintiffs. One amicus stresses that the Commission, unlike private litigants, needs no inducement to enforce Title VII since it is required by statute to do so. But this distinction between the Commission and private plaintiffs merely explains why Congress drafted § 706 (k) to preclude the recovery of attorney’s fees by the Commission; it does not support a difference in treatment among private and Government plaintiffs when a prevailing defendant seeks to recover his attorney’s fees. Several courts and commentators have also deemed significant the Government’s greater ability to pay adverse fee awards compared to a private litigant. See, e. g., United States Steel Corp. v. United States, supra, at 364 n. 24; Heinsz, Attorney’s Fees for Prevailing Title VII Defendants: Toward a Workable Standard, 8 U. Toledo L. Rev. 259, 290 (1977); Comment, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964: Standards for Award of Attorney’s Fees to Prevailing Defendants, 1976 Wis. L. Rev. 207, 228. We are informed, however, that such awards must be paid from the Commission’s litigation budget, so that every attorney’s fee assessment against the Commission will inevitably divert resources from the agency’s enforcement of Title VII. See 46 Comp. Gen. 98, 100 (1966); 38 Comp. Gen. 343, 344-345 (1958). The other side of this coin is the fact that many defendants in Title VII claims are small- and moderate-size employers for whom the expense of defending even a frivolous claim may become a strong disincentive to the exercise of their legal rights. In short, there are equitable considerations on both sides of this question. Yet § 706 (k) explicitly provides that “the Commission and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.” Hence, although a district court may consider distinctions between the Commission and private plaintiffs in determining the reasonableness of the Commission’s litigation efforts, we find no grounds for applying a different general standard whenever the Commission is the losing plaintiff.
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.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Internal Revenue Code provides that taxpayers seeking a refund of taxes unlawfully assessed must comply with tax refund procedures set forth in the Code. Under those procedures, a taxpayer must file an administrative claim with the Internal Revenue Service before filing suit against the Government. Such a claim must be filed within three years of the filing of a return or two years of payment of the tax, whichever is later. The Tucker Act, in contrast, is more forgiving, allowing claims to be brought against the United States within six years of the challenged conduct. The question in this case is whether a taxpayer suing for a refund of taxes collected in violation of the Export Clause of the Constitution may proceed under the Tucker Act, when his suit does not meet the time limits for refund actions in the Internal Revenue Code. The answer is no.
I
A taxpayer seeking a refund of taxes erroneously or unlawfully assessed or collected may bring an action against the Government either in United States district court or in the United States Court of Federal Claims. 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(1); EC Term of Years Trust v. United States, 550 U. S. 429, 431, and n. 2 (2007). The Internal Revenue Code specifies that before doing so, the taxpayer must comply with the tax refund scheme established in the Code. United States v. Dalm, 494 U. S. 596, 609-610 (1990). That scheme provides that a claim for a refund must be filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) before suit can be brought, and establishes strict timeframes for filing such a claim.
In particular, 26 U. S. C. § 7422(a) specifies:
“No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the [IRS].”
The Code further establishes a time limit for filing such a refund claim with the IRS: To receive a “refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return,” a refund claim must be filed no later than “3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later.” § 6511(a). And § 6511(b)(1) mandates that “[n]o credit or refund shall be allowed or made” if a claim is not filed within the time limits set forth in § 6511(a). “Read together, the import of these sections is clear: unless a claim for refund of a tax has been filed within the time limits imposed by § 6511(a), a suit for refund . . . may'not be maintained in any court.” Dalm, supra, at 602.
In 1978, Congress levied a tax “on coal from mines located in the United States sold by the producer,” 26 U. S. C. § 4121(a)(1), and specifically applied this tax to coal exports, see § 4221(a) (1994 ed.) (excepting from the general ban on taxing exports those taxes imposed under, inter alia, § 4121). In 1998, a group of companies challenged the tax in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, contending that it violated the Export Clause of the Constitution. That Clause provides that “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” Art. I, §9, cl. 5. The District Court agreed and held the tax unconstitutional. Ranger Fuel Corp. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 466, 469 (1998). The Government did not appeal, and the IRS acquiesced in the District Court’s holding. See IRS Notice 2000-28, 2000-1 Cum. Bull. 1116, 1116-1117 (IRS Notice).
The respondents here, three coal companies, had all paid taxes on coal exports under § 4121(a) “[s]ince as early as 1978.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a. After § 4121(a) was held unconstitutional as applied to coal exports, the companies filed timely administrative claims in accordance with the refund scheme outlined above, seeking a refund of coal taxes they had paid in 1997, 1998, and 1999. The IRS refunded those taxes, with interest.
The companies also filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a refund of $1,065,936 in taxes paid between 1994 and 1996. They did not file any claim for those taxes with the IRS; any such claim would of course have been denied, given the limits set forth in §6511. See IRS Notice, at 1117 (“Claims [for a refund of taxes paid under §4121] must be filed within the period prescribed by § 6511”). Notwithstanding the failure of the companies to file timely administrative refund claims, the Court of Federal Claims allowed the companies to pursue their suit directly under the Export Clause. Jurisdiction rested on the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1), and the companies limited their claim to taxes paid within that statute’s 6-year limitations period, §2501 (2000 ed. and Supp. V).
In allowing the companies to proceed outside the confines of the Internal Revenue Code refund procedures, the court relied on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Cyprus Amax Coal Co. v. United States, 205 F. 3d 1369 (2000). Andalex Resources, Inc. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 563, 564 (2002). The Court of Federal Claims did not, however, allow the companies to recover interest on the taxes paid under 28 U. S. C. §2411. That provision requires the Government to pay interest “for any overpayment in respect of any internal-revenue tax,” but the court held that the statute applied only to refund claims brought under the Code, not to claims brought directly under the Export Clause. 54 Fed. Cl., at 566.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It first refused to revisit its holding in Cyprus Amax, and therefore upheld the ruling that the companies could pursue their claim under the Export Clause, despite having failed to file timely administrative refund claims. 478 F. 3d 1373, 1374-1375 (CA Fed. 2007). The Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Federal Claims interest holding, however, finding that the Government was required to pay the companies interest on the 1994-1996 amounts under §2411. Id., at 1376.
We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. 1061 (2007), and now reverse.
II
A
The outcome here is clear given the language of the pertinent statutory provisions. Title 26 U. S. C. § 7422(a) states that “[n]o suit... shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund . . . has been duly filed with” the IRS. (Emphasis added.) Here the companies did not file a refund claim with the IRS for the 1994-1996 taxes, and therefore may bring “[n]o suit” in “any court” to recover “any internal revenue tax” or “any sum” alleged to have been wrongfully collected “in any manner.” Five “any’s” in one sentence and it begins to seem that Congress meant the statute to have expansive reach.
Moreover, the time limits for filing administrative refund claims in § 6511 — set forth in an “unusually emphatic form,” United States v. Brockamp, 519 U. S. 347, 350 (1997) — apply to “any tax imposed by this title,” 26 U. S. C. § 6511(a) (emphasis added). The statute further provides that “[n]o credit or refund shall be allowed or made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed in subsection (a) . . . unless a claim for credit or refund is filed by the taxpayer within such period.” § 6511(b)(1). Again, this language on its face plainly covers the companies’ claim for a “refund” of “tax[es] imposed by” Title 26, specifically 26 U. S. C. §4121. The companies argue that these statutory provisions are ambiguous, Brief for Respondents 43-45, but we cannot imagine what language could more clearly state that taxpayers seeking refunds of unlawfully assessed taxes must comply with the Code’s refund scheme before bringing suit, including the requirement to file a timely administrative claim.
Indeed, we all but decided the question presented over six decades ago in United States v. A. S. Kreider Co., 313 U. S. 443 (1941). Section 1113(a) of the Revenue Act of 1926, like the refund claim provision in § 7422(a) of the current Code, prescribed that “[n]o suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,” and established a time limit for bringing suit once the claim-filing requirement had been met. 44 Stat. 116. Like the companies here, A. S. Kreider had failed to file a tax refund action within that limitations period. See 313 U. S., at 446. And, like the companies here, A. S. Kreider argued that it was instead subject only to the longer 6-year statute of limitations under the Tucker Act. Id., at 447.
We rejected the claim, holding that the Tucker Act limitations period “was intended merely to place an outside limit on the period within which all suits might be initiated” under that Act, and that “Congress left it open to provide less liberally for particular actions which, because of special considerations, required different treatment.” Ibid. We held that the limitations period in § 1113(a) was “precisely that type of provision,” finding that Congress created a shorter statute of limitations for tax claims because “suits against the United States for the recovery of taxes impeded effective administration of the revenue laws.” Ibid. If such suits were allowed to be brought subject only to the 6-year limitations period in the Tucker Act, we explained, § 1113(a) would have “no meaning whatever.” Id., at 448. So too here. The refund scheme in the current Code would have “no meaning whatever” if taxpayers failing to comply with it were nonetheless allowed to bring suit subject only to the Tucker Act’s longer time bar.
B
The companies gamely argue for a different result here because the coal tax at issue was assessed in violation of the Export Clause of the Constitution. They spend much of their brief arguing that the Export Clause itself creates a cause of action against the Government, which can be brought directly under the Tucker Act. See Brief for Respondents 8-25. We need not decide this question here, because it does not matter. If the companies’ claims are subject to the Code provisions, those claims are barred whatever the source of the cause of action. We therefore turn to the companies’ assertion that their claims are somehow exempt from the broad sweep of the Code provisions.
The companies do not argue for such an exemption simply because their claims are based on a constitutional violation. As they acknowledge, id., at 34, a “constitutional claim can become time-barred just as any other claim can,” Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 292 (1983). Further, Congress has the authority to require administrative exhaustion before allowing a suit against the Government, even for a constitutional violation. See, e. g., Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1018 (1984); Christian v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 414 U. S. 614, 622 (1974); Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U. S. 752, 766-767 (1947).
These principles are fully applicable to claims of unconstitutional taxation, a point highlighted by what we have said in other cases about the Anti-Injunction Act. That statute commands that (absent certain exceptions) “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court.” 26 U. S. C. § 7421(a). The “decisions of this Court make it unmistakably clear that the constitutional nature of a taxpayer’s claim ... is of no consequence” to whether the prohibition against tax injunctions applies. Alexander v. “Americans United” Inc., 416 U. S. 752, 759 (1974). This is so even though the Anti-Injunction Act’s prohibitions impose upon the wronged taxpayer requirements at least as onerous as those mandated by the refund scheme — the taxpayer must succumb to an unconstitutional tax, and seek recourse only after it has been unlawfully exacted. We see no reason why compliance with straightforward administrative requirements and reasonable time limits to seek a refund once a tax has been paid should lead to a different result.
The companies assert that Export Clause claims in particular must be treated differently from constitutional claims in general. This is so, they argue, because the Clause is not simply a limitation on the taxing authority but a prohibition that “carves one particular economic activity completely out of Congress’s power.” Brief for Respondents 11. That distinction is without substance and totally manipulate: If the pertinent authority is regarded as the power to tax exports, the Clause is indeed a complete prohibition on congressional power. But if the pertinent authority is instead viewed as the “Power To lay and collect Taxes,” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, then the Clause is properly regarded as a limitation on that power. We do not question the importance of the Export Clause to the success of the enterprise in Philadelphia in 1787, see Brief for Respondents 11-13, but we see no basis for treating taxes collected in violation of its terms differently from taxes challenged on other grounds.
Indeed, the companies more or less give up the game when they acknowledge that their claims are subject to the Tucker Act’s statute of limitations. See id., at 34. The question is thus not whether the companies’ refund claim under the Export Clause can be limited, but rather which limitation applies. The companies are therefore left to argue that, despite the explicit and expansive statutory language described above, the refund scheme in Title 26 does not apply to their case as a matter of statutory interpretation. We find this ambitious argument unavailing.
The companies seek to support it by characterizing the refund scheme set out in the Code as “pro-government and revenue-protective,” and therefore “constitutionally dubious” as applied to Export Clause cases. Id., at 28-29. Given this potential constitutional infirmity, the companies argue, Congress could not have intended the refund scheme to apply to taxes assessed in violation of the Export Clause. See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 341 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). We disagree. To begin with, any argument that Congress did not mean to require those in the companies’ position to comply with the tax refund scheme runs into a powerful impediment, for “[t]he ‘strong presumption’ that the plain language of the statute expresses congressional intent is rebutted only in ‘rare and exceptional circumstances.’” Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129,135 (1991) (quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U. S. 424,430 (1981)). As we have already explained, the language of the relevant statutes emphatically covers the facts of this case.
In any event, we see no constitutional problem at all. Congress has indeed established a detailed refund scheme that subjects complaining taxpayers to various requirements before they can bring suit. This scheme is designed “to advise the appropriate officials of the demands or claims intended to be asserted, so as to insure an orderly administration of the revenue,” United States v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 283 U. S. 269, 272 (1931), to provide that refund claims are made promptly, and to allow the IRS to avoid unnecessary litigation by correcting conceded errors. Even when the constitutionality of a tax is challenged, taxing authorities do in fact have an “exceedingly strong interest in financial stability,” McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business Regulation, 496 U. S. 18, 37 (1990), an interest they may pursue through provisions of the sort at issue here.
We do not see why invocation of the Export Clause would deprive Congress of the power to protect this “exceedingly strong interest.” Congress may not impose a tax in violation of the Export Clause (or any other constitutional provision, for that matter). But it is certainly within Congress’s authority to ensure that allegations of taxes unlawfully assessed — whether the asserted illegality is based upon the Export Clause or any other provision of law — are processed in an orderly and timely manner, and that costly litigation is avoided when possible. The companies’ claim that the Code procedures are themselves excessively burdensome is belied by the companies’ own invocation of those procedures for taxes paid within the Code’s limitations period, which resulted in full refunds with interest.
C
As a fallback argument, the companies maintain that even if the refund scheme applies to Export Clause cases generally, it does not “apply to taxes that are, on their face, unconstitutional.” Brief for Respondents 39. They rely for this proposition on Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U. S. 1 (1962), a case dealing with the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U. S. C. § 7421(a). Despite that Act’s broad and mandatory language, we explained that “if it is clear that under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail,... the attempted collection may be enjoined if equity jurisdiction otherwise exists. In such a situation the exaction is merely in ‘the guise of a tax.’ ” 370 U. S., at 7 (quoting Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co. of Fla., 284 U. S. 498, 509 (1932)). See also Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U. S. 725, 745-746 (1974) (reaffirming the “under no circumstances” rule of Williams Packing).
On the force of Williams Packing, the companies argue that the refund scheme should similarly be read as inapplicable to situations in which there are “no circumstances” under which the tax imposed could be held valid under the Export Clause. The trouble with this is that §7422, the primary statute governing the refund process, is written much more broadly than § 7421(a), the statute at issue in Williams Packing. Section 7422(a) states that “[n]o suit... shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected ... until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the” IRS. (Emphasis added.) This language generally tracks that of the Anti-Injunction Act, which also applies to suits “restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” § 7421(a) (emphasis added). But § 7422(a) goes on to apply its prohibition against suit absent a proper refund claim to “any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected.” (Emphasis added.) Even if we agreed that a facially unconstitutional tax for purposes of the tax refund scheme is “merely in The guise of a tax,’ ” Williams Packing, supra, at 7 (quoting Standard Nut Margarine, supra, at 509), and therefore not a “tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected,” § 7422(a), it would nevertheless clearly fall into the broader category of “any sum ... in any manner wrongfully collected,” ibid.
Moreover, even if we were to accept the companies’ argument that the “under no circumstances” limitation on the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the refund scheme, they still would not prevail. We made clear in Williams Packing that “the question of whether the Government has a chance of ultimately prevailing is to be determined on the basis of the information available to it at the time of suit. Only if it is then apparent that, under the most liberal view of the law and the facts, the United States cannot establish its claim, may the suit for an injunction be maintained.” 370 U. S., at 7. A tax injunction suit, of course, is brought at the time the Government attempts to assess a tax on the taxpayer. Thus, if we applied the Williams Packing “under no circumstances” rule to the refund scheme, we would judge the Government’s chances of success as of the time the tax was assessed.
In this case, the companies seek refunds for taxes paid between 1994 and 1996. At that time, the scope of the Export Clause was sufficiently debatable that we granted certiorari in 1995, see United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 516 U. S. 1021, and again in 1997, see United States v. United States Shoe Corp., 522 U. S. 944, to clear it up. What is more, the District Court that struck down the application of § 4121(a) to coal exports partially relied on these cases in arriving at its decision, Ranger Fuel Corp., 33 F. Supp. 2d, at 469, and the IRS cited, inter alia, International Business Machines, supra, in its acquiescence notice, see IRS Notice, at 1116. Indeed, we would think that if the unconstitutionality of the coal export tax were so obvious that the Government had no chance of prevailing, someone paying the tax — such as these companies — would have successfully challenged it earlier than 20 years after its enactment.
We therefore hold that the plain language of 26 U. S. C. §§ 7422(a) and 6511 requires a taxpayer seeking a refund for a tax assessed in violation of the Export Clause, just as for any other unlawfully assessed tax, to file a timely administrative refund claim before bringing suit against the Government. Because we find that the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the companies to bring suit seeking a refund for the 1994-1996 taxes, we do not reach the question whether the
Court of Appeals also erred in awarding the companies interest on those amounts under 28 U. S. C. §2411. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
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: | 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.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows plaintiffs to seek damages from the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. Many of the FTCA's procedural provisions are contained in a single chapter of the United States Code, Chapter 171. See §§ 2671 -2680. But an "Exceptions" section of the FTCA dictates that "the provisions of [Chapter 171] ... shall not apply" to certain categories of claims. At issue in this case is whether one of the "provisions of [Chapter 171]"-the so-called judgment bar provision, § 2676 -might nonetheless apply to one of the excepted claims. We conclude it does not.
I
A
This case began with two suits filed by Walter Himmelreich. In each, Himmelreich alleged that he had been severely beaten by a fellow inmate in federal prison and that the beating was the result of prison officials' negligence. At the time of the beating, Himmelreich was incarcerated for producing child pornography. His assailant had warned prison officials that he would " 'smash' " a pedophile if given the opportunity but was nonetheless released into the general prison population, where he assaulted Himmelreich. App. 46.
Himmelreich filed a first suit against the United States. The Government treated this first suit as a claim under the FTCA and moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the claim fell into one of the "Exceptions" to the FTCA for "[a]ny claim based upon ... the exercise or performance ... [of] a discretionary function," namely, deciding where to house inmates. § 2680(a). The District Court granted the Government's motion to dismiss. (Neither party here challenges the outcome of that first suit.)
But before the District Court dismissed that first suit, Himmelreich filed a second suit, this one a constitutional tort suit against individual Bureau of Prison employees rather than against the United States. Ordinarily, the FTCA would have nothing to say about such claims. But after the dismissal of Himmelreich's first suit, the individual employee defendants argued that Himmelreich's second suit was foreclosed by the FTCA's judgment bar provision, according to which a judgment in an FTCA suit forecloses any future suit against individual employees. See § 2676. As relevant here, the District Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the individual prison employees.
Himmelreich appealed that ruling. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the judgment bar provision did not apply to Himmelreich's suit. Himmelreich v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al., 766 F.3d 576 (2014)(per curiam) .
We granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit split on whether the judgment bar provision applies to suits that, like Himmelreich's, are dismissed as falling within an "Exceptio[n]" to the FTCA. 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 445, 193 L.Ed.2d 346 (2015).
B
The FTCA's provisions are contained in two areas of the United States Code. One, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), gives federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States for the acts of its employees "[s]ubject to the provisions of chapter 171" of Title 28. Chapter 171, in turn, is labeled "Tort Claims Procedure" and comprises the remaining provisions of the FTCA. §§ 2671 -2680.
Chapter 171 contains an array of provisions. Some provisions govern how FTCA claims are to be adjudicated. See, e.g., § 2674 (specifying scope of United States' liability); § 2675(a) (exhaustion requirement); § 2678 (restricting attorney's fees). Other provisions limit plaintiffs' remedies outside the FTCA. See, e.g., § 2679(a) (cannot sue agency for claims within scope of FTCA); § 2679(d)(1) (suit against federal employee acting within scope of employment automatically converted to FTCA action).
The District Court in this case relied on one such remedies-limiting provision of Chapter 171, the judgment bar provision. See § 2676. Under the judgment bar provision, once a plaintiff receives a judgment (favorable or not) in an FTCA suit, he generally cannot proceed with a suit against an individual employee based on the same underlying facts. The District Court below held that Himmelreich had received a judgment in the first suit (the FTCA suit against the United States) and so could not proceed with the second suit (the individual employee suit based on the same underlying facts).
The FTCA explicitly excepts from its coverage certain categories of claims, including the one into which Himmelreich's first suit fell:
"Exceptions
"The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to-
"(a) Any claim based upon ... the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty ... whether or not the discretion involved be abused...." § 2680.
"The provisions of this chapter" referenced in the first line are the provisions of Chapter 171. "[S]ection 1346(b) of this title" is the provision giving district courts FTCA jurisdiction. And the "Exceptions" to which those portions of the FTCA "shall not apply" are 13 categories of claims, such as any claim that-like Himmelreich's first suit-arises from the performance of a "discretionary function," § 2680(a) ; "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," § 2680(k) ; and "[a]ny claim arising from the activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority," § 2680(l ).
Both parties agree that district courts do not have jurisdiction over claims that fall into one of the 13 categories of "Exceptions" because "section 1346(b) of this title"-the provision conferring jurisdiction on district courts-does "not apply" to such claims. Both parties also agree that at least one of "[t]he provisions of [Chapter 171]"-the provision delimiting the United States' liability, § 2674 -need "not apply" to claims in the "Exceptions" categories because no court will have jurisdiction to hold the United States liable on such claims in any event.
The parties disagree, however, about whether the judgment bar provision of Chapter 171 "shall not apply" to claims in one of the "Exceptions" categories. The Government maintains that the judgment bar provision does apply to such claims. In that case, it applied to Himmelreich's first suit and would preclude any future actions, including his second suit. Himmelreich urges that it does not apply. On that reading, there is no reason he cannot proceed with his second suit.
II
Himmelreich is correct. The "Exceptions" section of the FTCA reads: "[T]he provisions of this chapter"-Chapter 171-"shall not apply to ... [a]ny claim based upon ... the exercise or performance ... [of] a discretionary function or duty." § 2680(a). The judgment bar is a provision of Chapter 171; the plain text of the "Exceptions" section therefore dictates that it does "not apply" to cases that, like Himmelreich's first suit, are based on the performance of a discretionary function. Because the judgment bar provision does not apply to Himmelreich's first suit, Himmelreich's second suit-the one against individual prison employees-should be permitted to go forward.
Absent persuasive indications to the contrary, we presume Congress says what it means and means what it says. Nothing about the "Exceptions" section or the judgment bar provision gives us any reason to doubt the plain-text result in this case.
III
A
Given the clarity of the "Exceptions" section's command, a reader might be forgiven for wondering how there could be any confusion about the statute's operation. The main source of uncertainty on this score, the Government submits, is United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 111 S.Ct. 1180, 113 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991). In Smith, we considered another provision of Chapter 171, the exclusive remedies provision. Id ., at 162, 111 S.Ct. 1180. Under the exclusive remedies provision, a plaintiff generally cannot sue an employee where the FTCA would allow him to sue the United States instead. See § 2679(b)(1).
The Smith Court held that this exclusive remedies provision applied to a claim for injuries sustained at an Army hospital in Italy, even though that claim fell within the category of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," one of the "Exceptions" to which "the provisions of [Chapter 171] ... shall not apply." § 2680(k). The Government argues that our literal reading of the "Exceptions" provision would foreclose Smith 's outcome because the Smith Court applied a provision of Chapter 171 (the exclusive remedies provision) to a claim falling within one of the "Exceptions" categories (a claim arising in a foreign country). Smith, the Government argues, thus establishes that we cannot read the command of the "Exceptions" section literally and that the judgment bar provision therefore should apply to Himmelreich's discretionary function claim.
The Government's position has some force. Nonetheless, Smith does not control this case. First, Smith does not even cite, let alone discuss, the "shall not apply" language "Exceptions" provision. Second, the exclusive remedies provision at issue in Smith was enacted as part of the Federal Employee Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, which contained a mechanism to reduce the number of tort suits against Government employees. As the Smith Court explained, if "the Attorney General ... certif[ies] that a Government employee named as defendant was acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the alleged tort," the Liability Reform Act dictates that the United States be substituted as the sole defendant, and that the action " 'shall proceed in the same manner' " as an FTCA action " 'and shall be subject to the limitations and exceptions applicable to those actions.' " 499 U.S., at 166, 111 S.Ct. 1180 (quoting § 2679(d)(4)); (emphasis in Smith ). The Smith Court held that the Liability Reform Act's reference to "limitations and exceptions" was most naturally read to refer to the "Exceptions" section of the FTCA. And by taking note of the "Exceptions" section, the Smith court reasoned, the Liability Reform Act was intended to apply to those "Exceptions."
In light of the unique language of the Liability Reform Act, Smith is distinguishable from this case. Nothing in the text of the judgment bar provision compels the same result.
B
The Government's remaining counterargument amounts to a parade of horribles that it believes will come to pass if every provision of Chapter 171 "shall not apply" to the "Exceptions" categories of claims. See Brief for Petitioners 52. If the Government is right about the other provisions of Chapter 171, the Court may hold so in the appropriate case. See Smith, 499 U.S., at 175, 111 S.Ct. 1180. But this case deals only with the judgment bar provision, and, aside from a passing concern about duplicative litigation, the Government does not argue that any such cavalcade would follow if that provision does not apply to the excepted claims. It is enough for our purposes that the statute's clear directive would not lead to hard-to-explain results when applied to the judgment bar provision in particular.
