instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Foreign states may invoke certain rights and immunities in litigation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or Act), Pub. L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891. Some of the Act’s provisions also may be invoked by a corporate entity that is an “instrumentality” of a foreign state as defined by the Act. Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U. S. 607, 611 (1992); Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 488 (1983). The corporate entities in this action claim instrumentality status to invoke the Act’s provisions allowing removal of state-court actions to federal court. As the action comes to us, it presents two questions. The first is whether a corporate subsidiary can claim instrumentality status where the foreign state does not own a majority of its shares but does own a majority of the shares of a corporate parent one or more tiers above the subsidiary. The second question is whether a corporation’s instrumentality status is defined as of the time an alleged tort or other actionable wrong occurred or, on the other hand, at the time suit is filed. We granted certiorari, 536 U. S. 956 (2002).
I
The underlying action was filed in a state court in Hawaii in 1997 against Dole Food Company and other companies (Dole petitioners). Plaintiffs in the action were a group of farm workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Panama who alleged injury from exposure to dibromochloro-propane, a chemical used as an agricultural pesticide in their home countries. The Dole petitioners impleaded petitioners Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd., and Bromine Compounds, Ltd. (collectively, the Dead Sea Companies). The merits of the suit are not before us.
The Dole petitioners removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii under 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a), arguing that the federal common law of foreign relations provided federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331. The District Court agreed there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the federal common law of foreign relations but, nevertheless, dismissed the case on grounds oí forum non conveniens.
The Dead Sea Companies removed under a separate theory. They claimed to be instrumentalities of a foreign state as defined by the FSIA, entitling them to removal under § 1441(d). The District Court held that the Dead Sea Companies are not instrumentalities of a foreign state for purposes of the FSIA and are not entitled to removal on that basis. Civ. No. 97-01516HG (D. Haw., Sept. 9, 1998), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 01-594, p. 79a.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Addressing the ground relied on by the Dole petitioners, it held removal could not rest on the federal common law of foreign relations. 251 F. 3d 795, 800 (CA9 2001). In this Court the Dole petitioners did not seek review of that portion of the Court of Appeals’ ruling, and we do not address it. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari in No. 01-593 is dismissed.
The Court of Appeals also reversed the order allowing removal at the instance of the Dead Sea Companies, who alleged they were instrumentalities of the State of Israel. The Court of Appeals noted, but declined to answer, the question whether status as an instrumentality of a foreign state is assessed at the time of the alleged wrongdoing or at the time suit is filed. It went on to hold that the Dead Sea Companies, even at the earlier date, were not instrumentalities of Israel because they did not meet the Act’s definition of instrumentality.
In order to prevail here, the Dead Sea Companies must show both that instrumentality status is determined as of the time the alleged tort occurred and that they can claim instrumentality status even though they were but subsidiaries of a parent owned by the State of Israel. We address each question in turn. In No. 01-594, the case in which the Dead Sea Companies are petitioners, we now affirm.
l-H h-H
A
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1441(d) governs removal of actions against foreign states. It provides that “[a]ny civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state as defined in [28 U. S. C. § 1603(a)] may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” See also §1330 (governing original jurisdiction). Section 1603(a), part of the FSIA, defines “foreign state” to include an “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.” “[A]gency or instrumentality of a foreign state” is defined, in turn, as:
“[A]ny entity—
“(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and
“(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and
“(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States ... nor created under the laws of any third country.” § 1603(b).
B
The Court of Appeals resolved the question of the FSIA’s applicability by holding that a subsidiary of an instrumentality is not itself entitled to instrumentality status. Its holding was correct.
The State of Israel did not have direct ownership of shares in either of the Dead Sea Companies at any time pertinent to this suit. Rather, these companies were, at various times, separated from the State of Israel by one or more intermediate corporate tiers. For example, from 1984-1985, Israel wholly owned a company called Israeli Chemicals, Ltd.; which owned a majority of shares in another company called Dead Sea Works, Ltd.; which owned a majority of shares in Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd.; which owned a majority of shares in Bromine Compounds, Ltd.
The Dead Sea Companies, as indirect subsidiaries of the State of Israel, were not instrumentalities of Israel under the FSIA at any time. Those companies cannot come within the statutory language which grants status as an instrumentality of a foreign state to an entity a “majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof.” § 1603(b)(2). We hold that only direct ownership of a majority of shares by the foreign state satisfies the statutory requirement.
Section 1603(b)(2) speaks of ownership. The. Dead Sea Companies urge us to ignore corporate formalities and use the colloquial sense of that term. They ask whether, in common parlance, Israel would be said to own the Dead Sea Companies. We reject this analysis. In issues of corporate law structure often matters. It is evident from the Act’s text that Congress was aware of settled principles of corporate law and legislated within that context. The language of § 1603(b)(2) refers to ownership of “shares,” showing that Congress intended statutory coverage to turn on formal corporate ownership. Likewise, § 1603(b)(1), another component of the definition of instrumentality, refers to a “separate legal person, corporate or otherwise.” In light of these indi-cia that Congress had corporate formalities in mind, we assess whether Israel owned shares in the Dead Sea Companies as a matter of corporate law, irrespective of whether Israel could be said to have owned the Dead Sea Companies in everyday parlance.
A basic tenet of American corporate law is that the corporation and its shareholders are distinct entities. See, e. g., First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U. S. 611, 626 (1983) (“Separate legal personality has been described as ‘an almost indispensable aspect of the public corporation’ ”); Burnet v. Clark, 287 U. S. 410, 415 (1932) (“A corporation and its stockholders are generally to be treated as separate entities”). An individual shareholder, by virtue of his ownership of shares, does not own the corporation’s assets and, as a result, does not own subsidiary corporations in which the corporation holds an interest. See 1 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations §31 (rev. ed. 1999). A corporate parent which owns the shares of a subsidiary does not, for that reason alone, own or have legal title to the assets of the subsidiary; and, it follows with even greater force, the parent does not own or have legal title to the subsidiaries of the subsidiary. See id., §31, at 514 (“The properties of two corporations are distinct, though the same shareholders own or control both. A holding corporation does not own the subsidiary’s property”). The fact that the shareholder is a foreign state does not change the analysis. See First Nat. City Bank, supra, at 626-627 (“[Government instrumentalities established as juridical entities distinct and independent from their sovereign should normally be treated as such”).
Applying these principles, it follows that Israel did not own a majority of shares in the Dead Sea Companies. The State of Israel owned a majority of shares, at various times, in companies one or more corporate tiers above the Dead Sea Companies, but at no time did Israel own a majority of shares in the Dead Sea Companies. Those companies were subsidiaries of other corporations.
The veil separating corporations and their shareholders may be pierced in some circumstances, and the Dead Sea Companies essentially urge us to interpret the FSIA as piercing the veil in all cases. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, however, is the rare exception, applied in the case of fraud or certain other exceptional circumstances, see, e. g., Burnet, supra, at 415; Fletcher, supra, §§41 to 41.20, and usually determined on a case-by-case basis. The Dead Sea Companies have referred us to no authority for extending the doctrine so far that, as a categorical matter, all subsidiaries are deemed to be the same as the parent corporation. The text of the FSIA gives no indication that Congress intended us to depart from the general rules regarding corporate formalities.
Where Congress intends to refer to ownership in other than the formal sense, it knows how to do so. Various federal statutes refer to “direct and indirect ownership.” See, e. g., 5 U. S. C. § 8477(a)(4)(G)(iii) (referring to an interest “owned directly or indirectly”); 12 U. S. C. § 84(c)(5) (referring to “any corporation wholly owned directly or indirectly by the United States”); 15 U. S. C. § 79b(a)(8)(A) (referring to securities “which are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote”); § 1802(3) (“The term ‘newspaper owner’ means any person who owns or controls directly, or indirectly through separate or subsidiary corporations, one or more newspaper publications”). The absence of this language in 28 U. S. C. § 1603(b) instructs us that Congress did not intend to disregard structural ownership rules.
The FSIA’s definition of instrumentality refers to a foreign state’s majority ownership of “shares or other ownership interest.” § 1603(b)(2). The Dead Sea Companies would have us read “other ownership interest” to include a state’s “interest” in its instrumentality’s subsidiary. The better reading of the text, in our view, does not support this argument. The words “other ownership interest,” when following the word “shares,” should be interpreted to refer to a type of interest other than ownership of stock. The statute had to be written for the contingency of ownership forms in other countries, or even in this country, that depart from conventional corporate structures. The statutory phrase “other ownership interest” is best understood to accomplish this objective. Reading the term to refer to a state’s interest in entities lower on the corporate ladder would make the specific reference to “shares" redundant. Absent a statutory text or structure that requires us to depart from normal rules of construction, we should not construe the statute in a manner that is strained and, at the same time, would render a statutory term superfluous. See Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248, 258 (1993) (“We will not read the statute to render the modifier superfluous”); United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 36 (1992) (declining to adopt a construction that would violate the “settled rule that a statute must, if possible, be construed in such fashion that every word has some operative effect”).
The Dead Sea Companies say that the State of Israel exercised considerable control over their operations, notwithstanding Israel’s indirect relationship to those companies. They appear to think that, in determining instrumentality status under the Act, control may be substituted for an ownership interest. Control and ownership, however, are distinct concepts. See, e. g., United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U. S. 51, 64-65 (1998) (distinguishing between “operation” and “ownership” of a subsidiary’s assets for purposes of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 liability). The terms of § 1603(b)(2) are explicit and straightforward. Majority ownership by a foreign state, not control, is the benchmark of instrumentality status. We need not delve into Israeli law or examine the extent of Israel’s involvement in the Dead Sea Companies’ operations. Even if Israel exerted the control the Dead Sea Companies describe, that would not give Israel a “majority of [the companies’] shares or other ownership interest.” The statutory language will not support a control test that mandates inquiry in every case into the past details of a foreign nation’s relation to a corporate entity in which it does not own a majority of the shares.
The better rule is the one supported by the statutory text and elementary principles of corporate law. A corporation is an instrumentality of a foreign state under the FSIA only if the foreign state itself owns a majority of the corporation’s shares.
We now turn to the second question before us, which provides an alternative reason for affirming the Court of Appeals. See Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U. S. 535, 537 (1949).
C
To be entitled to removal under § 1441(d), the Dead Sea Companies must show that they are entities “a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state.” § 1603(b)(2). We think the plain text of this provision, because it is expressed in the present tense, requires that instrumentality status be determined at the time suit is filed.
Construing § 1603(b) so that the present tense has real significance is consistent with the “longstanding principle that ‘the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.’” Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U. S. 200, 207 (1993) (quoting Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824)). It is well settled, for example, that federal-diversity jurisdiction depends on the citizenship of the parties at the time suit is filed. See, e. g., Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 702-703 (1891) (“And the [jurisdictional] inquiry is determined by the condition of the parties at the commencement of the suit”); see also Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Peoria & Pekin Union R. Co., 270 U. S. 580, 586 (1926) (“The jurisdiction of the lower court depends upon the state of things existing at the time the suit was brought”). The Dead Sea Companies do not dispute that the time suit is filed is determinative under § 1332(a)(4), which provides for suits between “a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a)..., as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.” It would be anomalous to read §1441(d)’s words, “foreign state as defined in section 1603(a),” differently.
The Dead Sea Companies urge us to administer the FSIA like other status-based immunities, such as the qualified immunity accorded a state actor, that are based on the status of an officer at the time of the conduct giving rise to the suit. We think its comparison is inapt. Our cases applying those immunities do not involve the interpretation of a statute. See, e. g., Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 493-499 (1896) (basing a decision regarding official immunity on common law and considerations of “convenience and public policy”); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 239-242 (1974).
The reason for the official immunities in those cases does not apply here. The immunities for government officers prevent the threat of suit from “crippl[ing] the proper and effective administration of public affairs.” Spalding, supra, at 498 (discussing immunity for executive officers); see also Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 647, 554 (1967) (judicial immunity serves the public interest in judges who are “at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Foreign sovereign immunity, by contrast, is not meant to avoid chilling foreign states or their instrumentalities in the conduct of their business but to give foreign states and their instrumentalities some protection from the inconvenience of suit as a gesture of comity between the United States and other sovereigns. Verlinden, 461 U. S., at 486.
For the same reason, the Dead Sea Companies’ reliance on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982), is unavailing. There, we recognized that the President was immune from liability for official actions taken during his time in office, even against a suit filed when he was no longer serving in that capacity. The immunity served the same function that the other official immunities serve. See id., at 751 (“Because of the singular importance of the President’s duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government”). As noted above, immunity under the FSIA does not serve the same purpose.
The immunity recognized in Nixon was also based on a further rationale, one not applicable here: the constitutional separation of powers. See id., at 749 (“We consider this immunity a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history”). That rationale is not implicated by the statutory immunity Congress created for actions such as the one before us.
Any relationship recognized under the FSIA between the Dead Sea Companies and Israel had been severed before suit was commenced. As a result, the Dead Sea Companies would not be entitled to instrumentality status even if their theory that instrumentality status could be conferred on a subsidiary were accepted.
* * *
For these reasons, we hold first that a foreign state must itself own a majority of the shares of a corporation if the corporation is to be deemed an instrumentality of the state under the provisions of the FSIA; and we hold second that instrumentality status is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 01-594 is affirmed, and the writ of certiorari in No. 01-593 is dismissed.
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.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Harlan
would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Waterman’s opinion for that court in United States v. Umans, 368 F. 2d 725.
Mr. Justice Marshall 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.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides in part: “If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court. . . shall impose upon the person who signed it... an appropriate sanction . . . .” In this case we must determine whether Rule 11 authorizes a court to impose a sanction not only against the individual attorney who signed, but also against that attorney’s law firm.
I
The action giving rise to the current controversy was instituted by plaintiff Northern J. Calloway against respondents for willful copyright infringement of his motion picture script and other related claims. The original complaint—signed and filed by Calloway’s attorney, Ray L. LeFlore—alleged that Calloway had developed an idea for a motion picture and written a script, and that respondents had begun to develop this work without his permission. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, pointing to a series of documents annexed to the complaint that gave them the right to develop the work commercially. The District Court dismissed the complaint (with leave to refile), not on the ground that the documents authorized the alleged infringement, but because Calloway’s complaint had failed to specify the registration number of his copyright and the dates upon which the alleged acts of infringement had occurred.
An amended complaint, again signed by LeFlore, was filed several weeks later. In addition to remedying the defects that were the basis of dismissal, it newly asserted that Calloway’s signatures on the documents purporting to grant an option had been forged by respondents, and included that among the actions for which damages were sought. Plaintiff relied on this forgery claim in opposing respondents’ motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.
In October 1984, LeFlore joined with Radovan Pavelic to form the law partnership of Pavelic & LeFlore. Thereafter, all court papers in the case were signed:
“Pavelic & LeFlore By /s/ Ray L. LeFlore (A Member of the Firm) Attorneys for Plaintiff.”
Several of these papers, including interrogatory responses and a proposed pretrial order, continued to rely upon the allegation of forgery. At trial, the District Court found insufficient evidence to support that contention, and directed a verdict in favor of respondents on that issue. The jury returned a verdict against plaintiff on all remaining claims.
Upon respondents’ motion and after a hearing, the District Court imposed a Rule 11 sanction in the amount of $100,000 against Pavelic & LeFlore on the ground that the forgery claim had no basis in fact and had not been investigated sufficiently by counsel. Radovan Pavelic moved to relieve the firm of the sanction, contending that (1) the firm did not exist during a major portion of the litigation and therefore was not fully responsible for the Rule 11 violations, and (2) Rule 11 empowers the court to impose a sanction only upon the attorney who signed the paper, not upon that attorney’s law firm. The District Court accepted the first contention, and therefore amended its order to shift half of the sanction from the firm to LeFlore. It rejected the second contention, however, concluding that Rule 11 sanctions may be imposed “on both the individual attorney and the law firm on whose behalf he signed the papers.” Calloway v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 650 F. Supp. 684, 687 (SDNY 1986).
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, 854 F. 2d 1452, 1479 (1988), thus placing itself in square disagreement with an earlier holding of the Fifth Circuit that Rule 11 authorizes sanctions against no attorney other than the individual lawyer or lawyers who sign court papers, see Robin son v. National Cash Register Co., 808 F. 2d 1119, 1128-1130 (1987). We granted certiorari, 489 U. S. 1009 (1989).
II
We give the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure their plain meaning, Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U. S. 740, 750, n. 9 (1980), and generally with them as with a statute, “[w]hen we find the terms . . . unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete,” Rubin v. United States, 449 U. S. 424, 430 (1981). The specific text of Rule 11 at issue here is the provision that requires a court, when a paper is signed in violation of the Rule, to “impose upon the person who signed it . . . an appropriate sanction.” Thus viewed in isolation, the phrase “person who signed” is ambiguous as to the point before us today. That is not so, however, when it is read in the total context of all the provisions of Rule 11 dealing with the signing of filings. Those provisions (all of Rule 11 except two sentences) are as follows:
“Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the party’s pleading, motion, or other paper and state the party’s address .... The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
In other contexts the phrase “the person who signed it” might bear the somewhat technical legal meaning of the natural or juridical person in whose name or on whose behalf the paper was signed; but in a paragraph beginning with a requirement of individual signature, and then proceeding to discuss the import and consequences of signature, we think references to the signer in the later portions must reasonably be thought to connote the individual signer mentioned at the outset. It is as strange to think that the phrase “person who signed” in the last sentence refers to the partnership represented by the signing attorney, as it would be to think that the earlier phrase “the signer has read the pleading” refers to a reading not necessarily by the individual signer but by someone in the partnership; or that the earlier phrase “[i]f a pleading ... is not signed” refers not to an absence of individual signature but to an absence of signature on behalf of the partnership. Just as the requirement of signature is imposed upon the individual, we think the recited import and consequences of signature run as to him.
Respondents’ interpretation is particularly hard to square with the text since they do not assert that “the person who signed,” and who “shall” be sanctioned under the Rule, is only the partnership (that would obviously be unacceptable), but rather is either the partnership or the individual attorney, or both, at the court’s option. But leaving that option unexpressed seems quite inconsistent with the extreme care with which the Rule, in the very same sentence, makes clear that the mandatory sanction must extend to “the person who signed [the paper], a represented party, or both.” It is surely puzzling why the text would be so precise about that but leave to speculation whether only the individual attorney or his firm or both can be sanctioned. The puzzlement does not exist, of course, if “the person who signed” means only the individual attorney.
Respondents appeal to “long and firmly established legal principles of partnership and agency,” Brief for Respondents Marvel Entertainment Group et al. 29, under which all the members of a partnership are liable for the authorized acts of a partner or employee, see Restatement (Second) of Agency § 140 (1958). We are not dealing here, however, with common-law liability, but with a Rule that strikingly departs from normal common-law assumptions such as that of delega-bility. The signing attorney cannot leave it to some trusted subordinate, or to one of his partners, to satisfy himself that the filed paper is factually and legally responsible; by signing he represents not merely the fact that it is so, but also the fact that he personally has applied his own judgment. Where the text establishes a duty that cannot be delegated, one may reasonably expect it to authorize punishment only of the party upon whom the duty is placed. We think that to be the fair import of the language here.
Respondents also rely upon the fact that after formation of the partnership LeFlore’s signature was explicitly on behalf of the firm. The simple response is that signature on behalf of the firm was not a signature that could comply with the first sentence of the Rule, and not a signature to which the later portions of the Rule attach consequences. Rule 11 says that papers must be signed “by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name.” (Emphasis added.) Even if LePlore’s signature in the fashion indicated had the effect of making the firm and all its partners (including himself) attorneys of record, it is only his signature in his individual name that satisfies the first sentence of the Rule, and it is that signature, in that individual capacity, to which the later portions of the Rule refer. It has long been thought the better practice for the attorney complying with Rule 11 not to sign for his firm, but to sign in his individual name and on his own behalf, with the name of his firm beneath. See Gavit, The New Federal Rules and State Procedure, 25 A. B. A. J. 367, 371 (1939) (Under Rule 11, “the practice for pleadings to be signed in the name of a partnership” is “undesirable” and “improper”).
Respondents, and the opinion of the Court of Appeals, rely heavily upon the contention that the policies underlying Rule 11 will best be served by holding a law firm accountable for its attorney’s violation. In the Court of Appeals’ words, “[law firm] responsibility for Rule 11 sanctions will create strong incentives for internal monitoring, and greater monitoring will result in improved pre-filing inquiries and fewer baseless claims.” 854 F. 2d, at 1480. Even if it were entirely certain that liability on the part of the firm would more effectively achieve the purposes of the Rule, we would not feel free to pursue that objective at the expense of a textual interpretation as unnatural as we have described. Our task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.
But in any event it is not at all clear that respondents’ strained interpretation would better achieve the purposes of the Rule. It would, to be sure, better guarantee reimbursement of the innocent party for expenses caused by the Rule 11 violation, since the partnership will normally have more funds than the individual signing attorney. The purpose of the provision in question, however, is not reimbursement but “sanction”; and the purpose of Rule 11 as a whole is to bring home to the individual signer his personal, nondelegable responsibility. It is at least arguable that these purposes are better served by a provision which makes clear that, just as the court expects the signer personally — and not some nameless person within his law firm — to validate the truth and legal reasonableness of the papers filed, so also it will visit upon him personally — and not his law firm — its retribution for failing in that responsibility. The message thereby conveyed to the attorney, that this is not a “team effort” but in the last analysis yours alone, is precisely the point of Rule 11. Moreover, psychological effect aside, there will be greater economic deterrence upon the signing attorney, who will know for certain that the district court will impose its sanction entirely upon him, and not divert part of it to a partnership of which he may not (if he is only an associate) be a member, or which (if he is a member) may not choose to seek recompense from him. To be sure, the partnership’s knowledge that it was subject to sanction might induce it to increase “internal monitoring,” but one can reasonably believe that more will be achieved by directly increasing the incentive for the individual signer to take care. Such a belief is at least not so unthinkable as to compel the conclusion that the Rule does not mean what it most naturally seems to say.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Second Circuit is reversed insofar as it allows Rule 11 sanctions to be imposed against Pavelic & LeFlore. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan-
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Leary v. United States, decided today, ante, p. 6. Appellee was charged in a one-count federal indictment in the Southern District of Ohio with having violated 26 U. S. C. § 4744 (a)(1), a part of the Marihuana Tax Act, by obtaining 737.1 grams of marihuana without having paid the transfer tax imposed by 26 U. S. C. § 4741 (a). On appellee’s motion, the District Court dismissed the indictment, holding that under principles established in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968), and Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85 (1968), appellee’s privilege against self-incrimination necessarily would provide a complete defense to the prosecution. 282 F. Supp. 886 (1968).
On motion for reconsideration, the Government advanced the argument, more fully described in Leary, supra, at 18-20, that the transfer tax provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act do not compel incriminatory disclosures because, as administratively construed and applied, they allow prepayment of the tax only by persons whose activities are otherwise lawful. The District Court responded by ruling in the alternative that if appellee was not required to pay the tax there could be no basis for the indictment. Appendix 20.
The Government appealed directly to this Court pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3731, which authorizes direct appeal from the dismissal of an indictment when the decision is one “sustaining a motion in bar” or “is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded.” We noted probable jurisdiction, 393 U. S. 910 (1968), and the appeal was argued together with Leary v. United States, supra.
As has been noted, the District Court dismissed the indictment on two alternative grounds. We begin with the second, which was that, assuming the Government’s construction of the Marihuana Tax Act to be correct, the indictment did not charge an offense under that statute. Our decision today in Leary, supra, makes it plain that this was an improper ground of dismissal, for we have held that the Government’s interpretation is incorrect and that the Act requires persons like appellee to prepay the transfer tax. See ante, at 20-26.
The District Court’s other basis for dismissal was that appellee’s Fifth Amendment privilege necessarily would provide a complete defense to the prosecution. We have held today in Leary that the privilege does provide such a defense unless the plea is untimely, the defendant confronted no substantial risk of self-incrimination, or the privilege has been waived. See ante, at 27. See also Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, 61 (1968). The questions remain whether such a plea of the privilege may ever justify dismissal of an indictment, and if so whether this is such an instance.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 (b)(1) states that: “Any defense or objection which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion.” A defense is thus “capable of determination” if trial of the facts surrounding the commission of the alleged offense would be of no assistance in determining the validity of the defense. Rule 12 (b) (4) allows the District Court in its discretion to postpone determination of the motion to trial, and permits factual hearings prior to trial if necessary to resolve issues of fact peculiar to the motion.
In many instances, a defense of self-incrimination to a Marihuana Tax Act prosecution will be “capable of determination without the trial of the general issue.” A plea on motion to dismiss the indictment is plainly timely. The question whether the defendant faced a substantial risk of incrimination is usually one of law which may be resolved without reference to the circumstances of the alleged offense. There may more frequently be instances when the issue of waiver will be suitable for trial together with the “general issue.” However, the question whether the privilege has been waived also is one of law, and in most cases there will be no factual dispute about it. Hence, we think that a defendant’s assertion of the privilege should be sufficient to create a legal presumption of nonwaiver, and thus to require dismissal of the indictment, unless the Government can rebut the presumption by showing a need for further factual inquiries.
Application of these principles to this appeal requires affirmance. Appellee asserted in his motion to dismiss that his possession of marihuana was illegal under Ohio law, and that he would have run a substantial risk of incrimination had he complied with the Act. The District Court reached the same conclusion. The Government appears to acknowledge the illegality of appellee’s possession. We conclude that there is no possibility of any factual dispute with regard to the hazard of incrimination.
There is in this brief record no indication that appellee waived his privilege, and the Government has never alleged the existence of a factual controversy on that score. Hence, we think it “just under the circumstances” that the case be finally disposed of at this level. See 28 U. S. C. § 2106; Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62, 71-72 (1968); Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85, 100-101 (1968). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren, considering himself bound by the decisions in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968), and Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85 (1968), concurs in the judgment of the Court.
Mr. Justice Stewart joins the opinion and judgment of the Court upon the premise stated in his concurring opinion in Leary v. United States, ante, p. 54.
The relevant provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act are set out and their relationships explained in Leary v. United States, supra, at 14-15.
If the dismissal rested on the ground that the Fifth Amendment privilege would be a defense, then the decision was one “sustaining a motion in bar.'-’ See United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141 (1931). If the dismissal was based on a finding that under the Government's construction of the Marihuana Tax Act the indictment stated no offense, then the decision necessarily was “based upon the . . . construction of the statute upon which the indictment . . . [was] founded.” See United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 193 (1939).
Leary was convicted under 26 U. S. C. § 4744 (a) (2), prohibiting transportation or concealment of marihuana by one who acquired it without having paid the transfer tax, while appellee was indicted under 26 U. S. C. §4744 (a)(1), forbidding such acquisition. We think it clear that there is no significant distinction between the statutes for purposes of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
See 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 12.04 (R. Cripes ed. 1968); 2 L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules §§ 12.51-12.60 (1966).
Cf. Leary v. United States, supra, at 28-29.
See Brief for the United States 3, n. 1.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, Schwartz, a pawnbroker, entered into a conspiracy with Jarrett and Bennett whereby the latter two were to rob places to be designated by Schwartz and bring the loot to him to dispose of and divide the proceeds with them. Pursuant to the plan, Jarrett and Bennett robbed a woman in Dallas, Texas, of her valuable jewels and brought the loot to the petitioner. After the petitioner repeatedly delayed settlement with the robbers, the thieves finally fell out, which proved very helpful to the police. The petitioner tipped off the police where they could find Jarrett. After Jarrett had been in jail about two weeks, he consented to telephone the petitioner from the sheriff’s office. With the knowledge and consent of Jarrett, a professional operator set up an induction coil connected to a recorder amplifier which enabled the operator to overhear and simultaneously to record the telephone conversations between Jarrett and the petitioner. These records were used as evidence before the jury that tried and convicted the petitioner as an accomplice to the crime of robbery. The records, admitted only after Jarrett and the petitioner had testified, corroborated Jarrett and discredited the petitioner. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas upheld the conviction, - Tex. Cr. R. -, 246 S. W. 2d 174, rehearing denied, — Tex. Cr. R. -, 246 S. W. 2d 179. We granted certiorari, 343 U. S. 975.
Petitioner contends that § 605 of the Federal Communications Act makes inadmissible in evidence the records of intercepted telephone conversations without the petitioner’s consent. The pertinent provision of the statute reads as follows:
. . no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence,-contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person . . . .”
Section 501 of 47 U. S. C. provides a penalty for the violation of § 605.
We are dealing here only with the application of a federal statute to state proceedings. Without deciding, but assuming for the purposes of this case, that the telephone communications were intercepted without being authorized by the sender within the meaning of the Act, the question we have is whether these communications are barred by the federal statute, § 605, from use as evidence in a criminal proceeding in a state court.
We think not. Although the statute contains no reference to the admissibility of evidence obtained by wire tapping, it has been construed to render inadmissible in a court of the United States communications intercepted and sought to be divulged in violation thereof, Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379, and this is true even though the communications were intrastate telephone calls. Weiss v. United States, 308 U. S. 321, 329. Although the intercepted calls would be inadmissible in a federal court, it does not follow that such evidence is inadmissible in a state court. Indeed, evidence obtained by a state officer by means which would constitute an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution is nonetheless admissible in a state court, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, while such evidence, if obtained by a federal officer, would be clearly inadmissible in a federal court. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383. The problem under § 605 is somewhat different because the introduction of the intercepted communications would itself be a violation of the statute, but in the absence of an expression by Congress, this is simply an additional factor for a state to consider in formulating a rule of evidence for use in its own courts. Enforcement of the statutory prohibition in § 605 can be achieved under the penal provisions of § 501.
This question has been many times before the state courts, and they have uniformly held that § 605 does not apply to exclude such communications from evidence in state courts. Leon v. State, 180 Md. 279, 23 A. 2d 706; People v. Stemmer, 298 N. Y. 728, 83 N. E. 2d 141; Harlem Check Cashing Corp. v. Bell, 296 N. Y. 15, 68 N. E. 2d 854; People v. Channell, 107 Cal. App. 2d 192, 236 P. 2d 654. While these cases are not controlling here, they are entitled to consideration because of the high standing of the courts from which they come.
Texas itself has given consideration to the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional or statutory law and has carefully legislated concerning it. In 1925 Texas enacted a statute providing that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution or laws of Texas or of the United States should not be admissible against the accused in a criminal case. In 1929 this Article 727a of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to provide that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution or laws of Texas or the Constitution of the United States should be inadmissible in evidence, thus eliminating from the coverage of the statute evidence obtained in violation of the laws of the United States.
Where a state has carefully legislated so as not to render inadmissible evidence obtained and sought to be divulged in violation of the laws of the United States, this Court will not extend by implication the statute of the United States so as to invalidate the specific language of the state statute. If Congress is authorized to act in a field, it should manifest its intention clearly. It will not be presumed that a federal statute was intended to supersede the exercise of the power of the state unless there is a clear manifestation of intention to do so. The exercise of federal supremacy is not lightly to be presumed.
“The principle thus applicable has been frequently stated. It is that the Congress may circumscribe its regulation and occupy a limited field, and that the intention to supersede the exercise by the State of its authority as to matters not covered by the federal legislation is not to be implied unless the Act of Congress fairly interpreted is in conflict with the law of the State.” Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 283 U. S. 380, 392-393. See Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 533.
“It should never be held that Congress intends to supersede or by its legislation suspend the exercise of the police powers of the States, even when it may do so, unless its purpose to effect that result is clearly manifested.” Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, 148.
It is due consideration but not controlling that Texas has legislated in this field. Our decision would be the same if the Texas courts had pronounced this rule of evidence.
We hold that § 605 applies only to the exclusion in federal court proceedings of evidence obtained and sought to be divulged in violation thereof; it does not exclude such evidence in state court proceedings. Since we do not believe that Congress intended to impose a rule of evidence on the state courts, we do not decide whether it has the power to do so.
Since the statute is not applicable to state proceedings, we do not have to decide the questions of what amounts to “interception,” or whether if there was interception, the sender had authorized it. These questions can arise only in a federal court proceeding.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
48 Stat. 1064, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.
Tex. Laws 1925, c. 49, § 1.
Vernon’s Tex. Stat., 1948, Code Crim. Proc., Art. 727a.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners, two Negroes, approached the Plantation Restaurant in the company of 35 to 40 other Negroes. This restaurant served whites only and carried a sign to that effect on its front door. Pursuant to this policy the owner of the restaurant locked the door against the Negroes, though from time to time he would open the door to admit white customers and relock it after they had entered. The restaurant was some 60 feet fróm the highway/ the property between the. restaurant and the highway being owned by the restaurant proprietor. The Negroes waited outside the door, some on a shrubbery box six or eight feet away, others up to 15 feet distant. The owner asked the Negroes to leave; but they continued to wait quietly outside until they were arrested. For this conduct petitioners were indicted'.and convicted for violation of § 14-134 of the North Carolina General Statutes, making it an offense to “go or enter upon the lands of another, without a license therefor” and “after being forbidden to do so.” The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed petitioners’ convictions on March 18, 1964. 261 N. C. 463, 135 S. E. 2d 14; 261 N. C. 467, 135 S. E. 2d 17.
The Plantation Restaurant is situated on Interstate Highway 301 in the town of Enfield, North Carolina. Adjoining the restaurant and owned by the same person is the Enfield Motel. The restaurant’s menu and other advertising are posted in the rooms of this motel. The Plantation Restaurant and Enfield Motel are advertised on billboards for some miles up and down Highway 301. They are further advertised on the radio and in the newspapers.
Since these facts make it clear that the Plantation Restaurant “serves or offers to serve interstate travelers,” it must be held that the restaurant is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of §§201 (b)(2) and (c) (2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation and removes peaceful attempts to be served on an equal basis from the category of punishable activities. Although the conduct in the present cases occurred prior to the enactment of the Act, the still-pending convictions are abated by its passage.” Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, ante, at 308. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted, the judgments are vacated, and the cause remanded for dismissal of the indictments.
It is so ordered.
Me. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Hablan, and Me. Justice White would affirm the judgments of the Supreme Court of North Carolina for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, ante, at 318, 322, 327.
Me. Justice Stewaet would vacate the judgments of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and remand the case to that court for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, ante, at 326.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide whether 28 U. S. C. §1333(1), which grants federal district courts jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction,” confers federal jurisdiction over petitioner’s limitation of liability suit brought in connection with a fire on his vessel. We hold that it does.
Everett Sisson was the owner of the Ultorian, a 56-foot pleasure yacht. On September 24, 1985, while the Ultorian was docked at a marina on Lake Michigan, a navigable waterway, a fire erupted in the area of the vessel’s washer/dryer unit. The fire destroyed the Ultorian and damaged several neighboring vessels and the marina. In the wake of the fire, respondents filed claims against Sisson for over $275,000 for damages to the marina and the other vessels. Invoking the provision of the Limited Liability Act that limits the liability of an owner of a vessel for any damage done “without the privity or knowledge of such owner” to the value of the vessel and its freight, 46 U. S. C. App. § 183(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V), Sisson filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief in Federal District Court to limit his liability to $800, the salvage value of the Ultorian after the fire. Sisson argued that the federal court had maritime jurisdiction over his limitation of liability action pursuant to § 1333(1). The District Court disagreed, dismissing the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In re Complaint of Sisson, 663 F. Supp. 858 (ND Ill. 1987). Sisson sought reconsideration on the ground that the Limited Liability Act independently conferred jurisdiction over the action. The District Court denied Sisson’s motion, both on the merits and on the basis of Sisson’s failure to raise the argument before the dismissal of the action. In re Complaint of Sisson, 668 F. Supp. 1196 (ND Ill. 1987). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that neither § 1333(1) nor the Limited Liability Act conferred jurisdiction. In re Complaint of Sisson, 867 F. 2d 341 (1989). We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1055 (1990), and now reverse.
Until recently, § 1333(1) jurisdiction over tort actions was determined largely by the application of a “locality” test. As this Court stated the test in The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 36 (1866): “Every species of tort, however occurring, and whether on board a vessel or not, if upon the high seas or navigable waters, is of admiralty cognizance.” See also Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249, 253-254 (1972) (describing the locality test). Executive Jet marked this Court’s first clear departure from the strict locality test. There, a jet aircraft struck a flock of sea gulls while taking off, lost power, and crashed into the navigable waters of Lake Erie, which lay just past the end of the runway. The owner of the aircraft sued the city of Cleveland, the owner of the airport, in federal court, arguing that § 1333(1) conferred federal jurisdiction over the action. Noting “serious difficulties with the locality test,” id., at 255, we refused to enter into a debate over whether the tort occurred where the plane had crashed and been destroyed (the navigable waters of Lake Erie) or where it had struck the sea gulls (over land), id., at 266-267. Rather, we held that jurisdiction was lacking because “the wrong [did not] bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.” Id., at 268.
Although our holding in Executive Jet was limited by its terms to cases involving aviation torts, that case’s “thorough discussion of the theoretical and practical problems inherent in broadly applying the traditional locality rule . . . prompted several courts and commentators to construe Executive Jet as applying to determinations of federal admiralty jurisdiction outside the context of aviation torts.” Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U. S. 668, 673 (1982). In Foremost, we approved this broader interpretation of Executive Jet. 457 U. S., at 673. Foremost involved a collision, on what we assumed to be navigable waters, id., at 670, n. 2, between an 18-foot pleasure boat and a 16-foot recreational fishing boat, see Richardson v. Foremost Ins. Co., 470 F. Supp. 699, 700 (MD La. 1979). Neither vessel had ever been engaged in any commercial maritime activity. 457 U. S., at 670-671. We began our application of Executive Jet by rejecting “petitioners’ argument that a substantial relationship with commercial maritime activity is necessary” to a finding of maritime jurisdiction. 457 U. S., at 674 (emphasis added). Although we recognized that protecting commercial shipping is at the heart of admiralty jurisdiction, we also noted that that interest
“cannot be adequately served if admiralty jurisdiction is restricted to those individuals actually engaged in commercial maritime activity. This interest can be fully vindicated only if all operators of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct. The failure to recognize the breadth of this federal interest ignores the potential effect of noncommercial maritime activity on maritime commerce. . . . The potential disruptive impact of a collision between boats on navigable waters, when coupled with the traditional concern that admiralty law holds for navigation, compels the conclusion that this collision between two pleasure boats on navigable waters has a significant relationship with maritime commerce.” Id., at 674-675 (footnote omitted).
In a footnote to the above passage, we noted that “[n]ot every accident in navigable waters that might disrupt maritime commerce will support federal admiralty jurisdiction,” id., at 675, n. 5 (citing Executive Jet), but that when a “potential hazard to maritime commerce arises out of activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity, as does the navigation of boats in this case, admiralty jurisdiction is appropriate.” 457 U. S., at 675, n. 5.
This case involves a fire that began on a noncommercial vessel at a marina located on a navigable waterway. Certainly, such a fire has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce, as it can spread to nearby commercial vessels or make the marina inaccessible to such vessels. Indeed, fire is one of the most significant hazards facing commercial vessels. See, e. g., Southport Fisheries, Inc. v. Saskatchewan Govt. Ins. Office, 161 F. Supp. 81, 83-84 (EDNC 1958).
Respondents’ only argument to the contrary is that the potential effect on maritime commerce in this case was minimal because no commercial vessels happened to be docked at the marina when the fire occurred. This argument misunderstands the nature of our inquiry. We determine the potential impact of a given type of incident by examining its general character. The jurisdictional inquiry does not turn on the actual effects on maritime commerce of the fire on Sisson’s vessel; nor does it turn on the particular facts of the incident in this case, such as the source of the fire or the specific location of the yacht at the marina, that may have rendered the fire on the Ultorian more or less likely to disrupt commercial activity. Rather, a court must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether such an incident is likely to disrupt commercial activity. Here, the general features — a fire on a vessel docked at a marina on navigable waters — plainly satisfy the requirement of potential disruption to commercial maritime activity.
Our approach here comports with the way in which we characterized the potential disruption of the types of incidents involved in Executive Jet and Foremost. This first aspect of the jurisdictional test was satisfied in Executive Jet because “an aircraft sinking in the water could create a hazard for the navigation of commercial vessels in the vicinity.” Foremost, 457 U. S., at 675, n. 5. Likewise, in Foremost the Court noted “[t]he potentially] disruptive impact of a collision between boats on navigable waters.” Id., at 675. Indeed, we supported our finding of potential disruption there with a description of the likely effects of a collision at the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway, ibid., an area heavily traveled by commercial vessels, even though the place where the collision actually had occurred apparently was “seldom, if ever, used for commercial traffic,” id., at 670, n. 2. Our cases thus lead us to eschew the fact-specific jurisdictional inquiry urged on us by respondents.
We now turn to the second half of the Foremost test, under which the party seeking to invoke maritime jurisdiction must show a substantial relationship between the activity giving rise to the incident and traditional maritime activity. As a first step, we must define the relevant activity in this case. Our cases have made clear that the relevant “activity” is defined not by the particular circumstances of the incident, but by the general conduct from which the incident arose. In Executive Jet, for example, the relevant activity was not a plane sinking in Lake Erie, but air travel generally. 409 U. S., at 269-270. See also Foremost, supra, at 675-677 (relevant activity is navigation of vessels generally). This focus on the general character of the activity is, indeed, suggested by the nature of the jurisdictional inquiry. Were courts required to focus more particularly on the causes of the harm, they would have to decide to some extent the merits of the causation issue to answer the legally and analytically antecedent jurisdictional question. Thus, in this case, we need not ascertain the precise cause of the fire to determine what “activity” Sisson was engaged in; rather, the relevant activity was the storage and maintenance of a vessel at a marina on navigable waters.
Our final inquiry, then, is whether the storage and maintenance of a boat at a marina on navigable waters has a substantial relationship to a “traditional maritime activity” within the meaning of Executive Jet and Foremost. Respondents would have us hold that, at least in the context of noncommercial activity, only navigation can be characterized as substantially related to traditional maritime activity. We decline to do so. In Foremost, we identified navigation as an example, rather than as the sole instance, of conduct that is substantially related to traditional maritime activity. See 457 U. S., at 675, n. 5. Indeed, had we intended to suggest that navigation is the only activity that is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, we could have stated the jurisdictional test much more clearly and economically by stating that maritime jurisdiction over torts is limited to torts in which the vessels are in “navigation.” Moreover, a narrow focus on navigation would not serve the federal policies that underlie our jurisdictional test. The fundamental interest giving rise to maritime jurisdiction is “the protection of maritime commerce,” id., at 674, and we have said that that interest cannot be fully vindicated unless “all operators of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct,” id., at 675. The need for uniform rules of maritime conduct and liability is not limited to navigation, but extends at least to any other activities traditionally undertaken by vessels, commercial or noncommercial.
Clearly, the storage and maintenance of a vessel at a marina on navigable waters is substantially related to “traditional maritime activity” given the broad perspective demanded by the second aspect of the test. Docking a vessel at a marina on a navigable waterway is a common, if not indispensable, maritime activity. At such a marina, vessels are stored for an extended period, docked to obtain fuel or supplies, and moved into and out of navigation. Indeed, most maritime voyages begin and end with the docking of the craft at a marina. We therefore conclude that, just as navigation, storing and maintaining a vessel at a marina on a navigable waterway is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the District Court has jurisdiction over Sisson’s limitation claim pursuant to §1333(1). Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals has addressed the merits of Sisson’s claim, and we therefore intimate no view on that matter. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Sisson has also argued throughout this litigation that the Limited Liability Act, Rev. Stat. §4281 et seq., 46 U. S. C. App. § 181 et seq. (1982 ed., Supp. V), provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Respondents contend that the Act does not create jurisdiction, but instead may be invoked only in cases otherwise within the maritime jurisdiction of § 1333(1). We need not decide which party is correct, for even were we to agree that the Limited Liability Act does not independently provide a basis for this action, § 1333(1) is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Petitioner also argues that the Admiralty Extension Act, 62 Stat. 496, 46 U. S. C. App. §740 (1982 ed., Supp. V), provides an independent basis for jurisdiction. We decline to consider that argument because it was not raised below.
Justice Scalia argues that we should abandon the requirement that the incident have the potential for disrupting maritime commerce. He argues that, “as a practical matter, every tort occurring on a vessel in navigable waters” should give rise to maritime jurisdiction, post, at 373 (emphasis added), no matter how divorced the incident from the purposes that give rise to such jurisdiction. Justice Scalia- is correct that his approach would be simpler to apply than the one embraced by Executive Jet and Foremost and that, all things being equal, simpler jurisdictional formulae are to be preferred. Such a preference, in fact, informs our refusal to consider the particulars of the fire on the Ultorian in determining whether maritime jurisdiction lies. . See supra, at 363. But the demand for tidy rules can go too far, and when that demand entirely divorces the jurisdictional inquiry from the purposes that support the exercise of jurisdiction, it has gone too far. In Foremost, the Court unanimously agreed that the purpose underlying the existence of federal maritime jurisdiction is the federal interest in the protection of maritime commerce, and that a case must implicate that interest to give rise to such jurisdiction. Compare Foremost, 467 U. S., at 674-675, with id., at 679-680 (Powell, J., dissenting). The only point of debate in Foremost was whether the Court was straying too far from that purpose by requiring no more than that the wrong have a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and arise from an activity with a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Justice Scalia’s view that Foremost did not go far enough is thus plainly inconsistent with the unanimous view of the Court in Foremost.
In this case, all of the instrumentalities involved in the incident were engaged in a similar activity. The Ultorian and the other craft damaged by the fire were docked at a marina, and the marina itself provided docking and related services. The facts of Executive Jet and Foremost also reveal that all the relevant entities were engaged in a common form of activity. See Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249 (1972) (entities involved in the incident were engaged in nonmaritime activity of facilitating air travel); Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U. S. 668 (1982) (entities were both engaged in navigation). Different issues may be raised by a ease in which one of the instrumentalities is engaged in a traditional maritime activity, but the other is not. Our resolution of such issues awaits a case that squarely raises them.
The Circuits have interpreted this aspect of the jurisdictional inquiry variously. After Executive Jet, but before Foremost, the Fifth Circuit adopted a four-factor test for deciding whether an activity is substantially related to traditional maritime activity. The factors are “the functions and roles of the parties; the types of vehicles and instrumentalities involved; the causation and the type of injury; and traditional concepts of the role of admiralty law.” Kelly v. Smith, 485 F. 2d 520, 525 (1973). In other Circuits, this test has continued to dominate the landscape even in the wake of Foremost. See, e. g., Drake v. Ray mark Industries, Inc., 772 F. 2d 1007, 1015 (CA1 1985); Guidry v. Durkin, 834 F. 2d 1465, 1471 (CA9 1987); Leivis Charters, Inc. v. Huckins Yacht Corp., 871 F. 2d 1046, 1051 (CA11 1989). The Fourth Circuit appears to follow Kelly as well, although how closely is unclear. Compare Oman v. Johns-Manville Corp., 764 F. 2d 224, 230, and n. 3 (CA4 1985) (en banc) (stating that “a thorough analysis of the nexus requirement should include a consideration of at least [the Kelly factors]”) (emphasis added), with Bubla v. Bradshaw, 795 F. 2d 349, 351 (CA4 1986) (implicitly treating Kelly factors as exclusive). The precise state of the law in the Fifth Circuit after Foremost is also unclear. Compare Mollett v. Penrod Drilling Co., 826 F. 2d 1419, 1426 (CA5 1987) (Mollett I) (applying, in addition to the Kelly factors, “(1) the impact of the event on maritime shipping and commerce (2) the desirability of a uniform national rule to apply to such matters and (3) the need for admiralty ‘expertise’ in the trial and decision of the case”), with Mollett v. Penrod Drilling Co., 872 F. 2d 1221, 1224-1226 (CA5 1989) (Mollett II) (applying the Kelly factors without explicit mention of the extra factors identified in Mollett /).
Other Circuits have adopted different approaches. The Seventh Circuit in this case held that an activity must either be commercial or involve navigation to satisfy the “traditional maritime activity” standard. In re Complaint of Sisson, 867 F. 2d 341, 345 (1989). The Second Circuit directly applies our language requiring a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity without applying any additional factors. See Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F. 2d-836, 844 (1983); Kelly v. United States, 531 F. 2d 1144, 1147-1148 (1976). Finally, the Sixth Circuit has criticized the Seventh Circuit’s analysis in this case as “an indefensibly narrow reading of Foremost Insurance,” In re Young, 872 F. 2d 176, 178-179, n. 4 (1989), but has not set forth in concrete terms the test it would apply, cf. Petersen v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 784 F. 2d 732, 736 (1986).
The parties and various amici suggest that we resolve this dispute by adopting one of the Circuits’ tests (or some other test entirely). We believe that, at least in cases in which all of the relevant entities are engaged in similar types of activity (cf. n. 3, supra), the formula initially suggested by Executive Jet and more fully refined in Foremost and in this case provides appropriate and sufficient guidance to the federal courts. We therefore decline the invitation to use this case to refine further the test we have developed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In response to the high incidence of domestic violence against Native American women, Congress, in 2005, enacted 18 U.S.C. § 117(a), which targets serial offenders. Section 117(a) makes it a federal crime for any person to “commi[t] a domestic assault within .,. Indian country” if the person has at least two prior final convictions for domestic violence rendered “in Federal, State, or Indian tribal court proceedings.” See Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA Reauthorization Act), Pub. L. 109-162, §§ 901, 909, 119 Stat. 3077, 3084. Respondent Michael Bryant, Jr., has multiple tribal-court convictions for domestic assault. For most of those convictions, he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment, none of them exceeding one year’s duration. His tribal-court convictions do not count for § 117(a) purposes, Bryant maintains, because he was uncounseled in those proceedings.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees indigent defendants, in state and federal criminal proceedings, appointed counsel in any case in which a term of imprisonment is imposed. Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373-374, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979). But the Sixth Amendment does not apply to tribal-court proceedings. See Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316, 337, 128 S.Ct. 2709, 171 L.Ed.2d 457 (2008). The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA), Pub.L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 77, 25 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., which governs criminal proceedings in tribal courts, requires appointed counsel only when a sentence of more than one year’s imprisonment is imposed. § 1302(c)(2). Bryant’s tribal-court convictions, it is undisputed, were valid when entered. This case presents the question whether those convictions, though uncounseled, rank as predicate offenses within the compass of § 117(a). Our answer is yes. Bryant’s tribal-court convictions did not violate the Sixth Amendment when obtained, and they retain their validity when invoked in a § 117(a) prosecution. That proceeding generates no Sixth Amendment defect where none previously existed.
I
A
“[Compared to all other groups in the United States,” Native American women “experience the highest rates of domestic violence.” 151 Cong. Rec. 9061 (2005) (remarks of Sen. McCain). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as many as 46% of American Indian and Alaska Native women have been victims of physical violence by an intimate partner. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, M. Black et al., National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010 Summary Report 40 (2011) (Table 4.3), online at http://www.cdc. gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_report 2010-a.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited June 9, 2016). American Indian and Alaska Native women “are 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women in the United States in general.” Dept, of Justice, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Ending Violence So Children Can Thrive 38 (Nov. 2014), online at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ files/defendingchildhood/pages/ attachments/2015/03/23/ending_violence_ so_children_can_thrive.pdf. American Indian women experience battery “at a rate of 23.2 per 1,000, compared with 8 per 1,000 among Caucasian women,” and they “experience 7 sexual assaults per 1,000, compared with 4 per 1,000 among Black Americans, 3 per 1,000 among Caucasians, 2 per 1,000 among Hispanic women, and 1 per 1,000 among Asian women.” VAWA Reauthorization Act, § 901, 119 Stat. 3077.
As this Court has noted, domestic abusers exhibit high rates of recidivism, and their violence “often escalates in severity over time.” United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S.-,-, 134 S.Ct. 1405, 1408, 188 L.Ed.2d 426 (2014). Nationwide, over 75% of female victims of intimate partner violence have been previously victimized by the same offender, Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, S. Catalano, Intimate Partner Violence 1993-2010, p. 4 (rev. 2015) (Figure 4), online at http:// www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf, often multiple times, Dept, of Justice, National Institute of Justice, P. Tjaden & N. Thoennes, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, p. iv (2000), online at https://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffilesl/nij/181867.pdf (“[Wjomen who were physically assaulted by an intimate partner averaged 6.9 physical assaults by the same partner.”). Incidents of repeating, escalating abuse more than occasionally culminate in a fatal attack. See VAWA Reauthorization Act, § 901, 119 Stat. 3077-3078 (“[DJuring the period 1979 through 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death of Indian females aged 15 to 34, and 75 percent were killed by family members or acquaintances.”).
The “complex patchwork of federal, state, and tribal law” governing Indian country, Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 680, n. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 693 (1990), has made it difficult to stem the tide of domestic violence experienced by Native American women. Although tribal courts may enforce the tribe’s criminal laws against Indian defendants, Congress has curbed tribal courts’ sentencing authority. At the time of § 117(a)’s passage, ICRA limited sentences in tribal court to a maximum of one year’s imprisonment. 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(7) (2006 ed.). Congress has since expanded tribal courts’ sentencing authority, allowing them to impose up to three years’ imprisonment, contingent on adoption of additional procedural safeguards. 124 Stat. 2279-2280 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(7)(C), (c)). To date, however, few tribes have employed this enhanced sentencing authority. See Tribal Law and Policy Inst., Implementation Chart: VAWA Enhanced Jurisdiction and TLOA Enhanced Sentencing, online at http://www.tribal-institute.org/download/ VAWA/VAWAImplementationChart.pdf.
States are unable or unwilling to fill the enforcement gap. Most States lack jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country against Indian victims. See United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 651, 98 S.Ct. 2541, 57 L.Ed.2d 489 (1978). In 1953, Congress increased the potential for state action by giving six States “jurisdiction over specified areas of Indian country within the States and providfing] for the [voluntary] assumption of jurisdiction by other States.” California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987) (footnote omitted). See Act of Aug. 15, 1953, Pub. L. 280, 67 Stat. 588 (codified, as amended, at 18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-1328,1360). States so empowered may apply their own criminal laws to “offenses committed by or against Indians within all Indian country within the State.” Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S., at 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083; see 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a). Even when capable of exercising jurisdiction, however, States have not devoted their limited criminal justice resources to crimes committed in Indian country. Jimenez & Song, Concurrent Tribal and State Jurisdiction Under Public Law 280, 47 Am. U. L. Rev, 1627, 1636-1637 (1998); Tribal Law and Policy Inst., S. Deer, C. Goldberg, H. Valdez Singleton, & M. White Eagle, Final Report: Focus Group on Public Law 280 and the Sexual Assault of Native Women 7-8 (2007), online at http://www.tribal-institute. org/download/Final% 20280% 20FG% 20Report.pdf.
That leaves the Federal Government. Although federal law generally governs in Indian country, Congress has long excluded from federal-court jurisdiction crimes committed by an Indian against another Indian. 18 U.S.C. § 1152; see Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 572, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883) (requiring “a clear expression of the intention of Congress” to confer federal jurisdiction over crimes committed by an Indian against another Indian). In the Major Crimes Act, Congress authorized federal jurisdiction over enumerated grave criminal offenses when both perpetrator and victim are Indians, including murder, manslaughter, and felony assault. § 1153. At the time of § 117(a)’s enactment, felony assault subject to federal prosecution required “serious bodily injury,” § 113(a)(6) (2006 ed.), meaning “a substantial risk of death,” “extreme physical pain,” “protracted and obvious disfigurement,” or “protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.” § 1365(h)(3) (incorporated through § 113(b)(2)). In short, when § 117(a) was before Congress, Indian perpetrators of domestic violence “escape[d] felony charges until they seriously injure[d] or kill[ed] someone.” 151 Cong. Rec. 9062 (2005) (remarks of Sen. McCain).
As a result of the limitations on tribal, state, and federal jurisdiction in Indian country, serial domestic violence offenders, prior to the enactment of § 117(a), faced at most a year’s imprisonment per offense—a sentence insufficient to deter repeated and escalating abuse. To ratchet up the punishment of serial offenders, Congress created the federal felony offense of domestic assault in Indian country by a habitual offender. § 117(a) (2012 ed.); see No. 12-30177 (CA9, July 6, 2015), App. to Pet. for Cert. 41a (Owens, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (“Tailored to the unique problems ... that American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes face, § 117(a) provides felony-level punishment for serial domestic violence offenders, and it represents the first true effort to remove these recidivists from the communities that they repeatedly terrorize.”). The section provides in pertinent part:
“Any person who commits a domestic assault within ... Indian country and who has a final conviction on at least 2 separate prior occasions in Federal, State, or Indian tribal court proceedings for offenses that would be, if subject to Federal jurisdiction any assault, sexual abuse, or serious violent felony against a spouse or intimate partner ... shall be fined ..., imprisoned for a term of not more than 5 years, or both.... ” § 117(a)(1).
Having two prior convictions for domestic violence crimes—including tribal-court convictions—is thus a predicate of the new offense.
B
This case requires us to determine whether § 117(a)’s inclusion of tribal-court convictions is compatible with the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant in state or federal court “the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 339, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). This right, we have held, requires appointment of counsel for indigent defendants whenever a sentence of imprisonment is imposed. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 37, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). But an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to appointed counsel if his conviction results in a fíne or other noncustodial punishment. Scott, 440 U.S., at 373-374, 99 S.Ct. 1158.
“As separate sovereigns pre-exist-ing the Constitution, tribes have historically been regarded as unconstrained by those constitutional provisions framed specifically as limitations on federal or state authority.” Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 56, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978). The Bill of Rights, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, therefore, does not apply in tribal-court proceedings. See Plains Commerce Bank, 554 U.S., at 337, 128 S.Ct. 2709.
In ICRA, however, Congress accorded a range of procedural safeguards to tribal-court defendants “similar, but not identical, to those contained in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Martinez, 436 U.S., at 57, 98 S.Ct. 1670; see id., at 62-63, 98 S.Ct. 1670 (ICRA “modified the safeguards of the Bill of Rights to fit the unique political, cultural, and economic needs of tribal governments”). In addition to other enumerated protections, ICRA guarantees “due process of law,” 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(8), and allows tribal-court defendants to seek ha-beas corpus review in federal court to test the legality of their imprisonment, § 1303.
The right to counsel under ICRA is not coextensive with the Sixth Amendment right. If a tribal court imposes a sentence in excess of one year, ICRA requires the court to accord the defendant “the right to effective assistance of counsel at least equal to that guaranteed by the United States Constitution,” including appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant at the tribe’s expense. § 1302(c)(1), (2). If the sentence imposed is no greater than one year, however, the tribal court must allow a defendant only the opportunity to obtain counsel “at his own expense.” § 1302(a)(6). In tribal court, therefore, unlike in federal or state court, a sentence of imprisonment up to one year may be imposed without according indigent defendants the right to appointed counsel.
The question here presented: Is it permissible to use uncounseled tribal-court convictions—obtained in full compliance with ICRA—to establish the prior-crimes predicate of § 117(a)? It is undisputed that a conviction obtained in violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel cannot be used in a subsequent proceeding “either to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense.” Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 115, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967). In Burgett, we held that an uncounseled felony conviction obtained in state court in violation of the right to counsel could not be used in a subsequent proceeding to prove the prior-felony element of a recidivist statute. To permit such use of a constitutionally infirm conviction, we explained, would cause “the accused in effect [to] suffe[r] anew from the [prior] deprivation of [his] Sixth Amendment right.” Ibid.-, see United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 448, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972) (invalid, uncounseled prior convictions could not be relied upon at sentencing to impose a longer term of imprisonment for a subsequent conviction); cf. Loper v, Beto, 405 U.S. 473, 483-484, 92 S.Ct. 1014, 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972) (plurality opinion) (“use of convictions constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwrigkb to impeach a defendant’s credibility deprives him of due process of law” because the prior convictions “lae[k] reliability”).
In Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994), we stated an important limitation on the principle recognized in Burgett. In the case under review, Nichols pleaded guilty to a federal felony drug offense. 511 U.S., at 740, 114 S.Ct. 1921. Several years earlier, unrepresented by counsel, he had been convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), a state-law misdemeanor, and fined $250 but not imprisoned. Ibid. Nichols’ DUI conviction, under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, effectively elevated by about two years the sentencing range for Nichols’ federal drug offense. Ibid. We rejected Nichols’ contention that, as his later sentence for the federal drug offense involved imprisonment, use of his uncounseled DUI conviction to elevate that sentence violated the Sixth Amendment. Id., at 746-747, 114 S.Ct. 1921. “[C]onsistent with the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution,” we held, “an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, valid under Scott because no prison term was imposed, is also valid when used to enhance punishment at a subsequent conviction.” Id., at 748-749, 114 S.Ct. 1921.
C
Respondent Bryant’s conduct is illustrative of the domestic violence problem existing in Indian country. During the period relevant to this case, Bryant, an enrolled member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, lived on that Tribe’s reservation in Montana. He has a record of over 100 tribal-court convictions, including several misdemeanor convictions for domestic assault. Specifically, between 1997 and 2007, Bryant pleaded guilty on at least five occasions in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court to committing domestic abuse in violation of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Code. On one occasion, Bryant hit his live-in girlfriend on the head with a beer bottle and attempted to strangle her. On another, Bryant beat a different girlfriend, kneeing her in the face, breaking her nose, and leaving her bruised and bloodied.
For most of Bryant’s repeated brutal acts of domestic violence, the Tribal Court sentenced him to terms of imprisonment, never exceeding one year. When convicted of these offenses, Bryant was indigent and was not appointed counsel. Because of his short prison terms, Bryant acknowledges, the prior tribal-court proceedings complied with ICRA, and his convictions were therefore valid when entered. Bryant has never challenged his tribal-court convictions in federal court under ICRA’s habeas corpus provision.
In 2011, Bryant was arrested yet again for assaulting women. In February of that year, Bryant attacked his then girlfriend, dragging her off the bed, pulling her hair, and repeatedly punching and kicking her. During an interview with law enforcement officers, Bryant admitted that he had physically assaulted this woman five or six times. Three months later, he assaulted another woman with whom he was then living, waking her by yelling that he could not find his truck keys and then choking her until she almost lost consciousness. Bryant later stated that he had assaulted this victim on three separate occasions during the two months they dated.
Based on the 2011 assaults, a federal grand jury in Montana indicted Bryant on two counts of domestic assault by a habitual offender, in violation of § 117(a). Bryant was represented in federal court by appointed counsel. Contending that the Sixth Amendment precluded use of his prior, uncounseled, tribal-court misdemeanor convictions to satisfy § 117(a)’s predicate-offense element, Bryant moved to dismiss the indictment. The District Court denied the motion, App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a, and Bryant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal that decision. Bryant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 46 months’ imprisonment on each count, to be followed by three years of supervised release.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction and directed dismissal of the indictment. 769 F.3d 671 (2014). Bryant’s tribal-court convictions were not themselves constitutionally infirm, the Ninth Circuit comprehended, because “the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel does not apply in tribal court proceedings.” Id., at 675. But, the court continued, had the convictions been obtained in state or federal court, they would have violated the Sixth Amendment because Bryant had received sentences of imprisonment although he lacked the aid of appointed counsel. Adhering to its prior decision in United States v. Ant, 882 F.2d 1389 (C.A.9 1989), the Court of Appeals held that, subject to narrow exceptions not relevant here, “tribal court convictions may be used in subsequent [federal] prosecutions only if the tribal court guarantees a right to counsel that is, at minimum, coextensive with the Sixth Amendment right.” 769 F.3d, at 677. Rejecting the Government’s argument that our decision in Nichols required the opposite result, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Nichols applies only when the prior conviction did comport with the Sixth Amendment, i.e., when no sentence of imprisonment was imposed for the prior conviction. 769 F.3d, at 677-678.
Judge Watford concurred, agreeing that Ant controlled the outcome of this case, but urging reexamination of Ant in light of Nichols. 769 F.3d, at 679. This Court’s decision in Nichols, Judge Watford wrote, “undermines the notion that uncounseled convictions are, as a categorical matter, too unreliable to be used as a basis for imposing a prison sentence in a subsequent case.” 769 F.3d, at 679. The Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case en banc over vigorous dissents by Judges Owens and O’Scannlain.
In disallowing the use of an uncounseled tribal-court conviction to establish a prior domestic violence conviction within § 117(a)’s compass, the Ninth Circuit created a Circuit split. The Eighth and Tenth Circuits have both held that tribal-court “convictions, valid at their inception, and not alleged to be otherwise unreliable, may be used to prove the elements of § 117.” United States v. Cavanaugh, 643 F.3d 592, 594 (C.A.8 2011); see United States v. Shavanaux, 647 F.3d 993, 1000 (C.A.10 2011). To resolve this disagreement, we granted certiorari, 577 U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 690, 193 L.Ed.2d 518 (2015), and now reverse.
II
Bryant’s tribal-court convictions, he recognizes, infringed no constitutional right because the Sixth Amendment does not apply to tribal-court proceedings. Brief for Respondent 5. Those prior convictions complied with ICRA, he concedes, and therefore were valid when entered. But, had his convictions occurred in state or federal court, Bryant observes, Argersinger and Scott would have rendered them invalid because he was sentenced to incarceration without representation by court-appointed counsel. Essentially, Bryant urges us to treat tribal-court convictions, for § 117(a) purposes, as though they had been entered by a federal or state court. We next explain why we decline to do so.
As earlier recounted, we held in Nichols that “an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, valid under Scott because no prison term was imposed, is also valid when used to enhance punishment at a subsequent conviction.” 511 U.S., at 748-749, 114 S.Ct. 1921. “Enhancement statutes,” we reasoned, “do not change the penalty imposed for the earlier conviction”; rather, repeat-offender laws “penaliz[e] only the last offense committed by the defendant.” Id., at 747, 114 S.Ct. 1921; see United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377, 386, 128 S.Ct. 1783, 170 L.Ed.2d 719 (2008) (“When a defendant is given a higher sentence under a recidivism statute ... 100% of the punishment is for the offense of conviction. None is for the prior convictions or the defendant’s ‘status as a recidivist.’ ”). Nichols thus instructs that convictions valid when entered—that is, those that, when rendered, did not violate the Constitution—retain that status when invoked in a subsequent proceeding.
Nichols’ reasoning steers the result here. Bryant’s 46-month sentence for violating § 117(a) punishes his most recent acts of domestic assault, not his prior crimes prosecuted in tribal court. Bryant was denied no right to counsel in tribal court, and his Sixth Amendment right was honored in federal court, when he was “adjudicated guilty of the felony offense for which he was imprisoned.” Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 664, 122 S.Ct. 1764, 152 L.Ed.2d 888 (2002). It would be “odd to say that a conviction untainted by a violation of the Sixth Amendment triggers a violation of that same amendment when it’s used in a subsequent case where the defendant’s right to appointed counsel is fully respected.” 769 F.3d, at 679 (Wat-ford, J., concurring).
Bryant acknowledges that had he been punished only by fines in his tribal-court proceedings, Nichols would have allowed reliance on his uncounseled convictions to satisfy § 117(a)’s prior-crimes predicate. Brief for Respondent 50. We see no cause to distinguish for § 117(a) purposes between valid but uncounseled convictions resulting in a fíne and valid but uncoun-seled convictions resulting in imprisonment not exceeding one year. “Both Nichols’s and Bryant’s uncounseled convictions ‘comport’ with the Sixth Amendment, and for the same reason: the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel did not apply to either conviction.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
In keeping with Nichols, we resist creating a “hybrid” category of tribal-court convictions, “good for the punishment actually imposed but not available for sentence enhancement in a later prosecution.” 511 U.S., at 744, 114 S.Ct. 1921. Nichols indicates that use of Bryant’s uncounseled tribal-court convictions in his § 117(a) prosecution did not “transform his prior, valid, tribal court convictions into new, invalid, federal ones.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a (opinion of O’Scannlain, J.).
Our decision in Bwrgett, which prohibited the subsequent use of a conviction obtained in violation of the right to counsel, does not aid Bryant. Reliance on an invalid conviction, Bwrgett reasoned, would cause the accused to “suffe[r] anew from the deprivation of [his] Sixth Amendment right.” 389 U.S., at 115, 88 S.Ct. 258. Because a defendant convicted in tribal court suffers no Sixth Amendment violation in the first instance, “[u]se of tribal convictions in a subsequent prosecution cannot violate [the Sixth Amendment] ‘anew.’” Shavanaux, 647 F.3d, at 998.
Bryant observes that reliability concerns underlie our right-to-counsel decisions and urges that those concerns remain even if the Sixth Amendment itself does not shelter him. Scott and Nichols, however, counter the argument that uncounseled misdemeanor convictions are categorically unreliable, either in their own right or for use in a subsequent proceeding. Bryant’s recognition that a tribal-court conviction resulting in a fine would qualify as a § 117(a) predicate offense, we further note, diminishes the force of his reliability-based argument. There is no reason to suppose that tribal-court proceedings are less reliable when a sentence of a year’s imprisonment is imposed than when the punishment is merely a fine. No eviden-tiary or procedural variation turns on the sanction—fine only or a year in prison— ultimately imposed.
Bryant also invokes the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in support of his assertion that tribal-court judgments should not be used as predicate offenses. But, as earlier observed, ICRA itself requires tribes to ensure “due process of law,” § 1302(a)(8), and it accords defendants specific procedural safeguards resembling those contained in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. See supra, at 1962. Further, ICRA makes habeas review in federal court available to persons incarcerated pursuant to a tribal-court judgment. § 1303. By that means, a prisoner may challenge the fundamental fairness of the proceedings in tribal court. Proceedings in compliance with ICRA, Congress determined, and we agree, sufficiently ensure the reliability of tribal-court convictions. Therefore, the use of those convictions in a federal prosecution does not violate a defendant’s right to due process. See Shavanaux, 647 F.3d, at 1000; cf. State v. Spotted Eagle, 316 Mont. 370, 378-379, 71 P.3d 1239, 1245-1246 (2003) (principles of comity support recognizing uncounseled tribal-court convictions that complied with ICRA).
* ❖ *
Because Bryant’s tribal-court convictions occurred in proceedings that complied with ICRA and were therefore valid when entered, use of those convictions as predicate offenses in a § 117(a) prosecution does not violate the Constitution. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
. "Indian country” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151 to encompass all land within any Indian reservation under federal jurisdiction, all dependent Indian communities, and all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished.
. Until 1986, ICRA permitted sentences of imprisonment up to only six months. See 100 Stat. 3207-146.
. Among the additional safeguards attending longer sentences is the unqualified right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel. 25 U.S.C. § 1302(c)(1), (2).
. Tribal governments generally lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes in Indian country. See Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 195, 98 S.Ct. 1011, 55 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978). In the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Congress amended ICRA to authorize tribal courts to "exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction” over certain domestic violence offenses committed by a non-Indian against an Indian. Pub. L. 113-4, § 904, 127 Stat. 120-122 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1304). Tribal courts' exercise of this jurisdiction requires procedural safeguards similar to those required for imposing on Indian defendants sentences in excess of one year, including the unqualified right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel. See § 1304(d). We express no view on the validity of those provisions.
. Congress has since expanded the definition of felony assault to include "[ajssault resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse[,] ... intimate partner, [or] dating partner” and "[a]ssault of a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate.” Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, § 906, 127 Stat. 124 (codified at 18 U.S.C, § 113(a)(7), (8)). The "substantial bodily injury” requirement remains difficult to satisfy, as it requires "a temporary but substantial disfigurement” or "a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.” § 113(b)(1).
. Section 117(a) has since been amended to include as qualifying predicate offenses, in addition to intimate-partner crimes, "assault, sexual abuse, [and] serious violent felony” offenses committed "against a child of or in the care of the person committing the domestic assault.” 18 U.S.C. § 117(a) (Supp. II 2014).
. In United States v. Ant, 882 F.2d 1389 (1989), the Ninth Circuit proscribed the use of an uncounseled tribal-court guilty plea as evidence of guilt in a subsequent federal prosecution arising out of the same incident. Use of the plea was impermissible, the Court of Appeals reasoned, "because the tribal court guilty plea was made under circumstances which would have violated the United States Constitution were it applicable to tribal proceedings.” Id., at 1390.
. True, as Bryant points out, we based our decision in Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 747, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994), in part on the “less exacting” nature of sentencing, compared with the heightened burden of proof required for determining guilt. But, in describing the rule we adopted, we said that it encompasses both "criminal history provisions,” applicable at sentencing, and “recidivist statutes,” of which § 117(a) is one. Ibid. Moreover, Nichols' two primary rationales—the validity of the prior conviction and the sentence’s punishment of "only the last offense”—do not rely on a distinction between guilt adjudication and sentencing. Indeed, it is the validity of the prior conviction that distinguishes Nichols from United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 448, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), in which we found impermissible the use at sentencing of an invalid, uncounseled prior conviction.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 federal officer removal statute permits a defendant to remove to federal court a state-court action brought against the
“United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office ....” 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(1) (emphasis added).
The question before us is whether the fact that a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises, and monitors a company’s activities in considerable detail brings that company within the scope of the italicized language (“acting under” an “officer” of the United States) and thereby permits removal. We hold that it does not.
I
Lisa Watson and Loretta Lawson, the petitioners, filed a civil lawsuit in Arkansas state court claiming that the Philip Morris Companies, the respondents, violated state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive business practices. The complaint focuses upon advertisements and packaging that describe certain Philip Morris brand cigarettes (Marlboro and Cambridge Lights) as “light,” a term indicating lower tar and nicotine levels than those present in other cigarettes. More specifically, the complaint refers to the design and performance of Philip Morris cigarettes that are tested in accordance with the Cambridge Filter Method, a method that “the tobacco industry [uses] to ‘measure’ tar and nicotine levels in cigarettes.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 63a-64a. The complaint charges that Philip Morris “manipulat[ed] the design” of its cigarettes, and “[e]mploy[ed] techniques that” would cause its cigarettes “to register lower levels of tar and nicotine on [the Cambridge Filter Method] than would be delivered to the consumers of the product.” Id., at 63a-65a. The complaint adds that the Philip Morris cigarettes delivered “greater amounts óf tar and nicotine when smoked under actual conditions” than the adjective “ ‘light’ ” as used in its advertising indicates. Id., at 65a. In view of these and other related practices, the complaint concludes that Philip Morris’ behavior was “deceptive and misleading” under Arkansas law. Id., at 64a, 66a.
Philip Morris, referring to the federal officer removal statute, removed the case to Federal District Court. That court, in turn, held that the statute authorized the removal. The court wrote that the complaint attacked Philip Morris’ use of the Government’s method of testing cigarettes. For this reason (and others), it held that the petitioners had sued Philip Morris for “act[s]” taken “under” the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a federal agency (staffed by federal “officer[s]”).
The District Court certified the question for interlocutory review. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Like the District Court, it emphasized the FTC’s detailed supervision of the cigarette testing process. It also cited lower court cases permitting removal by heavily supervised Government contractors. See 420 F. 3d 852, 857 (2005); Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 149 F. 3d 387 (CA5 1998) (authorizing removal of a tort suit against private defense contractors that manufactured Agent Orange). The Eighth Circuit concluded that Philip Morris was “acting under” federal “officer[s],” namely, the FTC, with respect to the challenged conduct. 420 F. 3d, at 854.
We granted certiorari. 549 U. S. 1162 (2007). And we now reverse the Eighth Circuit’s determination.
II
The federal statute permits removal only if Philip Morris, in carrying out the “act[s]” that are the subject of the petitioners’ complaint, was “acting under” any “agency” or “officer” of “the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(1). The words “acting under” are broad, and this Court has made clear that the statute must be “liberally construed.” Colorado v. Symes, 286 U. S. 510, 517 (1932); see Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U. S. 232, 242 (1981); Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U. S. 402, 406-407 (1969). But broad language is not limitless. And a liberal construction nonetheless can find limits in a text’s language, context, history, and purposes.
Beginning with history, we note that Congress enacted the original federal officer removal statute near the end of the War of 1812, a war that was not popular in New England. See id., at 405. Indeed, shipowners from that region filed many state-court claims against federal customs officials charged with enforcing a trade embargo with England. See Wiecek, The Reconstruction of Federal Judicial Power, 1863-1875, 13 Am. J. Legal Hist. 333, 337 (1969). Congress responded with a provision that permitted federal customs officers and “any other person aiding or assisting” those officers to remove a case filed, against them “in any state court” to federal court. Customs Act of 1815, ch. 31, §8, 3 Stat. 198 (emphasis added). This initial removal statute was “[o]bviously ... an attempt to protect federal officers from interference by hostile state courts.” Willingham, 395 U. S., at 405.
In the early 1830’s, South Carolina passed a Nullification Act declaring federal tariff laws unconstitutional and authorizing prosecution of the federal agents who collected the tariffs. See ibid. Congress then enacted a new statute that permitted “any officer of the United States, or other person,” to remove to federal court a lawsuit filed against the officer “for or on account of any act done under the revenue laws of the United States.” Act of Mar. 2, 1833, ch. 57, § 3, 4 Stat. 633 (emphasis added). As Senator Daniel Webster explained at the time, where state courts might prove hostile to federal law, and hence to those who enforced that law, the removal statute would “give a chance to the [federal] officer to defend himself where the authority of the law was recognised.” 9 Cong. Deb. 461 (1833).
Soon after the Civil War, Congress enacted yet another officer removal statute, permitting removal of a suit against any revenue officer “on account of any act done under color of his office” by the revenue officer and “any person acting under or by authority of any such officer.” Act of July 13, 1866, ch. 184, § 67,14 Stat. 171 (emphasis added). Elsewhere the statute restricted these latter persons to those engaged in acts “for the collection of taxes.” § 67, id., at 172.
In 1948, Congress again revised the statute, dropping its limitation to the revenue context. And it included thé rewritten statute within its 1948 recodification. See Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 1442(a), 62 Stat. 938, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). It is this version of the statute that, with the exception of a modification in response to this Court’s decision in International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund, 500 U. S. 72 (1991), is now before us. While Congress expanded the statute’s coverage to include all federal officers, it nowhere indicated any intent to change the scope of words, such as “acting under,” that described the triggering relationship between a private entity and a federal officer.
Turning to precedent, we point to three cases, all involving illegal liquor, which help to illustrate the need for, and the workings of, the pre-1948 removal statutes. In 1878, a federal revenue officer, James Davis, raided an illegal distillery in Tennessee; was ambushed by several armed men; returned the ambushers’ gunfire; and shot one of his attackers dead. See Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 261 (1880). Tennessee indicted Davis for murder. The Court held that the statute permitted Davis to remove the case to federal court, reasoning that the Federal Government “can act only through its officers and agents, and they must aet within the States.” Id., at 263. Removal, the Court found, would help to prevent hostile States from “paralyz[ing]” the Federal Government and its initiatives. Ibid.
About the same time, a U. S. Army corporal (also called Davis, Lemuel Davis) along with several other soldiers helped a federal revenue officer try to arrest a distiller for violating the internal-revenue laws. The soldiers surrounded the house; the distiller escaped through a hole in a side wall; Corporal Davis shot the suspect; and South Carolina indicted Davis for murder. Davis removed the case, and this Court upheld the removal. The Court acknowledged that, although Davis was not a revenue officer, he was a person “who lawfully assist[ed]” a revenue officer “in the performance of his official duty.” Davis v. South Carolina, 107 U. S. 597, 600 (1883).
In the 1920’s, Maryland charged a group of prohibition agents and a private person acting as their driver with a murder committed during a distillery raid. See Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9 (1926). The prohibition agents and their driver sought to remove the state murder trial to federal court. This Court ultimately rejected their removal efforts for reasons not relevant here. But in doing so it pointed out that the private person acting “as a chauffeur ‘and helper to the four officers under their orders and . . . direction” had “the same right to the benefit of” the removal provision as did the federal agents. Id., at 30.
Apart from demonstrating the dangers associated with working in the illegal alcohol business, these three cases—Tennessee v. Davis, Davis v. South Carolina, and Maryland v. Soper—illustrate that the removal statute’s “basic” purpose is to protect the Federal Government from the interference with its “operations” that would ensue were a State able, for example, to “arres[t]” and bring “to trial in a State cour[t] for an alleged offense against the law of the State,” “officers and agents” of the Federal Government “acting... within the scope of their authority.” Willingham, 395 U. S., at 406 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also ibid. (noting that the “purpose” of the statute “is not hard to discern”). State-court proceedings may reflect “local prejudice” against unpopular federal laws or federal officials. Soper, supra, at 32; see Manypenny, 451 U. S., at 242 (noting that removal permits trials to occur free from “local . . . prejudice”). In addition, States hostile to the Federal Government may impede through delay federal revenue collection or the enforcement of other federal law. See Tennessee v. Davis, supra, at 263; cf. Findley v. Satterfield, 9 F. Cas. 67, 68 (No. 4,792) (CC ND Ga. 1877). And States may deprive federal officials of a federal forum in which to assert federal immunity defenses. See International Primate Protection League, supra, at 86-87; Willingham, supra, at 407 (“[O]ne of the most important reasons for removal is to have the validity of the defense of official immunity tried in a federal court”); Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U. S. 423, 447 (1999) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting that “the main point” of the federal officer removal statute “is to give officers a federal forum in which to litigate the merits of immunity defenses”).
Where a private person acts as an assistant to a federal official in helping that official to enforce federal law, some of these same considerations may apply. Regardless, in Davis v. South Carolina the Court wrote that the removal statute applies to private persons “who lawfully assist” the federal officer “in the performance of his official duty.” 107 U. S., at 600. And in City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U. S. 808, 824 (1966), in interpreting a related removal provision, the Court repeated that the statute authorized removal by private parties “only” if they were “authorized to act with or for [federal officers or agents] in affirmatively executing duties under . . . federal law.” All the Court’s relevant post-1948 federal officer removal cases that we have found reflect or are consistent with this Court’s pre-1948 views. See Mesa v. California, 489 U. S. 121 (1989); Manypenny, supra; Willingham, supra; Peacock, supra.
III
With this history and precedent in mind, we return to the statute’s language. The relevant relationship is that of a private person “acting under” a federal “officer” or “agency.” 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(1) (emphasis added). In this context, the word “under” must refer to what has been described as a relationship that involves “acting in a certain capacity, considered in relation to one holding a superior position or office.” 18 Oxford English Dictionary 948 (2d ed. 1989). That relationship typically involves “subjection, guidance, or control.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2765 (2d ed. 1953). See also Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language 2604 (1942) (defining “under” as meaning “[subordinate or subservient to,” “[s]ubject to guidance, tutorship, or direction of”); 18 Oxford English Dictionary, supra, at 949 (“[sjubject to the instruction, direction, or guidance of”). In addition, precedent and statutory purpose make clear that the private person's “acting under” must involve an effort to assist, or to help carry out, the duties or tasks of the federal superior. See, e. g., Davis v. South Carolina, supra, at 600; see also supra, at 149-151.
In our view, the help or assistance necessary to bring a private person within the scope of the statute does not include simply complying with the law. We recognize that sometimes an English speaker might say that one who complies with the law “helps” or “assists” governmental law enforcement. Taxpayers who fill out complex federal tax forms, airline passengers who obey federal regulations prohibiting smoking, for that matter well-behaved federal prisoners, all “help” or “assist” federal law enforcement authorities in some sense of those words. But that is not the sense of “help” or “assist” that can bring a private action within the scope of this statute. That is in part a matter of language. One would usually describe the behavior of the taxpayers, airline passengers, and prisoners we have described as compliance with the law (or acquiescence to an order), not as “acting under” a federal official who is giving an order or enforcing the law. It is also in part a matter of the history and the precedent we have discussed. See supra, at 147-151.
Finally, it is a matter of statutory purpose. When a company subject to a regulatory order (even a highly complex order) complies with the order, it does not ordinarily create a significant risk of state-court “prejudice.” Cf. Soper, supra, at 32; Manypenny, supra, at 241-242. Nor is a state-court lawsuit brought against such a company likely to disable federal officials from taking necessary action designed to enforce federal law. Cf. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S., at 262-263. Nor is such a lawsuit likely to deny a federal forum to an individual entitled to assert a federal claim of immunity. See, e. g., Willingham, supra, at 407.
The upshot is that a highly regulated firm cannot find a statutory basis for removal in the fact of federal regulation alone. A private firm’s compliance (or noncompliance) with federal laws, rules, and regulations does not by itself fall within the scope of the statutory phrase “acting under” a federal “official.” And that is so even if the regulation is highly detailed and even if the private firm’s activities are highly supervised and monitored. A contrary determination would expand the scope of the statute considerably, potentially bringing within its scope state-court actions filed against private firms in many highly regulated industries. See, e.g., Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U. S. C. § 136a (2000 ed. and Supp. IV) (mandating disclosure of testing results in the context of pesticide registration). Neither language, nor history, nor purpose lead us to believe that Congress intended any such expansion.
IV
Philip Morris advances two important arguments to the contrary. First, it points out that lower courts have held that Government contractors fall within the terms of the federal officer removal statute, at least when the relationship between the contractor and the Government is an unusually close one involving detailed regulation, monitoring, or supervision. See, e. g., Winters, 149 F. 3d 387. And it asks why, if close supervision is sufficient to turn a private contractor into a private firm “acting under” a Government “agency” or “officer,” does it not do the same when a company is subjected to intense regulation.
The answer to this question lies in the fact that the private contractor in such cases is helping the Government to produce an item that it needs. The assistance that private contractors provide federal officers goes beyond simple compliance with the law and helps officers fulfill other basic governmental tasks. In the context of Winters, for example, Dow Chemical fulfilled the terms of a contractual agreement by providing the Government with a product that it used to help conduct a war. Moreover, at least arguably, Dow performed a job that, in the absence of a contract with a private firm, the Government itself would have had to perform.
These circumstances distinguish Winters from this case. For present purposes that distinction is sufficient. And we need not further examine here (a case where private contracting is not at issue) whether and when particular circumstances may enable private contractors to invoke the statute.
Second, Philip Morris argues that its activities at issue here did not consist simply of compliance with regulatory laws, rules, and orders. It contends that the FTC, after initially testing cigarettes for tar and nicotine, “delegated authority” for that task to an industry-financed testing laboratory in 1987. E. g., Brief for Respondents 31 (emphasis added). And Philip Morris asserts that (along with other cigarette companies) it was acting pursuant to that delegation. It adds that ever since this initial “delegation” the FTC has “extensivefly]. .. supervis[ed]” and “closely monitored” the manner in which the laboratory tests cigarettes. Id., at 37, 30, 39. Philip Morris concludes that, given all these circumstances, just as Dow was “acting under” officers of the Department of Defense when it manufactured Agent Orange, see Winters, supra, at 399, so Philip Morris is “acting under” officers of the FTC when it conducts cigarette testing. See Brief for Respondents 38.
For argument’s sake we shall overlook the fact that the petitioners appear to challenge the way in which Philip Morris “designed” its cigarettes, not the way in which it (or the industry laboratory) conducted cigarette testing. We also shall assume the following testing-related facts that Philip Morris sets forth in its brief:
(1) In the 1950’s, the FTC ordered tobacco compames to stop advertising the amount of tar and nicotine contained in their cigarettes. See id., at 3.
(2) In 1966, the FTC altered course. It permitted cigarette companies to advertise “tar and nicotine yields” provided that the company had substantiated its statement through use of the Cambridge Filter Method, a testing method developed by Dr. Clyde Ogg, a Department of Agriculture employee. Id., at 4-5.
(3) The Cambridge Filter Method uses “a smoking machine that takes a 35 milliliter puff of two seconds’ duration on a cigarette every 60 seconds until the cigarette is smoked to a specified butt length.” FTC v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 F. 2d 35, 37 (CADC 1985). It then measures the amount of tar and nicotine that is delivered. That data, in turn, determine whether a cigarette may be labeled as “light.” This method, Dr. Ogg has testified, “will not tell a smoker how much tar and nicotine he will get from any given cigarette,” but it “will indicate” whether a smoker “will get more from one than from another cigarette if there is a significant difference between the two and if he smokes the two in the same manner.” Brief for Respondents 5-6 (internal quotation marks omitted).
(4) In 1967, the FTC began to use its own laboratory to perform these tests. See id., at 6. And the Cambridge Filter Method began to be referred to as “the ‘FTC Method.’ ” Id., at 4.
(5) The FTC published the testing results periodically and sent the results annually to Congress. See id., at 7.
(6) Due to cost considerations, the FTC stopped testing cigarettes for tar and nicotine in 1987. Simultaneously, the tobacco industry assumed responsibility for cigarette testing, running the tests according to FTC specifications and permitting the FTC to monitor the process closely. See ibid.
(7) The FTC continues to publish the testing results and to send them to Congress. See ibid.
(8) The tobacco industry has followed the FTC’s requirement that cigarette manufacturers disclose (and make claims about) tar and nicotine content based exclusively on the results of this testing. See id., at 8-9.
Assuming this timeline, Philip Morris’ argument nonetheless contains a fatal flaw — a flaw of omission. Although Philip Morris uses the word “delegation” or variations many times throughout its brief, we have found no evidence of any delegation of legal authority from the FTC to the industry association to undertake testing on the Government agency’s behalf. Nor is there evidence of any contract, any payment, any employer/employee relationship, or any principal/agent arrangement.
We have examined all of the documents to which Philip Morris and certain supporting amici refer. Some of those documents refer to cigarette testing specifications, others refer to the FTC’s inspection and supervision of the industry laboratory’s testing, and still others refer to the FTC’s prohibition of statements in cigarette advertising. But none of these documents establish the type of formal delegation that might authorize Philip Morris to remove the case.
Several former FTC officials, for example, filed an amicus brief in which they state that “[i]n 198[7] the FTC delegated testing responsibility to the private Tobacco Industry Testing Lab (the ‘TITL’).” Brief for Former Commissioners and Senior Staff of the FTC 11. But in support of this proposition the brief cites a single source, a letter from the cigarette manufacturers’ lawyer to an FTC official. That letter states:
“[M]ajor United States cigarette manufacturers, who are responsible for the TITL’s operations and on whose behalf we are writing, do not believe that Commission oversight is needed .... Nevertheless, as an accommodation and in the spirit of cooperation, the manufacturers are prepared to permit Commission employees to monitor the TITL testing program . . . Letter from John P. Rupp to Judith P. Wilkenfeld (June 30, 1987), online at http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_sl/ TI57900738.html (as visited June 7, 2007, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
Nothing in this letter refers to a delegation of authority. And neither Congress nor federal agencies normally delegate legal authority to private entities without saying that they are doing so.
Without evidence of some such special relationship, Philip Morris’ analogy to Government contracting breaks down. We are left with the FTC’s detailed rules about advertising, specifications for testing, requirements about reporting results, and the like. This sounds to us like regulation, not delegation. If there is a difference between this kind of regulation and, say, that of Food and Drug Administration regulation of prescription drug marketing and advertising (which also involve testing requirements), see Serono Labs., Inc. v. Shalala, 158 F. 3d 1313, 1316 (CADC 1998), that difference is one of degree, not kind.
As we have pointed out, however, differences in the degree of regulatory detail or supervision cannot ’by themselves transform Philip Morris’ regulatory compliance into the kind of assistance that might bring the FTC within the scope of the statutory phrase “acting under” a federal “officer.” Supra, at 152. And, though we find considerable regulatory detail and supervision, we can find nothing that warrants treating the FTC/Philip Morris relationship as distinct from the usual regulator/regulated relationship. This relationship, as we have explained, cannot be construed as bringing Philip Morris within the terms of the statute.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Eighth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.,
The standard disputes clause in government contracts requires that “any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this contract,” not disposed of by agreement, shall be decided by the contracting officer, with the right of appeal within 30 days to the depártment head or his representative (normally a board of contract appeals) whose decision shall be final “unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith.” The “arising under” claims subject to final administrative determination are those claims asserted under other clauses of the contract calling for equitable adjustment of the purchase price or extensions of time upon the occurrence of certain events. One of these clauses is the so-called “changes” clause which permits the contracting officer to make changes within the scope of the contract, provides that if any change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for the performance of, the work, “an equitable adjustment shall be made in the contract price or delivery schedule,” and states that failure to agree upon an adjustment shall be a question of fact within the meaning of the disputes clause.
This case involves a claim for an equitable adjustment, asserted under the changes clause and rejected by the contracting officer and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The contractor brought suit in the District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1346 alleging that the decision of the Board was arbitrary, capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. The District Court dismissed the case as barred by 28 U. S. ;C. § 2401 (a) which provides that “Every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues... 'The principal question here is whether the “right of action” with respect to a claim within the disputes clause first accrues at the time of the final administrative action or at an earlier date.
The facts are quite simple. On May 14, 1956, petitioner contracted with the United States to furnish a spécified number of canteen covers which were to be lined with mildew-resistant felt of certain specifications.' The Government, which was authorized to inspect materials to be used under the contract, tested and rejected certain samples of felt purchased- by petitioner because they allegedly did not contain the contract quantities of mildew inhibitors. Petitioner agreed to a price reduction, however, and was permitted to complete the contract. Final delivery, originally scheduled for October 11, 1956, was made on December 14, 1956. Allegedly, in March 1959, petitioner' first, discovered the nature of the tests which the United States had performed on the felt. Claiming that the use of such tests was not within the contemplation of the contract and constituted a change in contract specifications, petitioner filed a claim with the contracting officer in October 1961, demanding an equitable adjustment in the contract price in the form of a refund of the price reduction and compensation for increased costs occasioned by substantial delay resulting from the Government's rejection of the felt samples. The contracting officer denied the claim. On February 28, 1963/ the Board of Contract Appeals affirmed the contracting officer's decision. On July 31, 1963, more than six years after 'petitioner had completed performance of the contract, petitioner brought suit in the District Court alleging that the. Board’s decision was capricious, arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence and that it was entitled to. an equitable adjustment as provided ill the contract. The United States, among other things, denied that the claim was within the disputes clause and asserted that the suit was time-barred by § 2401 (a). Without deciding whether the claim arose under the contract within the meaning of the disputes clause, the Dis- ■ trict Court dismissed the suit as barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed in a five-to-four decision. 363 F. 2d 407. Relying an McMahon v. United States, 342 U. S. 25, and its own decision in States Marine Corp. of Delaware v. United States, 283 F. 2d 776, which arose under the. Suits in Admiralty Act, the majority below concluded that the right of action first accrued no later than December 14, 1956, the date of the final delivery of the disputed canteen covers, and was therefore time-barred by § 2401 (a). The court disagreed with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Northern Metal Co. v. United States, 350 F. 2d 833, which, like States Marine, supra, involved the Suits in Admiralty Act. 41 Stat. 525, as amended. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit •had agreed with States Marine as to when the time bar begins to run but had held that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the administrative proceedings. Because of this apparent conflict, we granted certiorari, 385 U. S. 811. We reverse.
Since the decision below, the Court of Claims has decided Nager Electric Co., Inc. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 234, 368 F. 2d 847, a unanimous decision by that court supported by an exhaustive opinion by JudgeJDavis dealing with the application of the “first accrual” language of 28 U. S. C. § 2501 to both breach and disputes clause - claims under the typical government contract. The con-' elusion of the Court of Claims was that it would adhere to what it considered to be its long-standing rule: (1) when administrative proceedings with respect to a ^contractor’s claim subject to the disputes clause extend beyond the completion of the contract, his right of action first accrues when the administrative action is final, and not before, •and (2) when the contractor has breach claims as well as disputes clause claims the statute begins to run on breach claims as well only at the conclusion of administrative action on the claims arising under the contract. As will be evident below, we. do not reach the question of breach claims in this case. But with respect to claims arising under the contract, such as one asserted under the changes clause, we agree with the Court of Claims and essentially for the reasons which that court articulated.
1. We start with the obvious: Section 2401 (a) provides a time limit upon bringing civil actions against thedjnited States. The' “civil action”, referred to is a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. ‘ Cf. Unexcelled Chemical Corp. v. United States, 345 U. S. 59. Such a civil suit is seemingly, barred if the right-to bring it first accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the suit. Our initial inquiry is, therefore, when the right of the contractor in this case to bring suit in the District Court first accrued. In our opinion, if its claim arose under thie contract, it first accrued at the time of the final decision of the Armed Services Board. of Contract Appeals, that is, upon the completion of the administrative proceedings contemplated and required by the' provisions of the contract.
With respect to claims arising under the typical government contract, the contractor has agreed in effect to convert what otherwise might be claims for breach of contract into claims for equitable adjustment. The changes clause, for example, permits the Government to make changes in contract specifications. Such changes are not breaches of contract. They do give rise to claims for equitable adjustments which the Government agrees to make, if the cost of performance is increased or the time for performance changed. But whether and to what extent an adjustment is required are questions to be answered by the methods provided in the contract itself. The contractor must present his claim to the contracting officer, whose decision is final unless appealed for final action by the department head or his representative,, here the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Until that Board has acted, the contractor’s claim is not subject to adjudication in the courts. Until then, he has only the right to have the existence and extent of his claimed adjustment determined by the administrative process agreed upon. But, as we have said, the “right of action” of which § 2401 (a) speaks is not the right to administrative action but the right to file a civil action in the courts against the United States. Under the contract we have here, the contractor’s claim was subject only to administrative, not judicial, determination in the first instance, with the right to resort to the courts only upon the making of that administrative determination.
It is now crystal clear thát the contractor must seek the relief provided for under the contract or be barred from any relief in the courts. In United States v. Holpuch Co., 328 U. S. 234, the question was whether a contractor’s failure to exhaust the administrative appeal provisions of a government construction contract bars him from-bringing suit in the Court of Claims to recover damages. The Court held that it did. According to the Court,, the disputes clause
“is a clear, unambiguous provision applicable at all times and binding on all parties to the contract. No court is justified in disregarding its letter or spirit.... It creates a mechanism whereby adjustments may be made and errors..corrected on an administrative level, thereby permitting the Government to mitigate or avoid large damage claims that might otherwise be created. United States v. Blair, 321 U. S. 730, 735. This mechanism, moreover, is exclusive in nature. Solely through its operation may claims be made and adjudicated as to matters arising under the contract.... And in the absence of some clear evidence that the appeal procedure is inadequate or unavailable, that procedure must be pursued and exhausted, before a con tractor, can be heard to complain in a court.” 328 U. S. 234, 239-240.
See also United States v. Blair, 321 U. S. 730, and United States v. Callahan Walker Co., 317 U. S. 56, 61, where the disputes clause procedures are described ag the “only avenue for relief.”
2..Even when the contractual scheme has run its course and the contractor is free to file his suit ip court, he is not entitled to demand a de novo determination of his claim for an equitable adjustment. The evidence in support of his case must have been presented administratively and the record there made will be the record before the reviewing court. United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709; United States v. Utah Construction Co., 384 U. S. 394. The court performs principally a reviewing function* Only if it is alleged, and proved that the administrative determination was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by substantial evidence may the court refuse to honor it. This much is clear not only from the disputes clause itself but from the Wunderlich Act. In that statute, entitled “An Act to permit review...,” 68 Stat. 81, Congress widened the scope of judicial review but. at the same time recognized the finality of the administrative decision absent the specified grounds for setting it aside. The focus of the court action is the validity' of the administrative decision.. Until that decision is made, the contractor cannot know what claim he has or on what grounds administrative action may be vulnerable. It is only then that his claim or right to bring a civil action against the United States matures and, as the.Court of Claims said, that he has “the right to demand payment... the hallmark of accrual of a claim in this court.” 177 Ct. CL, at 252, 368 F. 2d, at 859.'
3. Tp hold that the six-year time period runs from the completion of the contract, as the Government insists, would have unfortunate impact. The contractor is compelled to resort to administrative proceedings which may be protracted and which may last not only beyond the completion of the contract but continue for more than six years thereafter. If the time bar starts running from the completion date, the contractor could, thus be barred from the courts by the time his administrative appeal is finally decided. This would be true whether he wins or loses before the board of appeals. Even if he prevailed there and was granted the equitable adjustment he sought, the Government would be immune from suit to enforce the award if more than six years had passed since the completion of the contract. This is not an appealing result, nor, in our view, one that Congress intended. The Wunderlich Act evidences a congressional purpose to. insure adequate judicial review of administrative decisions on claims arising under government contracts; it is very doubtful that it anticipated no review at all if administrative proceedings, compulsory on the contractor, continued for more than six years beyond the contract’s completion date.
The Government suggests that the contractor, may easily avoid such untoward results by the timely filing of a protective suit which could remain inactive pending the conclusion of administrative proceedings. But the contractor is not legally entitled to ask the courts to adjudicate his claim as an original matter. Nor-can'he-sensibly ask- the courts to review a decision which has not yet been made. He cannot, with honesty, make the necessary allegations to support an action for review until the administrative process is completed and the agency decision known. Since it would remain quiescent until the administrative decision is rendered, the protective suit would be a sheer formality in any event — a procedural trap for the unwary and an additional complication for those who - manage the dockets of the courts. Certainly it would be no help to those contractors fbr whom it is already too late to file such a suit, which is true of the petitioner in this case.
4. The Government challenges what the Court of Claims in Nager Electric considered to be the long-standing rule found in its own past cases. It asserts that many of the cases from which the purported rule was sifted do not involve the standard disputes clause and those that do state the rule by way of dictum only. But we think the Court of Claims fairly reflected the thrust and tenor of its prior opinions. At least, based on those eases, the ordinary contractor would have been wholly justified in concluding that he had six years from the conclusion of administrative proceedings to file his suit. Nor, aside from the decision in this case, have we been cited to any court of appeals decisions in Tucker Act (24 Stat. 505) cases, which are contrary to the rule followed by the Court of Claims.
5. This brings us to the cases in this Court upon which the Government and the Court of Appeals have relied: McMahon v. United States, 342 U. S. 25; Soriano v. United States, 352 U. S. 270; and Unexcelled Chemical Corp. v. United States, 345 U. S. 59. None of them was a Tucker Act suit involving a disputes clause claim. McMahon was an action brought by an injured seaman against the United States for negligence and unseaworthiness. The Suits in Admiralty Act requires actions to be brought within two years after. “the cause of action arises.” The Clarification Act, 57 Stat. 45, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291 (a), which brought such.a seaman⅛ suit within the ambit of the Suits in Admiralty Act, permits court action only if the claim has been administratively disallowed, but sets no time within which a claim must be presented to the administrative body. The Court held that the limitations period ran from the time of the injury, not from the date of the disallowance of the claim. The Court saw no indications that Congress in passing the Clarification Act intended to postpone the usual time of accrual of the cause of action until the date of disallowance, since this would permit the claimant to postpone indefinitely the commencement of the running of the statutory period.
The Court has pointed out before, however, the hazards •inherent in attempting to define for all purposes when a'“cause of action” first “accrues.” Such words are to be “interpreted in the light of the general purposes of the statute and of its other provisions, and with due regard to those practical ends which are to be served by any limitation of the time within which an action must be brought.” Reading Co. v. Koons, 271 U. S. 58, 62; see also United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 748. Cases under the Suits in Admiralty Act do not necessarily rule Tucker Act claims..The purpose of the Clarification Act was to prevent • unnecessary litigation by providing for notice of injury to the United States and for the opportunity to settle claims administratively. But while suit was permitted only if a claim had-been “disallowed,” the applicable regulations provided that if a claim was not rejected within 60 days after filing, it would be deemed to have been administratively disallowed and the claimant would be free to enforce his claim. There was no chance for administrative action to consume the entire limitations period and therefore bar all resort to the courts.
In disputes clause cases, however, final administrative action, which the claimant must await, may occur more than six years after the completion of the contract. When it does, the claimant would be time-barred if the six-year period is measured from the date of final performance. Nor does the claimant in cases like the one before us have unlimited discretion as to when to file his claim. The standard changes clause requires him to present his claim within 30 days and most other clauses in government contracts calling for an equitable adjustment also contain their own time limitations. Where this is not true, the contractor cannot delay unreasonably in presenting his claim. This is the rule thei Court of Claims follows. See Nager Electric, supra, 177 Ct. Cl., at 259, 368 F. 2d, at 864.
Nor. do Soriano or Unexcelled control this case. In Soriano the six-year time bar was held to run from the date of the requisitioning of foodstuffs and equipment by Philippine guerrilla forces and not from, the date of the disallowance of a claim filed with the Army Claims Service. The majority in that case expressly held that the.administrative action was not a prerequisite to suit in the Court'of Claims. Likewise, in Unexcelled, where the statutory period was held to run- from the date of the breach of statutory duty- under the Walsh-Healey Act (49 Stat. 2036), rather than from the date'of the admin-. istrative determination of the liquidated damages due the Government, it seems apparent that the United States, to which damages were payable, could have brought suit without first resorting to administrative remedies.
6. Finally, the Government relies on Public Law 89-505, 80 Stat. 304, 28 U. S. C. § 2415 (1964 ed., Supp. II), enacted on July 18, 1966, which for the first time established a general statute of limitations on government tort claims and on suits by the Government for money damages founded on any contract, express or implied. Such suits must now be brought within “six years after the right of action accrues or within one year after final decisions have been rendered in applicable administrative proceedings required by contract or by law.” As an example of such administrative proceedings, the relevant committee reports and hearings mentioned the administrative proceedings required under the standard disputes clause contained in government contracts. H. R. Rep. No. 1534, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 4; S. Rep. No. 1328, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 3; Hearing on H. R. 13652 before Subcommittee No. 2 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1966). Based on this new provision, the Government argues that. Congress necessarily assumed that the right of action of the United States in disputes clause situations first accrues and the limitations period begins to run prior to the completion of administrative proceedings. Otherwise there would have been no need for the one-year period following final administrative decision in order to save actions which might otherwise be barred by the six-year limitation. What this amounts to, the Government says, is a congressional construction of the similar “first accrual” language of the older limitations on private actions contained in § 2401 (a) and § 2501. Likewise, it argues, this construction precludes holdings such as that of the Third Circuit in Northern Metal Co. v. United States, 350 F. 2d 833, to the effect that the statute is tolled during the pendency of administrative proceedings.
This argument is not without force. There is no question of the power of Congress to define the limits of its waiver of sovereign immunity. But we are not convinced that Congress intended to issue any determinative construction of § 2401' in formulating and passing § 2415. Neither in the hearing on H. R. 13652 nor in the committee reports did Congress focus on the first accrual language of § 2401, on the existing construction of that language by the Court of Claims or any other court or on the situation of the government contractor desiring to sue the United States during or after the •conclusion of administrative proceedings under the disputes clause. The bill was recommended to the Congress by the Department of Justice at the time the Department was litigating Nager Electric in the Court of Claims in which the Department. ultimately took the position that the private contractor’s right of action first accrues no later than the completion of the contract. This position was rejected by the Court of Claims, in favor of what is considered to be its existing rule — that the private contractor’s right to sue on a disputes clause claim first accrues with the termination of administrative proceedings. Given the Wunderlich Act, and the prior litigative history of disputes clause issues in- this Court and in the Court of Claims, we are doubtful that Con-' gress intended to bar a private contractor’s suit on a disputes clause claim where administrative proceedings continue for more than six years after the completion of the contract. Congress understood what the impact of such a rule would be if applied to the Government and made due allowance for it by allowing the Government the one-year grace period. We see no indications that it had in -mind the private litigant whose right to sue the United States is governed by § 2401. • We are hesitant to believe that in passing a statute aimed at equalizing the litigative.opportunities between-the Government and private parties Congress consciously extended a one-year saving period to the Government to overcome the effects of protracted administrative proceedings and refused similar relief to the contractor. At least we are sufficiently doubtful that we prefer to await a somewhat clearer signal from the Congress.
We therefore conclude that if the claim filed by the contractor in this case was a claim “arising under” the contract and was therefore subject to administrative determination, (1) its right to bring a civil action first accrued when the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finally ruled on its claim and (2) its suit in the District Court was timely filed. The Government in its answer to the complaint, however, denied that the claim arose under the contract, characterized it instead as a pure breach of contract claim which accrued no later-than the date of the completion of the contract. The District Court did not decide this issue; nor do we. This matter will be open on remand to the District Court. If the claim is not within the disputes clause, the court may then determine whether it is time-barred.
Reversed and remanded.
The disputes-clause contained in the contract between petitioner and thé Government provides:
“Except as otherwisé provided. in this contract, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this.contract which is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the Contracting Officer, who shall reduce his decision to writing and mail or. otherwise furnish a. copy thereof to the Contractor. Within 30 days from the date of receipt of such copy, the Contractor may appeal by mail-” ing or otherwise furnishing to the Contracting Officer a written appeal addressed to the Secretary, and the decision of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative for the hearing of such appeals shall, unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, be final and conclusive; provided that, if no such appeal is taken, the decision of the Contracting Officer shall b'e final and conclusive. In connection' with any appeal proceeding under this clause, the Contractor shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. ■ Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract and in accordance with the Contracting Officer’s decision.”
For the disputes clause presently in use, see 32 CFR § 597.103-12.
Claims not arising under those other clauses of the contract calling for eqüitable adjustment and therefore not within the disputes clause will sometimes be referred to herein as “breach” claims. See United States v. Utah Construction Co., 384 U. S. 394, 403-418.
The record in this case, contains only excerpts from the changes clause of the contract at issue here. The standardized version of the changes clause, for fixed-price supply contracts provides, in its entirety,- that:
“The Contracting Officer may at any time, by a written order, and without notice to the sureties, make changes, within the general scope of this contract, in any one or more of the following: (i) Drawings', designs, or specifications, where the supplies to be furnished are to be specially manufactured for the Government' in accordance therewith; (ii) method of shipment or packing; and (iii) place of delivery. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for the performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether changed or not changed by any such order, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the contract price or delivery schedule, or both, and the contract shall' be modified in writing accordingly. Any claim by the Contractor for adjustment under this clause must be asserted within 30 days from the date of receipt by the Contractor of the notification of change, provided, however; that the Contracting Officer, if he decides that the facts justify such action, may receive and act upon any such claim, asserted at any time prior to final payment under this contract. Where the cost of property made obsolete or excess as result of a change is included in the Contractor’s claim for adjustment, the Contracting Officer shall have the right-to prescribe the manner of disposition of such property. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of the clause of this contract entitled. ‘Disputes.’ However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed.” 32 CFR § 7.103-2.
The excerpted version of the changes clause in this case appears in the unreported opinion of the District Court, and it seems substantially identical to the full clause quoted above.
Section 1346 in relevant part provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, of “... (2) Any other civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded.... upon any express of implied' contract with the United States. \..”
Section 2501 provides as follows: “Every claim of which the Court of Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.”
Where the administrative proceedings have not extended beyond the date of completion of the contract, the Court of Claims’ rule has been that “the claim accrues, and the statutory period com-menees, at the time of completion or acceptance (if the latter is contemplated).” 177 Ct. Cl. 234, 242, 368 F. 2d 847, 853.
The Court of Claims summarized its prior rulings with respect to co-existing breach and disputes cláuse claims as follows:
“Reading them all together; these opinions show, we think, that where a contractor has both ‘disput'es-clause’ items and ‘breach-type’- claims under a single contract, the following standards have controlled in this court: (i) there should be only one suit to enforce the various claim-items; (ii) the contractor can bring suit on the ripened ‘breach-type’ items before completion of the administrative process on the ‘disputes-elause’ items, but if he does so he may well lose the latter claims unless he includes them (by proper amendment, if necessary, as they mature) in his court action; but (iii) the contractor need not file suit on the ‘breach-type’ items until after the end, of the administrative process, when all the items have ripened and can be included in the one petition. In sum, our rule has been that the time-bar will not fall until six years after the administrative determination, but suit can be filed earlier, with the plaintiff taking the risk that he may thereby split his cause of action.” 177 Ct. CL, at 248-249, 368 F. 2d, at 857.
We do not have a situation here where the- United States refuses to process the claim in accordance with its agreement or otherwise departs from the agreed-upon scheme for settling disputed issues within the disputes clause.
41 U. S. C. §§321 and 322 provide as follows: ■
Ҥ 321. Limitation on pleading contract-provisions relating to finality;' standards of review.
“No provision' of any contract entered- into by the United States, relating to the finality or conclusiveness of any decision of the head of any department or ageiicy or his duly authorized - representative or board in a dispute involving-, a question arising under such contract, shall be pleaded in any-suit now filed or to be filed as limiting judicial review of any such decision to cases where fraud by such official or his said representative or board is alleged: Provided, however, That any such decision shall be final and conclusive unless the same is fradulent [sic] or capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or is not supported by substantial evidence.
Ҥ 322. Contract-provisions making decisions final on questions of law.
“No Government contract-shall contain a provision making final on a question of law the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board.”
The Committee Report on the Wunderlich Act disaffirms any intention to confer any new rights on the contractor other than the widened scope of review and refers specifically to the six-year statute of limitations barring stale suits against the Government. But the report does not suggest when the limitations period begins to run or purport to alter of ⅛. disagree with the then-extant judicial constructions of either ⅜⅞⅛¾⅛ § 2501 by.the Court of Claims or by any other eou/t. See H. R. Rep. No. 1380, 83d Cong., 2d Bess.
We should in this respect heed the words of the Court of Claims: “The United States has known for decades that contract suits will be timely in this court, if they are filed within six years after the. administrative determination, and has probably acted on that assumption in keeping records and retaining evidence. On the other hand, to say abruptly at this moment that limitation runs from the contract’s completion, regardless of subsequent mandatory administrative proceedings, would undoubtedly cut off scores of contractors who, relying on our past decisions, have waited to bring suit until the ending of the administrative process. There is no adequate reason to disrupt these justified expectations.” 177 Ct. Cl., at 253-254, 368 F. 2d, at 860.
The cases cited by’the Court of Claims are the following:
Electric Boat Co. v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 361, 367-368, cert. denied, 297 U. S. 710; Austin Eng’r Co. v. United States, 88 Ct. Cl. 559, 562-564; Holton, Seelye & Co. v. United States, 106 Ct. Cl. 477, 501, 65 F. Supp. 903, 907; Griffin v. United States, 110 Ct. Cl. 330, 372-373, 77 F. Supp. 197, 206, rev’d on other grounds, sub nom. United States v. Jones, 336 U. S. 641; Art Center School v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 218, 226, 142 F. Supp. 916, 921; Empire Institute of Tailoring, Inc. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 165, 168, 161 F. Supp. 409, 411 ; International Potato Corp. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 604, 606-607, 161 F. Supp. 602, 604-605; Clifton Products, Inc. v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 806, 809, 169 F. Supp. 511, 512-513; Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 156 Ct. Cl. 142, 144, 297 F. 2d 546, 547, cert. denied sub nom. Arlene Coats v. United States, 371 U. S. 818; Steel Improvement & Forge Co. v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 24, 29-30, 355 F. 2d 627, 631.
The Court of Claims also dealt with Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 642, 644, 153 F. Supp. 397, 399, a'case containing statements seemingly contrary to those found in the above cases.
The Court of Claims dealt with the matter as follows:
“Similarly, the contractor in the cases before us (and the mass of such cases) is not left at large to present his claim administratively ■ whenever he likes. The Disputes clause does not itself fix a time within which a disputed issue of fact must be- presented to the contracting officer, but that is not ordinarily true of the. various substantive contractual clauses which lead to equitable adjustments or. comparable relief under the contract. Those specific clauses usually have built-in time limits, and where no specific period is established in. the contract the contractor cannot delay unreasonably. Cf. Dawnic Steamship Corp. v. United States, 90 Ct. Cl. 537, 579 (1940). Neither.this court nor the administrative tribunals have had any' great difficulty in handling belated claims by contractors under the various contract-adjustment articles.' Contractors have not been able to extend the limitations period unduly by unilaterally postponing the commencement of the administrative process.” 177 Ct. Cl., at 259-260, 368 F. 2d, at 864.
The court also noted that:
“The standard Changes clause in construction contracts provides that claims for adjustment must be asserted within 10 days; the Changed Conditions clause calls for an immediate notification to the contracting officer; the Delays-Damages clause contemplates a notice within 10 days of excusable delays; the Price -Adjustment for Suspension, Delays, or Interruption of Work clause sets 20 days as the normal period. See United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U. S. 394, 397-399 n. 1, 416 n. 14, 86 S. Ct. 1545, 16 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1966).” Id., at 259, n. 29, 368 F. 2d, at 864, n. 29.
The 30-dav period within which
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the extent of the liability of the surety on a payment bond furnished by a contractor, as required by the Miller Act, for the protection of persons supplying labor for the construction of federal public buildings. The collective-bargaining contract under which the laborers were hired obligated the contractor to pay them wages at specified rates and, in addition, to pay 7% cents per hour of their labor to the trustees of a health and welfare fund established for their benefit and that of other construction workers. When the contractor failed to pay in full the required contributions to the health and welfare fund, the trustees of the fund sued the surety on the contractor’s payment bond to recover the balance due the fund, plus liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, court costs and expenses. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that § 2 (a) of the Miller Act imposes liability on the surety.
In November 1952, the respondent contractor, Donald G. Carter, contracted with the United States to construct certain public buildings at Air Force bases in California. As required by the Miller Act, he filed performance and payment bonds executed by the respondent, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, as surety. The payment bond was in the penal sum of $52,434.30, and provided that the obligation of the surety shall be void “if the principal shall promptly make payment to all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract . . . otherwise to remain in full force . . . .”
The terms under which Carter employed laborers for the prosecution of the work were prescribed in master labor agreements governing the conditions of employment in the construction industry in 46 counties of northern California. Those agreements had been negotiated in June 1952 through collective bargaining between the local council of a labor union representing construction workers and several associations of employers, one of which acted as an agent for Carter. The agreements obligated Carter to pay wages to his employees at specified rates which were to be not less than the prevailing rates determined by the Government. The agreements required also that, beginning February 1, 1953, Carter was to pay to the trustees of a health and welfare fund 7% cents for each hour worked by his construction employees.
The specified fund was established by a trust agreement dated March 4, 1953, and negotiated by the parties to the master labor agreements. Its pertinent provisions were as follows: The fund was to be administered by a board of trustees representing employers and employees. The trustees were authorized to use employer contributions to purchase various types of insurance, such as life, accidental death, hospitalization and surgical benefit policies, with eligible employees and their dependents as the beneficiaries. The employees had no rights to the insurance benefits except as provided in the policies. Also, they had no right, title or interest in the contributions, and it was expressly stated that the contributions “shall not constitute or be deemed to be wages” due the employees.
The trustees had the sole power to demand and enforce prompt payment of employer contributions. Those contributions were payable in monthly installments. Any installment not paid by the 25th of the month in which it came due was delinquent, and the sum of $20 per delinquency or 10% of the amount due, whichever was greater, was owed by the delinquent employer as liquidated damages and not as a penalty. If the trustees filed suit to secure payment of any installments, the defaulting employer was to pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and all other reasonable expenses of the trustees incurred in the litigation.
Carter became insolvent after completing the construction work and paying his employees the wages payable directly to them. However, he failed to make his required contributions to the fund for February, March and April 1953. Pursuant to § 2 (b) of the Miller Act, the trustees of the fund, in the name of the United States, instituted this action on the payment bond against Carter and his surety in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint sought recovery of the unpaid contributions and the prescribed liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, court costs and expenses, in the total amount of about $500. The facts were stipulated and the court, after hearing, granted the surety’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trustees had no right to sue on the bond under § 2 (a) of the Act, since they were neither persons who had furnished labor or material, nor were they seeking sums “justly due” such persons. 229 F. 2d 645. We granted certiorari to resolve the questions of statutory construction which are at issue. 351 U. S. 917.
Section 1 (a) (2) of the Miller Act provides that before any contract exceeding $2,000 for the construction of any public work of the United States is awarded to any person, such person shall furnish to the United States a payment bond with a satisfactory surety “for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract . . . .” 49 Stat. 793, 40 U. S. C. § 270a (2). Section 2 (a), which is at issue here, provides that “Every person who has furnished labor or material in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract . . . and who has not been paid in full therefor . . . shall have the right to sue on such payment bond . . . for the sum or sums justly due him . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) 49 Stat. 794, 40 U. S. C. § 270b (a).
The surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect. The bond involved here was furnished to meet the statutory requirements of the Act and appears, on its face, to comply with these requirements. There is no indication that the coverage of the bond was intended to exceed them. The bond insures prompt payment “to all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract . . . The trustees' rights against the surety depend upon, and are to be measured by, the applicable provisions of § 2 (a) of the Act.
While the precise questions of statutory construction now presented are ones of first impression, prior decisions of this Court construing the Miller Act of 1935 and its predecessor, the Heard Act of 1894, indicate that the Miller Act should receive a liberal construction to effectuate its protective purposes.
“The Miller Act, like the Heard Act, is highly remedial in nature. It is entitled to a liberal construction and application in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects. Fleisher Engineering Co. v. United States, 311 U. S. 15, 17, 18; cf. United States v. Irwin, 316 U. S. 23, 29, 30. But such a salutary policy does not justify ignoring plain words of limitation and imposing wholesale liability on payment bonds.” Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States, 322 U. S. 102, 107.
The Miller Act represents a congressional effort to protect persons supplying labor and material for the construction of federal public buildings in lieu of the protection they might receive under state statutes with respect to the construction of nonfederal buildings. The essence of its policy is to provide a surety who, by force of the Act, must make good the obligations of a defaulting contractor to his suppliers of labor and material. Thus the Act provides a broad but not unlimited protection.
It is undisputed that if the collective-bargaining agreement had required the contractor to pay each employee 7% cents per hour above the prevailing wage rate, and the employee had, by contract with his bargaining representative, agreed to contribute that sum to the fund, the surety would have been obligated to make good any default in the contractor’s payment of that extra 7% cents per hour. The surety argues that employer contributions made directly to a health and welfare fund should be treated differently. It contends that, under the provisions of the trust agreement, the unpaid contributions are not “wages” due to Carter’s employees, and that the employees, having received all the “wages” owed to them, have been “paid in full” as that term is used in § 2 (a) of the Act. The Act, however, does not limit recovery on the statutory bond to “wages.” The parties have stipulated that contributions to the fund were part of the consideration Carter agreed to pay for the services of laborers on his construction jobs. The unpaid contributions were a part of the compensation for the work to be done by Carter’s employees. The relation of the contributions to the work done is emphasized by the fact that their amount was, measured by the exact number of hours each employee performed services for Carter. Not until the required contributions have been made will Carter’s employees have been “paid in full” for their labor in accordance with the collective-bargaining agreements.
The surety suggests that Carter’s obligation to contribute to the fund was not covered by the statutory bond because that obligation was not set forth in his construction contract with the United States, but appeared only in the master labor agreements. Those labor agreements were also the source of Carter’s obligation to pay the “wages” payable directly to his employees, an obligation concededly guaranteed by the bond. Nothing in the Miller Act restricted the obligations of the surety to what was set forth specifically in Carter’s agreement with the United States. In fact, the surety’s obligations extended to some persons who had no contractual relationship with Carter. For example, persons who contributed labor and material to Carter’s subcontractors were entitled to the Act’s protection. See the MacEvoy Co. case, supra, at 105, 107-108. As long as Carter’s obligations relating to compensation for labor have not been satisfied, his employees will not have been “paid in full” and the Miller Act will not have served its purpose.
The surety also argues that the trustees are not entitled to recover the promised contributions under § 2 (a) of the Miller Act, since they are neither persons who have furnished labor or material, nor are they seeking “sums justly due” to persons who have furnished labor or material. An answer to this contention is found in cases arising under the Heard Act involving suits by assignees of the claims of persons furnishing labor or material. Such assignees were not the persons who had furnished the labor or material for which the claims were made. They did not seek “sums justly due” to persons who had themselves furnished labor or material, since the assignments had extinguished the right which those persons had to the performance of the contractors’ obligation. Yet these cases established that assignees of the claims of persons furnishing labor or material came within the protection of the statutory bond. It was pointed out that a denial of an assignee’s right to sue on the bond might deprive those for whom the security was intended of a fair chance to realize upon their claims by assignment. There is nothing in the language, legislative history, or related decisions to indicate that Congress intended to overturn these cases when it replaced the Heard Act with the broader and more liberal provisions of the Miller Act.
If the assignee of an employee can sue on the bond, the trustees of the employees’ fund should be able to do so. Whether the trustees of the fund are, in a technical sense, assignees of the employees’ rights to the contributions need not be decided. Suffice it to say that the trustees’ relationship to the employees, as established by the master labor agreements and the trust agreement, is closely analogous to that of an assignment. The master labor agreements not only created Carter’s obligation to make the specified contributions, but simultaneously created the right of the trustees to collect those contributions on behalf of the employees. The trust agreement gave the trustees the exclusive right to enforce payment. The trustees stand in the shoes of the employees and are entitled to enforce their rights.
Moreover, the trustees of the fund have an even better right to sue on the bond than does the usual assignee since they are not seeking to recover on their own account. The trustees are claiming recovery for the sole benefit of the beneficiaries of the fund, and those beneficiaries are the very ones who have performed the labor. The contributions are the means by which the fund is maintained for the benefit of the employees and of other construction workers. For purposes of the Miller Act, these contributions are in substance as much “justly due” to the employees who have earned them as are the wages payable directly to them in cash.
The trustees’ claim for liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, court costs and other related expenses of this litigation has equal merit. The contractor’s obligation to pay these items is set forth in the trust agreement. It is stipulated that they form a part of the consideration which Carter agreed to pay for services performed by his employees. If the employees are to be “paid in full” the “sums justly due” to them, these items must be included. Their amount, however, remains to be determined.
We hold that the Miller Act makes the surety liable on its payment bond for the delinquent contributions to the fund, together with the additional items above described. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, therefore, is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further action consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“. . . (a) before any contract, exceeding $2,000 in amount, for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the United States is awarded to any person, such person shall furnish to the United States the following bonds, which shall become binding upon the award of the contract to such person, who is hereinafter designated as ‘contractor’:
“(1) A performance bond with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the officer awarding such contract, and in such amount as he shall deem adequate, for the protection of the United States.
“(2) A payment bond with a surety or sureties satisfactory to such officer for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract for the use of each such person. . . .
“Sec. 2. (a) Every person who has furnished labor or material in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract, in respect of which a payment bond is furnished under this Act and who has not been paid in full therefor before the expiration of a period of ninety days after the day on which the last of the labor was done or performed by him or material was furnished or supplied by him for which such claim is made, shall have the right to sue on such payment bond for the amount, or the balance thereof, unpaid at the time of institution of such suit and to prosecute said action to final execution and judgment for the sum or sums justly due him: Provided, however, That any person having direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship express or implied with the contractor furnishing said payment bond shall have a right of action upon the said payment bond upon giving written notice to said contractor within ninety days from the date on which such person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which such claim is made, stating with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed. . . .
“(b) Every suit instituted under this section shall be brought in the name of the United States for the use of the person suing, in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed and not elsewhere, irrespective of the amount in controversy in such suit, but no such suit shall be commenced after the expiration of one year after the date of final settlement of such contract. The United States shall not be liable for the payment of any costs or expenses of any such suit.” 49 Stat. 793, 794, 40 U. S. C. §§ 270a (1) (2), 270b.
The trustees established by regulation the requirements for eligibility for insurance benefits. Any employee in the bargaining unit, whether or not a member of the laborers' union, could become eligible. Each employee was given a credit for every hour he worked for an employer obligated to contribute to the fund. Any employee who received credits for at least 400 hours in a designated six-month period was entitled to the benefits of the plan for the succeeding six months. His eligibility during that period did not depend on his further employment in the construction industry.
Act of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, as amended, 33 Stat. 811, 36 Stat. 1167. See 40 U. S. C. (1934 ed.) § 270.
One limitation, inapplicable here, comes from the proviso in § 2 (a). See n. 1, supra. In the MacEvoy Co. case, supra, this Court concluded that the effect of the proviso was to limit the right to bring suit on the bond to “(1) those materialmen, laborers and subcontractors who deal directly with the prime contractor and (2) those mate-rialmen, laborers and sub-subcontractors who, lacking express or implied contractual relationship with the prime contractor, have direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor and who give the statutory notice of their claims to the prime contractor.” 322 U. S., at 107-108. Here the trustees of the fund are claiming sums on behalf of workmen who supplied labor for the project directly to the contractor under an express contractual relationship with him.
4 Corbin, Contracts (1951 ed.), §891; Restatement, Contracts, § 150. See also, Looney v. District of Columbia, 113 U. S. 258; Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 5.
Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co., 219 U. S. 24, 35; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bartlett, 231 U. S. 237, 243; United States v. Rundle, 100 F. 400, 403; United States v. Brent, 236 F. 771, 777; Bartlett & Kling v. Dings, 249 F. 322, 325.
See United States v. Rundle, supra.
See United States v. Conn, 19 F. R. D. 274, 277. In Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States, 322 U. S. 102, 105-106, this Court concluded that—
“The Miller Act, while it repealed the Heard Act, reinstated its basic provisions and was designed primarily to eliminate certain procedural limitations on its beneficiaries. There was no expressed purpose in the legislative history to restrict in any way the coverage of the Heard Act; the intent rather was to remove the procedural difficulties found to exist under the earlier measure and thereby make it easier for unpaid creditors to realize the benefits of the bond.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This Court has held that the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment applies at the first appearance before a judicial officer at which a defendant is told of the formal accusation against him and restrictions are imposed on his liberty. See Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 398-399 (1977); Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625, 629, n. 3 (1986). The question here is whether attachment of the right also requires that a public prosecutor (as distinct from a police officer) be aware of that initial proceeding or involved in its conduct. We hold that it does not.
I
A
Although petitioner Walter Rothgery has never been convicted of a felony, a criminal background check disclosed an erroneous record that he had been, and on July 15, 2002, Texas police officers relied on this record to arrest him as a felon in possession of a firearm. The officers lacked a warrant, and so promptly brought Rothgery before a magistrate, as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 14.06(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007). Texas law has no formal label for this initial appearance before a magistrate, see 41 G. Dix & R. Dawson, Texas Practice Series: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 15.01 (2d ed. 2001), which is sometimes called the “article 15.17 hearing,” see, e. g., Kirk v. State, 199 S. W. 3d 467, 476-477 (Tex. App. 2006); it combines the Fourth Amendment’s required probable-cause determination with the setting of bail, and is the point at which the arrestee is formally apprised of the accusation against him, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 15.17(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007).
Rothgery’s article 15.17 hearing followed routine. The arresting officer submitted a sworn “Affidavit Of Probable Cause” that described the facts supporting the arrest and “charge[d] that... Rothgery... eommit[ted] the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—3rd degree felony [Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04],” App. to Pet. for Cert. 33a. After reviewing the affidavit, the magistrate “determined that probable cause existed for the arrest.” Id., at 34a. The magistrate informed Rothgery of the accusation, set his bail at $5,000, and committed him to jail, from which he was released after posting a surety bond. The bond, which the Gillespie County deputy sheriff signed, stated that “Rothgery stands charged by complaint duly filed... with the offense of a... felony, to wit: Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Felon.” Id., at 39a. The release was conditioned on the defendant’s personal appearance in trial court “for any and all subsequent proceedings that may be had relative to the said charge in the course of the criminal action based on said charge.” Ibid.
Rothgery had no money for a lawyer and made several oral and written requests for appointed counsel, which went unheeded. The following January, he was indicted by a Texas grand jury for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, resulting in rearrest the next day, and an order increasing bail to $15,000. When he could not post it, he was put in jail and remained there for three weeks.
On January 23, 2003, six months after the article 15.17 hearing, Rothgery was finally assigned a lawyer, who promptly obtained a bail reduction (so Rothgery could get out of jail), and assembled the paperwork confirming that Rothgery had never been convicted of a felony. Counsel relayed this information to the district attorney, who in turn filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which was granted.
B
Rothgery then brought this 42 U. S. C. § 1983 action against respondent Gillespie County (County), claiming that if the County had provided a lawyer within a reasonable time after the article 15.17 hearing, he would not have been indicted, rearrested, or jailed for three weeks. The County’s failure is said to be owing to its unwritten policy of denying appointed counsel to indigent defendants out on bond until at least the entry of an information or indictment. Rothgery sees this policy as violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the County, see 413 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (WD Tex. 2006), and the Court of Appeals affirmed, see 491 F. 3d 293, 294 (CA5 2007). The Court of Appeals felt itself bound by Circuit precedent, see id., at 296-297 (citing Lomax v. Alabama, 629 F. 2d 413 (CA5 1980), and McGee v. Estelle, 625 F. 2d 1206 (CA5 1980)), to the effect that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach at the article 15.17 hearing, because “the relevant prosecutors were not aware of or involved in Rothgery’s arrest or appearance before the magistrate on July 16, 2002,” and “[t]here is also no indication that the officer who filed the probable cause affidavit at Rothgery’s appearance had any power to commit the state to prosecute without the knowledge or involvement of a prosecutor,” 491 F. 3d, at 297.
We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. 1061 (2007), and now vacate and remand.
II
The Sixth Amendment right of the “accused” to assistance of counsel in “all criminal prosecutions” is limited by its terms: “it does not attach until a prosecution is commenced.” McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U. S. 171, 175 (1991); see also Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 430 (1986). We have, for purposes of the right to counsel, pegged commencement to “ ‘the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings— whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment,’” United States v. Gouveia, 467 U. S. 180, 188 (1984) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682, 689 (1972) (plurality opinion)). The rule is not “mere formalism,” but a recognition of the point at which “the government has committed itself to prosecute,” “the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified,” and the accused “finds himself faced with the prosecutorial forces of organized society, and immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law.” Kirby, supra, at 689. The issue is whether Texas’s article 15.17 hearing marks that point, with the consequent state obligation to appoint counsel within a reasonable time once a request for assistance is made.
A
When the Court of Appeals said no, because no prosecutor was aware of Rothgery’s article 15.17 hearing or involved in it, the court effectively focused not on the start of adversarial judicial proceedings, but on the activities and knowledge of a particular state official who was presumably otherwise occupied. This was error.
As the Court of Appeals recognized, see 491 F. 3d, at 298, we have twice held that the right to counsel attaches at the initial appearance before a judicial officer, see Jackson, 475 U. S., at 629, n. 3; Brewer, 430 U. S., at 399. This first time before a court, also known as the “‘preliminary arraignment’” or “‘arraignment on the complaint,’” see 1 W. La-Fave, J. Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, Criminal Procedure § 1.4(g), p. 135 (3d ed. 2007), is generally the hearing at which “the magistrate informs the defendant of the charge in the complaint, and of various rights in further proceedings,” and “determine[s] the conditions for pretrial release,” ibid. Texas’s article 15.17 hearing is an initial appearance: Rothgery was taken before a magistrate, informed of the formal accusation against him, and sent to jail until he posted bail. See supra, at 195-196. Brewer and Jackson control.
The Brewer defendant surrendered to the police after a warrant was out for his arrest on a charge of abduction. He was then “arraigned before a judge... on the outstanding arrest warrant,” and at the arraignment, “[t]he judge advised him of his Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966),] rights and committed him to jail.” Brewer, 430 U. S., at 391. After this preliminary arraignment, and before an indictment on the abduction charge had been handed up, police elicited incriminating admissions that ultimately led to an indictment for first-degree murder. Because neither of the defendant’s lawyers had been present when the statements were obtained, the Court found it “clear” that the defendant “was deprived of... the right to the assistance of counsel.” Id., at 397-398. In plain terms, the Court said that “[t]here can be no doubt in the present case that judicial proceedings had been initiated” before the defendant made the incriminating statements. Id., at 399. Although it noted that the State had conceded the issue, the Court nevertheless held that the defendant’s right had clearly attached for the reason that “[a] warrant had been issued for his arrest, he had been arraigned on that warrant before a judge in a... courtroom, and he had been committed by the court to confinement in jail.” Ibid.
In Jackson, the Court was asked to revisit the question whether the right to counsel attaches at the initial appearance, and we had no more trouble answering it the second time around. Jackson was actually two consolidated cases, and although the State conceded that respondent Jackson’s arraignment “represented the initiation of formal legal proceedings,” 475 U. S., at 629, n. 3, it argued that the same was not true for respondent Bladel. In briefing us, the State explained that “[i]n Michigan, any person charged with a felony, after arrest, must be brought before a Magistrate or District Court Judge without unnecessary delay for his initial arraignment.” Brief for Petitioner in Michigan v. Bladel, O. T. 1985, No. 84-1539, p. 24. The State noted that “[w]hile [Bladel] had been arraigned..., there is also a second arraignment in Michigan procedure..., at which time defendant has his first opportunity to enter a plea in a court with jurisdiction to render a final decision in a felony case.” Id., at 25. The State contended that only the latter proceeding, the “arraignment on the information or indictment,” Y. Kamisar, W. LaFave, J. Israel, & N. King, Modern Criminal Procedure 28 (9th ed. 1999) (emphasis deleted), should trigger the Sixth Amendment right. “The defendant’s rights,” the State insisted, “are fully protected in the context of custodial interrogation between initial arraignment and preliminary examination by the Fifth Amendment right to counsel” and by the preliminary examination itself. See Bladel Brief, supra, at 26.
We flatly rejected the distinction between initial arraignment and arraignment on the indictment, the State’s argument being “untenable” in light of the “clear language in our decisions about the significance of arraignment.” Jackson, supra, at 629, n. 3. The conclusion was driven by the same considerations the Court had endorsed in Brewer: by the time a defendant is brought before a judicial officer, is informed of a formally lodged accusation, and has restrictions imposed on his liberty in aid of the prosecution, the State’s relationship with the defendant has become solidly adversarial. And that is just as true when the proceeding comes before the indictment (in the case of the initial arraignment on a formal complaint) as when it comes after it (at an arraignment on an indictment). See Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1, 8 (1970) (plurality opinion) (right to counsel applies at preindictment preliminary hearing at which the “sole purposes... are to determine whether there is sufficient evidence against the accused to warrant presenting his case to the grand jury, and, if so, to fix bail if the offense is bailable”); cf. Owen v. State, 596 So. 2d 985, 989, n. 7 (Fla. 1992) (“The term ‘arraign’ simply means to be called before a court officer and charged with a crime”).
B
Our latest look at the significance of the initial appearance was McNeil, 501 U. S. 171, which is no help to the County. In McNeil, the State had conceded that the right to counsel attached at the first appearance before a county court commissioner, who set bail and scheduled a preliminary examination. See id., at 173; see also id., at 175 (“It is undisputed, and we accept for purposes of the present case, that at the time petitioner provided the incriminating statements at issue, his Sixth Amendment right had attached... ”). But we did more than just accept the concession; we went on to reaffirm that “[t]he Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the first formal proceeding against an accused,” and observed that “in most States, at least with respect to serious offenses, free counsel is made available at that time....” Id., at 180-181.
That was 17 years ago, the same is true today, and the overwhelming consensus practice conforms to the rule that the first formal proceeding is the point of attachment. We are advised without contradiction that not only the Federal Government, including the District of Columbia, but 43 States take the first step toward appointing counsel “before, at, or just after initial appearance.” App. to Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae 1a; see id., at la-7a (listing jurisdictions); see also Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 5-8 (describing the ABA’s position for the past 40 years that counsel should be appointed “certainly no later than the accused’s initial appearance before a judicial officer”). And even in the remaining seven States (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) the practice is not free of ambiguity. See App. to Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae 5a-7a (suggesting that the practice in Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia might actually be consistent with the majority approach); see also n. 7, supra. In any event, to the extent these States have been denying appointed counsel on the heels of the first appearance, they are a distinct minority.
C
The only question is whether there may be some arguable justification for the minority practice. Neither the Court of Appeals in its opinion, nor the County in its briefing to us, has offered an acceptable one.
1
The Court of Appeals thought Brewer and Jackson could be distinguished on the ground that “neither case addressed the issue of prosecutorial involvement,” and the cases were thus “neutral on the point,” 491 F. 3d, at 298. With Brewer and Jackson distinguished, the court then found itself bound by Circuit precedent that “ ‘an adversary criminal proceeding has not begun in a case where the prosecution officers are unaware of either the charges or the arrest.’ ” 491 F. 3d, at 297 (quoting McGee v. Estelle, 625 F. 3d 1206, 1208 (CA5 1980)). Under this standard of prosecutorial awareness, attachment depends not on whether a first appearance has begun adversary judicial proceedings, but on whether the prosecutor had a hand in starting it. That standard is wrong.
Neither Brewer nor Jackson said a word about the prosecutor’s involvement as a relevant fact, much less a controlling one. Those cases left no room for the factual enquiry the Court of Appeals would require, and with good reason: an attachment rule that turned on determining the moment of a prosecutor’s first involvement would be “wholly unworkable and impossible to administer,” Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, 496 (1964) (White, J., dissenting), guaranteed to bog the courts down in prying enquiries into the communication between police (who are routinely present at defendants’ first appearances) and the State’s attorneys (who are not), see Brief for Petitioner 39-41. And it would have the practical effect of resting attachment on such absurd distinctions as the day of the month an arrest is made, see Brief for Brennan Center of Justice et al. as Amici Curiae 10 (explaining that “jails may be required to report their arrestees to county prosecutor offices on particular days” (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 2.19 (Vernon 2005))); or “the sophistication, or lack thereof, of a jurisdiction’s computer intake system,” Brief for Brennan Center, supra, at 11; see also id., at 10-12 (noting that only “[s]ome Texas counties... have computer systems that provide arrest and detention information simultaneously to prosecutors, law enforcement officers, jail personnel, and clerks. Prosecutors in these jurisdictions use the systems to pre-screen cases early in the process before an initial appearance” (citing D. Carmichael, M. Gilbert, & M. Voloudakis, Texas A&M U., Public Policy Research Inst., Evaluating the Impact of Direct Electronic Filing in Criminal Cases: Closing the Paper Trap 2-3 (2006), online at http://www.courts.state.tx.us/tfid/pdf/ FinalReport7-12-06wackn. pdf (as visited June 19, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file))).
It is not that the Court of Appeals believed that any such regime would be desirable, but it thought originally that its rule was implied by this Court’s statement that the right attaches when the government has “committed itself to prosecute.” Kirby, 406 U. S., at 689 (plurality opinion). The Court of Appeals reasoned that because “the decision not to prosecute is the quintessential function of a prosecutor” under Texas law, 491 F. 3d, at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted), the State could not commit itself to prosecution until the prosecutor signaled that it had.
But what counts as a commitment to prosecute is an issue of federal law unaffected by allocations of power among state officials under a State’s law, cf. Moran, 475 U. S., at 429, n. 3 (“[T]he type of circumstances that would give rise to the right would certainly have a federal definition”), and under the federal standard, an accusation filed with a judicial officer is sufficiently formal, and the government’s commitment to prosecute it sufficiently concrete, when the accusation prompts arraignment and restrictions on the accused’s liberty to facilitate the prosecution, see Jackson, 475 U. S., at 629, n. 3; Brewer, 430 U. S., at 399; Kirby, supra, at 689 (plurality opinion); see also n. 9, supra. From that point on, the defendant is “faced with the prosecutorial forces of organized society, and immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law” that define his capacity and control his actual ability to defend himself against a formal accusation that he is a criminal. Kirby, supra, at 689 (plurality opinion). By that point, it is too late to wonder whether he is “accused” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and it makes no practical sense to deny it. See Grano, Rhode Island v. Innis: A Need to Reconsider the Constitutional Premises Underlying the Law of Confessions, 17 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1, 31 (1979) (“[I]t would defy common sense to say that a criminal prosecution has not commenced against a defendant who, perhaps incarcerated and unable to afford judicially imposed bail, awaits preliminary examination on the authority of a charging document filed by the prosecutor, less typically by the police, and approved by a court of law” (internal quotation marks omitted)). All of this is equally true whether the machinery of prosecution was turned on by the local police or the state attorney general. In this case, for example, Rothgery alleges that after the initial appearance, he was “unable to find any employment for wages” because “all of the potential employers he contacted knew or learned of the criminal charge pending against him.” Original Complaint in No. 1:04-CV-00456-LY (WD Tex., July 15, 2004), p. 5. One may assume that those potential employers would still have declined to make job offers if advised that the county prosecutor had not filed the complaint.
2
The County resists this logic with the argument that in considering the significance of the initial appearance, we must ignore prejudice to a defendant’s pretrial liberty, reasoning that it is the concern, not of the right to counsel, but of the speedy-trial right and the Fourth Amendment. See Brief for Respondent 47-51. And it cites Gouveia, 467 U. S. 180, in support of its contention. See Brief for Respondent 49; see also Brief for State of Texas et al. as Amici Curiae 8-9. We think the County’s reliance on Gouveia is misplaced, and its argument mistaken.
The defendants in Gouveia were prison inmates, suspected of murder, who had been placed in an administrative detention unit and denied counsel up until an indictment was filed. Although no formal judicial proceedings had taken place prior to the indictment, see 467 U. S., at 185, the defendants argued that their administrative detention should be treated as an accusation for purposes of the right to counsel because the Government was actively investigating the crimes. We recognized that “because an inmate suspected of a crime is already in prison, the prosecution may have little incentive promptly to bring formal charges against him, and that the resulting preindictment delay may be particularly prejudicial to the inmate,” id., at 192, but we noted that statutes of limitation and protections of the Fifth Amendment guarded against delay, and that there was no basis for “departing] from our traditional interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in order to provide additional protections for [the inmates],” ibid.
Gouveia’s holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached has no application here. For one thing, Gouveia does not affect the conclusion we reaffirmed two years later in Jackson, that bringing a defendant before a court for initial appearance signals a sufficient commitment to prosecute and marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings. (Indeed, Jackson refutes the County’s argument that Fifth Amendment protections at the early stage obviate attachment of the Sixth Amendment right at initial appearance. See supra, at 201-202.) And since we are not asked to extend the right to counsel to a point earlier than formal judicial proceedings (as in Gouveia), but to defer it to those proceedings in which a prosecutor is involved, Gouveia does not speak to the question before us.
The County also tries to downplay the significance of the initial appearance by saying that an attachment rule unqualified by prosecutorial involvement would lead to the conclusion “that the State has statutorily committed to prosecute every suspect arrested by the police,” given that “state law requires [an article 15.17 hearing] for every arrestee.” Brief for Respondent 24 (emphasis in original). The answer, though, is that the State has done just that, subject to the option to change its official mind later. The State may rethink its commitment at any point: it may choose not to seek indictment in a felony case, say, or the prosecutor may enter nolle prosequi after the case gets to the jury room. But without a change of position, a defendant subject to accusation after initial appearance is headed for trial and needs to get a lawyer working, whether to attempt to avoid that trial or to be ready with a defense when the trial date arrives.
3
A third tack on the County’s part, slightly different from the one taken by the Fifth Circuit, gets it no further. The County stipulates that “the properly formulated test is not... merely whether prosecutors have had any involvement in the case whatsoever, but instead whether the State has objectively committed itself to prosecute.” Id., at 31. It then informs us that “[pjrosecutorial involvement is merely one form of evidence of such commitment.” Ibid. Other sufficient evidentiary indications are variously described: first (expansively) as “the filing of formal charges... by information, indictment or formal complaint, or the holding of an adversarial preliminary hearing to determine probable cause to file such charges,” ibid, (citing Kirby, 406 U. S., at 689 (plurality opinion)); then (restrictively) as a court appearance following “arrest... on an indictment or information,” Brief for Respondent 32. Either version, in any event, runs up against Brewer and Jackson: an initial appearance following a charge signifies a sufficient commitment to prosecute regardless of a prosecutor’s participation, indictment, information, or what the County calls a “formal” complaint.
So the County is reduced to taking aim at those cases. Brewer and Jackson, we are told, are “vague” and thus of “limited, if any, precedential value.” Brief for Respondent 33, 35; see also id., at 32, n. 13 (asserting that Brewer and Jackson “neither provide nor apply an analytical framework for determining attachment”). And, according to the County, our cases (Brewer and Jackson aside) actually establish a “general rule that the right to counsel attaches at the point that [what the County calls] formal charges are filed,” Brief for Respondent 19, with exceptions allowed only in the case of “a very limited set of specific preindictment situations,” id., at 23. The County suggests that the latter category should be limited to those appearances at which the aid of counsel is urgent and “ 'the dangers to the accused of proceeding without counsel’ ” are great. Id., at 28 (quoting Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U. S. 285, 298 (1988)). Texas’s article 15.17 hearing should not count as one of those situations, the County says, because it is not of critical significance, since it “allows no presentation of witness testimony and provides no opportunity to expose weaknesses in the government’s evidence, create a basis for later impeachment, or even engage in basic discovery.” Brief for Respondent 29.
We think the County is wrong both about the clarity of our cases and the substance that we find clear. Certainly it is true that the Court in Brewer and Jackson saw no need for lengthy disquisitions on the significance of the initial appearance, but that was because it found the attachment issue an easy one. The Court’s conclusions were not vague; Brewer expressed “no doubt” that the right to counsel attached at the initial appearance, 430 U. S., at 399, and Jackson said that the opposite result would be “untenable,” 475 U. S., at 629, n. 3.
If, indeed, the County had simply taken the cases at face value, it would have avoided the mistake of merging the attachment question (whether formal judicial proceedings have begun) with the distinct “critical stage” question (whether counsel must be present at a postattachment proceeding unless the right to assistance is validly waived). Attachment occurs when the government has used the judicial machinery to signal a commitment to prosecute as spelled out in Brewer and Jackson. Once attachment occurs, the accused at least is entitled to the presence of appointed counsel during any “critical stage” of the postattachment proceedings; what makes a stage critical is what shows the need for counsel’s presence. Thus, counsel must be appointed within a reasonable time after attachment to allow for adequate representation at any critical stage before trial, as well as at trial itself.
The County thus makes an analytical mistake in its assumption that attachment necessarily requires the occurrence or imminence of a critical stage. See Brief for Respondent 28-30. On the contrary, it is irrelevant to attachment that the presence of counsel at an article 15.17 hearing, say, may not be critical, just as it is irrelevant that counsel’s presence may not be critical when a prosecutor walks over to the trial court to file an information. As we said in Jackson, “[t]he question whether arraignment signals the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings... is distinct from the question whether the arraignment itself is a critical stage requiring the presence of counsel.” 475 U. S., at 630, n. 3. Texas’s article 15.17 hearing plainly signals attachment, even if it is not itself a critical stage.
III
Our holding is narrow. We do not decide whether the 6-month delay in appointment of counsel resulted in prejudice to Rothgery’s Sixth Amendment rights, and have no occasion to consider what standards should apply in deciding this. We merely reaffirm what we have held before and what an overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions understand in practice: a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Because the Fifth Circuit came to a different conclusion on this threshold issue, its judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“[F]elony charges... had been dismissed after Rothgery completed a diversionary program, and both sides agree that [he] did not have a felony conviction.” 491 F. 3d 293, 294 (CA5 2007) (case below).
A separate article of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires prompt presentment in the case of arrests under warrant as well. See Art. 15.17(a) (West Supp. 2007). Whether the arrest is under warrant or warrantless, article 15.17 details the procedures a magistrate must follow upon presentment. See Art. 14.06(a) (in cases of warrantless arrest, “[t]he magistrate shall immediately perform the duties described in Article 15.17 of this Code”).
See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 113-114 (1975) (“[A] policeman’s on-the-scene assessment of probable cause provides legal justification for arresting a person suspected of crime, and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest[,]... [but] the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest”).
Because respondent Gillespie County obtained summary judgment in the current case, we accept as true that Rothgery made multiple requests.
Rothgery also requested counsel at the article 15.17 hearing itself, but the magistrate informed him that the appointment of counsel would delay setting bail (and hence his release from jail). Given the choice of proceeding without counsel or remaining in custody, Rothgery waived the right to have appointed counsel present at the hearing. See 491 F. 3d, at 295, n. 2.
Rothgery does not challenge the County’s written policy for appointment of counsel, but argues that the County was not following that policy in practice. See 413 F. Supp. 2d 806, 809-810 (WD Tex. 2006).
Such a policy, if proven, arguably would also be in violation of Texas state law, which appears to require appointment of counsel for indigent defendants released from custody, at the latest, when the “first court appearance” is made. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 1.051(j) (Vernon Supp. 2007). See also Brief for Texas Association of Counties et al. as Amici Curiae 13 (asserting that Rothgery “was statutorily entitled to the appointment of counsel within three days after having requested it”).
The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
The Court of Appeals did not resolve whether the arresting officer’s formal accusation would count as a “formal complaint” under Texas state law. See 491 F. 3d, at 298-300 (noting the confusion in the Texas state courts). But it rightly acknowledged (albeit in considering the separate question whether the complaint was a “formal charge”) that the constitutional significance of judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to founder on the vagaries of state criminal law, lest the attachment rule be rendered utterly “vague and unpredictable.” Virginia v. Moore, 553 U. S. 164, 175 (2008). See 491 F. 3d, at 300 (“[W]e are reluctant to rely on the formalistic question of whether the affidavit here would be considered a ‘complaint’ or its functional equivalent under Texas case law and Article 15.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures — a question to which the answer is itself uncertain. Instead, we must look to the specific circumstances of this case and the nature of the affidavit filed at Rothgery’s appearance before the magistrate” (footnote omitted)). What counts is that the complaint filed with the magistrate accused Rothgery of committing a particular crime and prompted the judicial officer to take legal action in response (here, to set the terms of bail and order the defendant locked up).