To the contrary, our holding that the judgment bar provision "shall not apply" to the categories of claims in the "Exceptions" section in fact allows the statute to operate in an utterly sensible manner. Ordinarily, the judgment bar provision prevents unnecessarily duplicative litigation. If the District Court in this case had issued a judgment dismissing Himmelreich's first suit because the prison employees were not negligent, because Himmelreich was not harmed, or because Himmelreich simply failed to prove his claim, it would make little sense to give Himmelreich a second bite at the money-damages apple by allowing suit against the employees: Himmelreich's first suit would have given him a fair chance to recover damages for his beating.
Where an FTCA claim is dismissed because it falls within one of the "Exceptions," by contrast, the judgment bar provision makes much less sense. The dismissal of a claim in the "Exceptions" section signals merely that the United States cannot be held liable for a particular claim; it has no logical bearing on whether an employee can be held liable instead. To apply the judgment bar so as to foreclose a future suit against an employee thus would be passing strange.
The Government's reading would yield another strange result. According to the Government, the viability of a plaintiff's meritorious suit against an individual employee should turn on the order in which the suits are filed (or the order in which the district court chooses to address motions). For example, had the District Court in this case addressed the individual employee suit first, there would be no FTCA judgment in the picture, and so the judgment bar provision would not affect the outcome of the suit. The Government's reading would thus encourage litigants to file suit against individual employees before suing the United States to avoid being foreclosed from recovery altogether. Yet this result is at odds with one of the FTCA's purposes, channeling liability away from individual employees and toward the United States. See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 25, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953).
We decline to ignore the text of the statute to achieve these imprudently restrictive results. Accordingly, we read "[t]he provisions of this chapter ... shall not apply" as it was written. The judgment bar provision-one of the "provisions of this chapter"-does not apply to the categories of claims in the "Exceptions" sections of the FTCA. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See Hallock v. Bonner, 387 F.3d 147 (C.A.2 2004), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006) ; Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038 (C.A.9 2008) ; Williams v. Fleming, 597 F.3d 820, 823-824 (C.A.7 2010).
The precise claims at issue are "claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).
It reads in full: "The judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim." § 2676.
There is an exception to this provision for suits alleging constitutional violations. See § 2679(b)(2)(A). Himmelreich's second suit-the one against individual prison employees-alleged a violation of the Constitution and so was not foreclosed by the exclusive remedies provision.
This conclusion is buttressed by analogy to the common-law doctrine of claim preclusion, which prevents duplicative litigation by barring one party from again suing the other over the same underlying facts. This Court has said that the judgment bar provision "functions in much the same way" as that doctrine. Will, 546 U.S., at 354, 126 S.Ct. 952. (The judgment bar provision supplements common-law claim preclusion by closing a narrow gap: At the time that the FTCA was passed, common-law claim preclusion would have barred a plaintiff from suing the United States after having sued an employee but not vice versa. See Restatement of Judgments §§ 99, 96(1)(a), Comments b and d (1942). The judgment bar provision applies where a plaintiff first sues the United States and then sues an employee.)
But claim preclusion principles would not foreclose a second suit where the first suit was dismissed under the "Exceptions" section. Dismissals for "personal immunity"-defenses that can be asserted by one party but not others-do not have claim-preclusive effect. See Restatement of Judgments § 96, Comment g ; Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 51(1)(b), and Comment c (1980). The "Exceptions" section reflects the United States' decision not to accept liability for certain types of claims; like other "personal immunities," the "Exceptions" section is only a defense for-and can only be "taken advantage of" by-the United States. See Restatement of Judgments § 96, Comment g . A dismissal under the "Exceptions" section would not be entitled to claim-preclusive effect; just so, the roughly analogous judgment bar should not foreclose a second suit against individual employees.
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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases present the question whether national banks may serve as agents in the sale of annuities. The Comptroller of the Currency, charged by Congress with superintendence of national banks, determined that federal law permits such annuity sales as a service to bank customers. Specifically, the Comptroller considered the sales at issue “incidental” to “the business of banking” under the National Bank Act, Rev. Stat. § 5136, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 24 Seventh (1988 ed. and Supp. V). The Comptroller further concluded that annuities are not “insurance” within the meaning of §92; that provision, by expressly authorizing banks in towns of no more than 5,000 people to sell insurance, arguably implies that banks in larger towns may not sell insurance. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas upheld the Comptroller’s conclusions as a permissible reading of the National Bank Act, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. We are satisfied that the Comptroller’s construction of the Act is reasonable and therefore warrants judicial deference. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Petitioner NationsBank of North Carolina, N. A., a national bank based in Charlotte, and its brokerage subsidiary sought permission from the Comptroller of the Currency, pursuant to 12 CFR § 5.34 (1994), for the brokerage subsidiary to act as an agent in the sale of annuities. Annuities are contracts under which the purchaser makes one or more premium payments to the issuer in exchange for a series of payments, which continue either for a fixed period or for the life of the purchaser or a designated beneficiary. When a purchaser invests in a “variable” annuity, the purchaser’s money is invested in a designated way and payments to the purchaser vary with investment performance. In a classic “fixed” annuity, in contrast, payments do not vary. Under the contracts NationsBank proposed to sell, purchasers could direct their payments to a variable, fixed, or hybrid account, and would be allowed periodically to modify their choice. The issuers would be various insurance companies. See Letter from J. Michael Shepherd, Senior Deputy Comptroller, to Robert M. Kurucza (Mar. 21, 1990), App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 93-1612, pp. 35a-36a (Comptroller’s Letter).
The Comptroller granted NationsBank’s application. He concluded that national banks have authority to broker annuities within “the business of banking” under 12 U. S. C. § 24 Seventh. He further concluded that § 92, addressing insurance sales by banks in towns with no more than 5,000 people, did not impede his approval; for purposes of that provision, the Comptroller explained, annuities do not rank as “insurance.” See Comptroller’s Letter 41a-47a.
Respondent Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. (VALIC), which sells annuities, challenged the Comptroller’s decision. VALIC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A), and 28 U. S. C. §§2201,2202 (1988 ed. and Supp. V). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller and NationsBank. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Clarke, 786 F. Supp. 639 (1991). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Clarke, 998 F. 2d 1295 (1993). Relying on its decision in Saxon v. Georgia Assn. of Independent Ins. Agents, Inc., 399 F. 2d 1010 (1968), the Fifth Circuit first held that § 92 bars banks not located in small towns from selling insurance, and then rejected the Comptroller’s view that annuities are not insurance for purposes of § 92. See 998 F. 2d, at 1298-1302.
Four judges dissented from the failure of the court to grant rehearing en banc. The dissenters maintained that the panel had not accorded due deference to the Comptroller’s reasonable statutory interpretations. Variable Annu ity Life Ins. Co. v. Clark[e], 13 F. 3d 833, 837-838 (CA5 1994). We granted certiorari. 511 U. S. 1141 (1994).
II
A
Authorizing national banks to “carry on the business of banking,” the National Bank Act provides that such banks shall have power—
“To exercise ... all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by receiving deposits; by buying and selling exchange, coin, and bullion; by loaning money on personal security; and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes .... The business of dealing in securities and stock by the [bank] shall be limited to purchasing and selling such securities and stock without recourse, solely upon the order, and for the account of, customers, and in no case for its own account, and the [bank] shall not underwrite any issue of securities or stock . . . .” 12 U. S. C. §24 Seventh (1988 ed. and Supp. V).
As the administrator charged with supervision of the National Bank Act, see §§ 1, 26-27, 481, the Comptroller bears primary responsibility for surveillance of “the business of banking” authorized by §24 Seventh. We have reiterated:
“Tt is settled that courts should give great weight to any reasonable construction of a regulatory statute adopted by the agency charged with the enforcement of that statute. The Comptroller of the Currency is charged with the enforcement of banking laws to an extent that warrants the invocation of this principle with respect to his deliberative conclusions as to the meaning of these laws.’” Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388, 403-404 (1987) (quoting Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617, 626-627 (1971)).
Under the formulation now familiar, when we confront an expert administrator’s statutory exposition, we inquire first whether “the intent of Congress is clear” as to “the precise question at issue.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842 (1984). If so, “that is the end of the matter.” Ibid. But “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id., at 843. If the administrator’s reading fills a gap or defines a term in a way that is reasonable in light of the legislature’s revealed design, we give the administrator’s judgment “controlling weight.” Id., at 844.
In authorizing NationsBank to broker annuities, the Comptroller invokes the power of banks to “broker a wide variety of financial investment instruments,” Comptroller’s Letter 38a, which the Comptroller considers “part of [banks’] traditional role as financial intermediaries,” ibid., and therefore an “incidental powe[r] . . . necessary to carry on the business of banking.” 12 U. S. C. §24 Seventh; see also Interpretive Letter No. 494 (Dec. 20,1989) (discussing features of financial investment instruments brokerage that bring this activity within the “business of banking”) (cited in Comptroller’s Letter 38a). The Comptroller construes the § 24 Seventh authorization of “incidental powers . . . necessary to carry on the business of banking” as an independent grant of authority; he reads the specific powers set forth thereafter as exemplary, not exclusive.
VALIC argues that the Comptroller’s interpretation is contrary to the clear intent of Congress because the banking power on which the Comptroller relies — “brokering] financial investment instruments” — is not specified in §24 Seventh. Brief for Respondent 35-45. According to VALIC, the five specific activities listed in §24 Seventh after the words “business of banking” are exclusive — banks are confined to these five activities and to endeavors incidental thereto. Id., at 35-36. VALIC thus attributes no independent significance to the words “business of banking.” We think the Comptroller better comprehends the Act’s terms.
The second sentence of §24 Seventh, in limiting banks’ “dealing in securities,” presupposes that banks have authority not circumscribed by the five specifically listed activities. Congress’ insertion of the limitation decades after the Act’s initial adoption makes sense only if banks already had authority to deal in securities, authority presumably encompassed within the “business of banking” language which dates from 1863. VALIC argues, however, that the limitation was imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, and that the power Glass-Steagall presupposed was specifically granted in the McFadden Act of 1927. Brief for Respondent 46. While the statute’s current wording derives from the Glass-Steagall Act, see Act of June 16, 1933, ch. 89, § 16, 48 Stat. 184, the earlier McFadden Act does not bolster VALIC’s case, for that Act, too, limited an activity already part of the business national banks did. See Act of Feb. 25, 1927, § 2(b), 44 Stat. 1226 (“Provided, That the business of buying and selling investment securities shall hereinafter be limited to buying and selling without recourse . . . .”); see also Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S., at 407-408 (even before the McFadden Act, banks conducted securities transactions on a widespread basis); 2 F. Redlich, The Molding of American Banking: Men and Ideas, pt. 2, pp. 389-393 (1951) (describing securities activities of prominent early national banks).
B
As we have just explained, the Comptroller determined, in accord with the legislature’s intent, that “the business of banking” described in §24 Seventh covers brokerage of financial investment instruments, and is not confined to the examples specifically enumerated. He then reasonably concluded that the authority to sell annuities qualifies as part of, or incidental to, the business of banking. National banks, the Comptroller observed, are authorized to serve as agents for their customers in the purchase and sale of various financial investment instruments, Comptroller’s Letter 38a, and annuities are widely recognized as just such investment products. See D. Shapiro & T. Streiff, Annuities 7 (1992) (in contrast to life insurance, “[annuities . . . are primarily investment products”); 1 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 84, p. 295 (1981) (“Annuity contracts must ... be recognized as investments rather than as insurance.”).
By making an initial payment in exchange for a future income stream, the customer is deferring consumption, setting aside money for retirement, future expenses, or a rainy day. For her, an annuity is like putting money in a bank account, a debt instrument, or a mutual fund. Offering bank accounts and acting as agent in the sale of debt instruments and mutual funds are familiar parts of the business of banking. See, e. g., Securities Industry Assn. v. Board of Governors, FRS, 468 U. S. 207, 215 (1984) (“Banks long have arranged the purchase and sale of securities as an accommodation to their customers.”); First Nat. Bank of Hartford v. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548, 559-560 (1927) (banks have authority to sell mortgages and other debt instruments they have originated or acquired by discount).
In sum, modern annuities, though more sophisticated than the standard savings bank deposits of old, answer essentially the same need. By providing customers with the opportunity to invest in one or more annuity options, banks are essentially offering financial investment instruments of the kind congressional authorization permits them to broker. Hence, the Comptroller reasonably typed the permission NationsBank sought as an “incidental powe[r] . . . necessary to carry on the business of banking.”
Ill
A
In the alternative, VALIC argues that 12 U. S. C. § 92 (1988 ed., Supp. V) bars NationsBank from selling annuities as agent. That section provides:
“In addition to the powers now vested by law in [national banks] any such [bank] located and doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants . . . may ... act as the agent for any fire, life, or other insurance company authorized by the authorities of the State in which said bank is located to do business in said State, by soliciting and selling insurance and collecting premiums on policies issued by such company ....”
The parties disagree about whether § 92, by negative implication, precludes national banks located in places more populous than 5,000 from selling insurance. We do not reach this question because we accept the Comptroller’s view that, for the purpose at hand, annuities are properly classified as investments, not “insurance.”
Again, VALIC contends that the Comptroller’s determination is contrary to the plain intent of Congress, or else is unreasonable. In support of its position that annuities are insurance, VALIC notes first that annuities traditionally have been sold by insurance companies. But the sale of a product by an insurance company does not inevitably render the product insurance. For example, insurance companies have long offered loans on the security of life insurance, see 3 Appleman & Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice §1731, p. 562 (1967), but a loan does not thereby become insurance.
VALIC further asserts that most States have regulated annuities as insurance and that Congress intended to define insurance under § 92 by reference to state law. Treatment of annuities under state law, however, is contextual. States generally classify annuities as insurance when defining the powers of insurance companies and state insurance regulators. See, e. g., 998 F. 2d, at 1300, n. 2 (citing statutes). But in diverse settings, States have resisted lump classification of annuities as insurance. See, e. g., In re New York State Assn. of Life Underwriters, Inc. v. New York State Banking Dept., 83 N. Y. 2d 353, 363, 632 N. E. 2d 876, 881 (1994) (rejecting “assertion that annuities are insurance which [state-chartered] banks are not authorized to sell,” even though state insurance law “includes ‘annuities’ in its description of ‘kinds of insurance authorized’ ”); In re Estate of Rhodes, 197 Misc. 232, 237, 94 N. Y. S. 2d 406, 411 (Surr. Ct. 1949) (annuity contracts do not qualify for New York estate tax exemption applicable to insurance); Commonwealth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 254 Pa. 510, 513-516, 98 A. 1072, 1073 (1916) (annuities are not insurance for purposes of tax that insurance companies pay on insurance premiums received within the State); State ex rel. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. of United States v. Ham, 54 Wyo. 148, 159, 88 P. 2d 484, 488 (1939) (same).
As our decisions underscore, a characterizátion fitting in certain contexts may be unsuitable in others. See, e. g., Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 433 (1932) (“meaning [of words] well may vary to meet the purposes of the law”; courts properly give words “the meaning which the legislature intended [they] should have in each instance”); cf. Cook, “Substance” and “Procedure” in the Conflict of Laws, 42 Yale L. J. 333, 337 (1933) (“The tendency to assume that a word which appears in two or more legal rules, and so in connection with more than one purpose, has and should have precisely the same scope in all of them, runs all through legal discussions. It has all the tenacity of original sin and must constantly be guarded against.”). Moreover, the federal banking law does not plainly require automatic reference to state law here. The Comptroller has concluded that the federal regime is best served by classifying annuities according to their functional characteristics. Congress has not ruled out that course, see Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842; courts, therefore, have no cause to dictate to the Comptroller the state-law constraint VALIC espouses.
VALIC further argues that annuities functionally resemble life insurance because some annuities place mortality risk on the parties. Under a classic fixed annuity, the purchaser pays a sum certain and, in exchange, the issuer makes periodic payments throughout, but not beyond, the life of the purchaser. In pricing such annuities, issuers rely on actuarial assumptions about how long purchasers will live.
While cognizant of this similarity between annuities and insurance, the Comptroller points out that mortality risk is a less salient characteristic of contemporary products. Many annuities currently available, both fixed and variable, do not feature a life term. Instead they provide for payments over a term of years; if the purchaser dies before the term ends, the balance is paid to the purchaser’s estate. Moreover, the presence of mortality risk does not necessarily qualify an investment as “insurance” under § 92. For example, VALIC recognizes that a life interest in real property is not insurance, although it imposes a mortality risk on the purchaser. Tr. of Oral Arg. 42. Some conventional debt instruments similarly impose mortality risk. See Note, Reverse Annuity Mortgages and the Due-on-Sale Clause, 32 Stan. L. Rev. 143, 145-151 (1979).
B
VALIC also charges the Comptroller with inconsistency. As evidence, VALIC refers to a 1978 letter from a member of the Comptroller’s staff describing annuity investments as insurance arrangements. Brief for Respondent 16-17; see Letter from Charles F. Byrd, Assistant Director, Legal Advisory Services Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (June 16, 1978), App. to Brief in Opposition la-2a (Byrd Letter). We note, initially, that the proposal disfavored in the 1978 letter did not clearly involve a bank selling annuities as an agent, rather than as a principal. See Byrd Letter la (“[T]he bank would purchase a group annuity policy from an insurer and then sell annuity contracts as investments in trust accounts.”). Furthermore, unlike the Comptroller’s letter to NationsBank here, the 1978 letter does not purport to represent the Comptroller’s position. Compare Byrd Letter la (“It is my opinion . . . ”) with Comptroller’s Letter 35a (“The OCC’s legal position on this issue was announced in a [prior 1990 letter]. Since I find neither policy nor supervisory reasons to object to this proposal, the Subsidiary may proceed.”). Finally, any change in the Comptroller’s position might reduce, but would not eliminate, the deference we owe his reasoned determinations. See Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402, 417 (1993) (quoting NLRB v. Iron Workers, 434 U. S. 335, 351 (1978)).
The Comptroller’s classification of annuities, based on the tax deferral and investment features that distinguish them from insurance, in short, is at least reasonable. See Comptroller’s Letter 44a. A key feature of insurance is that it indemnifies loss. See Black’s Law Dictionary 802 (6th ed. 1990) (first definition of insurance is “contract whereby, for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specified subject by specified perils”). As the Comptroller observes, annuities serve an important investment purpose and are functionally similar to other investments that banks typically sell. See supra, at 259-260. And though fixed annuities more closely resemble insurance than do variable annuities, fixed annuities too have significant investment features and are functionally similar to debt instruments. Moreover, mindful that fixed annuities are often packaged with variable annuities, the Comptroller reasonably chose to classify the two together.
* * *
We respect as reasonable the Comptroller’s conclusion that brokerage of annuities is an “incidental powe[r]... necessary to carry on the business of banking.” We further defer to the Comptroller’s reasonable determination that 12 U. S. C. §92 is not implicated because annuities are not insurance within the meaning of that section. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is
Reversed.
The dissenters also observed that 6 of the court’s 13 active judges were disqualified from participating in the case. 13 F. 3d, at 834.
We expressly hold that the “business of banking” is not limited to the enumerated powers in §24 Seventh and that the Comptroller therefore has discretion to authorize activities beyond those specifically enumerated. The exercise of the Comptroller’s discretion, however, must be kept within reasonable bounds. Ventures distant from dealing in financial investment instruments — for example, operating a general travel agency — may exceed those bounds.
The Comptroller referred to Interpretive Letter No. 494 (Dec. 20,1989) (approving brokerage of agricultural, oil, and metals futures).
Assuring that the brokerage in question would not deviate from traditional bank practices, the Comptroller specified that NationsBank “will act only as agent,... will not have a principal stake in annuity contracts and therefore will incur no interest rate or actuarial risks.” Comptroller’s Letter 48a.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
After a conviction for robbery, petitioner sued out a writ of habeas corpus in a Superior Court of North Carolina claiming that the sentence he is serving involved a denial of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The writ was dismissed and the dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. 228 N. C. 259, 45 S. E. 2d 563. If petitioner’s allegations, with supporting affidavits, in the habeas corpus proceedings controlled the issue before us, they would establish circumstances that make the right to assistance of counsel an ingredient of the Due Process Clause. While the Supreme Court of North Carolina recognized the right of an accused to the benefit of counsel under appropriate circumstances, it held that in the proceedings on the habeas corpus the trial court had before it not merely the petitioner’s allegations but "the oral testimony of the sheriff, which was not sent up.” In short, there was before the North Carolina Supreme Court only a partial record of the proceedings in the Superior Court. In reviewing a judgment of a state court, we are bound by the record on which that judgment was based. Since the North Carolina Supreme Court went on the ground that it did not have the full record before it, we are constrained to dismiss this writ because the judgment below can rest on a non-federal ground. Petitioner’s rights under the Federal Constitution must be pursued according to the procedural requirements of North Carolina or, in default of relief by available North Carolina proceedings, by a new claim of denial of due process for want of such relief. Foster v. Illinois, 332 U. S. 134, 139.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Adolphus Henry Collins was killed in an accident near Ehrenburg, Arizona, on September 30, 1953. The accident resulted from the blowout of a tire on an American Buslines’ vehicle which Collins was driving on a regular run from Phoenix to Los Angeles. Collins had been employed as a bus driver for American since 1944. He had done his driving on various routes in the Southwest, and from 1952 until the time of his death he was regularly employed on the Los Angeles to Phoenix and return route. He and his wife and minor child — the petitioners in this proceeding — made their home in Los Angeles, California, in which State Collins was covered by workmen’s compensation.
Petitioners applied on October 14, 1953, to the Industrial Commission of Arizona for compensation in accordance with the terms of the Arizona Workmen’s Compensation Act. In an award dated November 30, 1953, that agency made, inter alia, the following findings:
“That the defendant employer maintained workmen’s compensation coverage in the State of California and that payroll premium on the said Adolphus Henry Collins was reported to the State of California. That no reporting of such was made at any time to the Industrial Commission of Arizona.
“That the said Adolphus Henry Collins, at the time of his death, was not regularly employed in the State of Arizona as said term has been defined by the Supreme Court of Arizona in the case of Industrial Commission vs. Watson Brothers Transportation Company, [75 Ariz. 357, 256 P. 2d 730].”
“That the Industrial Commission of Arizona does not have jurisdiction in the premises, and that said . . . claim on file herein should be denied for lack of jurisdiction.”
On certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona, the construction of the Arizona statute on which the Commission based its award was rejected, but its disposition of petitioners’ claim was affirmed. After concluding that American Buslines “operated exclusively in interstate commerce,” the court held that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution precluded recovery under the Arizona Workmen’s Compensation Act because Collins was covered by the California statute, and to require his interstate employer to insure also in Arizona would place an undue burden on interstate commerce. 79 Ariz. 220, 286 P. 2d 214. We granted certiorari because of the important federal question thus presented. 350 U. S. 931.
The only respondent here is the Arizona Industrial Commission. It is not at all clear from the record before us what the interest of the state agency is in this litigation. If the employer were actively before the Court, it could claim, we assume, that an award in the circumstances of the present case burdens the interstate commerce in that the consequences of such an award would be' to require it in the future to obtain insurance sufficiently comprehensive to cover potential awards in the various States through which it passes. The apparent interest of the Commission is different, namely, that as a result of an award in this case, interstate carriers will seek insurance from a single private insurance carrier capable of giving coverage in all States through which they run. The desire by interstate carriers for such insurance will cause a defection from the state compensation fund, and it is this potential defection which leads to the Commission’s claim that the Arizona Act cannot be applicable in an interstate situation. But this asserted burden upon interstate commerce — the disadvantageous effect upon the state compensation fund — is too intangible and elusive to be deemed a constitutionally disallowable burden.
We have been advised, however, that American Bus-lines has been a non-participating defendant throughout this litigation; that it is in receivership in Nebraska; that an order has been issued by the Nebraska court barring claims against it except in that court; and that petitioners’ claim is against the state compensation fund, administered by the Industrial Commission, which will in a separate proceeding be put to such recourse as it may have against American Buslines. This is not controverted. The Commission, therefore, appears to have an immediate interest of the same character and extent that American Buslines would have were it here. Thus, the Commission can invoke the employer’s claim under the Commerce Clause. But that claim — of an increased insurance burden imposed as a practical matter upon an interstate carrier — while perhaps less tenuous than the defection argument directly pertinent to the Commission’s case, is hardly more substantial. Whatever dollars-and-cents burden an eventual judgment for claimants in the position of petitioners may cast either upon a carrier or the State’s fund is insufficient, compared with the interest of the State in affording remedies for injuries committed within its boundaries, see Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U. S. 408, to dislodge state power. The State’s power is not dislodged so long as the Federal Government has not taken over the field of remedies for injuries of employees on interstate buses as it has done in the case of employees of interstate railroad carriers. New York Central R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147.
The court below and the Commission here rely on Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761. It is too slender a reed. Two less similar situations, in which shelter from an exercise of state power is sought under the Commerce Clause, would be difficult to find than that presented by the circumstances of this case, compared with the circumstances of the Southern Pacific case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Section 56-928 of the Arizona Code Annotated, 1939 (Cum. Supp. 1952), provides:
“Employers subject to the provisions of this article are: . . . 3. every person who has in his employ three [3] or more workmen or operatives regularly employed .... For the purposes of this section ‘regularly employed’ includes all employments, whether continuous throughout the year, or for only a portion of the year, in the usual trade, business, profession, or occupation of an employer.”
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents issues, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution’s Art. IY, § 2, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the constitutional validity of disparities, as between residents and nonresidents, in a State’s hunting license system.
I
Appellant Lester Baldwin is a Montana resident. He also is an outfitter holding a state license as a hunting guide. The majority of his customers are nonresidents who come to Montana to hunt elk and other big game. Appellants Carlson, Huseby, Lee, and Moris are residents of Minnesota. They have hunted big game, particularly elk, in Montana in past years and wish to continue to do so.
In 1975, the five appellants, disturbed by the difference in the kinds of Montana elk-hunting licenses available to nonresidents, as contrasted with those available to residents of the State, and by the difference in the fees the nonresident and the resident must pay for their respective licenses, instituted the present federal suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and for reimbursement, in part, of fees already paid. App. 18-29. The defendants were the Fish and Game Commission of the State of Montana, the Commission’s director, and its five commissioners. The complaint- challenged the Montana elk-hunting licensing scheme specifically, and asserted that, as applied to nonresidents, it violated the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IY, § 2, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge District Court was convened and, by a divided vote, entered judgment denying all relief to the plaintiff-appellants. Montana Outfitters Action Group v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 417 F. Supp. 1005 (Mont. 1976). We noted probable jurisdiction. 429 U. S. 1089 (1977).