The dissent says that “Brewer’s attachment holding is indisputably no longer good law” because “we have subsequently held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is “'offense specific,”’” post, at 230 (opinion of Thomas, J.) (quoting Texas v. Cobb, 532 U. S. 162, 164 (2001)), i. e., that it does not “exten[d] to crimes that are ‘factually related’ to those that have actually been charged,” id., at 167. It is true that Brewer appears to have assumed that attachment of the right with respect to the abduction charge should prompt attachment for the murder charge as well. But the accuracy of the dissent’s assertion ends there, for nothing in Cobb’s conclusion that the right is offense specific casts doubt on Brewer’s separate, emphatic holding that the initial appearance marks the point at which the right attaches. Nor does Cobb reflect, as the dissent suggests, see post, at 230-231, a more general disapproval of our opinion in Brewer. While Brewer failed even to acknowledge the issue of offense specificity, it spoke clearly and forcefully about attachment. Cobb merely declined to follow Brewer’s unmentioned assumption, and thus it lends no support to the dissent’s claim that we should ignore what Brewer explicitly said.
The State continued to press this contention at oral argument. See Tr.. of Oral Arg. in Michigan v. Jackson, O. T. 1985, No. 84-1581 etc., p. 4 (“[T]he Michigan Supreme Court held that if a defendant, while at his initial appearance before a magistrate who has no jurisdiction to accept a final plea in the case, whose only job is ministerial, in other words to advise a defendant of the charge against him
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On July 28, 1947, the appellant, Swift and Company, filed a complaint, later amended, before the Interstate Commerce Commission against the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe and other railroads, alleging that the charges on direct carload shipments of livestock from points outside Illinois to its proposed new plant in the Chicago Packingtown area are (1) unreasonable, (2) unduly prejudicial to livestock as a commodity, and (3) unduly prejudicial to Swift as against its competitors, all in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act. Swift asked for the establishment of reasonable joint through rates for line-haul carriers serving Chicago and the Chicago Junction Railroad's lessee, the Chicago River and Indiana Railroad, hereafter called Junction, such joint rates to include delivery of livestock to Swift’s industrial siding at its proposed plant and not to exceed the line-haul rates now in effect at the Union Stock Yards and other points of delivery on line-haul railroads in the area. Swift’s proposed plant, near its present plant, will be located on Junction’s rails and not on those of any line-haul carrier.
After Swift filed its complaint, Junction sought to file a new tariff cancelling the present one as it applies to livestock. The present tariff provides a flat charge for switching carload freight to and from industrial sidings and team tracks; under the new tariff, Junction would not have offered switching services for livestock under any circumstances. Swift and others objected, and the filing was suspended so that the Commission could hear Swift’s complaint and Junction’s request together on a consolidated record.
The Commission dismissed the complaint and refused to cancel the switching tariff as to livestock. Swift & Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 274 I. C. C. 557. Swift then sought review of the Commission’s order of dismissal by a statutory three-judge District Court. That court sustained the Commission’s order, and this appeal followed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253 and 2101 (b). No question is raised as to the Commission’s refusal to cancel the switching tariff.
All livestock shipments by rail to the Chicago area are handled solely by the line-haul carriers; delivery is direct to line-haul terminals at the line-haul rate. Such terminals are the Stock Yards and those unloading pens located on switches directly adjoining a line-haul carrier’s rails. Swift is the one large packer in Chicago that has such a line-haul terminal and can receive all its direct shipments of livestock at line-haul rates. This terminal, the Omaha Packing Plant, a Swift subsidiary situated two and one-half miles northeast of Swift’s present plant and outside the Stock Yards district, is located on the rails of the Burlington Railroad, a line-haul carrier. Here Swift receives its direct livestock shipments, about 6,500 carloads annually, which it trucks to its plant in the Stock Yards area. The balance of the livestock delivered in Chicago, whether direct or otherwise, is delivered to the Stock Yards, with some minor exceptions, by the line-haul carriers over certain Junction running tracks to the Stock Yards unloading pens. The carriers have trackage rights on these running tracks for which a charge is paid to Junction. On direct shipments to a packer delivered to the Stock Yards, the Yards’ facilities, including a vast system of runways, overpasses and tunnels, are used to drive the livestock from the unloading pens to the packer’s plant. The charges for these facilities are fixed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Junction has never switched or handled any livestock except in an emergency.
The delivery of livestock in the Stock Yards area is to be contrasted with that of “dead freight.” The line-haul carriers make no direct deliveries of dead freight; none of the approximately 500 industries in the area have plants located on line-haul rails and the line-haul carriers do not have trackage rights over the Junction rails which lead to the plants. Consequently, all dead freight is switched by Junction and delivered to the industrial sidings or team tracks alongside of and connecting with Junction’s rails.
Since Junction provides only trackage rights for the livestock shipments to the Stock Yards, the line-haul rates on livestock do not include Junction as a participating carrier. Junction does participate, however, in joint rates for dead freight. For any switching operation not covered by line-haul rates in which Junction participates, Junction has a flat switching charge of $28.80 per car. This charge would apply to any direct shipments at Swift’s proposed plant in Packingtown which, as we have noted, is not located on any line-haul rails but rather on Junction’s rails.
Trains for the Stock Yards are made up at the break-up yards of the line-haul carriers, located from a few to several miles from the Stock Yards. A train coming in from the west moves to the Ashland Yards of Junction, which are divided into the North and the South Yards. The North Yards are used for the receipt, separation, and distribution of cars of dead freight and empties outbound from the packers and other industries, while the South Yards are used for cars of dead freight inbound. This division is made by three parallel running tracks owned by Junction, numbered 1102, 1103 and 1104, over which the line-haul carriers are permitted to operate in and out of the Stock Yards. Sixty-three percent of the trains to the Stock Yards area are composed exclusively of livestock. The balance are consolidated trains, carrying both livestock and dead freight.
An all-livestock train moves by line-haul carrier, using its own crew and equipment, eastward over Track 1103 to the unloading pens in the Stock Yards and is there spotted for unloading. While the cars are being unloaded, the engine cuts off, passes around to the other end of the train and couples on; when the unloading is completed, the train returns westward over Track 1102 or 1104 through Junction’s Ashland Yards and back to its breakup yards with the empties. This all-livestock train is delivered to the Stock Yards in one movement by line-haul carriers for line-haul rates.
A consolidated train moves through the Ashland Yards from the break-up yards to a certain point on Track 1103, just as an all-livestock train. In this consolidated train, the dead-freight cars are hauled just behind the engine and the livestock cars in the rear. At a certain point on Track 1103 the dead-freight cars are cut out and switched into the South Yards upon one of the nine Junction receiving tracks, from which tracks Junction later moves the dead freight to the industrial sidings and team tracks of the packers and other industries located in the area. After the dead freight has been switched to the receiving tracks, the line-haul engine returns to Track 1103 to couple onto the livestock cars and move them to the unloading pens. While the dead freight is being switched to the South Yards, Track 1103, the only means of ingress to the Stock Yards from the west, is blocked by the livestock cars remaining on the track. Sometimes as many as four trains at a time are tied up by reason of the block on Track 1103.
An all-livestock train coming in from the east does not pass through the Ashland Yards but proceeds directly to the Stock Yards from the break-up yards. However, all dead freight moves through the Ashland Yards, as would all livestock to be delivered to Swift if its complaint were granted. The fact that most of the livestock shipments are handled by the western carriers makes this portion of the transportation operation unimportant for present purposes.
If this complaint were granted, livestock would move to Swift’s proposed plant in the manner of dead freight. Instead of one movement, as the line-haul movement to the Stock Yards, there would be two movements — one to the receiving tracks in the South Ashland Yards made by the line-haul carriers, and the second movement by Junction from its South Yards to Swift’s plant, located on Junction’s rails. The tie-up on Track 1103, described above, would be increased accordingly as trains consigned to the Stock Yards would have to place any of Swift’s livestock cars on the Junction receiving tracks. The congestion and costs involved would be increased by the fact that livestock cannot be handled as easily as dead freight. Livestock cars cannot be “kicked” in switching operations as can dead-freight cars, which are stopped by collision with other cars. Livestock cars must be placed with a minimum of rough handling. Still further difficulties would be encountered because livestock must be unloaded, watered and fed every twenty-eight hours, in accordance with federal law. 45 U. S. C. § 71 et seq. When livestock arrives in Chicago, there are generally only a few hours remaining for delivery to unloading pens in order to comply with this law. Therefore, expeditious handling of the livestock is required, especially since there are no facilities along Junction’s rails for such unloading, watering and feeding. Some 31 hours are required for a car of dead freight to clear Ashland Yards and be delivered. It is apparent that livestock must be handled in much less time.
If the complaint were granted, Swift would not pay for the second or switching movement by Junction. Although Junction has never moved livestock in the past except in an emergency, under existing tariffs it can charge Swift the switching rate of $28.80 per car now applied to other commodities. But if Swift is to obtain what it seeks, the line-haul carrier must establish as the line-haul rate a joint rate with Junction which is no higher than the present line-haul rate. This would mean that the line-haul carrier must absorb the switching charge, or that both the switching charge and the present line-haul rate must be decreased, with the line-haul carrier and Junction sharing in absorbing the amount of the decrease.
The delivery of livestock through this bottleneck of Ashland Yards must be geared to provide for the expeditious and special handling that livestock must receive. The huge quantities of dead freight which are handled and the restricted facilities of Ashland Yards have resulted in the development, over a period of seventy years, of a complicated, intricate pattern of operation. For this reason, any attempt to change the pattern calls for the most expert consideration and administrative judgment — a task that courts are ill-fitted to perform. If the Commission gave weight to the relevant factors, its decision should not be overturned. We move then to the Commission’s report.
The Commission found that in the circumstances presented the switching charge provided by the existing tariff would not be unreasonable or otherwise unlawful as applied to livestock, and secondly, that the establishment of joint rates for such transportation was not necessary or desirable in the public interest. It took account of the historical development of the Stock Yards and the delivery of livestock therein which together with the industrial development of the area have made further yard expansion impracticable. The Commission found that the switching yards are now highly congested and, as one witness put it, are “running bank full.” While it is true that livestock shipments into the area have been decreasing, dead-freight shipments have increased severalfold, and the congestion will continue in the foreseeable future. The Commission gave careful consideration to the complication of operations through the additional and different switching movements required in the handling of livestock as contrasted with dead freight. Whether the system for the delivery of livestock into Chicago which has existed for over seventy years at an established line-haul rate, and which has recognized definite terminals calling for a minimum of train movements in a highly congested area, should be displaced by another system which would further complicate the operations and would necessitate the use of properties and services not included when the present line-haul rates and terminals were fixed, is a question committed to the administrative judgment of the Commission. When that judgment is based on findings abundantly supported by the evidence on the whole record, as it is in this case, it is the duty of the courts to sustain it. Ayrshire Corp. v. United States, 335 U. S. 573, 593; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Jersey City, 322 U. S. 503, 522-523; Swift & Co. v. United States, 316 U. S. 216, 230-231; Adams v. Mills, 286 U. S. 397, 409-410; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 547-548.
The question of the reasonableness of the switching charge was posed to the Commission in the case of Hygrade Food Products Corp. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 195 I. C. C. 553. There, Hygrade sought to have the railroads absorb the switching charge of Junction, but the Commission found that it was a reasonable additional charge to the line-haul rate. On appeal to this Court that finding was not disturbed. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 295 U. S. 193. At that time the charge was $12 per car. It is now considerably higher, but the charges for other commodities and services have risen also.
The burden of showing that the switching charges were unreasonable was upon Swift. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. United States, 238 U. S. 1, 11. On this record, that burden was not sustained; the charges having existed for years and having been approved as reasonable by the Commission and tacitly approved by this Court, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, supra, their reasonableness is presumed to continue in the absence of a showing to the contrary.
The fact that the rate is so high that Swift finds it uneconomical to use does not in and of itself establish the unreasonableness of the rate. A revision of the switching charge on the ground of its unreasonableness and the establishment of a reasonable rate for switching was not asked. Any rate in excess of the line-haul rate to the Stock Yards was considered by Swift as unreasonable, as it was demanding a joint rate not in excess of the line-haul rate to the Stock Yards. Unreasonableness is not made out by mere assertion. Federal Power Comm’n v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 602.
It is next argued that because dead freight is delivered to Swift’s industrial siding at the line-haul rate, it is a discrimination against livestock as a commodity to impose a switching charge in addition to the line-haul rate for delivery of livestock to the same point. That argument is completely answered by the Commission’s findings as to the different and more complex nature of the switching services required by livestock as compared with dead freight. The cost of the switching service performed by Junction in the delivery of dead freight is figured in the line-haul rate. The line-haul rate for livestock, the reasonableness of which is not in and of itself attacked here, has never contemplated such switching services because Junction has never performed them.
Reliance is placed by Swift upon the case of United States v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 333 U. S. 169. There, delivery to industrial sidings at line-haul rates had been the practice. The Cleveland Stock Yards sought to terminate such delivery because it owned a segment of the track used to serve Swift and wanted to prevent the use thereof unless livestock be routed through its yards and the charge therefor paid to the Stock Yards. In the alternative, the Stock Yards wanted the carriers to pay the equivalent of such charge for the use of the Stock Yards’ track leading to Swift’s industrial siding. Such a plan would have discriminated against Swift because its competitors could get delivery without the use of the Stock Yards’ track and hence would be unaffected by the Stock Yards’ demands. This Court held that the Stock Yards could not use its track ownership to work a discrimination which Congress had said should not exist.
“Here Congress under its constitutional authority has provided that no railroad shall engage in certain types of discriminatory conduct in violation of three provisions of the Act. The Commission found that discriminatory conduct here. The excuse offered by the railroads is that the owner of Track 1619 required them to do the prohibited things. But the command of Congress against discrimination cannot be subordinated to the command of a track owner that a railroad using the track practice discrimination.” Id., at p. 177.
Delivery to an industrial siding at line-haul rates was there allowed by the Commission and sustained by this Court for the reason that the Stock Yards sought by its discriminatory act to upset the usual delivery procedure, while here, in a vastly more complicated operational setting, Swift would complicate it further by obtaining for itself a service at line-haul rates different from the usual delivery procedure and not contemplated or considered when the present line-haul rates to Chicago were fixed. If Swift were granted the relief it seeks here, it would be obtaining something that no other packer in Chicago receives, and, instead of being discriminated against, a discrimination would be granted in its favor. Swift already enjoys a competitive advantage because it can obtain direct delivery of livestock at its Omaha plant at line-haul rates. It can hardly be heard to say that the present system favors its competitors in the Stock Yards’ area.
Swift also failed in its burden of showing prejudicial treatment to it as opposed to its competitors in localities other than Chicago, who do receive dehvery on industrial sidings at line-haul rates. These competitors’ plants are located for the most part on line-haul carriers’ rails, and no complicated switching movements are involved. Swift receives at Chicago, as elsewhere, the same rates and services as other packers similarly situated.
Junction is a subsidiary of the New York Central Railroad Company. The latter had an agreement with the Stock Yards which contained a provision that New York Central would operate Junction for “the benefit, advantage, and behoof of the business and affairs” of the Stock Yards. When this proceeding was begun before the Commission, Junction did not intend to defend it. Attorneys for the Stock Yards wrote a letter to the general counsel of New York Central, calling attention to the failure of Junction to defend and to the covenant in the agreement. They pointed out that Junction possessed the evidence necessary to meet the issue in Swift’s complaint, that such evidence should be adduced, and that under the agreement, Junction was obligated to defend in order to avoid irreparable injury to the Stock Yards. Thereafter, Junction defended.
It is Swift’s contention that this covenant is illegal. We do not find it necessary to pass upon that matter. As far as Swift is concerned, it does not receive any direct shipments at the Stock Yards; hence any decision as to livestock shipments to Swift would not affect the Stock Yards. If other packers would demand industrial siding delivery in the event Swift’s complaint were allowed, unquestionably the effect upon the Stock Yards would be very material.
It is true that the Commission did give consideration to the probability that if Swift were successful, other packers might demand the same service. The likelihood of such demand seemed to the Commission, as it does to us, obvious. However, if this demand by other packers, reasonably forecast by the Commission, received consideration in reaching the conclusions in this case, it was in the light of the additional burden on the overcrowded condition of the area, the complexity of the operations, and the necessity for extra care in the handling of livestock to move it through the bottleneck at the Ashland Yards. The Commission was not led to such conclusions by giving weight to this covenant. It was wholly unnecessary thereto. The covenant’s impact may be consistent with such consideration, but it is not shown to have been controlling in any manner, or relied upon by the Commission.
We have given consideration to other arguments put forth by Swift and find them to be equally without merit; they do not require discussion in this opinion.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
The term “direct shipments” is used to denote shipments consigned directly to the packer for slaughter, as distinguished from those shipments consigned to commission men for sale in the public livestock market.
49 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. Sections 1 (4) and 1 (5) require the carriers to establish just and reasonable rates; §3 (1) prohibits the carriers from giving any undue or unreasonable preference to any particular shipper or to any particular description of traffic.
A line-haul carrier is a common carrier by railroad which transports livestock and other freight in interstate traffic, as distinguished from a carrier such as Junction, which performs services in a local switching area.
The cost of this trucking to Swift is $50,000; it is much less than the cost of either consigning the livestock to the Stock Yards and paying for their yardage facilities or paying the switching charges here in issue and having the livestock delivered to the proposed plant.
Dead freight is composed of commodities other than livestock.
This was the figure at the time this proceeding was heard by the Commission’s examiner. Subsequent authorized increases have brought the charge to $39.24.
During the years 1945, 1946 and 1947, an average of over 726,000 cars a year, loaded and empty, were funnelled through the Ashland Yards.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, like United States v. Giordano, ante, p. 505, concerns the validity of procedures followed by the Justice Department in obtaining judicial approval to intercept wire communications under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 211-225, 18 U. S. C. §§2510-2520, and the propriety of suppressing evidence gathered from court-authorized wiretaps where the statutory application procedures have not been fully satisfied. As is" more fully described in Giordano, Title III limits who, among federal officials, may approve submission of a wiretap application to the appropriate district court, to the Attorney. General, or an Assistant Attorney General he specially designates, 18 U. S. C. §2516(1), and delineates the information each application must contain, upon what findings an interception order may be granted, and what the order •shall specify, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2518 (1),.(3), (4).. Within this general framework, two statutory requirements are of particular relevance to this case. Section 2518 (1) (a) provides that each application for a court, order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire or oral communication shall include, among other information, “the identity of the . . .' officer authorizing the application.” Similarly, § 2518 (4) (d) provides that the order of authorization or approval itself shall specify, in part, “the identity of . . . the person authorizing; the apglication.” The specific question for adjudication here, which ,it was unnecessary to resolvé in Giordano, is whether,- when the Attorney General has in fact au- . thorized the application to be made, but the application and the court order incorrectly identify an Assistant Attorney-General as the authorizing official, evidence obtained under the order must be. suppressed. We. hold that Title III does not mandate suppression under these circumstances. ' '
1
Respondents were all indicted for conspiracy to import and distribute heroin in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 173, 174 (1964 ed.). In addition, respondent Umberto Chavez was separately chargéd under 18 U. S. C. § 1952 with using and causing others to use a telephone between California and Mexico, and performing other acts, in order to facilitate unlawful narcotics activity, and respondent James Fernandez was charged under § 1952 with traveling between California and Mexico, and performing, other acts, for the same purpose. Upon notification that the Government intended'to introduce evidence obtained from-wiretaps of Chavez’ and Fernandez’ phones at trial, respondents, filed motions to suppress, challenging the legality of the Justice Department’s application procedures, leading to the issuance by the District Court of the two orders permitting the wire interceptions. Affidavits filed in opposition by the.Attorney General and his Executive Assistant represented that the application submitted for the February 18,- 1971, order authorizing interception, of wire communications to and from the Chavez phone had been personally approved by the Attorney General, whereas the application for the February 25, 1971, order to intercept communications to and from the Fernandez phone had been approved by his Executive Assistant at a time when the Attorney General was unavailable, and pursuant to an understanding that the Executive Assistant, applying the Attorney General’s standards as he understood them, could act for the Attorney General in such circumstances.
Each application to the court had recited, however; that the Attorney General, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 2516, had “specially designated” the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Will Wilson, “to authorize [the applicant attorney] to make this application for an Order authorizing the interception of wire communications.” Moreover, appended to each application was a form letter, addressed to the attorney making the application and purportedly signed by Will Wilson, stating that, the signer had reviewed the attorney’s request for authorization to.apply for a wiretap order pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 2518 .and had made the requisite probable-cause and other statutory determinations from the “facts and circumstances detailed” in the request, .and that “you are hereby authorized under the power specially delegated to me in this proceeding by the Attorney General . . . , pursuant to the power conferred on him by Section 2516 . . . to- make application” for a wire interception order. Correspondingly, the District Court’s intercept order in' each case declared that court approval was given “pursuant to the application authorized by . . . Will Wilson, who has been specially designated in this proceeding by the Attorney: General . . . John N. Mitchell, to exercise the powers conferred on the Attorney General” by §2516..
The discrepancy between who had actually authorized the respective applications to be made, and the information transmitted to the District Court clearly indicating that Assistant Attorney General Wilson was the authorizing official, was explained as the result of a standard procedure followed within the Justice Department. While the Attorney General had apparently refrained from designating any Assistant Attorney General to exercise the authorization power under §2516(1), form memoranda were routinely sent from his office, over his initials, to Assistant Attorney General Wilson, stating that “with regard to your recommendation that authorization be given” to make application for a court order permitting wire interception, “you are hereby specially designated” to exercise the power conferred on the Attorney General by § 2516 “for the purpose of authorizing” the applicant attornéy to apply for a wiretap order. Evidently, this form was intended to reflect notice of approval by the Attorney General, though on its face it suggested that the decision whether to authorize the particular wiretap application would be made by Assistant Attorney General Wilson. In fact, as revealed by the affidavits of Wilson’s then Deputy Assistants' filed in opposition to respondents’ suppression motions, “Wilson did not examine the files or expressly authorize the applications” for either the February 18 or February 25 interception orders, and they signed his name “in accordance with [bis] authorization-. . . and the standard procedures of the Criminal Division” to the respective letters of authorization to the applicant attorney, which were made exhibits to the applications. The signing of Wilson’s name was regarded as a “ministerial act” because of Wilson’s authorization to his Deputies “to sign his.name to and dispatch such a letter of authorization in every instance in which the requesti-had been favorably acted upon in the Office of the Attorney General.”
The District Court held that the -evidence secured through both wiretaps had to be suppressed for failure of either of the individuals who actually authorized the applications to be “identified to Chief Judge Carter, Congress or the public” in the application or orders,-as mandated by §§2518(1) (a) and (4)(d), respectively. Moreover, evidence obtained under the February 25 wiretap order on the Fernandez phone was separately suppressed, because, the Government admitted that “neither the Attorney General nor a specially designated Assistant Attorney General ever authorized the application,” as § 2516 (1) requires.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects. 478 F. 2d 512. With respect to the Chavez tap, the Court of Appeals assumed, as had the District Court, that the Attorney General had personally approved the request for authority to apply for the interception order, as his affidavit stated. Nonetheless, the misidentificabion of Assistant Attorney General Wilson as the authorizing official was deemed to be a “misrepresentation” and an “apparently deliberate deception of the courts by the highest law .officers in the land,” id., at-515, 517, which required suppression of evidence gathered from the tap for failure to comply with 18 U. S. C. §§2518 (l)(a) and (4) (d). Congress was held to have “intended to eliminate any possibility that the authorization of wiretap applications would be institutional decisions,” and the Court of Appeals was fearful that if the misidentification which occurred in this case were approved, “there would be nothing to prevent future Attorneys General from remaining silent if a. particular wiretap proved embarrassing.” 478 F. 2d, at 516.
We granted certiorari, 412 U. S. 905, to resolve the conflict between the position taken by the Ninth Circuit in this case on the issue of suppression because of inaccurate identification of the officer authorizing the application and the position taken by every other circuit that has. considered the question. We agree with those other courts of appeals that misidentifying the Assistant Attorney General as the official authorizing the wiretap application to be made does not require suppression of wiretap evidence when the Attorney General himself has actually given the approval; hence, we reverse,that portion of the judgment suppressing the Chavez wiretap evidence, and remand for further proceedings to permit the District Court to address other challenges to the. Chavez wiretap evidence which respondents had made but the District Court did not find it necessary to consider. Because the application for the interception order on the Fernandez phone was authorized by the Attorney General's Executive Assistant, rather than by the Attorney General or any specially, designated Assistant Attorney General, on whom alone 18 U. S. C. § 2516 (1) confers such power, evidence secured under that order was properly suppressed for the reasons stated in the opinion filed today in United States v. Giordano, ante, p. 505. Accordingly, that portion of the, judgment suppressing the Fernandez wiretap evidence is affirmed.
II
The application and order for the Chavez wiretap did not correctly identify the individual authorizing the application, as 18 U. S. C. §§2518(1) (a) and (4) (d) require. Of this there is no doubt. But it does not follow that because of this deficiency in reporting, evidence obtained pursuant to the order may not be used at a trial of respondents. There is no claim of any constitutional infirmity arising from this defect, nor would there be any merit to such a claim, and we must look to the statutory scheme to determine if Congress has provided that suppression is required for this particular procedural error.
Section 2515 provides that the contents "of any intercepted wire or oral communication, and any derivative evidence, may not be used at a criminal trial, or in certain other proceedings, “if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.” Aggrieved persons may move, in a timely manner under §2518 (10) (a), to suppress the use of- such evidence at trial on the grounds that.
“(i)- the communication was unlawfully intercepted; .
“(ii) thé ordér of authorization or approval under which' it was intercepted is insufficient on-its face; or
“(iii) the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval.”
In United States v. Giordano, supra, we have .concluded that Congress, in 18 U. S. C. § 2516 (1), rniade preliminary approval of submission of wiretap applications: a central safeguard in preventing'abuse of this means of investigative surveillance, and intentionally restricted the category of - federal officials who could give such approval to only the Attorney Genera,], himself-or any Assistant Attór-, ney General he might specially designate for that purpose. Hence/failure to secure approval of one of these specified individuals prior to making application for judicial authority to wiretap renders the court authority invalid and the interception of communications pursuant to that authority “unláwful” within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. §2518 (10) (a) (i). Failure to correctly report the identity of the person authorizing the application, however, when in fact the Attorney General has given the required preliminary approval to submit the application, does not represent a similar failure to follow Title Ill’s precautions against the unwarranted use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance and does not warrant the suppression of evidence gathered pursuant to a court order resting upon the application.
There is little question that §§ 2518 (l)(a) and (4).(d) were intended to make clear who bore the responsibility for approval of the submission of a particular wiretap application. Thus, the Senate Report accompanying the favorable recommendation of Title III states that § 2518 (l)(a) “requires the identity of the person who makes, and the person who authorized the application[,] to be set out.. This fixes responsibility.” S. Rep. No. 10fi7,90th Cong., 2d Sess., 101 (1968). And § 2518 (4) (d) “requires that the order note the agency authorized to make the interception and the person who authorized the application so that responsibility will be fixed.” Id., at 103. Where it is established that responsibility for approval of the application is fixed in the Attorney General, however, compliance with the screening requirements of Title III is assured, and there is no justification for suppression.
Respondents suggest that the misidentification of Assistant Attorney General Wilson as the authorizing official was calculated to mislead the District Judge in considering the wire interception applications, and certainly had the effect of misleading him, since the interception order also misidentified. the authorizing official in reliance on the statements made in the application. We do not perceive any purpose to be served by deliberate misrepresentation by the Government in .these circumstances. To the contrary; we think it cannot be seriously contended that had the Attorney General been identified as the person authorizing the application, rather than his subordinate, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, the District Judge would have had any greater-hesitation in issuing the interception order. The same' could not be said, of .course, if, as in Giordano, the correct information had revealed that none of the individuals in whom Congress reposed the responsibility for authorizing interception applications had satisfied this preliminary step. The District . Court undoubtedly thought, that Wilson had approved the Chavez and Fernandez. wiretap applications, and we do not condone the Justice Department’s failure to comply in full with the reporting procedures Congress has established to assure that its more substantive safeguards are followed. But we cannot say that misidentification was in any sense the omission of a requirement that must be satisfied if wiretapping or electronic surveillance is to be lawful under Title III.
Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals made clear which of the grounds set forth in § 2518 (10) (a) was relied upon to suppress the Chavez wiretap evidence. Respondents rely on each of the first two grounds, i. e., that the communications were “unlawfully intercepted” and that the Chavez interception, order is “insufficient on its face.” . Support for the latter claim is drawn from the District Court decision in United States v. Focarile, 340 F. Supp. 1033, 1057-1060 (Md.), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Giordano, 469 F. 2d 522 (CA4 1972), aff’d, ante, p. 505, which concluded that an order incorrectly identifying who authorized the application is equivalent to an order failing to identify anyone at all as the authorizing official. We find neither of these contentions persuasive.
Here,' the interception order clearly identified “on its face” Assistant Attorney General Wilson as the person who authorized the application to be- made* Under § 2516 (1), he properly could give such approval had he been specially designated -to do. so by the Attorney General, as the order recited. That this has subsequently-been shown to be incorrect does not detract from the facial sufficiency of the order. Moreover, even if we-were to look behind the order despite the clear “on its face” language of § 2518 (10) (a) (ii),. it appears that the Attorney General authorized the application, as he also had the power to do under § 2516 (1). In no realistic sense, therefore, can .it be said that-the order failed to identify an authorizing official who possessed statutory power to approve' the making-of the application.;
\ The claim that communications to and from the Chavez phone were “unlawfully intercepted” is more plausible, but does not persuade us, given the purposes to be served by the identification requirements and their place in,-the statutory scheme.of regulation. Though we rejected, in Giordano, the Government’s claim that Congress intended “unlawfully intercepted” communications to mean, only those intercepted in violation of' constitutional requirements,, we did n,ot go so far as to suggest .that every* failure to comply fully with any requirement provided in Title III would render the interception of wire or oral communications “unlawful.” To establish such a rule would be at odds with the statute itself. Under § 2515, suppression is not mandated for every violation of Title III, but only if “disclosure” of the contents of intercepted communications, or derivative evidence, would be in violation of Title III. Moreover, as we .suggested in Giordano, it is apparent from the scheme of the section that paragraph (i) was not intended to reach every failure to follow statutory ■procedures, else paragraphs (ii) and (iii) would be drained of meaning. Giordano holds that paragraph (i) does include any “failure to satisfy any of those statutory requirements that directly and substantially implement the congressional intention to limit the use of intercept procedures to those situations- clearly calling for the employment of this extraordinary investigative device.” Ante, at 527.
In the present case, the misidentification of the officer authorizing the wiretap application did not affect the fulfillment of any of the reviewing or approval functions required by Congress and is not within the reach of paragraphs (ii) and (iii). Requiring identification of the authorizing official in the application facilitates the court’s ability to conclude that the application has been properly approved under §2516; requiring identification in the court’s order also serves to “fix responsibility” for the source of preliminary approval. This information contained in the application and order further aids the judge in making reports required under 18 U. S. C. § 2519. That section requires the judge who issues or denies an interception order to report his action and certain information about the application, including the “identity of . . , the person authorizing the application,” within 30 days, to the Administrative Office of the United Stages Courts, § 2519 (1) (f). An annual report of the authorizing officials designated in § 2516 must also be filed with that body, and is ■ to contain the same information with respect to each application made as is required of the issuing or denying judge, §2519 (2)(a). Finally, a summary of the information filed by the'judges acting on applications and the prosecutors approving their submission is to be filed with Congress in April of each year by the Administrative Office, §2519 (3). The purpose of these reports is “to form the basis for a public evaluation” of the operation of • Title III and to “assure the community that the system of court-order [ed] electronic surveillance ... is properly administered ... .” S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 107. While adherence to the identi-. fication reporting requirements of §§2518(1) (a) and (4) (d) thus can simplify the assurance that those whom Title III makes responsible for determining when and how wiretapping and electronic surveillance should be conducted have fulfilled their roles in each case, it does not establish a substantive role to be played in the regulatory system.
Nor is there any legislative history concerning these sections, as there is, for example, concerning § 2516 (1), see United States v. Giordano, ante, at 516 et seq., to suggest that they were meant, by themselves, to occupy a central, or even functional, role in guarding against unwarranted use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance. Though legislation to regulate the interception of wire and oral communications had been considered by Congress earlier; the proposed statute drafted for the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice appears to have been the first published pro-, posal to’ contain a requirement that the application for interception authority should specify “who authorized the application.” Task Force Report: Organizéd Crime, App. C, p. 109, §3803 (a)(1) (1067). That proposed bill, which was substantially followed-in Title III, also provided for reports like those now required by 18 U. S. C. § 2519, including information on “the identity of . . . who authorized the application.” Id., at 111, §§3804 (a)(6) and (b)(1). It did not, however, require the order .to contain this information. Id., at 110, § 3803, (e). S. 675, a bill introduced by Senator McClellan on January 25, 1967, as the. “Federal Wire Interception Act,” 113 Cong. Rec. 1491, did not contain jmy of these identification requirements. Hearings on Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 77-78, §§ 8 (a), (£), 9 (a) (1967). S. 2050, however, a proposal by Senator Hruska to regulate both wiretapping and electronic surveillance, did. Section 2518 (a)(1) required an interception application to include “the identity of the person who authorized the application,” ^and §§ 2519 (a) (6) and (b)(1) provided that judges and authorizing prosecutors report “the identity of . . . who authorized the application,” but did not require that the order contain this information, § 2518 (e). Hearings, supra, at 1006-1008. The requirement that this information be contained in the order, as well as in the application and required reports, first appeared in § 2518 (e)(4) of H. R. 13482, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1967). Though the House never reported out of committee any wiretapping bill, it was retained in S. 917, a combination of S. 675 and S. -2050, whose provisions ultimately were-enacted as Title III. Despite the appearance and modification of the identification requirements during the legislative process, however, no real debate surrounded their adoption, and only the statements in S. Rep. No. 1097, supra, that they were designed to fix responsibility, give any indication of their purpose in the overall scheme of Title III. No role more significant than a reporting function designed to establish on paper that one of the major procedural protections of Title III had been properly accomplished is apparent.
When it is clearly established, therefore, that authorization of submission of a wiretap or electronic surveillance application has been given by the Attorney Generah himself, but- the application, and, as a result, the interception order, incorrectly state that approval has instead been given by a specially designated Assistant Attorney General, the misidentification, by itself, will not render interceptions conducted, under the order “unlawful” within the meaning of §2518 (10) (a) (i) or the disclosure of the . contents of intercepted communications, or derivative evidence, otherwise “in violation of” Title III within the meaning of §2515. Hence, the suppression of the Chavez wiretap evidence on the basis of the misidentification of Assistant Attorney General Wilson as the authorizing official was in error. Though we deem.this result to be the correct one under the suppression provisions of Title III, we also-deem it appropriate to suggest that strict adherence by the Government to the provisions of Title III would nonetheless be more in keeping with the responsibilities Congress has imposed upon it when authority to engage in wiretapping or electronic surveillance is sought.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The relevant statutory provisions are set forth in the Appendix to United States v. Giordano, ante, p. 534.
In other instances where the Attorney General had personally authorized the application, but the application and order erroneously recited approval by Assistant Attorney General Wilson, suppression of wiretap evidence has been denied on the ground of substantial compliance with Title III requirements. United States v. James, 161 U. S. App. D. C. 88, 98, 494 F. 2d 1007, 1017 (1974) (“immaterial variance”); United States v. Pisacano, 459 F. 2d 259, 264 n. 5 (CA2 1972) (“discrepancy did not meaningfully subvert the congressional scheme”); United States v. Becker, 461 F. 2d 230, 235 (CA2 1972) (“harmless error”); United States v. Ceraso, 467 F. 2d 647, 652 (CA3 1972) (“subsequent identification of the authorizing officer is satisfactory”); United States v. Bobo, 477 F. 2d 974, 985 (CA4 1973) (“sufficient compliance”); United States v. Cox, 462 F. 2d 1293, 1300 (CA8 1972) ("it is irrelevant that the application and order recited the authorizing officer as Mr..-Wilson rather than Mr. Mitchell”). See also United States v. Roberts, 477 F. 2d 57, 59 (CA7 1973),-holding the authorization improper because given by the Executive Assistant, not the Attorney General, but suggesting that with respect to the misidentification of Assistant Attorney General Wilson “we would not be inclined to elevate form over substance to find a violation cf 18 U. S. C. § 2518 (1) (a) and (4)(d) .-...” .
The record discloses that respondents also based their motions to suppress the Chavez wiretap evidence, on' the failure of the Government’s affidavits in support of the wiretap application to demonstrate a. need for, wiretapping as opposed to less intrusive means of investigation, 18 U.'S. C. § 2518 (1) (c), to particularly describe the communications sought to be intercepted, § 2518 (1) (b) (iii), to allege facts sufficient to justify the uncertainty of the termination date for the interception, §2518(1)(d), or to adequately show probable cause to support the order, § 2518 (3); moreover, the sufficiency of the order’s directive to minimize the interception of innocent conversations and compliance by the agents who conducted the wiretap with the order of minimization, §2518 (5), were also challenged. R. 159-197. None of these questions is before us now, as neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals passed on any of them.
The Government advises that in the spring of 1972 it revised the form memoranda by which the Attorney General had approved applications for wiretapping or electronic surveillance authority, and the form language in the letters sent to the applying attorneys, which are appended to the applications filed in the district courts, to accurately reflect that approval was obtained from the Attorney General, -rather than a specially designated Assistant, unless the latter happens to be the case.. Brief for United States -in United States v. Giordano 9.
Respondents’ attempt to analogize the facial insufficiency of a search warrant supported by an affidavit submitted under a false name of the affiant, a deficiency which has been held by some courts to require suppression under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41, King v. United States, 282 F. 2d 398 (CA4 1960), or under the Fourth Amendment, United States ex rel. Pugh v. Pate, 401 F. 2d 6 (CA7 1968), cert. denied, 394 U. S. 999 (1969), to the asserted facial insuffi'ciency of a wire interception order which incorrectly identifies who authorized the application :for the order, must fail. Without passing on the soundness of these cases, it must be recalled that the misidentification of the officer authorizing a wiretap application's irrelevant to the issue of probable cause, which is supported by the separate affidavits, of investigative officials. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 2518 (1) and (3) Moreover, no basis is provided in Title III for challenging the validity of the-interception order depending on whether the application was approved by the Attorney General rather than a specially designated Assistant.
Section 2519 provides in full:
Ҥ 2519. Reports concerning intercepted wire or oral communications.
"(I) Within thirty days after the expiration of an order (or each extension thereof) entered under section 2518, or the denial of an order approving an interception, the-issuing or denying judge shall report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts—
"(a) the fact that an order or extension was applied for;
“(b) the kind of order or extension applied for;
“(c) the fact that the order or extension was granted as applied for, was modified, or was denied;
“(d) the period of interceptions authorized by the order, and the number and duration of any extensions of the order;
“ (e) the offense specified in the order or application, or. extension of an order;'
“ (f) the identity of the applying investigative or law enforcement officer and agteney making the application and the person authorizing the application; and
“(g) the nature of the facilities from which or the place where communications were to be intercepted.
“ (2) In January of each year the Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney General specially deagnstecL by the Attorney General, or-the principal prosecuting attorney oí a State, or the principal prosecuting attorney for any political-subdivision of a State, shall report.|o the Administrative Office of the United States Courts—
“(a) the information required hy paragraphs (a) through (g) of subsection (1) of this section with respect to each application for an order or extension made during the precéding calendar year;
“(b) a general description of the interceptions made under such order-or extension, including (i) the approximate nature and frequency of incriminating communications intercepted, (ii) the approximate nature and frequency of other communications intercepted, (iii) the approximate number of persons whose communications were intercepted,.and (iv) the approximate nature, amount, and cost of the manpower and other resources used in the interceptions;
“(c) the number of arrests resulting from interceptions made under such order or extension, and the offenses for which arrests were made;
.“(d) the number of trials resulting from such interceptions;
“(e)-the number of motions td suppress made with respect to such interceptions, and the number granted or denied;
“(f) -the number of convictions resulting from such interceptions and the offenses for which the convictions were obtained and a general assessment of the ■ importance of the interceptions; and
“ (g) the information ’ required ‘ by paragraphs (b) through (f) of this subsection with respect to orders or extensions obtained in a preceding calendar year.
“(3) In April of each year the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall transmit to the Congress a full and complete report concerning the number'of applications for orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications and the number of orders and extensions grant,ed or denied during the preceding calendar year. Such reports shall include a summary and analysis of the data required to be_ filed with the Administrative Office by subsections (1) and (2) of this section. The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is authorized to issue binding regulations dealing with the content and form of the reports required to be filed by subsections (1) and (2) of this section.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 issues in this case concern the constitutional validity of Maryland criminal statutes, commonly known as Sunday Closing Laws or Sunday Blue Laws. These statutes, with exceptions to be noted hereafter, generally proscribe all labor, business and other commercial activities on Sunday. The questions presented are whether the classifications within the statutes bring about a denial of equal protection of the law, whether the laws are so vague as to fail to give reasonable notice of the forbidden conduct and therefore violate due process, and whether the statutes are laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Appellants are seven employees of a large discount department store located on a highway in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. They were indicted for the Sunday sale of a three-ring loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler and staples, and a toy submarine in violation of Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 521. Generally, this section prohibited, throughout the State, the Sunday sale of all merchandise except the retail sale of tobacco products, confectioneries, milk, bread, fruits, gasoline, oils, greases, drugs and medicines, and newspapers and periodicals. Recently amended, this section also now excepts from the general prohibition the retail sale in Anne Arundel County of all foodstuffs, automobile and boating accessories, flowers, toilet goods, hospital supplies and souvenirs. It now further provides that any retail establishment in Anne Arundel County which does not employ more than one person other than the owner may operate on Sunday.
Although appellants were indicted only under § 521, in order properly to consider several of the broad constitutional contentions, we must examine the whole body of Maryland Sunday laws. Several sections of the Maryland statutes are particularly relevant to evaluation of the issues presented. Section 492 of Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, forbids all persons from doing any work or bodily labor on Sunday and forbids permitting children or servants to work on that day or to engage in fishing, hunting and unlawful pastimes or recreations. The section excepts all works of necessity and charity. Section 522 of Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, disallows the opening or use of any dancing saloon, opera house, bowling alley or barber shop on Sunday. However, in addition to the exceptions noted above, Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 509, exempts, for Anne Arundel County, the Sunday operation of any bathing beach, bathhouse, dancing saloon and amusement park, and activities incident thereto and retail sales of merchandise customarily sold at, or incidental to, the operation of the aforesaid occupations and businesses. Section 90 of Md. Ann. Code, Art. 2B, makes generally unlawful the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday. However, this section, and immediately succeeding ones, provide various immunities for the Sunday sale of different kinds of alcoholic beverages, at different hours during the day, by vendors holding different types of licenses, in different political divisions of the State — particularly in Anne Arundel County. See Md. Ann. Code, Art. 2B, § 28 (a).
The remaining statutory sections concern a myriad of exceptions for various counties, districts of counties, cities and towns throughout the State. Among the activities allowed in certain areas on Sunday are such sports as football, baseball, golf, tennis, bowling, croquet, basketball, lacrosse, soccer, hockey, swimming, softball, boating, fishing, skating, horseback riding, stock car racing and pool or billiards. Other immunized activities permitted in some regions of the State include group singing or playing of musical instruments; the exhibition of motion pictures; dancing; the operation of recreation centers, picnic grounds, swimming pools, skating rinks and miniature golf courses. The taking of oysters and the hunting or killing of game is generally forbidden, but shooting conducted by organized rod and gun clubs is permitted in one county. In some of the subdivisions within the State, the exempted Sunday activities are sanctioned throughout the day; in others, they may not commence until early afternoon or evening; in many, the activities may only be conducted during the afternoon and late in the evening. Certain localities do not permit the allowed Sunday activity to be carried on within one hundred yards of any church where religious services are being held. Local ordinances and regulations concerning certain limited activities supplement the State’s statutory scheme. In Anne Arundel County, for example, slot machines, pinball machines and bingo may be played on Sunday.
Among other things, appellants contended at the trial that the Maryland statutes under which they were charged were contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment for the reasons stated at the outset of this opinion. Appellants were convicted and each was fined five dollars and costs. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, 220 Md. 117, 151 A. 2d 156; on appeal brought under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), we noted probable jurisdiction. 362 U. S. 959.
I.
Appellants argue that the Maryland statutes violate the “Equal Protection” Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on several counts. First, they contend that the classifications contained in the statutes concerning which commodities may or may not be sold on Sunday are without rational and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. Specifically, appellants allege that the statutory exemptions for the Sunday sale of the merchandise mentioned above render arbitrary the statute under which they were convicted. Appellants further allege that § 521 is capricious because of the exemptions for the operation of the various amusements that have been listed and because slot machines, pin-ball machines, and bingo are legalized and are freely played on Sunday.
The standards under which this proposition is to be evaluated have been set forth many times by this Court. Although no precise formula has been developed, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it. See Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 U. S. 580; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Cas Co., 220 U. S. 61; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96.
It would seem that a legislature could reasonably find that the Sunday sale of the exempted commodities was necessary either for the health of the populace or for the enhancement of the recreational atmosphere of the day — that a family which takes a Sunday ride into the country will need gasoline for the automobile and may find pleasant a soft drink or fresh fruit; that those who go to the beach may wish ice cream or some other item normally sold there; that some people will prefer alcoholic beverages or games of chance to add to their relaxation; that newspapers and drug products should always be available to the public.
The record is barren of any indication that this apparently reasonable basis does not exist, that the statutory distinctions are invidious, that local tradition and custom might not rationally call for this legislative treatment. See Salsburg v. Maryland, 346 U. S. 545, 552-553; Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs, supra. Likewise, the fact that these exemptions exist and deny some vendors and operators the day of rest and recreation contemplated by the legislature does not render the statutes violative of equal protection since there would appear to be many valid reasons for these exemptions, as stated above, and no evidence to dispel them.
Secondly, appellants contend that the statutory arrangement which permits only certain Anne Arundel County retailers to sell merchandise essential to, or customarily sold at, or incidental to, the operation of bathing beaches, amusement parks et cetera is contrary to the “Equal Protection” Clause because it discriminates unreasonably against retailers in other Maryland counties. But we have held that the Equal Protection Clause relates to equality between persons as such, rather than between areas and that territorial uniformity is not a constitutional prerequisite. With particular reference to the State of Maryland, we have noted that the prescription of different substantive offenses in different counties is generally a matter for legislative discretion. We find no invidious discrimination here. See Salsburg v. Maryland, supra.
Thirdly, appellants contend that this same statutory provision, Art. 27, § 509, violates the “Equal Protection” Clause because it permits only certain merchants within Anne Arundel County (operators of bathing beaches and amusement parks et cetera) to sell merchandise customarily sold at these places while forbidding its sale by other vendors of this merchandise, such as appellants' employer. Here again, it would seem that a legislature could reasonably find that these- commodities, necessary for the health and recreation of its citizens, should only be sold on Sunday by those vendors at the locations where the commodities are most likely to be immediately put to use. Such a determination would seem to serve the consuming public and' at the same time secure Sunday rest for those employees, like appellants, of all other retail establishments. In addition, the enforcement, problems which would accrue if large retail establishments, like appellants’ employer, were permitted to remain open on Sunday but were restricted to the sale of the merchandise in question would be far greater than the problems accruing if only beach and amusement park vendors were exempted. Here again, there has been no indication of the unreasonableness of this differentiation. On the record before us, we cannot say that these statutes do not provide equal protection of the laws.
II.
Another question presented by appellants is whether Art. 27, § 509, which exempts the Sunday retail sale of “merchandise essential to, or customarily sold at, or incidental to, the operation of” bathing beaches, amusement parks et cetera in Anne Arundel County, is unconstitutionally vague. We believe that business people of ordinary intelligence in the position of appellants’ employer would be able to know what exceptions are encompassed by the statute either as a matter of ordinary commercial knowledge or by simply making a reasonable investigation at a nearby bathing beach or amusement park within the county. See United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617-618. Under these circumstances, there is no necessity to guess at the statute’s meaning in order to determine what conduct it makes criminal. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391. Questions concerning proof that the items appellants sold were customarily sold at, or incidental to the operation of, a bathing beach.or amusement park were not raised in the Maryland Court of Appeals, nor are they raised here. Thus, we cannot consider the matter. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 362-363.
III.
The final questions for decision are whether the Maryland Sunday Closing Laws conflict with the Federal Constitution’s provisions for religious liberty. First, appellants contend here that the statutes applicable to Anne Arundel County violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion in that the statutes’ effect is to prohibit the free exercise of religion in contravention of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. But appellants allege only economic injury to themselves; they do not allege any infringement of their own religious freedoms due to Sunday closing. In fact, the record is silent as to what appellants’ religious beliefs are. Since the general rule is that “a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities,” United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 22, we hold that appellants have no standing to raise this contention. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44, 46. Furthermore, since appellants do not specifically allege that the statutes infringe upon the religious beliefs of the department store’s present or prospective patrons, we have no occasion here to consider the standing question of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535-536. Those persons whose religious rights are allegedly impaired by the statutes are not without effective ways to assert these rights. Cf. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 459-460; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249, 257. Appellants present no weighty countervailing policies here to cause an exception to our general principles. See United States v. Raines, supra.
Secondly, appellants contend that the statutes violate the guarantee of separation of church and state in that the statutes are laws respecting an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. If the purpose of the “establishment” clause was only to insure protection for the “free exercise” of religion, then what we have said above concerning appellants’ standing to raise the “free exercise” contention would appear to be true here. However, the writings of Madison, who was the First Amendment’s architect, demonstrate that the establishment of a religion was equally feared because of its tendencies to political tyranny and subversion of civil authority. Thus, in Everson v. Board of Education, supra, the Court permitted a district taxpayer to challenge, on “establishment” grounds, a state statute which authorized district boards of education to reimburse parents for fares paid for the transportation of their children to both public and Catholic schools. Appellants here concededly have suffered direct economic injury, allegedly due to the imposition on them of the tenets of the Christian religion. We find that, in these circumstances, these appellants have standing to complain that the statutes are laws respecting an establishment of religion.
The essence of appellants’ “establishment” argument is that Sunday is the Sabbath day of the predominant Christian sects; that the purpose of the enforced stoppage of labor on that day is to facilitate and encourage church attendance; that the purpose of setting Sunday as a day of universal rest is to induce people with no religion or people with marginal religious beliefs to join the predominant Christian sects; that the purpose of the atmosphere of tranquility created by Sunday closing is to aid the conduct of church services and religious observance of the sacred day. In substantiating their “establishment” argument, appellants rely on the wording of the present Maryland statutes, on earlier versions of the current Sunday laws and on prior judicial characterizations of these laws by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Although only the constitutionality of § 521, the section under which appellants have been convicted, is immediately before us in this litigation, inquiry into the history of Sunday Closing Laws in our country, in addition to an examination of the Maryland Sunday closing statutes in their entirety and of their history, is relevant to the decision of whether the Maryland Sunday law in question is one respecting an establishment of religion. There is no dispute that the original laws which dealt with Sunday labor were motivated by religious forces. But what we must decide is whether present Sunday legislation, having undergone extensive changes from the earliest forms, still retains its religious character.
Sunday Closing Laws go far back into American history, having been brought to the colonies with a background of English legislation dating to the thirteenth century. In 1237, Henry III forbade the frequenting of markets on Sunday; the Sunday showing of wools at the staple was banned by Edward III in 1354; in 1409, Henry IV prohibited the playing of unlawful games on Sunday; Henry VI proscribed Sunday fairs in churchyards in 1444 and, four years later, made unlawful all fairs and markets and all showings of any goods or merchandise; Edward VI disallowed Sunday bodily labor by several injunctions in the mid-sixteenth century; various Sunday sports and amusements were restricted in 1625 by Charles I. Lewis, A Critical History of Sunday Legislation, 82-108; Johnson and Yost, Separation of Church and State, 221. The law of the colonies to the time of the Revolution and the basis of the Sunday laws in the States was 29 Charles II, c. 7 (1677). It provided, in part:
“For the better observation and keeping holy the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday: be it enacted... that all the laws enacted and in force concerning the observation of the day, and repairing to the church thereon, be carefully put in execution; and that all and every person and persons whatsoever shall upon every Lord’s day apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately; and that no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly labor or business or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord’s day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity only excepted);... and that no person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth, or expose for sale any wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, goods, or chattels, whatsoever, upon the Lord’s day, or any part thereof....” (Emphasis added.)
Observation of the above language, and of that of the prior mandates, reveals clearly that the English Sunday legislation was in aid of the established church.
The American colonial Sunday restrictions arose soon after settlement. Starting in 1650, the Plymouth Colony proscribed servile work, unnecessary travelling, sports, and the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Lord’s day and enacted laws concerning church attendance. The Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Connecticut and New Haven Colonies enacted similar prohibitions, some even earlier in the seventeenth century. The religious orientation of the colonial statutes was equally apparent. For example, a 1629 Massachusetts Bay instruction began, “And to the end the Sabbath may be celebrated in a religious manner....” A 1653 enactment spoke of Sunday activities “which things tend much to the dishonor of God, the reproach of religion, and the profanation of his holy Sabbath, the sanctification whereof is sometimes put for all duties immediately respecting the service of God....” Lewis, op. cit., supra, at pp. 160-195, particularly at 167, 169. These laws persevered after the Revolution and, at about the time of the First Amendment’s adoption, each of the colonies had laws of some sort restricting Sunday labor. See note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 729-730, 739-740; Johnson and Yost, op. cit., supra, at pp. 222-223.
But, despite the strongly religious origin of these laws, beginning before the eighteenth century, nonreligious arguments for Sunday closing began to be heard more distinctly and the statutes began to lose some of their totally religious flavor. In the middle 1700’s, Blackstone wrote, “[T]he keeping one day in the seven holy, as a time of relaxation and refreshment as well as for public worship, is of admirable service to a state considered merely as a civil institution. It humanizes, by the help of conversation and society, the manners of the lower classes; which would otherwise degenerate into a sordid ferocity and savage selfishness of spirit; it enables the industrious workman to pursue his occupation in the ensuing week with health and cheerfulness.” 4 Bl. Comm. 63. A 1788 English statute dealing with chimney sweeps, 28 Geo. III, c. 48, in addition to providing for their Sunday religious affairs, also regulated their hours of work. The preamble to a 1679 Rhode Island enactment stated that the reason for the ban on Sunday employment was that “persons being evill minded, have presumed to employ in servile labor, more than necessity requireth, their servants....” 3 Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 31. The New York law of 1788 omitted the term “Lord’s day” and substituted “the first day of the week commonly called Sunday.” 2 Laws of N. Y. 1785-1788, 680: Similar changes marked the Maryland statutes, discussed below. With the advent of the First Amendment, the colonial provisions requiring church attendance were soon repealed. Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev., supra, at pp. 729-730.
More recently, further secular justifications have been advanced for making Sunday a day of rest, a day when people may recover from the labors of the week just passed and may physically and mentally prepare for the week’s work to come. In England, during.the First World War, a committee investigating the health conditions of munitions workers reported that “if the maximum output is to be secured and maintained for any length of time, a weekly period of rest must be allowed.... On economic and social grounds alike this weekly period of rest is best provided on Sunday.”
The proponents of Sunday closing legislation are no longer exclusively representatives of religious interests. Recent New Jersey Sunday legislation was supported by labor groups and trade associations, Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 730-731; modern English Sunday legislation was promoted by the National Federation of Grocers and supported by the National Chamber of Trade, the Drapers’ Chamber of Trade, and the National Union of Shop Assistants. 308 Parliamentary Debates, Commons 2158-2159.
Throughout the years, state legislatures have modified, deleted from and added to their Sunday statutes. As evidenced by the New Jersey laws mentioned above, current changes are commonplace. Almost every State in our country presently has some type of Sunday regulation and over forty possess a relatively comprehensive system. Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 732-733; Note, 12 Rutgers L. Rev. 506. Some of our States now enforce their Sunday legislation through Departments of Labor, e. g., 6 S. C. Code Ann. (1952), § 64^5. Thus have Sunday laws evolved from the wholly religious sanctions that originally were enacted.
Moreover, litigation over Sunday closing laws is not novel. Scores of cases may be found in the state appellate courts relating to sundry phases of Sunday enactments. Religious objections have been raised there on numerous occasions but sustained only once, in Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502 (1858); and that decision was overruled three years later, in Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cal. 678. A substantial number of cases in varying postures bearing on state Sunday legislation have reached this Court. Although none raising the issues now presented have gained plenary hearing, language used in some of these cases further evidences the evolution of Sunday laws as temporal statutes. Mr. Justice Field wrote in Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, at p. 710:
“Laws setting aside Sunday as a day of rest are upheld, not from any right of the. government to legislate for the promotion of religious observances, but from its right to protect all persons from the physical and moral debasement which comes from uninterrupted labor. Such laws have always been deemed beneficent and merciful laws, especially to the poor and dependent, to the laborers in our factories and workshops and in the heated rooms of our cities; and their validity has been sustained by the highest courts of the States.”
While a member of the California Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Field dissented in Ex parte Newman, supra, at pp. 519-520, 528, saying:
“Its requirement is a cessation from labor. In its enactment, the Legislature has given the sanction of law to a rule of conduct, which the entire civilized world recognizes as essential to the physical and moral well-being of society. Upon no subject is there such a concurrence of opinion, among philosophers, moralists and statesmen of all nations, as on the necessity of periodical cessations from labor. One day in seven is the rule, founded in experience, and'sustained by science.... The prohibition of secular business on Sunday is advocated on the ground that by it the general welfare is advanced, labor protected, and the moral and physical well-being of society promoted.”
This was quoted with approval by Mr. Justice Harlan in Hennington v. Georgia, supra, who also stated:
“It is none the less a civil regulation because the day on which the running of freight trains is prohibited is kept by many under a sense of religious duty. The legislature having, as will not be disputed, power to enact laws to promote the order and to secure the comfort, happiness and health of the people, it was within its discretion to fix the day when all labor, within the limits of the State, works of necessity and charity excepted, should cease.” Id., at 304.
And Mr. Chief Justice Fuller cited both of these passages in Petit v. Minnesota, supra.
Before turning to the Maryland legislation now here under attack, an investigation of what historical position Sunday Closing Laws have occupied with reference to the First Amendment should be undertaken, Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at p. 14.
This Court has considered the happenings surrounding the Virginia General Assembly’s enactment of “An act for establishing religious freedom,” 12 Hening’s Statutes of Virginia 84, written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison, as best reflecting the long and intensive struggle for religious freedom in America, as particularly relevant in the search for the First Amendment’s meaning. See the opinions in Everson v. Board of Education, supra. In 1776, nine years before the bill’s passage, Madison co-authored Virginia’s Declaration of Rights which provided, inter alia, that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience....” 9 Hening’s Statutes of Virginia 109, 111-112. Virginia had had Sunday legislation since early in the seventeenth century; in 1776, the laws penalizing “maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, jorbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever” (emphasis added), were repealed, and all dissenters were freed from the taxes levied for the support of the established church. Id., at 164. The Sunday labor prohibitions remained; apparently, they were not believed to be inconsistent with the newly enacted Declaration of Rights. Madison had sought also to have the Declaration expressly condemn the existing Virginia establishment. This hope was finally realized when “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” was passed in 1785. In this same year, Madison presented to Virginia legislators “A Bill for Punishing... Sabbath Breakers” which provided, in part:
“If any person on Sunday shall himself be found labouring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary houshold offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence, deeming every apprentice, servant, or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offence.”
This became law the following year and remained during the time that Madison fought for the First Amendment in the Congress. It was the law of Virginia, and similar laws were in force in other States, when Madison stated at the Virginia ratification convention:
“Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion.... Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. I believe it to be so in the other states.... I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom.”
In 1799, Virginia pronounced “An act for establishing religious freedom” as “a true exposition of the principles of the bill of rights and constitution,” and repealed all subsequently enacted legislation deemed inconsistent with it. 2 Shepherd, Statutes at Large of Virginia, 149. Virginia’s statute banning Sunday labor stood.
In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, the Court relied heavily on the history of the Virginia bill. That case concerned a Mormon’s attack on a statute making bigamy a crime. The Court said:
“In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that ‘all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,’ the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, ‘it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth.’ 12 Hening’s Stat. 691. From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all of this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life.” Id., at 165.
In the case at bar, we find the place of Sunday Closing Laws in the First Amendment’s history both enlightening and persuasive.
But in order to dispose of the case before us, we must consider the standards by which the Maryland statutes are to be measured. Here, a brief review of the First Amendment’s background proves helpful. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....” U. S. Const., Amend. I. The Amendment was proposed by James Madison on June 8, 1789, in the House of Representatives. It then read, in part:
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” (Emphasis added.) I Annals of Congress 434.
We are told that Madison added the word “national” to meet the scruples of States which then had an established church. 1 Stokes, Church and State in the United States, 541. After being referred to committee, it was considered by the House, on August 15, 1789, acting as a Committee of the Whole. Some assistance in determining the scope of the Amendment’s proscription of establishment may be found in that debate.
In its report to the House, the committee, to which the subject of amendments to the Constitution had been submitted, recommended the insertion of the language, “no religion shall be established by law.” I Annals of Congress 729. Mr. Gerry “said it would read better if it was, that no religious doctrine shall be established by law.” Id., at 730. Mr. Madison “said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.... He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.” Id., at 730-731.
The Amendment, as it passed the House of Representatives nine days later, read, in part:
“Congress shall make no law establishing religion....” Records of the United States Senate, 1A-C2 (U. S. Nat. Archives).
It passed the Senate on September 9, 1789, reading, in part:
“Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship.....” Ibid.
An early commentator.opined that the “real object of the amendment was... to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.” 3 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 728. But, the First Amendment, in its final form, did not simply bar a congressional enactment establishing a church; it forbade all laws respecting an establishment of religion. Thus, this Court has given the Amendment a “broad interpretation... in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress....” Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at pp. 14-15. It has found that the First and Fourteenth Amendments afford protection against religious establishment far more extensive than merely to forbid a national or state church. Thus, in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, the Court held that the action of a board of education, permitting religious instruction during school hours in public school buildings and requiring those children who chose not to attend to remain in their classrooms, to be contrary to the “Establishment” Clause.
However, it is equally true that the “Establishment” Clause does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. In many instances, the Congress or state legislatures conclude that the general welfare of society, wholly apart from any religious considerations, demands such regulation. Thus, for temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333; Reynolds v. United States, supra. The same could be said of theft, fraud, etc., because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue.
Thus, these broad principles have been set forth by this Court. Those cases dealing with the specific problems arising under the “Establishment” Clause which have reached this Court are few in number. The most extensive discussion of the “Establishment” Clause’s latitude is to be found in Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at pp. 15-16:
“The 'establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.’ ”
Under challenge was a statute authorizing repayment to parents of their children’s transportation expenses to public and Catholic schools. The Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Black, recognized that “it is undoubtedly true that children are helped to get to church schools,” and “[t]here is even a possibility that some of the children might not be sent to the church schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children’s bus fares out of their own pockets when transportation to a public school would have been paid for by the State.” Id., at 17. But the Court found that the purpose and effect of the statute in question was general “public welfare legislation,” id., at 16; that it was to protect all school children from the “very real hazards of trafile,” id., at 17; that the expenditure of public funds for school transportation, to religious schools or to any others,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Rylander was held in civil contempt by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California because of his failure to comply with its earlier order enforcing an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summons for corporate books and records. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that holding, concluding that Rylander’s showing at the contempt hearing, together with his invocation of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, required the Government to shoulder the burden of producing evidence that Rylander was able to produce the documents in question. Because of a conflict among the various Courts of Appeals on this issue, we granted certiorari, 456 U. S. 943 (1982), and we now reverse.
In January 1979, the IRS issued a summons to Rylander pursuant to 26 U. S. C. § 7602. The summons ordered him to appear before an agent of the Service in Sacramento, Cal., and to produce for examination, and testify with respect to, books and records of two corporations. Rylander was the president of each corporation. When he failed to comply with the summons, the District Court issued an order to show cause why the summons should not be enforced. Ry-lander for several months succeeded in evading service, but in November 1979 the Marshal was able to personally serve the fourth successive order to show cause issued by the court. In January 1980, on the return date of that order, Rylander failed to file a responsive pleading and did not appear at the show cause hearing. He had sent an unsworn letter to the court claiming he was neither the president of either corporation nor associated with them in any way. The District Court enforced the IRS summons and ordered Rylander to appear before an agent of the Service in February 1980 to produce the corporate records.
Rylander neither sought reconsideration of the enforcement order nor did he appeal from it. He appeared as ordered before the agent, but failed to produce the records. After this encounter, the District Court issued an order to show cause why Rylander should not be held in contempt. Rylander again successfully evaded service of the court’s order, and the court in May 1980 found that he was willfully avoiding service and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
The contempt hearing took place on two different dates in October 1980. After an initial skirmish, Rylander took the witness stand and verified an “Oath in Purgation of Contempt” which he had earlier submitted to the court. The essence of this declaration was that he did not possess the records and had not disposed of them to other persons. He refused to submit to additional questioning under oath from the Government, asserting the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination conferred by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The District Court held Rylander in contempt, finding that he had “fail[ed] to introduce any evidence” in support of his claim that he did not possess the records. The court affirmatively found that Rylander “as president or other corporate officer, had possession or control, or both, of the books and records of said corporations.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a-18a. Thus 21 months after the IRS had issued a summons to him, Rylander was finally faced with a civil contempt order directing him to either produce the subpoenaed records or face imprisonment.
Rylander appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court. 656 F. 2d 1313 (CA9 1981). The Court of Appeals agreed that the Government, in a contempt proceeding, meets its initial burden by showing only a failure to comply and the burden is then on the defendant to come forward with evidence showing “ ‘categorically and in detail’ ” why he is unable to comply. Id., at 1318. But the Court of Appeals concluded that a defendant need not meet this burden where “he properly claims that his testimony as to the whereabouts of the documents might be incriminatory.” Id., at 1319. The court stated further:
“When the defendant has made a bona fide fifth amendment claim, his statement that the documents are not in his possession or under his control is sufficient to satisfy his burden of production. The burden then shifts to the government to produce evidence showing that the documents in question actually exist and are in the defendant’s possession or under his control.” Ibid.
After concluding that Rylander’s failure to raise this defense in the enforcement proceeding did not limit his argument in the contempt proceeding, the court determined that if Rylander’s Fifth Amendment claim is valid, his burden of production had been met. We think the Court of Appeals was incorrect both in its view of the relationship between the enforcement proceeding and the contempt proceeding, and in its view of the effect of Rylander’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege on the burden of production at the latter hearing.
On numerous occasions this Court has been called upon to review the statutory authorization for the IRS to summon witnesses and records and seek judicial enforcement of such summons. See, e. g., United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U. S. 298 (1978); Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391 (1976); United States v. Powell, 379 U. S. 48 (1964); Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440 (1964). There is no disagreement here concerning that basic statutory scheme. In the present case, the Court of Appeals held that notwithstanding the issuance of the enforcement order, Rylander was free to relitigate the question of his possession or control of the records in the contempt proceeding. The Court of Appeals emphasized that the enforcement proceeding was summary in nature, that the Government’s burden was light, and that there had been no express finding in the enforcement proceeding that Rylander was in possession or control of the records.
We think the Court of Appeals’ view of the matter gave insufficient weight to this Court’s observations in Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U. S. 56, 69 (1948):
“It would be a disservice to the law if we were to depart from the long-standing rule that a contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed and thus become a retrial of the original controversy. The procedure to enforce a court’s order commanding or forbidding an act should not be so inconclusive as to foster experimentation with disobedience.”
See also id., at 75. Because a proceeding to enforce an IRS summons is an adversary proceeding in which the defendant may contest the summons “on any appropriate ground,” Reisman v. Caplin, supra, at 449, and because lack of possession or control of records is surely such a ground, the issue may not be raised for the first time in a contempt proceeding. Cf. United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323 (1950); United States v. Fleischman, 339 U. S. 349 (1950). See also United States v. Euge, 444 U. S. 707 (1980).
In a civil contempt proceeding such as this, of course, a defendant may assert a present inability to comply with the order in question. Maggio v. Zeitz, supra, at 75—76; Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358, 366 (1929). While the court is bound by the enforcement order, it will not be blind to evidence that compliance is now factually impossible. Where compliance is impossible, neither the moving party nor the court has any reason to proceed with the civil contempt action. It is settled, however, that in raising this defense, the defendant has a burden of production. McPhaul v. United States, 364 U. S. 372, 379 (1960); Maggio v. Zeitz, supra, at 75-76; Oriel v. Russell, supra, at 366. See also United States v. Fleischman, supra, at 362-363. Thus while Rylander could not attack the enforcement order on the ground that he lacked possession or control of the records at the time the order was issued, he could defend the contempt charge on the ground that he was then unable to comply because he lacked possession or control.
The Court of Appeals, while recognizing that Rylander was obligated to assume the burden of production in making this defense, felt that the showing made by Rylander at the October 1980 hearing was sufficient to shift the burden back to the Government. We disagree. We first analyze the effect of Rylander’s denial of possession when he took the witness stand at the contempt hearing and when he submitted the “Oath in Purgation of Contempt.” Since he declined to be cross-examined with respect to his assertions of nonpossession, the District Court was entirely justified in concluding, as it did, that Rylander “fail[ed] to introduce any evidence at the contempt trial.” This was a time for testimony, and Rylander’s ex parte affidavit and uncross-examined testimony were properly disregarded by the District Court. McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 215 (1971); Brown v. United States, 356 U. S. 148, 155 (1958).
The Court of Appeals also gave weight to the fact that Rylander’s asserted reason for refusing to allow cross-examination was his claim that answering such questions might lead him to incriminate himself. But while the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination may be a valid ground upon which a witness such as Rylander declines to answer questions, it has never been thought to be in itself a substitute for evidence that would assist in meeting a burden of production. We think the view of the Court of Appeals would convert the privilege from the shield against compulsory self-incrimination which it was intended to be into a sword whereby a claimant asserting the privilege would be freed from adducing proof in support of a burden which would otherwise have been his. None of our cases support this view.
We have squarely rejected the notion, apparently subscribed to by the Court of Appeals, that a possible failure of proof on an issue where the defendant had the burden of proof is a form of “compulsion” which requires that the burden be shifted from the defendant’s shoulders to that of the government. McGautha v. California, supra; Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970); see also Barnes v. United States, 412 U. S. 837 (1973); Turner v. United States, 396 U. S. 398 (1970); Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178 (1925); Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613 (1896). In Williams, the Court said:
“The defendant in a criminal trial is frequently forced to testify himself and to call other witnesses in an effort to reduce the risk of conviction. When he presents his witnesses, he must reveal their identity and submit them to cross-examination which in itself may prove incriminating or which may furnish the State with leads to incriminating rebuttal evidence. That the defendant faces such a dilemma demanding a choice between complete silence and presenting a defense has never been thought an invasion of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The pressures generated by the State’s evidence may be severe but they do not vitiate the defendant’s choice to present an alibi defense and witnesses to prove it, even though the attempted defense ends in catastrophe for the defendant. However ‘testimonial’ or ‘incriminating’ the alibi defense proves to be, it cannot be considered ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” 399 U. S., at 83-84 (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals nonetheless thought that this Court’s decision in Curcio v. United States, 354 U. S. 118 (1957), prevented Rylander from being required to carry his burden of production or risk the consequences from his failure of proof. We do not read the case that way. The issue in Curdo, as stated by the Court in its opinion in that case, was “whether petitioner’s personal privilege against self-incrimination attaches to questions relating to the whereabouts of the union books and records which he did not produce pursuant to subpoena.” Id., at 122. The Court went on to distinguish cases such as Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 (1906), holding that a corporation had no Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and cases such as Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361 (1911), and United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694 (1944), holding respectively that the custodians of neither records belonging to unions nor those belonging to corporations might withhold production of such records on the ground that the custodian might be incriminated by their production. The Court refused to accept the Government’s contention, based on those cases, that the custodian had no privilege to refuse to testify about such records on grounds that testimony might incriminate him. In reversing the contempt conviction, however, the Court pointedly noted:
“This conviction related solely to petitioner’s failure to answer questions pursuant to the personal subpoena ad testificandum. He has not been charged with failing to produce the books and records demanded in the subpoena duces tecum.” 354 U. S., at 121.
The instant proceeding is exactly the converse of the one in Curdo. Rylander was originally ordered both to produce books and records and to testify about them. But the only order against him remaining at the time of the contempt hearing was the order to produce books and records. The Court of Appeals assumed, as we do, that Rylander’s claim of privilege “attached” to questions about the whereabouts of the records; that was the issue decided in Curdo. But that is to say no more than if Rylander asserted a valid claim of privilege at the contempt hearing, then the claim could not be overruled by the court and the respondent incarcerated for failure to answer such questions.
Rylander was not, however, incarcerated because he refused to submit himself to' cross-examination by the Government at the contempt hearing. He was held in contempt for failure to comply with a previous order of the District Court enforcing an IRS summons against him. This order, unappealed from, necessarily contained an implied finding that no defense of lack of possession or control had been raised and sustained in that proceeding. The only issue open to Rylander in defending the contempt proceeding was to show inability to then produce, and because of the presumption of continuing possession arising from the enforcement order, Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U. S. 56 (1948), if he sought to defend on that ground he was required to come forward with evidence in support of it. The fact that his refusal to come forward with such evidence was accompanied by a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege may be an adequate reason for the court’s not compelling him to respond to cross-examination at the contempt hearing, but the claim of privilege is not a substitute for relevant evidence.
Rylander was found by the District Court to be in contempt of the enforcement order which required him to produce documents — documents justifiably found by the District Court to be in his possession. He was committed to custody until such time as he should produce the documents, but the District Court again saved him the additional alternative of adducing evidence to show lack of possession or control. Rylander is thus not compelled “to submit to incarceration or run the risk of incriminating himself,” 656 F. 2d, at 1319; he is committed until he either produces the documents which the District Court found to be in his possession, or adduces evidence as to his present inability to comply with that order.
We think our cases plainly support this result, and we are frank to say that we have no regret that they do. After 21 months of successfully avoiding sanctions for refusing to respond to an IRS summons, or show cause why he should not do so, with the District Court at each step patiently assuring itself that Rylander’s procedural rights were protected, he was finally held in contempt. The Court of Appeals’ view of the matter would require still additional hearings on the issue of possession or control of the corporate books or records, with the Government having the burden of production at the reopened contempt hearing. Given the oft-stated reliance of the federal income tax system on self-assessment, a plainer guide to the successful frustration of this system could hardly be imagined. As we said in an analogous context in United States v. Bryan:
“A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity.” 339 U. S., at 331.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
The Court of Appeals remanded to the District Court for a finding concerning the validity of Rylander’s Fifth Amendment claim and, provided the claim is sustained, an opportunity for the Government to introduce additional evidence concerning Rylander’s ability to comply.
The Government has argued that by submitting the ex parte declaration and by taking the witness stand to verify that declaration, Rylander waived his Fifth Amendment privilege. See Brown v. United States, 356 U. S. 148 (1958). Because of our disposition of the case, we need not decide this question.
While the District Court did not state explicitly that Rylander still possessed the documents at the time of the contempt proceeding, we believe such a finding to be plainly implicit in the court’s conclusion that “as president or other corporate officer [Rylander] had possession or control, or both, of the books and records of said corporations.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a-18a. A finding of present possession was supported in this case; the District Court found that Rylander possessed the documents at the time of the enforcement proceeding and the circumstances themselves warranted an inference of continuing possession. See Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U. S. 56, 64-67, 75-76 (1948).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These appeals present questions arising out of rival applications by several rail carriers to the' Interstate Commerce Commission under § 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act! for authority to acquire control of Toledo, Peoria & Western Railroad Company.
“Western” is an independent, short-line “bridge carrier” of through east-west traffic by-passing the congested Chicago gateway. Its line is about 234 miles long, extending from its connection with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company (“Pennsylvania”) at Effner, on the Illinois-Indiana state line, westward, through Peoria, to its connection with the main line of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company (“Santa Fe”) at Lomax, Illinois, and tfyence southwesterly a short distance to Keokuk, Iowa. Its headquarters, shops and yards are located in East Peoria where it has 24 executives and where, and elsewhere along its line, it has about 225 other employees. It has connections for the interchange of traffic with 16 railroads, the principal ones being with the Pennsylvania at Effner,-with the Santa Fe at Lomax, and with the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company (“Nickel Plate”), the Illinois Terminal Railroad Company, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (“Burlington”) and the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company (“Minneapolis”) at Peoria. Its interchange connections with the other 10 railroads are at 17 other towns along its line.
Western has outstanding 90,000 shares of common capital stock, 82%.of which is owned by the testamentary trustees of the estate of George P. McNear — Wilmington Trust Company and Guy Gladson — and the remaining 18% is owned by members of the McNear family, a bank and the- president of Western. In 1954, the trustees determined to sell their Western stock, and rival efforts were commenced by Minneapolis, on the one hand, and by the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania, on the' other hand, to purchase it. (Four of Wilmington Trust Company’s directors were also directors of Pennsylvania.) Those negotiations culminated in a contract between the trustees and. the Santa Fe, dated May 26, 1955, providing for the sale by the former and purchase by the latter of the stock at a price of $135 per share, subject to the Commission’s approval. Soon afterward, like agreements were made by the Santa Fe with the holders of the remaining 18% of the Western stock.
On June 28, 1955, the' Santa Fe entered into a contract to sell to the Pennsylvania Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pennsylvania, 50% of the outstanding capital stock of Western at $135 per share, subject to approval of the Commission.
On July 8, 1955, the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania Company and its parent, Pennsylvania, applied to' the Commission under § 5 (2) of the Act for approval of those stock purchase agreements and the consequent joint control of Western. The Minneapolis intervened and objected to the application, as did also the States of Minnesota and South Dakota and their respective public service regulatory commissions.
Thereafter, on October 13, 1955, the Minneapolis applied to the Commission, under the same section of the Act, for authority to acquire sole control of Western, expressing its willingness to enter into contracts with Western’s stockholders to purchase their stock at the same price and on the same terms as set forth in their existing contracts with the Santa Fe. The Santa-Fe, the Pennsylvania Company and Pennsylvania intervened in the latter proceeding and objected to the Minneapolis application.
On motion of Minneapolis, the Commission consolidated the two proceedings. Thereafter, seven other railroads having interchange connections with'Western’s line intervened. Two of them sought authority, at all events, and two others of them sought authority, under stated conditions, to participate, under § 5 (2) (d) of the Act, in the acquisition of the Western stock on an equal basis with the successful applicant. The State of Illinois, 18 cities or towns and seven chambers of commerce located on or along Western’s line, two labor organizations representing Western’s employees, and á large number of shippers over Western’s line, intervened in support of the Santa Fe-Pennsylvania application and in opposition to the Minneapolis application.
After an/extended consolidated hearing before him, the Commission’s examiner issued a proposed report recommending approval of the Santa Fe-Pennsylvania application and dismissal- of the Minneapolis application. Thereafter, upon exceptions, and briefs and-arguments in their support, Division 4 of the Commission issued its report. It was confronted, as it said, with- four alternative proposals, (1) for authorization of joint control of Western b^ the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania, (2) for authorization of sole control by the Minneapolis, (3) for authorization of two other railroads, at all events, and of two more railroads, under stated conditions, to participate in the' acquisition of the Western stock on an equal basis with the successful applicant, and (4) denial of both applications. '
The Commission observed that “[t]hese proceedings represent a new and more complicated phase in the administration of section 5,' since [they involve] 2 applications f<5r authority to control the same property, and petitions by 4 other carriers for inclusion in the transaction under varying circumstances.” It recognized that, under § 5 (2) of. thec Act and the National'Transportation Policy, it was required to “weigh whether each application is consistent with the public interest, with or without inclusion of other railroads, considering not only other intervening petitioners seeking such inclusion but also the other applicant and nonparticipating railroads as well.” It thought that the burden of proof was “most heavy for an applicant in a proceeding like this, because it must not only overbalance the claims of those seeking to share in the control but also of those seeking to exclude it from the transaction.” It conceived it to be its duty, under the Act and the National Transportation Policy, to “arrive at a standard of public interest and determine which of the various plans of control most nearly approximates it.”
The Commission -found that the Santa Fe-Pennsylvania plan contemplates that Western “will continue to be operated as a separate and independent carrier with responsible management located along its lines”; that it “will continue to maintain its own solicitation forces and will be entirely free to solicit traffic in such manner as best to' serve the interests-of the Western,” and that all “existing routes and channels of trade.via the Western will be maintained and-kept open without discrimination between connecting lines of railroad.” It foiind, on the other hand, that the Minneapolis plan “unequivocally contemplates the disappearance of.the Western as an independent and neutral connection for the other 15 carriers with • which it presently works”; that “[f]or all practical purposes. the Western would be integrated,, consolidated, and merged into the Minneapolis for ownership, management, • and operation”; that features of the' Minneapolis plan “would be extremely harmful to other'carriers”; that Western’s headquarters office at Peoria would be eliminated, leaving only a trainmaster and a roadmaster at that point, and that the employment of most of Western’s* 24 executives and 225 other employees would be severed.
The Commission further found that “[o]nly the Minneapolis and its supporting interveners, the States of Minnesota and South Dakota, advocate the disappearance of the Western as a separate and independent operating carrier,” and that all other parties to, and intervenors in, the proceedings “insist that the separate and independent' operation of the Western under its present local management is a public necessity.” It then found that the “[p] ublic interest demands that the present policies of the Western in all respects be continued.” It thereupon made the ultimate finding, required by § 5 (2) (b) of the Act, that the acquisition and plan of operation by the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania, subject to stated conditions, was “within the scope of section 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended; that the terms and conditions proposed [by them] are just and reasonable, and that the transaction will be consistent with the public interest.” The Commission then entered its order approving the Santa'Fe-Pennsylvania application, dismissing the Minneapolis application, and denying the petitions of the several intervening railroads which sought to participate in-the acquisition of the Western' stock. 295 I. C. C. 523.
Thereafter, Minneapolis petitioned the whole Commission for a reconsideration, and alternatively requested that, if the approval of the Santa Fe-Pennsylvania; application be permitted to stand, it be authorized to participate equally with those railroads in the purchase of Western’s stock on' the same terms. That petition was denied.
Minneapolis then timely filed a complaint in the District Court for Minnesota against the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission to vacate the Commission’s order. The States of Minnesota and South Dakota and their respective regulatory commissions, being interested in strengthening the Minneapolis, which operates in those States, intervened in support of the complaint. The defendants answered, asserting the full legality of the Commission’s order. The Santa Fe, the Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Company, the State of Illinois, the 18 cities and seven chambers of commerce and the numerous shippers who were intervenors before the Commission, intervened in opposition to the complaint. The Nickel Plate intervened, complaining that the Commission had improperly denied its request to participate in the purchase of the Western stock.
A three-judge court was convened and, after hearing, rendered its opinion and judgment sustaining the Commission’s order. 165 F. Supp. 893. On separate appeals by the Minneapolis, the State of Minnesota and its regulatory commission, and the State of South Dakota and its regulatory commission, the case was brought here and we noted probable jurisdiction. 359 U. S. 933. All of those who were defendants and intervenors in opposition to the complaint in the District Court, except the Nickel Plate, are appellees in this Court.
- Minneapolis, supported by the States of Minnesota and South Dakota, contends, first, that the Commission improperly adopted at the outset of its report the standard of “separate and independent management” of Western as the criterion governing the comparative merits of the rival plans, which was antithetic to its application, and thereby deprived it of “fair comparative consideration,” and that the District Court erred in • approving the Commission’s action.
The record does not support that contention. Rather, it shows that the Commission’s governing standard was the “public interest,” although it ultimately did find that the public interest would be best served by Western’s continued operation as-a “separate and independent carrier.” We believe that the recited findings show that the Commission carefully “weighed” and considered “each application” in its labors to" determine which, if either, of them was “consistent with the public interest.” Its subsidiary findings (a) that the Minneapolis plan “unequivocally contemplates the disappearance of the Western as an independent and neutral connection for the other 15 carriers with which it presently works,” (b) that certain features of the Minneapolis plan “would be extremely harmful to other carriers,” (c) that the Minneapolis plan contemplates the elimination of Western’s office and the separation of its employees, and (d) that numerous witnesses insisted “that the separate and independent operation of the Western under its present local management is a public necessity,” fully support its conclusional finding that the “[pjublic interest demands that the present policies of the Western in all respects be continued.”. That finding, though antithetic to Minneapolis’ application, did not deprive it of “fair comparative consideration,” but, on the contrary, it seems to us, was made by the Commission after full and fair consideration, and the District Court did not err in so holding.
Appellants’ principal contention appears to be that acquisition of control of Western by Santa Fe and Pennsylvania will create a combination in restraint of commerce in violation of § 1 of the Sherman7 Act and will lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act, and that the Commission’s approval of their application was an abuse of power. -
On their face these contentions would seem to run in the teeth of the language and purpose of § 5 (11) of the Interstate Commerce Act. That section, in substance, provides that “The authority conferred by this section shall be exclusive and plenary, and any.carrier or corporation participating in... any transaction approved by the Commission thereunder, shall have full power... to carry such transaction into effect and to own and operate any properties and exercise any control or franchises acquired through said transaction... and any carriers...' participating in a transaction approved or authorized under the provisions of this section shall be and they are hereby relieved from the operation of the antitrust laws and of all other restraints, limitations, and prohibitions of law. ;. insofar as may be necessary to enable [it] to carry into effect the transaction so approved or provided for in accordance with the terms and conditions, if.any, imposed by the Commission, and to hold, maintain, and operate any properties and exercise any control or franchises acquired through such transaction.” 24 Stat. 380, as amended, 54 Stat. 908, 49 U. S. C. §5(11).
Section 5 (11) is both a more recent and a more specific expression of congressional policy than § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 7 of the Clayton Act, and in terms relieves the acquiring carrier, upon approval by the Commission of the acquisition, “from the operation of the antitrust laws....” Although § 5 (11) does not authorize the Commission to “ignore” the antitrust laws, McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U. S. 67, 80, there can be “little doubt that the Commission is not to measure proposals for. [acquisitions] by the standards of the antitrust laws.” 321 U. S., at 85-86. The problem is- one of accommodation of § 5 (2) ancl the antitrust legislation. The Conimission remains obligated to “estimate the scope and appraise the effects of the curtailment of competition which will result from the proposed [acquisition] and consider them along with, the advantages of improved service [and other matters in the public interest] to determine whether, the [acquisition] will assist in effectuating the over-all transportation policy.” 321 U. S., at 87.
Even though such acquisitions might otherwise violate the antitrust laws, Congress has authorized the Commission to approve them, if it finds they are in the public interest, “because it recognized that in some circumstances they were appropriate for effectuation of the national transportation policy. It was informed that this policy would be furthered by 'encouraging the organization of stronger units’ in the... industry. And in authorizing those [acquisitions] it did not import the general policies of the anti-trust laws as a measure of their permissibility. It in terms relieved participants in appropriate [acquisitions] from the requirements of those laws. §5 (11).” 321 U. S., at 85. It must be presumed that, in enacting this legislation, Congress took account of the fact that railroads are subject to strict regulation and supervision. “Against this background, no other inference is possible but that, as a factor in determining the propriety of [railroad acquisitions] Jhe preservation of competition among carriers, although still a value, is significant chiefly as it aids in the attainment of the objectives of the national transportation policy.” 321 U. S., at 85-86.
As respects railroad acquisitions, the Commission, is not so bound by the antitrust laws that it must permit them to overbear what it finds to be in “the public interest.” A contrary view would, in effect, permit the Commission to authorize only those acquisitions which would not offend those laws. “As has been said, this would render meaningless the exemption relieving the participants in a properly approved [acquisition] of the requirements of those laws....” 321 U. S., at 86. Resolution of the conflicting considerations “is a complex task which requires extensive facilities, expert judgment and considerable knowledge of the transportation industry. Congress left that task to the Commission 'to the end that the wisdom and experience of that Commission may be used not only in connection with this form of transportation, but in its coordination of all other forms.’ 79 Cong. Rec. 12207. ‘The wisdom and experience of that commission/ not of the courts, must determine whether the proposed [acquisition] is ‘consistent with the public interest.’ Cf. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central R. Co., 215 U. S. 452; Pennsylvania Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 351; United States v. Chicago Heights Trucking Co., 310 U. S. 344; Purcell v. United States, 315 U. S. 381.” 321 U. S., at 87-88.
Here, the Commission gave extensive consideration to the anticompetitive contentions advanced by appellants, devoting more than five pages of its report to that matter. It found that “[a] 11 the carriers endeavoring to participate in its control are in competition with Western”; that the “important thing is not whether there is possibility of competition, but whether there is probability of existing or potential competition being diminished or strangled by the Western under the control of the Santa Fe and the Pennsylvania.” After an extended analysis of the complex facts and conflicting evidence, the Commission found that control of Western by the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania would not result in any significant lessening of competition. It pointed to the fact that although the Santa Fe’s “long haul" is to Chicago and the Pennsylvania’s “next to longest haul” is also to Chicago (its longest haul being to St. Louis) the Santa Fe has agreed, and is bound, “to place Lomax on a parity with Chicago from a solicitation standpoint, and... the Pennsylvania will recognize Effner as one of its principal interchanges along with Chicago and St. Louis”; that “there may be some diversion of traffic, but such diversion would not jeopardize the maintenance of adequate transportation service by the objecting intervening carriers.”
The Commission also pointed to the fact that Western had been in a prolonged receivership until 1927 when George P. McNear acquired its stock at a receiver’s sale, Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. Acquisition, 124 I. C. C. 181. It further found that Western’s modern existence began at that time and, under the guidance of McNear, w.as built into' a fine railroad; that since McNear’s death, in 1947, the present management has continued, with much success, the policies he established. Those policies, the Commission found, were, and are, “to maintain strict neutrality between all connections, and to participate in any haul of traffic no matter how slight [as a bridge] carrier -through Peoria as an alternative route, bypassing the congested terminals of Chicago and St. Louis,” and that those policies are to be continued under the Santa Fe-Pennsylvania plan.
■ We think it is clear from this summary of its analysis and findings that the Commission fully estimated the scope and appraised the effects of any curtailment of competition which might result from the acquisition of Western by the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania, and, after-having done so, concluded that their acquisition and plan of operation of Western would not result in any significant lessening of competition. Congress has left the task of making that determination to the wisdom and experience of the Commission. The determination it has made rests-upon adequate findings which are, in turn, supported by substantial evidence and is well within the limits of its discretion under the Act.
Appellants argue that the Pennsylvania, in actuality, contracted to purchase 50c/< of the Western stock from Wilmington Trust Company, a' eo-trustee of the McNear trust, and that, since four persons were directors of both companies, that proposed stock purchase violates § 10 of the Clayton Act; that the Commission was without power to approve it; that, in any event, its action in “condoning” it was an abuse of power; and that the District Court, for those reasons also, erred in upholding the Commission’s order.
The Commission found that the Santa Fe in entering into the contract of May 26, 1955, with the trustees of the McNear trust was “acting on behalf of that carrier alone.” ■ But even if we assume, for present purposes, that it was acting as well for the Pennsylvania, the result must be the same. Section-10 of the Clayton Act prohibits a common carrier engaged in commerce from having “any dealings, in securities” of more than $50,000, in the aggregate, in any one year, “with another corporation,... when the said common carrier shall have upon its board of directors'... any person who is at the same time a director [of] such other corporation..., except such purchases [as] shall be made... by competitive bidding under regulations to be prescribed by [the] Commission.” 38 Stat. 734, 15 U. S. C. § 20.
Section 10 of the Clayton Act is, of course, an antitrust law, and much of what we have just said relative to the problem of accommodation of § 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act and the antitrust law's is equally applicable to this contention. The evident purpose of § 10 of the Clayton. Act was- to prohibit a corporation from abusing a carrier by palming off upon it securities, supplies and other articles without competitive bidding and at excessive prices through overreaching by, or other misfeasance of, common directors, to the financial injury of the carrier and the consequent impairment of its ability to serve the public interest. But, even if this purchase of securities might, under other circumstances, violate -§ 10 of the Clayton Act, Congress, by § 5 (11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, has authorized the Commission to approve it if it finds that so doing is in the public interest. And Congress has expressly said that, upon such approval, the carrier shall be.relieved “from the operation of the anti-trust laws A contrary view would, in effect, permit the Commission to authorize only those stock purchases which would not, in the absence of § 5 (11), offend the antitrust laws. “As has been said; this would render meaningless the exemption relieving the participants in a properly approved [acquisition] of the requirements of those laws....” McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, supra, at 86.
Here, the Commission fully considered the contracts under which the Pennsylvania proposes to.acquire a 50% interest in the Western stock and all other factors bearing on that matter and, after doing so, approved them. That action by the Commission did not exceed the statutory limits within which Congress has confined its discretion.
Minneapolis contends that § 5 (11) operates only in futuro and confers “no authority to purge the taint of a transaction illegal at the time it was brought to the Commission.” Whether there is merit in that contention, as a legal abstraction, we need not decide, for here the existing contractual arrangements through which Pennsylvania asks authority to acquire 50% of the Western stock look entirely to the future. Neither the stock sale and purchase contract betweeji the trustees and the Santa Fe nor the one between the Santa Fe and the Pennsylvania Company is a consummated- transaction, but each is expressly subject to, and, will become effective only upon, approval by the Commission. Apart from criminal prosecutions, with which we are not here concerned, it seems plain that approval of an acquisition by the Commission operates under § 5 (11), as that section says, to relieve the acquiring carrier “from the operation of the antitrust laws...
Appellants next contend that the Commission violated § 8 (b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.by failing to make findings which, they think, were compelled by the evidence.
There can be no doubt that the Administrative Procedure Act applies to proceedings before the Commission, Riss & Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 907, and see Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. Co. v. United States, 344 U. S. 917.
The last sentence of § 8 (b) provides:
“All [administrative] decisions... shall become a part of the record and include a statement of (1) findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record; and (2) the appropriate rule, order, sanction, relief, or denial. thereof.”
Upon the basis of that language, appellants argue that the Commission should have found that the price which the Santa Fe agreed to pay for the Western stock of $135 per share, was excessive. Though, the Commission made no express finding upon that, matter it did discuss it, pointing out that, the certified value of Western’s properties for ratemaking purposes was more than $13,500,000 ; that it has no outstanding preférred stock and is relatively free of debt; that it'has a fine earning record; that the transaction was at arm’s length; that Minneapolis had offered $133 per share for the stock within a few days of the time when the Santa -Fe contracted for its purchase at $135 per share; and that the Minneapolis sought authority in this proceeding to acquire the stock at the same price. The Commission concluded that if $135 per share was a fair price for the one it was also for the other.
Upon the same basis, appellants also argue that the Commission should have found that the Minneapolis application was in the public interest in that its acquisition of Western would greatly strengthen both Minneapolis and Western by eliminating many duplicating facilities and by reducing operating expenses by more than $1,770,000 annually. The Commission did not make a specific finding upon that matter, but it did give consideration to it and found that most of that saving — more than $1,300,000 annually — would be at the expense of Western’s employees — a matter which, because of the express command of clause 4 of § 5 (2) (c) of the Interstate Commerce Act (see note 1), it evidently thought was not consistent with the public interest. Appellants further argue that the Commission should have found that the Minneapolis plan afforded adequate protection to Western’s employees by providing for their absorption into the Minneapolis as attrition among its own employees permitted. Again, although the Commission made no specific finding upon that contention it did consider and discuss it, and we think the law required no more.
Appellants challenge the Commission’s failure to make a number of other subsidiary findings, all of which have been considered, but we find that they relate to contentions that are so collateral or immaterial that,the law did not require specific findings upon them. By the express terms of § 8 (b), the Commission is not required to make subordinate findings on every collateral contention advanced, but only upon those issues of fact, law, or discretion which are “material.”'From a thorough examination of the record, we are persuaded that the Commission has made adequate subsidiary findings upon all material issues and has made the ultimate findings required, by §5 (2), that they support the Commission’s order, and are, in turn, supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, appellants contend that the District Court, because of inadequate subsidiary findings by the Commission, was unable to, or at least did not, afford them a proper judicial review, and merely “rubber stamped” the Commission’s order. Whether or not we approve all of the reasons and legal conclusions of the District Court, it is clear that it fairly considered and decided all of the issues raised by appellants, accorded to them a full and fair judicial review, and reached a right result. Accordingly the judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Section 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act (24 Stat. 380, as amended, 54 Stat. 905, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2)) provides, in pertinent part, that:
“(a) It shall be lawful, with the approval and authorization of' the Commission, as provided in subdivision (b) of this paragraph—
“(i) for... two or more carriers jointly, to acquire control of another through ownership of its stock or otherwise....
“(b) Whenever a transaction is proposed under subdivision (a) of this paragraph, the carrier... seeking authority therefor shall present an application to the Commission, and thereupon the Commission shall notify... [designated parties], and shall afford reasonable opportunity for interested parties to be heard. If the Commission shall consider it necessary in order to determine whether the findings specified below may properly be made, it shall set said application for public hearing; and a public hearing shall be held in all cases where carriers by railroad are involved unless the Commission determines that a public hearing is not necessary in the public interest. If the Commission finds that, subject to such terms and conditions and such modifications as it shall find to be just and reasonable, the proposed transaction is within the scope of subdivision (a) of this paragraph and will be consistent with the public interest, it'shall enter an order approving and authorizing such transaction, upon the terms and conditions, and with the modifications, so found to be just and reasonable....
“(c) In passing upon any proposed transaction under the provisions of this paragraph, the Commission shall give weight to the following considerations, among others: (1) The effect of the proposed transaction upon adequate transportation service to the public: (2) the effect upon the public interest of the inclusion, or failure to include, other railroads in the territory involved in the proposed transaction; (3) the total fixed charges resulting from the proposed transaction; and (4) the interest of the carrier employees affected.
“(d) The Commission shall have authority in the case of a proposed transaction under this paragraph involving a railroad or railroads, as a prerequisite to its approval of the proposed transaction, to require, upon equitable terms, the inclusion of another railroad or other railroads in the territory involved, upon petition by such railroad or railroads requesting such inclusion, and upon a finding that such inclusion is consistent • with the public interest.
“(f) As a condition of its approval, under this paragraph, of any transaction involving a carrier or carriers by railroad subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Commission shall require a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the interests of the railroad employees affected....”
The term “bridge carrier” appears to mean a short-line carrier which transports through traffic from one long-line carrier to another.
During the negotiations, Minneapolis first offered $69.50, and later $80, per share for the stock. On April 15, 1955, the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania each obtained letter commitments from the trustees for the sale to each of them of 26% of the Western stock at a price of $100 per share. (Near the same time the Rock Island made a like offer to the trustees for 26% of the Western stock, but that offer was not accepted.) But a dispute arose — and apparently still exists between the trustees and Pennsylvania — with respect to the validity of those commitments. Thereupon, Minneapolis offered the trustees $133 per share for the Western stock, but that-offer was not accepted, and on May 26, 1955, the Santa Fe, acting-, as the Commission found, “on behalf of that carrier alone,” agreed with the trustees for the sale by the latter and purchase by the former of all the Western stock held by the trustees at a price of $135 per share, and those parties on that date entered into a contract, accordingly, subject to approval of the Commission.
The contract of June 28, 1955, between the Santa Fe and the Pennsylvania Company provided that it wag without prejudice to any claims, causes of action or rights which Pennsylvania may have against the trustees of the McNear estate with respect to the letter commitment of April 15,1955, for the sale by the trustees to Pennsylvania of 26% of the Western stock; and that, in the event Pennsylvania should acquire from the trustees, under that letter commitment, all or any part of such shares, the obligation of the Santa Fe under the contract to sell Western shares to the Pennsylvania Company was to be reduced accordingly. It appears that litigation was then, and is yet, pending by Pennsylvania against the trustees for' the enforcement of the letter commitment of April 15, 1955.
The contract also contained a covenant which, in essence, provided that (1) Western “will continue to be operated as a separate and independent carrier with responsible management located along its lines in order to preserve to shippers and communities the present direct access to its officials,” (2) that Western’s properties will be maintained and improved, (3) that Western “will, continue to maintain its own solicitation forces and will be entirely free to solicit traffic in such manner as best to serve the interests of” Western, (4)- that all “existing routes and channels of trade via [Western] will be maintained and kept- open without discrimination between connecting lines of railroad,” and (5) that the Board of Directors of Western shall. consist of 11 members, of whom one shall be the president of the company, two shall be officers of the Santa Fe, two shall be officers of the Pennsylvania' Company, or Pennsylvania, or both, and the remaining six shall be prominent citizens not connected-with either of the parties but selected by them through mutual agreement.
See note 1.
The New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company (“Nickel Plate”) and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company (“Rock Island”) sought authority, under § 5 (2) (d) of.' the Act '(see note 1), to be included in the• acquisition of Western’s stock on an equal basis with the successful applicant or applicants. '
The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (“Burlington”)'and the Wabash Railroad Company • (“Wabash”) did not object to approval of the Santa Fe-:Pennsylvania application, provided the order required continuation of present routes and channels of trade via existing junctions and gateways and of all existing traffic and operating relations and arrangements, but they asked, in the event any railroad other than the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania be authorized to acquire an interest in Western’s stock, that they, too, be authorized to participate therein to the same extent as any such other railroad.
The Illinois Central Railroad Company ("Illinois Central”), the Gulf, Mobile- & Ohio Railroad Company (“Gulf”) and the Chicago. & North Western Railway Company (“North Western”) asked that, if either application be approved, the order be Conditioned to require the maintenance of all routes and channels of trade via existing gateways. The Monon Railroad Company asked that if the Santa Fe-Pennsylvania application be approved, the order contain a requirement that Pennsylvania shall grant to it certain trackage rights, 'and, if not done, that the Santa Fe-Pennsjdvania application be denied.
See notes 6 and 7.
49 U. S. C., n.-preceding § 1, 54 Stát. 899.
15 U. S. C. § 1, 26 Stat. 209. '
15 U. S. C. § 18,38 Stat. 731.
It is clear that § 10 of the Clayton Act is included in the “antitrust laws” referred to in §5 (11) of the Interstate Commerce Act. Section 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 12, provides that “ ‘Anti-trust laws,’ as used in'sections 12, 13, 14-21, and 22-27 of this title, includes sections 1-27 of this title.” Moreover, §5 (11) avoids any ambiguity by including- “all other restraints, limitations, and prohibitions of law, Federal, Státe, or municipal.”
The legislative history of § 10 of the Clayton Act, though meager, supports
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr-. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a negligence case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 45 U. S. C. § 51. Petitioner, an employee of respondent, was injured while shifting various railroad cars on its tracks in and about the Ford Motor Company plant at Norfolk, Virginia. His first cause of action charged respondent with negligence in requiring the shifting of the cars in such an accelerated time and with such inexperienced help that petitioner was injured in attempting to carry out his instructions. In his second claim petitioner alleged that the physician furnished petitioner by respondent subsequent to his injury administered him improper treatment, thus aggravating his injury, and that respondent was responsible for such negligence. At the close of the case, the trial judge sustained the motion of respondent to strike petitioner’s evidence and discharged' the jury. On petition for writ of error claiming that the issues should have been presented to the jury, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals rejected'the petition and, in effect; affirmed the judgment, without written opinion. Believing that the question posed was of importance in the uniform administration of this federal statute, we granted certiorari. 359 U. S. 964. We conclude that the issue of negligence as to the injury should have been submitted to the jury, but that the evidence was insufficient to support the malpractice claim.
Petitioner was a yard conductor .for respondent. On July 3,1957, he was instructed to “shift” or “spot” various railway cars to a loading platform on a spur track of the Ford Motor Company at Norfolk. There were 43 cars involved. Some were empty and standing at the loading tracks at the plant. These had to be moved out to make way for the loaded cars which were outside the plant in respondent’s shifting yards. The job called for them to be lined up and then moved to particular positions or spots on the tracks at the loading platform in the plant where Ford employees might remove their contents. On the morning of the accident there were designated at the Ford loading platform some 22 spots to which the -loaded cars were to be switched. Two brakemen were assigned to assist petitioner in the operation. Petitioner was to complete the spotting during the lunch period sat the Ford plant, which was 30 minutes. The evidence shows that neither of the brakemen' assigned to petitioner was experienced in this particular operation. The senior brakeman had never spotted cars at the plant before, nor had he worked as a senior brakeman. The other brakeman had spotted cars at the plant for only a- short period. Railroad employees classed the Ford “switching operation” as “a hot job” because “you do your job a little faster there than you would in the yard.” In the opinion of brakemen who had spotted' cars there, the minimum time for completion of an operation involving this many cars was 50 minutes, and the maximum well over an hour. Since petitioner was instructed to perform the task in 30 minutes, it was necessary for him to work faster than he normally would. In addition, the senior brakeman had informed petitioner of his inexperience, which required petitioner to take a position on top of the boxcars in order to be ready to assist the brakemen. Normally, petitioner would have taken his position on the ground where a conductor, such as he, usually carried out his assigned duties. When one of the brakemen called for assistance in the spotting operation, petitioner ran along the top- of the boxcars toward the brakeman to give him help, but, upon coming to a gondola car, was obliged to descend the ladder of the boxcar next to it. Petitioner slipped on the ladder and fell to thé ground, suffering the injury complained of here.
The record indicates that petitioner would have taken his position on the ground rather than on the railroad cars but for the inexperience of the brakemen. This required petitioner to take his position on top of the cars in order to assist the brakemen — a function not ordinarily performed by a yard conductor. We think it should have been left to the jury to decide whether the respondent’s direction to complete the spotting operation within 30 minutes, plus the inexperience of the brakemen assigned to perform this “hot job,” might have precipitated petitioner’s injury. “The debatable quality of that issue, the fact that fair-minded men might reach different conclusions, emphasize the appropriateness of leaving the ques-tiqn to the jury. The jury is the tribunal under our legal system to decide that type of issue (Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. [318 U. S. 54]) as well as issues involving controverted evidence. Jones v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co., 128 U. S. 443, 445; Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554, 572. To withdraw such a question from the jury is to usurp its functions.” Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U. S. 350, 353-354 (1943).
As to the malpractice claim, the trial court held that the railroad would not be liable for any negligence on the part of Dr. Leigh, the physician it furnished petitioner. We need not pass on this issue, however, since we find no evidence sufficient to support a malpractice recovery. Proof of malpractice, in effect, requires two evidentiary steps: evidence as to the recognized standard of the medical community in the particular kind of case, and a showing that the physician in question negligently departed from this standard in his treatment of plaintiff. The trial judge acknowledged these to be the tests of malpractice and allowed petitioner’s counsel to make an offer of proof, although ruling that the railroad was nob responsible for Dr. Leigh’s actions. The evidence shows that the physician was of unquestioned qualification and treated petitioner in accordance with his best medical judgment and long practice. The only evaluation concerning his treatment was that of Dr. Thiemeyer, another physician who had treated petitioner, who testified that he did not “think that [the treatment] is proper.” Dr. Thiemeyer’s opinion was that “a fracture should be immobilized until it is healed sufficiently to bear weight without jeopardy of its healing,” and that he “would say that activity would aggravate this fracture in that period.” This offer of proof was fatally deficient. No foundation was laid as to the recognized medical standard for the treatment of such a fracture. No standard having been established, it follows that the offer of proof was not sufficient. The trial judge; therefore, was correct in declining to submit the malpractice claim to the jury.
In view of our holding on the first cause of action, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.
While the evidence indicates that this fact is undisputed, if the evidence is in conflict, such an issue is of course for the jury.
See also Tennant v. Peoria & P. U. R. Co., 321 U. S. 29, 35 (1944); Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645, 653 (1946); Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500 (1957).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In its present posture this case presents a narrow, but substantial, question with respect to the proper procedure to be followed when a reviewing court determines that an administrative agency’s stated justification for informal action does not provide an adequate basis for judicial review.
In 1967, respondents submitted an application to the Comptroller of the Currency for a certificate authorizing them to organize a new bank in Hartsville, South Carolina. See 12 U. S. C. §27; 12 CFR §4.2 (1972). On the basis of information received from a national bank examiner and from various interested parties, the Comptroller denied the application and notified respondents of his decision through a brief letter, which stated in part: “ [W] e have concluded that the factors in support of the establishment of a new National Bank in this area are not favorable.” No formal hearings were required by the controlling statute or guaranteed by the applicable regulations, although the latter provided for hearings when requested and when granted at the discretion of the Comptroller. Respondents did not request a formal hearing but asked for reconsideration. That request was granted and a supplemental field examination was conducted, whereupon the Comptroller again denied the application, this time stating in a letter that “we were unable to reach a favorable conclusion as to the need factor,” and explaining that conclusion to some extent. Respondents then brought an action in federal district court seeking review of the Comptroller’s decision. The entire administrative record was placed before the court, and, upon an examination of that record and of the two letters of explanation, the court granted summary judgment against respondents, holding that de novo review was not warranted in the circumstances and finding that “although the Comptroller may have erred, there is substantial basis for his determination, and ... it was neither capricious nor arbitrary.” 329 F. Supp. 1302, 1308. On appeal, the Court of Appeals did not reach the merits. Rather, it held that the Comptroller’s ruling was “unacceptable” because “its basis” was not stated with sufficient clarity to permit judicial review. 463 F. 2d 632, 633. For the present, the Comptroller does not challenge this aspect of the court’s decision. He does, however, seek review here of the procedures that the Court of Appeals specifically ordered to be followed in the District Court on remand. The court held that the case should be remanded “for a trial de novo before the District Court” because “the Comptroller has twice inadequately and inarticulately resolved the [respondents’] presentation.” The court further specified that in the District Court, respondents “will open the trial with proof of their application and compliance with the statutory inquiries, and proffer of any other relevant evidence.” Then, “[testimony may ... be adduced by the Comptroller or intervenors manifesting opposition, if any, to the new bank.” On the basis of the record thus made, the District Court was instructed to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law in order to determine “whether the [respondents] have shown by a preponderance of evidence that the Comptroller’s ruling is capricious or an abuse of discretion.” 463 F. 2d, at 634.
We agree with the Comptroller that the trial procedures thus outlined by the Court of Appeals for the remand in this case are unwarranted under present law.
Unquestionably, the Comptroller’s action is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 701. See Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 156-158 (1970). But it is also clear that neither the National Bank Act nor the APA requires the Comptroller to hold a hearing or to make formal findings on the hearing record when passing on applications for new banking authorities. See 12 U. S. C. §26; 5 U. S. C. § 557. Accordingly, the proper standard for judicial review of the Comptroller’s adjudications is not the “substantial evidence” test which is appropriate when reviewing findings made on a hearing record, 5 U. S. C. § 706 (2) (E). Nor was the reviewing court free to hold a de novo hearing under § 706 (2) (F) and thereafter determine whether the agency action was “unwarranted by the facts.” It is quite plain from our decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971), that de novo review is appropriate only where there are inadequate factfinding procedures in an adjudicatory proceeding, or where judicial proceedings are brought to enforce certain administrative actions. Id., at 415. Neither situation applies here. The proceeding in the District Court was obviously not brought to enforce the Comptroller’s decision, and the only deficiency suggested in agency action or proceedings is that the Comptroller inadequately explained his decision. As Overton Park demonstrates, however, that failure, if it occurred in this case, is not a deficiency in factfinding procedures such as to warrant the de novo hearing ordered in this case.
The appropriate standard for review was, accordingly, whether the Comptroller’s adjudication was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” as specified in 5 U. S. C. § 706 (2) (A). In applying that standard, the focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court. Respondents contend that the Court of Appeals did not envision a true de novo review and that, at most, all that was called for was the type of “plenary review” contemplated by Overton Park, supra, at 420. We cannot agree. The present remand instructions require the Comptroller and other parties to make an evidentiary record before the District Court “manifesting opposition, if any, to the new bank.” The respondents were also to be afforded opportunities to support their application with “any other relevant evidence.” These instructions seem to put aside the extensive administrative record already made and presented to the reviewing court.
If, as the Court of Appeals held and as the Comptroller does not now contest, there was such failure to explain administrative action as to frustrate effectivé judicial review, the remedy was not to hold a de novo hearing but, as contemplated by Overton Park, to obtain from the agency, either through affidavits or testimony, such additional explanation of the reasons for the agency decision as may prove necessary. We add a caveat, however. Unlike Overton Park, in the present case there was contemporaneous explanation of the agency decision. The explanation may have been curt, but it surely indicated the determinative reason for the final action taken: the finding that a new bank was an uneconomic venture in light of the banking needs and the banking services already available in the surrounding community. The validity of the Comptroller’s action must, therefore,, stand or fall on the propriety of that finding, judged, of course, by the appropriate standard of review. If that finding is not sustainable on the administrative record made, then the Comptroller’s decision must be vacated and the matter remanded to him for further consideration. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80 (1943). It is in this context that the Court of Appeals should determine whether and to what extent, in the light of the administrative record, further explanation is necessary to a proper assessment of the agency’s decision.
The petition for certiorari is granted, 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.
See 12 CFR § 4.12 (d) (1967). The regulations were amended in 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 5051. For the present regulation, see 12 CFR §5.4 (1972).
The letter reads in part:
“On each application we endeavor to develop the need and convenience factors in conjunction with all other banking factors and in this case we were unable to reach a favorable conclusion as to the need factor. The record reflects that this market area is now served by the Peoples Bank with deposits of $7.2MM, The Bank of Harts-ville with deposits of $12.8MM, The First Federal Savings anil Loan Association with deposits of $5.4MM, The Mutual Savings and Loan Association with deposits of $8.2MM and the Sonoco Employees Credit Union with deposits of $6.5MM. The aforementioned are as of December 31, 1968.”
Title 12 U. S. C. § 26 contemplates a wide-ranging ex parte investigation; it reads as follows:
“Comptroller to determine if association can commence business.
“Whenever a certificate is transmitted to the Comptroller of the Currency, as provided in this chapter, and the association transmitting the same notifies the comptroller that all of its capital stock has been duly paid in, and that such association has complied with all the provisions of this chapter required to be complied with before an association shall be authorized to commence the business of banking, the comptroller shall examine into the condition of such association, ascertain especially the amount of money paid in on account of its capital, the name and place of residence of each of its directors, and the amount of the capital stock of which each is the owner in good faith, and generally whether such association has complied with all the provisions of this chapter required to entitle it to engage in the business of banking; and shall cause to be made and attested by the oaths of a majority of the directors, and by the president or cashier of the association, a statement of all the facts necessary to enable the comptroller to determine whether the association is lawfully entitled to commence the business of banking.” (Emphasis added.)
As to the APA, its requirement of a written statement of “findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor” (5 U. S. C. § 557 (c)(3)(A)), applies only to rulemaking proceedings (§ 553) and to adjudications “required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing” (§ 554 (a)). By its terms, then, the APA’s requirement of formal findings is not relevant since the National Bank Act plainly does not require agency hearings on applications for new banks.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mb. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellee is a company engaged in extensive commercial farming operations in Arizona and California. The appellant is the official charged with enforcing the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act. A provision of the Act requires that, with certain exceptions, all cantaloupes grown in Arizona and offered for sale must “be packed in regular compact arrangement in closed standard containers approved by the supervisor . ...” Invoking his authority under that provision, the appellant issued an order prohibiting the appellee company from transporting uncrated cantaloupes from its Parker, Arizona, ranch to nearby Blythe, California, for packing and processing. The company then brought this action in a federal court to enjoin the order as unconstitutional. A three-judge court was convened. 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284. After first granting temporary relief, the court issued a permanent injunction upon the ground that the challenged order constituted an unlawful burden upon interstate commerce. This appeal followed. 28 U. S. C. § 1253. 396 U. S. 812.
The facts are not in dispute, having been stipulated by the parties. The appellee company has for many years been engaged in the business of growing, harvesting, processing, and packing fruits and vegetables at numerous locations in Arizona and California for interstate shipment to markets throughout the Nation. One of the company’s newest operations is at Parker, Arizona, where, pursuant to a 1964 lease with the Secretary of the Interior, the Colorado River Indian Agency, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes, it undertook to develop approximately 6,400 acres of uncultivated, arid land for agricultural use. The company has spent more than $3,000,000 in clearing, leveling, irrigating, and otherwise developing this land. The company began growing cantaloupes on part of the land in 1966, and has harvested a large cantaloupe crop there in each subsequent year. The cantaloupes are considered to be of higher quality than those grown in other areas of the State. Because they are highly perishable, cantaloupes must upon maturity be immediately harvested, processed, packed, and shipped in order to prevent spoilage. The processing and packing operations can be performed only in packing sheds. Because the company had no such facilities at Parker, it transported its 1966 Parker cantaloupe harvest in bulk loads to Blythe, California, 31 miles away, where it operated centralized and efficient packing shed facilities. There the melons were sorted, inspected, packed, and shipped. In 1967 the company again sent its Parker cantaloupe crop to Blythe for sorting, packing, and shipping. In 1968, however, the appellant entered the order here in issue, prohibiting the company from shipping its cantaloupes out of the State unless they were packed in containers in a manner and of a kind approved by the appellant. Because cantaloupes in the quantity involved can be so packed only in packing sheds, and because no such facilities were available to the company at Parker or anywhere else nearby in Arizona, the company faced imminent loss of its anticipated 1968 cantaloupe crop in the gross amount of $700,000. It was to prevent this unrecoverable loss that the District Court granted preliminary relief.
After discovery proceedings, an agreed statement of facts was filed with the court. It contained a stipulation that the practical effect of the appellant’s order would be to compel the company to build packing facilities in or near Parker, Arizona, that would take many months to construct and would cost approximately $200,000. After briefing and argument, the court issued a permanent injunction, finding that “the order complained of constitutes an unlawful' burden upon interstate commerce.”
The appellant’s threshold contention here is that even though the challenged order expressly forbids the interstate bulk shipment of the company’s cantaloupes, it imposes no burden upon interstate commerce. If the Arizona Act is complied with, he argues, all that will be regulated will be the intrastate packing of goods destined for interstate commerce. Articles being made ready for interstate movement are not necessarily yet in interstate commerce, which, he says, begins only when the articles are delivered to the interstate shipper. In making this argument, the appellant relies on this Court’s decisions in Federal Compress Co. v. McLean, 291 U. S. 17, and Chassaniol v. City of Greenwood, 291 U. S. 584. Both of those cases involved taxes imposed by Mississippi on a cotton warehouse and compress business located within that State. The taxes were nondiscriminatory and were levied both on the warehoused cotton itself and on certain processes necessary to ready it for subsequent resale. The taxes were challenged as unlawful burdens on interstate commerce, since most of the taxed cotton was ultimately to be shipped to out-of-state buyers. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Mississippi taxes. It is not entirely clear from the Court’s opinions whether their rationale was that the taxes were imposed before interstate commerce had begun, or that the burden upon commerce was at the most indirect and remote.
But in any event, the decisions do not support the argument that the order in the present case does not affect interstate commerce. In the first place, those cases involved cotton that had come to rest in Mississippi, and “[b]efore shipping orders [were] given, it [had] no ascertainable destination without the state.” 291 U. S., at 21. Here, by contrast, the perishable cantaloupes were destined to be shipped to an ascertainable location in California immediately upon harvest. Even more to the point, the taxes in Federal Compress and Chassaniol were imposed on goods and operations within the State, whereas the application of the statute at issue here would require that an operation now carried on outside the State must be performed instead within the State so that it can be regulated there. If the appellant’s theory were correct, then statutes expressly requiring that certain kinds of processing be done in the home State before shipment to a sister State would be immune from constitutional challenge. Yet such statutes have been consistently invalidated by this Court under the Commerce Clause. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1; Johnson v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 16; Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385. See also Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co., 258 U. S. 50; Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189. Thus it is clear that the appellant’s order does affect and burden interstate commerce, and the question then becomes whether it does so unconstitutionally.
Although the criteria for determining the validity of state statutes affecting interstate commerce have been variously stated, the general rule that emerges can be phrased as follows: Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. Huron Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 443. If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities. Occasionally the Court has candidly undertaken a balancing approach in resolving these issues, Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761, but more frequently it has spoken in terms of “direct” and “indirect” effects and burdens. See, e. g., Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co., supra.
At the core of the Arizona Eruit and Vegetable Standardization Act are the requirements that fruits and vegetables shipped from Arizona meet certain standards of wholesomeness and quality, and that they be packed in standard containers in such a way that the outer layer or exposed portion of the pack does not “materially misrepresent” the quality of the lot as a whole. The impetus for the Act was the fear that some growers were shipping inferior or deceptively packaged produce, with the result that the reputation of Arizona growers generally was being tarnished and their financial return concomitantly reduced. It was to prevent this that the Act was passed in 1929. The State has stipulated that its primary purpose is to promote and preserve the reputation of Arizona growers by prohibiting deceptive packaging.
We are not, then, dealing here with “state legislation in the field of safety where the propriety of local regulation has long been recognized,” or with an Act designed to protect consumers in Arizona from contaminated or unfit goods. Its purpose and design are simply to protect and enhance the reputation of growers within the State. These are surely legitimate state interests. Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 61. We have upheld a State's power to require that produce packaged in the State be packaged in a particular kind of receptacle, Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U. S. 176. And we have recognized the legitimate interest of a State in maximizing the financial return to an industry within it. Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341. Therefore, as applied to Arizona growers who package their produce in Arizona, we may assume the constitutional validity of the Act. We may further assume that Arizona has full constitutional power to forbid the misleading use of its name on produce that was grown or packed elsewhere. And, to the extent the Act forbids the shipment of contaminated or unfit produce, it clearly rests on sure footing. For, as the Court has said, such produce is “not the legitimate subject of trade or commerce, nor within the protection of the commerce clause of the Constitution.” Sligh v. Kirkwood, supra, at 60; Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U. S. 511.
But application of the Act through the appellant’s order to the appellee company has a far different impact, and quite a different purpose. The cantaloupes grown by the company at Parker are of exceptionally high quality. The company does not pack them in Arizona and cannot do so without making a capital expenditure of approximately $200,000. It transports them in bulk to nearby Blythe, California, where they are sorted, inspected, packed, and shipped in containers that do not identify them as Arizona cantaloupes, but bear the name of their California packer. The appellant’s order would forbid the company to pack its cantaloupes outside Arizona, not for the purpose of keeping the reputation of its growers unsullied, but to enhance their reputation through the reflected good will of the company’s superior produce. The appellant, in other words, is not complaining because the company is putting the good name of Arizona on an inferior or deceptively packaged product, but because it is not putting that name on a product that is superior and well packaged. As the appellant’s brief puts the matter, “It is within Arizona’s legitimate interest to require that interstate cantaloupe purchasers be informed that this high quality Parker fruit was grown in Arizona.”
Although it is not easy to see why the other growers of Arizona are entitled to benefit at the company's expense from the fact that it produces superior crops, we may assume that the asserted state interest is a legitimate one. But the State’s tenuous interest in having the company’s cantaloupes identified as originating in Arizona cannot constitutionally justify the requirement that the company build and operate an unneeded $200,000 packing plant in the State. The nature of that burden is, constitutionally, more significant than its extent. For the Court has viewed with particular suspicion state statutes requiring business operations to be performed in the home State that could more efficiently be performed elsewhere. Even where the State is pursuing a clearly legitimate local interest, this particular burden on commerce has been declared to be virtually per se illegal. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1; Johnson v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 16; Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385.
The appellant argues that the above cases are different because they involved statutes whose express or concealed purpose was to preserve or secure employment for the home State, while here the statute is a regulatory one and there is no hint of such a purpose. But in Toomer v. Witsell, supra, the Court indicated that such a burden upon interstate commerce is unconstitutional even in the absence of such a purpose. In Toomer the Court held invalid a South Carolina statute requiring that owners of shrimp boats licensed by the State to fish in the maritime belt off South Carolina must unload and pack their catch in that State before “shipping or transporting it to another State.” What we said there applies to this case as well:
“There was also uncontradicted evidence that appellants’ costs would be materially increased by the necessity of having their shrimp unloaded and packed in South Carolina ports rather than at their' home bases in Georgia where they maintain their own docking, warehousing, refrigeration and packing facilities. In addition, an inevitable concomitant of a statute requiring that work be done in South Carolina, even though that be economically disadvantageous to the fishermen, is to divert to South Carolina employment and business which might otherwise go to Georgia; the necessary tendency of the statute is to impose an artificial rigidity on the economic pattern of the industry.” 334 U. S., at 403-404.
While the order issued under the Arizona statute does not impose such rigidity on an entire industry, it does impose just such a straitjacket on the appellee company with respect to the allocation of its interstate resources. Such an incidental consequence' of a regulatory scheme could perhaps be tolerated if a more compelling state interest were involved. But here the State's interest is minimal at best — certainly less substantial than a State’s interest in securing employment for its people. If the Commerce Clause forbids a State to require work to be done within its jurisdiction to promote local employment, then surely it cannot permit a State to require a person to go into a local packing business solely for the sake of enhancing the reputation of other producers within its borders.
The judgment is affirmed.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 3, c. 3, Art. 4.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 3-503 C (Supp. 1969).
In view of the emergency situation presented, and the fact that only a narrow and specific application of the Act was challenged as unconstitutional, the court was fully justified in not abstaining from the exercise of its jurisdiction pending litigation in the state courts. Compare Hostetter v. Idlewild Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324, 329 with Reetz v. Bozanich, ante, p. 82.
The opinion of the District Court is unreported.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 3-481 (7) and (8).
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761, 796 (Douglas, J., dissenting).
California Agric. Code § 45691. The California Fruit, Nut and Vegetable Standardization Act, California Agric. Code, Division 17, is virtually identical to the Arizona Act. Each statute has the same primary purpose of preventing deceptive packs, and it is stipulated that the standard containers required for cantaloupes in the two States are exactly the same.
Appellant’s Brief 43.
Because of the State’s recognized common-law property interest in its fish and wild game, Toomer presented an especially strong case for state control.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the first half of the Nineteenth Century the United States acquired a vast new area of sparsely populated lands in the South and West. Settlement and absorption of this territory into the older part of the country became a national problem which demanded for its solution a more rapid and extensive means of transportation of goods and people than was provided by wagons, stagecoaches, and waterways. The building of railroads largely provided the answer. They made it possible for the frontier homesteads and communities to be established on the lands of the new territory and yet maintain live contact with the national economy and culture. To encourage a rapid railroad building program, Congress chose to make public grants of a large proportion of the new lands to underwrite and subsidize the participation of private individuals and privately owned companies in the program. In this congressional program of land grants “in aid of construction” were sown the seeds of the present lawsuit.
Enormous areas of public lands were granted railroads, almost equal to the acreage of the New England States, New York and Pennsylvania combined. Execution of the land-grant program was marked by innumerable complex and unforeseen difficulties; its course has been beset by claims and counterclaims asserted by and between settlers, railroads, and Government. Congress, the executive agencies, and the courts have been repeatedly called upon to help resolve these conflicting claims. The lapse of nearly a century since the program was instituted has not resolved all of them. This lawsuit requires consideration of old and recent congressional efforts to settle these persistently recurring controversies.
One substantial field of railroad-government controversy has been the terms of the original land-grant acts which required the railroads to carry government goods and personnel free of tolls. By reason of judicial interpretation of these terms, as supplemented by periodic legislation, land-grant railroads for more than half a century immediately prior to 1940 transported for the Government at one-half of the standard commercial rates. During the depression years beginning in the late 1920’s and immediately following, railroad earnings declined considerably, and a movement began to relieve the roads of their land-grant rate obligations. Studies by some government-selected agencies recommended legislation for outright repeal of the provisions for rate concessions to the Government. Bills to accomplish this in the 75th and 76th Congresses failed to pass. But § 321 of the Transportation Act of 1940 provided that land-grant roads could, by compliance with specified conditions, collect from the Government full commercial rates, except for the transportation of military and naval freight and personnel. In brief, it required that a railroad, to qualify for full rates, must execute, within a year after passage of the Act, a release of any claim it might have “against the United States to lands, interests in lands, compensation, or reimbursement on account of lands or interests in lands which have been granted, claimed to have been granted, or which it is claimed should have been granted to such carrier or any . . . predecessor in interest under any grant to such carrier or such predecessor in interest as aforesaid.” (Italics supplied.)
Shortly after passage of this Act respondent took advantage of it, and gave the Government a release framed substantially in the words of the statute. Its predecessor in interest had obtained a grant of lands in Arizona and New Mexico, under an Act of 1866 containing the usual governmental rate-concession terms. 14 Stat. 292, 297. The 1866 Act had specifically recited that if the Government, because of prior settlement of part of the granted lands by homesteaders, could not give possession to some of the lands granted to the railroad, it could select, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, other public lands in lieu of them as an indemnity. Respondent had large outstanding claims against the Government for these “indemnity” lands when it signed the release and concedes that the release extinguishes these claims.
But it had other so-called lieu land claims against the Government which it asserts were not extinguished. The railroad urges that these claims are not covered by the Act or by the release. They, allegedly, are not claims “on account of” or “under any grant” of lands, but rest on contractual exchanges of lands made under the Acts of 1874 and 1904. 18 Stat. 194; 33 Stat. 556. These Acts largely represented a congressional effort to settle conflicts among railroads, Government, and settlers, which arose by reason of settlement by homesteaders on railroad-granted lands after the grants had been made. Both Acts provided that where settlers had so occupied railroad-granted lands, the railroad could, upon relinquishment of its title to them, select other lands in lieu of them. The procedure for selecting the lieu lands under the 1874 and 1904 Acts was substantially identical to the original procedure provided by the Acts for selection of indemnity lands. Before the 1940 Act respondent had, under the 1874 and 1904 Acts, relinquished title to the Government to certain lands previously granted. In August 1940, and subsequently in March 1943, respondent filed applications with the Secretary of the Interior to select its lieu lands. After the respondent signed the release, and because of it, the Secretary rejected the applications. The railroad then filed this suit in a Federal District Court for relief by injunction or by way of mandamus to require the Secretary and other Interior Department officials to pass on its applications without regard to the release. The District Court dismissed the bill on the merits, holding that the statute and release barred the claims. It read the 1940 Act as defining a congressional purpose “to wipe the slate clean of such claims by any railroad which enjoyed the benefits of the rate concessions made by the Transportation Act . . .” 57 F. Supp. 984,987. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed, holding, as respondent urges in this Court, that the 1940 Act did. not apply to the type of claims involved here. 80 U. S. App. D. C. 360, 153 F. 2d 305. Importance of the question decided caused us to grant certiorari.
We agree with the District Court. We think, as it held, that the Secretary of the Interior’s construction of the 1940 Act was clearly right. Therefore, we do not discuss the Government’s contention that, since the Secretary’s construction was a reasonable one, it was an allowable exercise of his discretion which should not be set aside by injunction or relief in the nature of mandamus. See Santa Fe P. R. R. v. Work, 267 U. S. 511, 517; cf. Santa Fe P. R. R. v. Lane, 244 U. S. 492.
The respondent argues the case here as though the 1940 Act applied only to claims for “lands under any grant.” The language is not so narrow. It also required railroads to surrender claims for “compensation, or reimbursement on account of lands or interests in lands which have been granted, claimed to have been granted, or which it is claimed should have been granted . . . under any grant.” (Italics supplied.) This language in itself indicates a purpose of its draftsmen to utilize every term which could possibly be conceived to give the required release a scope so broad that it would put an end to future controversies, administrative difficulties, and claims growing out of land grants. Beyond a doubt, the words “compensation” and “reimbursement” as ordinarily understood would describe a payment to railroads in money or in kind for the surrender of lands previously acquired by them “under a grant.” If they do not have this meaning, their use in the Act would have been hardly more than surplusage. And when viewed in the context of the historical controversies and claims under the land grants, the conclusion that the 1940 Act covers claims such as respondent’s seems inescapable.
The legislative history of the Act shows that Congress was familiar with these controversies. In 1929 it passed an Act intended to authorize and require judicial determination of land-grant claims of the Northern Pacific Railroad in order finally and completely to set them at rest. 46 Stat. 41. The suit authorized by that Act was tried in a Federal District Court and was pending in this Court when the 1940 Act was passed. United States v. Northern Pac. Ry., 311 U. S. 317. Our decision in it shows the complexity and ramifications of the numerous questions involved in land-grant controversies. Reference to this case was made by Government officials in urging Congress to include in the predecessors of the 1940 Act a requirement that the railroad surrender all claims arising out of land grants as a prerequisite to any Government rate concessions. Here, as in the 1929 Act, which applied to the claims of only one railroad, we think Congress intended to bar any future claims by all accepting railroads which arose out of any or all of the land-grant acts, insofar as those claims arose from originally granted, indemnity or lieu lands. All the Acts here involved, the Acts of 1866, 1874, 1904 and 1940, relate to a continuous stream of interrelated transactions and controversies, all basically stemming from one thing — the land grants. We think Congress wrote finis to all these claims for all railroads which accepted the Act by executing releases.
Reversed.
For an account see Public Aids to Transportation, Section of Research, Federal Coordinator of Transportation (1940) I, 45-46; Hibbard, Land Grants, Encyc. Soc. Sciences (1935) IX, 32-35.
Hibbard, Land Grants, supra, 35. Other sources put the figure of federal grants-in-aid at 134,303,668 acres, equivalent to 209,849 square miles or 6.93 per cent of the area of the continental United States. Seventy railroads received these grants. Public Aids to Transportation, op. cit. supra, n. 1, 12, 13. See also Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 262, 273.
See Public Aids to Transportation, op. cit. supra, n. 1, II, 5-56, Gates, Land Grants to Railways, Dictionary of Amer. Hist. (1940) III, 237. See also cases collected 43 U. S. C. A. §§ 888, 890, 893, 894, 900, 904; 43 F. C. A. §§ 888,890,893,894, 900, 904.
See Lake Superior & M. R. R. v. United States, 93 U. S. 442; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cl. 126, 148. Cf. 18 Stat. 72, 74; 18 Stat. 452, 453-454; 20 Stat. 377, 390; 27 Stat. 174, 180.
See Committee of Three: Report of March 24, 1938, H. Doc. No. 583, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 32; Committee of Six: Report of December 23, 1938, in Hearings, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H. R. 2531,76th Cong., 1st Sess., II, 260.
H. R. 10620, 75th Cong., 3d Sess.; S. 3876, 75th Cong., 3d Sess.; S. 1915 and S. 1990,76th Cong., 1st Sess.
54 Stat. 954, 49 U. S. C. § 65.
Section 321 (b) provides that
"If any carrier by railroad ... or any predecessor in interest, shall have received a grant of lands from the United States to aid in the construction of any part of the railroad operated by it, the provisions of law with respect to [reduced rate] compensation for such a transportation shall continue to apply to such transportation as though subsection (a) of this section had not been enacted until such carrier shall file with the Secretary of the Interior, in the form and manner prescribed by him, a release of any claim it may have against the United States to lands, interests in lands, compensation, or reimbursement on account of lands or interests in lands which have been granted, claimed to have been granted, or which it is claimed should have been granted to such carrier or any such predecessor in interest under any grant to such carrier or such predecessor in interest as aforesaid. Such release must be filed within one year from the date of the enactment of this Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring any such carrier to reconvey to the United States lands which have been heretofore patented or certified to it, or to prevent the issuance of patents confirming the title to such lands as the Secretary of the Interior shall find have been heretofore sold by any such carrier to an innocent purchaser for value or as preventing the issuance of patents to lands listed or selected by such carrier, which listing or selection has heretofore been fully and finally approved by the Secretary of the Interior to the extent that the issuance of such patents may be authorized by law.”
“Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of an Act of Congress approved March 3, 1897 (29 Stat. 622), with office and principal place of business at New York, in the State of New York, hereby, in accordance with section 321 of Part II of Title III of the Transportation Act of 1940, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder by the Secretary of the Interior, relinquishes, remises and quitclaims to the United States of America any and all claims of whatever description to lands, interests therein, compensation or reimbursement therefor on account of lands or interests granted, claimed to have been granted, or claimed should have been granted by any act of the Congress to Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company or to any predecessor in interest in aid of the construction of any portion of its railroad.
“This release does not embrace the rights of way or station grounds of this company, lands sold by the company to innocent purchasers for value prior to September 18, 1940, lands embraced in selections made by the company and approved by the Secretary of the Interior prior to September 18, 1940, or lands which have been patented or certified to the company or any predecessor in interest in aid of the construction of its railroad.”
Cf. note 4, supra.
See United States v. Northern P. Ry., 311 U. S. 317, 332, 335, 353, 354.
See Hearings, Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, S. 1915, 1990 and 2294, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 65, 66; see also ibid., 59, 164.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Regulations promulgated by the Attorney General authorize deportable aliens to file motions to reopen their deportation proceedings to' request asylum on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Denials of such motions are subject to judicial review in the United States courts of appeals. The question in this case is whether those courts should review such Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denials under an abuse-of-discretion standard, as petitioner contends, or under the strict standard that would be applied when passing on a motion for summary judgment, as the Court of Appeals held. 802 F. 2d 1096 (CA9 1986). Consistently with our prior cases confirming the BIA’s broad discretion in considering motions to reopen, we conclude that the abuse-of-discretion standard applies and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Respondent, a native and citizen of Ghana, first entered the United States in 1965 as a student. While attending medical school in 1973, he spent his summer vacation in Ghana, and then reentered the United States on a student visa that authorized him to remain until 1976. After becoming a licensed physician, he married an American citizen and overstayed his visa. In 1981, he pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to obtain narcotic drugs (Demerol) by fraud. In due course, deportation proceedings were initiated, and respondent designated England as the country of deportation if necessary and expressly declined to seek asylum as a refugee. On July 1, 1982, the Immigration Judge ordered him deported, and on August 14, 1984, the BIA dismissed his appeal.
Respondent filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While that petition was pending, on February 1, 1985,'respondent filed a motion with the BIA requesting a reopening of his deportation proceeding to enable him to apply for asylum and a withholding of deportation. In that motion, which was supported by affidavits and other exhibits, respondent claimed that he had a well-founded fear that if England did not accept him and he was returned to Ghana, his life and freedom would be threatened by the regime in power. His fear was based largely on the facts that after the current government seized power in 1981, it had carried out a systematic campaign of persecution against its political enemies and that respondent’s brother and certain close friends were among the targets of that campaign. Moreover, in 1984, respondent had received an unsolicited and surprise visit from a former acquaintance who had become a high official in the Ghana government. The visitor invited respondent to return to Ghana, ostensibly because qualified physicians are in short supply, but respondent concluded that his visitor actually wanted to entice him to return in order to force him to disclose the whereabouts of his brother and other enemies of the government.
The BIA first stated the standard for granting motions to reopen deportation proceedings in cases such as this:
“A motion to reopen deportation proceedings for the purpose of applying for asylum or withholding of deportation will only be granted where prima facie eligibility for such relief has been established and where the alien has reasonably explained his failure to assert the claim prior to completion of the deportation hearing. 8 CFR § 208.11.... Nor will reopening be granted unless the evidence sought to be offered is material, was not available, and could not have been discovered or presented at the time of the original hearing. 8 CFR §§ 3.2, 103.5, 242.22....” App. to Pet. for Cert. 15a.
The BIA then denied respondent’s motion to reopen on both §208.11 and prima facie case grounds, either of which would have sufficed. First, it held that respondent had not reasonably explained his failure to request asylum prior to the completion of the deportation proceedings, as required by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS or Agency) regulations. In support of this holding, the BIA noted that the Immigration Judge had continued the deportation hearing from November 10, 1981, until April 29, 1982, to give respondent an opportunity to apply for asylum, but that respondent had expressly declined to do so, and further, that all of the facts set forth in the motion — except for the surprise visit in 1984 — had been available to respondent- at the time of the hearing. With respect to the visit, the BIA observed that “the respondent’s visitor was admittedly a longtime friend of the respondent’s who in fact may have been paying a purely social visit.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a.
Second, the BIA also held that the facts set forth in the motion to reopen did not show either a clear probability of persecution within the meaning of § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 214, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1253(h), or that respondent was eligible for asylum as a “refugee,” see 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(42), under § 208 of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1158. In support of this holding, the BIA noted that no affidavit from his brother had been offered, and that there was no satisfactory explanation of the details of respondent’s relationship with the enemies of the government or the reasons why that relationship might lead to his persecution. The BIA concluded that his conjectures about probable threats were too speculative to constitute a prima facie showing of eligibility for either asylum or withholding of deportation.
When respondent petitioned for review of the order denying his motion to reopen, the Court of Appeals consolidated that petition with his pending petition to review the original order of deportation. The court affirmed the deportation order, but reversed the order denying the motion to reopen and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the asylum and withholding of deportation claims. In support of the latter holding, the court began by noting that although the BIA has “wide discretion” to deny motions to reopen, and although such denials are normally reviewed only for “abuse of discretion,” in this case “the sole issue” was whether respondent had “presented a prima facie case for reopening.” 802 F. 2d, at 1099-1100. The court stated that “[w]hen the Board restricts its decision [refusing to reopen] to whether the alien has established a prima facie case it is only this basis for its decision that we review.” Id., at 1100 (internal quotation omitted). The court then reasoned:
“Upon motion to reopen, the Board must draw reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the petitioner. A motion to reopen is analogous to a motion for summary judgment; each is accompanied by affidavits and other evidentiary material and may be granted if the motion presents ‘proof that will support the desired findings [of a prima facie case]... until it is contradicted or overruled by other evidence.’ Maroufi v. INS, 772 F. 2d 597, 599 (9th Cir. 1985). In both cases, inferences are to be drawn in favor of the party whose entitlement to further proceedings is at stake: the non-moving party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and the alien seeking reopening under 8 CFR 3.2. See, e. g., U. S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U. S. 654, 655 (1962) (‘choice of inferences to be drawn from the subsidiary facts contained in the affidavits... submitted [is inappropriate]. On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.’)...
“[F]or purposes of the limited screening function of motions to reopen, the BIA must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the alien unless the evidence presented is ‘inherently unbelievable.’ Hernandez-Ortiz [v. INS], 777 F. 2d [509,] 514 [CA9 1985].
“While the visit from the Ghanian official could be viewed as benign, it could also be viewed, as Dr. Abudu suggests, as threatening. Viewing the inferences in favor of the petitioner as we must, we conclude that the affidavits made out a prima facie case of well-founded fear of persecution.” Id., at 1101-1102 (citations omitted).
Although the BIA had denied respondent’s motion to reopen both on the ground that he had failed to make out a prima facie case for asylum and on the ground that he had failed to explain reasonably his decision not to request asylum in the first instance, and although the Government had contended in the Court of Appeals that “petitioner neither offered a reasonable explanation for the belatedness of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation nor made a prima facie showing of entitlement to such relief,” Brief for Respondent in Nos. 84-7686 and 86-7075 (CA9), p. 16 (emphasis added), the Court of Appeals did not discuss, as a separate matter, the “failure to explain” ground in the BIA’s decision. The Court of Appeals’ statement that “the sole issue [in this case] is whether petitioner presented a prima facie case for reopening,” 802 F. 2d, at 1100, reveals that the court seems to have blended the two grounds into one.
The petition for certiorari described this case as involving “the extent to which a reviewing court is required to defer to the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen deportation proceedings.” Pet. for Cert. 8. Like the Court of Appeals’ opinion, the questions presented, though, did not clearly separate the two grounds upon which the BIA had denied respondent’s motion to reopen, and respondent reported to us, incorrectly, that “the sole question before the Ninth Circuit was whether the Respondent had established a prima facie case of a well founded fear of persecution.” Brief in Opposition 20. Petitioner’s reply memorandum, though, eliminated any possible doubts about the issue it was asking us to resolve:
“[T]he important question for present purposes [is] whether the BIA correctly found that respondent had not offered significant new evidence and had not adequately explained his previous failure to seek asylum or withholding of deportation (see 8 CFR 3.2, 208.11).” Reply Memorandum for Petitioner 2, n. 2.
Thus, we granted certiorari, 480 U. S. 930 (1987), not to decide the substantive issues of what constitutes a prima facie case for establishing eligibility for asylum on the basis of a well-founded fear.of persecution, or of what standard of review applies, either initially or on motion to reopen, when the BIA rests its grant or denial of relief squarely on prima facie case grounds, but rather to determine the standard a Court of Appeals must apply when reviewing the BIA’s conclusion that an alien has not reasonably explained his failure to assert his asylum claim at the outset.
II
There are at least three independent grounds on which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen. First, it may hold that the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought. The standard of review of such a denial is not before us today, as we have explained. Second, the BIA may hold that the movant has not introduced previously unavailable, material evidence, 8 CFR § 3.2 (1987), or, in an asylum application case, that the movant has not reasonably explained his failure to apply for asylum initially, 8 CFR §208.11 (1987). (The issues under the two regulations may, of course, both involve the incremental significance of whatever allegedly new evidence is introduced by the movant.) We decide today that the appropriate standard of review of such denials is abuse of discretion. Third, in cases in which the ultimate grant of relief is discretionary (asylum, suspension of deportation, and adjustment of status, but not withholding of deportation), the BIA may leap ahead, as it were, over the two threshold concerns (prima facie case and new evidence/reasonable explanation), and simply determine that even if they were met, the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief. We have consistently held that denials on this third ground are subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard. INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U. S. 444 (1985) (suspension of deportation); INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U. S. 24 (1976) (adjustment of status).
We have discussed 8 CFR §3.2 (1987), which is one of the two regulations before us today, in dicta:
“[Section 3.2] is framed negatively; it directs the Board not to reopen unless certain showings are made. It does not affirmatively require the Board to reopen the proceedings under any particular condition. Thus, the regulations may be construed to provide the Board with discretion in determining under what circumstances proceedings should be reopened.” INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U. S. 139, 144, n. 5 (1981).
This footnote, and our subsequent citations of it, INS v. Rios-Pineda, supra, at 449; INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U. S. 183, 188, n. 6 (1984), stand for the proposition that the BIA has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the alien has made out a prima facie case for relief; that is, our prior glosses on § 3.2 have served as support for an abuse-of-discretion standard of review for the third type of denial, where the BIA simply refuses to grant relief that is itself discretionary in nature, even if the alien has surmounted the requisite thresholds of prima facie case and new evidence/reasonable explanation.
But even before reaching the ultimate decision on an alien’s application for discretionary relief from deportation, or before reaching the point at which mandatory relief is called for in a withholding of deportation case, the BIA’s discretion may be called into play regarding the specific, evidentiary requirements of §§ 3.2 and 208.11. That is, in a given case the BIA may determine, either as a sufficient ground for denying relief or as a necessary step toward granting relief, whether the alien has produced previously unavailable, material evidence (§3.2), and, in asylum cases, whether the alien has reasonably explained his or her failure to request asylum initially (§208.11). We hold today that such decisions are subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.
The reasons why motions to reopen are disfavored in deportation proceedings are comparable to those that apply to petitions for rehearing, and to motions for new trials on the basis of newly discovered evidence. There is a strong public interest in bringing litigation to a close as promptly as is consistent with the interest in giving the adversaries a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases. The relevance of this interest to deportation proceedings was pointedly explained in an opinion that we recently quoted with approval:
“If INS discretion is to mean anything, it must be that the INS has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case. The INS should have the right to be restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. It will also waste the time and efforts of immigration judges called upon to preside at hearings automatically required by the prima facie allegations [, a requirement not disputed in this case].’” INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U. S., at 144, n. 5 (quoting from Judge Wallace’s dissenting opinion in Villena v. INS, 622 F. 2d 1352, 1362 (CA9 1980) (en banc) (CA9 companion case to Jong Ha Wang).
As we have detailed above, the Court of Appeals in this case purported to decide “whether [respondent] presented a prima facie case for reopening.” 802 F. 2d, at 1100. In so doing, the Court of Appeals set out a standard for BIA motions to reopen deportation proceedings, see supra, at 100-101, that appears to have conflated the quite separate issues whether the alien has presented a prima facie case for asylum with whether the alien has reasonably explained his failure to apply for asylum initially and has indeed offered previously unavailable, material evidence. To the extent that the reasoning of the Court of Appeals addresses the issue of reopening rather than the issue of prima facie case for asylum, it is not supported by our cases, and has been consistently rejected by other Circuits and by other panels in the Ninth Circuit. We have never-suggested that all ambiguities in the factual averments must be resolved in the movant’s favor, and we have never analogized such a motion to a motion for summary judgment. The appropriate analogy is a motion for a new trial in a criminal case on the basis of newly discovered evidence, as to which courts have uniformly held that the moving party bears a heavy burden. See, e. g., Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400, 414, n. 18 (1988) (citing cases). Moreover, this is the tenor of the Attorney General’s regulations, which plainly disfavor motions to reopen. See n. 2, supra. In sum, although all adjudications by administrative agencies are to some degree judicial and to some degree political — and therefore an abuse-of-discretion standard will often apply to agency adjudications not governed by specific statutory commands — INS officials must exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations, and therefore the reasons for giving deference to agency decisions on petitions for reopening or reconsideration in other administrative contexts apply with even greater force in the INS context.
Ill
We have no doubt that if respondent had made a timely application for asylum, supported by the factual allegations and exhibits set forth in his motion to reopen, the Immigration Judge would have been required to grant him an evidentiary hearing. See 8 CFR §§ 208.6 (1987) (requiring appearance before immigration officer for asylum application) and 208.10(c) (permitting presentation of evidence in deportation proceedings). We are equally convinced, however, that an alien who has already, been found deportable has a much heavier burden when he first advances his request for asylum in a motion to reopen. In passing on the sufficiency of such a motion, the BIA is entitled to attach significance to its untimeliness, both for the purpose of evaluating the probability that the movant can prove his allegations and for the purpose of determining whether the movant has complied with the regulation requiring a reasonable explanation for the failure to request asylum during the deportation proceeding.
In this case we have no hesitation in concluding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it held that respondent had not reasonably explained his failure to apply for asylum prior to the completion of the initial deportation proceeding. The surprise visit in 1984 was admittedly an event with uncertain meaning, but it was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable for the BIA to regard it as not providing any significant additional support for a claim that respondent had not previously considered strong enough to prompt him to assert that he had a well-founded fear of persecution.
The portion of the Court of Appeals’ judgment that reversed the BIA order denying the motion to reopen is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Respondent had declined to apply for asylum, but had argued instead that his marriage to a United States citizen made him eligible for an adjustment of status under 8 U. S. C. § 1255(a). The Immigration Judge denied the adjustment-of-status application, App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a, because respondent’s drug conviction constituted a nonwaivable ground of excludability, 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(23) (1982 ed., Supp. IV), and the BIA affirmed this determination, App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a.
Title 8 CFR § 208.11 (1987) provides in part:
“[A motion to reopen to request asylum] must reasonably explain the failure to request asylum prior to the completion of the exclusion or deportation proceeding. If the alien fails to do so, the asylum claim shall be considered frivolous, absent any evidence to the contrary.”
Title 8 CFR § 3.2 (1987) provides in part:
“Motions to reopen in deportation proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing; nor shall any motion to reopen for the purpose of affording the alien an opportunity to apply for any form of discretionary relief be granted... unless the relief is sought on the basis of circumstances which have arisen subsequent to the hearing.”
See INS v. Stevic, 467 U. S. 407 (1984) (mandatory withholding of deportation under § 243(h) only if alien can establish that his “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of race, religion, political opinion, etc.). Although respondent moved for reopening to apply for both asylum and withholding of deportation, Motion to Reopen to Permit Respondent to Apply for Asylum and Request Withholding of Deportation in No. 86-7075 (CA9), p. 1 (pp. 14-19 of Pleadings of the Record), the focus throughout the proceedings has been on the asylum application, and our discussion will maintain the same focus. This focus should not obscure the fact that our holding today applies to BIA reopening decisions regarding both asylum and withholding of deportation requests. • First, the standard for granting reopening under 8 CFR § 3.2 (1987) is the- same for both asylum and withholding of deportation requests; accordingly, the BIA’s determination regarding whether “evidence sought to be offered [on reopening] is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing,” ibid., is subject to an abuse-of-diseretion standard of review regardless of the underlying substantive claim asserted by the alien. Further, since all asylum requests “made after the institution of exclusion or deportation proceedings... shall also be considered as requests for withholding exclusion or deportation pursuant to section 243(h) of the Act,” 8 CFR § 208.3(b) (1987); since, normally, “the relevant evidence will be identical on both claims,” 802 F. 2d 1096, 1102 (CA9 1986) (case below), see Matter of Mogharrabi, Interim Dec. No. 3028, p. 12 (BIA June 12, 1987) (“[T]he core of evidence and testimony presented in support of the asylum and withholding applications will in almost every case be virtually the same”); and since it is easier to prove well-founded fear of persecution than clear probability of persecution, the BIA’s application of 8 CFR § 208.11 (1987), which on its face applies only to asylum requests on reopening, will also usually be dispositive of its decision whether to reopen to permit a withholding of deportation request. In sum, our holding today is that a court of appeals should review the BIA only for abuse of discretion when the Board denies reopening on §3.2 or §208.11 grounds, regardless of the underlying basis of the alien’s request. See n. 10, infra.