II
The relevant facts are not in any real controversy and many of them are agreed:
A. For the 1975 hunting season, a Montana resident could purchase a license solely for elk for $4. The nonresident, however, in order to hunt elk, was required to purchase a combination license at a cost of $151; this entitled him to take one elk and two deer.
For the 1976 season, the Montana resident could purchase a license solely for elk for $9. The nonresident, in order to hunt elk, was required to purchase a combination license at a cost of $225; this entitled him to take one elk, one deer, one black bear, and game birds, and to fish with hook and line. A resident was not required to buy any combination of licenses, but if he did, the cost to him of all the privileges granted by the nonresident combination license was $30. The nonresident thus paid 71/2 times as much as the resident, and if the nonresident wished to hunt only elk, he paid 25 times as much as the resident.
B. Montana, with an area of more than 147,000 square miles, is our fourth largest State. Only Alaska, Texas, and California, in that order, are larger. But its population is relatively small; in 1972 it was approximately 716,000. Its 1974 per capita income was 34th among the 50 States. App. 56-57.
Montana maintains significant populations of big game, including elk, deer, and antelope. Tr. 191. Its elk population is one of the largest in the United States. Elk are prized by big-game hunters who come from near and far to pursue the animals for sport. The quest for big game has grown in popularity. During the 10-year period from 1960 to 1970 licenses issued by Montana increased by approximately 67% for residents and by approximately 530% for nonresidents. App. 56-57.
Owing to its successful management programs for elk, the State has not been compelled to limit the overall number of hunters by means of drawings or lotteries as have other States with harvestable elk populations. Tr. 243. Elk are not hunted commercially in Montana. Nonresident hunters seek the animal for its trophy value; the trophy is the distinctive set of antlers. The interest of resident hunters more often may be in the meat. Id., at 245. Elk are now found in the mountainous regions of western Montana and are generally not encountered in the eastern two-thirds of the State where the plains prevail. Id,., at 9-10, 249: During the summer the animals move to higher elevations and lands that are largely federally owned. In the late fall they move down to lower privately owned lands that provide the winter habitat necessary to their survival. During the critical midwinter period elk are often supported by ranchers. Id., at 46-47, 191, 285-286.
Elk management is expensive. In regions of the State with significant elk population, more personnel time of the Fish and Game Commission is spent on elk than on any other species of big game. Defendant’s Exhibit A, p. 9.
Montana has more than 400 outfitters who equip and guide hunting parties. Tr. 295. These outfitters are regulated and licensed by the State and provide services to hunters and fishermen. It is estimated that as many as half the nonresidents who hunt elk in western Montana utilize outfitters. Id., at 248. Three outfitter-witnesses testified that virtually all their clients were nonresidents. Id., at 141, 281, 307.
'The State has a force of 70 game wardens. Each warden district covers approximately 2,100 square miles. Id., at 234. To assist wardens in law enforcement, Montana has an “equal responsibility” statute. Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 26-906 (Supp. 1977). This law makes outfitters and guides equally responsible for unreported game-law violations committed by persons in their hunting parties. The outfitter thus, in a sense, is a surrogate warden and serves to bolster the State’s warden force.
Ill
In the District Court the majority observed that the elk once was a plains animal but now roams the mountains of central and western Montana. About 75% of the elk taken are killed on federal land. The animal’s preservation depends upon conservation. 417 F. Supp., at 1007. The majority noted that the appellants conceded that Montana constitutionally may charge nonresidents more for hunting privileges than residents. Id., at 1007-1008. It concluded, however, that on the evidence presented the 7%-to-l ratio in favor of the resident cannot be justified on any basis of cost allocation. Id., at 1008.
After satisfying itself as to standing and as to the existence of a justiciable controversy, and after passing comment upon the somewhat controversial subject of wild animal legal ownership, the court concluded that the State “has the power to manage and conserve the elk, and to that end to make such laws and regulations as are necessary to protect and preserve it.” Id., at 1009. In reaching this result, the majority examined the nature of the rights asserted by the plaintiffs. It observed that there were just too many people and too few elk to enable everyone to hunt the animals. “If the elk is to survive as a species, the game herds must be managed, and a vital part of the management is the limitation of the annual kill.” Ibid. Various means of limitation were mentioned, as was the fact that any one control device might deprive a particular hunter of any possibility of hunting elk. The right asserted by the appellants was “no more than a chance to engage temporarily in a recreational activity in a sister state” and was “not fundamental.” Ibid. Thus, it was not protected as a privilege and an immunity under the Constitution’s Art. IV, § 2. The majority contrasted the nature of the asserted right with educational needs at the primary and college levels, citing San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 (1973), and Sturgis v. Washington, 368 F. Supp. 38 (WD Wash.), summarily aff’d, 414 U. S. 1057 (1973), and said: "There is simply no nexus between the right to hunt for sport and the right to speak, the right to vote, the right to travel, the right to pursue a calling.” 417 F. Supp., at 1009. It followed that it was necessary only to determine whether the system bears some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes. Then:
“We conclude that where the opportunity to enjoy a recreational activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where by its very nature the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a state may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit.” Id., at 1010.
The dissenting judge took issue with the “ownership theory,” and with any “special public interest” theory, and emphasized the absence of any cost-allocation basis for the license fee differential. He described the majority’s posture as one upholding discrimination because political support was thereby generated, and took the position that invidious discrimination was not to be justified by popular disapproval of equal treatment. Id., at 1012.
IV
Privileges and immunities. Appellants strongly urge here that the Montana licensing scheme for the hunting of elk violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IY, § 2, of our Constitution. That Clause is not one the contours of which have been precisely shaped by the process and wear of constant litigation and judicial interpretation over the years since 1789. If there is any significance in the fact, the Clause appears in the so-called States’ Relations Article, the same Article that embraces the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Extradition Clause (also in § 2), the provisions for the admission of new States, the Territory and Property Clause, and the Guarantee Clause. Historically, it has been overshadowed by the appearance in 1868 of similar language in § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and by the continuing controversy and consequent litigation that attended that Amendment’s enactment and its meaning and application.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause originally was not isolated from the Commerce Clause, now in the Constitution’s Art. I, § 8. In the Articles of Confederation, where both Clauses have their source, the two concepts were together in the fourth Article. See Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U. S. 656, 660-661 (1975); Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 562, 627 (1860) (opinion of Wright, J.). Their separation may have been an assurance against an anticipated narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. See Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 430-432 (1871).
Perhaps because of the imposition of the Fourteenth Amendment upon our constitutional consciousness and the extraordinary emphasis that the Amendment received, it is not surprising that the contours of Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, are not well developed, and that the relationship, if any, between the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the “privileges or immunities” language of the Fourteenth Amendment is less than clear. We are, nevertheless, not without some pronouncements by this Court as to the Clause’s significance and reach. There are at least three general comments that deserve mention:
The first is that of Mr. Justice Field, writing for a unanimous Court in Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869). He emphasized nationalism, the proscription of discrimination, and the assurance of equality of all citizens within any State:
“It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws. It has been justly said that no provision in the Constitution has tended so strongly to constitute the citizens of the United States one people as this.”
The second came 70 years later when Mr. Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Mr. Justice Black in Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 511 (1939), summed up the history of the Clause and pointed out what he felt to be the difference in analysis in the earlier cases from the analysis in later ones:
“As has been said, prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there had been no constitutional definition of citizenship of the United States, or of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured thereby or springing therefrom....
“At one time it was thought that this section recognized a group of rights which, according to the jurisprudence of the day, were classed as 'natural rights’; and that the purpose of the section was to create rights of citizens of the United States by guaranteeing the citizens of every State the recognition of this group of rights by every other State. Such was the view of Justice Washington.
“While this description of the civil rights of the citizens of the States has been quoted with approval, it has come to be the settled view that Article IV, § 2, does not import that a citizen of one State carries with him into another fundamental privileges and immunities which come to him necessarily by the mere fact of his citizenship in the State first mentioned, but, on the contrary, that in any State every citizen of any other State is to have the same privileges and immunities which the citizens of that State enjoy. The section, in effect, prevents a State from discriminating against citizens of other States in favor of its own.” (Footnotes omitted.)
The third and most recent general pronouncement is that authored by Mr. Justice Marshall for a nearly unanimous Court in Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U. S. 656, 660-661 (1975), stressing the Clause's “norm of comity” and the Framers’ concerns:
“The Clause thus establishes a norm of comity without specifying the particular subjects as to which citizens of one State coming within the jurisdiction of another are guaranteed equality of treatment. The origins of the Clause do reveal, however, the concerns of central import to the Framers. During the preconstitutional period, the practice of some States denying to outlanders the treatment that its citizens demanded for themselves was widespread. The fourth of the Articles of Confederation was intended to arrest this centrifugal tendency with some particularity....
“The discriminations at which this Clause was aimed were by no means eradicated during the short fife of the Confederation, and the provision was carried over into the comity article of the Constitution in briefer form but with no change of substance or intent, unless-it was to strengthen the force of the Clause in fashioning a single nation.” (Footnotes omitted.)
When the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been applied to specific cases, it has been interpreted to prevent a State from imposing unreasonable burdens on citizens of other States in their pursuit of common callings within the State, Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 (1871); in the ownership and disposition of privately held property within the State, Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239 (1898); and in access to the courts of the State, Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U. S. 553 (1920).
It has not been suggested, however, that state citizenship or residency may never be used by a State to distinguish among persons. Suffrage, for example, always has been understood to be tied to an individual’s identification with a particular State. See, e. g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972). No one would suggest that the Privileges and Immunities Clause requires a State to open its polls to a person who declines to assert that the State is the only one where he claims a right to vote. The same is true as to qualification for an elective office of the State. Kanapaux v. Ellisor, 419 U. S. 891 (1974); Chimento v. Stark, 353 F. Supp. 1211 (NH), summarily aff’d, 414 U. S. 802 (1973). Nor must a State always apply all its laws or all its services equally to anyone, resident or nonresident, who may request it so to do. Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, supra; cf. Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969). Some distinctions between residents and nonresidents merely reflect the fact that this is a Nation composed of individual States, and are permitted; other distinctions are prohibited because they hinder the formation, the purpose, or the development of a single Union of those States. Only with respect to those “privileges” and “immunities” bearing upon the vitality of The Nation as a single entity must the State treat all citizens, resident and nonresident, equally. Here we must decide into which category falls a distinction with respect to access to recreational big-game hunting.
Many of the early cases embrace the concept that the States had complete ownership over wildlife within their boundaries, and, as well, the power to preserve this bounty for their citizens alone. It was enough to say “that in regulating the use of the common property of the citizens of [a] state, the legislature is [not] bound to extend to the citizens of all the other states the same advantages as are secured to their own citizens.” Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3,230) (CC ED Pa. 1825). It appears to have been generally accepted that although the States were obligated to treat all those within their territory equally in most respects, they were not obliged to share those things they held in trust for their own people. In Corfield, a case the Court has described as “the first, and long the leading, explication of the [Privileges and Immunities] Clause,” see Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U. S., at 661, Mr. Justice Washington, sitting as Circuit Justice, although recognizing that the States may not interfere with the “right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to- reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal,” 6 F. Cas., at 552, nonetheless concluded that access to oyster beds determined to be owned by New Jersey could be limited to New Jersey residents. This holding, and the conception of state sovereignty upon which it relied, formed the basis for similar decisions during later years of the 19th century. E. g., McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391 (1877); Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 (1896). See Rosenfeld v. Jakways, 67 Mont. 558, 216 P. 776 (1923). In Geer, a case dealing with Connecticut’s authority to limit the disposition of game birds taken within its boundaries, the Court roundly rejected the contention “that a State cannot allow its own people the enjoyment of the benefits of the property belonging to them in common, without at the same time permitting the citizens of other States to participate in that which they do not own.” 161 U. S., at 530.
In more recent years, however, the Court has recognized that the States’ interest in regulating and controlling those things they claim to “own,” including wildlife, is by no means absolute. States may not compel the confinement of the benefits of their resources, even their wildlife, to their own people whenever such hoarding and confinement impedes interstate commerce. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1 (1928); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 (1911). Nor does a State’s control over its resources preclude the proper exercise of federal power. Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U. S. 265 (1977); Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529 (1976); Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416 (1920). And a State’s interest in its wildlife and other resources must yield when, without reason, it interferes with a nonresident’s right to pursue a livelihood in a State other than his own, a right that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385 (1948). See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410 (1948).
Appellants contend that the doctrine on which Corfield, McCready, and Geer all relied has no remaining vitality. We do not agree. Only last Term, in referring to the “ownership” or title language of those cases and characterizing it “as no more than a 19th-century legal fiction,” the Court pointed out that that language nevertheless expressed “ ‘the importance to its people that a State have power to preserve and regulate the exploitation of an important resource.’ ” Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U. S., at 284, citing Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S., at 402. The fact that the State’s control over wildlife is not exclusive and absolute in the face of federal regulation and certain federally protected interests does not compel the conclusion that it is meaningless in their absence.
We need look no further than decisions of this Court to know that this is so. It is true that in Toomer v. Witsell the Court in 1948 struck down a South Carolina statute requiring nonresidents of the State to pay a license fee of $2,500 for each commercial shrimp boat, and residents to pay a fee of only $25, and did so on the ground that the statute violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause., Id., at 395-403. See also Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U. S. 415 (1952), another commercial-livelihood case. Less than three years, however, after the decision in Toomer, so heavily relied upon by appellants here, the Court dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of South Dakota holding that the total exclusion from that State of nonresident hunters of migratory waterfowl was justified by the State’s assertion of a special interest in wildlife that qualified as a substantial reason for the discrimination. State v. Kemp, 73 S. D. 458, 44 N. W. 2d 214 (1950), appeal dismissed, 340 U. S. 923 (1951). In that case South Dakota had proved that there was real danger that the flyways, breeding grounds, and nursery for ducks and geese would be subject to excessive hunting and possible destruction by nonresident hunters lured to the State by an abundance of pheasants. 73 S. D., at 464, 44 N. W. 2d, at 217.
Appellants have demonstrated nothing to convince us that we should completely reject the Court’s earlier decisions. In his opinion in Coryell, Mr. Justice Washington, although he seemingly relied on notions of “natural rights” when he considered the reach of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, included in his list of situations, in which he believed the States would be obligated to treat each other’s residents equally, only those where a nonresident sought to engage in an essential activity or exercise a basic right. He himself used the term “fundamental,” 6 F. Cas., at 551, in the modern as well as the “natural right” sense. Certainly Mr. Justice Field and the Court invoked the same principle in the language quoted above from Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall., at 180. So, too, did the Court by its holdings in Ward v. Maryland, Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, and Blake v. McClung, all supra, when it was concerned with the pursuit of common callings, the ability to transfer property, and access to courts, respectively. And comparable status of the activity involved was apparent in Toomer, the commercial-licensing case. With respect to such basic and essential activities, interference with which would frustrate the purposes of the formation of the Union, the States must treat residents and nonresidents without unnecessary distinctions.
Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: Elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself — wholly apart from license fees — it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident’s livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to- be preserved.
Appellants’ interest in sharing this limited resource on more equal terms with Montana residents simply does not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union. Appellants do not — and cannot — contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident’s participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident’s participation. Whatever rights or activities may be “fundamental” under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them.
V
Equal protection. Appellants urge, too, that distinctions drawn between residents and nonresidents are not permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when used to allocate access to recreational hunting. Appellees argue that the State constitutionally should be able to charge nonresidents, who are not subject to the State’s general taxing power, more than it charges its residents, who are subject to that power and who already have contributed to the programs that make elk hunting possible. Appellees also urge that Montana, as a State, has made sacrifices in its economic development, and therefore in its tax base, in order to preserve the elk and other wildlife within the State and that this, too, must be counted, along with actual tax revenues spent, when computing the fair share to be paid by nonresidents. We need not commit ourselves to any particular method of computing the cost to the State of maintaining an environment in which elk can survive in order to find the State’s efforts rational, and not invidious, and therefore not violative of the Equal Protection Clause.
A repetitious review of the factual setting is revealing: The resident obviously assists in the production and maintenance of big-game populations through taxes. The same taxes provide support for state parks utilized by sportsmen, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1; for roads providing access to the hunting areas, Tr. 156-158, 335; for fire suppression to protect the wildlife habitat, id., at 167; for benefits to the habitat effected by the State’s Environmental Quality Council, id., at 163-165; for the enforcement of state air and water quality standards, id., at 223-224; for assistance by sheriffs’ departments to enforce game laws, Defendants’ Exhibit G, p. 13; and for state highway patrol officers who assist wildlife officers at game checking stations and in enforcement of game laws. Forage support by resident ranchers is critical for winter survival. Tr. 46-47, 286. All this is on a continuing basis.
On the other side of the same ledger is the great, and almost alarming, increase in the number of nonresident hunters — in the decade of the 1960’s, almost eight times the increase in resident hunters; the group character of much nonresident hunting, with its opportunity for license “swapping” when the combination license system is not employed, id., at 237; the intermingling of deer and elk in the wild and the inexperienced hunter’s inability to tell one from the other; the obvious limit in the elk supply; the supposition that the nonresident occasional and short-term visitor is more likely to commit game-law violations; the need to supervise hunting practices in order to prevent violations and illegal overkill; and the difficulties of supervision in the primitive areas where the elk is found during the hunting season.
All this adds up, in our view, to no irrationality in the differences the Montana Legislature has drawn in the costs of its licenses to hunt elk. The legislative choice was an economic means not unreasonably related to the preservation of a finite resource and a substantial regulatory interest of the State. It serves to limit the number of hunter days in the Montana elk country. There is, to be sure, a contrasting cost feature favorable to the resident, and, perhaps, the details and the figures might have been more precisely fixed and more closely related to basic costs to the State. But, as has been noted, appellants concede that a differential in cost between residents and nonresidents is not in itself invidious or unconstitutional. And “a statutory classification impinging upon no fundamental interest... need not be drawn so as to fit with precision the legitimate purposes animating it.... That [Montana] might have furthered its underlying purpose more artfully, more directly, or more completely, does not warrant a conclusion that the method it chose is unconstitutional.” Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U. S. 794, 813 (1976).
Appellants also contend that the requirement that nonresident, but not resident, hunters must purchase combination licenses in order to be able to obtain a single elk is arbitrary. In the District Court the State introduced evidence, largely uncontradicted, that nonresident hunters create greater enforcement problems and that some of these problems are alleviated by this requirement. The District Court’s majority appears to have found this evidence credible and the justification rational, and we are in no position to disagree. Many of the same factors just listed in connection with the license fee differential have equal pertinency for the combination license requirement. We perceive no duty on the State to have its licensing structure parallel or identical for both residents and nonresidents, or to justify to the penny any cost differential it imposes in a purely recreational, noncommercial, nonlivelihood setting. Rationality is sufficient. That standard, we feel, has been met by Montana. So long as constitutional requirements have been met, as we conclude is the case here, “ [protection of the wild life of the State is peculiarly within the police power, and the State has great latitude in determining what means are appropriate for its protection.” Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545, 552 (1924).
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Montana statutorily defines one’s place of residence. Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §83-303 (1966 and Supp. 1977). It imposes a durational requirement of six months for eligibility to receive a resident’s hunting or fishing license. §26-202.3 (2) (Supp. 1975). Appellants, other than Baldwin, make no claim to Montana residence and do not challenge §§ 83-303 and 26-202.3 (2) in any way. Tr. of Oral Arg. 39-40.
We note, in passing, that most States charge nonresidents more than residents for hunting licenses. E. g., Alaska Stat. Ann. § 16.05.340 (1977) ; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-4-102 (Supp. 1976); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, § 2401 (Supp. 1977); Wis. Stat. §§ 29.10, 29.105, 29.109, 29.12 (Supp. 1977); Wyo. Stat. § 23.1-33 (Supp. 1977). Others are listed in the Appendix to the Brief for Appellees.
1973 Mont. Laws, ch. 408, § 1, and 1969 Mont. Laws, ch. 172, § 2.
Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §§26-202.1 (4) and (12), and 26-230 (Supp. 1977). A nonresident, however, could obtain a license restricted to deer for $51. §§ 26-202.1 (9) and 26-230.
We were advised at oral argument that Montana’s method of use of a combination license is unique among the States. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. See Reply Brief for Appellants 29.
Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §§26-202.1 (1), (2), and (4) and 26-230 (Supp. 1977).
There are similar disparities between Montana resident and nonresident hunting licenses for all other game, except wild turkey and as to bow-hunting. The present litigation-, however, focuses only on licenses to hunt elk.
Disparity in rates has not been without criticism. U. S. Public Land Law Review Comm’n, One Third of the Nation's Land 174 (1970); Norman, Are Nonresident Hunters Getting a Fair Deal?, Outdoor Life, Sept. 1949, p. 21; Yeager, The Federal Take-Over, Montana Outdoors, Jan./Feb. 1975, p. 43; Editorial, Field & Stream, June 1974, p. 4.
App. 56. Its estimated population in 1976 has been said to be 753,000. The World Almanac 695 (1978). Of the 50 States, Montana consistently has ranked 42d or lower in population since statehood. App. 56.
It has been said that Montana is the State most frequently visited by nonresident hunters. All Outdoors, Michigan Natural Resources 27-28 (Sept.-Oct. 1975).
For the license year 197-3H975, Montana licensed hunters from each of the other 49 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 11 foreign countries. Defendants’ Exhibit A, p. 8 (part of deposition of Don L. Brown). Approximately 43,500 nonresident hunting licenses for deer and elk were issued during that year. Id., at 7. The District Court found that elk hunting is recreational in nature and, “except for a few residents who live in exactly the right place,” expensive. 417 F.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns overlapping federal and state regulation of a hydroelectric project located near a California stream. California seeks to ensure that the project’s operators maintain water flowing in the stream sufficient, in the State’s judgment, to protect the stream’s fish. The Federal Government claims the exclusive authority to set the minimum stream flows that the federally licensed powerplant must maintain. Each side argues that its position is consistent with the Federal Power Act, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U. S. C. §791a et seq. (1982 ed.), and, in particular, with §27 of that Act. We granted certiorari to resolve these competing claims.
I
The Rock Creek hydroelectric project lies near the confluence of the South Fork American River and one of the river’s tributaries, Rock Creek. Rock Creek runs through federally managed land located within California. The project draws water from Rock Creek to drive its generators and then releases the water near the confluence of the stream and river, slightly less than one mile from where it is drawn. The state and federal requirements at issue govern the “minimum flow rate” of water that must remain in the bypassed section of the stream and that thus remains unavailable to drive the generators.
In 1983, pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA or Act), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a license authorizing the operation of the Rock Creek project. Keating, 23 FERC ¶ 62,137. Section 4(e) of the FPA empowers FERC to issue licenses for projects “necessary or convenient... for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any of the streams . . . over which Congress has jurisdiction.” 16 U. S. C. § 797(e) (1982 ed.). Section 10(a) of the Act also authorizes FERC to issue licenses subject to the conditions that FERC deems best suited for power development and other public uses of the waters. 16 U. S. C. §803(a) (1982 ed.). Congress’ subsequent amendments to those provisions expressly direct that FERC consider a project’s effect on fish and wildlife as well as “power and development purposes.” Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-495, 100 Stat. 1243, 16 U. S. C. §§ 797(e), 803(a)(1). FERC issued the 1983 license and set minimum flow rates after considering the project’s economic feasibility and environmental consequences. In part to protect trout in the stream, the license required that the project maintain interim minimum flow rates of 11 cubic feet per second (cfs) during May through September and 15 cfs during the remainder of the year. 23 FERC ¶ 62,137, at 63,204. The license also required the licensee to submit studies recommending a permanent minimum flow rate, after consulting with federal and state fish and wildlife protection agencies. Ibid. In 1985, the licensee submitted a report recommending that FERC adopt the interim flow rates as permanent rates. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recommended that FERC require significantly higher minimum flow rates.
The licensee had also applied for state water permits, and in 1984 the State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) issued a permit that conformed to FERC’s interim minimum flow requirements but reserved the right to set different permanent minimum flow rates. App. 65-67. When the WRCB in 1987 considered a draft order requiring permanent minimum flow rates of 60 cfs from March through June and 30 cfs during the remainder of the year, the licensee petitioned FERC for a declaration that FERC possessed exclusive jurisdiction to determine the project’s minimum flow requirements. Rock Creek Limited Partnership, 38 FERC ¶ 61,240, p. 61,772 (1987). The licensee, by then respondent Rock Creek Limited Partnership, also claimed that the higher minimum flow rates sought by the WRCB would render the project economically infeasible. Ibid.
In March 1987, FERC issued an order directing the licensee to comply with the minimum flow requirements of the federal permit. In that order, FERC concluded that the task of setting minimum flows rested within its exclusive jurisdiction. Id., at 61,774. The Commission reasoned that setting minimum flow requirements was integral to its planning and licensing process under FPA § 10(a); giving effect to competing state requirements “would interfere with the Commission’s balancing of competing considerations in licensing” and would vest in States a veto power over federal projects inconsistent with the FPA, as interpreted in First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 328 U. S. 152 (1946). 38 FERC, at 61,773. FERC also directed an Administrative Law Judge to hold a hearing to determine the appropriate permanent minimum flow rates for the project. Id., at 61,774. After considering proposals and arguments of the licensee, the CDFG, and FERC staff, the Administrative Law Judge set the minimum flow rate for the project at 20 cfs during the entire year. Rock Creek Limited Partnership, 41 FERC ¶ 63,019 (1987). Four days after FERC’s declaratory order, the WRCB issued an order directing the licensee to comply with the higher minimum flow requirements contained in its draft order. App. 73. The WRCB also intervened to seek a rehearing of FERC’s order. FERC denied the rehearing request, concluded that the State sought to impose conflicting license requirements, and reaffirmed its conclusion that the FPA, as interpreted in First Iowa, provided FERC with exclusive jurisdiction to determine minimum flow rates. Rock Creek Limited Partnership, 41 FERC ¶ 61,198 (1987).