See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421 (1987) (“well-founded fear of persecution” contains subjective and objective components, but does not require proof that persecution is more likely than not to occur if alien is deported).
Respondent did not cross-petition for a writ of certiorari from this holding.
Early in its opinion, the Court of Appeals did state, correctly, that the BIA had denied reopening both because of respondent’s failure to explain the belated asylum application and because of his failure to make out a prima facie showing for asylum relief. 802 F. 2d, at 1099. The Court of Appeals later commented:
“The Board incorrectly found that all the considerations upon which Dr. Abudu relied in making his asylum and prohibition against deportation claims were in existence at the time he made the determination not to apply for such relief.” Id., at 1102.
This statement was erroneous. The Board’s actual finding was:
“We are satisfied from a careful review of the record that the respondent has not reasonably explained his failure to file his application at the hearing. 8 CFR § 208.11; Matter of Escobar, 18 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1979). He was aware at the time of the hearing of the problems which his brother and other associates were allegedly facing, yet apparently those considerations did not then prompt him to seek asylum. Now, in seeking reopening, he relies heavily on those same considerations. Given that so much of the evidence upon which the respondent now bases his persecution claim was available at the time of the hearing, we are not persuaded that the visit by a member of the present government was by itself so alarming that it explains the respondent’s failure to apply for asylum at the hearing.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a.
It may be that the Court of Appeals’ confusion regarding the BIA’s holding led to its addressing the two separate grounds on which the BIA had relied as if they were one.
“QUESTIONS PRESENTED
“1. Whether a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying an alien’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings on the ground
that the alien did not make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief must be affirmed if it is plausible and not arbitrary.
“2. Whether the BIA, in ruling on an alien’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings, is required to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the alien.” Pet. for Cert. (I).
Thus, this case comes to us in a different posture than did INS v. Stevic, 467 U. S. 407 (1984). There, the BIA had issued an opinion denying reopening to the alien movant on alternative grounds similar to those relied upon by the BIA in today’s case. That is, the BIA in Stevie had held (1) that Stevie had failed to show that the new evidence was unavailable at the initial deportation hearing, and thus could not overcome the threshold of 8 CFR § 3.2 (1987), and (2) that Stevie had “failed to submit prima facie evidence” of the substantive ground on which he sought relief (that his freedom would be threatened upon return to Yugoslavia on account of his political opinion). INS v. Stevic, supra, at 411, and n. 3. The Court of Appeals in Stevie held that a change in the law between Stevie’s initial deportation hearing and his motion to reopen had changed the legal standard for the underlying substantive claim, and thus that Stevie was entitled to a hearing under the new, more lenient standard. - We reversed, holding that the standard for gaining mandatory withholding of deportation under § 243(h) had not been altered by the Refugee Act of 1980. See n. 3, supra. Thus, although the BIA had relied upon alternative grounds in Stevie similar to those it relied upon in respondent’s ease — and accordingly one could suggest that we should decide the underlying substantive issue here just as we did in Stevie — the crucial difference between the two cases is that in Stevie the issue whether sufficient new evidence was available to require reopening depended upon a determination whether the underlying substantive standard for withholding of deportation had been altered, while in today’s ease the issue whether respondent reasonably explained his failure to apply for asylum initially does not so depend upon how one states the underlying substantive standard, but rather may be resolved as an independent matter. Unlike the petition for writ of certiorari and reply memorandum in today’s case, which asked us to resolve an issue regarding agency discretion on reopening and not the underlying substantive standard for determining eligibility for asylum, the petition for writ of certiorari in Stevie, as well as the brief in opposition and reply memorandum, discussed only the nature of the underlying substantive standard.
Just last Term we stated that “[t]here is obviously some ambiguity in a term like ‘well-founded fear’ which can only be given concrete meaning through a process of case-by-case adjudication. ” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S., at 448. The BIA has begun this post -Cardoza-Fonseca process of giving meaning to “well-founded fear of persecution.” Matter of Mogharrabi, Interim Dec. No. 3028, at 9 (after canvassing various approaches taken by Courts of Appeals, adopts general standard set forth by Fifth Circuit in Guevara Flores v. INS, 786 F. 2d 1242 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U. S. 930 (1987), viz., “that an applicant for asylum has established a well-founded fear if he shows that a reasonable person in his circumstances would fear persecution”). We express no opinion on the BIA’s recent formulation.
Respondent attempts to distinguish Jong Ha Wang, Phinpathya, and Rios-Pineda, by arguing that the key standard for determining eligibility for suspension of deportation (whether the deportation would result in extreme hardship to the alien) is itself established at the discretion of the BIA, see 8 U. S. C. §§ 1254(a)(1) and 1103; 8 CFR §2.1 (1987); INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U. S. 139, 144-146 (1981), whereas the standard for determining eligibility for asylum is determined by statute, see 8 U. S. C. §§ 1158 and 1101(a)(42)(A). Thus, respondent continues, Jong Ha Wang and its successor cases are of limited value because they all arose in the suspension of deportation setting, where the BIA’s discretion to determine eligibility is greater than it is in the asylum setting. Without commenting on the validity of respondent’s conclusion regarding the varying degrees of discretion the BIA may exercise in suspension of deportation and asylum settings, we note that even if respondent’s point were correct, it would be irrelevant for purposes of this case. The BIA’s regulation that provides for reopening of deportation proceedings, 8 CFR § 3.2 (1987), applies to all motions to reopen, regardless of the underlying substantive basis of the alien’s claim. Further, the separate regulation relied on by the BIA in denying respondent’s motion to reopen, 8 CFR §208.11 (1987), addresses not the underlying substantive standard for an asylum claim, but rather the additional threshold an alien must overcome on a motion to reopen to make such a claim. As we are simply defining the standard a court of appeals must apply in reviewing the BIA’s denial of reopening on §§ 3.2 and 208.11 grounds — and not the standard for establishing eligibility for asylum, whether initially or on motion to reopen — whatever distinction may exist regarding the BIA’s discretion in determining eligibility for suspension of deportation and for asylum does not affect the question we address today. See n. 3, supra.
See, e. g., Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 294-296 (1974) (reopening of Interstate Commerce Commission licensing hearing only “in the most extraordinary circumstances”); Cities of Campbell v. FERC, 248 U. S. App. D. C. 267, 278, 770 F. 2d 1180, 1191 (1985) (reopening of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission evidentiary hearing “a matter of agency discretion,... reserved for extraordinary circumstances”); Duval Corp. v. Donovan, 650 F. 2d 1051, 1054 (CA9 1981) (reconsideration of Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission order “addressed to that body’s discretion” and “Menial of such a petition should be overturned only upon a showing of the clearest abuse of discretion”); Nance v. EPA, 645 F. 2d 701, 717 (CA9) (“The administrative process cannot provide for the constant reopening of the record to consider new facts,... and it is for the agency, not this court to determine when such reopening is appropriate, unless the failure to reconsider can be characterized an abuse of discretion”), cert. denied sub nom. Crow Tribe of Indians, Montana v. EPA, 454 U. S. 1081 (1981).
See, e. g., United States v. Tucker, 836 F. 2d 334, 336 (CA7 1988) (new trial only if newly discovered evidence “would probably lead to an acquittal in the event of a trial”); United States v. Vergara, 714 F. 2d 21, 22 (CA5 1983) (“[Standard for review of the denial of a motion for new trial on [grounds of newly discovered evidence] rests in the sound discretion of the trial court”); 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 557, p. 315 (1982) (motions for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence “are not favored by the courts and are viewed with great caution”).
See, e. g., Aviles-Torres v. INS, 790 F. 2d 1433, 1436 (CA9 1986) (prima facie showing of entitlement to relief and explanation of failure to present evidence earlier are separate elements of reopening motion); Bahramnia v. INS, 782 F. 2d 1243, 1245 (CA5) (requirements of §§ 3.2 and 208.11 “additional... to the establishment of a prima facie case of eligibility”), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 930 (1986); Ananeh-Firempong v. INS, 766 F. 2d 621, 627 (CA1 1985) (§ 3.2 requirement separate from prima facie case requirement); Duran v. INS, 756 F. 2d 1338, 1340, n. 1 (CA9 1985) (two requirements for reopening to request asylum: prima facie case of eligibility for relief and reasonable explanation for failure to apply initially, under §208.11); Samimi v. INS, 714 F. 2d 992, 994 (CA9 1983) (“To justify reopening on the basis of an asylum claim, a petitioner must make a prima facie showing that he is eligible for the relief sought,... and explain his failure to raise the asylum claim in the previous proceeding. 8 CFR §§ 3.2, 208.11 (1983). Somewhat related to this second requirement is the requirement that the petitioner offer new, material evidence that could not have been discovered and presented at the former hearing. 8 CFR §§ 3.2, 103.5, 242.22 (1983)”).
As we have stated throughout the opinion, to the extent that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning addresses the issue of prima facie case for asylum, we offer no view of its validity, save our observation, infra, at 111, that the untimeliness of an asylum claim may be relevant to the BIA’s decision as to the prima facie case issue on reopening.
See, e. g., Torres-Hernandez v. INS, 812 F. 2d 1262, 1264 (CA9 1987) (abuse-of-discretion standard applied to denial of motion to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a district court may allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea before he is sentenced “if the defendant shows any fair and just reason.” After the defendant in this case pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, the District Court accepted his plea but deferred decision on whether to accept the plea agreement. The defendant then sought to withdraw his plea. We hold that in such circumstances a defendant may not withdraw his plea unless he shows a “fair and just reason” under Rule 32(e).
A federal grand jury indicted respondent Robert Hyde on eight counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and other fraud-related crimes. On the morning of his trial, respondent indicated his desire to enter plea negotiations with the Government. Those negotiations produced a plea agreement in which respondent agreed to plead guilty to four of the counts. In exchange, the Government agreed to move to dismiss the remaining four counts and not to bring further charges against respondent for other allegedly fraudulent conduct.
That afternoon, the parties appeared again before the District Court and submitted the plea agreement to the court, along with respondent’s “application for permission to enter [a] plea of guilty.” After placing respondent under oath, the court questioned him extensively to ensure that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that he understood the consequences of pleading guilty, including the possibility of a maximum sentence of 30 years. The court asked respondent what he had done, and respondent admitted committing the crimes set out in the four counts. The court then asked the Government to set out what it was prepared to prove, and the Government did so. The court asked respondent whether he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty of the crimes set out in the four counts. Respondent said that he was. Finally, the court asked respondent how he pleaded to each count, and respondent stated “guilty.”
The District Court concluded that respondent was pleading guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The court therefore stated that it was accepting respondent’s guilty plea. It also stated that it was deferring decision on whether to accept the plea agreement, pending completion of the presentence report.
One month later, before sentencing and the District Court’s decision about whether to accept the plea agreement, respondent filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. His motion alleged that he had pleaded guilty under duress from the Government and that his admissions to the District Court had in fact been false. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that there was no evidence to support respondent’s claim of duress, and that respondent had not provided a “fair and just reason” for withdrawing his guilty plea, as required by Rule 32(e). The court therefore refused to let respondent withdraw his guilty plea. The court then accepted the plea agreement, entered judgment against respondent on the first four counts, dismissed the indictment’s remaining four counts on the Government’s motion, and sentenced respondent to a prison term of 2Vz years.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that respondent had an absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea before the District Court accepted the plea agreement. 92 F. 3d 779, 781 (1996). The court reasoned as follows: First, before a district court has accepted a defendant’s guilty plea, the defendant has an absolute right to withdraw that plea. Id., at 780 (citing United States v. Washman, 66 F. 3d 210, 212-213 (CA9 1995)). Second, the guilty plea and the plea agreement are “ ‘inextricably bound up together,’ ” such that the court’s deferral of the decision whether to accept the plea agreement also constitutes an automatic deferral of its decision whether to accept the guilty plea, even if the court explicitly states that it is accepting the guilty plea. 92 F. 3d, at 780 (quoting United States v. Cordova-Perez, 65 F. 3d 1552, 1556 (CA9 1995)). Combining these two propositions, the Court of Appeals held that “[i]f the court defers acceptance of the plea or of the plea agreement, the defendant may withdraw his plea for any reason or for no reason, until the time that the court does accept both the plea and the agreement.” 92 F. 3d, at 781.
The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Seventh Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion on this issue. United States v. Ewing, 957 F. 2d 115, 118-119 (CA4 1992); United States v. Ellison, 798 F. 2d 1102, 1106 (CA7 1986). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 519 U. S. 1086 (1997), and now reverse.
To understand why we hold that Rule 32(e) governs here, we must go back to Rule 11, the principal provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure dealing with the subject of guilty pleas and plea agreements. The Court of Appeals equated acceptance of the guilty plea with acceptance of the plea agreement, and deferral of the plea agreement with deferral of the guilty plea. Nothing in the text of Rule 11 supports these conclusions. In fact, the text shows that the opposite is true: Guilty pleas can be accepted while plea agreements are deferred, and the acceptance of the two can be separated in time.
The prerequisites to accepting a guilty plea are set out in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Rule 11. Subdivision (c) says: “Before accepting a plea of guilty . . . , the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands,” numerous consequences of pleading guilty. For example, the court must ensure the defendant understands the maximum possible penalty that he may face by pleading guilty, Rule 11(c)(1), and the important constitutional rights he is waiving, including the right to a trial, Rules 11(c)(3), (4). Subdivision (d) says: “The court shall not accept a plea of guilty . . . without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, determining that the plea is voluntary.” The opening words of these two subdivisions are important: Together, they speak of steps a district court must take “[bjefore accepting a plea of guilty,” and without which it “shall not accept a plea of guilty” Based on this language, we conclude that once the court has taken these steps, it may, in its discretion, accept a defendant’s guilty' plea. The Court of Appeals would read an additional prerequisite into this list: A district court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first accepting the plea agreement. But that “prerequisite” is absent from the list set out in subdivisions (c) and (d), strongly suggesting that no such addition is warranted.
Subdivision (e), which covers plea agreements, also contradicts the Court of Appeals’ holding. That subdivision divides plea agreements into three types, based on what the Government agrees to do: In type A agreements, the Government agrees to move for dismissal of other charges; in type B, it agrees to recommend (or not oppose the defendant’s request for) a particular sentence; and in type C, it agrees that the defendant should receive a specific sentence. As to type A and type C agreements, the Rule states that “the court may accept or reject the agreement, or may defer its decision as to the acceptance or rejection until there has been an opportunity to consider the presentence report.” Rule 11(e)(2). The plea agreement in this case is a type A agreement: The Government agreed to move to dismiss four counts, did not agree to recommend a particular sentence, and did not agree that a specific sentence was the appropriate disposition. The District Court deferred its decision about whether to accept or reject the agreement.
If the court had decided to reject the plea agreement, it would have turned to subdivision (e)(4) of Rule 11. That subdivision, a critical one for our purposes, provides:
“If the court rejects the plea agreement, the court shall ... advise the defendant personally ... that the court is not bound by the plea agreement, afford the defendant the opportunity to then withdraw the plea, and advise the defendant that if the defendant persists in a guilty plea ... the disposition of the case may be less favorable to the defendant than that contemplated by the plea agreement.” Rule 11(e)(4) (emphasis added).
Thus, if the court rejects the agreement, the defendant can “then” withdraw his plea for any reason and does not have to comply with Rule 32(e)’s “fair and just reason” requirement. This provision implements the commonsense notion that a defendant can no longer be bound by an agreement that the court has refused to sanction.
Under the Court of Appeals’ holding, however, the defendant can withdraw his plea “for any reason or for no reason” even if the district court does not reject the plea agreement, but merely defers decision on it. Thus, for the Court of Appeals, the rejection of the plea agreement has no significance: Before rejection, the defendant is free to withdraw his plea; after rejection, the same is true. But the text of Rule 11(e)(4) gives the rejection of the agreement a great deal of significance. Only “then” is the defendant granted “the opportunity” to withdraw his plea. The necessary implication of this provision is that if the court has neither rejected nor accepted the agreement, the defendant is not granted “the opportunity to then withdraw” his plea. The Court of Appeals’ holding contradicts this implication, and thus strips subdivision (e)(4) of any meaning.
Not only is the Court of Appeals’ holding contradicted by the very language of the Rules, it also debases the judicial proceeding at which a defendant pleads and the court accepts his plea. After the defendant has sworn in open court that he actually committed the crimes, after he has stated that he is pleading guilty because he is guilty, after the court has found a factual basis for the plea, and after the court has explicitly announced that it accepts the plea, the Court of Appeals would allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea simply on a lark. The Advisory Committee, in adding the “fair and just reason” standard to Rule 32(e) in 1983, explained why this cannot be so:
“Given the great care with which pleas are taken under [the] revised Rule 11, there is no reason to view pleas so taken as merely ‘tentative,’ subject to withdrawal before sentence whenever the government cannot establish prejudice. ‘Were withdrawal automatic in every case where the defendant decided to alter his tactics and present his theory of the case to the jury, the guilty plea would become a mere gesture, a temporary and meaningless formality reversible at the defendant’s whim. In fact, however, a guilty plea is no such trifle, but a “grave and solemn act,” which is “accepted only with care and discernment.’”” Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32, 18 U. S. C. App., p. 794 (quoting United States v. Barker, 514 F. 2d 208, 221 (CADC 1975), in turn quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 748 (1970)).
We think the Court of Appeals’ holding would degrade the otherwise serious act of pleading guilty into something akin to a move in a game of chess.
The basis for the Court of Appeals’ decision was its prior statement in Cordova-Perez that “[t]he plea agreement and the [guilty] plea are inextricably bound up together.” 65 F. 3d, at 1556 (internal quotation marks omitted). This statement, on its own, is not necessarily incorrect. The guilty plea and the plea agreement are “bound up together” in the sense that a rejection of the agreement simultaneously frees the defendant from his commitment to plead guilty. See Rule 11(e)(4). And since the guilty plea is but one side of the plea agreement, the plea is obviously not wholly independent of the agreement.
But the Rules nowhere state that the guilty plea and the plea agreement must be treated identically. Instead, they explicitly envision a situation in which the defendant performs his side of the bargain (the guilty plea) before the Government is required to perform its side (here, the motion to dismiss four counts). If the court accepts the agreement and thus the Government’s promised performance, then the contemplated agreement is complete and the defendant gets the benefit of his bargain. But if the court rejects the Government’s promised performance, then the agreement is terminated and the defendant has the right to back out of his promised performance (the guilty plea), just as a binding contractual duty may be extinguished by the nonoccurrence of a condition subsequent. See J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Law of Contracts § 11-7, p. 441 (3d ed. 1987); 3A A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts §628, p. 17 (I960).
If the Court of Appeals’ holding were correct, it would also be difficult to see what purpose Rule 32(e) would serve. Since 1983, that Rule has provided: “If a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty ... is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit the plea to be withdrawn if the defendant shows any fair and just reason.” Under the Court of Appeals’ holding, the “fair and just reason” standard would only be applicable between the time that the plea agreement is accepted and the sentence is imposed. Since the decision whether to accept the plea agreement will often be deferred until the sentencing hearing, see Rule 11(e)(2); USSG §6Bl.l(c), at which time the presentence report will have been submitted to the parties, objected to, revised, and filed with the court, see Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32(b)(6), the decision whether to accept the plea agreement will often be made at the same time that the defendant is sentenced. This leaves little, if any, time in which the “fair and just reason” standard would actually apply. We see no indication in the Rules to suggest that Rule 32(e) can be eviscerated in this manner, and the Court of Appeals did not point to one.
Respondent defends this cramped understanding of Rule 32(e) by arguing that the “fair and just reason” standard was meant to apply only to “fully accepted” guilty pleas, as opposed to “conditionally accepted” pleas — i. e., pleas that are accepted but later withdrawn under Rule 11(e)(4) if the plea agreement is rejected. He points out that the “fair and just reason” standard was derived from dictum in our pre-Rules opinion in Kercheval v. United States, 274 U. S. 220, 224 (1927), see Advisory Committee’s Notes on Rule 32, 18 U. S. C. App., p. 794, and that Kercheval spoke of a guilty plea as a final, not a conditional, act, see 274 U. S., at 223 (“A plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extra-judicial confession; it is itself a conviction. Like a verdict of a jury it is conclusive. More is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence”). He then argues that since the Rule 32(e) standard was derived from Kercheval, the Rule must also have incorporated the Kercheval view that a guilty plea is a final, unconditional act. Thus, since his guilty plea was conditioned on the District Court accepting the plea agreement, the Rule simply does not apply.
We reject this somewhat tortuous argument. When the “fair and just reason” standard was added in 1983, the Rules already provided that the district court could defer decision on whether to accept the plea agreement, that it could then reject the agreement, and that the defendant would then be able to withdraw his guilty plea. Guilty pleas made pursuant to plea agreements were thus already subject to this sort of condition subsequent. Yet neither the new Rule 32(e) nor the Advisory Committee’s Notes accompanying it attempted to draw a distinction between “fully accepted” and “conditionally accepted” guilty pleas. Instead, the Rule simply says that the standard applies to motions to withdraw a guilty plea "made before sentence is imposed.” Respondent’s speculation that the Advisory Committee, this Court, and Congress had the Kercheval view of a guilty plea in mind when Rule 32(e) was amended in 1983 is thus contradicted by the Rules themselves.
Respondent’s only other substantial argument in defense of the Court of Appeals’ holding relies on an interpretation of the Advisory Committee’s Notes to Rule 32(b)(3). That Rule, concerning presentence reports, provides: “The report must not be submitted to the court or its contents disclosed to anyone unless the defendant has consented in writing, has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, or has been found guilty.” This Rule obviously does not deal at all with motions to withdraw guilty pleas, and any comments in the Advisory Committee’s Notes to this Rule dealing with plea withdrawal could not alter the meaning of Rules 11 and 32(e) as we have construed them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
See also Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(f) (court should not enter judgment on an accepted guilty plea without confirming that the plea has a factual basis).
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a district court is required to defer its decision about whether to accept a type A or type C agreement until after it has reviewed the presentence report, unless the court believes that a presentence report is not required. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §6Bl.l(c) (Nov. 1995) (USSG).
Respondent argues that it is unfair to bind the defendant to the terms of the plea agreement before the Government is so bound. He therefore argues that, as a policy matter, an interpretation of the Rules that results in such a differential treatment should be rejected. Even if respondent were correct in arguing that the defendant is bound before the Government is bound (a point we do not decide), the fact remains that our task here is not to act as policymaker, deciding how to make the Rules as fair as possible, but rather to determine what the Rules actually provide. Cf. Carlisle v. United States, 517 U. S. 416, 444-445 (1996) (district court may not use “inherent supervisory power” to correct perceived unfairness in application of Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29(a)’s 7-day time limit for filing motions for judgment of acquittal, if use of the power would “circumvent or conflict with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Southern Railway Company, appellee, brought this action in the Federal District Court to enjoin the members of the Alabama Public Service Commission and the Attorney General of Alabama, appellants, from enforcing laws of Alabama prohibiting discontinuance of certain railroad passenger service. Appellee’s Alabama intrastate service is governed by a statute prohibiting abandonment of “any portion of its service to the public . . . unless and until there shall first have been filed an application for a permit to abandon service and obtained from the commission a permit allowing such abandonment.” Ala. Code, 1940, tit. 48, i 106. Severe penalties are prescribed for wilful violation of regulatory statutes or orders of the Commission by utilities or their employees. Id. §§ 399, 400, 405.
Appellee operates a railroad system throughout the South. This case, however, involves only that Alabama intrastate passenger service furnished by trains Nos. 7 and 8 operated daily between Tuscumbia, Alabama, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, a distance of approximately 145 miles mainly within Alabama. On September 13, 1948, appellee applied to the Alabama Public Service Commission for permission to discontinue trains Nos. 7 and 8, alleging that public use of the service had so declined that revenues fell far short of meeting direct operating expenses. After hearing evidence at Huntsville, Alabama, one of the communities served by the trains, the Commission entered an order on April 3, 1950, denying permission to discontinue on the grounds that there exists a public need for the service and that appellee had not attempted to reduce losses through adoption of more economical operating methods.
Instead of pursuing its right of appeal to the state courts, appellee filed a complaint in the United States District Court alleging diversity of citizenship and that requiring continued operation of trains Nos. 7 and 8 at an out-of-pocket loss amounted to a confiscation of its property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Injunctive relief was prayed to protect appellee from irreparable loss, flowing on the one hand from operating losses in complying with Alabama law or, on the other, from severe penalties for discontinuance of service in the face of that law. A three-judge court heard evidence, made its own findings of fact and entered judgment holding the Commission order void and permanently enjoining appellants from taking any steps to enforce either the Commission order or the penalty provisions of the Alabama Code in relation to the discontinuance of trains Nos. 7 and 8. 91 F. Supp. 980 (1950). The case is properly here on appeal, 28 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 1253.
Federal jurisdiction in this case is grounded upon diversity of citizenship as well as the allegation of a federal question. Exercise of that jurisdiction does not involve construction of a state statute so ill-defined that a federal court should hold the case pending a definitive construction of that statute in the state courts, e. g., Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941); Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U. S. 321 (1950). We also put to one side those cases in which the constitutionality of a state statute itself is drawn into question, e. g., Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385 (1948). For in this case appellee attacks a state administrative order issued under a valid regulatory statute designed to assure the provision of adequate intrastate service by utilities operating within Alabama.
Appellee takes the position, adopted by the court below, that whenever a plaintiff can show irreparable loss caused by an allegedly invalid state administrative order ripe for judicial review in the state courts the presence of diversity of citizenship or a federal question opens the federal courts to litigation as to the validity of that order, at least so long as no action involving the same subject matter is actually pending in the state courts. But, it by-no means follows from the fact of district court jurisdiction that such jurisdiction must be exercised in this case. As framed by the Court in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, 318 (1943), the question before us is:
“Assuming that the federal district court had jurisdiction, should it, as a matter of sound equitable discretion, have declined to exercise that jurisdiction here?”
In assessing the propriety of equitable relief, a review of the regulatory problem involved in this case is appropriate.
Appellee conducts an interstate business over the same tracks and by means of the same trains involved in this case, and such interstate activities are regulated by the Federal Interstate Commerce Commission, 49 U. S. C. §§ 1 et seq. But, it has long been held that this interblending of the interstate and intrastate operations does not deprive the states of their primary authority over intrastate transportation in the absence of congressional action supplementing that authority. Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352 (1913). And Congress has since provided:
“That nothing in [the Interstate Commerce Act] shall impair or affect the right of a State, in the exercise of its police power, to require just and reasonable freight and passenger service for intrastate business, except insofar as such requirement is inconsistent with any lawful order of the [Interstate Commerce Commission].” 49 U. S. C. § 1 (17) (a).
This Court has held that regulation of intrastate railroad service is “primarily the concern of the state.” North Carolina v. United States, 325 U. S. 507, 511 (1945) (rates); Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79 (1939) (discontinuance of local service).
State and federal regulatory agencies have expressed concern over the chronic deficit arising out of passenger train operations as a threat to the financial security of the American railroads and have recommended drastic action to minimize the deficit, including the discontinuance of unpatronized and unprofitable service. However, our concern in this case is limited to the propriety of a federal court injunction enjoining enforcement of a state regulatory order.
The court below justified the exercise of its jurisdiction with a finding that continued operation of trains Nos. 7 and 8 would result in confiscation of appellee’s property-in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In pursuing the threshold inquiry whether a federal court should exercise jurisdiction in this case, we find it unnecessary to consider issues relating to the merits of appellee’s case, issues which appellants did not see fit to raise in this Court either in their Statement of Jurisdiction or in their briefs. We do note that in passing upon similar contentions in the past, this Court has recognized that review of an order requiring performance of a particular utility service, even at a pecuniary loss, is subject to considerations quite different from those involved when the return on the entire intrastate operations of a utility is drawn into question. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 24—27 (1907). The problems raised by the discontinuance of trains Nos. 7 and 8 cannot be resolved alone by reference to appellee’s loss in their operation but depend more upon the predominantly local factor of public need for the service rendered. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 242 U. S. 603, 608 (1917).
The Alabama Commission, after a hearing held in the area served, found a public need for the service. The court below, hearing evidence de novo, found that no public necessity exists in view of the increased use and availability of motor transportation. We do not attempt to resolve these inconsistent findings of fact. We take note, however, of the fact that a federal court has been asked to intervene in resolving the essentially local problem of balancing the loss to the railroad from continued operation of trains Nos. 7 and 8 with the public need for that service in Tuscumbia, Decatur, Huntsville, Scottsboro, and the other Alabama communities directly-affected.
Not only has Alabama established its Public Service Commission to pass upon a proposed discontinuance of intrastate transportation service, but it has also provided for appeal from any final order of the Commission to the circuit court of Montgomery County as a matter of right. Ala. Code, 1940, tit. 48, § 79. That court, after a hearing on the record certified by the Commission, is empowered to set aside any Commission order found to be contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, id. § 82, and its decision may be appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. Id. § 90. Statutory appeal from an order of the Commission is an integral part of the regulatory process under the Alabama Code. Appeals, concentrated in one circuit court, are “supervisory in character.” Avery Freight Lines, Inc. v. White, 245 Ala. 618, 622-623, 18 So. 2d 394, 398 (1944). The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that it will review an order of the Commission as if appealed directly to it, Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 34, 39 So. 2d 409, 412 (1949), and that judicial review calls for an independent judgment as to both law and facts when a denial of due process is asserted. Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 253 Ala. 1, 11-12, 42 So. 2d 655, 662 (1949).
The fact that review in the Alabama courts is limited to the record taken before the Commission presents no constitutional infirmity. Washington ex rel. Oregon R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510 (1912). And, whatever the scope of review of Commission findings when an alleged denial of constitutional rights is in issue, it is now settled that a utility has no right to relitigate factual questions on the ground that constitutional rights are involved. New York v. United States, 331 U. S. 284, 334-336 (1947); Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 311 U. S. 570, 576 (1941). Appellee complains of irreparable injury resulting from the Commission order pending judicial review, but has not invoked the protective powers of the Alabama courts to direct the stay or supersedeas of a Commission order pending appeal. Ala. Code, 1940, tit. 48, §§ 81, 84. Appellee has not shown that the Alabama procedure for review of Commission orders is in any way inadequate to preserve for ultimate review in this Court any federal questions arising out of such orders.
As adequate state court review of an administrative order based upon predominantly local factors is available to appellee, intervention of a federal court is not necessary for the protection of federal rights. Equitable relief may be granted only when the District Court, in its sound discretion exercised with the “scrupulous regard for the rightful independence of state governments which should at all times actuate the federal courts,” is convinced that the asserted federal right cannot be preserved except by granting the “extraordinary relief of an injunction in the federal courts.” Considering that “[f]ew public interests have a higher claim upon the discretion of a federal chancellor than the avoidance of needless friction with state policies,” the usual rule of comity must govern the exercise of equitable jurisdiction by the District Court in this case. Whatever rights appellee may have are to be pursued through the state courts. Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315 (1943); Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 311 U. S. 570, 577 (1941); Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U. S. 573, as amended, 311 U. S. 614, 615 (1940).
The Johnson Act, 48 Stat. 775 (1934), now 28 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 1342, does not affect the result in this case. That Act deprived federal district courts of jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of certain state administrative orders affecting public utility rates where “A plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” As the order of the Alabama Service Commission involved in this case is not one affecting appellee’s rates, the Johnson Act is not applicable. We have assumed throughout this opinion that the court below had jurisdiction, supra, p. 345, but hold that jurisdiction should not be exercised in this case as a matter of sound equitable discretion. As this Court held in Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 297-298 (1943):
“This withholding of extraordinary relief by courts having authority to give it is not a denial of the jurisdiction which Congress has conferred on the federal courts .... On the contrary, it is but a recognition . . . that a federal court of equity . . . should stay its hand in the public interest when it reasonably appears that private interests will not suffer. . . .
“It is in the public interest that federal courts of equity should exercise their discretionary power to grant or withhold relief so as to avoid needless obstruction of the domestic policy of the states.”
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
Upon the filing of an application for permission to discontinue, the statute provides for notification of municipal officials, publication of notice in the area affected by the change in service, and a hearing by the Commission. Ala. Code, 1940, tit. 48, § 107. “The commission, as it deems to the best interest of the public, may grant in part or in whole, or may refuse such applications, . . . .” Id. § 108.
Ala. Code, 1940, tit. 48, §§ 79 et seq.
Under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. III) §2281, only a district court of three judges may issue an injunction restraining enforcement of “any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes . . . .” The word “statute” comprehends all state legislative enactments, including those expressed through administrative orders. American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 591-593 (1946); Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290, 292 (1923).
Appellants contend for the first time in this Court that a suit to restrain state officials from enforcing unconstitutional state laws is, in effect, a suit against the state prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The contention is not tenable in view of the many cases prior to and following Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), in which this Court has granted such relief over the same objection.
The Alabama statute requiring application for a permit from the Alabama Public Service Commission before discontinuing transportation service was upheld by this Court in St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 279 U. S. 560 (1929). The statute was recently construed and applied by the Alabama Supreme Court in Alabama Public Service Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 253 Ala. 559, 45 So. 2d 449 (1950).
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501, 504-505 (1947); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 297 (1943); Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W. I. Southern, Inc., 306 U. S. 563, 570 (1939); Canada Malting Co., Ltd. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd., 285 U. S. 413, 422-423 (1932).
Appellee seeks to discontinue only two of several passenger trains serving the same communities. This is a proposed partial discontinuance and not an abandonment over which the Interstate Commerce Commission is given exclusive authority under 49 U. S. C. §§ 1 (18-20). Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153 (1926). The I. C. C. has held that it has no authority under 49 U. S. C. §§ 1 (18-20) to authorize a partial discontinuance as such of intrastate passenger service. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 94 I. C. C. 691 (1925); New York Central R. Co., 254 I. C. C. 745, 765 (1944).
See 64th Annual Report, Interstate Commerce Commission (1950) 5-6; 63d Annual Report, Interstate Commerce Commission (1949) 4 — 5; Increased Freight Rates, 194-8, 276 I. C. C. 9, 32-40 (1949); Proceedings, 61st Annual Convention, National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners (1949) 378-382, 410-414.
As the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission under 49 U. S. C. § 13 (4) has not been invoked for decision as to whether the continuance of this intrastate service constitutes an undue discrimination against interstate commerce, we cannot, in this proceeding, consider any impact the order of the Alabama Public Service Commission might have on interstate commerce. Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 267 U. S. 493 (1925), and cases cited therein.
Compare Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U. S. 196 (1924), where supersedeas was not available to adequately protect federal rights, and Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290 (1923), where supersedeas was sought but denied by the state court.
Compare such cases as Bacon v. Rutland R. Co., 232 U. S. 134 (1914), where State judicial review procedures plus review in this Court were thought to be inadequate. This inadequacy derived from the rationale that the federal right of a utility to be protected from confiscation of its property depended upon “pure matters of fact” to the extent that a de novo hearing of such facts in a federal court was essential to the protection of constitutional rights. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 211 U. S. 210, 228 (1908). See Lilienthal, The Federal Courts and State Regulation of Public Utilities, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 379,424 (1930). The decisions in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 311 U. S. 570, 576 (1941), and New York v. United States, supra, holding that due process does not require relitigation of factual matters determined by an administrative body, eliminated the premise upon which equitable relief in Bacon rested.
Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U. S. 521, 525 (1932). See Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U. S. 176, 185 (1935).
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U. S. 573, as amended, 311 U. S. 614, 615 (1940).
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 500 (1941).
In Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U. S. 228, 237 (1943), the Court sustained the exercise of jurisdiction by a federal court in a case involving matters of state law, but only where decision “does not require the federal court to determine or shape state policy governing administrative agencies” and “entails no interference with such agencies or with the state courts.” The absence of a legal remedy in the federal courts does not of itself justify the granting of equitable relief in such cases. Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W. I. Southern, Inc., 306 U. S. 563, 569-570 (1939).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases involve controversies between the United States and respondent carriers over the transportation charges for shipments of government property in 1941. In one case phosphate rock and superphosphate are involved; in the other, phosphate rock. In both the commodities were purchased by the United States, shipped on government bills of lading over the lines of respondents, and consigned to the British Ministry of War Transport. They were exported to Great Britain under the Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, 55 Stat. 31, 22 U. S. C. Supp. I, § 411 et seq., for use as farm fertilizer under Britain’s wartime program for intensified production of food. It is agreed that these shipments were “defense articles” as defined in § 2 of that Act.
Respondents billed the United States for transportation charges on these shipments at the commercial rate and were paid at that rate. The Seaboard is a land-grant railroad. The Atlantic Coast Line is not; but it entered into an equalization agreement with the United States in 1938 under which it agreed to accept land-grant rates for shipments which the United States could alternatively move over a land-grant road. The General Accounting Office excepted to these payments on the ground that land-grant rates were applicable. The amounts of the alleged over-payments were deducted from subsequent bills concededly due by the United States. Respondents thereupon instituted suits under the Tucker Act, 36 Stat. 1091, 1093, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 41 (20), to recover the amounts withheld. The United States counterclaimed for the difference between the amounts due under the commercial rate and those due under the land-grant rate and asked that the difference be set off against the claims of respondents and that the complaints be dismissed. The District Courts gave judgment for respondents. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 152 F. 2d 228, 230. The cases are here on petitions for writs of certiorari which we granted because of the importance of determining the controlling principle for settlement of the many claims of this character against the Government.
For years the land-grant rate was fifty per cent of the commercial rate and was applicable to the transportation of property or troops of the United States. 43 Stat. 477, 486, 10 U. S. C. § 1375; United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 249 U. S. 354, 355; Southern Ry. Co. v. United States, 322 U. S. 72, 73. A change was effected by the Transportation Act of September 18, 1940, 54 Stat. 898, 954, 49 U. S. C. § 65. See Krug v. Santa Fe Pac. R. Co., 329 U. S. 591. All carriers by railroad which released their land-grant claims against the United States were by that Act entitled to the full commercial rates for all shipments, except that those rates were inapplicable to the transportation of “military or naval property of the United States moving for military or naval and not for civil use or to the transportation of members of the military or naval forces of the United States (or of property of such members) when such members are traveling on official duty . . . .” § 321 (a). The Seaboard filed such a release. Accordingly, the question presented by these cases is whether the fertilizer was “military or naval property of the United States moving for military or naval and not for civil use” within the meaning of § 321 (a) of the Transportation Act.
The legislative history of the Transportation Act of 1940 throws no light on the scope of the except clause. But it is apparent from the face of the statute that there are important limitations on the type of property which must be carried at less than the applicable commercial rates. In the first place, it is not the transportation of “all” property of the United States that is excepted but only the transportation of “military or naval” property of the United States. In the second place, the excepted property must be “moving for military or naval and not for civil use.” Thus the scope of the clause is restricted both by the nature of the property shipped and by the use to which it will be put at the end of the transportation.
The bulk and main stress of petitioner’s argument are based on the Lend-Lease Act which was enacted about six months after the Transportation Act. It is pointed out that in the case of every shipment under the Lend-Lease Act there was a finding by the Executive that the shipment would promote our national defense, that the Act was indeed a defense measure, and that unless the administration of that Act is impeached, all lend-lease “defense articles” fall within the except clause and are entitled to land-grant rates.
Under conditions of modern warfare, foodstuffs lend-leased for civilian consumption sustained the war production program and made possible the continued manufacture of munitions, arms, and other war supplies necessary to maintain the armed forces. For like reasons, fertilizers which made possible increased food production served the same end. In that sense all civilian supplies which maintained the health and vigor of citizens at home or abroad served military functions.
So for us the result would be clear if the standards of the Lend-Lease Act were to be read into the Transportation Act. For the circumstance that the fertilizer was to be used by an ally rather than by this nation would not be controlling.
Our difficulty, however, arises when we are asked to transplant those standards into the Transportation Act. And that difficulty is not surmounted though the exception in § 321 (a) be construed, as it must be, Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, decided this day, post, p. 248, strictly in favor of the United States.
In the first place, the Transportation Act, which preceded the Lend-Lease Act by only six months, provided its own standards. They were different at least in terms from the standards of the Lend-Lease Act; and they were provided at a time when Congress was much concerned with the problems of national defense. In September, 1940, when the Transportation Act was passed, Congress and the nation were visibly aware of the possibilities of war. Appropriations for the army and navy were being increased and the scope of their operations widened, alien registration was required, training of civilians for military service was authorized, development of stock piles of strategic and critical materials was encouraged —to mention only a few of the measures being passed in the interests of national defense. See 50 Yale L. J. 250. Moreover, the realities of total war were by then plain to all. Europe had fallen; militarism was rampant. Yet in spite of our acute awareness of the nature of total war, in spite of the many measures being enacted and the many steps being taken by the Congress and the Chief Executive to prepare our national defense, § 321 (a) of the Transportation Act was couched in different terms. In other parts of that Act, as in many-other congressional enactments passed during the period, the exigencies of national defense constituted the standard to govern administrative action. But the standard written into § 321 (a) did not reflect the necessities of national defense or the demands which total war makes on an economy. It used more conventional language—“military or naval” use as contrasted to “civil” use. That obviously is not conclusive on the problem of interpretation which these cases present. But in light of the environment in which § 321 (a) was written we are reluctant to conclude that Congress meant “all property of the United States transported for the national defense” when it used more restrictive language.
In the second place, the language of § 321 (a) emphasizes a distinction which would be largely obliterated if the requirements of national defense, accentuated by a total war being waged in other parts of the world, were read into it. Section 321 (a) uses “military or naval” use in contrast to “civil” use. Yet if these fertilizer shipments are not for “civil” use, we would find it difficult to hold that like shipments by the Government to farmers in this country during the course of the war were for “civil” use. For in total war food supplies of allies are pooled; and the importance of maintaining full agricultural production in this country if the war effort was to be successful, cannot be gainsaid. When the resources of a nation are mobilized for war, most of what it does is for a military end—whether it be rationing, or increased industrial or agricultural production, price control, or the host of other familiar activities. But in common parlance, such activities are civil, not military. It seems to us that Congress marked that distinction when it wrote § 321 (a). If that is not the distinction, then “for military or naval and not for civil use” would have to be read “for military or naval use or for civil use which serves the national defense.” So to construe § 321 (a) would, it seems to us, largely or substantially wipe out the line which Congress drew and, in time of war, would blend “civil” and “military” when Congress undertook to separate them. Yet § 321 (a) was designed as permanent legislation, not as a temporary measure to meet the exigencies of war. It was to supply the standard by which rates for government shipments were to be determined at all times—in peace as well as in war. Only if the distinction between “military” and “civil” which common parlance marks is preserved, will the statute have a constant meaning whether shipments are made in days of peace, at times when there is hurried activity for defense, or during a state of war.
In the third place, the exception in § 321 (a) extends not only to the transportation of specified property for specified uses. It extends as well to “the transportation of members of the military or naval forces of the United States (or of property of such members) when such members are traveling on official duty . . . .” That clause plainly does not include the multitude of civilians employed by the Government during the war and exclusively engaged in furthering the war effort, whether they be lend-lease officials or others. Thus, the entire except clause contained in § 321 (a) will receive a more harmonious construction if the scope of “military or naval” is less broadly construed, so as to be more consonant with the restrictive sense in which it is obviously used in the personnel portion of the clause.
In sum, we hold that respondents in these cases were entitled to the full applicable commercial rate for the transportation of the fertilizer. In Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, supra, we develop more fully the breadth of the category of “military or naval property” of the United States “moving for military or naval . . . use.” It is sufficient here to say that the fertilizer was being transported for a “civil” use within the meaning of § 321 (a), since it was destined for use by civilian agencies in agricultural projects and not for use by the armed services to satisfy any of their needs or wants or by any civilian agency which acted as their adjunct or otherwise serviced them in any of their activities.
Affirmed.
Mb. Justice Rutledge dissents.
The term includes “Any agricultural, industrial or other commodity or article for defense.”
The points from which the phosphate was moved by the Atlantic Coast Line are also stations on the Seaboard Line. Hence the United States is entitled to secure land-grant deductions from the Atlantic Coast Line if the Seaboard would have been subject to land-grant rates on those articles.
Since the land-grant rates were substantially lower than the commercial rates, roads which competed with the land-grant lines were unable to get the government business. For that reason they entered into equalization agreements. See Southern Ry. Co. v. United States, 322 U. S. 72, 73-74.
Section 321 (b).
This provision was eliminated from § 321 (a) by the Act of December 12, 1945, 59 Stat. 606, 49 U. S. C. Supp. V, § 65 (a). Section 2 of that Act made October 1, 1946, the effective date of the amendment but provided that “any travel or transportation specifically contracted for prior to such effective date shall be paid for at the rate, fare, or charge in effect at the time of entering into such contract of carriage or shipment."
Senator Wheeler, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, who had charge of the bill on the floor, made the following statement concerning pending controversies of the nature involved in the instant cases:
“Now, Mr. President, I wish to repeat what I said a moment ago. It should be made perfectly clear that the passage of this bill resulting in the repeal of the land-grant rates will have no effect whatever upon the controversies as to the proper classification of this material, provided it has moved prior to the effective date of the act. These controversies, which were discussed extensively at the hearings, will have to be settled by the courts; and action on the present bill, if favorable, will have no effect whatever upon the question of whether materials that have moved prior to the repeal fall within or without the classification of military or naval property.” 91 Cong. Rec. p. 9237.
See H. Rep. No. 2016, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 87; H. Rep. No. 2832, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 93. Relief from land-grant deductions was urged on the basis of the financial plight of the railroads and the substantial increase in government traffic which occurred in the 1930’s. See Report of President’s Committee of September 20, 1938, 1 Hearings, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., on H. R. 2531, pp. 261, 271-272; Public Aids to Transportation (1938), Vol. II, pp. 42-45. The section finally enacted appears to represent a compromise between a House Bill eliminating land-grant rates entirely (see H. Rep. No. 1217, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 27) and a Senate Bill which by its silence left them unchanged. S. 2009, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.
The authority was vested in the President, who might, when he deemed it “in the interest of national defense,” authorize the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the Government to lease, lend, etc., “any defense article.” § 3 (a) (2).
The Act was entitled “An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States”; and the interests of national defense were the standards governing its administration, as § 3 (a) (2), supra, note 6, makes plain. The same purpose is evident from the Committee Reports. H. Rep. No. 18, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2, 11; S. Rep. No. 45, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. And as President Roosevelt stated on September 11, 1941, in transmitting the Second Report under the Act, “We are not furnishing this aid as an act of charity or sympathy, but as a means of defending America. . . . The lend-lease program is no mere side issue to our program of arming for defense. It is an integral part, a keystone, in our great national effort to preserve our national security for generations to come, by crushing the disturbers of our peace.” S. Doc. No. 112, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. VI.
See, for example, Act of June 11, 1940, 54 Stat. 265, 292, 297; Act of June 13, 1940, 54 Stat. 350, 377; Act of June 14, 1940, 54 Stat. 394; Acts of June 15, 1940, 54 Stat. 396, 54 Stat. 400; Act of June 26, 1940, 54 Stat. 599.
Act of June 28, 1940, 54 Stat. 670, 8 U. S. C. § 451 et seq.
Act of September 16, 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 50 U. S. C. App. § 301 et seq.
Act of September 16, 1940, 54 Stat. 897.
Thus § 1 emphasized the policy in establishing a national transportation system adequate, inter alia, to meet the needs “of the national defense.”
The provision under land-grant legislation that “troops of the United States” should be transported at half rates was held not to include discharged soldiers, discharged military prisoners, rejected applicants for enlistment, applicants for enlistment provisionally accepted, retired enlisted men, or furloughed soldiers en route back to their stations. United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., supra. The same result was reached in the case of engineer officers of the War Department who were assigned to duty in connection with the improvement of rivers and harbors. Southern Pacific Co. v. United States, 285 U. S. 240.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1994, Kansas enacted the Sexually Violent Predator Act, which establishes procedures for-the civil commitment of persons who, due to a “mental abnormality” or a “personality disorder,” are likely to engage in “predatory acts of sexual violence.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-29a01 et seq. (1994). The State invoked the Act for the first time to commit Leroy Hendricks, an inmate who had a long history of sexually molesting children, and who was scheduled for release from prison shortly after the Act became law. - Hendricks challenged his commitment on, inter alia, “substantive” due process, double jeopardy, and ex post facto grounds. The Kansas Supreme Court invalidated the Act, holding that its precommitment condition of a “mental abnormality” did not satisfy what the court perceived to be the “substantive” due process requirement that involuntary civil commitment must be predicated on a finding of “mental illness.” In re Hendricks, 259 Kan. 246, 261, 912 P. 2d 129, 138 (1996). The State of Kansas petitioned for certiorari. Hendricks subsequently filed a cross-petition in which he reasserted his federal double jeopardy and ex post facto claims. We granted certiorari on both the petition and the cross-petition, 518 U. S. 1004 (1996), and now reverse the judgment below.
I
A
The Kansas Legislature enacted the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Act) in 1994 to grapple with the problem of managing repeat sexual offenders. Although Kansas already had a statute addressing the involuntary commitment of those defined as “mentally ill,” the legislature determined that existing civil commitment procedures were inadequate to confront the risks presented by “sexually violent predators.” In the Act’s preamble, the legislature explained:
“[A] small but extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators exist who do not have a mental disease or defect that renders them appropriate for involuntary treatment pursuant to the [general involuntary civil commitment statute]_ In contrast to persons appropriate for civil commitment under the [general involuntary civil commitment statute], sexually violent predators generally have anti-social personality features which are unamenable to existing mental illness treatment modalities and those features render them likely to engage in sexually violent behavior. The legislature further finds that sexually violent predators’ likelihood of engaging in repeat acts of predatory sexual violence is high. The existing involuntary commitment procedure... is inadequate to address the risk these sexually violent predators pose to society. The legislature further finds that the prognosis for rehabilitating sexually violent predators in a prison setting is poor, the treatment needs of this population are very long term and the treatment modalities for this population are very different than the traditional treatment modalities for people appropriate for commitment under the [general involuntary civil commitment statute].” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-29a01 (1994).
As a result, the legislature found it necessary to establish “a civil commitment procedure for the long-term care and treatment of the sexually violent predator.” Ibid. The Act defined a “sexually violent predator” as:
“any person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in the predatory acts of sexual violence.” § 59-29a02(a).
A “mental abnormality” was defined, in turn, as a “congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses in a degree constituting such person a menace to the health and safety of others.” § 59-29a02(b).
As originally structured, the Act’s civil commitment procedures pertained to: (1) a presently confined person who, like Hendricks, “has been convicted of a sexually violent offense” and is scheduled for release; (2) a person who has been “charged with a sexually violent offense” but has been found incompetent to stand trial; (3) a person who has been found “not guilty by reason of insanity of a sexually violent offense”; and (4) a person found “not guilty” of a sexually violent offense because of a mental disease or defect. § 59— 29a03(a), §22-3221 (1995).
The initial version of the Act, as applied to a currently confined person such as Hendricks, was designed to initiate a specific series of procedures. The custodial agency was required to notify the local prosecutor 60 days before the anticipated release of a person who might have met the Act’s criteria. §59-29a03. The prosecutor was then obligated, within 45 days, to decide whether to file a petition in state court seeking the person’s involuntary commitment. § 59— 29a04. If such a petition were filed, the court was to determine whether “probable cause” existed to support a finding that the person was a “sexually violent predator” and thus eligible for civil commitment. Upon such a determination, transfer of the individual to a secure facility for professional evaluation would occur. § 59-29a05. After that evaluation, a trial would be held to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the individual was a sexually violent predator. If that determination were made, the person would then be transferred to the custody of the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services (Secretary) for “control, care and treatment until such time as the person’s mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that the person is safe to be at large.” § 59-29a07(a).
In addition to placing the burden of proof upon the State, the Act afforded the individual a number of other procedural safeguards. In the case of an indigent person, the State was required to provide, at public expense, the assistance of counsel and an examination by mental health care professionals. § 59-29a06. The individual also received the right to present and cross-examine' witnesses, and the opportunity to review documentary evidence presented by the State. § 59-29a07.
Once an individual was confined, the Act required that “[t]he involuntary detention or commitment... shall conform to constitutional requirements for care and treatment.” § 59-29a09. Confined persons were afforded three different avenues of review: First, the committing court was obligated to conduct an annual review to determine whether continued detention was warranted. §59-29a08. Second, the Secretary was permitted, at any time, to decide that the confined individual’s condition had so changed that release was appropriate, and could then authorize the person to petition for release. § 59-29al0. Finally, even without the Secretary’s permission, the confined person could at any time file a release petition. §59-29all. If the court found that the State could no longer satisfy its burden under the initial commitment standard, the individual would be freed from confinement.
B
In 1984, Hendricks was convicted of taking “indecent liberties” with two 13-year-old boys. After serving nearly 10 years of his sentence, he was slated for release to a halfway house. Shortly before his scheduled release, however, the State filed a petition in state court seeking Hendricks’ civil confinement as a sexually violent predator. On August 19, 1994, Hendricks appeared before the court with counsel and -moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the Act violated various federal constitutional provisions. Although the court reserved ruling on the Act’s constitutionality, it concluded that there was probable cause to support a finding that Hendricks was a sexually violent predator, and therefore ordered that he be evaluated at the Larned State Security Hospital.
Hendricks subsequently requested a jury trial to determine whether he qualified as a sexually violent predator. During that trial, Hendricks’ own testimony revealed a chilling history of repeated child sexual molestation and abuse, beginning in 1955 when he exposed his genitals to two young girls. At that time, he pleaded guilty to indecent exposure. Then, in 1957, he was convicted of lewdness involving a young girl and received a brief jail sentence. In 1960, he molested two young boys while he worked for a carnival. After serving two years in prison for that offense, he was paroled, only to be rearrested for molesting a 7-year-old girl. Attempts were made to treat him for his sexual deviance, and in 1965 he was considered “safe to be at large,” and was discharged from a state psychiatric hospital. App. 139-144.
Shortly thereafter, however, Hendricks sexually assaulted another young boy and girl — he performed oral sex on the 8-year-old girl and fondled the 11-year-old boy. He was again imprisoned in 1967, but refused to participate in a sex offender treatment program, and thus remained incarcerated until his parole in 1972. Diagnosed as a pedophile, Hendricks entered into, but then abandoned, a treatment program. He testified that despite having received professional help for his pedophilia, he continued to harbor sexual desires for children. Indeed, soon after his 1972 parole, Hendricks began to abuse his own stepdaughter and stepson. He forced the children to engage in sexual activity with him over a period of approximately four years. Then, as noted above, Hendricks was convicted of “taking indecent liberties” with two adolescent boys after he attempted to fondle them. As a result of that conviction, he was once again imprisoned, and was serving that sentence when he reached his conditional release date in September 1994.
Hendricks admitted that he had repeatedly abused children whenever he was not confined. He explained that when he “get[s] stressed out,” he “can’t control the urge” to molest children. Id., at 172. Although Hendricks recognized that his behavior harms children, and he hoped he would not sexually molest children again, he stated that the only sure way he could keep from sexually abusing children in the future was “to die.” Id., at 190. Hendricks readily agreed with the state physician’s diagnosis that he suffers from pedophilia and that he is not cured of the condition; indeed, he told the physician that “treatment is bull-.” Id., at 153, 190.
The jury unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hendricks was a sexually violent predator. The trial court subsequently determined, as a matter of state law, that pedophilia qualifies as a “mental abnormality” as defined by the Act, and thus ordered Hendricks committed to the Secretary’s custody.
Hendricks appealed, claiming, among other things, that application of the Act to him violated the Federal Constitution’s Due Process, Double Jeopardy, and Ex Post Facto Clauses. The Kansas Supreme Court accepted Hendricks’ due process claim. 259 Kan., at 261, 912 P. 2d, at 138. The court declared that in order to commit a person involuntarily in a civil proceeding, a State is required by “substantive” due process to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person is both (1) mentally ill, and (2) a danger to himself or to others. Id., at 259, 912 P. 2d, at 137. The court then determined that the Act’s definition of “mental abnormality” did not satisfy what it perceived to be this Court’s “mental illness” requirement in the civil commitment context. As a result, the court held that “the Act violates Hendricks’ substantive due process rights.” Id., at 261, 912 P. 2d, at 138.
The majority did not address Hendricks’ ex post facto or double jeopardy claims. The dissent, however, considered each of Hendricks’ constitutional arguments and rejected them. Id., at 264-294, 912 P. 2d, 140-156 (Larson, J., dissenting).
. II
A
Kansas argues that the Act’s definition of “mental abnormality” satisfies “substantive” due process requirements. We agree. Although freedom from physical restraint “has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action,” Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U. S. 71, 80 (1992), that liberty interest is not absolute. The Court has recognized that an individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint may be overridden even in the civil context:
“[T]he liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts197 U. S. 11, 26 (1905).
Accordingly, States have in certain narrow circumstances provided for the forcible civil detainment of people who are unable to control their behavior and who thereby pose a danger to the public health and safety. See, e. g., 1788 N. Y. Laws, ch. 31 (Feb. 9, 1788) (permitting confinement of the “furiously mad”); see also A. Deutsch, The Mentally Ill in America (1949) (tracing history of civil commitment in the 18th and 19th centuries); G. Grob, Mental Institutions in America: Social Policy to 1875 (1973) (discussing colonial and early American civil commitment statutes). We have consistently upheld such involuntary commitment statutes provided the confinement takes place pursuant to proper procedures and evidentiary standards. See Foucha, supra, at 80; Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 426-427 (1979). It thus cannot be said that the involuntary civil confinement of a limited subclass of dangerous persons is contrary to our understanding of ordered liberty. Cf. id., at 426.
The challenged Act unambiguously requires a finding of dangerousness either to one’s self or to others as a prerequisite to involuntary confinement. Commitment proceedings can be initiated only when a person “has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense,” and “suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in the predatory acts of sexual violence.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-29a02(a) (1994). The statute thus requires proof of more than a mere predisposition to violence; rather, it requires evidence of past sexually violent behavior and a present mental condition that creates a likelihood of such conduct in the future if the person is not incapacitated. As we have recognized, “[previous instances of violent behavior are an important indicator of future violent tendencies.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 323 (1993); see also Schall v. Martin, 467 U. S. 253, 278 (1984) (explaining that “from a legal point of view there is nothing inherently unattainable about a prediction of future criminal conduct”).
A finding of dangerousness, standing alone, is ordinarily not a sufficient ground upon which to justify indefinite involuntary commitment. We have sustained civil commitment statutes when they have coupled proof of dangerousness with the proof of some additional factor, such as a “mental illness” or “mental abnormality.” See, e. g., Heller, supra, at 314-315 (Kentucky statute permitting commitment of “mentally retarded” or “mentally ill” and dangerous individual); Allen v. Illinois, 478 U. S. 364, 366 (1986) (Illinois statute permitting commitment of “mentally ill” and dangerous individual); Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey Cty., 309 U. S. 270, 271-272 (1940) (Minnesota statute permitting commitment of dangerous individual with “psychopathic personality”). These added statutory requirements serve to limit involuntary civil confinement to those who suffer from a volitional impairment rendering them dangerous beyond their control. The Kansas Act is plainly of a kind with these other civil commitment statutes: It requires a finding of future dangerousness, and then links that finding to the existence of a “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the person to control his dangerous behavior. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-29a02(b) (1994). The precommitment requirement of a “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” is consistent with the requirements of these other statutes that we have upheld in that it narrows the class of persons eligible for confinement to those who are unable to control their dangerousness.
Hendricks nonetheless argues that our earlier cases dictate a finding of “mental illness” as a prerequisite for civil commitment, citing Foucha and Addington. He then asserts that a “mental abnormality” is not equivalent to a “mental illness” because it is a term coined by the Kansas Legislature, rather than by the psychiatric community. Contrary to Hendricks’ assertion, the term “mental illness” is devoid of any talismanic significance. Not only do “psychiatrists disagree widely and frequently on what constitutes mental illness,” Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 81 (1985), but the Court itself has used a variety of expressions to describe the mental condition of those properly subject to civil confinement. See, e. g., Addington, supra, at 425-426 (using the terms “emotionally disturbed” and “mentally ill”); Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715, 732, 737 (1972) (using the terms “incompetency” and “insanity”); cf. Foucha, 504 U. S., at 88 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (acknowledging State’s authority to commit a person when there is “some medical justification for doing so”).
Indeed, we have never required state legislatures to adopt any particular nomenclature in drafting civil commitment statutes. Rather, we have traditionally left to legislators the task of defining terms of a medical nature that have legal significance. Cf. Jones v. United States, 463 U. S. 354, 365, n. 13 (1983). As a consequence, the States have, over the years, developed numerous specialized terms to define mental health concepts. Often, those definitions do not fit precisely with the definitions employed by the medical community. The legal definitions of “insanity” and “competency,” for example, vary substantially from their psychiatric counterparts. See, e. g., Gerard, The Usefulness of the Medical Model to the Legal System, 39 Rutgers L. Rev. 377, 391-394 (1987) (discussing differing purposes of legal system and the medical profession in recognizing mental illness). Legal definitions, however, which must “take into account such issues as individual responsibility... and competency,” need not mirror those advanced by the medical profession. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders xxiii, xxvii (4th ed. 1994).
To the extent that the civil commitment statutes we have considered set forth criteria relating to an individual’s inability to control his dangerousness, the Kansas Act sets forth comparable criteria and Hendricks’ condition doubtless satisfies those criteria. The mental health professionals who evaluated Hendricks diagnosed him as suffering from pedophilia, a condition the psychiatric profession itself classifies as a serious mental disorder. See, e. g., id., at 524-525, 527-528; 1 American Psychiatric Association, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders 617-633 (1989); Abel & Rouleau, Male Sex Offenders, in Handbook of Outpatient Treatment of Adults 271 (M. Thase, B. Edelstein, & M. Hersen eds. 1990). Hendricks even conceded that, when he becomes “stressed out,” he cannot “control the urge” to molest children. App. 172. This admitted lack of volitional control, coupled with a prediction of future dangerousness, adequately distinguishes Hendricks from other dangerous persons who are perhaps more properly dealt with exclusively through criminal proceedings. Hendricks’ diagnosis as a pedophile, which qualifies as a “mental abnormality” under the Act, thus plainly suffices for due process purposes.
B
We granted Hendricks’ cross-petition to determine whether the Act violates the Constitution’s double jeopardy prohibition or its ban on ex post facto lawmaking. The thrust of Hendricks’ argument is that the Act establishes criminal proceedings; hence confinement under it necessarily constitutes punishment. He contends that where, as here, newly enacted “punishment” is predicated upon past conduct for which he has already been convicted and forced to serve a prison sentence, the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses are violated. We are unpersuaded by Hendricks’ argument that Kansas has established criminal proceedings.
The categorization of a particular proceeding as civil or criminal “is first of all a question of statutory construction.” Allen, 478 U. S., at 368. We must initially ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish “civil” proceedings. If so, we ordinarily defer to the legislature’s stated intent. Here, Kansas’ objective to create a civil proceeding is evidenced by its placement of the Act within the Kansas probate code, Kan. Stat. Ann., Art. 29 (1994) (“Care and Treatment for Mentally Ill Persons”), instead of the criminal code, as well as its description of the Act as creating a “civil commitment procedure,” § 59-29a01 (emphasis added). Nothing on the face of the statute suggests that the legislature sought to create anything other than a civil commitment scheme designed to protect the public from harm.
Although we recognize that a “civil label is not always dis-positive,” Allen, supra, at 369, we will reject the legislature’s manifest intent only where a party challenging the statute provides “the clearest proof” that “the statutory scheme [is] so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State’s] intention” to deem it “civil,” United States v. Ward, 448 U. S. 242, 248-249 (1980). In those limited circumstances, we will consider the statute to have established criminal proceedings for constitutional purposes. Hendricks, however, has failed to satisfy this heavy burden.
As a threshold matter, commitment under the Act does not implicate either of the two primary objectives of criminal punishment: retribution or deterrence. The Act’s purpose is not retributive because it does not affix culpability for prior criminal conduct. Instead, such conduct is used solely for evidentiary purposes, either to demonstrate that a “mental abnormality” exists or to support a finding of future dangerousness. We have previously concluded that an Illinois statute was nonpunitive even though it was triggered by the commission of a sexual assault, explaining that evidence of the prior criminal conduct was “received not to punish past misdeeds, but primarily to show the accused’s mental condition and to predict future behavior.” Allen, supra, at 371. In addition, the Kansas Act does not make a criminal conviction a prerequisite for commitment — persons absolved of criminal responsibility may nonetheless be subject to confinement under the Act. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-29a03(a) (1994). An absence, of the necessary criminal responsibility suggests that the State is not seeking retribution for a past misdeed. Thus, the fact that the Act may be “tied to criminal activity” is “insufficient to render the statut[e] punitive.” United States v. Ursery, 518 U. S. 267 (1996).
Moreover, unlike a criminal statute, no finding of scienter is required to commit an individual who is found to be a sexually violent predator; instead, the commitment determination is made based on a “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” rather than on one’s criminal intent. The existence of a scienter requirement is customarily an important element in distinguishing criminal from civil statutes. See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 168 (1963). The absence of such a requirement here is evidence that confinement under the statute is not intended to be retributive.
Nor can it be said that the legislature intended the Act to function as a deterrent. Those persons committed under the Act are, by definition, suffering from a “mental abnormality” or a “personality disorder” that prevents them from exercising adequate control over their behavior. Such persons are therefore unlikely to be deterred by the threat of confinement. And the conditions surrounding that confinement do not suggest a punitive purpose on the State’s part. The State has represented that an individual confined under the Act is not subject to the more restrictive conditions placed on state prisoners, but instead experiences essentially the same conditions as any involuntarily committed patient in the state mental institution. App. 50-56, 59-60. Because none of the parties argues that people institutionalized under the Kansas general civil commitment statute are subject to punitive conditions, even though they may be involuntarily confined, it is difficult to conclude that persons confined under this Act are being “punished.”
Although the civil commitment scheme at issue here does involve an affirmative restraint, “the mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed punishment.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 746 (1987). The State may take measures to restrict the freedom of the dangerously mentally ill. This is a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective and has been historically so regarded. Cf. id., at 747. The Court has, in fact, cited the confinement of “mentally unstable individuals who present a danger to the public” as one classic example of nonpunitive detention. Id., at 748-749. If detention for the purpose of protecting the community from harm necessarily constituted punishment, then all involuntary civil commitments would have to be considered punishment. But we have never so held.
Hendricks focuses on his confinement’s potentially indefinite duration as evidence of the State’s punitive intent. That focus, however, is misplaced. Far from any punitive objective, the confinement’s duration is instead linked to the stated purposes of the commitment, namely, to hold the person until his mental abnormality no longer causes him to be a threat to others. Cf. Jones, 463 U. S., at 368 (noting with approval that “because it is impossible to predict how long it will take for any given individual to recover [from insanity] — or indeed whether he will ever recover — Congress has chosen... to leave the length of commitment indeterminate, subject to periodic review of the patient’s suitability for release”). If, at any time, the confined person is adjudged “safe to be at large,” he is statutorily entitled to immediate release. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-29a07 (1994).
Furthermore, commitment under the Act is only 'potentially indefinite. The maximum amount of time an individual can be incapacitated pursuant to a single judicial proceeding is one year. §59-29a08. If Kansas seeks to continue the detention beyond that year, a court must once again determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the detainee satisfies the same standards as required for the initial confinement. Ibid. This requirement again demonstrates that Kansas does not intend an individual committed pursuant to the Act to remain confined any longer than he suffers from a mental abnormality rendering him unable to control his dangerousness.
' Hendricks next contends that the State’s use of procedural safeguards traditionally found in criminal trials makes the proceedings here criminal rather than civil. In Allen, we confronted a similar argument. There, the petitioner “place[d] great reliance on the fact that proceedings under the Act are accompanied by procedural safeguards usually found in criminal trials” to argue that the proceedings were civil in name only. 478 U. S., at 371. We rejected that argument, however, explaining that the State’s decision “to provide some of the safeguards applicable in criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions.” Id., at 372. The numerous procedural and eviden-tiary protections afforded here demonstrate that the Kansas Legislature has taken great care to confine only a narrow class of particularly dangerous individuals, and then only after meeting the strictest procedural standards. That Kansas chose to afford such procedural protections does not transform a civil commitment proceeding into a criminal prosecution.
Finally, Hendricks argues that the Act is necessarily punitive because it fails to offer any legitimate “treatment.” Without such treatment, Hendricks asserts, confinement under the Act amounts to little more than disguised punishment. Hendricks’ argument assumes that treatment for his condition is available, but that the State has failed (or refused) to provide it. The Kansas Supreme Court, however, apparently rejected this assumption, explaining:
“It is clear that the overriding concern of the legislature is to continue the segregation of sexually violent offenders from the public. Treatment with the goal of reintegrating them into society is incidental, at best. The record reflects that treatment for sexually violent predators is all but nonexistent. The legislature concedes that sexually violent predators are not amenable to treatment under [the existing Kansas involuntary commitment statute]. If there is nothing to treat under [that statute], then there is no mental illness. In that light, the provisions of the Act for treatment appear somewhat disingenuous.” 259 Kan., at 258, 912 P. 2d, at 136.
It is possible to read this passage as a determination that Hendricks’ condition was untreatable under the existing Kansas civil commitment statute, and thus the Act’s sole purpose was incapacitation. Absent a treatable mental illness, the Kansas court concluded, Hendricks could not be detained against his will.
Accepting the Kansas court’s apparent determination that treatment is not possible for this category of individuals does not obligate us to adopt its legal conclusions. We have already observed that, under the appropriate circumstances and when accompanied by proper procedures, incapacitation may be a legitimate end of the civil law. See Allen, supra, at 373; Salerno, 481 U. S., at 748-749. Accordingly, the Kansas court’s determination that the Act’s “overriding concern” was the continued “segregation of sexually violent offenders” is consistent with our conclusion that the Act establishes civil proceedings, 259 Kan., at 258, 912 P. 2d, at 136, especially when that concern is coupled with the State’s ancillary goal of providing treatment to those offenders, if such is possible. While we have upheld state civil commitment statutes that aim both to incapacitate and to treat, see Allen, supra, we have never held that the Constitution prevents a State from civilly detaining those for whom no treatment is available, but who nevertheless pose a danger to others. A State could hardly be seen as furthering a “punitive” purpose by involuntarily confining persons afflicted with an untreatable, highly contagious disease. Accord, Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Bd. of Health, 186 U. S. 380 (1902) (permitting involuntary quarantine of persons suffering from communicable diseases). Similarly, it would be of little value to require treatment as a precondition for civil confinement of the dangerously insane when no acceptable treatment existed. To conclude otherwise would obligate a State to release certain confined individuals who were both mentally ill and dangerous simply because they could not be successfully treated for their afflictions. Cf. Greenwood v. United States, 350 U. S. 366, 375 (1956) (“The fact that at present there may be little likelihood of recovery does not defeat federal power to make this initial commitment of the petitioner”); O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, 584 (1975) (Burger, C. J., concurring) (“[I]t remains a stubborn fact that there are many forms of mental illness which are not understood, some which are untreatable in the sense that no effective therapy has yet been discovered for them, and that rates of ‘cure’ are generally low”).
Alternatively, the Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion can be read to conclude that Hendricks’ condition is treatable, but that treatment was not the State’s “overriding concern,” and that no treatment was being provided (at least at the time Hendricks was committed). 259 Kan., at 258, 912 P. 2d, at 136. See also ibid. (“It is clear that the primary objective of the Act is to continue incarceration and not to provide treatment”). Even if we accept this determination that the provision of treatment was not the Kansas Legislature’s “overriding” or “primary” purpose in passing the Act, this does not rule out the possibility that an ancillary purpose of the Act was to provide treatment, and it does not require us to conclude that the Act is punitive. Indeed, critical language in the Act itself demonstrates that the Secretary, under whose custody sexually violent predators are committed, has an obligation to provide treatment to individuals like Hendricks. § 59-29a07(a) (“If the court or jury determines that the person is a sexually violent predator, the person shall be committed to the custody of the secretary of social and rehabilitation services for control, care and treatment until such time as the person’s mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that the person is safe to be at large” (emphasis added)). Other of the Act’s sections echo this obligation to provide treatment for committed persons. See, e. g., § 59-29a01 (establishing civil commitment procedure “for the long-term care and treatment of the sexually violent predator”); §59-29a09 (requiring the confinement to “conform to constitutional requirements for caré and treatment”). Thus, as in Allen, “the State has a statutory obligation to provide 'care and treatment for [persons adjudged sexually dangerous] designed to effect recovery,’ ” 478 U. S., at 369 (quoting Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 105-8 (1985)), and we may therefore conclude that “the State has... provided for the treatment of those it commits,” 478 U. S., at 370.
Although the treatment program initially offered Hendricks may have seemed somewhat meager, it must be remembered that he was the first person committed under the Act. That the State did not have all of its treatment procedures in place is thus not surprising. What is significant, however, is that Hendricks was placed under the supervision of the Kansas Department of Health and Social and Rehabilitative Services, housed in a unit segregated from the general prison population and operated not by employees of the Department of Corrections, but by other trained individuals. And, before this Court, Kansas declared “ [absolutely” that persons committed under the Act are now receiving in the neighborhood of “31-1/2 hours of treatment per week.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 14-15,16.
Where the State has “disavowed any punitive intent”; limited confinement to a small segment of particularly dangerous individuals; provided strict procedural safeguards; directed that confined persons be segregated from the general prison population and afforded the same status as others who have been civilly committed; recommended treatment if such is possible; and permitted immediate release upon a showing that the individual is no longer dangerous or mentally impaired, we cannot say that it acted with punitive intent. We therefore hold that the Act does not establish criminal proceedings and that involuntary confinement pursuant to the Act is not punitive. Our conclusion that the Act is nonpuni-tive thus removes an essential prerequisite for both Hendricks’ double jeopardy and ex post facto claims.
1
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Although generally understood to preclude a second prosecution for the same offense, the Court has also interpreted this prohibition to prevent the State from “punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Witte v. United States, 515 U. S. 389, 396 (1995) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). Hendricks
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease requires us to consider the proper standards for judging a criminal defendant’s contention that the Constitution requires a conviction or death sentence to be set aside because counsel’s assistance at the trial or sentencing was ineffective.
I
A
During a 10-day period in September 1976, respondent planned and committed three groups of crimes, which in-eluded three brutal stabbing murders, torture, kidnaping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. After his two accomplices were arrested, respondent surrendered to police and voluntarily gave a lengthy statement confessing to the third of the criminal episodes. The State of Florida indicted respondent for kidnaping and murder and appointed an experienced criminal lawyer to represent him.
Counsel actively pursued pretrial motions and discovery. He cut his efforts short, however, and he experienced a sense of hopelessness about the case, when he learned that, against his specific advice, respondent had also confessed to the first two murders. By the date set for trial, respondent was subject to indictment for three counts of first-degree murder and multiple counts of robbery, kidnaping for ransom, breaking and entering and assault, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Respondent waived his right to a jury trial, again acting against counsel’s advice, and pleaded guilty to all charges, including the three capital murder charges.
In the plea colloquy, respondent told the trial judge that, although he had committed a string of burglaries, he had no significant prior criminal record and that at the time of his criminal spree he was under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family. App. 50-53. He also stated, however, that he accepted responsibility for the crimes. E. g., id., at 54, 57. The trial judge told respondent that he had “a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility” but that he was making no statement at all about his likely sentencing decision. Id., at 62.
Counsel advised respondent to invoke his right under Florida law to an advisory jury at his capital sentencing hearing. Respondent rejected the advice and waived the right. He chose instead to be sentenced by the trial judge without a jury recommendation.