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed FERC’s order denying rehearing. California ex rel. State Water Resources Board v. FERC, 877 F. 2d 743 (1989). That court, too, concluded that First Iowa governed the case; that FPA §27 as construed in First Iowa did not preserve California’s right to regulate minimum flow rates; and that the FPA pre-empted WRCB’s minimum flow rate requirements. Ibid. We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 991 (1989), and we now affirm.
II
In the Federal Power Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 863, Congress clearly intended a broad federal role in the development and licensing of hydroelectric power. That broad delegation of power to the predecessor of FERC, however, hardly determines the extent to which Congress intended to have the Federal Government exercise exclusive powers, or intended to pre-empt concurrent state regulation of matters affecting federally licensed hydroelectric projects. The parties’ dispute regarding the latter issue turns principally on the meaning of § 27 of the FPA, which provides the clearest indication of how Congress intended to allocate the regulatory authority-of the States and the Federal Government. That section provides:
“Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal or other uses, or any vested right acquired therein.” 16 U. S. C. §821 (1982 ed.).
Were this a case of first impression, petitioner’s argument based on the statute’s language could be said to present a close question. As petitioner argues, California’s minimum stream flow requirement might plausibly be thought to “re-latte] to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used . . . for. . . other uses,” namely the generation of power or the protection of fish. This interpretation would accord with the “presumption against finding pre-emption of state law in areas traditionally regulated by the States” and “ ‘with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’” California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U. S. 93, 101 (1989), quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947); see California v. United States, 438 U. S. 645, 653-663 (1978) (tracing States’ traditional powers over exploitation of water). Just as courts may not find state measures pre-empted in the absence of clear evidence that Congress so intended, so must they give full effect to evidence that Congress considered, and sought to preserve, the States’ coordinate regulatory role in our federal scheme.
But the meaning of §27 and the pre-emptive effect of the FPA are not matters of first impression. Forty-four years ago, this Court in First Iowa construed the section and provided the understanding of the FPA that has since guided the allocation of state and federal regulatory authority over hydroelectric projects. The Court interpreted § 27 as follows:
“The effect of § 27, in protecting state laws from supersedure, is limited to laws as to the control, appropriation, use or distribution of water in irrigation or for municipal or other uses of the same nature. It therefore has primary, if not exclusive, reference to such proprietary rights. The phrase ‘any vested right acquired therein’ further emphasizes the application of the section to property rights. There is nothing in the paragraph to suggest a broader scope unless it be the words ‘other uses.’ Those words, however, are confined to rights of the same nature as those relating to the use of water in irrigation or for municipal purposes.” First Iowa, 328 U. S., at 175-176 (emphasis added).
The Court interpreted § 27’s reservation of limited powers to the States as part of the congressional scheme to divide state from federal jurisdiction over hydroelectric projects and, “in those fields where rights are not thus ‘saved’ to the States ... to let the supersedure of the state laws by federal legislation take its natural course.” Id., at 176.
We decline at this late date to revisit and disturb the understanding of §27 set forth in First Iowa. As petitioner prudently concedes, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, First Iowa’s interpretation of § 27 does not encompass the California regulation at issue: California’s minimum stream flow requirements neither reflect nor establish “proprietary rights” or “rights of the same nature as those relating to the use of water in irrigation or for municipal purposes.” First Iowa, supra, at 176; see Fullerton v. State Water Resources Control Board, 90 Cal. App. 3d 590, 153 Cal. Rptr. 518 (1979); accord, California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board, 90 Cal. App. 3d 816, 153 Cal. Rptr. 672 (1979). Instead, petitioner requests that we repudiate First Iowa’s interpretation of § 27 and the FPA. This argument misconceives the deference this Court must accord to longstanding and well-entrenched decisions, especially those interpreting statutes that underlie complex regulatory regimes. Adherence to precedent is, in the usual case, a cardinal and guiding principle of adjudication, and “[considerations of stare decisis have special force in the area of statutory interpretation, for here, unlike in the context of constitutional interpretation, the legislative power is implicated, and Congress remains free to alter what we have done.” Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 172-173 (1989). There has been no sufficient intervening change in the law, or indication that First Iowa has proved unworkable or has fostered confusion and inconsistency in the law, that warrants our departure from established precedent. Cf. id., at 173. This Court has endorsed and applied First Iowa’s limited reading of §27, see FPC v. Oregon, 349 U. S. 435 (1955); cf. FPC v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U. S. 239 (1954), and has employed the decision with approval in a range of decisions, both addressing the FPA and in other contexts. See, e. g., New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U. S. 331, 338, n. 6 (1982); Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U. S. 765, 773 (1984); City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U. S. 320, 334 (1958); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190, 223, n. 34 (1983). By directing FERC to consider the recommendations of state wildlife and other regulatory agencies while providing FERC with final authority to establish license conditions (including those with terms inconsistent with the States’ recommendations), Congress has amended the FPA to elaborate and reaffirm First Iowa’s understanding that the FPA establishes a broad and paramount federal regulatory role. See 16 U. S. C. §§ 803(a)(l)-(3) (FERC to issue license on conditions that protect fish and wildlife, after considering recommendations of state agencies), as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, 16 U. S. C. §§803(j) (1) — (2) (FERC license conditions protecting fish and wildlife to be based on recommendations of federal and state wildlife agencies, with FERC to issue findings if it adopts conditions contrary to recommendations); cf. Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U. S. 409, 424 (1986) (“We are especially reluctant to reject this presumption [of adherence to precedent] in an area that has seen careful, intense, and sustained congressional attention”).
Petitioner asks this Court fundamentally to restructure a highly complex and long-enduring regulatory regime, implicating considerable reliance interests of licensees and other participants in the regulatory process. That departure would be inconsistent with the measured and considered change that marks appropriate adjudication of such statutory issues. See Square D Co., supra, at 424 (for statutory determinations, “‘it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. . . . This is commonly true, even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation,’” quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 406 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)).
Petitioner also argues that we should disregard First Iowa’s discussion of § 27 because it was merely dictum. It is true that our immediate concern in First Iowa was the interpretation of § 9(b) of the FPA, which governs submission to the federal licensing agency of evidence of compliance with state law. The Court determined that § 9(b) did not require licensees to obtain a state permit or to demonstrate compliance with the state law prerequisites to obtaining such a permit. First Iowa, 328 U. S., at 163-164, 167, 177. Instead, the Court construed the section merely as authorizing the federal agency to require evidence of actions consistent with the federal permit. Id., at 167-169, 177-179. First Iowa’s limited reading of § 27 was, however, necessary for, and integral to, that conclusion. Like this case, First Iowa involved a state permit requirement that related to the control of water for particular uses but that did not relate to or establish proprietary rights. Iowa had required as one condition of securing a state permit that diverted water be “returned ... at the nearest practicable place without being materially diminished in quantity or polluted or rendered deleterious to fish life,” Iowa Code §7771 (1939), a provision the Court found to conflict with the federal requirements and to “strik[e] at the heart of the present project.” First Iowa, 328 U. S., at 166-167, 170-171. The Court reasoned that, absent an express congressional command, § 9(b) could not be read to require compliance with, and thus to preserve, state laws that conflicted with and were otherwise pre-empted by the federal requirements. See id., at 166-167 (“If a state permit is not required, there is no justification for requiring the petitioner, as a condition of securing its federal permit, to present evidence of the petitioner’s compliance with the requirements of the State Code for a state permit”); id., at 177. Only the Court’s narrow reading of § 27 allowed it to sustain this interpretation of § 9(b). Had § 27 been given the broader meaning that Iowa sought, it would have “saved” the state requirements at issue, made the state permit one that could be issued, and supported the interpretation of § 9(b) as requiring evidence of compliance with those state requirements, rather than compliance only with those requirements consistent with the federal license.
The Court’s related, but more general, rationale for its reading of § 9(b) in First Iowa also necessarily rested on its narrow construction of § 27. The Court framed the issue as whether the Act allowed the States to regulate through permit requirements such as Iowa’s “the very requirements of the project that Congress has placed in the discretion of the Federal Power Commission.” Id., at 165 (footnote citing FPA § 10(a) omitted). The Court rejected the possibility of concurrent jurisdiction and interpreted the FPA as mandating divided powers and “a dual system involving the close integration of these powers rather than a dual system of futile duplication of two authorities over the same subject matter.” Id., at 171; see id., at 174 (no “divided authority over any one subject”); id., at 181 (comprehensive federal role “leave[s] no room or need for conflicting state controls”). Section 9 reflected the operation of this exclusive federal authority. See id., at 167-169; id., at 168 (“Where the Federal Government supersedes the state government there is no suggestion that the two agencies both shall have final authority”). In accord with this view, the Court interpreted § 9(b) as requiring compliance only with state measures relevant to federal requirements rather than, as would exist under a system of concurrent jurisdiction, compliance with the state requirements necessary to secure the state permit. Id., at 167-169. Instead, only §27 preserved and defined the States’exclusive regulatory sphere. Id., at 175-178. That is, the Court rejected an interpretation of §9(b) that would have “saved” or accommodated the state permit system and its underlying requirements. To reach its interpretation of § 9(b), however, the Court had to interpret § 27 consistently with the limited state regulatory sphere and in a manner that did not, by “saving” the Iowa requirements, establish “divided authority over any one subject.” Id., at 174. Constricting § 27 to encompass only laws relating to proprietary rights, and thus leaving the permit requirements at issue to the federal sphere, accomplished that goal. The Court’s discussion immediately after its extended discussion of § 27 illustrates the relation between the sections. Before distinguishing §27’s role in saving state law from §9(b)’s role in the sphere of exclusive federal regulation, the Court concluded:
“[Section 27] is therefore thoroughly consistent with the integration rather than the duplication of federal and state jurisdictions under the Federal Power Act. It strengthens the argument that, in those fields where rights are not thus “saved” to the States, Congress is willing to let the supersedure of the state laws by federal legislation take its natural course.” Id., at 176.
The Court’s interpretation of § 9(b), of course, rested on that supersedure and required that the remaining field “saved” to the States by § 27 be limited correspondingly.
Petitioner also argues that our decision in California v. United States, 438 U. S. 645 (1978), construing § 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, requires that we abandon First Iowa’s interpretation of § 27 and the FPA. Petitioner reasons that § 8 is similar to, and served as a model for, FPA § 27, that this Court in California v. United States interpreted § 8 in a manner inconsistent with First Iowa’s reading of § 27, and that that reading of § 8, subsequent to First Iowa, in some manner overrules or repudiates First Iowa’s understanding of §27. California v. United States is cast in broad terms and embodies a conception of the States’ regulatory powers in some tension with that set forth in First Iowa, but that decision bears quite indirectly, at best, upon interpretation of the FPA. The Court in California v. United States interpreted the Reclamation Act of 1902; it did not advert to, or purport to interpret, the FPA, and held simply that § 8 requires the Secretary of the Interior to comply with state laws, not inconsistent with congressional directives, governing use of water employed in federal reclamation projects. California v. United States, supra. Also, as in First Iowa, the Court in California v. United States examined the purpose, structure, and legislative history of the entire statute before it and employed those sources to construe the statute’s saving clause. See 438 U. S., at 649-651, 653-670, 674-675. Those sources indicate, of course, that the FPA envisioned a considerably broader and more active federal oversight role in hydropower development than did the Reclamation Act. Compare FPA §§4, 9, 10, as codified, 16 U. S. C. §§797, 802, 803, and First Iowa, 328 U. S., at 164, 167-169, 171-174, 179-181, with Reclamation Act of 1902 §§ 1, 2, 32 Stat. 388, as codified, 43 U. S. C. §§391, 411 (1982 ed.), and California v. United States, supra, at 649-651, 663-670.
Even if the two saving clauses were properly viewed in isolation from the remainder of their respective Acts and resulting regulatory schemes, significant differences exist between them. Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, after referring to state water laws relating to water used in irrigation and preserved by the Act, contains an explicit direction that “the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall proceed in conformity with such [state] laws.” 43 U. S. C. §383 (1982 ed.). This language has no counterpart in § 27 of the FPA and was crucial to the Court’s interpretation of §8. See California v. United States, supra, at 650, 664-665, 674-675. Although California v. United States and First Iowa accord different effect to laws relating to water uses, this difference stems in part from the different roles assumed by the federal actor in each case, as reflected in § 8’s explicit directive to the Secretary. The Secretary in executing a particular reclamation project is in a position analogous to a licensee under the FPA and need not comply with state laws conflicting with congressional directives respecting particular reclamation projects, see 438 U. S., at 672-674; similarly, a federal licensee under the FPA need not comply with state requirements that conflict with the federal license provisions established pursuant to the FPA’s directives. An additional textual difference is that § 8 refers only to “water used in irrigation” and contains no counterpart to §27’s reference to “other uses,” the provision essential to petitioner’s argument. Laws controlling water used in irrigation relate to proprietary rights, as the First Iowa Court indicated, 328 U. S., at 176, and n. 20, and § 8 does not indicate the appropriate treatment of laws relating to other water uses that do not implicate proprietary rights.
Given these differences between the statutes and saving provisions, it should come as no surprise that California v. United States did not refer either to §27 or to First Iowa. Since the Court decided California v. United States, we have continued to cite First Iowa with approval. See, e. g., Escondido Mut. Water Co., 466 U. S., at 773; Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 461 U. S., at 223, n. 34; New England Power Co., 455 U. S., at 338, n. 6. We do not believe that California v. United States requires that we disavow First Iowa in this case.
Finally, petitioner argues that §27’s legislative history requires us to abandon First Iowa’s interpretation of that section. Whatever the usefulness of legislative history for statutory interpretation in the usual case, that source provides petitioner with no aid. If a quite natural reading of the statutory language fails to displace an intervening decision providing a contrary interpretation, legislative history supporting that reading and by definition before the Court that has already construed the statute provides little additional reason to overturn the decision. Cf. Patterson, 491 U. S., at 172-174 (reviewing sources most likely to prompt overruling of decision). Indeed, First Iowa expressly considered the legislative history of the FPA and of § 27 in particular and found that source to support its interpretation of both. First Iowa, supra, at 171-174, 176, n. 20, 179. Given the tangential relation of the legislative history to the issue at hand and the interests supporting adherence to First Iowa, we decline to parse again the legislative history to determine whether the Court in First Iowa erred in its understanding of the development, as well as the meaning, of the statute.
Adhering to First Iowa’s interpretation of §27, we conclude that the California requirements for minimum in-stream flows cannot be given effect and allowed to supplement the federal flow requirements. A state measure is “pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 248 (1984) (citations omitted). As Congress directed in FPA § 10(a), FERC set the conditions of the license, including the minimum stream flow, after considering which requirements would best protect wildlife and ensure that the project would be economically feasible, and thus further power development. See Rock Creek Limited Partnership, 41 FERC ¶ 63,019 (1987); Keating, 23 FERC ¶ 62,137 (1983); see also Rock Creek Limited Partnership, 41 FERC ¶61,198 (1987). Allowing California to impose significantly higher minimum stream flow requirements would disturb and conflict with the balance embodied in that considered federal agency determination. FERC has indicated that the California requirements interfere with its comprehensive planning authority, and we agree that allowing California to impose the challenged requirements would be contrary to congressional intent regarding the Commission’s licensing authority and would “constitute a veto of the project that was approved and licensed by FERC.” 877 F. 2d, at 749; cf. First Iowa, supra, at 164-165.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is
Affirmed.
Section 9(b), 16 U. S. C. §802(a)(2) (formerly 16 U. S. C. §802(b) (1982 ed.)), provides:
“(a) Each applicant for a license under this chapter shall submit to the commission—
“(2) Satisfactory evidence that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the laws of the State or States within which the proposed project is to be located with respect to bed and banks and to the appropriation, diversion, and use of water for power purposes and with respect to the right to engage in the business of developing, transmitting and distributing power, and in any other business necessary to effect the purposes of a license under this chapter.”
Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat. 390, now 43 U. S. C. §§ 372, 383 (1982 ed.), provided in part:
“[N]othing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or 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, 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 . . .
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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is here to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirming an order of the Subversive Activities Control Board that petitioner register with the Attorney General as a “Communist-action” organization, as required by the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, Title I of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987. That Act sets forth a comprehensive plan for regulation of “Communist-action” organizations. Section 2 of the Act describes a world Communist movement directed from abroad and designed to overthrow the Government of the United States by any means available, including violence. Section 7 requires all Communist-action organizations to register as such with the Attorney General. If the Attorney General has reason to believe that an organization, which has not registered, is a Communist-action organization, he is required by § 13 (a) to bring a proceeding to determine that fact before the Subversive Activities Control Board, a five-man board appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and created for the purpose of holding hearings and making such determinations. Section 13 (e) lays down certain standards for judgment by the Board.
If the Board finds that an organization is a Communist-action organization, it enters an order requiring the organization to register with the Attorney General. § 13 (g). Section 14 provides the right to file a petition for review of Board action in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, with opportunity for review by this Court upon certiorari. Once an organization registers or there is outstanding a final order of the Board requiring it to register, several consequences follow with respect to the organization and its members, but these need not now be detailed. See §§ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 22, 25.
Proceeding under § 13 (a) of this statute, the Attorney General, on November 22, 1950, petitioned the Board for an order directing petitioner to register pursuant to § 7 of the Act. Petitioner sought unsuccessfully by numerous motions before the Board and by proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia — one case is reported at 96 F. Supp. 47 — to attack the validity of, and to abort, the hearing. The hearing began on April 23, 1951, before three members of the Board, later reduced to two, sitting as a hearing panel, and it terminated on July 1, 1952. Proposed findings of fact and briefs were filed by both parties, and oral argument was held before the hearing panel in August 1952. In October 1952 the hearing panel issued a recommended decision that the Board order petitioner to register as a Communist-action organization. Exceptions to the panel's findings were filed by both parties, and oral argument was held before the Board in January 1953. The Board filed its report, which occupies 251 pages of the record in this case, on April 20, 1953.
In its report the Board found that there existed a world Communist movement, substantially as described in § 2 of the Act, organized and directed by a foreign government. The Board detailed the history of the Communist Party of the United States and its close relation to the world Communist movement. It then set forth illustrative evidence and made findings with respect to the statutory criteria of § 13 (e) of the Act, which required the Board to consider “the extent to which” the organization met them. The Board found that the conditions set forth in each of the paragraphs were applicable to petitioner. On the basis of these findings the Board concluded that petitioner was a Communist-action organization, as defined by § 3, and ordered it to register as such with the Attorney General.
Petitioner brought this order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for review. While the case was pending, it filed a motion, supported by affidavit, for leave to adduce additional evidence pursuant to § 14 (a) of the Act. The basis of the motion was that the additional material evidence became available to the petitioner subsequent to the administrative proceeding and that this evidence would
“establish that the testimony of three of the witnesses for the Attorney General, on which [the Board] relied extensively and heavily in making findings which are of key importance to the order now under review, was false. ... In summary, this evidence will establish that Crouch, Johnson and Matu-sow, all professional informers heretofore employed by the Department of Justice as witnesses in numerous proceedings, have committed perjury, are completely untrustworthy and should be accorded no credence; that at least two of them are now being investigated for perjury by the Department of Justice, and that because their character as professional perjurors [sic] has now been conclusively and publicly demonstrated, the Attorney General has ceased to employ any of them as witnesses.”
Petitioner listed a number of witnesses whom it proposed to call to substantiate its claim and also set forth a detailed affidavit in support of its allegations.
The Government did not deny these allegations. It filed a “Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence,” signed by the General Counsel to the Board and by officials of the Department of Justice. The memorandum asserted that the hearing should not be reopened for the receipt of evidence merely questioning, as it claimed, the credibility of some witnesses, but not any fact at issue, and it maintained that the findings of the Board were amply supported by evidence apart from the testimony of the three witnesses sought to be discredited. On December 23, 1954, this motion was formally denied by the Court of Appeals without opinion. In its full opinion on the merits, filed the same day, however, the Court of Appeals supported its rejection of petitioner’s motion:
“The Party attacks the credibility of the witnesses presented by the Government. In this connection it stresses that some of these witnesses . . . were under charges of false swearing. Full opportunity for cross examination of these witnesses was afforded at the hearing before the Board, and full opportunity was also afforded for the presentation of rebuttal testimony. The evaluation of credibility is primarily a matter for the trier of the facts, and a reviewing court cannot disturb that evaluation unless a manifest error has been made. Moreover the testimony of the witnesses against whom charges are said to have been made was consistent with and supported by masses of other evidence. . . .” 96 U. S. App. D. C. 66, 100, 223 F. 2d 531, 565.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Board. It sustained § 13 (e) against the contention that its standards were vague and irrational. It held that the findings of the Board had been established by a preponderance of the evidence, except that it struck, as not being supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the finding that the secret practices were undertaken for the purpose of promoting the objectives, and concealing the true nature, of petitioner; and it also struck the finding in connection with reporting to a foreign government because the record supported only a finding of reporting by Party leaders “upon occasion,” not a finding which implied a constant, systematic reporting. The court, however, found that the Board’s conclusion was supported by the basic findings which it had affirmed. With respect to petitioner’s other attacks on the constitutional validity of the statute, the court found it necessary to consider some of the so-called “sanction” sections, §§ 5, 6, 10, 11, 22, and 25, as well as § 7, the registration section. It held that they were all constitutional and therefore affirmed the order of the Board.
The challenge to the Act on which the order was based plainly raises constitutional questions appropriate for this Court’s consideration, and so we brought the case here. 349 U. S. 943. At the threshold we are, however, confronted by a particular claim that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to return the case to the Board for consideration of the new evidence proffered by petitioner’s motion and affidavit. This non-constitutional issue must be met at the outset, because the case must be decided on a non-constitutional issue, if the record calls for it, without reaching constitutional problems. Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331.
In considering this non-constitutional issue raised by denial of petitioner’s motion, we must avoid any intimation with respect to the other issues raised by petitioner. We do not so intimate by concluding that the testimony of the three witnesses, against whom the uncontested challenge of perjury was made, was not inconsequential in relation to the issues on which the Board had to pass. No doubt a large part of the record consisted of documentary evidence. However, not only was the human testimony significant but the documentary evidence was also linked to the activities of the petitioner and to the ultimate finding of the Board by human testimony, and such testimony was in part that of these three witnesses. The facts bearing on the issue are not in controversy. The direct testimony of witness Crouch occupied 387 pages of the typewritten transcript; that of Johnson, 163 pages; and that of Matusow, 118 pages. The annotated report of the Board, in which citations to the evidence were made to illustrate the support for its findings, contained 36 references to the testimony of Crouch, 25 references to the testimony of Johnson, and 24 references to the testimony of Matusow. These references were made in support of every finding under the eight criteria of § 13 (e) and it is also not to be assumed that the evidence given by these three witnesses played no role in the Board's findings of fact even when not specifically cited. Testimony, for example, directed toward proving that the Communist Party of the United States was an agency utilized by a foreign government to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces, and to be in a position to paralyze shipping and prevent transportation of soldiers and war supplies through the Panama Canal, Hawaii, and the ports of San Francisco and New York in time of war, cannot be deemed insignificant in such a determination as that which the Board made in this proceeding.
This is a proceeding under an Act which Congress conceived necessary for “the security of the United States and to the existence of free American institutions . . . .” 64 Stat., at 989. The untainted administration of justice is certainly one of the most cherished aspects of our institutions. Its observance is one of our proudest boasts. This Court is charged with supervisory functions in relation to proceedings in the federal courts. See McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332. Therefore, fastidious regard for the honor of the administration of justice requires the Court to make certain that the doing of justice be made so manifest that only irrational or perverse claims of its disregard can be asserted.
When uncontested challenge is made that a finding of subversive design by petitioner was in part the product of three perjurious witnesses, it does not remove the taint for a reviewing court to find that there is ample innocent testimony to support the Board’s findings. If these witnesses in fact committed perjury in testifying in other cases on subject matter substantially like that of their testimony in the present proceedings, their testimony in this proceeding is inevitably discredited and the Board’s determination must duly take this fact into account. We cannot pass upon a record containing such challenged testimony. We find it necessary to dispose of the case on the grounds we do, not in order to avoid a constitutional adjudication but because the fair administration of justice requires it. Since reversal is thus demanded, however, we do not reach the constitutional issues.
The basis for challenging the testimony was not in existence when the proceedings were concluded before the Board. Petitioner should therefore be given leave to make its allegations before the Board in a proceeding under § 14 (a) of the Act. The issue on which the case must be returned to the Board lies within a narrow compass and the Board has ample scope of discretion in passing upon petitioner’s motion. The purpose of this remand, as is its reason, is to make certain that the Board bases its findings upon untainted evidence. To that end it may hold a hearing to ascertain the truth of petitioner’s allegations, and if the testimony of the three witnesses is discredited, it must not leave that testimony part of the record. Alternatively, the Board may choose to assume the truth of petitioner’s allegations and, without further hearing, expunge the testimony of these witnesses from the record. In either event, the Board must then reconsider its original determination in the light of the record as freed from the challenge that now beclouds it.
The case is reversed and remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
A “Communist-action” organization is defined in § 3 of the Act as:
“(a) any organization in the United States (other than a diplomatic representative or mission of a foreign government accredited as such by the Department of State) which (i) is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by the foreign government or foreign organization controlling the world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this title, and (ii) operates primarily to advance the objectives of such world Communist movement as referred to in section 2 of this title; and
“(b) any section, branch, fraction, or cell of any organization defined in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph which has not complied with the registration requirements of this title.” 64 Stat., at 989.
The Act also defines and regulates “Communist-front” organizations, but these sections of the Act are not involved in the present proceeding.