In preparing for the sentencing hearing, counsel spoke with respondent about his background. He also spoke on the telephone with respondent’s wife and mother, though he did not follow up on the one unsuccessful effort to meet with them. He did not otherwise seek out character witnesses for respondent. App. to Pet. for Cert. A265. Nor did he request a psychiatric examination, since his conversations with his client gave no indication that respondent had psychological problems. Id., at A266.
Counsel decided not to present and hence not to look further for evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state. That decision reflected trial counsel’s sense of hopelessness about overcoming the evidentiary effect of respondent’s confessions to the gruesome crimes. See id., at A282. It also reflected the judgment that it was advisable to rely on the plea colloquy for evidence about respondent’s background and about his claim of emotional stress: the plea colloquy communicated sufficient information about these subjects, and by forgoing the opportunity to present new evidence on these subjects, counsel prevented the State from cross-examining respondent on his claim and from putting on psychiatric evidence of its own. Id., at A223-A225.
Counsel also excluded from the sentencing hearing other evidence he thought was potentially damaging. He successfully moved to exclude respondent’s “rap sheet.” Id., at A227; App. 311. Because he judged that a presentence report might prove more detrimental than helpful, as it would have included respondent’s criminal history and thereby would have undermined the claim of no significant history of criminal activity, he did not request that one be prepared. App. to Pet. for Cert. A227-A228, A265-A266.
At the sentencing hearing, counsel’s strategy was based primarily on the trial judge’s remarks at the plea colloquy as well as on his reputation as a sentencing judge who thought it important for a convicted defendant to own up to his crime. Counsel argued that respondent’s remorse and acceptance of responsibility justified sparing him from the death penalty. Id., at A265-A266. Counsel also argued that respondent had no history of criminal activity and that respondent committed the crimes under extreme mental or emotional disturbance, thus coming within the statutory list of mitigating circumstances. He further argued that respondent should be spared death because he had surrendered, confessed, and offered to testify against a codefendant and because respondent was fundamentally a good person who had briefly gone badly wrong in extremely stressful circumstances. The State put on evidence and witnesses largely for the purpose of describing the details of the crimes. Counsel did not cross-examine the medical experts who testified about the manner of death of respondent’s victims.
The trial judge found several aggravating circumstances with respect to each of the three murders. He found that all three murders were especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel, all involving repeated stabbings. All three murders were committed in the course of at least one other dangerous and violent felony, and since all involved robbery, the murders were for pecuniary gain. All three murders were committed to avoid arrest for the accompanying crimes and to hinder law enforcement. In the course of one of the murders, respondent knowingly subjected numerous persons to a grave risk of death by deliberately stabbing and shooting the murder victim’s sisters-in-law, who sustained severe — in one case, ultimately fatal — injuries.
With respect to mitigating circumstances, the trial judge made the same findings for all three capital murders. First, although there was no admitted evidence of prior convictions, respondent had stated that he had engaged in a course of stealing. In any case, even if respondent had no significant history of criminal activity, the aggravating circumstances “would still clearly far outweigh” that mitigating factor. Second, the judge found that, during all three crimes, respondent was not suffering from extreme mental or emotional disturbance and could appreciate the criminality of his acts. Third, none of the victims was a participant in, or consented to, respondent’s conduct. Fourth, respondent’s participation in the crimes was neither minor nor the result of duress or domination by an accomplice. Finally, respondent’s age (26) could not be considered a factor in mitigation, especially when viewed in light of respondent’s planning of the crimes and disposition of the proceeds of the various accompanying thefts.
In short, the trial judge found numerous aggravating circumstances and no (or a single comparatively insignificant) mitigating circumstance. With respect to each of the three convictions for capital murder, the trial judge concluded: “A careful consideration of all matters presented to the court impels the conclusion that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances... to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.” See Washington v. State, 362 So. 2d 658, 663-664 (Fla. 1978) (quoting trial court findings), cert. denied, 441 U. S. 937 (1979). He therefore sentenced respondent to death on each of the three counts of murder and to prison terms for the other crimes. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences on direct appeal.
B
Respondent subsequently sought collateral relief in state court on numerous grounds, among them that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding. Respondent challenged counsel’s assistance in six respects. He asserted that counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for a continuance to prepare for sentencing, to request a psychiatric report, to investigate and present character witnesses, to seek a presentence investigation report, to present meaningful arguments to the sentencing judge, and to investigate the medical examiner’s reports or cross-examine the medical experts. In support of the claim, respondent submitted 14 affidavits from friends, neighbors, and relatives stating that they would have testified if asked to do so. He also submitted one psychiatric report and one psychological report stating that respondent, though not under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, was “chronically frustrated and depressed because of his economic dilemma” at the time of his crimes. App. 7; see also id,., at 14.
The trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding that the record evidence conclusively showed that the ineffectiveness claim was meritless. App. to Pet. for Cert. A206-A243. Four of the assertedly prejudicial errors required little discussion. First, there were no grounds to request a continuance, so there was no error in not requesting one when respondent pleaded guilty. Id., at A218-A220. Second, failure to request a presentence investigation was not a serious error because the trial judge had discretion not to grant such a request and because any presentence investigation would have resulted in admission of respondent’s “rap sheet” and thus would have undermined his assertion of no significant history of criminal activity. Id., at A226-A228. Third, the argument and memorandum given to the sentencing judge were “admirable” in light of the overwhelming aggravating circumstances and absence of mitigating circumstances. Id., at A228. Fourth, there was no error in failure to examine the medical examiner’s reports or to cross-examine the medical witnesses testifying on the manner of death of respondent’s victims, since respondent admitted that the victims died in the ways shown by the unchallenged medical evidence. Id., at A229.
The trial court dealt at greater length with the two other bases for the ineffectiveness claim. The court pointed out that a psychiatric examination of respondent was conducted by state order soon after respondent’s initial arraignment. That report states that there was no indication of major mental illness at the time of the crimes. Moreover, both the reports submitted in the collateral proceeding state that, although respondent was “chronically frustrated and depressed because of his economic dilemma,” he was not under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. All three reports thus directly undermine the contention made at the sentencing hearing that respondent was suffering from extreme mental or emotional disturbance during his crime spree. Accordingly, counsel could reasonably decide not to seek psychiatric reports; indeed, by relying solely on the plea colloquy to support the emotional disturbance contention, counsel denied the State an opportunity to rebut his claim with psychiatric testimony. In any event, the aggravating circumstances were so overwhelming that no substantial prejudice resulted from the absence at sentencing of the psychiatric evidence offered in the collateral attack.
The court rejected the challenge to counsel’s failure to develop and to present character evidence for much the same reasons. The affidavits submitted in the collateral proceeding showed nothing more than that certain persons would have testified that respondent was basically a good person who was worried about his family’s financial problems. Respondent himself had already testified along those lines at the plea colloquy. Moreover, respondent’s admission of a course of stealing rebutted many of the factual allegations in the affidavits. For those reasons, and because the sentencing judge had stated that the death sentence would be appropriate even if respondent had no significant prior criminal history, no substantial prejudice resulted from the absence at sentencing of the character evidence offered in the collateral attack.
Applying the standard for ineffectiveness claims articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (1981), the trial court concluded that respondent had not shown that counsel’s assistance reflected any substantial and serious deficiency measurably below that of competent counsel that was likely to have affected the outcome of the sentencing proceeding. The court specifically found: “[A]s a matter of law, the record affirmatively demonstrates beyond any doubt that even if [counsel] had done each of the... things [that respondent alleged counsel had failed to do] at the time of sentencing, there is not even the remotest chance that the outcome would have been any different. The plain fact is that the aggravating circumstances proved in this case were completely overwhelming... App. to Pet. for Cert. A230.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. Washington v. State, 397 So. 2d 285 (1981). For essentially the reasons given by the trial court, the State Supreme Court concluded that respondent had failed to make out a prima facie case of either “substantial deficiency or possible prejudice” and, indeed, had “failed to such a degree that we believe, to the point of a moral certainty, that he is entitled to no relief....” Id., at 287. Respondent’s claims were “shown conclusively to be without merit so as to obviate the need for an evidentiary hearing.” Id., at 286.
C
Respondent next filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He advanced numerous grounds for relief, among them ineffective assistance of counsel based on the same errors, except for the failure to move for a continuance, as those he had identified in state court. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing to inquire into trial counsel’s efforts to investigate and to present mitigating circumstances. Respondent offered the affidavits and reports he had submitted in the state collateral proceedings; he also called his trial counsel to testify. The State of Florida, over respondent’s objection, called the trial judge to testify.
• The District Court disputed none of the state court factual findings concerning trial counsel’s assistance and made findings of its own that are consistent with the state court findings. The account of trial counsel’s actions and decisions given above reflects the combined findings. On the legal issue of ineffectiveness, the District Court concluded that, although trial counsel made errors in judgment in failing to investigate nonstatutory mitigating evidence further than he did, no prejudice to respondent’s sentence resulted from any such error in judgment. Relying in part on the trial judge’s testimony but also on the same factors that led the state courts to find no prejudice, the District Court concluded that “there does not appear to be a likelihood, or even a significant possibility,” that any errors of trial counsel had affected the outcome of the sentencing proceeding. App. to Pet. for Cert. A285-A286. The District Court went on to reject all of respondent’s other grounds for relief, including one not exhausted in state court, which the District Court considered because, among other reasons, the State urged its consideration. Id., at A286-A292. The court accordingly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to apply to the particular facts the framework for analyzing ineffectiveness claims that it developed in its opinion. 673 F. 2d 879 (1982). The panel decision was itself vacated when Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit, now the Eleventh Circuit, decided to rehear the case en banc. 679 F. 2d 23 (1982). The full Court of Appeals developed its own framework for analyzing ineffective assistance claims and reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for new factfinding under the newly announced standards. 693 F. 2d 1243 (1982).
The court noted at the outset that, because respondent had raised an unexhausted claim at his evidentiary hearing in the District Court, the habeas petition might be characterized as a mixed petition subject to the rule of Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982), requiring dismissal of the entire petition. The court held, however, that the exhaustion requirement is “a matter of comity rather than a matter of jurisdiction” and hence admitted of exceptions. The court agreed with the District Court that this case came within an exception to the mixed petition rule. 693 F. 2d, at 1248, n. 7.
Turning to the merits, the Court of Appeals stated that the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel accorded criminal defendants a right to “counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances.” Id., at 1250. The court remarked in passing that no special standard applies in capital cases such as the one before it: the punishment that a defendant faces is merely one of the circumstances to be considered in determining whether counsel was reasonably effective. Id., at 1250, n. 12. The court then addressed respondent’s contention that his trial counsel’s assistance was not reasonably effective because counsel breached his duty to investigate nonstatutory mitigating circumstances.
The court agreed that the Sixth Amendment imposes on counsel a duty to investigate, because reasonably effective assistance must be based on professional decisions and informed legal choices can be made only after investigation of options. The court observed that counsel’s investigatory decisions must be assessed in light of the information known at the time of the decisions, not in hindsight, and that “[t]he amount of pretrial investigation that is reasonable defies precise measurement.” Id., at 1251. Nevertheless, putting guilty-plea cases to one side, the court attempted to classify cases presenting issues concerning the scope of the duty to investigate before proceeding to trial.
If there is only one plausible line of defense, the court concluded, counsel must conduct a “reasonably substantial investigation” into that line of defense, since there can be no strategic choice that renders such an investigation unnecessary. Id., at 1252. The same duty exists if counsel relies at trial on only one line of defense, although others are available. In either case, the investigation need not be exhaustive. It must include “ ‘an independent examination of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved.’” Id., at 1253 (quoting Rummel v. Estelle, 590 F. 2d 103, 104 (CA5 1979)). The scope of the duty, however, depends on such facts as the strength of the government’s case and the likelihood that pursuing certain leads may prove more harmful than helpful. 693 F. 2d, at 1253, n. 16.
If there is more than one plausible line of defense, the court held, counsel should ideally investigate each line substantially before making a strategic choice about which lines to rely on at trial. If counsel conducts such substantial investigations, the strategic choices made as a result “will seldom if ever” be found wanting. Because advocacy is an art and not a science, and because the adversary system requires deference to counsel’s informed decisions, strategic choices must be respected in these circumstances if they are based on professional judgment. Id., at 1254.
If counsel does not conduct a substantial investigation into each of several plausible lines of defense, assistance may nonetheless be effective. Counsel may not exclude certain lines of defense for other than strategic reasons. Id., at 1257-1258. Limitations of time and money, however, may force early strategic choices, often based solely on conversations with the defendant and a review of the prosecution’s evidence. Those strategic choices about which lines of defense to pursue are owed deference commensurate with the reasonableness of the professional judgments on which they are based. Thus, “when counsel’s assumptions are reasonable given the totality of the circumstances and when counsel’s strategy represents a reasonable choice based upon those assumptions, counsel need not investigate lines of defense that he has chosen not to employ at trial.” Id., at 1255 (footnote omitted). Among the factors relevant to deciding whether particular strategic choices are reasonable are the experience of the attorney, the inconsistency of unpursued and pursued lines of defense, and the potential for prejudice from taking an unpursued line of defense. Id., at 1256-1257, n. 23.
Having outlined the standards forjudging whether defense counsel fulfilled the duty to investigate, the Court of Appeals turned its attention to the question of the prejudice to the defense that must be shown before counsel’s errors justify reversal of the judgment. The court observed that only in cases of outright denial of counsel, of affirmative government interference in the representation process, or of inherently prejudicial conflicts of interest had this Court said that no special showing of prejudice need be made. Id., at 1258-1259. For cases of deficient performance by counsel, where the government is not directly responsible for the deficiencies and where evidence of deficiency may be more accessible to the defendant than to the prosecution, the defendant must show that counsel’s errors “resulted in actual and substantial disadvantage to the course of his defense.” Id., at 1262. This standard, the Court of Appeals reasoned, is compatible with the “cause and prejudice” standard for overcoming procedural defaults in federal collateral proceedings and discourages insubstantial claims by requiring more than a showing, which could virtually always be made, of some conceivable adverse effect on the defense from counsel’s errors. The specified showing of prejudice would result in reversal of the judgment, the court concluded, unless the prosecution showed that the constitutionally deficient performance was, in light of all the evidence, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 1260-1262.
The Court of Appeals thus laid down the tests to be applied in the Eleventh Circuit in challenges to convictions on the ground of ineffectiveness of counsel. Although some of the judges of the court proposed different approaches to judging ineffectiveness claims either generally or when raised in federal habeas petitions from state prisoners, id., at 1264-1280 (opinion of Tjoflat, J.); id., at 1280 (opinion of Clark, J.); id., at 1285-1288 (opinion of Roney, J., joined by Fay and Hill, JJ.); id., at 1288-1291 (opinion of Hill, J.), and although some believed that no remand was necessary in this case, id., at 1281-1285 (opinion of Johnson, J., joined by Anderson, J.); id., at 1285-1288 (opinion of Roney, J., joined by Fay and Hill, JJ.); id., at 1288-1291 (opinion of Hill, J.), a majority of the judges of the en banc court agreed that the case should be remanded for application of the newly announced standards. Summarily rejecting respondent’s claims other than ineffectiveness of counsel, the court accordingly reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case. On remand, the court finally ruled, the state trial judge’s testimony, though admissible “to the extent that it contains personal knowledge of historical facts or expert opinion,” was not to be considered admitted into evidence to explain the judge’s mental processes in reaching his sentencing decision. Id., at 1262-1263; see Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U. S. 276, 306-307 (1904).
D
Petitioners, who are officials of the State of Florida, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petition presents a type of Sixth Amendment claim that this Court has not previously considered in any generality. The Court has considered Sixth Amendment claims based on actual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether, as well as claims based on state interference with the ability of counsel to render effective assistance to the accused. E. g., United States v. Cronic, ante, p. 648. With the exception of Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335 (1980), however, which involved a claim that counsel’s assistance was rendered ineffective by a conflict of interest, the Court has never directly and fully addressed a claim of “actual ineffectiveness” of counsel’s assistance in a case going to trial. Cf. United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97, 102, n. 5 (1976).
In assessing attorney performance, all the Federal Courts of Appeals and all but a few state courts have now adopted the “reasonably effective assistance” standard in one formulation or another. See Trapnell v. United States, 725 F. 2d 149, 151-152 (CA21983); App. B to Brief for United States in United States v. Cronic, O. T. 1983, No. 82-660, pp. 3a-6a; Sarno, Modern Status of Rules and Standards in State Courts as to Adequacy of Defense Counsel’s Representation of Criminal Client, 2 A. L. R. 4th 99-157, §§ 7-10 (1980). Yet this Court has not had occasion squarely to decide whether that is the proper standard. With respect to the prejudice that a defendant must show from deficient attorney performance, the lower courts have adopted tests that purport to differ in more than formulation. See App. C to Brief for United States in United States v. Cronic, supra, at 7a-10a; Sarno, supra, at 83-99, § 6. In particular, the Court of Appeals in this case expressly rejected the prejudice standard articulated by Judge Leventhal in his plurality opinion in United States v. Decoster, 199 U. S. App. D. C. 359, 371, 374-375, 624 F. 2d 196, 208, 211-212 (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 944 (1979), and adopted by the State of Florida in Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d, at 1001, a standard that requires a showing that specified deficient conduct of counsel was likely to have affected the outcome of the proceeding. 693 F. 2d, at 1261-1262.
For these reasons, we granted certiorari to consider the standards by which to judge a contention that the Constitution requires that a criminal judgment be overturned because of the actual ineffective assistance of counsel. 462 U. S. 1105 (1983). We agree with the Court of Appeals that the exhaustion rule requiring dismissal of mixed petitions, though to be strictly enforced, is not jurisdictional. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S., at 515-520. We therefore address the merits of the constitutional issue.
II
In a long line of cases that includes Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), this Court has recognized that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel exists, and is needed, in order to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Constitution guarantees a fair trial through the Due Process Clauses, but it defines the basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment, including the Counsel Clause:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Thus, a fair trial is one in which evidence subject to adversarial testing is presented to an impartial tribunal for resolution of issues defined in advance of the proceeding. The right to counsel plays a crucial role in the adversarial system embodied in the Sixth Amendment, since access to counsel’s skill and knowledge is necessary to accord defendants the “ample opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution” to which they are entitled. Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 275, 276 (1942); see Powell v. Alabama, supra, at 68-69.
Because of the vital importance of counsel’s assistance, this Court has held that, with certain exceptions, a person accused of a federal or state crime has the right to have counsel appointed if retained counsel cannot be obtained. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972); Gideon v. Wainwright, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra. That a person who happens to be a lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused, however, is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command. The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to the assistance of counsel because it envisions counsel’s playing a role that is critical to the ability of the adversarial system to produce just results. An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair.
For that reason, the Court has recognized that “the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.” McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 771, n. 14 (1970). Government violates the right to effective assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense. See, e. g., Geders v. United States, 425 U. S. 80 (1976) (bar on attorney-client consultation during overnight recess); Herring v. New York, 422 U. S. 853 (1975) (bar on summation at bench trial); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U. S. 605, 612-613 (1972) (requirement that defendant be first defense witness); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S. 570, 593-596 (1961) (bar on direct examination of defendant). Counsel, however, can also deprive a defendant of the right to effective assistance, simply by failing to render “adequate legal assistance,” Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S., at 344. Id., at 345-350 (actual conflict of interest adversely affecting lawyer’s performance renders assistance ineffective).
The Court has not elaborated on the meaning of the constitutional requirement of effective assistance in the latter class of cases — that is, those presenting claims of “actual ineffectiveness.” In giving meaning to the requirement, however, we must take its purpose — to ensure a fair trial — as the guide. The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.
The same principle applies to a capital sentencing proceeding such as that provided by Florida law. We need not consider the role of counsel in an ordinary sentencing, which may involve informal proceedings and standardless discretion in the sentencer, and hence may require a different approach to the definition of constitutionally effective assistance. A capital sentencing proceeding like the one involved in this case, however, is sufficiently like a trial in its adversarial format and in the existence of standards for decision, see Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S. 939, 952-954 (1983); Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430 (1981), that counsel’s role in the proceeding is comparable to counsel’s role at trial — to ensure that the adversarial testing process works to produce a just result under the standards governing decision. For purposes of describing counsel’s duties, therefore, Florida’s capital sentencing proceeding need not be distinguished from an ordinary trial.
Ill
A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.
A
As all the Federal Courts of Appeals have now held, the proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance. See Trapnell v. United States, 725 F. 2d, at 151-152. The Court indirectly recognized as much when it stated in McMann v. Richardson, supra, at 770, 771, that a guilty plea cannot be attacked as based on inadequate legal advice unless counsel was not “a reasonably competent attorney” and the advice was not “within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” See also Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 344. When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
More specific guidelines are not appropriate. The Sixth Amendment refers simply to “counsel,” not specifying particular requirements of effective assistance. It relies instead on the legal profession’s maintenance of standards sufficient to justify the law’s presumption that counsel will fulfill the role in the adversary process that the Amendment envisions. See Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U. S. 91, 100-101 (1955). The proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.
Representation of a criminal defendant entails certain basic duties. Counsel’s function is to assist the defendant, and hence counsel owes the client a duty of loyalty, a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 346. From counsel’s function as assistant to the defendant derive the overarching duty to advocate the defendant’s cause and the more particular duties to consult with the defendant on important decisions and to keep the defendant informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution. Counsel also has a duty to bring to bear such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S., at 68-69.
These basic duties neither exhaustively define the obligations of counsel nor form a checklist for judicial evaluation of attorney performance. In any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances. Prevailing norms of practice as reflected in American Bar Association standards and the like, e. g., ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-1.1 to 4-8.6 (2d ed. 1980) (“The Defense Function”), are guides to determining what is reasonable, but they are only guides. No particular set of detailed rules for counsel’s conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant. Any such set of rules would interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel and restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions. See United States v. Decoster, 199 U. S. App. D. C., at 371, 624 F. 2d, at 208. Indeed, the existence of detailed guidelines for representation could distract counsel from the overriding mission of vigorous advocacy of the defendant’s cause. Moreover, the purpose of the effective assistance guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is not to improve the quality of legal representation, although that is a goal of considerable importance to the legal system. The purpose is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.
Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential. It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel’s assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel’s defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. Cf. Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 133-134 (1982). A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy.” See Michel v. Louisiana, supra, at 101. There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way. See Goodpaster, The
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against being tried twice for the same offense. The Clause does not, however, bar a second trial if the first ended in a mistrial. Before the jury concluded deliberations in this case, it reported that it was unanimous against guilt on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder, was deadlocked on manslaughter, and had not voted on negligent homicide. The court told the jury to continue to deliberate. The jury did so but still could not reach a verdict, and the court declared a mistrial. All agree that the defendant may be retried on charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide. The question is whether he may also be retried on charges of capital and first-degree murder.
H-1
One-year-old Matthew McFadden, Jr., suffered a severe head injury on November 28, 2007, while home with his mother’s boyfriend, Alex Blueford. Despite treatment at a hospital, McFadden died a few days later.
The State of Arkansas charged Blueford with capital murder, but waived the death penalty. The State’s theory at trial was that Blueford had injured McFadden intentionally, causing the boy’s death “[u]nder circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(9)(A) (Supp. 2011). The defense, in contrast, portrayed the death as the result of Blueford accidentally knocking McFadden onto the ground.
The trial court instructed the jury that the charge of capital murder included three lesser offenses: first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. In addition to describing these offenses, the court addressed the order in which the jury was to consider them: “If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt on the charge of capital murder, you will consider the charge of murder in the first degree.... If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt on the charge of murder in the first degree, you will then consider the charge of manslaughter. ... If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt on the charge of manslaughter, you will then consider the charge of negligent homicide.” . App. 51-52.
The prosecution commented on these instructions in its closing argument. It told the jury, for example, that “before you can consider a lesser included of capital murder, you must first, all 12, vote that this man is not guilty of capital murder.” Id., at 55. The prosecution explained that this was “not a situation where you just lay everything out here and say, well, we have four choices. Which one does it fit the most?” Id., at 59. Rather, the prosecution emphasized, “unless all 12 of you agree that this man’s actions were not consistent with capital murder, then and only then would you go down to murder in the first degree.” Ibid.
After the parties concluded their arguments, the court presented the jury with a set of five verdict forms, each representing a possible verdict. There were four separate forms allowing the jury to convict on each of the charged offenses: capital murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. A fifth form allowed the jury to return a verdict of acquittal, if the jury found Blueford not guilty of any offense. There was no form allowing the jury to acquit on some offenses but not others. As stated in the court’s instructions, the jury could either “find the defendant guilty of one of these offenses” or “acquit him outright.” Id., at 51. Any verdict — whether to convict on one or to acquit on all — had to be unanimous.
A few hours after beginning its deliberations, the jury sent the court a note asking “what happens if we cannot agree on a charge at all.” Id., at 62. The court called the jury back into the courtroom and issued a so-called “Allen instruction,” emphasizing the importance of reaching a verdict. See Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 492, 501-502 (1896). The jury then deliberated for a half hour more before sending out a second note, stating that it “cannot agree on any one charge in this case.” App. 64. When the court summoned the jury again, the jury foreperson reported that the jury was “hopelessly” deadlocked. Ibid. The court asked the foreperson to disclose the jury’s votes on each offense:
“THE COURT: All right. If you have your numbers together, and I don’t want names, but if you have your numbers I would like to know what your count was on capital murder.
“JUROR NUMBER ONE: That was unanimous against that. No.
“THE COURT: Okay, on murder in the first degree?
“JUROR NUMBER ONE: That was unanimous, against that.
“THE COURT: Okay. Manslaughter?
“JUROR NUMBER ONE: Nine for, three against.
“THE COURT: Okay. And negligent homicide?
“JUROR NUMBER ONE: We did not vote on that, sir.
“THE COURT: Did not vote on that.
“JUROR NUMBER ONE: No, sir. We couldn’t get past the manslaughter. Were we supposed to go past that? I thought we were supposed to go one at a time.” Id., at 64-65.
Following this exchange, the court gave another Allen instruction and sent the jurors back to the jury room. After deliberations resumed, Blueford’s counsel asked the court to submit new verdict forms to the jurors, to be completed “for those counts that they have reached a verdict on.” Id., at 67. The prosecution objected on the grounds that the jury was “still deliberating” and that a verdict of acquittal had to be “all or nothing.” Id., at 68. The court denied Blueford’s request. To allow for a partial verdict, the court explained, would be “like changing horses in the middle of the stream,” given that the jury had already received instructions and verdict forms. Ibid. The court informed counsel that it would declare a mistrial “if the jury doesn’t make a decision.” Id., at 69.
When the jury returned a half hour later, the foreperson stated that they had not reached a verdict. The court declared a mistrial and discharged the jury.
The State subsequently sought to retry Blueford. He moved to dismiss the capital and first-degree murder charges on double jeopardy grounds, citing the foreperson’s report that the jurors had voted unanimously against guilt on those offenses. The trial court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed on interlocutory appeal. According to the State Supreme Court, the foreperson’s report had no effect on the State’s ability to retry Blueford, because the foreperson “was not making a formal announcement of acquittal” when she disclosed the jury’s votes. 2011 Ark. 8, p. 9, 370 S. W. 3d 496, 601. This was not a case, the court observed, “where a formal verdict was announced or entered of record.” Ibid. The court added that the trial .court did not err in denying Blueford’s request for new verdict forms that would have allowed the jury to render a partial verdict on the charges of capital and first-degree murder.
Blueford sought review in this Court, and we granted cer-tiorari. 565 U. S. 941 (2011).
II
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 5. The Clause “guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict the accused, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 569 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Blueford contends that the foreperson’s report means that he cannot be tried again on charges of capital and first-degree murder. According to Blueford, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a second trial on those charges, for two reasons.
A
Blueford’s primary submission is that he cannot be retried for capital and first-degree murder because the jury actually acquitted him of those offenses. See Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 188 (1957). The Arkansas Supreme Court noted — and Blueford acknowledges — that no formal judgment of acquittal was entered in his case. But none was necessary, Blueford maintains, because an acquittal is a matter of substance, not form. Quoting from our decision in Martin Linen, supra, at 571, Blueford contends that despite the absence of a formal verdict, a jury’s announcement constitutes an acquittal if it “ 'actually represents a resolution ... of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.’ ” Brief for Petitioner 21. Here, according to Blueford, the foreperson’s announcement of the jury’s unanimous votes on capital and first-degree murder represented just that: a resolution of some or all of the elements of those offenses in Blueford’s favor.
We disagree. The foreperson’s report was not a final resolution of anything. When the foreperson told the court how the jury had voted on each offense, the jury’s deliberations had not yet concluded. The jurors in fact went back to the jury room to deliberate further, even after the foreperson had delivered her report. When they emerged a half hour later, the foreperson stated only that they were unable to reach a verdict. She gave no indication whether it was still the case that all 12 jurors believed Blueford was not guilty of capital or first-degree murder, that 9 of them believed he was guilty of manslaughter, or that a vote had not been taken on negligent homicide. The fact that deliberations continued after the report deprives that report of the finality necessary to constitute an acquittal on the murder offenses.
Blueford maintains, however, that any possibility that the jurors revisited the murder offenses was foreclosed by the instructions given to the jury. Those instructions, he contends, not only required the jury to consider the offenses in order, from greater to lesser, but also prevented it from transitioning from one offense to the next without unanimously — and definitively — resolving the greater offense in his favor. “A jury is presumed to follow its instructions.” Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U. S. 225, 234 (2000). So, Blueford says, the foreperson’s report that the jury was deadlocked on manslaughter necessarily establishes that the jury had acquitted Blueford of the greater offenses of capital and first-degree murder.
But even if we assume that the instructions required a unanimous vote before the jury could consider a lesser offense — as the State assumes for purposes of this case, see Brief for Respondent 25, n. 3 — nothing in the instructions prohibited the jury from reconsidering such a vote. The instructions said simply, “If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt on the charge of [the greater offense], you will [then] consider the charge of [the lesser offense].” App. 51-52. The jurors were never told that once they had a reasonable doubt, they could not rethink the issue. The jury was free to reconsider a greater offense, even after considering a lesser one.
A simple example illustrates the point. A jury enters the jury room, having just been given these instructions. The foreperson decides that it would make sense to determine the extent of the jurors’ agreement before discussions begin. Accordingly, she conducts a vote on capital murder, and everyone votes against guilt. She does the same for first-degree murder, and again, everyone votes against guilt. She then calls for a vote on manslaughter, and there is disagreement. Only then do the jurors engage in a discussion about the circumstances of the crime. While considering the arguments of the other jurors on how the death was caused, one of the jurors starts rethinking his own stance on a greater offense. After reflecting on the evidence, he comes to believe that the defendant did knowingly cause the death — satisfying the definition of first-degree murder. At that point, nothing in the instructions prohibits the jury from doing what juries often do: revisit a prior vote. “The very object of the jury system,” after all, “is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves.” Allen, 164 U. S., at 501. A single juror’s change of mind is all it takes to require the jury to reconsider a greater offense.
It was therefore possible for Blueford’s jury to revisit the offenses of capital and first-degree murder, notwithstanding its earlier votes. And because of that possibility, the foreperson’s report prior to the end of deliberations lacked the finality necessary to amount to an acquittal on those offenses, quite apart from any requirement that a formal verdict be returned or judgment entered.
That same lack of finality undermines Blueford’s reliance on Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184 (1957), and Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323 (1970). In those cases, we held that the Double Jeopardy Clause is violated when a defendant, tried for a greater offense and convicted of a lesser included offense, is later retried for the greater offense. See Green, supra, at 190; Price, supra, at 329. Blueford argues that the only fact distinguishing his case from Green and Price is that his case involves a deadlock on the lesser included offense, as opposed to a conviction. In his view, that distinction only favors him, because the Double Jeopardy Clause should, if anything, afford greater protection to a defendant who is not found guilty of the lesser included offense.
Blueford’s argument assumes, however, that the votes reported by the foreperson did not change, even though the jury deliberated farther after that report. That assumption is unjustified, because the reported votes were, for the reasons noted, not final. Blueford thus overlooks the real distinction between the cases: In Green and Price, the verdict of the jury was a final decision; here, the report of the foreperson was not.
B
Blueford maintains that even if the jury did not acquit him of capital and first-degree murder, a second trial on those offenses would nonetheless violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, because the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial was improper. Blueford acknowledges that a trial can be discontinued without barring a subsequent one for the same offense when “particular circumstances manifest a necessity” to declare a mistrial. Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684, 690 (1949); see also United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580 (1824). He also acknowledges that the trial court’s reason for declaring a mistrial here — that the jury was unable to reach a verdict — has long been considered the “classic basis” establishing such a necessity. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S. 497, 509 (1978). Blueford therefore accepts that a second trial on manslaughter and negligent homicide would pose no double jeopardy problem. He contends, however, that there was no necessity for a mistrial on capital and first-degree murder, given the foreperson’s report that the jury had voted unanimously against guilt on those charges. According to Blueford, the court at that time should have taken “some action,” whether through partial verdict forms or other means, to allow the jury to give effect to those votes, and then considered a mistrial only as to the remaining charges. Reply Brief 11, n. 8.
We reject that suggestion. We have never required a trial court, before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury, to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse— let alone to consider giving the jury new options for a verdict. See Renico v. Lett, 559 U. S. 766, 775 (2010). As permitted under Arkansas law, the jury’s options in this case were limited to two: either convict on one of the offenses, or acquit on all. The instructions explained those options in plain terms, and the verdict forms likewise contemplated no other outcome. There were separate forms to convict on each of the possible offenses, but there was only one form to acquit, and it was to acquit on all of them. When the foreperson disclosed the jury’s votes on capital and first-degree murder, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to add another option — that of acquitting on some offenses but not others. That, however, is precisely the relief Blueford seeks — relief the Double Jeopardy Clause does not afford him.
* ⅝ *
The jury in this case did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either. When the jury was unable to return a verdict, the trial court properly declared a mistrial and discharged the jury. As a consequence, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not stand in the way of a second trial on the same offenses.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is
Affirmed.
In reaching a contrary conclusion, post, at 615 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.), the dissent construes the jury instructions to “require a jury to complete its deliberations on a greater offense before it may consider a lesser,” post, at 612 (emphasis added). But no such requirement can be found in the text of the instructions themselves. And the dissent’s attempt to glean such a requirement from the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision in Hughes v. State, 347 Ark. 696, 66 S. W. 3d 645 (2002), is unavailing, for that decision nowhere addresses the issue here — whether a jury can reconsider a greater offense after considering a lesser one.
Finding our reliance on Renico “perplexing,” the dissent reads that decision to have “little to say about a trial judge’s responsibilities, or this Court’s, on direct review.” Post, at 620-621, n. 4. But Renico’s discussion of the applicable legal principles- concerns just that, and the dissent in any event does not dispute that we have never required a trial court to consider any particular means of breaking a jury impasse.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a United States District Judge, filed a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus or alternatively a writ of prohibition addressed to the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit. His petition seeks resolution of questions of first impression concerning, inter alia, the scope and constitutionality of the powers of the Judicial Councils under 28 U. S. C. §§ 137 and 332. The Judicial Council of each federal circuit is, under the present statute, composed of the active circuit judges of the circuit. Petitioner has asked this Court to issue an order under the All Writs Act telling the Council to “cease acting [in] violation of its powers and in violation of Judge Chandler’s rights as a federal judge and an American citizen.” The background facts are of some importance.
1
On December 13, 1965, the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit convened in special session and adopted an order which reflected a long history of controversy between petitioner and the Council concerning the conduct of the work of the District Court assigned to petitioner. The Order of December 13 purported to issue under the authority of 28 U. S. C. § 332, supra, n. 1, and recited that during
“the past four years the Judicial Council at many meetings has discussed and considered the business of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and has done so with particular regard to the effect thereon of the attitude and conduct of Judge Chandler who, as the Chief Judge of that District, is primarily responsible for the administration of such business. . . .”
The Order noted that during that period petitioner had been a party defendant in both civil and criminal litigation, as well as the subject of two applications to disqualify him in litigation in which on challenge petitioner had refused to disqualify himself. The Order continued with a finding that
“Judge Chandler is presently unable, or unwilling, to discharge efficiently the duties of his office; that a change must be made in the division of business and the assignment of cases in the Western District of Oklahoma; and that the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma requires the orders herein made.”
Expressly invoking the powers of the Judicial Council under 28 U. S. C. § 332, supra, n. 1, the Order directed that
"until the further order of the Judicial Council, the Honorable Stephen S. Chandler shall take no action whatsoever in any case or proceeding now or hereafter pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma; that all cases and proceedings now assigned to or pending before him shall be reassigned to and among the other judges of said court; and that until the further order of the Judicial Council no cases or proceedings filed or instituted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma shall be assigned to him for any action whatsoever.
“It is further ORDERED that in the event the active judges of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, including Judge Chandler, cannot agree among themselves upon the division of business and assignment of cases made necessary by this order, the Judicial Council, upon such disagreement being brought to its attention, will act under 28 U. S. C. § 137 and make such division and assignment as it deems proper.”
Copies of the above Order were filed in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on December 27 and 28, respectively. Another copy was served on Judge Chandler by a U. S. Marshal.
On January 6, 1966, as previously noted, Judge Chandler filed with this Court his motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus directed to the Judicial Council. He also sought a stay of its Order. The Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Judicial Council, asked this Court to deny the stay application on the Council’s representation that the Order of December 13 was only temporary pending prompt further inquiry into Judge Chandler’s administration of the business of his court. The stay was denied on January 21, 1966, on the ground that the Order was “entirely interlocutory in character pending prompt further proceedings . . . and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel . . . .” 382 U. S. 1003.
On January 24, 1966, Judge Chandler addressed a letter to his fellow district judges indicating that he objected to the removal and reassignment of cases previously assigned and pending before him on December 28, 1965, but that he was not in disagreement with them as to the assignment of all new cases to judges other than himself. Judge Chandler asserted continuing judicial authority, however, over the cases pending before him as of December 28. The following day the judges of the Western District of Oklahoma advised the Judicial Council that all judges of that District had agreed on the division of new business filed in that court, but that they could not agree on the assignment to other judges of cases then pending before Judge Chandler.
On January 27, 1966, the Judicial Council again convened in special session and ordered a hearing on February 10, 1966, in Oklahoma City at which Judge Chandler was invited to appear, with counsel if he desired. However, by February 4, when the Council met again, it had been advised that no judge of the Western District, including Judge Chandler, desired to be heard pursuant to the order for hearing. Accordingly, no hearing took place.
At this same meeting on February 4, 1966, the Council concluded that there was a disagreement among the District Judges of the Western District as to the division of business; it reached this conclusion on the basis of the disagreement between Judge Chandler and the other District Judges as to the reassignment of cases previously assigned to Judge Chandler as of December 28, 1965. The Council accordingly, acting under 28 U. S. C. §§ 137 and 332, entered an order authorizing Judge Chandler to continue to sit on cases filed and assigned to him prior to December 28, 1965; the Order assigned to the other judges of the Western District cases filed after that date. This Order of February 4 recited further that
“4. The division of business and assignment of cases made herein may be amended or modified by written order signed by all active judges of the Western District of Oklahoma, provided that nothing contained herein shall be construed as preventing Judge Chandler from surrendering any pending cases for re-assignment to another active judge or to prevent transfer between judges to whom new business is assigned pursuant to this order.
“5. This order supersedes the orders of the Council entered on December 13, 1965, and on January 27, 1966, entitled ‘In the Matter of the Honorable Stephen S. Chandler, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma’ and shall remain in effect until the further order of the Council.”
On February 9, 1966, the Solicitor General filed a memorandum on behalf of the Council suggesting that in light of the above developments, namely the confirmation of Judge Chandler’s authority to dispose of the case load then before him and the assignment of new business in accordance with an order previously agreed to by Judge Chandler, the case had become moot since there was nothing more to argue about. To this memorandum Judge Chandler filed a reply on February 25, 1966, contesting the suggestion that he had acquiesced in the Council’s actions. Judge Chandler argued that his acquiescence in the division of new business settled upon by his fellow district judges was given deliberately for reasons of “strategy” in order to prevent any possibility that the Council could find that “the district judges . . . are unable to agree upon the adoption of rules or orders” for the distribution of business and assignment of cases under 28 U. S. C. § 137.
A supplemental memorandum filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Council expressed the latter’s position that Judge Chandler should dispose of his pending docket of pre-December 28, 1965, cases before seeking assignment of new cases. In view of Judge Chandler’s expressed disagreement with the February 4 Order the Solicitor General withdrew the suggestion of mootness. Later in March 1966 Judge Chandler submitted a reply to that supplemental memorandum asserting that the Council was continuing to act beyond its authority by purporting to require that he certify to it his subsequent willingness and ability to undertake new business. He contended that the supplemental memorandum setting forth the condition that he must apply for assignment was in effect a new order fixing still another condition on the exercise of his judicial office.
On July 12, 1967, the Judicial Council convened and, in light of a report from the District Judges of the Western District showing that Judge Chandler had only 12 cases then pending, concluded that a modification of the Order of February 4, 1966, might be in order. The Council transmitted a copy of the minutes of the meeting to the District Judges and asked them to consider anew and agree upon a division of business within the Western District. On August 28, 1967, Judge Chandler wrote his district judge colleagues claiming that the Council’s action of July 12 was but another “illegal effort” to create a situation in which the Council could assert its powers under 28 U. S. C. § 137 to assign and apportion cases.
On September 1, 1967, the Western District Judges, including Judge Chandler, advised the Judicial Council that “the current order for the division of business in this district is agreeable under the circumstances.” (Emphasis added.) When the Council convened two weeks later, it noted the letter expressing agreement and concluded that there need be no new order in the case; accordingly the Order of February 4 was left in effect. All of these developments were reported to the Clerk of this Court and are part of the record.
2
In essence petitioner challenges all orders of the Judicial Council relating to assignment of cases in the Western District of Oklahoma as fixing conditions on the exercise of his constitutional powers as a judge. Specifically, petitioner urges that the Council has usurped the impeachment power, committed by the Constitution to the Congress exclusively. While conceding that the statute here invoked confers some powers on the Judicial Council, petitioner contends that the legitimate administrative purposes to which it may be turned do not include stripping a judge of his judicial functions as he claims was done here.
The Judicial Council contends that petitioner seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court in a case to which such jurisdiction does not extend. The Council argues that the purely administrative action taken in this case has never been reviewed by any court and cannot now be reviewed in an original proceeding under the guise of a claim under the All Writs Act.
The Judicial Council also contends that the Order of December 13, 1965, has been altogether superseded by the Order of February 4, 1966. The latter, in accordance with petitioner's desire, gave back those cases that had been temporarily withdrawn from Judge Chandler. It also continued in force the assignment and division of judicial business agreed upon by the District Judges including Judge Chandler. Alternatively, the Council contends that even absent petitioner’s agreement on the division of cases, nonetheless the Council’s action is authorized by 28 U. S. C. §§ 137 and 332.
The Solicitor General, who has filed a brief as amicus curiae, contends that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition when a Judicial Council order is directed to a district judge because it acted as a judicial, not an administrative, tribunal for purposes of meeting the requirement that the case fall within this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Solicitor General suggests that the Council is nothing more nor less than the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, and that the proceedings in the present case may be analogized to a disbarment. From this the Solicitor General concludes that the case falls within the extraordinary relief available through the All Writs Act. That conclusion in turn rests on the further assumption that this Court’s supervisory authority over lower courts under §§13 and 14 of the first Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 80,81, was not withdrawn when the latter two sections were repealed in favor of the All Writs Act by the revision of the Judicial Code in 1948. The Solicitor General concludes, however, that even though there is appellate jurisdiction in this Court, nonetheless it ought not to be exercised since the Order of December 13 has been superseded for four years by the Order of February 4, the terms of which have been expressly approved by petitioner. The respondent Council also urges this point.
3
Whether the action taken by the Council with respect to the division of business in Judge Chandler’s district falls to one side or the other of the line defining the maximum permissible intervention consistent with the constitutional requirement of judicial independence is the ultimate question on which review is sought in the petition now before us. The dissenting view of this case seems to be that the action of the Judicial Council relating to assignment of cases is an impingement on judicial independence. There can, of course, be no disagreement among us as to the imperative need for total and absolute independence of judges in deciding cases or in any phase of the decisional function. But it is quite another matter to say that each judge in a complex system shall be the absolute ruler of his manner of conducting judicial business. The question is whether Congress can vest in the Judicial Council power to enforce reasonable standards as to when and where court shall be held, how long a case may be delayed in decision, whether a given case is to be tried, and many other routine matters. As to these things — and indeed an almost infinite variety of others of an administrative nature — can each judge be an absolute monarch and yet have a complex judicial system function efficiently?
The legislative history of 28 U. S. C. § 332 and related statutes is clear that some management power was both needed and granted. That is precisely what a group of distinguished chief judges and others seem to have had in mind when, in 1939, Congress was urged by Chief Justice Hughes, Chief Judge Groner, Judges Parker, Stephens and Biggs, and others to give judges a statutory framework and power whereby they might “put their own house in order.”
Many courts — including federal courts — have informal, unpublished rules which, for example, provide that when a judge has a given number of cases under submission, he will not be assigned more cases until opinions and orders issue on his “backlog.” These are reasonable, proper, and necessary rules, and the need for enforcement cannot reasonably be doubted. These internal rules do not come to public notice simply because reasonable judges acknowledge their necessity and abide by their intent. But if one judge in any system refuses to abide by such reasonable procedures it can hardly be that the extraordinary machinery of impeachment is the only recourse.
These questions have long been discussed and debated; they are not easy questions and the risks suggested by the dissents are not to be lightly cast aside. But for the reasons that follow we do not find it necessary to answer them because the threshold question in this case is whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for extraordinary relief.
The authority of this Court to issue a writ of prohibition or mandamus “can be constitutionally exercised only insofar as such writs are in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 173-80.” Ex parte Peru, 318 U. S. 578, 582 (1943). If the challenged action of the Judicial Council was a judicial act or decision by a judicial tribunal, then perhaps it could be reviewed by this Court without doing violence to the constitutional requirement that such review be appellate. As the concurring and dissenting opinions amply demonstrate, finding the prerequisites to support a conclusion that we do have appellate jurisdiction in this case would be no mean feat. It is an exercise we decline to perform since we conclude that in the present posture of the case other avenues of relief on the merits may yet be open to Judge Chandler. See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 568-575 (1947).
Judge Chandler contends that his acquiescence in the division of business agreed upon by his fellow judges was given under some kind of duress flowing from the Council’s Order of December 13, and that it was also given as a matter of “strategy,” specifically in order to avoid the appearance of an absence of agreement among the District Judges as to a division of work. By so doing he sought to avoid creating a situation in which the Council would undoubtedly have had jurisdiction under § 137. The Council, however, noting that the judges had been unable to reach agreement as to those cases previously assigned to Judge Chandler, found nonetheless that a disagreement existed. Despite his apparent acquiescence, Judge Chandler contends that his actions since then belie his words; specifically that his subsequent attack in this Court established his disagreement.
Whatever the merits of this apparent attempt to have it both ways, one thing is clear: except for the effort to seek the aid of this Court, Judge Chandler has never once since giving his written acquiescence in the division of business sought any relief from either the Council or some other tribunal. Were he to disagree with the present division of business, the Judicial Council would thereupon be obliged to “make the necessary orders.” 28 U. S. C. § 137. He chose to avoid that course. As Mr. Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion points out, Judge Chandler apparently desires to have the status quo ante restored without the bother of either disagreeing with the present order of the Council or persuading his fellow district judges to enter another. To say the least this is a remarkable litigation posture for a lawyer to assert in his own behalf.
Instead, Judge Chandler brought an immediate challenge in this Court to the Order of December 13. As noted above, supra, at 79, we denied any relief on the ground that that Order was “entirely interlocutory in character pending prompt further proceedings . . . and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel . . . He expressly refused to attend the hearing called by the Council for February 10, 1966, in response to this Court’s order; in his brief he gives as a reason that he was unwilling to “attend a hearing conducted by a body whose jurisdiction he challenged . . . .” As a result of that refusal we have no record, no petition for relief addressed to any agency, court or tribunal of any kind other than this Court, and a very knotty jurisdictional problem as well. Parenthetically it might be noted that Chandler could have appeared, in person or by counsel, and challenged the jurisdiction of the Council without impairing his claim that it had no power in the matter.
As noted above, and as conceded by the dissents, the Order of December 13, 1965, was terminated by the Order of February 4, 1966. Judge Chandler has twice expressed agreement with the disposition of judicial business effected by that latter Order. Nothing in this record suggests that, were he to express disagreement, relief would not be forthcoming. On the contrary, on July 12, 1967, the Council expressly invited the judges of Chandler’s district to agree among themselves upon a new rule or order for the division of business, and all the judges wrote back advising the Council that “the current order for the division of business in this district is agreeable under the circumstances.”
Whether the Council’s action was administrative action not reviewable in this Court, or whether it is reviewable here, plainly petitioner has not made a case for the extraordinary relief of mandamus or prohibition. The motion for leave to file the petition is therefore
Denied.
MR. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
28 U. S. C. § 137. “Division of business among district judges.
“The business of a court having more than one judge shall be divided among the judges as provided by the rules and orders of the court.
“The chief judge of the district court shall be responsible for the observance of such rules and orders, and shall divide the business and assign the cases so far as such rules and orders do not otherwise prescribe.
“If the district judges in any district are unable to agree upon the adoption of rules or orders for that purpose the judicial council of the circuit shall make the necessary orders.”
28 TJ. S. C. § 332. “Judicial Councils.
“The chief judge of each circuit shall call, at least twice in each year and at such places as he may designate, a council of the circuit judges for the circuit, in regular active service, at which he shall preside. Each circuit judge, unless excused by the chief judge, shall attend all sessions of the council.
“The council shall be known as the Judicial Council of the circuit.
“The chief judge shall submit to the council the quarterly reports of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The council shall take such action thereon as may be necessary.
“Each judicial council shall make all necessary orders for the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts within its circuit. The district judges shall promptly carry into effect all orders of the judicial council.”
28 U. S. C. §1651. “(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
Chief Judge Alfred P. Murrah took no part in the proceedings.
The civil suit was an action brought by one O’Bryan charging petitioner with malicious prosecution; the complaint was dismissed by the District Court, aff’d en banc, 352 F. 2d 987 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U. S. 926 (1966). The criminal indictment charging conspiracy to cheat and defraud the State of Oklahoma was quashed.
In both eases seeking disqualification of petitioner, including one decided after the signing of the Order here challenged, writs of mandamus issued against petitioner. See Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Chandler, 303 F. 2d 55 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1962) (en banc), cert. denied, 372 U. S. 915 (1963); and Texaco, Inc. v. Chandler, 354 F. 2d 655 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1965) (en banc), cert. denied, 383 U. S. 936 (1966).
We note that nothing in the statute or its legislative history indicates that Congress intended or anyone considered the Circuit Judicial Councils to be courts of appeals en banc. Moreover, it should be noted that proposals to include a district judge as a member of each Circuit Judicial Council have been made; obviously, a Council so constituted could hardly be equated to an en banc court.
Congress, by its use of the mandatory “shall” in § 332, appears to have intended that district judges carry out administrative directives of the judicial councils. Congress did not spell out procedures for giving coercive effect to council orders, and the legislative history sheds no light on whether Congress intended this statute to be implemented by regulations. Standing alone, § 332 is not a model of clarity in terms of the scope of the judicial councils’ powers or the procedures to give effect to the final sentence of § 332. Legislative clarification of enforcement provisions of this statute and definition of review of Council orders are called for.
We find nothing in the legislative history to suggest that the Judicial Council was intended to be anything other than an administrative body functioning in a very limited area in a narrow sense as a “board of directors” for the circuit. Whether that characterization is valid or not, we find no indication that Congress intended to or did vest traditional judicial powers in the Councils. We see no constitutional obstacle preventing Congress from vesting in the Circuit Judicial Councils, as administrative bodies, authority to make “all necessary orders for the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts within [each] circuit.”
We express no opinion as to whether he could, for instance, ■ have brought an action in the nature of mandamus to compel “an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed . . .” to him, 28 U. S. C. § 1361, on the theory that this was agency action.
Petitioner’s Brief 7.
Although it is not necessary to reach or decide the issue, the action of the Judicial Council here complained of has few of the characteristics of traditional judicial action and much of what we think of as administrative action. Nor are we called upon to decide whether administrative action is reviewable when it deals only with the internal operation of a court. See nn. 6, 7, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, a citizen of the United States born in Iraq, was an associate professor at St. Francis College, one of the petitioners here. In January 1978, he applied for tenure; the Board of Trustees denied his request on February 23, 1978. He accepted a 1-year, nonrenewable contract and sought administrative reconsideration of the tenure decision, which was denied on February 6, 1979. He worked his last day at the college on May 26, 1979. In June 1979, he filed complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. The state agency dismissed his claim and the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on August 6, 1980.
On October 30, 1980, respondent filed a pro se complaint in the District Court alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and claiming discrimination based on national origin, religion, and/or race. Amended complaints were filed, adding claims under 42 U. S. C. §§1981, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and state law. The District Court dismissed the §§ 1986 and 1985(3) and Title VII claims as untimely but held that the §§ 1981 and 1983 claims were not barred by the Pennsylvania 6-year statute of limitations. The court at that time also ruled that because the complaint alleged denial of tenure because respondent was of the Arabian race, an action under § 1981 could be maintained. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment came up before a different judge, who construed the pleadings as asserting only discrimination on the basis of national origin and religion, which § 1981 did not cover. Even if racial discrimination was deemed to have been alleged, the District Court ruled that § 1981 does not reach claims of discrimination based on Arabian ancestry.
The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim that the § 1981 claim had not been timely filed. Under the Court of Appeals’ holding in Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 777 F. 2d 113 (1985), that the Pennsylvania 2-year statute of limitations governed §1981 cases, respondent’s suit would have been barred. The Court of Appeals, however, relying on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), held that Goodman should not be retroactively applied and that this suit was timely under its pre-Goodman cases which had borrowed the State’s 6-year statute.
Reaching the merits, the Court of Appeals held that respondent had alleged discrimination based on race and that although under current racial classifications Arabs are Caucasians, respondent could maintain his § 1981 claim. Congress, when it passed what is now § 1981, had not limited its protections to those who today would be considered members of a race different from the race of the defendant. Rather, the legislative history of the section indicated that Congress intended to embrace “at the least, membership in a group that is ethnically and physiognomically distinctive.” 784 F. 2d 505, 517 (1986). Section 1981, “at a minimum,” reaches “discrimination directed against an individual because he or she is genetically part of an ethnically and physiognomically distinctive sub-grouping of homo sapiens.” Ibid. Because respondent had not had full discovery and the record was not sufficient to determine whether he had been subjected to the sort of prejudice § 1981 would redress, respondent was to be given the opportunity to prove his case.
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 812 (1986), limited to the statute of limitations issue and the question whether a person of Arabian ancestry was protected from racial discrimination under § 1981, and now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
1 — (
We agree with the Court of Appeals that respondent’s claim was not time barred. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261 (1985), required that in selecting the applicable state statute of limitations in § 1983 cases, the lower federal courts should choose the state statute applicable to other personal injury-torts. Thereafter, the Third Circuit in Goodman held that Wilson applies to § 1981 cases as well and that the Pennsylvania 2-year statute should apply. The Court of Appeals in this case, however, held that when respondent filed his suit, which was prior to Wilson v. Garcia, it was clearly established in the Third Circuit that a § 1981 plaintiff had six years to bring an action and that Goodman should not be applied retroactively to bar respondent’s suit.
Insofar as what the prevailing law was in the Third Circuit, we have no reason to disagree with the Court of Appeals. Under controlling precedent in that Circuit, respondent had six years to file his suit, and it was filed well within that time. See 784 F. 2d, at 512-513. We also assume but do not decide that Wilson v. Garcia controls the selection of the applicable state statute of limitations in § 1981 cases. The Court of Appeals, however, correctly held that its decision in Goodman should not be retroactively applied to bar respondent’s action in this case. The usual rule is that federal cases should be decided in accordance with the law existing at the time of decision. Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U. S. 473, 486, n. 16 (1981); Thorpe v. Durham Housing Authority, 393 U. S. 268, 281 (1969); United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110 (1801). But Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, supra, counsels against retroactive application of statute of limitations decisions in certain circumstances. There, the Court held that its decision specifying the applicable state statute of limitations should be applied only prospectively because it overruled clearly established Circuit precedent on which the complaining party was entitled to rely, because retroactive application would be inconsistent with the purpose of the underlying substantive statute, and because such application would be manifestly inequitable. The Court of Appeals found these same factors were present in this case and foreclosed retroactive application of its decision in Goodman. We perceive no good reason for not applying Chevron where Wilson has required a Court of Appeals to overrule its prior cases. Nor has petitioner persuaded us that there was any error in the application of Chevron in the circumstances existing in this case.
II
Section 1981 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 exac-tions of every kind, and to no other.”
Although § 1981 does not itself use the word “race,” the Court has construed the section to forbid all “racial” discrimination in the making of private as well as public contracts. Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 168, 174-175 (1976). Petitioner college, although a private institution, was therefore subject to this statutory command. There is no disagreement among the parties on these propositions. The issue is whether respondent has alleged racial discrimination within the meaning of § 1981.
Petitioners contend that respondent is a Caucasian and cannot allege the kind of discrimination § 1981 forbids. Con-cededly, McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U. S. 273 (1976), held that white persons could maintain a § 1981 suit; but that suit involved alleged discrimination against a white person in favor of a black, and petitioner submits that the section does not encompass claims of discrimination by one Caucasian against another. We are quite sure that the Court of Appeals properly rejected this position.
Petitioner’s submission rests on the assumption that all those who might be deemed Caucasians today were thought to be of the same race when § 1981 became law in the 19th century; and it may be that a variety of ethnic groups, including Arabs, are now considered to be within the Caucasian race. The understanding of “race” in the 19th century, however, was different. Plainly, all those who might be deemed Caucasian today were not thought to be of the same race at the time § 1981 became law.
In the middle years of the 19th century, dictionaries commonly referred to race as a “continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock,” N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 666' (New York 1830) (emphasis in original), “[t]he lineage of a family,” 2 N. Webster, A Dictionary of the English Language 411 (New Haven 1841), or “descendants of a common ancestor,” J. Donald, Chambers’ Etymological Dictionary of the English Language 415 (London 1871). The 1887 edition of Webster’s expanded the definition somewhat: “The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock.” N. Webster, Dictionary of the English Language 589 (W. Wheeler ed. 1887). It was not until the 20th century that dictionaries began referring to the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, 8 The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia 4926 (1911), or to race as involving divisions of mankind based upon different physical characteristics. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 794 (3d ed. 1916). Even so, modern dictionaries still include among the definitions of race “a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1870 (1971); Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 969 (1986).
Encyclopedias of the 19th century also described race in terms of ethnic groups, which is a narrower concept of race than petitioners urge. Encyclopedia Americana in 1858, for example, referred to various races such as Finns, vol. 5, p. 123, gypsies, 6 id., at 123, Basques, 1 id., at 602, and Hebrews, 6 id., at 209. The 1863 version of the New American Cyclopaedia divided the Arabs into a number of subsidiary races, vol. 1, p. 739; represented the Hebrews as of the Semitic race, 9 id., at 27, and identified numerous other groups as constituting races, including Swedes, 15 id., at 216, Norwegians, 12 id., at 410, Germans, 8 id., at 200, Greeks, 8 id., at 438, Finns, 7 id., at 513, Italians, 9 id., at 644-645 (referring to mixture of different races), Spanish, 14 id., at 804, Mongolians, 11 id., at 651, Russians, 14 id., at 226, and the like. The Ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica also referred to Arabs, vol. 2, p. 245 (1878), Jews, 13 id., at 685 (1881), and other ethnic groups such as Germans, 10 id., at 473 (1879), Hungarians, 12 id., at 365 (1880), and Greeks, 11 id., at 83 (1880), as separate races.
These dictionary and encyclopedic sources are somewhat diverse, but it is clear that they do not support the claim that for the purposes of § 1981, Arabs, Englishmen, Germans, and certain other ethnic groups are to be considered a single race. We would expect the legislative history of § 1981, which the Court held in Runyon v. McCrary had its source in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1870, 16 Stat. 140, 144, to reflect this common understanding, which it surely does. The debates are replete with references to the Scandinavian races, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 499 (1866) (remarks of Sen. Cowan), as well as the Chinese, id., at 523 (remarks of Sen. Davis), Latin, id., at 238 (remarks of Rep. Kasson during debate of home rule for the District of Columbia), Spanish, id., at 251 (remarks of Sen. Davis during debate of District of Columbia suffrage), and Anglo-Saxon races, id., at 542 (remarks of Rep. Dawson). Jews, ibid., Mexicans, see ibid, (remarks of Rep. Dawson), blacks, passim, and Mongolians, id., at 498 (remarks of Sen. Cowan), were similarly categorized. Gypsies were referred to as a race. Ibid, (remarks of Sen. Cowan). Likewise, the Germans:
“Who will say that Ohio can pass a law enacting that no man of the German race . . . shall ever own any property in Ohio, or shall ever make a contract in Ohio, or ever inherit property in Ohio, or ever come into Ohio to live, or even to work? If Ohio may pass such a law, and exclude a German citizen . . . because he is of the German nationality or race, then may every other State do so.” Id., at 1294 (remarks of Sen. Shellabarger).
There was a reference to the Caucasian race, but it appears to have been referring to people of European ancestry. Id., at 523 (remarks of Sen. Davis).
The history of the 1870 Act reflects similar understanding of what groups Congress intended to protect from intentional discrimination. It is clear, for example, that the civil rights sections of the 1870 Act provided protection for immigrant groups such as the Chinese. This view was expressed in the Senate. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess., 1536, 3658, 3808 (1870). In the' House, Representative Bingham described § 16 of the Act, part of the authority for § 1981, as declaring “that the States shall not hereafter discriminate against the immigrant from China and in favor of the immigrant from Prussia, nor against the immigrant from France and in favor of the immigrant from Ireland.” Id., at 3871.
Based on the history of § 1981, we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics. Such discrimination is racial discrimination that Congress intended § 1981 to forbid, whether or not it would be classified as racial in terms of modern scientific theory. The Court of Appeals was thus quite right in holding that § 1981, “at a minimum,” reaches discrimination against an individual “because he or she is genetically part of an ethnically and physiognomically distinctive sub-grouping of homo sapiens.” It is clear from our holding, however, that a distinctive physiognomy is not essential to qualify for § 1981 protection. If respondent on remand can prove that he was subjected to intentional discrimination based on the fact that he was bora an Arab, rather than solely on the place or nation of his origin, or his religion, he will have made out a case under § 1981.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The § 1983 claim was dismissed for want of state action. The pendent state claims were also dismissed.
The Court of Appeals thus rejected petitioners’ claim that respondent’s complaint alleged only national origin and religious discrimination, assertedly not reached by § 1981.
The Court of Appeals also held that the individual members of the tenure committee were subject to liability under § 1981. The District Court was also to reconsider its dismissal of the pendent state claims.
There is a common popular understanding that there are three major human races — Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Many modern biologists and anthropologists, however, criticize racial classifications as arbitrary and of little use in understanding the variability of human beings. It is said that genetically homogeneous populations do not exist and traits are not discontinuous between populations; therefore, a population can only be described in terms of relative frequencies of various traits. Clear-cut categories do not exist. The particular traits which have generally been chosen to characterize races have been criticized as having little biological significance. It has been found that differences between individuals of the same race are often greater than the differences between the “average” individuals of different races. These observations and others have led some, but not all, scientists to conclude that racial classifications are for the most part sociopolitical, rather than biological, in nature. S. Molnar, Human Variation (2d ed. 1983); S. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (1981); M. Banton & J. Harwood, The Race Concept (1975); A. Montagu, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth (1974); A. Montagu, Statement on Race (3d ed. 1972); Science and the Concept of Race (M. Mead, T. Dobzhansky, E. Tobach, & R. Light eds. 1968); A. Montagu, The Concept of Race (1964); R. Benedict, Race and Racism (1942); Littlefield, Lieberman, & Reynolds, Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology, 23 Current Anthropology 641 (1982); Biological Aspects of Race, 17 Int’l Soc. Sci. J. 71 (1965); Washburn, The Study of Race, 65 American Anthropologist 521 (1963).
We note that under prior cases, discrimination by States on the basis of ancestry violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 476, 479 (1954); Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 646 (1948); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). See also Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24, 32 (1948).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires ús to decide whether a “complaining witness” in a grand jury proceeding is entitled to the same immunity in an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 as a witness who testifies at trial. We see no sound reason to draw a distinction for this purpose between grand jury and trial witnesses.
I
Petitioner Charles Rehberg, a certified public accountant, sent anonymous faxes to several recipients, including the management of a hospital in Albany, Georgia, criticizing the hospital’s management and activities. In response, the local district attorney’s office, with the assistance of its chief investigator, respondent James Paulk, launched a criminal investigation of petitioner, allegedly as a favor to the hospital’s leadership.
Respondent testified before a grand jury, and petitioner was then indicted for aggravated assault, burglary, and six counts of making harassing telephone calls. The indictment charged that petitioner had assaulted a hospital physician, Dr. James Hotz, after unlawfully entering the doctor’s home. Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, and it was dismissed.
A few months later, respondent returned to the grand jury, and petitioner was indicted again, this time for assaulting Dr. Hotz on August 22,2004, and for making harassing phone calls. On this occasion, both the doctor and respondent testified. Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of this second indictment, claiming that he was “ ‘nowhere near Dr. Hotz’ ” on the date in question and that “‘[tjhere was no evidence whatsoever that [he] committed an assault on anybody.’” 611 F. 3d 828, 836 (CA11 2010). Again, the indictment was dismissed.
While the second indictment was still pending, respondent appeared before a grand jury for a third time, and yet another indictment was returned. Petitioner was charged with assault and making harassing phone calls. This final indictment was ultimately dismissed as well.
Petitioner then brought this action against respondent under Rev.. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Petitioner alleged that respondent conspired to present and did present false testimony to the grand jury. Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that he was entitled to absolute immunity for his grand jury testimony. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied respondent’s motion to dismiss, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding, in accordance with Circuit precedent, that respondent was absolutely immune from a § 1983 claim based on his grand jury testimony.
The Court of Appeals noted petitioner’s allegation that respondent was the sole “complaining witness” before the grand jury, but the Court of Appeals declined to recognize a “complaining witness” exception to its precedent on grand jury witness immunity. See 611 F. 3d, at 839-840. “[Allowing civil suits for false grand jury testimony,” the court reasoned, “would . . . emasculate the confidential nature of grand jury testimony, and eviscerate the traditional absolute immunity for witness testimony in judicial proceedings.” Id., at 840. The court went on to hold that respondent was entitled to absolute immunity, not only with respect to claims based directly on his grand jury testimony, but also with respect to the claim that he conspired to present such testimony. Id., at 841. To allow liability to be predicated on the alleged conspiracy, the court concluded, “‘would be to permit through the back door what is prohibited through the front.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Jones v. Cannon, 174 F. 3d 1271, 1289 (CA11 1999)).
We granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict regarding the immunity of a “complaining witness” in a grand jury proceeding, 562 U. S. 1286 (2011), and we now affirm.
1-H hH
Section 1983, which derives from §1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. Under the terms of the statute, “ ‘[e]very person’ who acts under color of state law to deprive another of a constitutional right [is] answerable to that person in a suit for damages.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U. S. C. § 1983).
A
Despite the broad terms of § 1983, this Court has long recognized that the statute was not meant to effect a radical departure from ordinary tort law and the common-law immunities applicable in tort suits. See, e. g., Burns v. Reed, 500 U. S. 478, 484 (1991). More than 60 years ago, in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951), the Court held that § 1983 did not abrogate the long-established absolute immunity enjoyed by legislators for actions taken within the legitimate sphere of legislative authority. Immunities “well grounded in history and reason,” the Court wrote, were not somehow eliminated “by covert inclusion in the general language” of §1983. Id., at 376.
This interpretation has been reaffirmed by the Court time and again and is now an entrenched feature of our §1983 jurisprudence. See, e. g., Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554-555 (1967) (“The legislative record gives no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common-law immunities. Accordingly, this Court held ... that the immunity of legislators for acts within the legislative role was not abolished. The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established, and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine”); Imbler, supra, at 418 (statute must “be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather than in derogation of them”); Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 561 (1978) (“Although the Court has recognized that in enacting § 1983 Congress must have intended to expose state officials to damages liability in some circumstances, the section has been consistently construed as not intending wholesale revocation of the common-law immunity afforded government officials”); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325, 330 (1983) (“ ‘It is by now well settled that the tort liability created by § 1983 cannot be understood in a historical vacuum.... One important assumption underlying the Court’s decisions in this area is that members of the 42d Congress were familiar with common-law principles, including defenses previously recognized in ordinary tort litigation, and that they likely intended these common-law principles to obtain, absent specific provisions to the contrary’ ” (quoting Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247, 258 (1981))); Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522, 529 (1984) (“The starting point in our own analysis is the common law. Our cases have proceeded on the assumption that common-law principles of... immunity were incorporated into our judicial system and that they should not be abrogated absent clear legislative intent to do so”).
B
Recognizing that “Congress intended [§1983] to be construed in the light of common-law principles,” the Court has looked to the common law for guidance in determining the scope of the immunities available in a § 1983 action. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123 (1997). We do not simply make our own judgment about the need for immunity. We have made it clear that it is not our role “to make a freewheeling policy choice,” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 342 (1986), and that we do not have a license to create immunities based solely on our view of sound policy, see Tower v. Glover, 467 U. S. 914, 922-923 (1984). Instead, we conduct “a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it.” Imbler, supra, at 421.
We take what has been termed a “functional approach.” See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 (1988); Burns, supra, at 486. We consult the common law to identify those governmental functions that were historically viewed as so important and vulnerable to interference by means of litigation that some form of absolute immunity from civil liability was needed to ensure that they are performed “ ‘with independence and without fear of consequences.’” Pierson, supra, at 554 (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 350, n. ‡ (1872)). Taking this approach, we have identified the following functions that are absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983: actions taken by legislators within the legitimate scope of legislative authority, see Tenney, supra; actions taken by judges within the legitimate scope of judicial authority, see Pierson, supra; actions taken by prosecutors in their role as advocates, see Imbler, supra, at 430-431; and the giving of testimony by witnesses at trial, see Briscoe, supra. By contrast, the Court has found no absolute immunity for the acts of the chief executive officer of a State, the senior and subordinate officers of a State’s National Guard, the president of a state university, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 247-248 (1974); school board members, see Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 318 (1975); the superintendent of a state hospital, see O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, 577 (1975); police officers, see Pierson, 386 U. S., at 556; prison officials and officers, Procunier, supra, at 561; and private co-conspirators of a judge, see Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U. S. 24, 27 (1980).
C
While the Court’s functional approach is tied to the common law’s identification of the functions that merit the protection of absolute immunity, the Court’s precedents have not mechanically duplicated the precise scope of the absolute immunity that the common law provided to protect those functions. See, e. g., Burns, 500 U. S., at 493 (“ ‘[T]he precise contours of official immunity’ need not mirror the immunity at common law” (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 645 (1987))).
This approach is illustrated by the Court’s analysis of the absolute immunity enjoyed today by public prosecutors. When § 1983⅛ predecessor was enacted in 1871, it was common for criminal cases to be prosecuted by private parties. See, e. g., Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187, 198 (1879) (Bradley, J., dissenting) (“[Ejvery man in the community, if he has probable cause for prosecuting another, has a perfect right, by law, to institute such prosecution, subject only, in the case of private prosecutions, to the penalty of paying the costs if he fails in his suit”). And private prosecutors, like private plaintiffs in civil suits, did not enjoy absolute immunity from suit. See Malley, 475 U. S., at 340-341, and n. 3 (citing cases). Instead, “the generally accepted rule” was that a private complainant who procured an arrest or prosecution could be held liable in an action for malicious prosecution if the complainant acted with malice and without probable cause. See id., at 340-341; see also Briscoe, supra, at 351 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“Both English and American courts routinely permitted plaintiffs to bring actions alleging that the defendant had made a false and malicious accusation of a felony to a magistrate or other judicial officer”); Wheeler v. Nesbitt, 24 How. 544, 550 (1861) (“Undoubtedly, every person who puts the criminal law in force maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause, commits a wrongful act; and if the accused is thereby prejudiced, either in his person or property, the injury and loss so sustained constitute the proper foundation of an action to recover compensation”); Dinsman v. Wilkes, 12 How. 390, 402 (1852) (no immunity “where a party had maliciously, and without probable cause, procured the plaintiff to be indicted or arrested for an offence of which he was not guilty”).
In the decades after the adoption of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, however, the prosecutorial function was increasingly assumed by public officials, and common-law courts held that public prosecutors, unlike their private predecessors, were absolutely immune from the types of tort claims that an aggrieved or vengeful criminal defendant was most likely to assert, namely, claims for malicious prosecution or defamation. See Imbler, 424 U. S., at 441-442 (White, J., concurring in judgment); Kalina, supra, at 124, n. 11 (noting that cases “decided after 1871 . . . granted a broader immunity to public prosecutors than' had been available in malicious prosecution actions against private persons who brought prosecutions at early common law”); see also Burns, supra, at 505 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (noting that the “common-law tradition of prosecutorial immunity... developed much later than 1871”).
This adaptation of prosecutorial immunity accommodated the special needs of public, as opposed to private, prosecutors. Because the daily function of a public prosecutor is to bring criminal charges, tort claims against public prosecutors “could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State’s advocate.” Imbler, 424 U. S., at 425. Such “harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies from his public duties,” and would result in a severe interference with the administration of an important public office. Id., at 423. Constant vulnerability to vexatious litigation would give rise to the “possibility that [the prosecutor] would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust.” Ibid.
Thus, when the issue of prosecutorial immunity under § 1983 reached this Court in Imbler, the Court did not simply apply the scope of immunity recognized by common-law courts as of 1871 but instead placed substantial reliance on post-1871 cases extending broad immunity to public prosecutors sued for common-law torts.
While the Court has looked to the common law in determining the scope of the absolute immunity available under § 1983, the Court has not suggested that § 1983 is simply a federalized amalgamation of pre-existing common-law claims, an all-in-one federal claim encompassing the torts of assault, trespass, false arrest, defamation, malicious prosecution, and more. The new federal claim created by § 1983 differs in important ways from those pre-existing torts. It is broader in that it reaches constitutional and statutory violations that do not correspond to any previously known tort. See Kalina, 522 U. S., at 123. But it is narrower in that it applies only to tortfeasors who act under color of state law. See Briscoe, 460 U. S., at 329. Section 1983 “ha[s] no precise counterpart in state law. . . . [I]t is the purest coincidence when state statutes or the common law provide for equivalent remedies; any analogies to those causes of action are bound to be imperfect.” Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 272 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, both the scope of the new tort and the scope of the absolute immunity available in § 1983 actions differ in some respects from the common law.
III
A
At common law, trial witnesses enjoyed a limited form of absolute immunity for statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding: They had complete immunity against slander and libel claims, even if it was alleged that the statements in question were maliciously false. Kalina, supra, at 133 (Scalia, J., concurring) (citing F. Hilliard, Law of Torts 319 (1866)); see Briscoe, supra, at 351 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Burns, 500 U. S., at 501 (opinion of Scalia, J.).
In Briscoe, however, this Court held that the immunity of a trial witness sued under § 1983 is broader: In such a case, a trial witness has absolute immunity with respect to any claim based on the witness’ testimony. When a witness is sued because of his testimony, the Court wrote, “ ‘the claims of the individual must yield to the dictates of public policy.’ ” 460 U. S., at 332-333 (quoting Calkins v. Sumner, 13 Wis. 193, 197 (1860)). Without absolute immunity for witnesses, the Court concluded, the truth-seeking process at trial would be impaired. Witnesses “might be reluctant to come forward to testify,” and even if a witness took the stand, the witness “might be inclined to shade his testimony in favor of the potential plaintiff” for “fear of subsequent liability.” 460 U. S., at 333.
The factors- that justify absolute immunity for trial witnesses apply with equal force to grand jury witnesses. In both contexts, a witness’ fear of retaliatory litigation may deprive the tribunal of critical evidence. And in neither context is the deterrent of potential civil liability needed to prevent perjurious testimony. In Briscoe, the Court concluded that the possibility of civil liability was not needed to deter false testimony at trial because other sanctions— chiefly prosecution for perjury — provided a sufficient deterrent. Id., at 342. Since perjury before a grand jury, like perjury at trial, is a serious criminal offense, see, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 1623(a), there is no reason to think that this deterrent is any less effective in preventing false grand jury testimony.