“In determining whether any organization is a ‘Communist-action organization/ the Board shall take into consideration—
“(1) the extent to which its policies are formulated and carried out and its activities performed, pursuant to directives or to effectuate the policies of the foreign government or foreign organization in which is vested, or under the domination or control of which is exercised, the direction and control of the world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this title; and
“ (2) the extent to which its views and policies do not deviate from those of such foreign government or foreign organization; and
“(3) the extent to which it receives financial or other aid, directly or indirectly, from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign organization; and
“(4) the extent to which it sends members or representatives to any foreign country for instruction or training in the principles, policies, strategy, or tactics of such world Communist movement; and
“(5) the extent to which it reports to such foreign government or foreign organization or to its representatives; and
“(6) the extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial number of its members are subject to or recognize the disciplinary power of such foreign government or foreign organization or its representatives; and
“(7) the extent to which, for the purpose of concealing foreign direction, domination, or control, or of expediting or promoting its objectives, (i) it fails to disclose, or resists efforts to obtain information as to, its membership (by keeping membership lists in code, by instructing members to refuse to acknowledge membership, or by any other method); (ii) its members refuse to acknowledge membership therein; (iii) it fails to disclose, or resists efforts to obtain information as to, records other than membership lists; (iv) its meetings are secret; and (v) it otherwise operates on a secret basis;- and
“(8) the extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial number of its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their obligations to such foreign government or foreign organization.” 64 Stat., at 999-1000.
Section 14 (a) of the Act provides:
“. . .If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Board and to be adduced upon the proceeding in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Board may modify its findings as to the facts, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by the preponderance of the evidence shall be conclusive, and its recommendations, if any, with respect to action in the matter under consideration. . . .” 64 Stat., at 1001-1002.
Judge Bazelon dissented on the ground that the registration provision violated the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination because it compelled the person signing it to identify himself as a Communist Party functionary and because it compelled a listing of officers and members. 96 U. S. App. D. C., at 111, 223 F. 2d, at 576.
In this connection the following statement of the Board in its report should be noted:
“In making our findings herein, we have considered and weighed all the evidence of record. In weighing [the Attorney General’s] evidence, we have considered that certain of [his] witnesses fall into the category of ‘informers’ and we have scrutinized their testimony accordingly; we have considered and resolved the inconsistencies in the testimony of certain of [the Attorney General’s] witnesses; we have considered the testimony of [the Attorney General’s] witnesses against the background of their various organizational positions and activities in the CPUSA which afforded the sources of their knowledge; and we have had the benefit of the Panel’s observation of their demeanor while testifying. Viewing these considerations in the light of the whole record, we find no basis for disregarding the substance of their testimony.”
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue is whether a union may be held primarily liable for that part of a wrongfully discharged employee’s damages caused by his union’s breach of its duty of fair representation.
I
On February 21, 1976, following an altercation with another employee, petitioner Charles V. Bowen was suspended without pay from his position with the United States Postal Service. Bowen was a member of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, the recognized collective-bargaining agent for Service employees. After Bowen was formally terminated on March 30, 1976, he filed a grievance with the Union as provided by the collective-bargaining agreement. When the Union declined to take his grievance to arbitration, he sued the Service and the Union in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
Bowen’s complaint charged that the Service had violated the collective-bargaining agreement by dismissing him without “just cause” and that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation. His evidence at trial indicated that the responsible Union officer, at each step of the grievance process, had recommended pursuing the grievance but that the national office, for no apparent reason, had refused to take the matter to arbitration.
Following the parties’ presentation of evidence, the court gave the jury a series of questions to be answered as a special verdict. If the jury found that the Service had discharged Bowen wrongfully and that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation, it was instructed to determine the amount of compensatory damages to be awarded and to apportion the liability for the damages between the Service and the Union. In explaining how liability might be apportioned, the court instructed the jury that the issue was left primarily to its discretion. The court indicated, however, that the jury equitably could base apportionment on the date of a hypothetical arbitration decision — the date at which the Service would have reinstated Bowen if the Union had fulfilled its duty. The court suggested that the Service could be liable for damages before that date and the Union for damages thereafter. Although the Union objected to the instruction allowing the jury to find it liable for any compensatory damages, it did not object to the manner in which the court instructed the jury to apportion the damages in the event apportionment was proper.
Upon return of a special verdict in favor of Bowen and against both defendants, the District Court entered judgment, holding that the Service had discharged Bowen without just cause and that the Union had handled his “apparently meritorious grievance... in an arbitrary and perfunctory manner....” 470 F. Supp. 1127, 1129 (1979). In so doing, both the Union and the Service acted “in reckless and callous disregard of [Bowen’s] rights.” Ibid. The court found that Bowen could not have proceeded independently of the Union and that if the Union had arbitrated Bowen’s grievance, he would have been reinstated. Ibid.
The court ordered that Bowen be reimbursed $52,954 for lost benefits and wages. Although noting that “there is authority suggesting that only the employer is liable for damages in the form of backpay,” it observed that “this is a case in which both defendants, by their illegal acts, are liable to plaintiff.... The problem in this case is not one of liability but rather one of apportionment... Id., at 1130-1131. The jury had found that the Union was responsible for $30,000 of Bowen’s damages. The court approved that apportionment, ordering the Service to pay the remaining $22,954.
On appeal by the Service and the Union, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the damages award against the Union. 642 F. 2d 79 (1981). It accepted the District Court’s findings-of fact, but held as a matter of law that, “[a]s Bowen’s compensation was at all times payable only by the Service, reimbursement of his lost earnings continued to be the obligation of the Service exclusively. Hence, no portion of the deprivations... was chargeable to the Union. Cf. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 195... (1967).” Id., at 82 (footnote omitted). The court did not alter the District Court’s judgment in any other respect, but “affirmed [it] throughout” except for the award of damages against the Union. Id., at 83.
Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s apportionment of fault and its finding that both the Union and the Service had acted “in reckless and callous disregard of [Bowen’s] rights.” Indeed, the court accepted the District Court’s apportionment of fault so completely that it refused to increase the $22,964 award against the Service to cover the whole of Bowen’s injury. Bowen was left with only a $22,964 award, whereas the jury and the District Court had awarded him lost earnings and benefits of $52,954— the undisputed amount of his damages.
HH HH
In Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171 (1967), the Court held that an employee such as Bowen, who proves that his employer violated the labor agreement and his union breached its duty of fair representation, may be entitled to recover damages from both the union and the employer. The Court explained that the award must be apportioned according to fault:
“The governing principle, then, is to apportion liability between the employer and the union according to the damage caused by the fault of each. Thus, damages attributable solely to the employer’s breach of contract should not be charged to the union, but increases if any in those damages caused by the union’s refusal to process the grievance should not be charged to the employer.” Id., at 197-198.
Although Vaca’s governing principle is well established, its application has caused some uncertainty. The Union argues that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that it cannot be charged with any damages resulting from a wrongful discharge. Vaca’s “governing principle,” according to the Union, requires that the employer be solely liable for such damages. The Union views itself as liable only for Bowen’s litigation expenses resulting from its breach of duty. It finds support for this view in Vaca’s recognition that a union’s breach of its duty of fair representation does not absolve an employer of all the consequences of a breach of the collective-bargaining contract. See id., at 196. The Union contends that its unrelated breach of the duty of fair representation does not make it liable for any part of the discharged employee’s damages; its default merely lifts the bar to the employee’s suit on the contract against his employer.
The difficulty with this argument is that it treats the relationship between the employer and employee, created by the collective-bargaining agreement, as if it were a simple contract of hire governed by traditional common-law principles. This reading of Vaca fails to recognize that a collective-bargaining agreement is much more than traditional common-law employment terminable at will. Rather, it is an agreement creating relationships and interests under the federal common law of labor policy.
A
In Vaca, as here, the employee contended that his employer had discharged him in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement and that the union had breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to take his claim to arbitration. He sued the union in a Missouri state court for breach of its duty. On finding that both the union and the employer were at fault, the jury decided — and the Missouri Supreme Court agreed — that the union was entirely liable for the employee’s lost backpay. See id., at 195.
On appeal, this Court was required to resolve a number of issues. One was whether an employee who had failed to exhaust the grievance procedure prescribed in the bargaining agreement could bring suit for a breach of that agreement. In Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650 (1965), the Court had held that “federal labor policy requires that individual employees wishing to assert contract grievances must attempt use of the contract grievance procedure agreed upon by employer and union as the mode of redress.” Id., at 652 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). Because the employee in Republic Steel had made no attempt to exhaust the grievance procedure, it was necessary for the Court to consider only the union’s interest in participating in the administration of the contract and the employer’s interest in limiting administrative remedies. The Court noted, however, that if “the union refuses to press or only perfunctorily presses the individual’s claim,” federal labor policy might require a different result. Ibid.
Vaca presented such a situation. The union, which had the “sole power under the contract to invoke the higher stages of the grievance procedure,” had chosen not to take the employee’s claim to arbitration. See 386 U. S., at 185. Thus the Court faced a strong countervailing interest: the employee’s right to vindicate his claim. Vaca resolved these conflicting interests by holding that an employee’s failure to exhaust the contractual grievance procedures would bar his suit except when he could show that the union’s breach of its duty of fair representation had prevented him from exhausting those remedies. See ibid. The Vaca Court then observed:
“It is true that the employer in such a situation may have done nothing to prevent exhaustion of the exclusive contractual remedies to which he agreed in the collective bargaining agreement. But the employer has committed a wrongful discharge in breach of that agreement, a breach which could be remedied through the grievance process to the employee-plaintiff’s benefit were it not for the union’s breach of its statutory duty of fair representation to the employee. To leave the employee remediless in such circumstances would, in our opinion, be a great injustice.” Id., at 185-186.
The interests thus identified in Vaca provide a measure of its principle for apportioning damages. Of paramount importance is the right of the employee, who has been injured by both the employer’s and the union’s breach, to be made whole. In determining the degree to which the employer or the union should bear the employee’s damages, the Court held that the employer should not be shielded from the “natural consequences” of its breach by wrongful union conduct. Id., at 186. The Court noted, however, that the employer may have done nothing to prevent exhaustion. Were it not for the union’s failure to represent the employee fairly, the employer’s breach “could [have been] remedied through the grievance process to the employee-plaintiff’s benefit.” The fault that justifies dropping the bar to the employee’s suit for damages also requires the union to bear some responsibility for increases in the employee’s damages resulting from its breach. To hold otherwise would make the employer alone liable for the consequences of the union’s breach of duty.
Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554 (1976), presented an issue analogous to that in Vaca: whether proof of a breach of the duty of fair representation would remove the bar of finality from an arbitral decision. We held that it would, in part because a contrary rule would prevent the employee from recovering
“even in circumstances where it is shown that a union has manufactured the evidence and knows from the start that it is false; or even if, unbeknownst to the employer, the union has corrupted the arbitrator to the detriment of disfavored union members.” 424 U. S., at 570.
It would indeed be unjust to prevent the employee from recovering in such a situation. It would be equally unjust to require the employer to bear the increase in the damages caused by the union’s wrongful conduct. It is true that the employer discharged the employee wrongfully and remains liable for the employee’s backpay. See Vaca, 386 U. S., at 197. The union’s breach of its duty of fair representation, however, caused the grievance procedure to malfunction resulting in an increase in the employee’s damages. Even though both the employer and the union have caused the damage suffered by the employee, the union is responsible for the increase in damages and, as between the two wrongdoers, should bear its portion of the damages.
Vaca’s governing principle reflects this allocation of responsibility. As the Court stated, “damages attributable solely to the employer’s breach of contract should not be charged to the union, but increases if any in those damages caused by the union’s refusal to process the grievance should not be charged to the employer.” Id., at 197-198 (emphasis added). The Union’s position here would require us to read out of the Vaca articulation of the relevant principle the words emphasized above. It would also ignore the interests of all the parties to the collective agreement — interests that Vaca recognized and Hines illustrates.
B
In approving apportionment of damages caused by the employer’s breach of the collective-bargaining agreement and the union’s breach of its duty of fair representation, Faca did not apply principles of ordinary contract law. For, as the Court has noted, a collective-bargaining agreement “is more than a contract; it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate.” Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574, 578 (1960). In defining the relationships created by such an agreement, the Court has applied an evolving federal common law grounded in national labor policy. See Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U. S. 564, 567 (1960); Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 456-457 (1957).
Fundamental to federal labor policy is the grievance procedure. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U. S. 543, 549 (1964); Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra, at 578. It promotes the goal of industrial peace by providing a means for labor and management to settle disputes through negotiation rather than industrial strife. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc., supra, at 549. Adoption of a grievance procedure provides the parties with a means of giving content to the collective-bargaining agreement and determining their rights and obligations under it. See Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra, at 581.
Although each party participates in the grievance procedure, the union plays a pivotal role in the process since it assumes the responsibility of determining whether to press an employee’s claims. The employer, for its part, must rely on the union’s decision not to pursue an employee’s grievance. For the union acts as the employee’s exclusive representative in the grievance procedure, as it does in virtually all matters involving the terms and conditions of employment. Just as a nonorganized employer may accept an employee’s waiver of any challenge to his discharge as a final resolution of the matter, so should an organized employer be able to rely on a comparable waiver by the employee’s exclusive representative.
There is no unfairness to the union in this approach. By seeking and acquiring the exclusive right and power to speak for a group of employees, the union assumes a corresponding duty to discharge that responsibility faithfully — a duty which it owes to the employees whom it represents and on which the employer with whom it bargains may rely. When the union, as the exclusive agent of the employee, waives arbitration or fails to seek review of an adverse decision, the employer should be in substantially the same position as if the employee had had the right to act on his own behalf and had done so. Indeed, if the employer could not rely on the union’s decision, the grievance procedure would not provide the “uniform and exclusive method for [the] orderly settlement of employee grievances,” which the Court has recognized is essential to the national labor policy. See Clayton v. Automobile Workers, 451 U. S. 679, 686-687 (1981).
The principle announced in Vaca reflects this allocation of responsibilities in the grievance procedure — a procedure that contemplates that both employer and union will perform their respective obligations. In the absence of damages apportionment where the default of both parties contributes to the employee’s injury, incentives to comply with the grievance procedure will be diminished. Indeed, imposing total liability solely on the employer could well affect the willingness of employers to agree to arbitration clauses as they are customarily written.
Nor will requiring the union to pay damages impose a burden on the union inconsistent with national labor policy. It will provide an additional incentive for the union to process its members’ claims where warranted. See Vaca, 386 U. S., at 187. This is wholly consistent with a union’s interest. It is a duty owed to its members as well as consistent with the union’s commitment to the employer under the arbitration clause. See Republic Steel, 379 U. S., at 653.
► — I > — ( I — I
The Union contends that Czosek v. O’Mara, 397 U. S. 25 (1970), requires a different reading of Vaca and a different weighing of the interests our cases have developed. Czosek, however, is consistent with our holding today. In Czosek, employees of the Erie Lackawanna Railroad were placed on furlough and not recalled. They brought suit against the railroad for wrongful discharge and against their union for breaching its duty of fair representation. They alleged that the union had arbitrarily and capriciously refused to process their claims against the railroad. See 397 U. S., at 26. The District Court dismissed the claim against the railroad because the employees had not pursued the administrative remedies provided by the Railway Labor Act. It dismissed the claim against the union because the employees’ ability to pursue an administrative remedy on their own absolved the union of any duty. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the railroad but found that the employees had stated a claim against the union. Even though the employees had a right to seek full redress from an administrative board, the union still had a duty to represent them fairly. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41 (1957).
This Court affirmed. In so doing, it addressed the union’s concern that if the railroad were not joined as a party, the union might be held responsible for damages for which the railroad was wholly or partly responsible. The Court stated:
“[Jjudgment against [the union] can in any event be had only for those damages that flowed from [its] own conduct. Assuming a wrongful discharge by the employer independent of any discriminatory conduct by the union and a subsequent discriminatory refusal by the union to process grievances based on the discharge, damages against the union for loss of employment are unrecoverable except to the extent that its refusal to handle the grievances added to the difficulty and expense of collecting from the employer.” 397 U. S., at 29 (footnote omitted).
Although the statement is broadly phrased, it should not be divorced from the context in which it arose. The Railway Labor Act provided the employees in Czosek with an alternative remedy, which they could have pursued when the union refused to process their grievances. Because the union’s actions did not deprive the employees of immediate access to a remedy, it did not increase the damages that the employer otherwise would have had to pay. The Court therefore stated that the only damages flowing from the union’s conduct were the added expenses the employees incurred. This is consistent with Vaca’s recognition that each party should bear the damages attributable to its fault.
> HH
In this case, the findings of the District Court, accepted by the Court of Appeals, establish that the damages sustained by petitioner were caused initially by the Service’s unlawful discharge and increased by the Union’s breach of its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, apportionment of the damages was required by Vaca. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for entry of judgment allocating damages against both the Service and the Union consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The jury sat only as an advisory panel on Bowen’s claims against the Service. See 28 U. S. C. § 2402 (“Any action against the United States under section 1346 shall be tried by the court without a jury”).
Question 3 of the special verdict stated: “If [you find that the Union breached its duty of fair representation and/or the Service discharged Bowen without just cause], state from a preponderance of the evidence or with reasonable certainty the amount of compensatory damages to which [Bowen] is entitled.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A21-A22.
Question 8 stated: “If compensatory damages are awarded by your answer to Question 3, state the amount, if any, that should be attributable to the defendant Union and the amount, if any, that should be attributable to the defendant Postal Service.” Id., at A22.
Counsel for the Union stated: “Your Honor, in respect to this special verdict form, the [Union] would object to any verdict or any question here which would allow the jury to return a judgement against the [Union] for any form... of wages. Traditionally, the Union does not pay wages. And these damages are wholly assessable to the [Service], if at all.” 3 Record 611-612.
In a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, counsel for the Union reasserted that the “amount of back wages awarded [Bowen] by the jury against the [Union] is as a matter of law wholly assessable against the employer.” 1 Record, Item 37, ¶ 2.
The District Court had instructed the jury that both the Union and the Service could be liable for punitive damages if either had acted “maliciously or recklessly or in callous disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff [Bowen].” 3 Record 597. The jury found that the Service and the Union were liable for punitive damages of $30,000 and $10,000, respectively. App. to Pet. for Cert. A22. The District Court determined, however, that punitive damages could not be assessed against the Service because of sovereign immunity. 470 F. Supp., at 1131. Although the court found that the Union’s actions supported the jury’s award of punitive damages, it set the award aside. It concluded that it would be unfair to hold the Union liable when the Service was immune. Ibid. Bowen did not appeal the District Court’s decision on this point.
The grievance-arbitration clause contained in the contract between the Service and the Union provides for a four-step grievance procedure. The employee may initiate the grievance by discussing it with his supervisor. The Union has discretion to appeal on the employee’s behalf and can elect to pursue the grievance through the next three steps. If the grievance is not settled, the Union may refer the grievance to arbitration. See 1 Record, Item 25, Exhibit 1.
Although Bowen could have appealed his discharge to the Civil Service Commission, his right to do so expired 15 days after notice of the Service’s action. Moreover, by choosing to pursue his administrative remedies, Bowen would have “waive[d] access to any procedures under the National Agreement beyond Step 2B of the Grievance-Arbitration Procedures.” App. 90-91. By choosing the remedy provided by the grievance procedure, he was prevented from presenting his claim to the Civil Service Commission.
The District Court found as a fact that if Bowen’s grievance had been arbitrated he would have been reinstated by August 1977. Lost wages after that date were deemed the fault of the Union: “While the [Service] set this case in motion with its discharge, the [Union’s] acts, upon which [Bowen] reasonably relied, delayed the reinstatement of [Bowen] and it is a proper apportionment to assign fault to the [Union] for approximately two-thirds of the period [Bowen] was unemployed up to the time of trial.” 470 F. Supp., at 1131.
In a footnote added after the opinion was first filed, the court noted that it made “no revision in the judgment of $22,954.12 against the Postal Service. In this connection we note that no appeal was entered by [Bowen] from the judgment against the Service in the amount of $22,954.12.” 642 F. 2d, at 82, n. 6.
The court’s view that the judgment against the Service could not be increased because of Bowen’s failure to appeal is erroneous. Bowen won an unambiguous victory in the District Court. He established that he had been discharged by the employer without just cause and that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation. The amount of lost wages and benefits was not in dispute, and the jury and the District Court awarded him all of his damages, apportioning them between the Union and the Service. Bowen had no reason to be unhappy with the award and should not have been deprived of the full amount of his compensatory damages because of his failure to cross-appeal.
Justice White’s dissent asserts that the “rationale” of apportioning damages, applied by the Court today, “has been rejected by every Court of Appeals that has squarely considered it.” See post, at 231, and n. 1. Apart from the fact that we apply the rationale — the “governing principle” — articulated in Vaca, few Courts of Appeals have stated a rationale nor has there been the consistency in result perceived by the dissent. Only one case cited by the dissent has declined to apportion damages after considering the issue fully. See Seymour v. Olin Corp., 666 F. 2d 202 (CA5 1982). Others, such as the opinion below, have rejected apportionment after giving the issue only minimal consideration. See 642 F. 2d 79, 82 (CA4 1981) (simply citing Vaca, but not Vaca’s governing principle); Milstead v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 957, 649 F. 2d 395, 396 (CA61981) (finding that damages may not be apportioned on the basis of St. Clair v. Local 515, 422 F. 2d 128 (CA6 1969), which found that damages may be apportioned). Some courts have not apportioned damages, but have articulated apparently conflicting rationales. See Wyatt v. Interstate & Ocean Transport Co., 623 F. 2d 888, 892-893 (CA4 1980) (refusing to hold union liable for portion of damages caused by its breach but stating that damages can be apportioned when the union “exacerbate[s the employee’s] loss or diminution of wages, beyond that for which the employer could be charged”); De Arroyo v. Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse, 425 F. 2d 281, 289-290 (CAI) (refusing to hold union liable for portion of damages caused by its default but stating that apportionment would be proper where there was evidence “that but for the Union’s conduct the plaintiffs would have been reinstated or reimbursed at an earlier date”), cert, denied, 400 U. S. 877 (1970). While it is true these cases reach the same result as the dissent, they do not represent an affirmation of its reasoning.
Other cases have recognized that damages should be apportioned between the union and the employer. See Smart v. Ellis Trucking Co., 580 F. 2d 215, 219, n. 6 (CA6 1978) (on remand, trial court to determine “the extent to which the employer’s liability for any backpay may be limited” because of its reliance on arbitration proceeding); Harrison v. Chrysler Corp., 558 F. 2d 1273, 1279 (CA7 1977) (“union which breaches its duty of fair representation may be sued by an employee for lost pay attributable to the breach”); Ruzicka v. General Motors Corp., 523 F. 2d 306, 312 (CA6 1975) (“Union... liable for that portion of Appellant’s injury representing ‘increases if any in those damages [chargeable to the employer] caused by the union’s refusal to process the grievance’ ”) (brackets in Court of Appeals opinion); St. Clair v. Local 515, supra, at 132 (holding union “liable for nothing more [than damages measured by backpay] and perhaps for less” because Vaca requires those damages to be apportioned between the employer and union according to each party’s fault). See also Feller, A General Theory of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, 61 Calif. L. Rev. 663, 817-824 (1973) (employer’s liability should not be increased by union’s default); Comment, Apportionment of Damages in DFR/Contract Suits: Who Pays for the Union’s Breach, 1981 Wis. L. Rev. 155 (same). In sum, a fair reading of these cases reveals that, contrary to the dissent’s assertion, the Courts of Appeals have been far from unanimous in either their results or their rationales.
The Court had previously held in Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195 (1962), that an employee may sue his employer for a breach of the collective-bargaining agreement under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. See 29 U. S. C. § 185. Because the contract in Smith did not contain a grievance-arbitration procedure that required exhaustion, Smith did not reach the issue presented in Vaca. See 371 U. S., at 196, n. 1.
The Court based its decision on Congress’ express approval of contract grievance procedures as a preferred method of settling disputes, the union’s interest in actively participating in the continuing administration of the contract, and the employer’s interest in limiting the choice of remedies available to aggrieved employees. See 379 U. S., at 653.
We note that this is not a situation in which either the union or the employer has participated in the other’s breach. See Vaca, 386 U. S., at 197, n. 18.
Although the union remains primarily responsible for the portion of the damages resulting from its default, Vaca made clear that the union’s breach does not absolve the employer of liability. Thus if the petitioner in this ease does not collect the damages apportioned against the Union, the Service remains secondarily liable for the full loss of backpay.
In Vaca, the jury had found the union responsible for the entire amount of damages suffered by the employee. The judgment upholding the verdict therefore was reversed. Justice White’s dissent reasons that because Vaca found that the employer is not absolved from liability by the union’s breach, the employer must be solely responsible. The first proposition, however, does not require the second. Thus, Vaca’s recognition that the employer “may not hide behind the union’s wrongful act” does not answer the question posed by this case, how damages should be apportioned as between the two wrongdoers, the union and the employer. On this point, the explicit language of Vaca’s governing principle makes clear that the union is responsible for increases in the employee's damages flowing from the wrongful discharge, a point which the dissent glosses over.
Although the Court in Vaca concluded that the union had not breached its duty, it observed that “[i]n this case, even if the Union had breached its duty, all or almost all of [the employee’s] damages would still be attributable to his allegedly wrongful discharge.” Id., at 198. Assuming that such a breach did occur, the facts are not sufficiently clear to determine when the breach would have occurred or the portion of damages attributable to each party’s fault. Thus this speculative observation is not inconsistent with the Court’s precisely worded statement of the governing principle.
The parties to the collective-bargaining agreement, of course, may choose not to include a grievance procedure supervised by the union or, if they do, may choose not to make the procedure exclusive. See Vaca, supra, at 184, n. 9; Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650, 657-658 (1965); cf. 29 U. S. C. § 159(a) (employee may present grievances to his employer “without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective-bargaining contract or agreement then in effect...”). Most collective-bargaining agreements, however, contain exclusive grievance-arbitration procedures and give the union power to supervise the procedure. See Feller, supra n. 8, at 742, 752-753. When the collective-bargaining agreement provides the union with sole authority to press an employee’s grievance, the union acts as the employee’s exclusive representative in the grievance-arbitration procedure. See Vaca, supra, at 191-192.
Under the analysis of Justice White’s dissent, the employer may not rely on the union’s decision not to pursue a grievance. Rather it can prevent continued liability only by reinstating the discharged employee. See post, at 238-239. This leaves the employer with a dubious option: it must either reinstate the employee promptly or leave itself exposed to open-ended liability. If this were the rule, the very purpose of the grievance procedure would be defeated. It is precisely to provide the exclusive means of resolving this kind of dispute that the parties agree to such a procedure and national labor policy strongly encourages its use. See Republic Steel, supra, at 653.
When the union has breached its duty of fair representation, the dissent justifies its rule by arguing that “only the employer ha[s] the continuing ability to right the wrong... by reinstating” the employee, an ability that the union lacks. See post, at 239. But an employer has no way of knowing that a failure to carry a grievance to arbitration constitutes a breach of duty. Rather than rehiring, as the dissent suggests, the employer reasonably could assume that the union had concluded the discharge was justified. The union would have the option, if it realized it had committed an arguable breach of duty, to bring its default to the employer’s attention. Our holding today would not prevent a jury from taking such action into account. See n. 19, infra.
Moreover, the rule urged by the dissenting opinion would allow the union and the employee, once the case goes to trial, to agree to a settlement pursuant to which the union would acknowledge a breach of its duty of fair representation in exchange for the employee’s undertaking to look to his employer for his entire recovery. Although we may assume that this would not occur frequently, the incentive the dissent’s rule would provide to agree to such a settlement demonstrates its unsoundness.
Requiring the union to pay its share of the damages is consistent with the interests recognized in Electrical Workers v. Foust, 442 U. S. 42 (1979). In Foust, we found that a union was not liable for punitive damages. The interest in deterring future breaches by the union was outweighed by the debilitating impact that “unpredictable and potentially substantial” awards of punitive damages would have on the union treasury and the union’s exercise of discretion in deciding what claims to pursue. Id., at 50-52. An award of compensatory damages, however, normally will be limited and finite. Moreover, the union’s exercise of discretion is shielded by the standard necessary to prove a breach of the duty of fair representation. Thus, the threat that was present in Foust is absent here.
In cases following Vaca and Czosek, the Court has not had occasion to address the question presented here. In Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554 (1976), we held that proof of a breach of the duty of fair representation will remove the bar of finality from arbitral decisions. We did not consider the scope of the remedy available, but stated that if the employer had wrongfully discharged the employee and the union had breached its duty, the employee was “entitled to an appropriate remedy against the employer as well as the Union
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.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again the effort of the Commonwealth of Virginia to levy a tax against express agencies is before us for decision. Nearly five years ago this Court struck down as a “privilege tax” violative of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution its tax statute under which was laid an assessment on appellant’s “privilege of doing business” in Virginia. Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, 347 U. S. 359 (1954). Subsequently the Virginia General Assembly enactéd the Act here involved levying a “franchise tax” on express companies, measured by gross receipts from operations within Virginia, in lieu of all other property taxes on intangibles and rolling stock. In due course an assessment against appellant was made thereunder for 1956. Both the State Corporation Commission, which has jurisdiction of such levies in Virginia, and the Commonwealth’s highest court have upheld the validity of the new law as well as the assessment made thereunder, Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, 199 Va. 589, 100 S. E. 2d 785. Appellant levels a dual attack, the first being that the statute is a “privilege tax” and like the former one violates the Commerce Clause; or, secondly, that in any event the assessment under it is calculated in such a manner as to deprive appellant of its property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On appeal we noted probable jurisdiction, 356 U. S. 929 (1958). We believe that Virginia has eliminated the Commerce Clause objections sustained against its former tax law. While the tax is in lieu of other property taxes which Virginia can legally assess and should be their just equivalent in amount, Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 696 (1895), we will not inquire into the exactitudes of the formula where appellant has not shown it to be so baseless as to violate due process. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. v. Browning, 310 U. S. 362 (1940). The failure of the appellant to furnish, in its return, certain necessary information showing its gross receipts allocated to Virginia, called for under the statute and requested by the Commonwealth, has left the correct amount unobtainable by the latter except by some method of approximation and places the burden on appellant to come forward with affirmative evidence of extraterritorial assessment.
Background and Activity of Appellant in Virginia.
Since the opinion in the former appeal, supra, at pp. 360-361, relates the factual details concerning appellant’s operations in Virginia, we believe it sufficient to say here that it is a Delaware corporation, owned by 68 of the railroads of the United States. It is engaged in both an interstate and intrastate express business throughout the Nation, save in Virginia, where a constitutional provision bars foreign corporations from possessing or exercising any of the powers or functions of public service corporations. There it operates a wholly owned subsidiary, a Virginia corporation, which carries on its intrastate functions within the Commonwealth. Appellant’s Virginia business is thus of an exclusively interstate nature. Through exclusive contract arrangements with 177 of the railroads of the Nation appellant is the sole operator of express facilities on their lines, including Virginia. It pays therefor all of its net income, thus achieving one of the stated purposes of the agreement — that appellant . . shall have no net taxable income.” In turn, appellant’s Virginia subsidiary pays all of its net income over to it for the privilege of exercising appellant’s exclusive contracts in intrastate business in the Commonwealth. Appellant owns property within Virginia, its return filed with the Commonwealth for tax purposes showing $120,110.70 in cash on deposit; automotive equipment and trucks $262,719.63; real estate of the value of $32,850; and office equipment listed at $42,884.83.
Virginia’s General Taxing System.
The Commonwealth has a comprehensive tax structure covering public service corporations. It empowers local governments to levy ad valorem taxes on the “dead” value of all real property and tangible personal property, except rolling stock, located within their respective jurisdictions. This leaves free for state purposes taxes on rolling stock, money and other intangibles, and the “live” or “going-concern” value of the business in Virginia. We are concerned only with the state tax which is levied on the franchises of express companies. It provides in pertinent part that
“[e]ach express company . . . shall . . . pay to the State a franchise tax which shall be in lieu of taxes upon all of its other intangible property and in lieu of property taxes on its rolling stock.”
The franchise tax is measured by “the gross receipts derived from operations within” Virginia which is deemed
“to be all receipts on business beginning and ending within this State and all receipts derived from the transportation within this State of express transported through, into, or out of this State.”
The State Corporation Commission is directed, after notice, to assess the franchise tax on the basis of a report to be filed by the company involved or, in case of its failure to file such report, the Commission is to base the assessment “upon the best and most reliable information that it can procure.”
The Issues Under the Statute.
First, let us clear away the dead underbrush of the old law. The new tax is not denominated a license tax laid on the “privilege of doing business in Virginia”; nor is it “in addition to the property tax” levied against appellant, nor a condition precedent to its engaging in interstate commerce in the Commonwealth. The General Assembly has made crystal-clear that the tax is now a franchise tax laid on the intangible property of appellant, and is levied “in lieu of taxes upon all of its other intangible property and . . . rolling stock.” The measure of the tax is on gross receipts, fairly apportioned, and, as to appellant, is laid only on those “derived from the transportation within this State of express transported through, into, or out of this State.”
Appellant concedes that the Commerce Clause does not prohibit the States from levying a tax on property owned by a concern doing an interstate business. It agrees that it has rolling stock and money in the Commonwealth, as well as intangibles, including its exclusive express privileges with the railroads. It readily admits that the latter agreements are “valuable contract rights” and contribute a principal element to the “going concern value” of its business in the Commonwealth. Subsuming that a valid tax levy might be levied on such intangibles, it argues, however, that the incidence of the tax is on appellant’s privilege to carry on an exclusively interstate business in Virginia rather than on intangible property. Our sole question under the Commerce Clause is whether the tax in practical operation is on property or on privilege.
The due process issue is entangled with appellant’s failure to file, in its report, data covering its gross receipts allocated to Virginia. Failing to do this the State Corporation Commission used a formula which in effect ascribed to Virginia the proportion of such receipts as the mileage of carriers within Virginia bore to the total national mileage of the same lines. Appellant contends that the assessment made in this manner is violative of due process and that the resulting amount of tax levied was confiscatory.
In any event, appellant argues, the “in lieu” provisions of the law, as applied to it, are invalid. Admitting that it had cash, intangibles and rolling stock that were subject to a state tax but which suffered none because of the “in lieu” provisions of this law, it contends that the tax assessed under the latter was no just equivalent of the “in lieu” taxes but was greatly in excess thereof and violative of due process.
Validity of the Law Under the Commerce Clause.
As we have pointed out, the statute levies a franchise tax in lieu of all taxes on “other intangible property” and rolling stock. (Emphasis added.) This leaves no room for doubt that the General Assembly intended to levy a tax upon appellant’s intangibles. Moreover, supporting this interpretation, both the State Commission and the Supreme Court of Appeals have construed it as a tax on appellant’s intangible property and “going concern” value. This trinity of agreement by three state agencies, though not conclusive, has great weight in our determination of the natural and reasonable effect of the statute. Railway Express v. Virginia, supra; Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, 340 U. S. 602 (1951); Cudahy Packing Co. v. Minnesota, 246 U. S. 450 (1918); United States Express Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U. S. 335, 346 (1912). This is not to say that a legislature may effect a validation of a tax, otherwise unconstitutional, by merely changing its descriptive words. Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U. S. 276, 280 (1932); Galveston, H. & San Antonio R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 227 (1908). One must comprehend, however, the difference between the use of magic words or labels validating an otherwise invalid tax and their use to disable an otherwise constitutional levy. The latter this Court has said may sometimes be done. Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, supra, at 364; Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, supra, at 607; McLeod v. Dilworth Co., 322 U. S. 327, 330 (1944).
Appellant buttresses its argument with reasoning that a tax on “going concern” value just cannot be measured by fairly apportioned gross receipts. While it may be true that gross receipts are not the best measure, it is too late now to question its constitutionality. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 309 U. S. 157 (1940); Great Northern R. Co. v. Minnesota, 278 U. S. 503 (1929); Pullman Co. v. Richardson, 261 U. S. 330 (1923); Cudahy Packing Co. v. Minnesota, 246 U. S. 450 (1918); United States Express Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U. S. 335 (1912); Wisconsin & M. R. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379 (1903). These decisions are still in good standing on our books. Even on the former appeal this Court used the following language:
“Of course, we have held, and it is but common sense to hold, that a physical asset may fluctuate in value according to the income it can be made to produce. A live horse is worth more than a dead one, though the physical object may be the same, and a smooth-going automobile is worth more than an unassembled collection of all its parts. The physical facilities used in carrying on a prosperous business are worth more than the same assets in bankruptcy liquidation or on sale by the sheriff. No one denies the right of the State, when assessing tangible property, to use any fair formula which will give effect to the intangible factors which influence real values. Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor 166 U. S. 185. But Virginia has not done this.” 347 U. S., at 364.
We feel that Virginia has now done just that.
We are not convinced by appellant’s “boot strap” argument that the express privileges it enjoys have no value to it because all of its net income by agreement with the railroads is paid over to them. We believe it more accurate to rely on its admission that “No one would question the fact that Appellant’s exclusive express privileges on the railroads are valuable contract rights.” This concession, when taken in the light of the expressed purpose of appellant that the payment of its net income for the use of the express privileges was solely to make certain “that the Express Company shall have no net taxable income,” exposes the frivolous nature of this contention. We are not so blinded to business realities as to permit such a manipulation of the finances of appellant, the railroads’ wholly owned subsidiary, to frustrate the Commonwealth in its effort to collect an otherwise fair tax.
Nor is there any substance to the contention that since Virginia could not prohibit appellant from engaging in its exclusively interstate business, it therefore may not tax “good will” or “going concern” value which is built up thereby. We need only cite some of the cases of this Court holding to the contrary: Great Northern R. Co. v. Minnesota, 278 U. S. 503 (1929); Pullman Co. v. Richardson, 261 U. S. 330 (1923); Cudahy Packing Co. v. Min nesota, 246 U. S. 450 (1918); United States Express Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U. S. 335 (1912); Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 194 (rehearing 166 U. S. 185 (1897)); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1 (1896); Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439 (1894).
Validity of the Tax Under the Due Process Clause.
In view of the fact that appellant failed to file the required information as to its gross receipts, thus placing an almost insurmountable burden on the Commonwealth to ascertain them, it is necessary that appellant make an affirmative showing that the mileage method used by Virginia is so palpably unreasonable that it violates due process. This it has failed to do. Appellant rests its argument not on facts and figures covering its actual gross income in Virginia but on comparative statistics based on tangible assets. It points out that during the taxable year the value of its tangible assets in Virginia ($475,065) was only 0.6% of its total assets ($79,700,426), while the amount of gross receipts apportioned to Virginia by the State Corporation Commission was 1.7% ($6,499,519) of its total gross receipts ($387,241,764).
The difference in the two percentages, appellant contends, must represent intangible values on which Virginia cannot operate because located outside of its jurisdiction. This syllogism does not take into account the facts of business life. Tangible assets in Virginia may produce much more income than like assets elsewhere. Death Valley Scotty generated much less gross from his desert sightseeing wagon than did his counterpart in Central Park. The utter fallacy of using tangible assets as the test of going-concern value here is demonstrated by the fact that appellant’s tangible assets in Virginia depend entirely on whether it elects to retain title to tangible property or place it in the name of its subsidiary, the Virginia company. By placing them in the Virginia company it could thus, on a tangible asset formula, escape all tax on its intangibles.
There is nothing in the record even to indicate that the tangible assets that appellant carries in its own name in Virginia did not actually generate the amount of gross receipts attributed to it by the State Corporation Commission. In this connection, we note that 1.9% of appellant's total contract mileage was located there. Even where taxpayers have attempted to show through evidence, as this appellant has not, that a given apportionment formula effected an appropriation of more than that to which the State was entitled, this Court has required “ 'clear and cogent evidence’ that it results in extraterritorial values being taxed.” Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U. S. 501, 507 (1942); Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. North Carolina, 297 U. S. 682, 688 (1936); cf. Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd., v. Tax Comm’n, 266 U. S. 271, 282-284 (1924). As this Court said in Nashville, C. & St. L. R. v. Browning, 310 U. S. 362, 365-366 (1940):
“In basing its apportionment on mileage, the Tennessee Commission adopted a familiar and frequently sanctioned formula. Pullman’s Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18; Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 217; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421; Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S. 182. See 2 Cooley on Taxation, pp. 1660-64. Its asserted inapplicability to the particular situation is rested on petitioner’s evidence as to the comparative revenue-producing capacity of its lines in and out of Tennessee. But both the Commission and the Supreme Court of the state thought that this evidence, however weighty, was insufficient to displace the relevance of the formula. In a matter where exactness is concededly unobtainable and the feel of judgment so important a factor, we must be on guard lest unwittingly we displace the tax officials’ judgment with our own. Certainly we cannot say that the combined judgment of Commission, Board, and state courts is baseless.” (Emphasis added.)
Appellant’s final argument is to the effect that the tax in question, in the amount of $139,739.66, is “no just equivalent” of the tax “in lieu of which” it was levied, and therefore violates the Due Process Clause. This argument is based upon a false premise which can be quickly disposed of. Appellant states that under Virginia’s system of segregation of property for state and local taxation the only property which the Commonwealth had the power to tax was cash on hand and on deposit and appellant’s rolling stock, which, under the old rates, would have yielded a tax of $679.77. Appellant is clearly in error. As we read the Virginia statutes, and as they were construed below, the Commonwealth (as contrasted with the local) government also had the power to tax the “going concern” value of all of appellant’s Virginia property, as well as its other intangible property rights such as its valuable express privileges. Thus, the new tax is not only in lieu of the previous tax on rolling stock and cash on hand, but also reaches intangible rights of great value which since Railway Express, supra, had escaped taxation altogether.
It follows from what we have said that the tax is valid, and the judgment below is therefore
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurs in the result.
Va. Code, 1950, § 58-547.
See Va. Const., § 170; and Va. Code, 1950, §§ 58-9, 58-10.
Va. Code, 1950, § 58-546, et seq., as amended by Va. Acts 1956, c. 612.
In its return, appellant stated that it was “unable” to ascertain its gross receipts from express transported “through, into or out of” the Commonwealth. The record contains testimony to this effect by one of appellant’s officers. The record also shows, from one of appellant’s own exhibits, that since 1931 the tax year in question is the only year in which appellant has been “unable” to report this information. From 1931 to 1953, appellant managed to find a way of compiling or computing and reporting such data, and in only 7 of these 23 years did the Commonwealth disagree with appellant’s figures. Due to the downfall of the old tax in Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, supra, there was no reporting requirement for 1954 and 1955. Under the new tax, for 1956, appellant made no attempt to present evidence to show what reductions should be made in the Commission’s figures, nor did it explore the possibility of an agreement about it as it apparently had in prior years. Cf. Cohan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (C. A. 2d Cir. 1930), 39 F. 2d 540, 543-544. Instead, it relied completely upon its claim that the tax was unconstitutional.
Actually, the amounts paid to such carriers for Virginia traffic were ascertained by that method. Since the carrier payments represent only net receipts, the Virginia gross receipts were determined by applying to the Virginia carrier payments the ratio that its total gross receipts bore to its total carrier payments.
Parenthetically, it might be noted that the Adams case involved a “going concern” valuation of $488,265 as compared to a “dead” valuation of property in the amount of $28,438. 165 U. S. 194, 237.
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The question in this case is whether a State violates the Establishment Clause when, pursuant to a religiously neutral state policy, it permits a private party to display an unattended religious symbol in a traditional public forum located next to its seat of government.
I
Capitol Square is a 10-acre, state-owned plaza surrounding the statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. For over a century the square has been used for public speeches, gatherings, and festivals advocating and celebrating a variety of causes, both secular and religious. Ohio Admin. Code Ann. §128-4-02(A) (1994) makes the square available “for use by the public ... for free discussion of public questions, or for activities of a broad public purpose,” and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 105.41 (1994), gives the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board (Board) responsibility for regulating public access. To use the square, a group must simply fill out an official application form and meet several criteria, which concern primarily safety, sanitation, and noninterference with other uses of the square, and which are neutral as to the speech content of the proposed event. App. 107-110; Ohio Admin. Code Ann. § 128-4-02 (1994).
It has been the Board’s policy “to allow a broad range of speakers and other gatherings of people to conduct events on the Capitol Square.” Brief for Petitioners 3-4. Such diverse groups as homosexual rights organizations, the Ku Klux Klan, and the United Way have held rallies. The Board has also permitted a variety of unattended displays on Capitol Square: a state-sponsored lighted tree during the Christmas season, a privately sponsored menorah during Chanukah, a display showing the progress of a United Way fundraising campaign, and booths and exhibits during an arts festival. Although there was some dispute in this litigation regarding the frequency of unattended displays, the District Court found, with ample justification, that there was no policy against them. 844 F. Supp. 1182, 1184 (SD Ohio 1993).
In November 1993, after reversing an initial decision to ban unattended holiday displays from the square during December 1993, the Board authorized the State to put up its annual Christmas tree. On November 29, 1993, the Board granted a rabbi’s application to erect a menorah. That same day, the Board received an application from respondent Donnie Carr, an officer of the Ohio Ku Klux Klan, to place a cross on the square from December 8, 1993, to December 24,1993. The Board denied that application on December 3, informing the Klan by letter that the decision to deny “was made upon the advice of counsel, in a good faith attempt to comply with the Ohio and United States Constitutions, as they have been interpreted in relevant decisions by the Federal and State Courts.” App. 47.
Two weeks later, having been unsuccessful in its effort to obtain' administrative relief from the Board’s decision, the Ohio Klan, through its leader Vincent Pinette, filed the present suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking an injunction requiring the Board to issue the requested permit. The Board defended on the ground that the permit would violate the Establishment Clause. The District Court determined that Capitol Square was a traditional public forum open to all without any policy against freestanding displays; that the Elan’s cross was entirely private expression entitled to full First Amendment protection; and that the Board had failed to show that the display of the cross could reasonably be construed as endorsement of Christianity by the State. The District Court issued the injunction and, after the Board’s application for an emergency stay was denied, 510 U. S. 1307 (1993) (Stevens, J., in chambers), the Board permitted the Elan to erect its cross. The Board then received, and granted, several additional applications to erect crosses on Capitol Square during December 1993 and January 1994.
On appeal by the Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. 30 F. 3d 675 (1994). That decision agrees with a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit, Chabad-Lubavitch v. Miller, 5 F. 3d 1383 (1993), but disagrees with decisions of the Second and Fourth Circuits, Chabad-Lubavitch v. Burlington, 936 F. 2d 109 (CA2 1991), cert. denied, 505 U. S. 1218 (1992), Kaplan v. Burlington, 891 F. 2d 1024 (CA2 1989), cert. denied, 496 U. S. 926 (1990), Smith v. County of Albemarle, 895 F. 2d 953 (CA4), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 823 (1990). We granted certiorari. 513 U. S. 1106 (1995).
II
First, a preliminary matter: Respondents contend that we should treat this as a case in which freedom of speech (the Elan’s right to present the message of the cross display) was denied because of the State’s disagreement with that message’s political content, rather than because of the State’s desire to distance itself from sectarian religion. They suggest in their merits brief and in their oral argument that Ohio’s genuine reason for disallowing the display was disapproval of the political views of the Ku Klux Klan. Whatever the fact may be, the case was not presented and decided that way. The record facts before us and the opinions below address only the Establishment Clause issue; that is the question upon which we granted certiorari; and that is the sole question before us to decide.
Respondents’ religious display in Capitol Square was private expression. Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression. Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384 (1993); Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226 (1990); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981); Heffron v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640 (1981). Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince. Accordingly, we have not excluded from free-speech protections religious proselytizing, Heffron, supra, at 647, or even acts of worship, Widmar, supra, at 269, n. 6. Petitioners do not dispute that respondents, in displaying their cross, were engaging in constitutionally protected expression. They do contend that the constitutional protection does not extend to the length of permitting that expression to be made on Capitol Square.
It is undeniable, of course, that speech which is constitutionally protected against state suppression is not thereby accorded a guaranteed forum on all property owned by the State. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U. S. 114, 129 (1981); Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 44 (1983). The right to use government property for one’s private expression depends upon whether the property has by law or tradition been given the status of a public forum, or rather has been reserved for specific official uses. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 802-803 (1985). If the former, a State’s right to limit protected expressive activity is sharply circumscribed: It may impose reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions (a ban on all unattended displays, which did not exist here,'might be one such), but it may regulate expressive content only if such a restriction is necessary, and narrowly drawn, to serve a compelling state interest. Perry Ed. Assn., supra, at 45. These strict standards apply here, since the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that Capitol Square was a traditional public forum. 844 F. Supp., at 1184; 30 F. 3d, at 678.
Petitioners do not claim that their denial of respondents’ application was based upon a content-neutral time, place, or manner restriction. To the contrary, they concede — indeed it is the essence of their case — that the Board rejected the display precisely because its content was religious. Petitioners advance a single justification for closing Capitol Square to respondents’ cross: the State’s interest in avoiding official endorsement of Christianity, as required by the Establishment Clause.
Ill
There is no doubt that compliance with the Establishment Clause is a state interest sufficiently compelling to justify content-based restrictions on speech. See Lamb’s Chapel, supra, at 394-395; Widmar, supra, at 271. Whether that interest is implicated here, however, is a different question. And we do not write on a blank slate in answering it. We have twice previously addressed the combination of private religious expression, a forum available for public use, content-based regulation, and a State’s interest in complying with the Establishment Clause. Both times, we have struck down the restriction on religious content. Lamb’s Chapel, supra; Widmar, supra.
In Lamb’s Chapel, a school district allowed private groups to use school facilities during off-hours for a variety of civic, social, and recreational purposes, excluding, however, religious purposes. We held that even if school property during off-hours was not a public forum, the school district violated an. applicant’s free-speech rights by denying it use of the facilities solely because of the religious viewpoint of the program it wished to present. 508 U. S., at 390-395. We rejected the district’s compelling-state-interest Establishment Clause defense (the same made here) because the school property was open to a wide variety of uses, the district was not directly sponsoring the religious group’s activity, and “any benefit to religion or to the Church would have been no more than incidental.” Id., at 395. The Lamb’s Chapel reasoning applies a fortiori here, where the property at issue is not a school but a full-fledged public forum.
Lamb’s Chapel followed naturally from our decision in Widmar, in which we examined a public university’s exclusion of student religious groups from facilities available to other student groups. There also we addressed official discrimination against groups who wished to use a “generally open forum” for religious speech. 454 U. S., at 269. And there also the State claimed that its compelling interest in complying with the Establishment Clause justified the content-based restriction. We rejected the defense because the forum created by the State was open to a broad spectrum of groups and would provide only incidental benefit to religion. Id., at 274. We stated categorically that “an open forum in a public university does not confer any imprimatur of state approval on religious sects or practices.” Ibid.
Quite obviously, the factors that we considered determinative in Lamb’s Chapel and Widmar exist here as well. The State did not sponsor respondents’ expression, the expression was made on government property that had been opened to the public for speech, and permission was requested through the same application process and on the same terms required of other private groups.
IV
Petitioners argue that one feature of the present case distinguishes it from Lamb’s Chapel and Widmar: the forum’s proximity to the seat of government, which, they contend, may produce the perception that the cross bears the State’s approval. They urge us to apply the so-called “endorsement test,” see, e. g., County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573 (1989); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668 (1984), and to find that, because an observer might mistake private expression for officially endorsed religious expression, the State’s content-based restriction is constitutional.
We must note, to begin with, that it is not really an “endorsement test” of any sort, much less the “endorsement test” which appears in our more recent Establishment Clause jurisprudence, that petitioners urge upon us. “Endorsement” connotes an expression or demonstration of approval or support. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 818 (1993); Webster’s New Dictionary 845 (2d ed. 1950). Our cases have accordingly equated “endorsement” with “promotion” or “favoritism.” Allegheny, supra, at 593 (citing cases). We find it peculiar to say that government “promotes” or “favors” a religious display by giving it the same access to a public forum that all other displays enjoy. And as a matter of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, we have consistently held that it is no violation for government to enact neutral policies that happen to benefit religion. See, e. g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U. S. 589, 608 (1988); Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474 U. S. 481, 486-489 (1986); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388 (1983); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961). Where we have tested for endorsement of religion, the subject of the test was either expression by the government itself, Lynch, supra, or else government action alleged to discriminate in favor of private religious expression or activity, Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U. S. 687, 708-710 (1994); Allegheny, supra. The test petitioners propose, which would attribute to a neutrally behaving government private religious expression, has no antecedent in our jurisprudence, and would better be called a “transferred endorsement” test.