B
Neither is there any reason to distinguish law enforcement witnesses from lay witnesses. In Briscoe, it was argued that absolute immunity was not needed for police officer witnesses, but the Court refused to draw that distinction. The Court wrote:
“When a police officer appears as a witness, he may reasonably be viewed as acting like any other witness sworn to tell the truth — in which event he can make a strong claim to witness immunity; alternatively, he may be regarded as an official performing a critical role in the judicial process, in which event he may seek the benefit afforded to other governmental participants in the same proceeding. Nothing in the language of the statute suggests that such a witness belongs in a narrow, special category lacking protection against damages suits." 460 U. S., at 335-336 (footnote omitted).
See also id., at 342 (“A police officer on the witness stand performs the same functions as any other witness”).
The Briscoe Court rebuffed two arguments for distinguishing between law enforcement witnesses and lay witnesses for immunity purposes: first, that absolute immunity is not needed for law enforcement witnesses because they are less likely to be intimidated by the threat of suit and, second, that such witnesses should not be shielded by absolute immunity because false testimony by a police officer is likely to be more damaging than false testimony by a lay witness. See ibid. The Court observed that there are other factors not applicable to lay witnesses that weigh in favor of extending absolute immunity to police officer witnesses.
First, police officers testify with some frequency. Id., at 343. “Police officers testify in scores of cases every year,” the Court noted, “and defendants often will transform resentment at being convicted into allegations of perjury by the State’s official witnesses.” Ibid. If police officer witnesses were routinely forced to defend against claims based on their testimony, their “ 'energy and attention would be diverted from the pressing duty of enforcing the criminal law.’ ” Id., at 343-344 (quoting Imbler, 424 U. S., at 425).
Second, a police officer witness’ potential liability, if conditioned on the exoneration- of the accused, could influence decisions on appeal and collateral relief. 460 U. S., at 344. Needless to say, such decisions should not be influenced by the likelihood .of a subsequent civil rights action. But the possibility that a decision favorable to the accused might subject a police officer witness to liability would create the “ ‘risk of injecting extraneous concerns’ ” into appellate review and postconviction proceedings. Ibid. (quoting Imbler, supra, at 428, n. 27). In addition, law enforcement witnesses face the possibility of sanctions not applicable to lay witnesses, namely, loss of their jobs and other employment-related sanctions.
For these reasons, we conclude that grand jury witnesses should enjoy the same immunity as witnesses at trial. This means that a grand jury witness has absolute immunity from any § 1983 claim based on the witness’ testimony. In addition, as the Court of Appeals held, this rule may not be circumvented by claiming that a grand jury witness conspired to present false testimony or by using evidence of the witness’ testimony to support any other § 1983 claim concerning the initiation or maintenance of a prosecution. Were it otherwise, “a criminal defendant turned civil plaintiff could simply reframe a claim to attack the preparation instead of the absolutely immune actions themselves.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U. S. 259, 283 (1993) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F. 2d 942, 946 (CA11 1985) (per curiam) (“[Jjudges, on mere allegations of conspiracy or prior agreement, could be hauled into court and made to defend their judicial acts, the precise result judicial immunity was designed to avoid”). In the vast majority of cases involving a claim against a grand jury witness, the witness and the prosecutor conducting the investigation engage in preparatory activity, such as a preliminary discussion in which the witness relates the substance of his intended testimony. We decline to endorse a rule of absolute immunity that is so easily frustrated.
IV
A
Petitioner’s main argument is that our cases, chiefly Mal-ley and Kalina, already establish that a “complaining witness” is not shielded by absolute immunity. See Brief for Petitioner 17-22. In those cases, law enforcement officials who submitted affidavits in support of applications for arrest warrants were denied absolute immunity because they “performed the function of a complaining witness.” Kalina, 522 U. S., at 131; see Malley, 475 U. S., at 340-341. Relying on these cases, petitioner contends that certain grand jury witnesses — namely, those who qualify as “complaining witnesses” — are not entitled to absolute immunity. Petitioner’s argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinctive function played by a “complaining witness” during the period when § 1983’s predecessor was enacted.
At that time, the term “complaining witness” was'used to refer to a party who procured an arrest and initiated a criminal prosecution, see Kalina, 522 U. S., at 135 (Scalia, J., concurring). A “complaining witness” might not actually ever testify, and thus the term “ ‘witness’ in ‘complaining witness’ is misleading.” Ibid. See also Malley, supra, at 340 (complaining witness “procure[s] the issuance of an arrest warrant by submitting a complaint”); Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U. S. 158, 164-165 (1992) (complaining witness “set[s] the wheels of government in motion by instigating a legal action”).
It is true that a mid-19th-century complaining witness might testify, either before a grand jury or at trial. But testifying was not a necessary characteristic of a “complaining witness.” See M. Newell, Malicious Prosecution 368 (1892). Nor have we been presented with evidence that witnesses who did no more than testify before a grand jury were regarded as complaining witnesses and were successfully sued for malicious prosecution. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 14-15, 24-25.
In sum, testifying, whether before a grand jury or at trial, was not the distinctive function performed by a complaining witness. It is clear — and petitioner does not contend otherwise — that a complaining witness cannot be held liable for perjurious trial testimony. Briscoe, supra, at 326. And there is no more reason why a complaining witness should be subject to liability for testimony before a grand jury.
Once the distinctive function performed by a “complaining witness” is understood, it is apparent that a law enforcement officer who testifies before a grand jury is not at all comparable to a “complaining witness.” By testifying before a grand jury, a law enforcement officer does not perform the function of applying for an arrest warrant; nor does such an officer make the critical decision to initiate a prosecution. It is of course true that a detective or case agent who has performed or supervised most of the investigative work in a case may serve as an important witness in the grand jury proceeding and may very much want the grand jury to return an indictment. But such a witness, unlike a complaining witness at common law, does not make the decision to press criminal charges.
Instead, it is almost always a prosecutor who is responsible for the decision to present a case to a grand jury, and in many jurisdictions, even if an indictment is handed up, a prosecution cannot proceed unless the prosecutor signs the indictment. It would thus be anomalous to permit a police officer who testifies before a grand jury to be sued for maliciously procuring an unjust prosecution when it is the prosecutor, who is shielded by absolute immunity, who is actually responsible for the decision to prosecute. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 279, n. 5 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (the prosecutor is the “principal player in carrying out a prosecution”); see ibid. (“[T]he star player is exonerated, but the supporting actor is not”).
Precisely because no grand jury witness has the power to initiate a prosecution, petitioner is unable to provide a workable standard for determining whether a particular grand jury witness is a “complaining witness.” Here, respondent was the only witness to testify in two of the three grand jury sessions that resulted in indictments. But where multiple witnesses testify before a grand jury, identifying the “complaining witness” would often be difficult. Petitioner suggests that a “complaining witness” is “someone who sets the prosecution in motion.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 8; see Reply Brief for Petitioner 15. And petitioner maintains that the same distinction made at common law between complaining witnesses and other witnesses applies in §1983 actions. See id., at 14-16. But, as we have explained, a complaining witness played a distinctive role, and therefore even when a “complaining witness” testified, there was a clear basis for distinguishing between the “complaining witness” and other witnesses. Because no modern grand jury witness plays a comparable role, petitioner’s proposed test would be of little use. Consider a case in which the case agent or lead detective testifies before the grand jury and provides a wealth of background information and then a cooperating witness appears and furnishes critical incriminating testimony. Or suppose that two witnesses each provide essential testimony regarding different counts of an indictment or different elements of an offense. In these cases, which witnesses would be “complaining witnesses” and thus vulnerable to suit based on their testimony?
B
Petitioner contends that the deterrent effect of civil liability is more needed in the grand jury context because trial witnesses are exposed to cross-examination, which is designed to expose perjury. See Brief for Petitioner 21, 25-26. This argument overlooks the fact that a critical grand jury witness is likely to testify again at trial and may be cross-examined at that time. But in any event, the force of petitioner’s argument is more than offset by a special problem that would be created by allowing civil actions against grand jury witnesses — subversion of grand jury secrecy.
“ ‘We consistently have recognized that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.’” United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U. S. 418, 424 (1983) (quoting Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U. S. 211, 218-219 (1979)). “ ‘[I]f preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony. Moreover, witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly, as they would be open to retribution.’” 463 U. S., at 424.
Allowing § 1983 actions against grand jury witnesses would compromise this vital secrecy. If the testimony of witnesses before a grand jury could provide the basis for, or could be used as evidence supporting, a § 1983 claim, the identities of grand jury witnesses could be discovered by filing a § 1983 action and moving for the disclosure of the transcript of grand jury proceedings. Especially in cases involving violent criminal organizations or other subjects who might retaliate against adverse grand jury witnesses, the threat of such disclosure might seriously undermine the grand jury process.
C
Finally, contrary to petitioner’s suggestion, recognizing absolute immunity for grand jury witnesses does not create an insupportable distinction between States that use grand juries and those that do not. Petitioner argues that it would make no sense to distinguish for purposes of § 1983 immunity between prosecutions initiated by the return of a grand jury indictment and those initiated by the filing of a complaint or information, and he notes that 26 States permit felony prosecutions to be brought by information. Brief for Petitioner 23-24. But petitioner draws the wrong analogy. In States that permit felony prosecutions to be initiated by information, the closest analog to a grand jury witness is a witness at a preliminary hearing. Most of the States that do not require an indictment for felonies provide a preliminary hearing at which witnesses testify. See LaFave § 14.2(d), at 304, and n. 47, 307, and h. 60. The lower courts have held that witnesses at a preliminary hearing are protected by the same immunity accorded grand jury witnesses, see, e. g., Brice v. Nkaru, 220 F. 3d 233, 239, n. 6 (CA4 2000); Curtis v. Bembenek, 48 F. 3d 281, 284-285 (CA7 1995) (citing cases), and petitioner does not argue otherwise, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 51.
* * *
For these reasons, we hold that a grand jury witness is entitled to the same immunity as a trial witness. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is
Affirmed.
Of course, we do not suggest that absolute immunity extends to all activity that a witness conducts outside of the grand jury room. For example, we have accorded only qualified immunity to law enforcement officials who falsify affidavits, see Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U. S. 118, 129-131 (1997); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 340-345 (1986), and fabricate evidence concerning an unsolved crime, see Buckley, 509 U. S., at 272-276.
The federal courts have concluded uniformly that Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, providing that an indictment “must be signed by an attorney for the government,” precludes federal grand juries from issuing an indictment without the prosecutor’s signature, signifying his or her approval. See 4 W. LaFave, J. Israel, N. King, & 0. Kerr, Criminal Procedure § 15.1(d) (3d ed. 2007) (hereinafter LaFave). However, in some jurisdictions, the grand jury may return an indictment and initiate a prosecution without the prosecutor’s signature, but such cases are rare. See 1 S. Beale, W. Bryson, J. Felman, & M. Elston, Grand Jury Law and Practice, p. 4-76, and n. 2 (2d ed. 2001).
Petitioner says there is no reason to distinguish between a person who goes to the police to swear out a criminal complaint and a person who testifies to facts before a grand jury for the same purpose and with the same effect. Brief for Petitioner 2, 23. But this is like saying that a bicycle and an F-16 are the same thing. Even if the functions are similar as a general matter, the entities are quite different. Grand juries, by tradition, statute, and sometimes constitutional mandate, have a status and entitlement to information that absolute immunity furthers. See, e. g., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 423, n. 20 (1976) (“It is the functional comparability of their judgments to those of the judge that has resulted in both grand jurors and prosecutors being referred to as ‘quasi-judicial’ officers, and their immunities being termed ‘quasi-judicial’ as well”); see also United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U. S. 418, 423 (1983) (“The grand jury has always occupied a high place as an instrument of justice in our system of criminal law — so much so that it is enshrined in the Constitution”). Our holding today supports the functioning of the grand jury system. The importance of the grand jury cannot be underestimated: In the federal system and many States, see LaFave § 15.1(d), a felony cannot be charged without the consent of community representatives, a vital protection from unwarranted prosecutions.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question this case presents is whether § 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, in giving federal courts jurisdiction of suits between employers and unions for breach of collective bargaining agreements, impliedly repealed § 4 of the pre-existing Norris-LaGuardia Act, which, with certain exceptions not here material, barred federal courts from issuing injunctions “in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute.”
The complaint here was filed by the petitioner Sinclair Refining Company against the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union and Local 7-210 of that union and alleged: that the International Union, acting by and with the authority of the Local Union and its members, signed a written collective bargaining contract with Sinclair which provided for compulsory, final and binding arbitration of “any difference regarding wages, hours or working conditions between the parties hereto or between the Employer and an employee covered by this working agreement which might arise within any plant or within any region of operations”; that this contract also included express provisions by which the unions agreed that “there shall be no slowdowns for any reason whatsoever” and “no strikes or work stoppages... [f] or any cause which is or may be the subject of a grievance”; and that notwithstanding these promises in the collective bargaining contract the members of Local 7-210 had, over a period of some 19 months, engaged in work stoppages and strikes on nine separate occasions, each of which, the complaint charged, grew out of a grievance which could have been submitted to arbitration under the contract and therefore fell squarely within the unions’ promises not to strike. This pattern of repeated, deliberate violations of the contract, Sinclair alleged, indicated a complete disregard on the part of the unions for their obligations under the contract and a probability that they would continue to “subvert the provisions of the contract” forbidding strikes over grievances in the future unless they were enjoined from doing so. In this situation, Sinclair claimed, there was no adequate remedy at law which would protect its contractual rights and the court should therefore enter orders enjoining the unions and their agents “preliminarily at first, and thereafter permanently, from aiding, abetting, fomenting, advising, participating in, ratifying, or condoning any strike, stoppage of work, slowdown or any other disruption of, or interference with normal employment or normal operation or production by any employee within the bargaining unit at plaintiff’s East Chicago, Indiana refinery covered by the contract between the parties dated August 8, 1957, in support of, or because of, any matter or thing which is, or could be, the subject of a grievance under the grievance procedure of the said contract, or any extension thereof, or any other contract between the parties which shall contain like or similar provisions.”
The unions moved to dismiss this complaint on the ground that it sought injunctive relief which United States courts, by virtue of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, have no jurisdiction to give. The District Court first denied the motion, but subsequently, upon reconsideration after full oral argument, vacated its original order and granted the unions’ motion to dismiss. In reaching this conclusion, the District Court reasoned that the controversy between Sinclair and the unions was unquestionably a “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuar-dia Act and that the complaint therefore came within the proscription of § 4 of that Act which “withdraws jurisdiction from the federal courts to issue injunctions to prohibit the refusal ‘to perform work or remain in any relation of employment’ in cases involving any labor dispute.” The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of dismissal for the same reasons. Because this decision presented a conflict with the decision on this same important question by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we granted certiorari.
We agree with the courts below that this case does involve a “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Section 13 of that Act expressly defines a labor dispute as including “any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.” Sinclair’s own complaint shows quite plainly that each of the alleged nine work stoppages and strikes arose out of a controversy which was unquestionably well within this definition.
Nor does the circumstance that the alleged work stoppages and strikes may have constituted a breach of a collective bargaining agreement alter the plain fact that a “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act is involved. Arguments to the contrary proceed from the premise that § 2 of that Act, which expresses the public policy upon which the specific anti-injunction provisions of the Act were based, contains language indicating that one primary concern of Congress was to insure workers the right "to exercise actual liberty of contract” and to protect "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining.” From that premise, Sinclair argues that an interpretation of the term "labor dispute” so as to include a dispute arising out of a union’s refusal to abide by the terms of a collective agreement to which it freely acceded is to apply the Norris-LaGuardia Act in a way that defeats one of the purposes for which it was enacted. But this argument, though forcefully urged both here and in much current commentary on this question, rests more upon considerations of what many commentators think would be the more desirable industrial and labor policy in view of their understanding as to the prevailing circumstances of contemporary labor-management relations than upon what is a correct judicial interpretation of the language of the Act as it was written by Congress.
In the first place, even the general policy declarations of § 2 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which are the foundation of this whole argument, do not support the conclusion urged. That section does not purport to limit the Act to the protection of collective bargaining but, instead, expressly recognizes the need of the anti-injunction provisions to insure the right of workers to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Moreover, the language of the specific provisions of the Act is so broad and inclusive that it leaves not the slightest opening for reading in any exceptions beyond those clearly written into it by Congress itself. We cannot ignore the plain import of a congressional enactment, particularly one which, as we have repeatedly said, was deliberately drafted in the broadest of terms in order to avoid the danger that it would be narrowed by judicial construction.
Since we hold that the present case does grow out of a “labor dispute,” the injunction sought here runs squarely counter to the proscription of injunctions against strikes contained in § 4 (a) of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, to the proscription of injunctions against peaceful picketing contained in § 4 (e) and to the proscription of injunctions prohibiting the advising of such activities contained in §4(i). For these reasons, the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprives the courts of the United States of jurisdiction to enter that injunction unless, as is contended here, the scope of that Act has been so narrowed by the subsequent enactment of § 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act that it no longer prohibits even the injunctions specifically described in § 4 where such injunctions are sought as a remedy for breach of a collective bargaining agreement. Upon consideration, we cannot agree with that view and agree instead with the view expressed by the courts below and supported by the Courts of Appeals for the First and Second Circuits that § 301 was not intended to have any such partially repealing effect upon such a long-standing, carefully thought out and highly significant part of this country’s labor legislation as the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
The language of § 301 itself seems to us almost if not entirely conclusive of this question. It is especially significant that the section contains no language that could by any stretch of the imagination be interpreted to constitute an explicit repeal of the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in view of the fact that the section does expressly repeal another provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act dealing with union responsibility for the acts of agents. If Congress had intended that § 301 suits should also not be subject to the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, it certainly seems likely that it would have made its intent known in this same express manner. That is indeed precisely what Congress did do in § 101, amending § 10 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, and § 208 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, by permitting injunctions to be obtained, not by private litigants, but only at the instance of the National Labor Relations Board and the Attorney General,/ and in § 302 (e), by permitting private litigants to obtain injunctions in order to protect the integrity of employees’ collective bargaining representatives in carrying out their responsibilities. Thus the failure of Congress to include a provision in § 301 expressly repealing the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act must be evaluated in the context of a statutory pattern that indicates not only that Congress was completely familiar with those provisions but also that it regarded an express declaration of inapplicability as the normal and proper manner of repealing them in situations where such repeal seemed desirable.
When the inquiry is carried beyond the language of § 301 into its legislative history, whatever small doubts as to the congressional purpose could have survived consideration of the bare language of the section should be wholly dissipated. For the legislative history of § 301 shows that Congress actually considered the advisability of repealing the Norris-LaGuardia Act insofar as suits based upon breach of collective bargaining agreements are concerned and deliberately chose not to do so. The section as eventually enacted was the product of a conference between Committees of the House and Senate, selected to resolve the differences between conflicting provisions of the respective bills each had passed. Prior to this conference, the House bill had provided for federal jurisdiction of suits for breach of collective bargaining contracts and had expressly declared that the Norris-LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction provisions would not apply to such suits. The bill passed by the Senate, like the House bill, granted federal courts jurisdiction over suits for breach of such agreements but it did not, like the House bill, make the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibition against injunctions inapplicable to such suits. Instead it made breach of a collective agreement an unfair labor practice. Under the Senate version, therefore, a breach of a collective bargaining agreement, like any unfair labor practice, could have been enjoined by a suit brought by the National Labor Relations Board, but no provision of the Senate version would have permitted the issuance of an injunction in a labor dispute at the suit of a private party. At the conference the provision of the House bill expressly repealing the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, as well as the provision of the bill passed by the Senate declaring the breach of a collective agreement to be an unfair labor practice, was dropped and never became law. Instead, the conferees, as indicated by the provision which came out of the conference and eventually became § 301, agreed that suits for breach of such agreements should remain wholly private and “be left to the usual processes of the law” and that, in view of the fact that these suits would be at the instance of private parties rather than at the instance of the Labor Board, no change in the existing anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act should be made. The House Conference Report expressly recognized that the House provision for repeal in contract actions of the anti-injunction prohibitions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act had been eliminated in Conference:
“Section 302 (e) of the House bill made the Norris-LaGuardia Act inapplicable in actions and proceedings involving violations of agreements between an employer and a labor organization. Only part of this provision is included in the conference agreement. Section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act provides that no employer or labor organization participating or interested in a labor dispute shall be held responsible for the unlawful acts of their agents except upon clear proof of actual authorization of such acts,, or ratification of such acts after actual knowledge thereof. This provision in the Norris-LaGuardia Act was made inapplicable under the House bill. Section 301 (e) of the conference agreement provides that for the purposes of section 301 in determining whether any person is acting as an agent of another so as to make such other person responsible for his actions, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.”
And Senator Taft, Chairman of the Conference Committee and one of the authors of this legislation that bore his name, was no less explicit in explaining the results of the Conference to the Senate: “The conferees... rejected the repeal of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.”
We cannot accept the startling argument made here that even though Congress did not itself want to repeal the Norris-LaGuardia Act, it was willing to confer a power upon the courts to “accommodate” that Act out of existence whenever they might find it expedient to do so in furtherance of some policy they had fashioned under § 301. The unequivocal statements in the House Conference Report and by Senator Taft on the floor of the Senate could only have been accepted by the Congressmen and Senators who read or heard them as assurances that they could vote in favor of § 301 without altering, reducing or impairing in any manner the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This is particularly true of the statement of Senator Taft, a man generally regarded in the Senate as a very able lawyer and one upon whom the Senate could rely for accurate, forthright explanations of legislation with which he was connected. Senator Taft was of course entirely familiar with the prohibitions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the impact those prohibitions would have upon the enforcement under § 301 of all related contractual provisions, including contractual provisions dealing with arbitration. If, as this argument suggests, the intention of Congress in enacting § 301 was to clear the way for judicial obliteration of that Act under the soft euphemism of “accommodation,” Senator Taft’s flat statement that the Conference had rejected the repeal of the Norris-LaGuardia Act could only be regarded as disingenuous. We cannot impute any such intention to him.
Moreover, we think that the idea that § 301 sanctions piecemeal judicial repeal of the Norris-LaGuardia Act requires acceptance of a wholly unrealistic view of the manner in which Congress handles its business. The question of whether existing statutes should be continued in force or repealed is, under our system of government, one which is wholly within the domain of Congress. When the repeal of a highly significant law is urged upon that body and that repeal is rejected after careful consideration and discussion, the normal expectation is that courts will be faithful to their trust and abide by that decision. This is especially so where the fact of the controversy over repeal and the resolution of that controversy in Congress plainly appears in the formal legislative history of its proceedings. Indeed, not a single instance has been called to our attention in which a carefully considered and rejected proposal for repeal has been revived and adopted by this Court under the guise of “accommodation” or any other pseudonym.
Nor have we found anything else in the previous decisions of this Court that would indicate that we should disregard all this overwhelming evidence of a congressional intent to retain completely intact the anti-injunction prohibitions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in suits brought under § 301. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana R. Co., upon which Sinclair places its primary reliance, is distinguishable on several grounds. There we were dealing with a strike called by the union in defiance of.an affirmative duty, imposed upon the union by the Railway Labor Act itself, compelling unions to settle disputes as to the interpretation of aii existing collective bargaining agreement, not by collective union pressures on the railroad but by submitting them to the Railroad Adjustment Board as the exclusive means of final determination of such “minor” disputes. Here, on the other hand, we are dealing with a suit under a quite different law which does not itself compel a particular, exclusive method for settling disputes nor impose any requirement, either upon unions or employers, or upon the courts, that is in any way inconsistent with a continuation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s proscription of federal labor injunctions against strikes and peaceful picketing. In addition, in Chicago River we were dealing with a statute that had a far different legislative history than the one now before us. Thus there was no indication in the legislative history of the Railway Labor Act, as there is in the history of § 301, that Congress had, after full debate and careful consideration by both Houses and in Joint Conference, specifically rejected proposals to make the prohibitions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act inapplicable. Indeed, the Court was able to conclude in Chicago River “that there was general understanding between both the supporters and the opponents of the 1934 amendment that the provisions dealing with the Adjustment Board were to be considered as compulsory arbitration in this limited field.” And certainly no one could contend that § 301 was intended to set up any such system of "compulsory arbitration” as the exclusive method for settling grievances under the Taft-Hartley Act.
Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, upon which some lesser reliance is placed, is equally distinguishable. There the Court held merely that it did not violate the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to compel the parties to a collective bargaining agreement to submit a dispute which had arisen under that agreement to arbitration where the agreement itself required arbitration of the dispute. In upholding the jurisdiction of the federal courts to issue such an order against a challenge based upon the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Court pointed out that the equitable relief granted in that case — a mandatory injunction to carry out an agreement to arbitrate — did not enjoin any one of the kinds of conduct which the specific prohibitions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act withdrew from the injunctive powers of United States courts. An injunction against work stoppages, peaceful picketing or the nonfraudulent encouraging of those activities would, however, prohibit the precise kinds of conduct which subsections (a), (e) and (i) of § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act unequivocally say cannot be prohibited.
Nor can we agree with the argument made in this Court that the decision in Lincoln Mills, as implemented by the subsequent decisions in United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., and United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., requires us to reconsider and overrule the action of Congress in refusing to repeal or modify the controlling commands of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. To the extent that those cases relied upon the proposition that the arbitration process is “a kingpin of federal labor policy/’ we think that proposition was founded not upon the policy predilections of this Court but upon what Congress said and did when it enacted § 301. Certainly we cannot accept any suggestion which would undermine those cases by implying that the Court went beyond its proper power and itself “forged... a kingpin of federal labor policy” inconsistent with that section and its purpose. Consequently, we do not see how cases implementing the purpose of § 301 can be said to have freed this Court from its duty to give effect to the plainly expressed congressional purpose with regard to the continued application of the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The argument to the contrary seems to rest upon the notion that injunctions against peaceful strikes are necessary to make the arbitration process effective. But whatever might be said about the merits of this argument, Congress has itself rejected it. In doing so, it set the limit to which it was willing to go in permitting courts to effectuate the congressional policy favoring arbitration and it is not this Court’s business to review the wisdom of that decision.
The plain fact is that § 301, as passed by Congress, presents no conflict at all with the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Obedience to the congressional commands of the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not directly affect the “congressional policy in favor of the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate grievance disputes” at all for it does not impair the right of an employer to obtain an order compelling arbitration of any dispute that may have been made arbitrable by the provisions of an effective collective bargaining agreement. At the most, what is involved is the question of whether the employer is to be allowed to enjoy the benefits of an injunction along with the right which Congress gave him in § 301 to sue for breach of a collective agreement. And as we have already pointed out, Congress was not willing to insure that enjoyment to an employer at the cost of putting the federal courts back into the business of enjoining strikes and other related peaceful union activities.
It is doubtless true, as argued, that the right to sue which § 301 gives employers would be worth more to them if they could also get a federal court injunction to bar a breach of their collective bargaining agreements. Strong arguments are made to us that it is highly desirable that the Norris-LaGuardia Act be changed in the public interest. If that is so, Congress itself might see fit to change that law and repeal the anti-injunction provisions of the Act insofar as suits for violation of collective agreements are concerned, as the House bill under consideration originally provided. It might, on the other hand, decide that if injunctions are necessary, the whole idea of enforcement of these agreements by private suits should be discarded in favor of enforcement through the administrative machinery of the Labor Board, as Senator Taft provided in his Senate bill. Or it might decide that neither of these methods is entirely satisfactory and turn instead to a completely new approach. The question of what change, if any, should be made in the existing law is one of legislative policy properly within the exclusive domain of Congress — it is a question for lawmakers, not law interpreters. Our task is the more limited one of interpreting the law as it now stands. In dealing with problems of interpretation and application of federal statutes, we have no power to change deliberate choices of legislative policy that Congress has made within its constitutional powers. Where congressional intent is discernible — and here it seems crystal clear — we must give effect to that intent.
The District Court was correct in dismissing Count 3 of petitioner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming that order is therefore
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an'industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.” 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a).
“No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute (as these terms are herein defined) from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts:
“(a) Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment;
“(e) Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence;
“(i) Advising, urging, or otherwise causing or inducing without fraud or violence the acts heretofore specified....” 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 104.
The suit filed by Sinclair was in three counts, only one of which, Count 3, is involved in this case. Counts 1 and 2, upon which Sinclair prevailed below, are also before the Court in No. 430. See Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., post, p. 238, decided today.
187 F. Supp. 225.
Id., at 228.
290 F. 2d 312.
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local No. 795 v. Yellow Transit Freight Lines, 282 F. 2d 345. Both the First and the Second Circuits have also considered this question and both have taken the same position as that taken below. See W. L. Mead, Inc., v. Teamsters Local No. 25, 217 F. 2d 6; Alcoa S. S. Co. v. McMahon, 173 F. 2d 567; In re Third Ave. Transit Corp., 192 F. 2d 971; A. H. Bull Steamship Co. v. Seafarers’ International Union. 250 F. 2d 326.
368 U. S. 937.
47 Stat. 73, 29 U. S. C. §113.
The allegations of the complaint with regard to the nine occurrences in question are as follows :
“(a) On or about July 1, 1957, six employees assigned to the #810 Crude Still stopped work in support of an asserted grievance involving the removal of Shift Machinists from the #810 Still area;
“(b) On or about September 17, 1957, all employees employed in the Mason Department refused to work on any shift during the entire day; the entire Mechanical Department refused to work from approximately noon until midnight; the employees of the Barrel House refused to work from the middle of the afternoon until midnight; a picket line was created which prevented operators from reporting to work on the 4:00 P. M. to midnight shift, all in support of an asserted grievance on behalf of five apprentice masons for whom insufficient work was available to permit their retention at craft levels.
“(c) On or about March 28, 1958, approximately 73 employees in the Rigging Department refused to work for approximately one hour in support of an asserted grievance that riggers were entitled to do certain work along with machinists.
“(d) On or about May 20, 1958, approximately 24 employees in the Rigging Department refused to work for 1% hours in support of an asserted grievance that riggers were entitled to do certain work along with boilermakers.
"(e) On or about September 11, 1958, approximately 24 employees in the Rigging Department refused to work for approximately two hours in support of an asserted grievance that pipefitters could not dismantle and remove certain pipe coils without riggers being employed on the said work also.
“(f) On or about October 6 and 7, 1958, approximately 43 employees in the Cranes and Trucks Department refused to work for approximately eight hours in support of an asserted grievance concerning employment by the Company of an independent contractor to operate a contractor owned crane.
“(g) On or about November 19, 1958, approximately 71 employees refused to work for approximately 3% hours in the Boilermaking Department in support of an asserted grievance that burners and riggers would not dismantle a tank roof without employment of boilermakers at the said task.
“(h) On or about November 21, 1958, in further pursuance of the asserted grievance referred to in subparagraph (g) preceding, the main entrance to the plant was picketed and barricaded, thereby preventing approximately 800 employees from reporting for work for an entire shift.
“(i) On or about February 13 and 14, 1959, approximately 999 employees were induced to stop work over an asserted grievance on behalf of three riggers that they should not have been docked an aggregate of $2.19 in their pay for having reported late to work.”
“In the interpretation of this Act and in determining the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States, as such jurisdiction and authority are herein defined and limited, the public policy of the United States is hereby declared as follows:
“Whereas under prevailing economic conditions, developed with the aid of governmental authority for owners of property to organize in the corporate and other forms of ownership association, the individual unorganized worker is commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment, wherefore, though he should be free to decline to associate with his fellows, it is necessary that he have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; therefore, the following definitions of, and limitations upon, the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States are enacted.” 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 102.
One of the most forthright arguments for judicial re-evaluation of the wisdom of the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and judicial rather than congressional revision of the meaning and scope of these provisions as applied to conduct in breach of a collec-five bargaining agreement is presented in Gregory, The Law of the Collective Agreement, 57 Mich. L. Rev. 635. That author, in urging that a strike in breach of a collective agreement should not now be held to involve or grow out of a “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, states: “After all, 1932 was a long time ago and conditions have changed drastically. Judges who still confuse violations of collective agreements with § 13 labor disputes and § 4 conduct have, in my opinion, lost contact with reality. The passage of time has operated as a function of many other types of judicial output at the highest level. I do not see why it should not do so in this instance, as well.” Id., at 645-646, n. 39. See also Stewart, No-Strike Clauses in the Federal Courts, 59 Mich. L. Rev. 673, especially at 683; Rice, A Paradox of our National Labor Law, 34 Marq. L. Rev. 233.
Thus we conclude here precisely as we did in Lauf v. E. G. Skinner & Co., 303 U. S. 323, 330: “We find nothing in the declarations of policy which narrows the definition of a labor dispute as found in the statutes. The rights of the parties and the jurisdiction of the federal courts are to be determined according to the express provisions applicable to labor disputes as so defined.”
United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219, 234, and cases cited therein.
See note 2, supra.
We need not here again go into the history of the Norris-LaGuardia Act nor the abuses which brought it into being for that has been amply discussed on several occasions. See Frankfurter and Greene, The Labor Injunction. And see e. g., United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219, 235-236; Milk Wagon Drivers' Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, Inc., 311 U. S. 91, 102-103. It is sufficient here to note that the reasons which led to the passage of the Act were substantial and that the Act has been an important part of the pattern of legislation under which unions have functioned for nearly 30 years.
Section 301 (e) of the Act, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (e), provides: “For the purposes of this section, in determining whether any person is acting as an ‘agent’ of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.” This, of course, was designed to and did repeal for purposes of suits under § 301 the previously controlling provisions of § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 71, 29 U. S. C. § 106: “No officer or member of any association or organization, and no association or organization participating or interested in a labor dispute, shall be held responsible or liable in any court of the United States for the unlawful acts of individual officers, members, or agents, except upon clear proof of actual participation in, or actual authorization of, such acts, or of ratification of such acts after actual knowledge thereof.”
61 Stat. 146,155, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 160 (h), 178 (b).
61 Stat. 157, 29 U. S. C. §186 (e). That this section, which stands alone in expressly permitting suits for injunctions previously proscribed by the Norris-LaGuardia Act to be brought in the federal courts by private litigants under the Taft-Hartley Act, deals with an unusually sensitive and important problem is shown by the fact that § 186 makes the conduct so enjoinable a crime punishable by both fine and imprisonment.
This fact was expressly recognized by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in A. H. Bull Steamship Co. v. Seafarers’ International Union, 250 F. 2d 326, 331-332. See also W. L. Mead, Inc., v. Teamsters Local No. 25, 217 F. 2d 6, 9-10; Comment, Labor Injunctions and Judge-Made Labor Law: The Contemporary Role of Norris-LaGuardia, 70 Yale L. J. 70, 97-99. Another commentator, though urging his own belief that a strike in breach of a collective agreement is not a “labor dispute” within the Norris-LaGuardia Act, nevertheless admits that Congress thought it was and deliberately decided to leave the anti-injunction provisions of that Act applicable to § 301 suits. See Rice, A Paradox of our National Labor Law, 34 Marq. L. Rev. 233, 235.
H. R. 3020,80th Cong., 1st Sess., as it passed the House, provided:
“Sec. 302. (a) Any action for or proceeding involving a violation of an agreement between an employer and a labor organization or other representative of employees may be brought by either party in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without regard to the amount in controversy, if such agreement affects commerce, or the court otherwise has jurisdiction of the cause.
“(e) In actions and proceedings involving violations of agreements between an employer and a labor organization or other representative of employees, the provisions of the Act of March 23,1932, entitled ‘An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity and for other purposes,’ shall not have any application in respect of either party.” I Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 221-222.
This is true both of the original Senate bill, S. 1126, as reported and of the amended House bill, H. R. 3020, as passed by the Senate. I Leg. Hist. 151-152; I Leg. Hist. 279-280.
1 Leg. Hist. 111-112, 114, 239, 241-242.
In such a situation, suit for injunction could be brought by the Board and, by virtue of § 10 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 146, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (h), the Norris-LaGuardia Act would not apply.
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, on H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 41-42, I Leg. Hist. 545-546.
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, on H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 66, I Leg. Hist. 570.
93 Cong
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 appellant, a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for “advocating] .. . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” and for “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.13. He was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to 10 years’ imprisonment. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the criminal syndicalism statute under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, but the intermediate appellate court of Ohio affirmed his conviction without opinion. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal, sua sponte, “for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein.” It did not file an opinion or explain its conclusions. Appeal was taken to this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 393 U. S. 948 (1968). We reverse.
The record shows that a man, identified at trial as the appellant, telephoned an announcer-reporter on the staff of a Cincinnati television station and invited him to come to a Ku Klux Klan “rally” to be held at a farm in Hamilton County. With the cooperation of the organizers, the reporter and a cameraman attended the meeting and filmed the events. Portions of the films were later broadcast on the local station and on a national network.
The prosecution’s case rested on the films and on testimony identifying the appellant as the person who communicated with the reporter and who spoke at the rally. The State also introduced into evidence several articles appearing in the film, including a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, ammunition, a Bible, and a red hood worn by the speaker in the films.
One film showed 12 hooded figures, some of whom carried firearms. They were gathered around a large wooden cross, which they burned. No one was present other than the participants and the newsmen who made the film. Most of the words uttered during the scene were incomprehensible when the film was projected, but scattered phrases could be understood that were derogatory of Negroes and, in one instance, of Jews. Another scene on the sanie film showed the appellant, in Klan regalia, making a speech. The speech, in full, was as follows:
“This is an organizers’ meeting. We have had quite a few members here today which are — we have hundreds, hundreds of members throughout the State of Ohio. I can quote from a newspaper clipping from the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch, five weeks ago Sunday morning. The Klan has more members in the State of Ohio than does any other organization. We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.
“We are marching on Congress July the Fourth, four hundred thousand strong. From there we are dividing into two groups, one group to march on St. Augustine, Florida, the other group to march into Mississippi. Thank you.”
The second film showed six hooded figures one of whom, later identified as the appellant, repeated a speech very similar to that recorded on the first film. The reference to the possibility of “revengeance” was omittted, and one sentence was added: “Personally, I believe the nigger should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.” Though some of the figures in the films carried weapons, the speaker did not.
The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute was enacted in 1919. From 1917 to 1920, identical or quite similar laws were adopted by 20 States and two territories. E. Dowell, A History of Criminal Syndicalism Legislation in the United States 21 (1939). In 1927, this Court sustained the constitutionality of California’s Criminal Syndicalism Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 11400-11402, the text of which is quite similar to that of the laws of Ohio. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927). The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, “advocating” violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. As we said in Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 297-298 (1961), “the mere abstract teaching ... of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.” See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 259-261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353 (1937); Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589 (1967); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11 (1966); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500 (1964); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360 (1964).
Measured by this test, Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who “advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety” of violence “as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform”; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who “justify” the commission of violent acts “with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism”; or who “voluntarily assemble” with a group formed “to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” Neither the indictment nor the trial judge’s instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute’s bald definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.
Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.
Reversed.
The significant portions that could be understood were:
“How far is the nigger going to — yeah.”
“This is what we are going to do to the niggers.”
“A dirty nigger.”
“Send the Jews back to Israel.”
“Let’s give them back to the dark garden.”
“Save America.”
“Let’s go back to constitutional betterment.”
“Bury the niggers.”
“We intend to do our part.”
“Give us our state rights.”
“Freedom for the whites.”
“Nigger will have to fight for every inch he gets from now on.”
It was on the theory that the Smith Act, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U. S. C. § 2385, embodied such a principle and that it had been applied only in conformity with it that this Court sustained the Act’s constitutionality. Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494 (1951). That this was the basis for Dennis was emphasized in Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 320-324 (1957), in which the Court overturned eon-victions for advocacy of the forcible overthrow of the Government under the Smith Act, because the trial judge’s instructions had allowed conviction for mere advocacy, unrelated to its tendency to produce forcible action.
The first count of the indictment charged that appellant “did unlawfully by word of mouth advocate the necessity, or propriety of crime, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing political reform . . . .” The second count charged that appellant “did unlawfully voluntarily assemble with a group or assemblage of persons formed to advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism . . . .” The trial judge’s charge merely followed the language of the indictment. No construction of the statute by the Ohio courts has brought it within constitutionally permissible limits. The Ohio Supreme Court has considered the statute in only one previous case, State v. Kassay, 126 Ohio St. 177, 184 N. E. 521 (1932), where the constitutionality of the statute was sustained.
Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, supra, at 364: “The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.” See also United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552 (1876); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 513, 519 (1939); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 460-461 (1958).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On September 30, 1960, the petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On May 25, 1965, he was found guilty of aggravated assault and was sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary, to commence when he had completed serving the sentence for murder.
Having attempted without success to challenge his murder conviction on federal constitutional grounds in the state courts, the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He contended that he had been deprived of counsel at his preliminary hearing, that a coerced confession had been used against him at trial, and that he had been denied the right to an effective appeal.
The District Court observed that, even if the petitioner's contentions were accepted and his murder conviction reversed, he would still face a five-year prison term for aggravated assault. Because a favorable decision on the murder conviction would not result in the petitioner's immediate release from prison, the District Court thought itself powerless to consider the merits of his claims and therefore denied his habeas corpus petition without further consideration. In short, the District Court held that the petitioner could not challenge his life sentence until after he had served it. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit summarily rejected the petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause, and he then sought review in this Court.
In reaching its conclusion, the District Court relied upon McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131, for the broad proposition that the “Writ of Habeas Corpus may not be used as a means of securing judicial decision of a question which, even if determined in the prisoner’s favor, could not result in his immediate release.” The McNally decision, however, held only that a prisoner cannot employ federal habeas corpus to attack a “sentence which [he] has not begun to serve.” 293 U. S., at 138. Here the District Court has turned that doctrine inside out by telling the petitioner that he cannot attack the life sentence he has begun to serve — until after he has finished serving it. We need not consider the continued vitality of the McNally holding in this case, for neither McNally nor anything else in our jurisprudence can support the extraordinary predicament in which the District Court has placed this petitioner.
Whatever. its other functions, the great and central office of the writ of habeas corpus is to test the legality of a prisoner’s current detention. The petitioner is now serving a life sentence imposed pursuant to a conviction for murder. If, as he contends, that conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution, then his confinement is unlawful. It is immaterial that another prison term might still await him even if he should successfully establish the unconstitutionality of his present imprisonment.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us concerns an appellate court’s “plain error” review of a claim not raised at trial. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b). The Second Circuit has said that it must recognize a “plain error” if there is “any possibility,” however remote, that a jury convicted a defendant exclusively on the basis of actions taken before enactment of the statute that made those actions criminal. 538 F. 3d 97, 102 (2008) (per curiam) (emphasis added). In our view, the Second Circuit’s standard is inconsistent with this Court’s “plain error” cases. We therefore reverse.
I
A federal grand jury indicted respondent Glenn Marcus on charges that he engaged in unlawful forced labor and sex trafficking between “ ‘January 1999 and October 2001. ’ ” Id., at 100; see also 18 U. S. C. §§ 1589,1591(a)(1). At trial, the Government presented evidence of his conduct during that entire period. 538 F. 3d, at 100. And a jury found him guilty of both charges. Ibid.
On appeal, Marcus pointed out for the first time that the statutes he violated were enacted as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), which did not become law until October 28, 2000. § 112(a)(2), 114 Stat. I486. Marcus noted that the indictment and the evidence presented at trial permitted a jury to convict him exclusively upon the basis of actions that he took before October 28, 2000. And for that reason, Marcus argued that his conviction violated the Constitution — in Marcus’ view, the Ex Post Facto Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3. Marcus conceded that he had not objected on these grounds in the District Court. Letter Brief for Appellant in No. 07-4005-cr (CA2), p. 12. But, he said, the constitutional error is “plain,” and his conviction therefore must be set aside. Id., at 13.
The Government replied by arguing that Marcus’ conviction was for a single course of conduct, some of which took place before, and some of which took place after, the statute’s enactment date. 538 F. 3d, at 101. The Constitution, it said, does not forbid the application of a new statute to such a course of conduct so long as the course of conduct continued after the enactment of the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 79 F. 3d 223, 229 (CA2 1996); United States v. Duncan, 42 F. 3d 97, 104 (CA2 1994). The Government conceded that the conviction could not rest exclusively upon conduct which took place before the TVPA’s enactment, but it argued that the possibility that the jury here had convicted on that basis was “‘remote.’” 538 F. 3d, at 102. Hence, the Government claimed, it was highly unlikely that the judge’s failure to make this aspect of the law clear (say, by explaining to the jury that it could not convict based, on preenactment conduct alone) affected Marcus’ “substantial rights.” Letter Brief for United States in No. 07-4005-cr (CA2), p. 9. And the Government thus argued that the court should not recognize a “plain error.” Ibid.
The Second Circuit noted that Marcus had not raised his ex post facto argument in the District Court. 538 F. 3d, at 102. The court also recognized that, under Circuit precedent, the Constitution did not prohibit conviction for a “‘continuing offense’” so long as the conviction rested, at least in part, upon postenactment conduct. Id., at 101 (quoting Harris, supra, at 229). But, the court held, “even in the case of a continuing offense, if it was possible for the jury— wh[ich] had not been given instructions regarding the date of enactment — to convict exclusively on [the basis of] pre-enactment conduct, then the conviction constitutes a violation” of the Ex Post Facto Clause. 538 F. 3d, at 101. The court noted that this was “true even under plain error review.” Ibid. In short, under the Second Circuit’s approach, “a retrial is necessary whenever there is any possibility, no matter how unlikely, that the jury could have convicted based exclusively on pre-enactment conduct.” Id., at 102 (emphasis added).
The Government sought certiorari. And we granted the writ, agreeing to decide whether the Second Circuit's approach to “plain error” review, as we have set it forth, conflicts with this Court's interpretation of the “plain error” rule. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b).
II
Rule 52(b) permits an appellate court to recognize a “plain error that affects substantial rights,” even if the claim of error was “not brought” to the district court's “attention.” Lower courts, of course, must apply the Rule as this Court has interpreted it. And the cases that set forth our interpretation hold that an appellate court may, in its discretion, correct an error not raised at trial only where the appellant demonstrates that (1) there is an “error”; (2) the error is “clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute”; (3) the error “affected the appellant's substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means” it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”; and (4) “the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Puckett v. United States, 556 U. S. 129, 135 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 731-737 (1993); Johnson v. United States, 520 U. S. 461, 466-467 (1997); United States v. Cotton, 535 U. S. 625, 631-632 (2002).
In our view, the Second Circuit’s standard is inconsistent with the third and the fourth criteria set forth in these cases. The third criterion specifies that a “plain error” must “affec[t]” the appellant’s “substantial rights.” In the ordinary case, to meet this standard an error must be “prejudicial,” which means that there must be a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial. Olano, supra, at 734-735 (stating that, to satisfy the third criterion of Rule 52(b), a defendant must “normally” demonstrate that the alleged error was not “harmless”); see also United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U. S. 74, 83 (2004). The Court of Appeals, however, would notice a “plain error” and set aside a conviction whenever there exists “any possibility, no matter how unlikely, that the jury could have convicted based exclusively on pre-enactment conduct.” 538 F. 3d, at 102. This standard is irreconcilable with our “plain error” precedent. See, e. g., Olano, supra, at 734-735.
We recognize that our cases speak of a need for a showing that the error affected the “outcome of the district court proceedings” in the “ordinary case.” Puckett, 556 U. S., at 135 (internal quotation marks omitted). And we have noted the possibility that certain errors, termed “structural errors,” might “affec[t] substantial rights” regardless of their actual impact on an appellant’s trial. See id., at 140-141 (reserving the question whether “structural errors” automatically satisfy the third “plain error” criterion); Cotton, supra, at 632 (same); Johnson, supra, at 469 (same); Olano, supra, at 735 (same). But “structural errors” are “a very limited class” of errors that affect the “ ‘framework within which the trial proceeds,’ ” Johnson, supra, at 468 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 310 (1991)), such that it is often “difñcul[t]” to “assesfs] the effect of the error,” United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U. S. 140, 149, n. 4 (2006). See Johnson, supra, at 468-469 (citing cases in which this Court has found “structural error,” including Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963) (total deprivation of counsel); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927) (lack of an impartial trial judge); McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U. S. 168 (1984) (right to self-representation at trial); Waller v. Georgia, 467 U. S. 39 (1984) (violation of the right to a public trial); and Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275 (1993) (erroneous reasonable-doubt instruction)). We cannot conclude that the error here falls within that category.
The error at issue in this case created a risk that the jury would convict respondent solely on the basis of conduct that was not criminal when the defendant engaged in that conduct. A judge might have minimized, if not eliminated, this risk by giving the jury a proper instruction. We see no reason why, when a judge fails to give such an instruction, a reviewing court would find it any more difficult to assess the likely consequences of that failure than with numerous other kinds of instructional errors that we have previously held to be non-“structural” — for example, instructing a jury as to an invalid alternative theory of guilt, Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U. S. 57 (2008) (per curiam), omitting mention of an element of an offense, Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1 (1999), or erroneously instructing the jury on an element, Yates v. Evatt, 500 U. S. 391 (1991); Carella v. California, 491 U. S. 263 (1989) (per curiam); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U. S. 497 (1987); Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570 (1986).
Marcus argues that, like the Second Circuit, we should apply the label “Ex Post Facto Clause violation” to the error in this case, and that we should then treat all errors so labeled as special, “structural,” errors that warrant reversal without a showing of prejudice. See Brief for Respondent 27-29. But we cannot accept this argument. As an initial matter, we note that the Government has never claimed that the TVPA retroactively criminalizes preenactment conduct, see Brief for United States 16, and that Marcus and the Second Circuit were thus incorrect to classify the error at issue here as an Ex Post Facto Clause violation, see Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188, 191 (1977) (“The Ex Post Facto Clause is a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature, and does not of its own force apply to the Judicial Branch of government” (citation omitted)). Rather, if the jury, which was not instructed about the TVPA’s enactment date, erroneously convicted Marcus based exclusively on noncriminal, preenactment conduct, Marcus would have a valid due process claim. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 353-354 (1964) (applying Due Process Clause to ex post facto judicial decisions). In any event, however Marcus’ claim is labeled, we see no reason why this kind of error would automatically “affec[t] substantial rights” without a showing of individual prejudice.
That is because errors similar to the one at issue in this case — i. e., errors that create a risk that a defendant will be convicted based exclusively on noncriminal conduct — come in various shapes and sizes. The kind and degree of harm that such errors create can consequently vary. Sometimes a proper jury instruction might well avoid harm; other times, preventing the harm might only require striking or limiting the testimony of a particular witness. And sometimes the error might infect an entire trial, such that a jury instruction would mean little. There is thus no reason to believe that all or almost all such errors always “affec[t] the framework within which the trial proceeds,” Fulminante, supra, at 310, or “necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence,” Neder, supra, at 9 (emphasis deleted).
Moreover, while the rights at issue in this case are important, they do not differ significantly in importance from the constitutional rights at issue in other eases where we have insisted upon a showing of individual prejudice. See Fulminante, supra, at 306-307 (collecting cases). Indeed, we have said that “if the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred” are not “structural errors.” Rose, supra, at 579. No one here denies that defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator.
In any event, the Second Circuit’s approach also cannot be reconciled with this Court’s fourth “plain error” criterion, which permits an appeals court to recognize “plain error” only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson, 520 U. S., at 467 (internal quotation marks omitted). In cases applying this fourth criterion, we have suggested that, in most circumstances, an error that does not affect the jury’s verdict does not significantly impugn the “fairness,” “integrity,” or “public reputation” of the judicial process. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted); Cotton, 535 U. S., at 633. The Second Circuit’s “any possibility, no matter how unlikely” standard, however, would require finding a “plain error” in a case where the evidence supporting a conviction consisted of, say, a few days of preenactment conduct along with several continuous years of identical postenactment conduct. Given the tiny risk that the jury would have based its conviction upon those few preenactment days alone, a refusal to recognize such an error as a “plain error” (and to set aside the verdict) is most unlikely to cast serious doubt on the “fairness,.” “integrity,” or “public reputation” of the judicial system.
We do not intend to trivialize the claim that respondent here raises. Nor do we imply that the kind of error at issue here is unimportant. But the rule that permits courts to recognize a “plain error” does not “remove” “seriou[s]” errors “from the ambit of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Johnson, supra, at 466. Rather, the “plain error” rule, as interpreted by this Court, sets forth criteria that a claim of error not raised at trial must satisfy. The Second Circuit’s rule would require reversal under the “plain error” standard for errors that do not meet those criteria. We can find no good reason to treat respondent’s claim of error differently from others. See Puckett, 556 U. S., at 143 (reviewing the Government’s violation of a plea agreement for “plain error”); Cotton, supra, at 631-632 (reviewing an indictment’s failure to charge a fact that increased defendant’s statutory maximum sentence for “plain error”); Johnson, supra, at 464 (reviewing the failure to submit an element of the crime to the jury for “plain error”). Hence we must reject the Second Circuit’s rule.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. As the Court of Appeals has not yet considered whether the error at issue in this case satisfies this Court’s “plain error” standard — i. e., whether the error affects “substantial rights” and “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings” — we remand the case to that court so that it may do so.
It is so ordered.
Justice Sotomayor 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: | 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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Following a trial by jury, petitioner was convicted of violating 18 U. S. C. § 2315 by knowingly receiving, concealing and storing 81 stolen fur pieces, the fur pieces having been transported in interstate commerce and having a value exceeding $5,000. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction despite petitioner's objections that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict; that the fur garments should have been excluded from evidence because they were seized on the authority of a search warrant supported by a deficient affidavit; and that the names of certain confidential informants referred to in the affidavit should have been disclosed. 316 F. 2d 589. We granted certiorari, 375 U. S. 812, and affirm the judgment.
I.
The search warrant under attack was issued by the United States Commissioner on the strength of an affidavit dated March 22, 1962, and signed by Marlin Moore, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The affidavit stated that Moore had reason to believe that approximately 80 fur stoles and jackets, taken in a burglary in Mountain Brook, Alabama, and worth about $40,000, were concealed in the basement of a single family residence at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue in Chicago.
Moore supported this allegation with statements that L. Dean Paarmann, a Special Agent of the Birmingham, Alabama, Office of the FBI, informed Moore that on February 10, 1962, 82 mink, otter, and beaver stoles and jackets (but no full-length coats), worth approximately $42,044, were stolen in Mountain Brook, Alabama, and that on March 16, 1962, a confidential informant who had furnished reliable information in the past told Moore that during the previous week he saw approximately 75 to 80 mink, otter and beaver stoles and jackets (but no full-length coats) in the basement of the home of Samuel Rugendorf at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue, Chicago. The labels had been removed and the informant was told that the furs were stolen.
Moore further supported the allegation with the following statements: FBI Special Agent McCormick advised affiant that a confidential informant whom the FBI had found to be reliable told McCormick that Frank Schweihs of Chicago, and others, committed the Alabama robbery; McCormick told the affiant that on or about March 1, 1962, James Kelleher, a Chicago police officer, said to McCormick “that he saw FRANK SCHWEIHS at RUGGENDORF [sic] BROTHERS MEAT MARKET, managed by SAMUEL RUGGEN-DORF [sic] . . . ; further, Agent McCORMICK advised this affiant that another confidential informant who has furnished reliable information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the past told McCORMICK that LEO RUGGENDORF [sic] was a fence for FRANK SCHWEIHS; that SAMUEL RUGGENDORF [sic] was LEO RUGGENDORF’S [sic] brother and was associated in the meat business with his brother.”
The affidavit also stated that another FBI Special Agent, J. J. Oitzinger, told the affiant that another confidential informant who had supplied the FBI with reliable information in the past advised Oitzinger that Frank Schweihs, Tony Panzica and Mike Condic were accomplished burglars who disposed of the proceeds of their burglaries through Leo Rugendorf.
Finally, the affidavit alleged that, upon checking the informant’s description of the furs seen at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue, affiant found that the only reported burglary in the United States in the previous six months involving furs of that description and value was the one occurring at Mountain Brook, Alabama.
Pursuant to the search warrant based on this affidavit, a search was made and 81 furs were found in the basement of petitioner’s residence. Fifty-nine of these furs had been stolen in Mountain Brook and the other 22, in Shreveport, Louisiana. Prior to trial, the trial court heard testimony on petitioner’s motion, under Rule 41 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to suppress the use of the seized furs as evidence. The trial court denied the motion insofar as it challenged the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, but reserved ruling on the truthfulness of the affidavit. During the trial, another hearing was held on the reserved aspect of the motion to suppress and the motion was denied. Also denied was a motion to require the Government to disclose the names of the confidential informants referred to in the affidavit.
II.
Petitioner attacks the validity of the search warrant. This Court has never passed directly on the extent to which a court may permit such examination when the search warrant is valid on its face and when the allegations of the underlying affidavit establish “probable cause”; however, assuming, for the purpose of this decision, that such attack may be made, we are of the opinion that the search warrant here is valid. Petitioner contends that probable cause did not exist because the only relevant recitations in the affidavit were the one informant’s statements that he saw the furs in petitioner’s basement and that he was told that they were stolen. However, the informant’s detailed description of the furs, including number and type, closely resembled Special Agent Paar-mann’s description of the furs stolen in Alabama. The affiant checked the burglary report records and found the Alabama burglary to be the only recent one in the United States involving furs of the description and number that the informant saw in petitioner’s basement. In addition, the affidavit alleged that Leo and Samuel Rugen-dorf were brothers and that Leo was a fence for professional burglars. Although one of the informants who gave the la'tter information added, incorrectly, that Samuel Rugendorf was associated with Leo in the meat business, there was direct information from another informant of the FBI that Leo was a fence, and nothing was shown to prove this untrue. The factual inaccuracies depended upon by petitioner to destroy probable cause — i. e., the allegations in the affidavit that petitioner was the manager of Rugendorf Brothers Meat Market and that he was associated with his brother Leo in the meat business — were of only peripheral relevancy to the showing of probable cause, and, not being within the personal knowledge of the affiant, did not go to the integrity of the affidavit.
We believe that there was substantial basis for the Commissioner to conclude that stolen furs were probably in the petitioner’s basement. No more is required. As we said in Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 271 (1960):
“We conclude .. . . that hearsay may be the basis for a warrant. We cannot say that there was so little basis for accepting the hearsay . . . that the Commissioner acted improperly. ... He might have found the affidavit insufficient and withheld his warrant. But there was substantial basis for him to conclude that narcotics were probably present in the apartment, and that is sufficient.”
Petitioner also contends that the withholding of the identities of the informants was a sufficient ground to require suppression of the evidence. But in Jones, supra, we said that “as hearsay alone does not render an affidavit insufficient, the Commissioner need not have required the informants ... to be produced ... so long as there was a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.” At 272. Petitioner’s only challenges to the veracity of the affidavit are the two inaccurate facts mentioned above. Since the erroneous statements that petitioner was the manager of Rugendorf Brothers Meat Market and was associated with Leo in the meat business were not those of the affiant, they fail to show that the affiant was in bad faith or that he made any misrepresentations to the Commissioner in securing the warrant.
III.
Petitioner also asserts that he was entitled to the name of the informer who reported seeing the furs in his basement in order to defend himself at trial on the merits. This claim was not properly raised in the trial court nor passed upon there, and, accordingly, must be denied here. On two occasions — once prior to and the other during the trial — petitioner urged his motion to suppress the evidence as to the furs, contending that there were “factual errors” in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. It was solely in support of this motion — not on the merits— that petitioner requested all of the informants’ names. This is made clear by petitioner’s motion for new trial:
“9. The court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for the government to reveal the names of the informers when such information was necessary to the constitutional rights of the defendant in pursuing his motion to suppress the evidence.” (Emphasis added.)
He relied entirely on suppression, which, if successful, would have ended the case. Failing in this, petitioner asserted, for the first time, in his reply brief in the Court of Appeals that the name of the single informant who saw the furs was vital both for the suppression hearing and for the defense at trial, because the informant alone knew whether he “participated with persons other than the defendant” in placing the furs in the basement. Apparently this was an attempt to bring the facts of the case within Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53 (1957), where the informant had played a direct and prominent part, as the sole participant with the accused, in the very offense for which the latter was convicted. But there was not even an intimation of such a situation at the trial here. The necessity for disclosure depends upon “the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.” 353 U. S. 53, 62. Petitioner did not develop any such criteria with reference to the merits of the case. On the contrary, a careful examination of the whole record shows that he requested the informers’ names only in his attack on the affidavit supporting the search warrant. Having failed to develop the criteria of Roviaro necessitating disclosure on the merits, we cannot say on this record that the name of the informant was necessary to his defense. All petitioner’s demands for identification of the informants were made during the hearings on the motion to suppress and were related to that motion. Never did petitioner’s counsel indicate how the informants’ testimony could help establish petitioner’s innocence.
Nor do we believe that the trial court erred in refusing to 'have the Government disclose the exact date during the week preceding March 16 when the informant saw the furs in the petitioner’s basement. It is difficult to see how that date could be useful to petitioner’s defense, since the crucial date in the indictment was March 22 and there is no indication that the informant had any knowledge of any events occurring on that date. Petitioner’s theory is that if he can find out the date, he may be able to show that he and his wife were away from home at the time when the informant saw the furs, thereby creating an inference that someone else let the informant in and that petitioner did not know of the furs. However, the particular date could not have been of material help to petitioner, as both he and his wife were away from home a major portion of nearly every day during the period in question.
IV.
As to the sufficiency of the evidence, it was undisputed that 81 stolen furs were found in the basement of petitioner’s home. The furs were hanging in a closet along with a fur piece admittedly owned by Mrs. Rugendorf. Petitioner’s defense was that the furs were placed in the closet without his knowledge while he and his wife were vacationing in Florida and that neither he nor his wife looked into the closet after their return until the officers executed the search warrant on March 22. Petitioner’s brother Leo, petitioner’s sister, his son and a neighbor all had keys to his house. Both petitioner and his wife pointed to Leo as the guilty party, but neither Leo nor the other relatives who had keys were called as witnesses. The neighbor, who was called to testify, denied putting the furs in the basement or permitting any other person to use the key.
As early as 1896 this Court dealt with such situations. In Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, Chief Justice Fuller held for a unanimous Court that “ [possession of the fruits of crime, recently after its commission, justifies the inference that the possession is guilty possession, and, though only prima jade evidence of guilt, may be of controlling weight unless explained by the circumstances or accounted for in some way consistent with innocence.” At 619. Here, it was stipulated that 59 of the furs found in the petitioner’s basement were stolen from a fur store in Mountain Brook, Alabama, on February 10, 1962. They were found in a closet opening off a regularly used recreation room. In the same closet was Mrs. Rugen-dorf’s fur piece. Leo Rugendorf, petitioner’s brother, was a known receiver of stolen goods and was seen at the home while the Rugendorfs were in Florida. Petitioner testified at trial that Leo had borrowed a key before petitioner went to Florida, and that Leo had not yet returned it. In rebuttal an FBI agent testified that petitioner told him that Leo returned the key soon after the petitioner returned from Florida. In some other respects the testimony of both petitioner and his wife conflicted with the rebuttal testimony of the FBI agents. Apparently the jury simply did not believe the explanation of petitioner and his wife. It may be that the jury’s credulity was stretched too far; or, perhaps the failure of the defense to call Leo Rugendorf and the other kinsmen, to whom they had given keys to the home, appeared strange, especially so, since the neighbor was called to testify about his use of a key. In any event a prima facie case was made out by the stipulation and the presence of the furs in petitioner’s home. We cannot say that this was insufficient.
Affirmed.
18 U. S. C. §2315:
“Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Rule 41 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:
“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 the 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
In fact, petitioner terminated his business association with his brother Leo and with Rugendorf Brothers Meat Market in 1952.
The affidavit alleged that McCormick told the affiant that Police Officer Kelleher told him that petitioner was the manager of Rugendorf Brothers Meat Market and that a confidential informant told McCormick that Leo and petitioner were associated in the meat business. Kelleher testified that he did not so inform McCormick. The latter was in the hospital for an operation at the time of trial, but his deposition was not sought nor any postponement requested to enable him to be present.
It was during the hearing on the motion prior to trial that petitioner cited United States v. Pearce, 275 F. 2d 318; Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480; and Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53. His counsel said: “That is, Giordinella [sic] states that the defendant has a right to have such hearing [on suppression]. Pierce [sic] and Roviera [sic] state we have a right in advance of the hearing to demand the names of the informers if the names are essential to the defense of the defendant in the prosecution of his petition to suppress the evidence." (Emphasis supplied.) And on the second hearing when the Government offered the furs in evidence he again urged his motion, in the absence of the jury, introducing evidence showing the “factual errors” in the affidavit. On arguing the motion, petitioner’s., counsel said: “Here is what Pierce [sic] says, and here is what United States v. Roviera [sic] says: ‘When it is demonstrated to the Court that it is essential to the defendant’s rights, constitutional rights, that information be given to him so that he can test the validity of the affidavit,’ then it must be given to him.” Clearly his reliance on Roviaro for suppression purposes, which was the sole reason for which it was cited, was entirely misplaced.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
When this case was tried, Art. VII, § 41, of the Louisiana Constitution, and Art. 402 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure provided that a woman should not be selected for jury service unless she had previously filed a written declaration of her desire to be subject to jury service. The constitutionality of these provisions is the issue in this case.
I
Appellant, Billy J. Taylor, was indicted by the grand jury of St. Tammany Parish, in the Twenty-second Judicial District of Louisiana, for aggravated kidnaping. On April 12, 1972, appellant moved the trial court to quash the petit jury venire drawn for the special criminal term beginning with his trial the following day. Appellant alleged that women were systematically excluded from the venire and that he would therefore be deprived of what he claimed to be his federal constitutional right to “a fair trial by jury of a representative segment of the community . . . .”
The Twenty-second Judicial District comprises the parishes of St. Tammany and Washington. The ap-pellee has stipulated that 53% of the persons eligible for jury service in these parishes were female, and that no more than 10% of the persons on the jury wheel in St. Tammany Parish were women. During the period from December 8, 1971, to November 3, 1972, 12 females were among the 1,800 persons drawn to fill petit jury venires in St. Tammany Parish. It was also stipulated that the discrepancy between females eligible for jury service and those actually included in the venire was the result of the operation of La. Const., Art. VII, § 41, and La. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 402. In the present case, a venire totaling 175 persons was drawn for jury service beginning April 13, 1972. There were no females on the venire.
Appellant’s motion to quash the venire was denied that same day. After being tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, appellant sought review in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, where he renewed his claim that the petit jury venire should have been quashed. The Supreme Court of Louisiana, recognizing that this claim drew into question the constitutionality of the provisions of the Louisiana Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with the service of women on juries, squarely held, one justice dissenting, that these provisions were valid and not unconstitutional under federal law. 282 So. 2d 491, 497 (1973) .
Appellant appealed from that decision to this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction, 415 U. S. 911 (1974), to consider whether the Louisiana jury-selection system deprived appellant of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to an impartial jury trial. We hold that it did and that these Amendments were violated in this case by the operation of La. Const., Art. VII, § 41, and La. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 402. In consequence, appellant’s conviction must be reversed.
II
The Louisiana jury-selection system does not disqualify women from jury service, but in operation its conceded systematic impact is that only a very few women, grossly disproportionate to the number of eligible women in the community, are called for jury service. In this case, no women were on the venire from which the petit jury was drawn. The issue we have, therefore, is whether a jury-selection system which operates to exclude from jury service an identifiable class of citizens constituting 53% of eligible jurors in the community comports with the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The State first insists that Taylor, a male, has no standing to object to the exclusion of women from his jury. But Taylor’s claim is that he was constitutionally entitled to a jury drawn from a venire constituting a fair cross section of the community and that the jury that tried him was not such a jury by reason of the exclusion of women. Taylor was not a member of the excluded class; but there is no rule that claims such as Taylor presents may be made only by those defendants who are members of the group excluded from jury service. In Peters v. Kiff, 407 U. S. 493 (1972), the defendant, a white man, challenged his conviction on the ground that Negroes had been systematically excluded from jury service. Six Members of the Court agreed that petitioner was entitled to present the issue and concluded that he had been deprived of his federal rights. Taylor,, in the case before us, was similarly entitled to tender and have adjudicated the claim that the exclusion of women from jury service deprived him of the kind of factfinder to which he was constitutionally entitled.
Ill
The background against which this case must be decided includes our holding in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), that the Sixth Amendment’s provision for jury trial is made binding on the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our inquiry is whether the presence of a fair cross section of the community on venires, panels, or lists from which petit juries are drawn is essential to the fulfillment of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury trial in criminal prosecutions.
The Court’s prior cases are instructive. Both in the course of exercising its supervisory powers over trials in federal courts and in the constitutional context, the Court has unambiguously declared that the American concept of the jury trial contemplates a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. A unanimous Court stated in Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 130 (1940), that “[i]t 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.” To exclude racial groups from jury service was said to be “at war with our basic concepts of a democratic society and a representative government.” A state jury system that resulted in systematic exclusion of Negroes as jurors was therefore held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Glosser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 85-86 (1942), in the context of a federal criminal case and the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial requirement, stated that “[o]ur notions of what a proper jury is have developed in harmony with our basic concepts of a democratic society and a representative government,” and repeated the Court’s understanding that the jury “ ‘be a body truly representative of the community’ . . . and not the organ of any special group or class.”
A federal conviction by a jury from which women had been excluded, although eligible for service under state law, was reviewed in Ballard v. United States, 329 U. S. 187 (1946). Noting the federal statutory “design to make the jury ‘a cross-section of the community’ ” and the fact that women had been excluded, the Court exercised its supervisory powers over the federal courts and reversed the conviction. In Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 474 (1953), the Court declared that “[o]ur duty to protect the federal constitutional rights of all does not mean we must or should impose on states our conception of the proper source of jury lists, so long as the source reasonably reflects a cross-section of the population suitable in character and intelligence for that civic duty.”
Some years later in Carter v. Jury Comm’n, 396 U. S. 320, 330 (1970), the Court observed that the exclusion of Negroes from jury service because of their race “contravenes the very idea of a jury — ‘a body truly representative of the community’ . . . (Quoting from Smith v. Texas, supra.) At about the same time it was contended that the use of six-man juries in noncapital criminal cases violated the Sixth Amendment for failure to provide juries drawn from a cross section of the community, Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970). In the course of rejecting that challenge, we said that the number of persons on the jury should “be large enough to promote group deliberation, free from outside attempts at intimidation, and to provide a fair possibility for obtaining a representative cross-section of the community.” Id., at 100. In like vein, in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404, 410-411 (1972) (plurality opinion), it was said that “a jury will come to such a [commonsense] judgment as long as it consists of a group of laymen representative of a cross section of the community who have the duty and the opportunity to deliberate ... on the question of a defendant’s guilt.” Similarly, three Justices in Peters v. Kiff, 407 U. S., at 500, observed that the Sixth Amendment comprehended a fair possibility for obtaining a jury constituting a representative cross section of the community.
The unmistakable import of this Court’s opinions, at least since 1940, Smith v. Texas, supra, and not repudiated by intervening decisions, is that the selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Recent federal legislation governing jury selection within the federal court system has a similar thrust. Shortly prior to this Court’s decision in Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 was enacted. In that Act, Congress stated “the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes.” 28 U. S. C. § 1861. In that Act, Congress also established the machinery by which the stated policy was to be implemented. 28 U. S. C. §§ 1862-1866. In passing this legislation, the Committee Reports of both the House and the Senate recognized that the jury plays a political function in the administration of the law and that the requirement of a jury’s being chosen from a fair cross section of the community is fundamental to the American system of justice. Debate on the floors of the House and Senate on the Act invoked the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution generally, and prior decisions of this Court in support of the Act.
We accept the fair-cross-section requirement as fundamental to the jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and are convinced that the requirement has solid foundation. The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power — to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over-conditioned or biased response of a judge. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S., at 155-156. This prophylactic vehicle is not provided if the jury pool is made up of only special segments of the populace or if large, distinctive groups are excluded from the pool. Community participation in the administration of the criminal law, moreover, is not only consistent with our democratic heritage but is also critical to public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. Restricting jury service to only special groups or excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the community cannot be squared with the constitutional concept of jury trial. “Trial by jury presupposes a jury drawn from a pool broadly representative of the community as well as impartial in a specific case.... [T]he broad representative character of the jury should be maintained, partly as assurance of a diffused impartiality and partly because sharing in the administration of justice is a phase of civic responsibility.” Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U. S. 217, 227 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
IV
We are also persuaded that the fair-cross-section requirement is violated by the systematic exclusion of women, who in the judicial district involved here amounted to 53% of the citizens eligible for jury service. This conclusion necessarily entails the judgment that women are sufficiently numerous and distinct from men and that if they are systematically eliminated from jury panels, the Sixth Amendment’s fair-cross-section requirement cannot be satisfied. This very matter was debated in Ballard v. United States, supra. Positing the fair-cross-section rule — there said to be a statutory one — the Court concluded that the systematic exclusion of women was unacceptable. The dissenting view that an all-male panel drawn from various groups in the community would be as truly representative as if women were included, was firmly rejected:
“The thought is that the factors which tend to influence the action of women are the same as those which influence the action of men — personality, background, economic status — and not sex. Yet it is not enough to say that women when sitting as jurors neither act nor tend to act as a class. Men likewise do not act as a class. But, if the shoe were on the other foot, who would claim that a jury was truly representative of the community if all men were intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel? The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both; the subtle interplay of influence one on the other is among the imponderables. To insulate the courtroom from either may not in a given case make an iota of difference. ■ Yet a flavor, a distinct quality is lost if either sex is excluded. The exclusion of one may indeed make the jury less representative of the community than would be true if an economic or racial group were excluded.” 329 U. S., at 193-194.
In this respect, we agree with the Court in Ballard: If the fair-cross-section rule is to govern the selection of juries, as we have concluded it must, women cannot be systematically excluded from jury panels from which petit juries are drawn. This conclusion is consistent with the current judgment of the country, now evidenced by legislative or constitutional provisions in every State and at the federal level qualifying women for jury service.
V
There remains the argument that women as a class serve a distinctive role in society and that jury service would so substantially interfere with that function that the State has ample justification for excluding women from service unless they volunteer, even though the result is that almost all jurors are men. It is true that Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57 (1961), held that such a system did not deny due process of law or equal protection of the laws because there was a sufficiently rational basis for such an exemption. But Hoyt did not involve a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community and the prospect of depriving him of that right if women as a class are systematically excluded. The right to a proper jury cannot be overcome on merely rational grounds. There must be weightier reasons if a distinctive class representing 53% of the eligible jurors is for all practical purposes to be excluded from jury service. No such basis has been tendered here.
The States are free to grant exemptions from jury service to individuals in case of special hardship or incapacity and to those engaged in particular occupations the uninterrupted performance of which is critical to the community’s welfare. Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 (1906). It would not appear that such exemptions would pose substantial threats that the remaining pool of jurors would not be representative of the community. A system excluding all women, however, is a wholly different matter. It is untenable to suggest these days that it would be a special hardship for each and every woman to perform jury service or that society cannot spare any women from their present duties. This may be the case with many, and it may be burdensome to sort out those who should be exempted from those who should serve. But that task is performed in the case of men, and the administrative convenience in dealing with women as a class is insufficient justification for diluting the quality of community judgment represented by the jury in criminal trials.
VI
Although this judgment may appear a foregone conclusion from the pattern of some of the Court’s cases over the past 30 years, as well as from legislative developments at both federal and state levels, it is nevertheless true that until today no case had squarely held that the exclusion of women from jury venires deprives a criminal defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. It is apparent that the first Congress did not perceive the Sixth Amendment as requiring women on criminal jury panels; for the direction of the First Judiciary Act of 1789 was that federal jurors were to have the qualifications required by the States in which the federal court was sitting and at the time women were disqualified under state law in every State. Necessarily, then, federal juries in criminal cases were all male, and it was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1967, 71 Stat. 638, 28 U. S. C. § 1861 (1964 ed.), that Congress itself provided that all citizens, with limited exceptions, were competent to sit on federal juries. Until that time, federal courts were required by statute to exclude women from jury duty in those States where women were disqualified. Utah was the first State to qualify women for juries;, it did so in 1898, n. 13, supra. Moreover, Hoyt v. Florida was decided and has stood for the proposition that, even if women as a group could not be constitutionally disqualified from jury service, there was ample reason to treat all women differently from men for the purpose of jury service and to exclude them unless they volunteered.