Petitioners rely heavily on Allegheny and Lynch, but each is easily distinguished. In Allegheny we held that the display of a privately sponsored creche on the “Grand Staircase” of the Allegheny County Courthouse violated the Establishment Clause. That staircase was not, however, open to all on an equal basis, so the county was favoring sectarian religious expression. 492 U. S., at 599-600, and n. 50 (“The Grand Staircase does not appear to be the kind of location in which all were free to place their displays”). We expressly distinguished that site from the kind of public forum at issue here, and made clear that if the staircase were available to all on the same terms, “the presence of the creche in that location for over six weeks would then not serve to associate the government with the creche.” Ibid, (emphasis added). In Lynch we held that a city’s display of a creche did not violate the Establishment Clause because, in context, the display did not endorse religion. 465 U. S., at 685-687. The opinion does assume, as petitioners contend, that the government’s use of religious symbols is unconstitutional if it effectively endorses sectarian religious belief. But the case neither holds nor even remotely assumes that the government’s neutral treatment of 'private religious expression can be unconstitutional.
Petitioners argue that absence of perceived endorsement was material in Lamb’s Chapel and Widmar. We did state in Lamb’s Chapel that there was “no realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion or any particular creed,” 508 U. S., at 395. But that conclusion was not the result of empirical investigation; it followed directly, we thought, from the fact that the forum was open and the religious activity privately sponsored. See ibid. It is significant that we referred only to what would be thought by “the community” — not by outsiders or individual members of the community uninformed about the school’s practice. Surely some of the latter, hearing of religious ceremonies on school premises, and not knowing of the premises’ availability and use for all sorts of other private activities, might leap to the erroneous conclusion of state endorsement. But, we in effect said, given an open forum and private sponsorship, erroneous conclusions do not count. So also in Widmar. Once we determined that the benefit to religious groups from the public forum was incidental and shared by other groups, we categorically rejected the State’s Establishment Clause defense. 454 U. S., at 274.
What distinguishes Allegheny and the dictum in Lynch from Widmar and Lamb’s Chapel is the difference between government speech and private speech. “[T]here is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.” Mergens, 496 U. S., at 250 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). Petitioners assert, in effect, that that distinction disappears when the private speech is conducted too close to the symbols of government. But that, of course, must be merely a subpart of a more general principle: that the distinction disappears whenever private speech can be mistaken for government speech. That proposition cannot be accepted, at least where, as here, the government has not fostered or encouraged the mistake.
Of course, giving sectarian religious speech preferential access to a forum close to the seat of government (or anywhere else for that matter) would violate the Establishment Clause (as well as the Free Speech Clause, since it would involve content discrimination). And one can conceive of a case in which a governmental entity manipulates its administration of a public forum close to the seat of government (or within a government building) in such a manner that only certain religious groups take advantage of it, creating an impression of endorsement that is in fact accurate. But those situations, which involve governmental favoritism, do not exist here. Capitol Square is a genuinely public forum, is known to be a public forum, and has been widely used as a public forum for many, many years. Private religious speech cannot be subject to veto by those who see favoritism where there is none.
The contrary view, most strongly espoused by Justice Stevens, post, at 806-807, but endorsed by Justice Souter and Justice O’Connor as well, exiles private religious speech to a realm of less-protected expression heretofore inhabited only by sexually explicit displays and commercial speech. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 61, 70-71 (1976); Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980). It will be a sad day when this Court casts piety in with pornography, and finds the First Amendment more hospitable to private expletives, see Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 26 (1971), than to private prayers. This would be merely bizarre were religious speech simply as protected by the Constitution as other forms of private speech; but it is outright perverse when one considers that private religious expression receives preferential treatment under the Free Exercise Clause. It is no answer to say that the Establishment Clause tempers religious speech. By its terms that Clause applies only to the words and acts of government. It was never meant, and has never been read by this Court, to serve as an impediment to purely private religious speech connected to the State only through its occurrence in a public forum.
Since petitioners’ “transferred endorsement” principle cannot possibly be restricted to squares in front of state Capitols, the Establishment Clause regime that it would usher in is most unappealing. To require (and permit) access by a religious group in Lamb’s Chapel, it was sufficient that the group’s activity was not in fact government sponsored, that the event was open to the public, and that the benefit of the facilities was shared by various organizations. Petitioners’ rule would require school districts adopting similar policies in the future to guess whether some undetermined critical mass of the community might nonetheless perceive the district to be advocating a religious viewpoint. Similarly, state universities would be forced to reassess our statement that “an open forum in a public university does not confer any imprimatur of state approval on religious sects or practices.” Widmar, 454 U. S., at 274. Whether it does would henceforth depend upon immediate appearances. Policymakers would find themselves in a vise between the Establishment Clause on one side and the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses on the other. Every proposed act of private, religious expression in a public forum would force officials to weigh a host of imponderables. How close to government is too close? What kind of building, and in what context, symbolizes state authority? If the State guessed wrong in one direction, it would be guilty of an Establishment Clause violation; if in the other, it would be liable for suppressing free exercise or free speech (a risk not run when the State restrains only its own expression).
The “transferred endorsement” test would also disrupt the settled principle that policies providing incidental benefits to religion do not contravene the Establishment Clause. That principle is the basis for the constitutionality of a broad range of laws, not merely those that implicate free-speech issues, see, e. g., Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474 U. S. 481 (1986); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388 (1983). It has radical implications for our public policy to suggest that neutral laws are invalid whenever hypothetical observers may — even reasonably — confuse an incidental benefit to' religion with state endorsement.
If Ohio is concerned about misperceptions, nothing prevents it from requiring all private displays in the square to be identified as such. That would be a content-neutral “manner” restriction that is assuredly constitutional. See Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984). But the State may not, on the claim of mis-perception of official endorsement, ban all private religious speech from the public square, or discriminate against it by requiring religious speech alone to disclaim public sponsorship.
* * *
Religious expression cannot violate the Establishment Clause where it (1) is purely private and (2) occurs in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly announced and open to all on equal terms. Those conditions are satisfied here, and therefore the State may not bar respondents’ cross from Capitol Square.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Respondents claim that the Sixth Circuit’s statement that “[zjealots have First Amendment rights too,” even if their views are unpopular, shows that the case is actually about discrimination against political speech. That conclusion is possible only if the statement is ripped from its context, which was this: “The potency of religious speech is not a constitutional infirmity; the most fervently devotional and blatantly sectarian speech is protected when it is private speech in a public forum. Zealots have First Amendment rights too.” 30 F. 3d 675, 680 (1994). The court was obviously addressing zealous (and unpopular) religious speech.
This statement in Justice O’Connor’s Mergens opinion is followed by the observation: “We think that secondary school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.” 496 U. S., at 260. Justice O’Connor today says this observation means that, even when we recognize private speech to be at issue, we must apply the endorsement test. Post, at 774-775. But that would cause the second sentence to contradict the first, saying in effect that the “difference between government speech ... and private speech” is not “crucial.”
If it is true, as Justice O’Connor suggests, post, at 775, that she would not “be likely to come to a different result from the plurality where truly private speech is allowed on equal terms in a vigorous public forum that the government has administered properly,” then she is extending the “endorsement test” to private speech to cover an eventuality that is “not likely” to occur. Before doing that, it would seem desirable to explore the precise degree of the unlikelihood (is it perhaps 100%?) — for as we point out in text, the extension to private speech has considerable costs. Contrary to what Justice O’Connor, Justice Souter, and Justice Stevens argue, the endorsement test does not supply an appropriate standard for the inquiry before us. It supplies no standard whatsoever. The lower federal courts that Justice O’Connor’s concurrence identifies as having “applied the endorsement test in precisely the context before us today,” ibid., have reached precisely differing results — which is what led the Court to take this case. And if further proof of the invited chaos is required, one need only follow the debate between the concurrence and Justice Stevens’ dissent as to whether the hypothetical beholder who will be the determinant of “endorsement” should be any beholder (no matter how unknowledgeable), or the average beholder, or (what Justice Stevens accuses the concurrence of favoring) the “ultrareasonable” beholder. See post, at 778-782 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); post, at 807-808 (Stevens, J., dissenting). And, of course, even when one achieves agreement upon that question, it will be unrealistic to expect different judges (or should it be juries?) to reach consistent answers as to what any beholder, the average beholder, or the ultrareasonable beholder (as the case may be) would think. It is irresponsible to make the Nation’s legislators walk this minefield.
For this reason, among others, we do not inquire into the adequacy of the identification that was attached to the cross ultimately erected in this case. The difficulties posed by such an inquiry, however, are yet another reason to reject the principle of “transferred endorsement.” The only principled line for adequacy of identification would be identification that is legible at whatever distance the cross is visible. Otherwise, the uninformed viewer who does not have time or inclination to come closer to read the sign might be misled, just as (under current law) the uninformed viewer who does not have time or inclination to inquire whether speech in Capitol Square is publicly endorsed speech might be misled. Needless to say, such a rule would place considerable constraint upon religious speech, not to mention that it would be ridiculous. But if one rejects that criterion, courts would have to decide (on what basis we cannot imagine) how large an identifying sign is large enough. Our Religion Clause jurisprudence is complex enough without the addition of this highly litigable feature.
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 SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., Congress created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and established three new types of administrative proceedings before the Board that allow a "person" other than the patent owner to challenge the validity of a patent post-issuance. The question presented in this case is whether a federal agency is a "person" able to seek such review under the statute. We conclude that it is not.
I
A
The Constitution empowers Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective... Discoveries." Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. Pursuant to that authority, Congress established the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) and tasked it with "the granting and issuing of patents." 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2(a)(1).
To obtain a patent, an inventor submits an application describing the proposed patent claims to the Patent Office. See §§ 111(a)(1), 112. A patent examiner then reviews the application and prior art (the information available to the public at the time of the application) to determine whether the claims satisfy the statutory requirements for patentability, including that the claimed invention is useful, novel, nonobvious, and contains eligible subject matter. See §§ 101, 102, 103. If the Patent Office accepts the claim and issues a patent, the patent owner generally obtains exclusive rights to the patented invention throughout the United States for 20 years. §§ 154(a)(1), (2).
After a patent issues, there are several avenues by which its validity can be revisited. The first is through a defense in an infringement action. Generally, one who intrudes upon a patent without authorization "infringes the patent" and becomes subject to civil suit in the federal district courts, where the patent owner may demand a jury trial and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. §§ 271(a), 281-284. If, however, the Federal Government is the alleged patent infringer, the patent owner must sue the Government in the United States Court of Federal Claims and may recover only "reasonable and entire compensation" for the unauthorized use. 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).
Once sued, an accused infringer can attempt to prove by clear and convincing evidence "that the patent never should have issued in the first place." Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L. P., 564 U. S. 91, 96-97, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011) ; see 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). If a defendant succeeds in showing that the claimed invention falls short of one or more patentability requirements, the court may deem the patent invalid and absolve the defendant of liability.
The Patent Office may also reconsider the validity of issued patents. Since 1980, the Patent Act has empowered the Patent Office "to reexamine-and perhaps cancel-a patent claim that it had previously allowed." Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U. S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2137, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 (2016). This procedure is known as ex parte reexamination. "Any person at any time" may cite to the Patent Office certain prior art that may "bea[r] on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent"; and the person may additionally request that the Patent Office reexamine the claim on that basis. 35 U.S.C. §§ 301(a), 302(a). If the Patent Office concludes that the prior art raises "a substantial new question of patentability," the agency may reexamine the patent and, if warranted, cancel the patent or some of its claims. §§ 303(a), 304-307. The Director of the Patent Office may also, on her "own initiative," initiate such a proceeding. § 303(a).
In 1999 and 2002, Congress added an "inter partes reexamination" procedure, which similarly invited "[a]ny person at any time" to seek reexamination of a patent on the basis of prior art and allowed the challenger to participate in the administrative proceedings and any subsequent appeal. See § 311(a) (2000 ed.); §§ 314(a), (b) (2006 ed.); Cuozzo Speed Technologies, 579 U. S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 2137.
B
In 2011, Congress overhauled the patent system by enacting the America Invents Act (AIA), which created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and phased out inter partes reexamination. See 35 U.S.C. § 6 ; H. R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, pp. 46-47. In its stead, the AIA tasked the Board with overseeing three new types of post-issuance review proceedings.
First, the "inter partes review" provision permits "a person" other than the patent owner to petition for the review and cancellation of a patent on the grounds that the invention lacks novelty or nonobviousness in light of "patents or printed publications" existing at the time of the patent application. § 311.
Second, the "post-grant review" provision permits "a person who is not the owner of a patent" to petition for review and cancellation of a patent on any ground of patentability. § 321; see §§ 282(b)(2), (b)(3). Such proceedings must be brought within nine months of the patent's issuance. § 321.
Third, the "covered-business-method review" (CBM review) provision provides for changes to a patent that claims a method for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice or management of a financial product or service. AIA §§ 18(a)(1), (d)(1), 125 Stat. 329, note following 35 U.S.C. § 321, p. 1442. CBM review tracks the "standards and procedures of" post-grant review with two notable exceptions: CBM review is not limited to the nine months following issuance of a patent, and "[a] person" may file for CBM review only as a defense against a charge or suit for infringement. § 18(a)(1)(B), 125 Stat. 330.
The AIA's three post-issuance review proceedings are adjudicatory in nature. Review is conducted by a three-member panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 35 U.S.C. § 6(c), and the patent owner and challenger may seek discovery, file affidavits and other written memoranda, and request an oral hearing, see §§ 316, 326; AIA § 18(a)(1), 125 Stat. 329; Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ----, ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct. 1365, 1371-72, 200 L.Ed.2d 671 (2018). The petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. §§ 282, 316(e), 326(e). The Board then either confirms the patent claims or cancels some or all of the claims. §§ 318(b), 328(b). Any party "dissatisfied" with the Board's final decision may seek judicial review in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, §§ 319, 329; see § 141(c), and the Director of the Patent Office may intervene, § 143.
In sum, in the post-AIA world, a patent can be reexamined either in federal court during a defense to an infringement action, in an ex parte reexamination by the Patent Office, or in the suite of three post-issuance review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The central question in this case is whether the Federal Government can avail itself of the three post-issuance review proceedings, including CBM review.
C
Return Mail, Inc., owns U. S. Patent No. 6,826,548 ('548 patent), which claims a method for processing mail that is undeliverable. Beginning in 2003, the United States Postal Service allegedly began exploring the possibility of licensing Return Mail's invention for use in handling the country's undelivered mail. But the parties never reached an agreement.
In 2006, the Postal Service introduced an enhanced address-change service to process undeliverable mail. Return Mail's representatives asserted that the new service infringed the '548 patent, and the company renewed its offer to license the claimed invention to the Postal Service. In response, the Postal Service petitioned for ex parte reexamination of the '548 patent. The Patent Office canceled the original claims but issued several new ones, confirming the validity of the '548 patent. Return Mail then sued the Postal Service in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking compensation for the Postal Service's unauthorized use of its invention, as reissued by the Patent Office.
While the lawsuit was pending, the Postal Service again petitioned the Patent Office to review the '548 patent, this time seeking CBM review. The Patent Board instituted review. The Board agreed with the Postal Service that Return Mail's patent claims subject matter that was ineligible to be patented, and it canceled the claims underlying the '548 patent. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. See 868 F. 3d 1350 (2017). As relevant here, the Federal Circuit held, over a dissent, that the Government is a "person" eligible to petition for CBM review. Id., at 1366 ; see AIA § 18(a)(1)(B), 125 Stat. 330 (only a qualifying "person" may petition for CBM review). The court then affirmed the Patent Board's decision on the merits, invalidating Return Mail's patent claims.
We granted certiorari to determine whether a federal agency is a "person" capable of petitioning for post-issuance review under the AIA. 586 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 397, 202 L.Ed.2d 309 (2018).
II
The AIA provides that only "a person" other than the patent owner may file with the Office a petition to institute a post-grant review or inter partes review of an issued patent. 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(a), 321(a). The statute likewise provides that a "person" eligible to seek CBM review may not do so "unless the person or the person's real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement." AIA § 18(a)(1)(B), 125 Stat. 330. The question in this case is whether the Government is a "person" capable of instituting the three AIA review proceedings.
A
The patent statutes do not define the term "person." In the absence of an express statutory definition, the Court applies a "longstanding interpretive presumption that 'person' does not include the sovereign," and thus excludes a federal agency like the Postal Service. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 780-781, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) ; see United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) ; United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 603-605, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.Ed. 1071 (1941) ; United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 321, 24 L.Ed. 192 (1877).
This presumption reflects "common usage." Mine Workers, 330 U. S. at 275, 67 S.Ct. 677. It is also an express directive from Congress: The Dictionary Act has since 1947 provided the definition of " 'person' " that courts use "[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise." 1 U.S.C. § 1 ; see Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U. S. 194, 199-200, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993). The Act provides that the word " 'person'... include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." § 1. Notably absent from the list of "person[s]" is the Federal Government. See Mine Workers, 330 U. S. at 275, 67 S.Ct. 677 (reasoning that Congress' express inclusion of partnerships and corporations in § 1 implies that Congress did not intend to include the Government). Thus, although the presumption is not a "hard and fast rule of exclusion," Cooper, 312 U. S. at 604-605, 61 S.Ct. 742, "it may be disregarded only upon some affirmative showing of statutory intent to the contrary," Stevens, 529 U. S. at 781, 120 S.Ct. 1858.
The Postal Service contends that the presumption is strongest where interpreting the word "person" to include the Government imposes liability on the Government, and is weakest where (as here) interpreting "person" in that way benefits the Government. In support of this argument, the Postal Service points to a different interpretive canon: that Congress must unequivocally express any waiver of sovereign immunity for that waiver to be effective. See FAA v. Cooper, 566 U. S. 284, 290, 132 S.Ct. 1441, 182 L.Ed.2d 497 (2012). That clear-statement rule inherently applies only when a party seeks to hold the Government liable for its actions; otherwise immunity is generally irrelevant. In the Postal Service's view, the presumption against treating the Government as a statutory person works in tandem with the clear-statement rule regarding immunity, such that both apply only when a statute would subject the Government to liability.
Our precedents teach otherwise. In several instances, this Court has applied the presumption against treating the Government as a statutory person when there was no question of immunity, and doing so would instead exclude the Federal Government or one of its agencies from accessing a benefit or favorable procedural device. In Cooper, 312 U. S. at 604-605, 614, 61 S.Ct. 742, for example, the Court held that the Federal Government was not " '[a]ny person' " who could sue for treble damages under § 7 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Accord, International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund, 500 U. S. 72, 82-84, 111 S.Ct. 1700, 114 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991) (concluding that the National Institutes of Health was not authorized to remove an action as a " 'person acting under [a federal]' officer" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) ); Davis v. Pringle, 268 U. S. 315, 317-318, 45 S.Ct. 549, 69 L.Ed. 974 (1925) (reasoning that "normal usages of speech" indicated that the Government was not a "person" entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Act); Fox, 94 U. S. at 321 (holding that the Federal Government was not a " 'person capable by law of holding real estate,' " absent "an express definition to that effect").
Thus, although the presumption against treating the Government as a statutory person is " 'particularly applicable where it is claimed that Congress has subjected the [sovereign] to liability to which they had not been subject before,' " Stevens, 529 U. S. at 781, 120 S.Ct. 1858, it is hardly confined to such cases. Here, too, we proceed from the presumption that the Government is not a "person" authorized to initiate these proceedings absent an affirmative showing to the contrary.
B
Given the presumption that a statutory reference to a "person" does not include the Government, the Postal Service must show that the AIA's context indicates otherwise. Although the Postal Service need not cite to "an express contrary definition," Rowland, 506 U. S. at 200, 113 S.Ct. 716, it must point to some indication in the text or context of the statute that affirmatively shows Congress intended to include the Government. See Cooper, 312 U. S. at 605, 61 S.Ct. 742.
The Postal Service makes three arguments for displacing the presumption. First, the Postal Service argues that the statutory text and context offer sufficient evidence that the Government is a "person" with the power to petition for AIA review proceedings. Second, the Postal Service contends that federal agencies' long history of participation in the patent system suggests that Congress intended for the Government to participate in AIA review proceedings as well. Third, the Postal Service maintains that the statute must permit it to petition for AIA review because § 1498 subjects the Government to liability for infringement. None delivers.
1
The Postal Service first argues that the AIA's reference to a "person" in the context of post-issuance review proceedings must include the Government because other references to persons in the patent statutes appear to do so. Indeed, it is often true that when Congress uses a word to mean one thing in one part of the statute, it will mean the same thing elsewhere in the statute. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U. S. 71, 86, 126 S.Ct. 1503, 164 L.Ed.2d 179 (2006). This principle, however, "readily yields to context," especially when a statutory term is used throughout a statute and takes on "distinct characters" in distinct statutory provisions. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 320, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 189 L.Ed.2d 372 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). That is the case here. The Patent Act and the AIA refer to "person[s]" in at least 18 different places, and there is no clear trend: Sometimes "person" plainly includes the Government, sometimes it plainly excludes the Government, and sometimes-as here-it might be read either way.
Looking on the bright side, the Postal Service and the dissent, see post, at 1868, focus on § 207(a)(1), which authorizes "[e]ach [f]ederal agency" to "apply for, obtain, and maintain patents or other forms of protection... on inventions in which the Federal Government owns a right, title, or interest." It follows from § 207(a)(1)'s express inclusion of federal agencies among those eligible to apply for patents that the statute's references to "person[s]" in the subsections governing the patent-application process and questions of patentability (§§ 102(a), 118, and 119) must also include federal agencies. In other words, the right described in § 207(a)(1) provides a sufficient contextual clue that the word "person"-when used in the other provisions governing the application process § 207(a)(1) makes available to federal agencies-includes the Government.
But § 207(a)(1) provides no such clue as to the interpretation of the AIA review provisions because it implies nothing about what a federal agency may or may not do following the issuance of someone else's patent. Conversely, reading the review provisions to exclude the Government has no bearing on a federal agency's right to obtain a patent under § 207(a)(1). An agency may still apply for and obtain patents whether or not it may petition for a review proceeding under the AIA seeking cancellation of a patent it does not own. There is thus no reason to think that "person" must mean the same thing in these two different parts of the statute. See Utility Air, 573 U. S. at 320, 134 S.Ct. 2427.
The Postal Service cites other provisions that may refer to the Government-namely, the "intervening rights" provisions that offer certain protections for "any person" who is lawfully making or using an invention when the Patent Office modifies an existing patent claim in a way that deems the person's (previously lawful) use to be infringement. See §§ 252, 307(b), 318(c), 328(c). The Postal Service argues that the Government must be among those protected by these provisions and from there deduces that it must also be permitted to petition for AIA review proceedings because the review provisions and the intervening-rights provisions were all added to the Patent Act by the AIA at the same time. See Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U. S. 224, 232, 127 S.Ct. 2411, 168 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007) (invoking the consistent-usage canon where the same term was used in related provisions enacted at the same time).
But regardless of whether the intervening-rights provisions apply to the Government (a separate interpretive question that we have no occasion to answer here), the Postal Service's chain of inferences overlooks a confounding link: The consistent-usage canon breaks down where Congress uses the same word in a statute in multiple conflicting ways. As noted, that is the case here. In the face of such inconsistency, the mere existence of some Government-inclusive references cannot make the "affirmative showing," Stevens, 529 U. S. at 781, 120 S.Ct. 1858, required to overcome the presumption that Congress did not intend to include the Government among those "person[s]" eligible to petition for AIA review proceedings.
2
The Postal Service next points to the Federal Government's longstanding history with the patent system. It reminds us that federal officers have been able to apply for patents in the name of the United States since 1883, see Act of Mar. 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 625-which, in the Postal Service's view, suggests that Congress intended to allow the Government access to AIA review proceedings as well. But, as already explained, the Government's ability to obtain a patent under § 207(a)(1) does not speak to whether Congress meant for the Government to participate as a third-party challenger in AIA review proceedings. As to those proceedings, there is no longstanding practice: The AIA was enacted just eight years ago.
More pertinently, the Postal Service and the dissent both note that the Patent Office since 1981 has treated federal agencies as "persons" who may cite prior art to the agency or request an ex parte reexamination of an issued patent. See post, at 1870. Recall that § 301(a) provides that "[a]ny person at any time may cite to the Office in writing... prior art... which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent." As memorialized in the Patent Office's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), the agency has understood § 301's reference to "any person" to include "governmental entit[ies]." Dept. of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP §§ 2203, 2212 (4th rev. ed., July 1981).
We might take account of this "executive interpretation" if we were determining whether Congress meant to include the Government as a "person" for purposes of the ex parte reexamination procedures themselves. See, e.g., United States v. Hermanos y Compañia, 209 U. S. 337, 339, 28 S.Ct. 532, 52 L.Ed. 821 (1908). Here, however, the Patent Office's statement in the 1981 MPEP has no direct relevance. Even assuming that the Government may petition for ex parte reexamination, ex parte reexamination is a fundamentally different process than an AIA post-issuance review proceeding. Both share the common purpose of allowing non-patent owners to bring questions of patent validity to the Patent Office's attention, but they do so in meaningfully different ways.
In an ex parte reexamination, the third party sends information to the Patent Office that the party believes bears on the patent's validity, and the Patent Office decides whether to reexamine the patent. If it decides to do so, the reexamination process is internal; the challenger is not permitted to participate in the Patent Office's process. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 302, 303. By contrast, the AIA post-issuance review proceedings are adversarial, adjudicatory proceedings between the "person" who petitioned for review and the patent owner: There is briefing, a hearing, discovery, and the presentation of evidence, and the losing party has appeal rights. See supra, at 1860 - 1861. Thus, there are good reasons Congress might have authorized the Government to initiate a hands-off ex parte reexamination but not to become a party to a full-blown adversarial proceeding before the Patent Office and any subsequent appeal. After all, the Government is already in a unique position among alleged infringers given that 28 U.S.C. § 1498 limits patent owners to bench trials before the Court of Federal Claims and monetary damages, whereas 35 U.S.C. § 271 permits patent owners to demand jury trials in the federal district courts and seek other types of relief.
Thus, there is nothing to suggest that Congress had the 1981 MPEP statement in mind when it enacted the AIA. It is true that this Court has often said, "[w]hen administrative and judicial interpretations have settled the meaning of an existing statutory provision, repetition of the same language in a new statute indicates, as a general matter, the intent to incorporate its administrative and judicial interpretations as well." Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 645, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.2d 540 (1998). But there is no "settled" meaning of the term "person" with respect to the newly established AIA review proceedings. Accordingly, the MPEP does not justify putting aside the presumptive meaning of "person" here.
3
Finally, the Postal Service argues that it must be a "person" who may petition for AIA review proceedings because, like other potential infringers, it is subject to civil liability and can assert a defense of patent invalidity. See §§ 282(b)(2)-(3). In the Postal Service's view, it is anomalous to deny it a benefit afforded to other infringers-the ability to challenge a patent de novo before the Patent Office, rather than only as an infringement defense that must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. See ibid. ; Microsoft Corp., 564 U. S. at 95, 131 S.Ct. 2238 (holding that § 282's presumption of validity in litigation imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on defendants seeking to prove invalidity).
The Postal Service overstates the asymmetry. Agencies retain the ability under § 282 to assert defenses to infringement. Once sued, an agency may, like any other accused infringer, argue that the patent is invalid, and the agency faces the same burden of proof as a defendant in any other infringement suit. The Postal Service lacks only the additional tool of petitioning for the initiation of an administrative proceeding before the Patent Office under the AIA, a process separate from defending an infringement suit.
We see no oddity, however, in Congress' affording nongovernmental actors an expedient route that the Government does not also enjoy for heading off potential infringement suits. Those other actors face greater and more uncertain risks if they misjudge their right to use technology that is subject to potentially invalid patents. Most notably, § 1498 restricts a patent owner who sues the Government to her "reasonable and entire compensation" for the Government's infringing use; she cannot seek an injunction, demand a jury trial, or ask for punitive damages, all of which are available in infringement suits against nongovernmental actors under § 271(e)(4). Thus, although federal agencies remain subject to damages for impermissible uses, they do not face the threat of preliminary injunctive relief that could suddenly halt their use of a patented invention, and they enjoy a degree of certainty about the extent of their potential liability that ordinary accused infringers do not. Because federal agencies face lower risks, it is reasonable for Congress to have treated them differently.
Finally, excluding federal agencies from the AIA review proceedings avoids the awkward situation that might result from forcing a civilian patent owner (such as Return Mail) to defend the patentability of her invention in an adversarial, adjudicatory proceeding initiated by one federal agency (such as the Postal Service) and overseen by a different federal agency (the Patent Office). We are therefore unpersuaded that the Government's exclusion from the AIA review proceedings is sufficiently anomalous to overcome the presumption that the Government is not a "person" under the Act.
III
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that a federal agency is not a "person" who may petition for post-issuance review under the AIA. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice BREYER, with whom Justice GINSBURG and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting.
When A sues B for patent infringement, B may defend against the lawsuit by claiming that A's patent is invalid. In court, B must prove the invalidity of A's patent by "clear and convincing evidence." Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L. P., 564 U. S. 91, 95, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011). Congress, however, has also established a variety of administrative procedures that B may use to challenge the validity of A's patent. Although some of the statutes setting forth these administrative procedures have existed for several decades, we consider here the three administrative procedures that Congress established in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. See ante, at 1859 - 1861. All three involve hearings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which is part of the Patent and Trademark Office. And all three involve a lower burden of proof: B need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that A's patent is invalid. 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(e), 326(e) ; see America Invents Act, § 18(a)(1), 125 Stat. 329.
The America Invents Act states that all three administrative procedures may be invoked only by a "person." 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(a), 321(a) ; America Invents Act, § 18(a)(1)(B), 125 Stat. 330. Here we must decide whether the Government falls within the scope of the word "person." Are federal agencies entitled to invoke these administrative procedures on the same terms as private parties? In my view, the answer is "yes." For purposes of these statutes, Government agencies count as "persons" and so may invoke these procedures to challenge the validity of a patent.
The Court reaches the opposite conclusion based on the interpretive presumption that the word "person" excludes the Government. See ante, at 1861 - 1862. This presumption, however, is "no hard and fast rule of exclusion." United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604-605, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.Ed. 1071 (1941). We have long said that this presumption may be overcome when " '[t]he purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, [or] the executive interpretation... indicate an intent' " to include the Government. International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund, 500 U. S. 72, 83, 111 S.Ct. 1700, 114 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991) (quoting Cooper, supra, at 605, 61 S.Ct. 742 ). And here these factors indicate that very intent.
I
The language of other related patent provisions strongly suggests that, in the administrative review statutes at issue here, the term "person" includes the Government.
The Patent Act states that "[e]ach Federal agency is authorized" to "apply for, obtain, and maintain patents or other forms of protection... on inventions in which the Federal Government owns a right, title, or interest." 35 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The Act then provides that a "person " shall be "entitled to a patent" if various "[c]onditions for patentability" have been met. § 102(a)(1) (emphasis added). It authorizes a "person to whom the inventor has assigned" an invention to apply for a patent in some circumstances. § 118 (emphasis added). And it generally allows "any person " who initially files a patent application in a foreign country to obtain in the United States the advantage of that earlier filing date. § 119 (emphasis added). Because the Government is authorized to "obtain" patents, there is no dispute here that the word "person" in these patent-eligibility provisions must include the Government. See ante, at 1863 - 1864.
Now consider a few of the statutory provisions that help those accused of infringing a patent. Suppose A obtains a patent in Year One, modifies this patent in Year Three, and then accuses B of infringing the patent as modified in Year Five. What if B's conduct infringes the modified patent but did not infringe A's patent as it originally stood in Year One? In these circumstances, Congress has provided that A generally cannot win an infringement suit against B. The relevant statutes, known as the "intervening rights" provisions, state that B is entitled to a defense that his conduct did not violate the original, unmodified patent. §§ 252, 307(b), 318(c), 328(c). These statutes, several of which were enacted alongside the three administrative review procedures in the America Invents Act, provide that a "person " may take advantage of this defense. Ibid. (emphasis added). Again, as the parties all agree, the word "person" in these provisions includes the Government. See Reply Brief 3; Lamson v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 755, 760 (2014) (noting that the Government may "avail itself of any defense that is available to a private party in an infringement action").
The majority refers to several patent-related provisions that use the word "person" but that do not include the Government within the scope of that term. See ante, at 1863 - 1864, and n. 4. These provisions, however, concern details of administration that, almost by definition, could not involve an entity such as the Government. The first provision cited by the majority says that administrative patent judges must be "persons of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability." § 6(a). Patent judges are human beings, not governments or corporations or other artificial entities. The second requires the Patent Office to keep confidential a referral to the Attorney General of possible fraud unless the Government charges "a person" with a related criminal 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.
DECREE
1. It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the boundary line between the States of Arkansas and Tennessee in the area in controversy shall be fixed in the middle of the old abandoned Cow Island Bendway Channel as partially reflected in the 1953 survey of one R. L. Cooper (Defendant’s Exhibit 42, attached to the decree in Brown v. Brakensiek, in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee), said abandoned channel extending from its upper or up-river end to the lower or down-river end of Ike Chute as far as that survey goes, thence downstream in a southerly direction passing down the middle of a water drain or creek now running between the lower end of Ike Chute and the upper end of 96 Chute, thence continuing downstream in a southerly direction down the middle of 96 Chute and coming out of 96 Chute on a continuing straight line to the point where it joins the present navigation channel of the Mississippi River, all as indicated by a broken line marked “State Line” on the annexed reduced copy of the 1965 aerial photograph of the area in controversy, Joint Exhibit A, marked Appendix A-I, and also as reflected by a broken line marked “State Line” on a reduced copy of Defendant’s Exhibit 39, the 1937 map of the United States Engineers and hereto annexed as Appendix A-II.
2. It is ordered that the Hon. Gunnar H. Nordbye be, and he is hereby, appointed Commissioner in this case with power to engage and supervise a competent surveyor, or surveyors, to survey the boundary line as provided in this decree. The boundary line determined by such survey shall be submitted to the Court by the Commissioner and, if approved, shall be the boundary line between the two States.
3. The costs of this proceeding shall be divided equally between the parties.
[Appendixes A-I and A-II follow this page.]
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | K | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases involve the construction of those portions of the National Bank Act, 44 Stat. 1228, 12 U. S. C. § 36 (c), which authorize a national banking association, with the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency, to establish and operate new branches within the limits of the municipality in which the bank is located, if such operation is “at the time expressly authorized to State banks by the law of the State in question.” Two national banks with their main banking houses in Logan and Ogden, Utah, respectively, seek to open branches in those municipalities. The Utah statute prohibits Utah banks, with certain exceptions not here relevant, from establishing branches except by taking over an existing bank which has been in operation for not less than five years. Utah Code Ann., Tit. 7, c. 3, § 6 (1965 Supp.). In No. 51, First National Bank of Logan v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., the petitioner seeks to establish a new branch in Logan, where its principal banking house is located, without taking over an established bank. The District Court approved its doing so but the Court of Appeals reversed. 352 F. 2d 90 (C. A. 10th Cir.), sub nom. Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Saxon. In No. 73, First Security Bank of Utah, N. A. v. Commercial Security Bank, and No. 88, Saxon v. Commercial Security Bank, First Security seeks to establish a new branch in Ogden, in which its home office is situated, without taking over an established bank. The District Court held that state law must be complied with, 236 F. Supp. 457, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a judgment, without opinion, citing Walker Bank & Trust Co., supra. In view of a conflict between these holdings and the decision in First National Bank of Smithfield v. Saxon, 352 F. 2d 267 (C. A. 4th Cir.), we granted certiorari, and consolidated the three cases for argument. 384 U. S. 925. We affirm the judgments.
1. The Facts.
In No. 51, the petitioner maintains its principal banking house in Logan, Utah, which is a second class city under Utah law (Utah Code Ann., Tit. 10, c. 1, § 1 (1953, as amended)), and is therefore subject to § 7-3-6 of the Utah Code, supra. It applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for a certificate to establish an “inside” branch office in Logan. At the time of the application there were no other banks with their main banking offices in Logan. However, there were two branches of banks whose home offices were situated outside of Logan, one of which belonged to respondent, Walker Bank & Trust Co., whose home office was located in Salt Lake City. After a hearing, the Comptroller ordered the certificate issued. The respondent subsequently filed this suit seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Comptroller and First National claiming the action of the Comptroller to be void since the proposed branch was not taking over an established bank in Logan, as required by Utah, law. The District Court dismissed the complaint. It found “express authority” under Utah law for state banks to establish branch offices in Logan, relying on the general authority of the statute and holding that the subsequent conditions, such as the acquisition of another bank, did not “change the ‘express authority’ into a lack of authority on the part of State banks or a lack of a statutory expression of such authority, and [did] not add to the Federal statute a requirement that compliance be made by National banks with all State conditions.” 234 F. Supp. 74, 78, n. 8. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Congress in enacting § 36 (c)(1) acceded to state law and created “a competitive equality between state and national banks.” Finding that the trial court’s interpretation was to the contrary, it declared “the proper approach is for the Comptroller to look at all the State law on branch banking not just part of it.” 352 F. 2d 90, 94.
In Nos. 73 and 88, the First Security Bank of Utah, a national bank, applied for a certificate from the Comptroller to establish a branch bank in Ogden, where it maintained its principal banking house. Its proposal was to open a new branch and not to take over an existing bank in Ogden. Under Utah law, Ogden is also a second class city and the “take over” provision of § 7-3-6, supra, was therefore applicable. Two other banks have their main offices in Ogden. After the Comptroller approved the issuance of the certificate, respondent filed suit in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia asking for injunctive and other relief. The District Court imposed all of the restrictions of § 7-3-6' of Utah law on the establishment of national banks and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, by a judgment without opinion, but cited the opinion of the 10th Circuit, Walker Bank & Trust Co., supra.
2. The National Bcmk Act: Its Background.
There has long been opposition to the exercise of federal power in the banking field. Indeed, President Jefferson was opposed to the creation of the first Bank of the United States and President Jackson vetoed the Act of Congress extending the charter of the second Bank of the United States. However, the authority of Congress to act in the field was resolved in the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). There Chief Justice Marshall, while admitting that it does not appear that a bank was in the contemplation of the Framers of the Constitution, held that a national bank could be chartered under the implied powers of the Congress as an instrumentality of the Federal Government to implement its fiscal powers. The paramount power of the Congress over national banks has, therefore, been settled for almost a century and a half.
Nevertheless, no national banking act was adopted until 1863 (12 Stat. 665), and it was not until 1927 that Congress dealt with the problem before us in these cases. This inaction was possibly due to the fact that at the turn of the century, there were very few branch banks in the country. At that time only five national and 82 state banks were operating branches with a total of 119 branches. By the end of 1923, however, there were 91 national and 580 state banks with a total of 2,054 branches. The Comptroller of the Currency, in his Annual Report of 1923, recommended congressional action on branch banking. The report stated that if state banks continue to engage “in unlimited branch banking it will mean the eventual destruction of the national banking system . . . .” H. R. Doc. No. 90, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1924). Soon thereafter legislation was introduced to equalize national and state branch banking. The House Report on the measure, H. R. Rep. No. 83, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1926), stated among other things:
“The bill recognizes the absolute necessity of taking legislative action with reference to the branch banking controversy. The present situation is intolerable to the national banking system. The bill proposes the only practicable solution by stopping the further extension of state-wide branch banking in the Federal reserve system by State member banks and by permitting national banks to have branches in those cities where State banks are allowed to have them under State laws.”
This bill failed to pass in the Senate and, although Congress continued to study the problem, it was not until 1927 that the McFadden Act was adopted. The bill originated in the House and, in substance, proposed that both national and state banks be permitted to establish “inside” branches within the municipality of their main banking facilities, in those States that permitted branch banking at the time of the enactment of the bill. H. R. Rep. No. 83, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 4-5 (1926). The intent of the Congress to leave the question of the desirability of branch banking up to the States is indicated by the fact that the Senate struck from the House bill the time limitation, thus permitting a subsequent change in state law to have a corresponding effect on the authority of national banks to engage in branching. The Senate Report concluded that the Act should permit “national banks to have branches in those cities where State banks are allowed to have them under State laws.” S. Rep. No. 473, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1926). In the subsequent Conference Committee, the Senate position was adopted. State banks which were members of the Federal Reserve System were also limited to “inside” branches. A grandfather clause permitted retention of branches operated at the date of enactment. H. R. Rep. No. 1481, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1926). The Act was finally passed on February 25, 1927, and became known as the McFadden Act of 1927, taking its name from its sponsor, Representative McFadden. At the time of its enactment he characterized it in this language:
“As a result of the passage of this act, the national bank act has been so amended that national banks are able to meet the needs of modern industry and commerce and competitive equality has been established among all member banks of the Federal reserve system.” (Emphasis added.) 68 Cong. Rec. 5815 (1927).
During the economic depression there was much agitation that bank failures were due to small undercap-italized rural banks and that these banks should be supplanted by branches of larger and stronger banks. The Comptroller of the Currency advocated that national banks be permitted to branch regardless of state law. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency pursuant to S. Res. No. 71, 71st Cong., 3d Sess., 7-10 (1931). Senator Carter Glass held a similar belief and introduced a bill that would authorize national banks to organize branches irrespective of state law beyond and “outside” the municipality of its principal banking house. His proposal was strenuously opposed and was eventually defeated. It was not until the Seventy-third Congress that the Banking Act of 1933 was adopted. Senator Glass, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency and the dominant banking figure in the Congress, was sponsor of the Act. In reporting it to the Senate for passage, he said, the Act “required that the establishment of branch banks by national banks in States which by law permit branch banking should be under the regulations required by State law of State banks.” 77 Cong. Rec. 3726 (1933). In a colloquy on the floor of the Senate with Senator Copeland as to the purpose of the Act (with reference to branch banking by national banks), Senator Glass said that it would be permissible “in only those States the laws of which permit branch banking, and only to the extent that the State laws permit branch banking.” Moreover, to make it crystal clear, when Senator Copeland replied that “it permits branch banking only in those States where the State laws permit branch banking by State banks,” Senator Glass was careful to repeat: “Only in those States and to the extent that the State laws -permit branch banking.” (Emphasis added.) 76 Cong. Rec. 2511 (1933). Remarks of other members of Congress also indicate that they shared the understanding of Senator Glass. For example, Senator Vandenberg stated that §36 (c)(1) provides “that the branch-banking privilege so far as national banks are concerned shall follow the status established by State law in respect to the State privilege.” 76 Cong. Rec. 2262 (1933). Likewise, Senator Long, who had joined a filibuster against an earlier version of the bill, stated at final passage that “[w]e have only undertaken to secure equal treatment for State banks” and that the bill had substantially achieved that result. 77 Cong. Rec. 5862 (1933). In similar tone, Representative Bacon stated that branches of national banks may be established provided “this is permitted by the laws of that State and subject to them.” (Emphasis added.) 77 Cong. Rec. 3949 (1933). And Representative Luce, a member of the Conference Committee, reported to the House:
“In the controversy over the respective merits of what are known as 'unit banking' and 'branch banking systems/ a controversy that has been alive and sharp for years, branch banking has been steadily gaining in favor. It is not, however, here proposed to give the advocates of branch banking any advantage. We do not go an inch beyond saying that the two ideas shall compete on equal terms and only where the States make the competition possible by letting their own institutions have branches.” 77 Cong. Rec. 5896 (1933).
As finally passed, the Act permitted national banks to establish outside branches if such branches could be established by state banks under state law. It is well to note that the same Act also removed the restriction on outside branch banking by state member banks previously imposed by the McFadden Act.
3. The Policy of Competitive Equality.
It appears clear from this résumé of the legislative history of 136(c)(1) and (2) that Congress intended to place national and state banks on a basis of “competitive equality” insofar as branch banking was concerned. Both sponsors of the applicable banking Acts, Representative McFadden and Senator Glass, so characterized the legislation. It is not for us to so construe the Acts as to frustrate this clear-cut purpose so forcefully expressed by both friend and foe of the legislation at the time of its adoption. To us it appears beyond question' that the Congress was continuing its policy of equalization first adopted in the National Bank Act of 1864. See Lewis v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 292 U. S. 559, 565-566 (1934); McClellan v. Chipman, 164 U. S. 347 (1896); Chase Securities Corp. v. Husband, 302 U. S. 660 (1938); Anderson Nat. Bank v. Duckett, 321 U. S. 233 (1944).
The Comptroller argues that Utah’s statute “expressly authorizes” state banks to have branches in their home municipalities. He maintains that the restriction, in the subsequent paragraph of the statute limiting branching solely to the taking over of an existing bank, is not applicable to national banks. It is a strange argument that permits one to pick and choose what portion of the law binds him. Indeed, it would fly in the face of the legislative history not to hold that national branch banking is limited to those States the laws of which permit it, and even there “only to the extent that the State laws permit branch banking.” Utah clearly permits it “only to the extent” that the proposed branch takes over an existing bank.
The Comptroller also contends that the Act supersedes state law only as to “whether” and “where” branches may be located and not the “method” by which this is effected. We believe that where a State allows branching only by taking over an existing bank, it expresses as much “whether” and “where” a branch may be located as does a prohibition or a limitation to the home office municipality. As to the restriction being a “method,” we have concluded that since it is part and parcel of Utah’s policy, it was absorbed by the provisions of §§ 36 (c)(1) and (2), regardless of the tag placed upon it.
Affirmed.
The National Bank Act, 44 Stat. 1228, 12 U. S. C. §§36 (c)(1) and (2) provides:
“(e) A national banking association may, with the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency, establish and operate new branches: (1) Within the limits of the city, town or village in which said association is situated, if such establishment and operation are at the time expressly authorized to State banks by the law of the State in question; and (2) at any point within the State in which said association is situated, if such establishment and operation are at the time authorized to State banks by the statute law of the State in question by language specifically granting such authority affirmatively and not merely by implication or recognition, and subject to the restrictions as to location imposed by the law of the State on State banks.”
Utah Code Ann., Tit. 7, c. 3, § 6 (1965 Supp.), provides:
“7-3-6. Business conducted at banking house — Branching of offices — Violation of section a misdemeanor. — The business of every bank shall be conducted only at its banking house and every bank shall receive deposits and pay checks only at its banking house except as hereinafter provided.
“Except in cities of the first class, or within unincorporated areas of a county in which a city of the first class is located, no branch bank shall be established in any city or town in which is located a bank or banks, state or national, regularly transacting a customary banking business, unless the bank seeking to establish such branch shall take over an existing bank. No unit bank organized and operating at a point where there are other operating banks, state or national, shall be permitted to be acquired by another bank for the purpose of establishing a branch until such bank shall have been in operation as such for a period of five years.”
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Banking Studies 15, 428 (1941).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In the course of a fight in a nightclub parking lot, Ronnie Buchanan pinned respondent Weir to the ground. Buchanan then jumped to his feet and shouted that he had been stabbed; he ultimately died from his stab wounds. Respondent immediately left the scene, and did not report the incident to the police.
At his trial for intentional murder, respondent took the stand in his own defense. He admitted stabbing Buchanan, but claimed that he acted in self-defense and that the stabbing was accidental. This in-court statement was the first occasion on which respondent offered an exculpatory version of the stabbing. The prosecutor cross-examined him as to why he had, when arrested, failed either to advance his exculpatory explanation to the arresting officers or to disclose the location of the knife he had used to stab Buchanan. Respondent was ultimately found guilty by a jury of first-degree manslaughter. The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky then granted respondent a writ of habeas corpus, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 658 F. 2d 1126 (1981). The Court of Appeals concluded that respondent was denied due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment when the prosecutor used his post-arrest silence for impeachment purposes. Although it did not appear from the record that the arresting officers had immediately read respondent his Miranda warnings, the court concluded that a defendant cannot be impeached by use of his postarrest silence even if no Miranda warnings had been given. The court held that “it is inherently unfair to allow cross-examination concerning post-arrest silence,” 658 F. 2d, at 1130, and rejected the contention that our decision in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976), applied only where the police had read Miranda warnings to a defendant. Because we think that the Court of Appeals gave an overly broad reading to our decision in Doyle v. Ohio, supra, we reverse its judgment.
One year prior to our decision in Doyle, we held in the exercise of our supervisory power over the federal courts that silence following the giving of Miranda warnings was ordinarily so ambiguous as to have little probative value. United States v. Hale, 422 U. S. 171 (1975). There we said:
“In light of the many alternative explanations for his pretrial silence, we do not think it sufficiently probative of an inconsistency with his in-court testimony to warrant admission of evidence thereof.” Id., at 180.
The principles which evolved on the basis of decisional law dealing with appeals within the federal court system are not, of course, necessarily based on any constitutional principle. Where they are not, the States are free to follow or to disregard them so long as the state procedure as a whole remains consistent with due process of law. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 146 (1973). The year after our decision in Hale, we were called upon to decide an issue similar to that presented in Hale in the context of a state criminal proceeding. While recognizing the importance of cross-examination and of exposing fabricated defenses, we held in Doyle v. Ohio, supra, that because of the nature of Miranda warnings it would be a violation of due process to allow comment on the silence which the warnings may well have encouraged:
“[WJhile it is true that the Miranda warnings contain no express assurance that silence will carry no penalty, such assurance is implicit to any person who receives the warnings. In such circumstances, it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person’s silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.” Id., at 618 (footnote omitted).
The significant difference between the present case and Doyle is that the record does not indicate that respondent Weir received any Miranda warnings during the period in which he remained silent immediately after his arrest. The majority of the Court of Appeals recognized the difference, but sought to extend Doyle to cover Weir’s situation by stating that “[w]e think an arrest, by itself, is governmental action which implicitly induces a defendant to remain silent.” 658 F. 2d, at 1131. We think that this broadening of Doyle is unsupported by the reasoning of that case and contrary to our post -Doyle decisions.
In Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U. S. 231, 239 (1980), a case dealing with pre-arrest silence, we said:
“Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence §1042, p. 1056 (Chadboum rev. 1970). Each jurisdiction may formulate its own rules of evidence to determine when prior silence is so inconsistent with present statements that impeachment by reference to such silence is probative.”
In Jenkins, as in other post -Doyle cases, we have consistently explained Doyle as a case where the government had induced silence by implicitly assuring the defendant that his silence would not be used against him. In Roberts v. United States, 445 U. S. 552, 561 (1980), we observed that the post-conviction, presentencing silence of the defendant did not resemble “postarrest silence that may be induced by the assurances contained in Miranda warnings.” In Jenkins, we noted that the failure to speak involved in that case occurred before the defendant was taken into custody and was given his Miranda warnings, commenting that no governmental action induced the defendant to remain silent before his arrest. 447 U. S., at 239-240. Finally, in Anderson v. Charles, 447 U. S. 404, 407-408 (1980), we explained that use of silence for impeachment was fundamentally unfair in Doyle because “Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . Doyle bars the use against a criminal defendant of silence maintained after receipt of governmental assurances.”
In the absence of the sort of affirmative assurances embodied in the Miranda warnings, we do not believe that it violates due process of law for a State to permit cross-examination as to postarrest silence when a defendant chooses to take the stand. A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Brennan would set the case for oral argument.
Justice Marshall dissents from the summary reversal of this case.
During cross-examination, the prosecutor also questioned respondent concerning his failure prior to his arrest to report the incident to the police and offer his exculpatory story. Relying on our decision in Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U. S. 231 (1980), the Court of Appeals correctly held that there was no constitutional impropriety in the prosecutor’s use of respondent’s pre-arrest silence for impeachment purposes.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.