Accepting as we do, however, the view that the Sixth Amendment affords the defendant in a criminal trial the opportunity to have the jury drawn from venires representative of the community, we think it is no longer tenable to hold that women as a class may be excluded or given automatic exemptions based solely on sex if the consequence is that criminal jury venires are almost totally male. To this extent we cannot follow the contrary implications of the prior cases, including Hoyt v. Florida. If it was ever the case that women were unqualified to sit on juries or were so situated that none of them should be required to perform jury service, that time has long since passed. If at one time it could be held that Sixth Amendment juries must be drawn from a fair cross section of the community but that this requirement permitted the almost total exclusion of women, this is not the case today. Communities differ at different times and places. What is a fair cross section at one time or place is not necessarily a fair cross section at another time or a different place. Nothing persuasive has been presented to us in this case suggesting that all-male venires in the parishes involved here are fairly representative of the local population otherwise eligible for jury service.
^
Our holding does not augur or authorize the fashioning of detailed jury-selection codes by federal courts. The fair-cross-section principle must have much leeway in application. The States remain free to prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors and to provide reasonable exemptions so long as it may be fairly said that the jury lists or panels are representative of the community. Carter v. Jury Comm’n, supra, as did Brown v. Allen, supra; Rawlins v. Georgia, supra, and other cases, recognized broad discretion in the States in this respect. We do not depart from the principles enunciated in Carter. But, as we have said, Louisiana’s special exemption for women operates to exclude them from petit juries, which in our view is contrary to the command of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
It should also be emphasized that in holding that petit juries must be drawn from a source fairly representative of the community we impose no requirement that petit juries actually chosen must mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population. Defendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition, Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261, 284 (1947); Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S., at 413 (plurality opinion) ; but the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof.
The judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court is reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger concurs in the result.
La. Const., Art. VII, § 41, read, in pertinent part:
“The Legislature shall provide for the election and drawing of competent and intelligent jurors for the trial of civil and criminal cases; provided, however, that no woman shall be drawn for jury service unless she shall have previously filed with the clerk of the District Court a written declaration of her desire to be subject to such service.”
As of January 1, 1975, this provision of the Louisiana Constitution was repealed and replaced by the foEowing provision, La. Const., Art. V, §33:
“(A) Qualifications.
“A citizen of the state who has reached the age of majority is eligible to serve as a juror within the parish in which he is domiciled. The legislature may provide additional qualifications.
“(B) Exemptions.
“The supreme court shall provide by rule for exemption of jurors.”
La. Code Crina. Proc., Art. 402, provided:
“A woman shaU not be selected for jury service unless she has previously filed with the clerk of court of the parish in which she resides a written declaration of her desire to be subject to jury service.”
This provision has been repealed, effective January 1, 1975. The repeal, however, has no effect on the conviction obtained in this case.
The stipulation appears in the Appendix, at 82-84, filed in Edwards v. Healy, No. 73-759, now pending before the Court.
Ibid.
The death sentence imposed on appellant was annulled and set aside by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in accord with this Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972), with instructions to the District Court to impose a life sentence on remand. The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a rehearing to appellant on certain other issues not relevant to this appeal, 282 So. 2d 491, 500 (1973), and later denied a second petition for rehearing.
Pub. L. 90-274, 82 Stat. 53, 28 U. S. C. § 1861 et seq.
H. R. Rep. No. 1076, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 8 (1968):
“It must be remembered that the jury is designed not only to understand the case, but also to reflect the community’s sense of justice in deciding it. As long as there are significant departures from the cross sectional goal, biased juries are the result — biased in the sense that they reflect a slanted view of the community they are supposed to represent.”
See S. Rep. No. 92-516, p. 3 (1971).
S. Rep. No. 891, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1967): “A jury chosen from a representative community sample is a fundamental of our system of justice.”
Both the Senate and House Reports made reference to the decision of the Court of Appeals in Rabinowitz v. United States, 366 F. 2d 34, 57 (CA5 1966), which, in sustaining an attack on the composition of grand and petit jury venires in the Middle District of Georgia, had held that both the Constitution and 28 U. S. C. § 1861, prior to its amendment in 1968, required a system of jury selection “that will probably result in a fair cross-section of the community being placed on the jury rolls.” See S. Rep. No. 891, supra, at 11, 18; H. R. Rep. No. 1076, supra, n. 7, at 4, 5.
Elimination of the “key man” system throughout the federal courts was the primary focus of the Federal Jury Selection and 'Service Act of 1968. See H. R. Rep. No. 1076, supra, at 4 and n. 1.
114 Cong. Rec. 3992 (1968) (remarks of Mr. Rogers). See also 118 Cong. Rec. 6939 (1972) (remarks of Mr. Poff).
114 Cong. Rec. 3999 (1968) (remarks of Mr. Machen).
Id., at 6609 (remarks of Sen. Tydings).
Compare Peters v. Kiff, 407 U. S. 493, 502-504 (1972) (opinion of Marshall, J., joined by Douglas and Stewart, JJ.):
“These principles compel the conclusion that a State cannot, consistent with due process, subject a defendant to indictment or trial by a jury that has been selected in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. Illegal and unconstitutional jury selection procedures cast doubt on the integrity of the whole judicial process. They create the appearance of bias in the decision of individual cases, and they increase the risk of actual bias as well.
“But the exclusion from jury service of a substantial and identifiable class of citizens has a potential impact that is too subtle and too pervasive to admit of confinement to particular issues or particular cases. ... ■
“Moreover, we are unwilling to make the assumption that the exclusion of Negroes has relevance only for issues involving race. When any large and identifiable segment of the community is excluded from jury service, the effect is to remove from the jury room qualities of human nature and varieties of human experience, the range of which is unknown and perhaps unknowable. It is not necessary to assume that the excluded group will consistently vote as a class in order to conclude, as we do, that its exclusion deprives the jury of a perspective on human events that may have unsuspected importance in any case that may be presented.” (Footnote omitted.)
• Controlled studies of the performance of women as jurors conducted subsequent to the Court’s decision in Ballard have concluded that women bring to juries their own perspectives and values that influence both jury deliberation and result. See generally Rudolph, Women on Juries — Voluntary or Compulsory?, 44 J. Am. Jud. Soc. 206 (1961); 55 J. Sociology & Social Research 442 (1971) ; 3 J. Applied Social Psychology 267 (1973); 19 Sociometry 3 (1956).
This is a relatively modern development. Under the English common law, women, with the exception of the trial of a narrow class of cases, were not considered to be qualified for jury service by virtue of the doctrine of propter defectum sexus, a “defect of sex.” 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *362. This common-law rule was made statutory by Parliament in 1870, 33 & 34 Viet., e. 77, and then rejected by Parliament in 1919, 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 71. In this country women were disqualified by state law to sit as jurors until the end of the 19th century. They were first deemed qualified for jury service by a State in 1898, Utah Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35, § 1297 (1898). Today, women are qualified as jurors in all the States. The jury-sendee statutes and rules of most States do not on their face extend to women the type of exemption presently before the Court, although the exemption provisions of some States do appear to treat men and women differently in certain respects.
Florida Stat. 1959, § 40.01 (1), provided that grand and petit jurors be taken from male and female citizens of the State possessed of certain qualifications and also provided that “the name of no female ■person shall be taken for jury service unless said person has registered with the clerk of the circuit court her desire to be placed on the jury list.” Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 58 (1961).
The state interest, as articulated by the Court, was based on the assumption that “woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life.” Hoyt v. Florida, supra, at 62. Louisiana makes a similar argument here, stating that its grant of an automatic exemption from jury service to females involves only the State’s attempt “to regulate and provide stability to the state’s own idea of family life.” Brief for Appellee 12.
In Hoyt, the Court determined both that the underlying classification was rational and that the State’s proffered rationale for extending this exemption to females without family responsibilities was justified by administrative convenience. 368 U. S., at 62-63.
In Hoyt v. Florida, supra, the Court placed some emphasis on the notion, advanced by the State there and by Louisiana here in support of the rationality of its statutory scheme, that “woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life.” 368 U. S., at 62. Statistics compiled by the Department of Labor indicate that in October 1974, 54.2% of all women between 18 and 64 years of age were in the labor force. United States Dept. of Labor, Women in the Labor Force (Oct. 1974). Additionally, in March 1974, 45.7% of women with children under the age of 18 were in the labor force; with respect to families containing children between the ages of six and 17, 67.3% of mothers who were widowed, divorced, or separated were in the work force, while 51.2% of the mothers whose husbands were present in the household were in the work force. Even in family units in which the husband was present and which contained a child under three years old, 31% of the mothers were in the work force. United States Dept. of Labor, Marital and Family Characteristics of the Labor Force, Table F (March 1974). While these statistics perhaps speak more to the evolving nature of the structure of the family unit in American society than to the nature of the role played by women who happen to be members of a family unit, they certainly put to rest the suggestion that all women should be exempt from jury service based solely on their sex and the presumed role in the home.
Section 29 of that Act provided that “the jurors shall have the same qualifications as are requisite for jurors by the laws of the State of which they are citizens, to serve in the highest courts of law of such State . . . 1 Stat. 88.
Hoyt v. Florida, as had Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261, 289-290 (1947), also referred to the historic view that jury service could constitutionally be confined to males: “We need not, however, accept appellant’s invitation to canvass in this case the continuing validity of this Court’s dictum in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 310, to the effect that a State may constitutionally ‘confine’ jury duty ‘to males.' This constitutional proposition has gone unquestioned for more than eighty years in the decisions of the Court, see Fay v. New York, supra, at 289-290, and had been reflected, until 1957, in congressional policy respecting jury service in the federal courts themselves.” 368 U. S., at 60. (Footnote omitted.) See also Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 64-65, 85-86 (1942).
It is most interesting to note that Strauder v. West Virginia itself stated:
“[T]he constitution of juries is a very essential part of the protection such a mode of trial is intended to secure. The very idea of a jury is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine; that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.” 100 U. S. 303, 308 (1880).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellant, Gary Duncan, was convicted of simple battery in the Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court of Louisiana. Under Louisiana law simple battery is a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment and a $300 fine. Appellant sought trial by jury, but because the Louisiana Constitution grants jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed, the trial judge denied the request. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve 60 days in the parish prison and pay a fine of $150. Appellant sought review in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, asserting that the denial of jury trial violated rights guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, finding “[n]o error of law in the ruling complained of,” denied appellant a writ of certiorari. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2) appellant sought review in this Court, alleging that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution secure the right to jury trial in state criminal prosecutions where a sentence as long as two years may be imposed. We noted probable jurisdiction, and set the case for oral argument with No. 52, Bloom v. Illinois, post, p. 194.
Appellant was 19 years of age when tried. While driving on Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish on October 18, 1966, he saw two younger cousins engaged in a conversation by the side of the road with four white boys. Knowing his cousins, Negroes who had recently transferred to a formerly all-white high school, had reported the occurrence of racial incidents at the school, Duncan stopped the car, got out, and approached the six boys. At trial the white boys and a white onlooker testified, as did appellant and his cousins. The testimony was in dispute on many points, but the witnesses agreed that appellant and the white boys spoke to each other, that appellant encouraged his cousins to break off the encounter and enter his car, and that appellant was about to enter the car himself for the purpose of driving away with his cousins. The whites testified that just before getting in the car appellant slapped Herman Landry, one of the white boys, on the elbow. The Negroes testified that appellant had not slapped Landry, but liad merely touched him. The trial judge concluded that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Duncan had committed simple battery, and found him guilty.
I.
The Fourteenth Amendment denies the States the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In resolving conflicting claims concerning the meaning of this spacious language, the Co'urt has looked increasingly to the Bill of Rights for guidance; many of the rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution have been held to be protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause now protects the right to compensation for property taken by the State; the rights of speech, press, and religion covered by the First Amendment; the Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to have excluded from criminal trials any evidence illegally seized; the right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to be free of compelled self-incrimination; and the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to confrontation of opposing witnesses, and to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.
The test for determining whether a right extended by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments with respect to federal criminal proceedings is also protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment has been phrased in a variety of ways in the opinions of this Court. The question has been asked whether a right is among those “ 'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,' ” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 67 (1932); whether it is “basic in our system of jurisprudence,” In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273 (1948); and whether it is “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,” Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 343-344 (1963); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 6 (1964); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 403 (1965). The claim before us is that the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment meets these tests. The position of Louisiana, on the other hand, is that the Constitution imposes upon the States no duty to give a jury trial in any criminal case, regardless of the seriousness of the crime or the size of the punishment which may be imposed. Because we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, we hold that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which — were they to be tried in a federal court — would come within the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee. Since we consider the appeal before us to be such a case, we hold that the Constitution was violated when appellant’s demand for jury trial was refused.
The history of trial by jury in criminal cases has been frequently told. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that by the time our Constitution was written, jury trial in criminal cases had been in existence in England for several centuries and carried impressive credentials traced by many to Magna Carta. Its preservation and proper operation as a protection against arbitrary rule were among the major objectives of the revolutionary settlement which was expressed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1689. In the 18th century Blackstone could write:
“Our law has therefore wisely placed this strong and two-fold barrier, of a presentment and a trial by jury, between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown. It was necessary, for preserving the admirable balance of our constitution, to vest the executive power of the laws in the prince: and yet this power might be dangerous and destructive to that very constitution, if exerted without check or control, by justices of oyer and terminer occasionally named by the crown; who might then, as in France or Turkey, imprison, dispatch, or exile any man that was obnoxious to the government, by an instant declaration that such is their will and pleasure. But the founders of the English law have, with excellent forecast, contrived that . . . the truth of every accusation, whether preferred in the shape of indictment, information, or appeal, should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours, indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion.”
Jury trial came to America with English colonists, and received strong support from them. Royal interference with the jury trial was deeply resented. Among the resolutions adopted by the First Congress of the American Colonies (the Stamp Act Congress) on October 19, 1765 — resolutions deemed by their authors to state “the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists” — was the declaration:
“That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.”
The First Continental Congress, in the resolve of October 14, 1774, objected to trials before judges dependent upon the Crown alone for their salaries and to trials in England for alleged crimes committed in the colonies; the Congress therefore declared:
“That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.”
The Declaration of Independence stated solemn objections to the King’s making “Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries,” to his “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury,” and to his “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses.” The Constitution itself, in Art. Ill, § 2, commanded:
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.”
Objections to the Constitution because of the absence of a bill of rights were met by the immediate submission and adoption of the Bill of Rights. Included was the Sixth Amendment which, among other things, provided:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
The constitutions adopted by the original States guaranteed jury trial. Also, the constitution of every State entering the Union thereafter in one form or another protected the right to jury trial in criminal cases.
Even such skeletal history is impressive support for considering the right to jury trial in criminal cases to be fundamental to our system of justice, an importance frequently recognized in the opinions of this Court. For example, the Court has said:
“Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege 'as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power.’ ”
Jury trial continues to receive strong support. The laws of every State guarantee a right to jury trial in serious criminal cases; no State has dispensed with it; nor are there significant movements underway to do so. Indeed, the three most recent state constitutional revisions, in Maryland, Michigan, and New York, carefully preserved the right of the accused to have the judgment of a jury when tried for a serious crime.
We are aware of prior cases in this Court in which the prevailing opinion contains statements contrary to our holding today that the right to jury trial in serious criminal cases is a fundamental right and hence must be recognized by the States as part of their obligation to extend due process of law to all persons within their jurisdiction. Louisiana relies especially on Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581 (1900); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937); and Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97 (1934). None of these cases, however, dealt with a State which had purported to dispense entirely with a jury trial in serious criminal cases. Maxwell held that no provision of the Bill of Rights applied to the States— a position long since repudiated — and that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent a State from trying a defendant for a noncapital offense with fewer than 12 men on the jury. It did not deal with a case in which no jury at all had been provided. In neither Palko nor Snyder was jury trial actually at issue, although both cases contain important dicta asserting that the right to jury trial is not essential to ordered liberty and may be dispensed with by the States regardless of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. These observations, though weighty and respectable, are nevertheless dicta, unsupported by holdings in this Court that a State may refuse a defendant’s demand for a jury trial when he is charged with a serious crime. Perhaps because the right to jury trial was not directly at stake, the Court’s remarks about the jury in Palko and Snyder took no note of past or current developments regarding jury trials, did not consider its purposes and functions, attempted no inquiry into how well it was performing its job, and did not discuss possible distinctions between civil and criminal cases. In Malloy v. Hogan, supra, the Court rejected Palko’s discussion of the self-incrimination clause. Respectfully, we reject the prior dicta regarding jury trial in criminal cases.
The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power — a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power, so typical of our State and Federal Governments in other respects, found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence. The deep commitment of the Nation to the right of jury trial in serious criminal cases as a defense against arbitrary law enforcement qualifies for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and must therefore be respected by the States.
Of course jury trial has “its weaknesses and the potential for misuse,” Singer v. United States, 380 U. S. 24, 35 (1965). We are aware of the long debate, especially in this century, among those who write about the administration of justice, as to the wisdom of permitting untrained laymen to determine the facts in civil and criminal proceedings. Although the debate has been intense, with powerful voices on either side, most of the controversy has centered on the jury in civil cases. Indeed, some of the severest critics of civil juries acknowledge that the arguments for criminal juries are much stronger. In addition, at the heart of the dispute have been express or implicit assertions that juries are incapable of adequately understanding evidence or determining issues of fact, and that they are unpredictable, quixotic, and little better than a roll of dice. Yet, the most recent and exhaustive study of the jury in criminal cases concluded that juries do understand the evidence and come to sound conclusions in most of the cases presented to them and that when juries differ with the result at which the judge would have arrived, it is usually because they are serving some of the very purposes for which they were created and for which they are now employed.
The State of Louisiana urges that holding that the Fourteenth Amendment assures a right to jury trial will cast doubt on the integrity of every trial conducted without a jury. Plainly, this is not the import of our holding. Our conclusion is that in the American States, as in the federal judicial system, a general grant of jury trial for serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants. We would not assert, however, that every criminal trial — or any particular trial — held before a judge alone is unfair or that a defendant may never be as fairly treated by a judge as he would be by a jury. Thus we hold no constitutional doubts about the practices, common in both federal and state courts, of accepting waivers of jury trial and prosecuting petty crimes without extending a right to jury trial. However, the fact is that in most places more trials for serious crimes are to juries than to a court alone; a great many defendants prefer the judgment of a jury to that of a court. Even where defendants are satisfied with bench trials, the right to a jury trial very likely serves its intended purpose of making judicial or prosecutorial unfairness less likely.
II.
Louisiana’s final contention is that even if it must grant jury trials in serious criminal cases, the conviction before us is valid and constitutional because here the petitioner was tried for simple battery and was sentenced to only 60 days in the parish prison. We are not persuaded. It is doubtless true that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to the States. Crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses, Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966). But the penalty authorized for a particular crime is of major relevance in determining whether it is serious or not and may in itself, if severe enough, subject the trial to the mandates of the Sixth Amendment. District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617 (1937). The penalty authorized by the law of the locality may be taken “as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments,” 300 U. S., at 628, of the crime in question. In Clawans the defendant was jailed for 60 days, but it was the 90-day authorized punishment on which the Court focused in determining that the offense was not one for which the Constitution assured trial by jury. In the case before us the Legislature of Louisiana has made simple battery a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The question, then, is whether a crime carrying such a penalty is an offense which Louisiana may insist on trying without a jury.
We think not. So-called petty offenses were tried without juries both in England and in the Colonies and have always been held to be exempt from the otherwise comprehensive language of the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial provisions. There is no substantial evidence that the Framers intended to depart from this established common-law practice, and the possible consequences to defendants from convictions for petty offenses have been thought insufficient to outweigh the benefits to efficient law enforcement and simplified judicial administration resulting from the availability of speedy and inexpensive non jury adjudications. These same considerations compel the same result under the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course the boundaries of the petty offense category have always been ill-defined, if not ambulatory. In the absence of an explicit constitutional provision, the definitional task necessarily falls on the courts, which must either pass upon the validity of legislative attempts to identify those petty offenses which are exempt from jury trial or, where the legislature has not addressed itself to the problem, themselves face the question in the first instance. In either case it is necessary to draw a line in the spectrum of crime, separating petty from serious infractions. This process, although essential, cannot be wholly satisfactory, for it requires attaching different consequences to events which, when they lie near the line, actually differ very little.
In determining whether the length of the authorized prison term or the seriousness of other punishment is enough in itself to require a jury trial, we are counseled by District of Columbia v. Clawans, supra, to refer to objective criteria, chiefly the existing laws and practices in the Nation. In the federal system, petty offenses are defined as those punishable by no more than six months in prison and a $500 fine. In 49 of the 50 States crimes subject to trial without a jury, which occasionally include simple battery, are punishable by no more than one year in jail. Moreover, in the late 18th century in America crimes triable without a jury were for the most part punishable by no more than a six-month prison term, although there appear to have been exceptions to this rule. We need not, however, settle in this case the exact location of the line between petty offenses and serious crimes. It is sufficient for our purposes to hold that a crime punishable by two years in prison is, based on past and contemporary standards in this country, a serious crime and not a petty offense. Consequently, appellant was entitled to a jury trial and it was error to deny it.
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Fortas, see post, p. 211.]
La. Const., Art. VII, §41:
"AH cases in which the punishment may not be at hard labor shaH ... be tried by the judge without a jury. Cases, in which the punishment may be at hard labor, shall be tried by a jury of five, all of whom must concur to render a verdict; cases, in which the punishment is necessarily at hard labor, by a jury of twelve, nine of whom must concur to render a verdict; cases in which the punishment may be capital, by a jury of twelve, all of whom must concur to render a verdict.”
La. Rev. Stat. §14:35 (1950):
“Simple battery is a battery, without the consent of the victim, committed without a dangerous weapon.
“Whoever commits a simple battery shaH be fined not more than three hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”
250 La. 253, 195 So. 2d 142 (1967).
389 U. S. 809 (1967).
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897).
See, e. g., Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380 (1927).
See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961).
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964).
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963).
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213 (1967).
In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948).
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 (1965).
Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967).
Quoting from Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 316 (1926).
In one sense recent cases applying provisions of the first eight Amendments to the States represent a new approach to the "incorporation” debate. Earlier the Court can be seen as having asked, when inquiring into whether some particular procedural safeguard was required of a State, if a civilized system could be imagined that would not accord the particular protection. For example, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937), stated: “The right to trial by jury and the immunity from prosecution except as the result of an indictment may have value and importance. Even so, they are not of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty. . . . Few would be so narrow or provincial as to maintain that a fair and enlightened system of justice would be impossible without them.” The recent cases, on the other hand, have proceeded upon the valid assumption that state criminal processes are not imaginary and theoretical schemes but actual systems bearing virtually every characteristic of the common-law system that has been developing contemporaneously in England and in this country. The question thus is whether given this kind of system a particular procedure is fundamental — whether, that is, a procedure is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty. It is this sort of inquiry that can justify the conclusions that state courts must exclude evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961); that state prosecutors may not comment on a defendant’s failure to testify, Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965); and that criminal punishment may not be imposed for the status of narcotics addiction, Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962). Of immediate relevance for this case are the Court’s holdings that the States must comply with certain provisions of the Sixth Amendment, specifically that the States may not refuse a speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses, and the assistance, at state expense if necessary, of counsel. See cases cited in nn. 8-12, supra. Of each of these determinations that a constitutional provision originally written to bind the Federal Government should bind the States as well it might be said that the limitation in question is not necessarily fundamental to fairness in every criminal system that might be imagined but is fundamental in the context of the criminal processes maintained by the American States.
When the inquiry is approached in this way the question whether the States can impose criminal punishment without granting a jury trial appears quite different from the way it appeared in the older cases opining that States might abolish jury trial. See, e. g., Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581 (1900). A criminal process which was fair and equitable but used no juries is easy to imagine. It would make use of alternative guarantees and protections which would serve the purposes that the jury serves in the English and American systems. Yet no American State has undertaken to construct such a system. Instead, every American State, including Louisiana, uses the jury extensively, and imposes very serious punishments only after a trial at which the defendant has a right to a jury’s verdict. In every State, including Louisiana, the structure and style of the criminal process — the supporting framework and the subsidiary procedures — are of the sort that naturally complement jury trial, and have developed in connection with and in reliance upon jury trial.
E. g., W. Forsyth, History of Trial by Jury (1852); J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (1898); W. Holdsworth, History of English Law.
E. g., 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 349 (Cooley ed. 1899). Historians no longer accept this pedigree. See, e. g., 1 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I, at 173, n. 3 (2d ed. 1909).
Blackstone, supra, at 349-350.
R. Perry, ed., Sources of Our Liberties 270 (1959).
Id., at 288.
Among the proposed amendments- adopted by the House of Representatives in 1789 and submitted to the Senate was Article Fourteen:
“No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
The Senate deleted this article in adopting the amendments which became the Bill of Rights. Journal of the First Session of the Senate 72; 1 Annals of Congress 76; Brennan, The Bill of Rights and the States, in E. Cahn, The Great Rights 65, 69 (1963) ; E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights 46, 215 (1957). This relatively clear indication that the framers of the Sixth Amendment did not intend its jury trial requirement to bind the States is, of course, of little relevance to interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted specifically to place limitations upon the States. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380 (1927); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 666 (1925).
Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 349-350 (1898), quoting 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1779. See also Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 721-722 (1961); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 16 (1955); Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 122-123 (1866); People v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 27 (1868).
Proposed Maryland Constitution, Art. 1, § 1.07 (defeated at referendum May 14, 1968); Michigan Constitution, Art. 1, § 14; Proposed New York Constitution, Art. 1, § 7b (defeated at referendum Nov. 7, 1967).
“The [jury trial] clause was clearly intended to protect the accused from oppression by the Government . . . .” Singer v. United States, 380 U. S. 24, 31 (1965).
“The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.” P. Devlin, Trial by Jury 164 (1956).
A thorough summary of the arguments that have been made for and against jury trial and an extensive bibliography of the relevant literature is available at Hearings on Recording of Jury Deliberations before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 63-81 (1955). A more selective bibliography appears at H. Kalven, Jr. & H. Zeisel, The American Jury 4, n. 2 (1966).
E. g., J. Frank, Courts on Trial 145 (1949); H. Sidgwick, The Elements of Politics 498 (4th ed. 1919).
Kalven & Zeisel, n. 24, supra.
See Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276 (1930).
See Part II, infra.
Kalven & Zeisel, n. 24, supra, c. 2.
Louisiana also asserts that if due process is deemed to include the right to jury trial, States will be obligated to comply with all past interpretations of the Sixth Amendment, an amendment which in its inception was designed to control only the federal courts and which throughout its history has operated in this limited environment where uniformity is a more obvious and immediate consideration. In particular, Louisiana objects to application of the decisions of this Court interpreting the Sixth Amendment as guaranteeing a 12-man jury in serious criminal cases, Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343 (1898); as requiring a unanimous verdict before guilt can be found, Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 586 (1900); and as barring procedures by which crimes subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision are tried in the first instance without a jury but at the first appellate stage by de novo trial with a jury, Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540, 557 (1888). It seems very unlikely to us that our decision today will require widespread changes in state criminal processes. First, our decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment are always subject to reconsideration, a fact amply demonstrated by the instant decision. In addition, most of the States have provisions for jury trials equal in breadth to the Sixth Amendment, if that amendment is construed, as it has been, to permit the trial of petty crimes and offenses without a jury. Indeed, there appear to be only four States in which juries of fewer than 12 can be used without the defendant’s consent for offenses carrying a maximum penalty of greater than one year. Only in Oregon and Louisiana can a less-than-unanimous jury convict for an offense with a maximum penalty greater than one year. However 10 States authorize first-stage trials without juries for crimes carrying lengthy penalties; these States give a convicted defendant the right to a de novo trial before a jury in a different court. The statutory provisions are listed in the briefs filed in this case.
Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966); District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617 (1937); Schick v. United States, 195 U. S. 65 (1904); Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621 (1891); see Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540 (1888). See generally Frankfurter & Corcoran, Petty Federal Offenses and the Constitutional Guaranty of Trial by Jury, 39 Harv. L. Rev. 917 (1926); Kaye, Petty Offenders Have No Peers!, 26 U. Chi. L. Rev. 245 (1959).
18 U. S. C. § 1.
Indeed, there appear to be only two instances, aside from the Louisiana scheme, in which a State denies jury trial for a crime punishable by imprisonment for longer than six months. New Jersey’s disorderly conduct offense, N. J. Stat. Ann. §2A: 169-4 (1953), carries a one-year maximum sentence but no jury trial. The denial of jury trial was upheld by a 4 — 3 vote against state constitutional attack in State v. Maier, 13 N. J. 235, 99 A. 2d 21 (1953). New York State provides a jury within New York City only for offenses bearing a maximum sentence greater than one year. See People v. Sanabria, 42 Misc. 2d 464, 249 N. Y. S. 2d 66 (Sup. Ct. 1964).
Frankfurter & Corcoran, n. 31, supra. In the instant case Louisiana has not argued that a penalty of two years’ imprisonment is sufficiently short to qualify as a “petty offense,” but only that the penalty actually imposed on Duncan, imprisonment for 60 days, is within the petty offense category.
It is argued that Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966), interpreted the Sixth Amendment as meaning that to the extent that the length of punishment is a relevant criterion in distinguishing between serious crimes and petty offenses, the critical factor is not the length of the sentence authorized but the length of the penalty actually imposed. In our view that case does not reach the situation where a legislative judgment as to the seriousness of the crime is imbedded in the statute in the form of an express authorization to impose a heavy penalty for the crime in question. Cheff involved criminal contempt, an offense applied to a wide range of conduct including conduct not so serious as to require jury trial absent a long sentence. In addition criminal contempt is unique in that legislative bodies frequently authorize punishment without stating the extent of the penalty which can be imposed. The contempt statute under which Cheff was prosecuted, 18 U. S. C. § 401, treated the extent of punishment as a matter to be determined by the forum court. It is therefore understandable that this Court in Cheff seized upon the penalty actually imposed as the best evidence of the seriousness of the offense for which Cheff was tried.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner sued in the District Court for a death gratuity under the Act of June 4,1920,41 Stat. 824, as amended, 34 U. S. C. § 943, claiming as the widow of a member of the naval service. Respondent, the defendant in the suit, was Paymaster General of the Navy. The relief asked was mandamus to compel him to pay the widow’s allowance. The District Court held for petitioner, ordering respondent to pay her the amount of the allowance. 75 F. Supp. 902. That judgment was entered January 30, 1948. On March 18, 1948, notice of appeal was filed in the name of Rear Admiral W. A. Buck, Paymaster General of the Navy. On March 1, 1948, however, Buck had been retired and Rear Admiral Edwin D. Foster had succeeded him in the office.
Section 11 (a) of the Judiciary Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 936, 941, provided that “. . . where, during the pend-ency of an action . . . brought by or against an officer of the United States . . . and relating to the present or future discharge of his official duties, such officer dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold such office, it shall be competent for the court wherein the action, suit, or proceeding is pending, whether the court be one of first instance or an appellate tribunal, to permit the cause to be continued and maintained by or against the successor in office of such officer, if within six months after his death or separation from the office it be satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need for so continuing and maintaining the cause and obtaining an adjudication of the questions involved.”
Neither party made any effort within the six months period to have Buck’s successor in office substituted for him. The Court of Appeals therefore ruled that the action had abated; it then vacated the judgment and remanded the cause to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint. 85 U. S. App. D. C. 428, 179 F. 2d 466.
The complaint in this case makes no claim against Buck personally. Therefore we put to one side cases such as Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, dealing with actions in assumpsit against collectors for taxes erroneously collected. The writ that issued against Buck related to a duty attaching to the office. The duty existed so long and only so long as the office was held. When Buck retired from office, his power to perform ceased. He no longer had any authority over death gratuity allowances. Moreover, his successor might on demand recognize the claim asserted and discharge his duty. For these reasons it was held that in absence of a statute an action aimed at compelling an official to discharge his official duties abated where the official died or retired from the office. See Secretary v. McGarrahan, 9 Wall. 298, 313; United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, 607-608; Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28, 31; United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U. S. 600.
Congress changed the rule. It provided by the Act of February 8, 1899, 30 Stat. 822, that no action by or against a federal officer in his official capacity or in relation to the discharge of his official duties should abate because of his death or resignation; and it provided a period in which substitution could be made. See LeCrone v. McAdoo, 253 U. S. 217; H. R. Rep. No. 960, 55th Cong., 2d Sess.
The rule was again changed by § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1925. The provision that no action should abate was eliminated. It was provided that the action might be continued against the successor on the requisite showing within the stated period. The revision effected a substantial change. The 1925 Act made survival of the action dependent on a timely substitution. Defense Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Co., 336 U. S. 631, 637-638. And see Ex parte La Prade, 289 U. S. 444, 456. Thus, where there was a failure to move for substitution within the statutory period, the judgment below was vacated and the cause was remanded with directions “to dismiss the cause as abated.” United States ex rel. Claussen v. Curran, 276 U. S. 590, 591; Matheus v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 282 U. S. 802. This was a declared policy of Congress not to be altered by an agreement of the parties or by some theory of estoppel. Nor did the application of § 11 turn on whether the judgment rendered prior to the death or resignation of the official was for or against the plaintiff. The inability of one who no longer holds the office to perform any of the official duties would indeed only be emphasized by the rendition of the coercive judgment.
It is argued that § 11 should be read as covering only those “actions brought against officials for remedies which could not be got in a direct suit against the United States.” Such a reading requires more than a tailoring of the Act; it requires a full alteration. Section 11 applies to “an action . . . brought by or against an officer of the United States . . . and relating to the present or future discharge of his official duties.” Many actions against an official relating to the “discharge of his official duties” would in substance be suits against the United States. If the rule of abatement and substitution is to be altered in the manner suggested, the amending process is available for that purpose.
Section 11 by its terms applies only during the pend-ency of an action. But an action is nonetheless pending within the meaning of the section though an appeal is being sought (see Becker Steel Co. v. Hicks, 66 F. 2d 497, 499; United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi, 168 F. 2d 1014), as was implicit in Matheus v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, supra. For in that case a writ of habeas corpus, denied by the District Court, had been granted by the Circuit Court of Appeals. While the case was in the Circuit Court of Appeals the time expired for substituting the successor of the custodian against whom the prisoner had brought the action. Yet, as noted above, the Court applied § 11, vacated the judgments, and ordered the proceeding dismissed as abated.
There is a difference in the present case by reason of the fact that the appeal was taken by Buck after his retirement and therefore without authority. The judgment concerned the performance of official duties for which Buck was no longer responsible. Hence he was not in position to obtain a review of it. See Davis v. Preston, 280 U. S. 406. In the Davis case this Court dismissed a writ of certiorari granted under such circumstances. The argument is that the Court of Appeals should have done no more in the present case. The difference is that the Davis case was a suit against the Federal Agent under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, in which a judgment was rendered against him. An Act of Congress made special provision for substitution in those cases. The Court, however, held that this statute did not affect in any manner the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. But that Act preserved those judgments against abatement by reason of the death or retirement of the Federal Agent and allowed substitution at any time before satisfaction of the judgment. Therefore, on remand of the cause in the Davis case the successor Federal Agent could be substituted and the judgment enforced against him. On remand of the present cause there would be no way of substituting the successor, as the suit had abated in the District Court. Vacating the judgment of the District Court was therefore the proper procedure.
Nor is there any barrier to our review of this ruling on abatement by 28 U. S. C. § 2105 which prohibits a reversal by the Court of Appeals or this Court for error in ruling upon matters in abatement “which do not involve jurisdiction.” The absence of a necessary party and the statutory barrier to substitution go to jurisdiction.
Petitioner loses her judgment and must start over.
Affirmed.
Rule 19 (4) of the Rules of this Court provides that in such cases “the matter of abatement and substitution is covered by section 11 of the Act of February 13, 1925. Under that section a substitution of the successor in office may be effected only where a satisfactory showing is made within six months after the death or separation from office.”
This section was repealed as of September 1, 1948, 62 Stat. 992, 1000. It is argued that, since that date was the date on which the 6 months statutory period for substitution in this case expired and since the repealing Act preserved any rights or liabilities existing under any of the repealed laws (id., 992), § 11 governs this case. We need not reach the effect of the repealing Act. For the Court of Appeals during the period material to our problem had in force its Rule 28 (b) which provided that abatement and substitution were governed by § 11 of the 1925 Act.
Rule 25 (d), Rules of Civil Procedure, now provides: “When an officer of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, a territory, an insular possession, a state, county, city, or other governmental agency, is a party to an action and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor, if within 6 months after the successor takes office it is satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need for so continuing and maintaining it. Substitution pursuant to this rule may be made when it is shown by supplemental pleading that the successor of an officer adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor in enforcing a law averred to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to object.”
An exception was a suit to enforce an obligation of the corporation or municipality to which the office was attached. See Thompson v. United States, 103 U. S. 480, 483, as explained in United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, supra, p. 603, and in Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95, 101-102.
See note 5, infra.
Under the earlier Act the passage of the period within which substitution could be made resulted in the proceeding being “at an end.” LeCrone v. McAdoo, supra, p. 219. The practice of this Court was therefore to dismiss the writ, leaving undisturbed the judgments below. LeCrone v. McAdoo, supra; United States ex rel. Wattis v. Lane, 255 U. S. 566; Payne v. Industrial Board, 258 U. S. 613; Payne v. Stevens, 260 U. S. 705.
In United States ex rel. Claussen v. Curran, supra, and Matheus v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, supra, the Solicitor General had expressed willingness for the successor to be substituted though the statutory period had expired.
The Act of March 3, 1923, 42 Stat. 1443, provided in part: “That section 206 of the Transportation Act, 1920, is amended by adding at the end thereof two new subdivisions to read as follows: ‘(h) Actions, suits, proceedings, and reparation claims, of the character described in subdivision (a), (c), or (d), properly commenced within the period of limitation prescribed, and pending at the time this subdivision takes effect, shall not abate by reason of the death, expiration of term of office, retirement, resignation, or removal from office of the Director General of Railroads or the agent designated under subdivision (a), but may (despite the provisions of the Act entitled “An Act to prevent the abatement of certain actions,” approved February 8, 1899), be prosecuted to final judgment, decree, or award, substituting at any time before satisfaction of such final judgment, decree, or award the agent designated by the President then in office.’ ”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is the latest episode in litigation beginning in 1948 which has been waged in five tribunals and has produced more than 125 printed pages of administrative and judicial opinions. It concerns the plan of the City of Tacoma, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington, to construct a power project on the Cowlitz River, a navigable water of the United States, in accordance with a license issued by the Federal Power Commission under the Federal Power Act. The question presented for decision here is whether under the facts of this case the City of Tacoma has acquired federal eminent domain power and capacity to take, upon the payment of just compensation, a fish hatchery owned and operated by the State of Washington, by virtue of the license issued to the City under the Federal Power Act and more particularly § 21 thereof. The project cannot be built without taking the hatchery because it necessarily must be inundated by a reservoir that will be created by one of the project’s dams.
The question has arisen under the following circumstances and proceedings. Having earlier filed its declaration of intention to construct the project, the City of Tacoma, a “municipality” in the State of Washington, on December 28, 1948, filed with the Commission, under § 4 (e) of the Federal Power Act, an application for a federal license to construct a power project, including two dams (known as Mossyrock and Mayfield) and appurtenant facilities, on the Cowlitz River.
The Mossyrock development was proposed to be located at Mile 65 and to consist of a concrete dam across the Cowlitz rising 510 feet above bedrock (creating a reservoir covering about 10,000 acres extending 21 miles upstream) and an integral powerhouse containing, initially, three generators each of 75,000-kilowatt capacity and provisions for a fourth generator of like capacity. The Mayfield development was proposed to be located at Mile 52 and to consist of a concrete dam across the Cowlitz rising 240 feet above bedrock (creating a reservoir covering about 2,200 acres extending 13.5 miles upstream to the tailwaters of the Mossyrock Dam, which would inundate the State’s fish hatchery) and an integral powerhouse containing, initially, three generators each of 40,000-kilowatt capacity and provisions for a fourth generator of like capacity. The project — estimated to cost $146,000,000, including $9,465,000 for devices to enable anadromous fish to pass to spawning grounds upstream and their young to pass to the sea, and for new fish hatcheries — would thus have initial capacity to produce 345,000 kilowatts or 474,000 horsepower, and eventually 460,000 kilowatts or 632,000 horsepower, of electrical energy.
The Commission ordered a public hearing to determine whether the license should issue, and gave notice of the hearing to the Governor of the State of Washington. In response, the Attorney General of the State filed an intervening petition, in the names of the State’s Directors of Fisheries and of Game, alleging in substance that the State’s Departments of Fisheries and of Game are subdivisions of the sovereign State, and that the respective Directors are charged with the duty of enforcing its laws concerning the conservation of fish and game; that the dams and fish-handling facilities proposed by the City would destroy fishery resources of the State; that construction of proposed dams would violate Wash. Rev. Code 90.28.060, requiring the State’s permission to construct any dam for the storage of 10 acre-feet or more of water, and Wash. Rev. Code 75.20.010, prohibiting the construction of any dam higher than 25 feet across any river tributary to the Columbia, downstream from the McNary Dam, within the migratory range of anadromous fish; and “[t]hat the reservoirs which would be created by the proposed dams would inundate a valuable and irreplaceable fish hatchery owned by the State of Washington, as well as... productive spawning areas.” The City's answer admitted that the State’s fish hatchery would be inundated by the Mayfield Reservoir. The State’s Attorney General also appointed a Special Assistant Attorney General to represent all persons of the State whose views were in conflict with the State’s official position.
Upon the issues thus framed a hearing, consuming 24 days, was conducted by a Commission examiner, throughout which the Attorney General of the State, by his designated assistant, actively participated in opposition to the application, and the Special Assistant Attorney General, appointed for the purpose stated, also participated in the proceedings before the Commission. Thereafter the Commission, on November 28,1951, rendered its opinion, findings, and order granting the license. Re City of Tacoma, 92 P. U. R. (N. S.) 79. The State petitioned for a rehearing which was denied.
Pursuant to § 313 of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 825i, the State, in its proper name and also on behalf of its Directors of Fisheries and of Game, petitioned for review of the Commission's order by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The City intervened. The State there challenged the Commission’s authority to issue the license principally upon the grounds that the City had not complied with applicable state laws nor obtained state permits and approvals required by state statptes; that “Tacoma, as a creature of the State of Washington, cannot act in opposition to the policy of the State or in derogation of its laws” (emphasis added); and that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the Commission’s findings and order. The Court of Appeals, holding that “state laws cannot prevent the Federal Power Commission from issuing a license or bar the licensee from acting under the license to build a dam on a navigable stream since the stream is under the dominion of the United States” and that there was ample evidence to sustain the Commission’s findings and its order, affirmed. Washington Department of Game v. Federal Power Comm’n, 207 F. 2d 391, 396. (Emphasis added.) The State then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari which was denied. 347 U. S. 936.
While the petition for review was pending in the Ninth Circuit, the City, on February 3, 1952, commenced an action in the Superior Court of Pierce County, Washington, against the taxpayers of Tacoma and the State's Directors of Fisheries and of Game, seeking a judgment declaring valid a large issue of revenue bonds, authorized by the City’s Ordinance (No. 14386) of January 9, 1952, to be issued and sold by Tacoma to finance the construction of the Cowlitz project — a proceeding specifically authorized by Wash. Rev. Code 7.25.010 through 7.25.040. As required by those statutes the court named representative taxpayers of Tacoma as class defendants and also appointed their counsel who.demurred to the City’s complaint. The State’s Directors of Fisheries and of Game, acting through an Assistant Attorney General- of the State, filed an answer and also a cross-complaint (reasserting substantially the same objections that they and the State had made before the Commission, and that had been made in, and rejected by, the Court of Appeals on their petition for review) to which the City demurred. The judge of the Superior Court sustained the Taxpayers’ demurrer and dismissed the suit. Tacoma appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington. That court, three justices dissenting, reversed the judgment and remanded the cause with instructions to overrule the Taxpayers’ demurrer and to proceed further consistently with the court’s opinion. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 43 Wash. 2d 468, 262 P. 2d 214.
Following that opinion the City, on June 21, 1955, accepted bids for a block of its revenue bonds totaling $15,000,000, and on the next day it awarded contracts for construction of the Mayfield Dam aggregating $16,120,870. Two days later, June 24, 1955, the Directors “acting for and on behalf of the State” moved in the Superior Court for, and obtained, ex parte, an order enjoining the City, pending determination of the suit, from proceeding to construct the Cowlitz project or to sell any of its revenue bonds. That order was modified on June 30, 1955, to permit such construction work as would not in any manner interfere with the bed or waters of the Cowlitz River. Promptly thereafter the City began construction of the project, within the limits of the injunction, and had expended about $7,000,000 thereon to the time the work was completely enjoined as later stated.
On July 27, 1955, Tacoma amended its complaint merely to assert the intervening facts that the Commission, upon application of the City which was opposed by the State, had, on the basis of delays entailed by this litigation, entered an order on February 24, 1954, amending Articles 28 and 33 of the City’s license by extending the time for commencing and for completing the project to December 31, 1955, and December 31, 1958, respectively, and that the City had amended its pertinent ordinance (No. 14386) accordingly and in other minor respects. On August 8, 1955, on motion made by.the State’s Attorney General (in the names of the Directors of Fisheries and of Game), the State, “in its sovereign capacity,” was formally made a defendant in the action. The State and those Directors answered, and also filed a cross-complaint again reviving the objections previously made by the Directors in their earlier cross-complaint and alleging further that the project would interfere with navigation of the Cowlitz River in violation of Wash. Rev. Code 80.40.010. Upon pretrial conference the Superior Court found that the navigation issue was the only one open and ordered that the evidence at the trial be limited to that issue. On January 11, 1956, the case was tried and the testimony taken was limited solely to the navigation issue. On March 6, 1956, the court, holding that the State’s statutes proscribing the construction of dams (note 11) are “inapplicable,” but that the City “is acting illegally and in excess of its authority in the construction of the... project as presently proposed for the reason that said project would necessarily impede, obstruct or interfere with public navigation contrary to the proviso of R. C. W. 80.40.010 et seq.,” entered judgment in favor of the Taxpayers and the State, and enjoined the City from proceeding to construct the project.
Tacoma appealed, and the Taxpayers, the State and its Directors cross-appealed, to the Supreme Court of Washington. On February 7, 1957, that court, three justices dissenting, affirmed. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 49 Wash. 2d 781, 307 P. 2d 567. It agreed that the Washington-statutes proscribing the construction of dams (note 11) were “inapplicable... insofar as the same conflict with the provisions of the Federal Power Act or the terms and conditions of [the City’s] License for said project, or insofar as they would enable State officials to exercise a veto over said project” (49 Wash. 2d, at 801, 307 P. 2d, at 577), but it disapproved the action of the trial court in sustaining the State’s objection that the project would interfere with navigation in violation of Wash. Rev. Code 80.40.010. However, upon the declared premise that though the trial court’s judgment was based upon an erroneous ground it would sustain it if correct on any ground within the pleadings and established by proof, it held that, though the State Legislature has given the City the right to construct and operate facilities for the production and distribution of electric power and a general power of condemnation for those purposes, “the legislature has [not] expressly authorized a municipal corporation to condemn state-owned land previously dedicated to a public use [and] that the city of Tacoma has not been endowed with [State] statutory capacity to condemn [the State’s fish hatchery]”; that “the city of Tacoma [may not] receive the power and capacity to condemn [the State’s fish hatchery] previously dedicated to a public use, from the license issued to it by the Federal power commission in the absence of such power and capacity under state statutes” (emphasis added); and that the City’s “inability so to act can be remedied only by state legislation that expands its capacity.” (Emphasis in original.) 49 Wash. 2d, at 798, 799, 307 P. 2d, at 576, 577. This, it said, “is not a question of the right of the Federal government to control all phases of activity on navigable streams, nor a question of its power, under the Federal power act, to delegate that right. It only questions the capacity of a municipal corporation of this state to act under such license when its exercise requires the condemnation of state-owned property dedicated to a public use.” 49 Wash. 2d, at 798, 307 P. 2d, at 576. (Emphasis added.) We granted certiorari. 355 U. S. 888.
At the outset respondents ask dismissal of our writ on the ground that the case is moot. They argue that it is evident the Cowlitz project cannot be completed by December 31, 1958, which is the date now stated in the license for its completion. There is no merit in this contention because § 13 of the Federal Power Act, 41 Stat. 1071, 16 U. S. C. § 806, expressly provides that “the period for the completion of construction carried on in good faith and with reasonable diligence may be extended by the Commission when not incompatible with the public interests,” and an application by the City is now pending before the Commission for an extension of completion time based upon delays entailed by these proceedings.
We come now to the core of the controversy between the parties, namely, whether the license issued by the Commission under the Federal Power Act to the City of Tacoma gave it capacity to act under that federal license in constructing the project and delegated to it federal eminent domain power to take, upon the payment of just compensation, the State’s fish hatchery — essential to the construction of the project — in the absence of state legislation specifically conferring such authority.
At the threshold of this controversy petitioner, the City, asserts that, under the express terms of § 313 (b) of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 8251 (b), this question has been finally determined by the decision of the Court of Appeals (207 F. 2d 391) and this Court’s denial of certiorari (347 U. S. 936); and that respondents’ cross-complaints, and proceedings thereon, in the subsequent bond validation suit in the Washington courts have been only impermissible collateral attacks upon the final judgment of the Court of Appeals. If this assertion is correct, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington now before us would necessarily have to be reversed, for obviously that court, like this one, may not, in such a case, re-examine and decide a question which has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in earlier litigation between the parties. We must turn then to an examination of petitioner’s contention.
It is no longer open to question that the Federal Government under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3) has dominion, to the exclusion of the States, over navigable waters of the United States. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196; New Jersey v. Sargent, 269 U. S. 328, 337; United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 424; First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Comm’n, 328 U. S. 152, 173; United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U. S. 222, 224-225. Congress has elected to exercise this power under the detailed and comprehensive plan for development of the Nation’s water resources, which it prescribed in the Federal Power Act, to be administered by the Federal Power Commission. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Comm’n, supra; United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., supra.
Section 313 (b) of that Act, upon which petitioner’s claim of finality depends, provides, in pertinent part:
“(b) Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or public utility to which the order relates is located... by filing in such court, within 60 days after the order of [the] Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served upon any member of the Commission and thereupon the Commission shall certify and file with the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part. No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission in the application for rehearing unless there is reasonable ground for failure so to do. The finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.... The judgment and decree of the court, affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such order of the Commission, shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in sections 846 and 8Iff of Title 28.” 16 U. S. C. § 825Z (b). (Emphasis added.)
This statute is written in simple words of plain meaning and leaves no room to doubt the congressional purpose and intent. It can hardly be doubted that Congress, acting within its constitutional powers, may prescribe the procedures and conditions under which,.and the courts in which, judicial review of administrative orders may be had. Cf. Labor Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U. S. 385, 388. So acting, Congress in § 313 (b) prescribed the specific, complete and exclusive mode for judicial review of the Commission’s orders. Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 124 F. 2d 800, 804, cert. denied, 316 U. S. 663. It there provided that any party aggrieved by the Commission’s order may have judicial review, upon all issues raised before the Commission in the motion for rehearing, by the Court of Appeals which “shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part,” and that “[t]he judgment and decree of the court, affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such order of the Commission, shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification....” (Emphasis added.) It thereby necessarily precluded de novo litigation between the parties of all issues inhering in the controversy, and all other modes of judicial review. Hence, upon judicial review of the Commission’s order, all objections to the order, to the license it directs to be issued, and to the legal competence of the licensee to execute its terms, must be made in the Court of Appeals or not at all. For Congress, acting within its powers, has declared that the Court of Appeals shall have “exclusive jurisdiction” to review such orders, and that its judgment “shall be final,” subject to review by this Court upon certiorari or certification. Such statutory finality need not be labeled res judicata, estoppel, collateral estoppel, waiver or the like either by Congress or the courts.
The State participated in the hearing before the Commission. It there vigorously objected to the issuance of the license upon the grounds, among others, “[t]hat the reservoirs which would be created by the proposed dams would inundate a valuable and irreplaceable fish hatchery owned by the State” and, hence, necessarily require the taking of it by the City under the license sought; that the City had not complied with the applicable laws of the State respecting construction of the project and performance of the acts necessarily incident thereto (note 11); and that the City was not authorized by the laws of the State to engage in such business. The Commission rejected these contentions of the State and made all the findings required by the Act to support its order granting the license (note 9) including the finding that:
“The Applicant... has submitted satisfactory evidence of compliance with the requirements of all applicable State laws insofar as necessary to effect the purposes of a license for the project; and it is a municipality within the meaning of Section 3 (7) of the Act.”
The State then petitioned the Commission for a rehearing, reviving the foregoing contentions and raising others. The petition was denied.
Thereafter, the State, following the procedures prescribed by § 313 (b), petitioned the proper Court of Appeals for review of the Commission’s findings and order. After full hearing, that court rejected all contentions there raised by the State, did not disturb any of the Commission’s findings, and affirmed its order without modification. Washington Department of Game v. Federal Power Comm’n, 207 F. 2d 391. It made particular mention of, and approved, the Commission’s finding, as rephrased by the court, that the City had submitted “such evidence of compliance with state law as, in the Commission’s judgment, would be ‘appropriate to effect the purposes of a Federal license on the navigable waters of the United States.’ ” Id., at 396.
Moreover, in its briefs in the Court of Appeals, the State urged reversal of the Commission’s order on the grounds that the City “has not shown, nor could it show, that [it] has availed itself of... any right to take or destroy the property of the State of Washington [and that] Tacoma, as a creature of the State of Washington, cannot act [under the license] in opposition to the policy of the State or in derogation of its laws.” (Emphasis added.) In rejecting these contentions — that the City does not have “any right to take or destroy property of the State” and “cannot act” in accordance with the terms of its federal license — the Court of Appeals said:
“Again, we turn to the First Iowa case, supra. There, too, the applicant for a federal license was a creature of the state and the chief opposition came from the state itself. Yet, the Supreme Court permitted the applicant to act inconsistently with the declared policy of its creator, and to prevail in obtaining a license.
“Consistent with the First Iowa case, supra, we conclude that the state laws cannot prevent the Federal Power Commission from issuing a license or bar the licensee from acting under the license to build a dam on a navigable stream since the stream is under the dominion of the United States.” Id., at 396. (Emphasis added.)
We think these recitals show that the very issue upon which respondents stand here was raised and litigated in the Court of Appeals and decided by its judgment. But even if it might be thought that this issue was not raised in the Court of Appeals, it cannot be doubted that it could and should have been, for that was the court to which Congress had given “exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside” the Commission’s order. And the State may not reserve the point, for another round of piecemeal litigation, by remaining silent on the issue while its action to review and reverse the Commission’s order was pending in that court — which had “exclusive jurisdiction” of the proceeding and whose judgment therein as declared by Congress “shall be final,” subject to review by this Court upon certiorari or certification. After the Court of Appeals’ judgment was rendered, the State petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari which was denied. 347 U. S. 936.
These were precisely the proceedings prescribed by Congress in § 313 (b) of the Act for judicial review of the Commission’s findings and order. They resulted in affirmance. That result, Congress has declared, “shall be final.”
But respondents say that the Court of Appeals did not decide the question of legal capacity of the City to act under the license and, therefore, its decision is not final on that question, but left it open to further litigation. They rely upon the following language of the opinion:
“However, we do not touch the question as to the legal capacity of the City of Tacoma to initiate and act under the license once it is granted. There may be limitations in the City Charter, for instance, as to indebtedness limitations. Questions of this nature may be inquired into by the Commission as relevant to the practicability of the plan, but the Commission has no power to adjudicate them.” Id., at 396-397.
We believe that respondents’ construction of this language is in error. The questioned language expressly refers to possible “indebtedness limitations” in the City’s Charter and “questions of this nature,” not to the right of the City to receive and perform, as licensee of the Federal Government under the Federal Power Act, the federal rights determined by the Commission and delegated to the City as specified in the license. That this was the meaning of the court, if its meaning might otherwise be doubtful, is made certain by the facts that the court did not disturb a single one of the Commission’s findings; affirmed its order without modification; and said, in the sentence immediately preceding the questioned language: “Consistent with the First Iowa case, supra, we conclude that the state laws cannot prevent the Federal Power Commission from issuing a license or bar the licensee from acting under the license to build a dam on a' navigable stream since the stream is under the dominion of the United States.” Id., at 396. (Emphasis added.)
The final judgment of the Court of Appeals was effective, not only against the State, but also against its citizens, including the taxpayers of Tacoma, for they, in their common public rights as citizens of the State, were represented by the State in those proceedings, and, like it, were bound by the judgment. Wyoming v. Colorado, 286 U. S. 494, 506-509; cf. Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 241; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 142; s. c. 206 U. S. 46, 49; Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237; Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 355; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553, 591, 595; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 365, 373.
We conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeals, upon this Court’s denial of the State’s petition for certiorari, became final under § 313 (b) of the Act, and is binding upon the State of Washington, its Directors of Fisheries and of Game, and its citizens, including the taxpayers of Tacoma; and that the objections and claims to the contrary asserted in the cross-complaints of the State, its Directors of Fisheries and of Game, and the Taxpayers of Tacoma, in this bond validation suit, were impermissible collateral attacks upon, and de novo litigation between the same parties of issues determined by, the final judgment of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
41 Stat. 1063 et seq., 16 U. S. C. § 791a et seq.
41 Stat. 1074, 16 U. S. C. § 814.
On August 6, 1948, the City filed with the Commission its declaration of intention to build this power project. On March 18, 1949, the Commission ruled that the Cowlitz River was navigable below the proposed project and that its construction would affect navigation and interstate commerce and, hence, could not be built without a license from the Commission, because of the provisions of §23 of the Federal Power Act. 41 Stat. 1075, 16 U. S. C. §816.
“ ‘Municipality’ [as used in the Federal Power Act] means a city, county, irrigation district, drainage district, or other political subdivision or agency of a State competent under the laws thereof to carry on the business of developing, transmitting, utilizing, or distributing power.” §3 (7), 41 Stat. 1063, 16 U. S. C. § 796 (7).
By a Washington statute all cities and towns of that State are made legally competent to “construct, condemn and purchase, purchase, acquire, add to, maintain, and operate works, plants, and facilities for the purpose of furnishing the city or town and its inhabitants, and any other persons, with gas, electricity, and other means of power and facilities for lighting, heating, fuel, and power purposes....” Wash. Rev. Code 80.40.050. Tacoma has exercised such powers since 1893.
41 Stat. 1065, 16 U. S. C. § 797 (e). That subsection, so far as presently pertinent, provides:
"The commission is authorized and empowered—
“(e) To issue licenses to citizens of the United States, or to any association of such citizens, or to any corporation organized under the- laws of the United States or any State thereof, or to any State or municipality for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, water conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any of the streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States....”
The application was accompanied by the maps, plans, specifications and estimates of cost covering the proposed project, as required by § 9 (a) of the Act. 41 Stat. 1068, 16 U. S. C. § 802 (a). Those maps, plans and specifications made clear that the State’s hatchery would be inundated by the proposed Mayfield Reservoir.
The Cowlitz River is a tributary of the Columbia in southwestern Washington. It drains an area of 2,490 square miles of the western slope of the Cascade Range, and flows westerly for about 100 miles and thence southerly for 30 miles to its confluence with the Columbia at Longview which is about 65 miles above the mouth of the Columbia. It is conceded to be navigable at all points below the projected May-field Dam and, at the point of confluence with the Columbia, is a tidal river with an average flow of about 10,000 cubic feet per second.
The Commission’s opinion discussed at length the State’s basic contention that the river should be left in its natural state for the unobstructed use and propagation of anadromous fish and, upon that contention, concluded:
“The question posed does not appear to us to be between all power and no fish but rather between large power benefits (needed particularly for defense purposes), important flood control benefits and navigation benefits, with incidental recreation and intangible benefits, balanced against some fish losses, or a retention of the stream in its present natural condition until such time in the fairly near future when economic pressures will force its full utilization. With proper testing and experimentation by the city of Tacoma, in co-operation with interested state and.Federal agencies, a fishery protective program can be evolved which will prevent undue loss of fishery values in relation to the other values. For these reasons we are issuing the license with certain conditions which are set forth in our accompanying order.” 92 P. U. R. (N. S.) 79, 85.
In its order granting the license the Commission made 66 findings in which, among other things, it found that the Cowlitz is a navigable water of the United States below the site of the proposed project and that the dams and reservoirs will affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce (see §§ 4 (e) and 23 of the Act, 41 Stat. 1065, 1075, 16 U. S. C. §§ 797 (e), 816); that a critical shortage of electric* power exists on the west side of the Cascade Range; that the project “will be an exceptionally valuable addition to the Northwest Region power supply”; that “none of the hydroelectric projects suggested for construction in lieu of the Cowlitz Project can be constructed as quickly or as economically as the Cowlitz Project”; that the project has been approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army (see §4 (e), 41 Stat. 1065, 16 U. S. C. §797 (e)); that the project is financially and economically feasible; that “the Applicant... has submitted satisfactory evidence of compliance with the requirements of all applicable State laws insofar as necessary to effect the purposes of a license for the project [see § 9 (b), 41 Stat. 1068, 16 U. S. C. § 802 (b)] and it is a municipality within the meaning of Section 3 (7) of the Act”; and that “[u]nder present circumstances and conditions and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter included in the license, the project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway involved for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the conservation and preservation of fish and wildlife resources, and for other beneficial public uses including recreational purposes.” See § 10 (a), 41 Stat. 1068, 16 U. S. C. § 803 (a). (Emphasis added.)
The license was issued on November 28, 1951, for a period of 50 years from January 1, 1952 — the first day of the month in which the City filed with the Commission its ordinance, No. 14386, enacted on January 9, 1952, formally accepting the license and all its requirements and conditions. See § 6, 41 Stat. 1067, 16 U. S. C. § 799. The license, among other things, incorporated the City’s maps, plans, specifications, and estimates of cost for the construction of the project (see § 9 (a), 41 Stat. 1068, 16 U. S. C. § 802 (a)); incorporated by reference all provisions of the Federal Power Act (see § 6, 41 Stat. 1067, 16 U. S. C. § 799); required construction of the project to be commenced within two years from the effective date of the license and to be completed within 36 months (see § 13, 41 Stat. 1071, 16 U. S. C. § 806); required the City to construct, maintain and operate such fish-handling facilities and fish hatcheries as may be prescribed by the Commission, but, before doing so, to make further studies, tests
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by this action is whether either the Due Process Clause or the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq., precludes a federal agency from sanctioning an employee for making false statements to the agency regarding alleged employment-related misconduct on the part of the employee. We hold that they do not.
Respondents Walsh, Erickson, Kye, Barrett, Roberts, and McManus are Government employees who were the subject of adverse actions by the various agencies for which they worked. Each employee made false statements to agency investigators with respect to the misconduct with which they were charged. In each ease, the agency additionally charged the false statement as a ground for adverse action, and the action taken in each was based in part on the added charge. The employees separately appealed the actions taken against them to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). The Board upheld that portion of the penalty based on the underlying charge in each case, but overturned the false statement charge. The Board further held that an employee’s false statements could not be used for purposes of impeaching the employee’s credibility, nor could they be considered in setting the appropriate punishment for the employee’s underlying misconduct. Finally, the Board held that an agency may not charge an employee with failure to report an act of fraud when reporting such fraud would tend to implicate the employee in employment-related misconduct.
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management appealed each of these decisions by the Board to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a consolidated appeal involving the cases of Walsh, Erickson, Kye, Barrett, and Roberts, that court agreed with the Board that no penalty could be based on a false denial of the underlying claim. King v. Erickson, 89 F. 3d 1575 (1996). Citing the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the court held that “an agency may not charge an employee with falsification or a similar charge on the ground of the employee’s denial of another charge or of underlying facts relating to that other charge,” nor may “[d]enials of charges and related facts ... he considered in determining a penalty.” Id., at 1585. In a separate unpublished decision, judgt. order reported at 92 F. 3d 1208 (1996), the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s reversal of the false statement charge against McManus as well as the Board’s conclusion that an employee’s “false statements . . : may not be considered” even for purposes of impeachment. McManus v. Department of Justice, 66 MSPR 564, 568 (1995).
We granted certiorari in both cases, 521 U. S. 1117 (1997), and now reverse. In Bryson v. United States, 396 U. S. 64 (1969), we said: “Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government’s right to ask questions — lying is not one of them. A citizen may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood.” Id., at 72 (footnote omitted). We find it impossible to square the result reached by the Court of Appeals in the present case with our holding in Bryson and in other cases of similar import.
Title 5 U. S. C. § 7513(a) provides that an agency may impose the sort of penalties involved here “for such eause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” It then sets forth four procedural rights accorded to the employee against whom adverse action is proposed. The agency must:
(1) give the employee “at least 30 days’ advance written notice”; (2) allow the employee “a reasonable time, but not less than 7 days, to answer orally and in writing and to furnish . . . evidence in support of the answer”; (3) permit the employee to “be represented by an attorney or other representative”; and (4) provide the employee , with “a written decision and the specific reasons therefor.” 5 U. S. C. § 7513(b).
In these carefully delineated rights there is no hint of any right to “put the government to its proof” by falsely denying the charged conduct. Such a right, then, if it exists at all, must come from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” The Court of Appeals stated that “it is undisputed that the government employees here had a protected property interest in their employment,” 89 F. 3d, at 1581, and we assume that to be the ease for purposes of our decision.
The core of due process is ingful opportunity to be heard. Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532, 542 (1985). But we reject, on the basis of both precedent and principle, the view expressed by the Court of Appeals in this action that a “meaningful opportunity to be heard” includes a right to make false statements with respect to the charged conduct.
It is well established that a testify does not include the light to commit perjury. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U. S. 157, 173 (1986); United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620, 626 (1980); United States v. Grayson, 438 U. S. 41, 54 (1978). Indeed, in United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U. S. 87, 97 (1993), we held that a court could, consistent with the Constitution, enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence based on a finding that he perjured himself at trial.
Witnesses appearing before a grand jury under oath are likewise required to testify truthfully, on pain of being prosecuted for perjury. United States v. Wong, 431 U. S. 174 (1977). There we said that “the predicament of being forced to choose between incriminatory truth and falsehood... does not justify perjury.” Id., at 178. Similarly, one who files a false affidavit required by statute may be fined and imprisoned. Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855 (1966).
The Court of Appeals sought to distinguish these eases on the ground that the defendants in them had been under oath, while here the respondents were not. The fact that respondents were not under oath, of course, negates a charge of perjury, but that is not the charge brought against them. They were charged with making false statements during the course of an agency investigation, a charge that does not require that the statements be made under oath. While the Court of Appeals would apparently permit the imposition of punishment for the former but not the latter, we fail to see how the presence or absence of an oath is material to the due process inquiry.
The Court of Appeals also relied on its fear that if employees were not allowed to make false statements, they might “be coerced into admitting the misconduct, whether they believe that they are guilty or not, in order to avoid the more severe penalty of removal possibly resulting from a falsification charge.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a-17a. But we rejected a similar claim in United States v. Grayson, 438 U. S. 41 (1978). There a sentencing judge took into consideration his belief that the defendant had testified falsely at his trial. The defendant argued before us that such a practice would inhibit the exercise of the right to testify truthfully in the proceeding. We described that contention as “entirely frivolous.” Id., at 55.
If answering an agency’s investigatory question could expose an employee to a criminal prosecution, he may exercise his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 67 (1906); United States v. Ward, 448 U. S. 242, 248 (1980). It may well be that an agency, in ascertaining the truth or falsity of the charge, would take into consideration the failure of the employee to respond. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308, 318 (1976) (discussing the “prevailing rule that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify”). But there is nothing inherently irrational about such an investigative posture. See Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36 (1961).
For these reasons, we hold that a Government agency may take adverse action against an employee because the employee made false statements in response to an underlying charge of misconduct. The judgments of the Court of Appeals are therefore
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: | 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
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1105 (1998), to consider in this case whether the Constitution requires a State or its local entities to give detailed and specific instructions or advice to owners who seek return of property lawfully seized but no longer needed for police investigation or criminal prosecution. Interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit imposed a series of specific notice requirements on the city responsible for the seizure. We conclude these requirements are not mandated by the Due Process Clause, and we reverse.
I
The case began when police officers of petitioner, the city of West Covina, California (City), acting in accordance with law and pursuant to a valid search warrant, seized personal property. The property belonged to the owner of the searched home, respondent Lawrence Perkins, and to his family. The suspect in the crime was neither Perkins nor anyone in his family, but one Marcus Marsh. Marsh had been a boarder in the Perkins’ home. After leaving their home, and unknown to them, he became the subject of a homicide investigation.
During the search of respondents’ home for evidence incriminating Marsh, the police seized a number of items, including photos of Marsh, an address book, a 12-gauge shotgun, a starter pistol, ammunition, and $2,629 in cash. 113 F. 3d 1004, 1006 (CA9 1997). At the conclusion of the search, the officers left respondents a form entitled “Search Warrant: Notice of Service,” which stated:
“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
“1. THESE PREMISES HAVE BEEN SEARCHED BY PEACE OFFICERS OF THE (name of searching agency) West Covina Police DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED ON (date) 5-20-93. BY THE HONORABLE (name of magistrate) Dan Oki. JUDGE OP THE SUPERIOR/MUNICIPAL COURT, Citrus JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
“2. THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON (date) 5-21-93. A LIST OP THE PROPERTY SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT IS ATTACHED.
“3. IF YOU WISH FURTHER INFORMATION, YOU MAY CONTACT:
(name of investigator) Pet. Ferrari or Pet Melnuk AT [telephone number].
“LT. SCHIMANSKI [telephone number].” App. 76-77 (italicized characters represent those portions of the original document which were handwritten on the form).
In accordance with the notice, the officers also left respondents an itemized list of the property seized. 113 F. 3d, at 1011-1012. The officers did not leave the search warrant number because the warrant was under seal to avoid compromising the ongoing investigation. Id., at 1007. In a public index maintained by the court clerk, however, the issuance of the warrant was recorded by the address of the home searched and the search warrant number. Ibid.
Not long after the search, Perkins called Ferrari, one of the detectives listed on the notice, and inquired about return of the seized property. No. CV 93-7084 SVW (CD Cal., July 8, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. E3. One of the detectives told Perkins he needed to obtain a court order authorizing the property’s return. Ibid.
About a month after the search, Perkins went to the Citrus Municipal Court to see Judge Oki, who had issued the warrant. He learned Judge Oki was on vacation. Ibid. He tried to have another judge release his property but was told the court had nothing under Perkins’ name. Ibid.
Rather than continuing to pursue a court order releasing the property by filing a written motion with the court, making other inquiries, or returning to the courthouse at some later date, ibid., respondents filed suit in United States District Court against the City and the officers who conducted the search. They alleged the officers had violated their Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a search without probable cause and exceeding the scope of the warrant. App. 7-9. They further alleged that the City had a policy of permitting unlawful searches. Id., at 10.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the City and its officers. App. to Pet. for Cert. Bl-Bll. The court, however, invited supplemental briefing on an issue respondents had not raised: whether available remedies for the return of seized property were adequate to satisfy due process. Id., at B7. The parties submitted briefs on the issue, but the court did not rule on it. Respondents appealed the District Court’s holding on their Fourth Amendment claims, but the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for resolution of the due process question. No. 94-56365 (CA9, Apr. 30, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. D1-D3.
The District Court held on remand that the remedies provided by California law for return of the seized property satisfied due process, and it granted summary judgment for the City. No. CV 93-7084 SVW, supra, App. to Pet. for Cert. E2. In particular, the court rejected respondents’ claim that the procedure for return of their property was unavailable to them because the City did not give them adequate notice of the remedy and the information needed to invoke it. Id., at E6.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment for the City. 113 F. 3d, at 1006. As an initial matter, the court noted that, under Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972), respondents were entitled only to an adequate postdeprivation remedy, and not to a predeprivation hearing prior to the seizure. 113 F. 3d, at 1010. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the District Court that the post-deprivation remedies for return of property established by California statute and ease law satisfied the requirements of due process. Id., at 1011.
Nevertheless, the court held, by analogy to this Court’s decision in Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1 (1978), that the City was required to give respondents notice of the state procedures for return of seized property and the information necessary to invoke those procedures (including the search warrant number or a method for obtaining the number). 113 F. 3d, at 1012. While acknowledging that it was not the court’s place “to specify the exact phrasing of an adequate notice,” the court proceeded to explicate, in some detail, the content of the required notice:
“In eases where property is taken under California law . . . the notice should include the following: as on the present notice, the fact of the search, its date, and the searching agency; the date of the warrant, the issuing judge, and the court in which he or she serves; and the persons to be contacted for further information. In addition, the notice must inform the recipient of the procedure for contesting the seizure or retention of the property taken, along with any additional information required for initiating that procedure in the appropriate court. In circumstances such as those presented by this record, the notice must include the search warrant number or, if it is not available or the record is sealed, the means of identifying the court file. It also must explain the need for a written motion or request to the court stating why the property should be returned.” Id., at 1013.
This expansive requirement lacks support in our case law and mandates notice not now prescribed by the Federal Government or by any one of the 50 States.
At this stage, no one contests the right of the State to have seized the property in the first instance or its ultimate obligation to return it. So rules restricting the substantive power of the State to take property are not implicated by this case. What is at issue is the obligation of the State to provide fair procedures to ensure return of the property when the State no longer has a lawful right to retain it.
Respondents acknowledge, as they must, that the City notified them of the initial seizure and gave them an inventory of the property taken. Accordingly, we need not decide how detailed the notice of the seizure must be or when the notice must be given. They also raise no independent challenge to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that California law provides adequate remedies for return of their property, including a motion under Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1536 (West 1982) or a motion under § 1540. See 113 E 3d, at 1011. Rather, they contend the City deprived them of due process by failing to provide them notice of their remedies and the factual information necessary to invoke the remedies under California law. When the police seize property for a criminal investigation, however, due process does not require them to provide the owner with notice of state-law remedies.
A primary purpose of the notice required by the Due Process Clause is to ensure that the opportunity for a hearing is meaningful. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950) (“Th[e] right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter [affecting one’s property rights] is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest”). It follows that when law enforcement agents seize property pursuant to warrant, due process requires them to take reasonable steps to give notice that the property has been taken so the owner can pursue available remedies for its return. Cf. Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U. S. 208, 214 (1962) (requiring a city to provide adequate notice of the deprivation — the city’s condemnation of certain water rights — which created the property owner’s right to pursue damages claims and triggered the statute of limitations on those claims). Individualized notice that the officers have taken the property is necessary in a case such as the one before us because the property owner would have no other reasonable means of ascertaining who was responsible for his loss.
No similar rationale justifies requiring individualized notice of state-law remedies which, like those at issue here, are established by published, generally available state statutes and case law. Once the property owner is informed that his property has been seized, he can turn to these public sources to learn about the remedial procedures available to him. The City need not take other steps to inform him of his options. Cf. Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 509 (1903) (holding that a statute fixing the time and place of meetings of a medical licensing board provided license applicants adequate notice of the procedure for obtaining a hearing on their applications because: “When a statute fixes the time and place of meeting of any board or tribunal, no special notice to parties interested is required. The statute is itself sufficient notice”); Atkins v. Parker, 472 U. S. 115, 131 (1985) (noting that “[tjhe entire structure of our democratic government rests on the premise that the individual citizen is capable of informing himself about the particular policies that affect his destiny”). In prior eases in which we have held that post-deprivation state-law remedies were sufficient to satisfy the demands of due process and the laws were public and available, we have not concluded that the State must provide further information about those procedures. See, e. g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517 (1984).
Memphis Light, the ease on which the Court of Appeals relied, is not to the contrary. In Memphis Light, the Court held that a public utility must make available to its customers the opportunity to discuss a billing dispute with a utility employee who has authority to resolve the matter before terminating utility service for nonpayment. 436 U. S., at 16-17. The Court also held that due process required the utility to inform the customer not only of the planned termination, but also of the availability and general contours of the internal administrative procedure for resolving the accounting dispute. Id., at 13-15. In requiring notice of the administrative procedures, however, we relied not on any general principle that the government must provide notice of the procedures for protecting one’s property interests but on the fact that the administrative procedures at issue were not described in any publicly available document. A customer who was informed that the utility planned to terminate his service could not reasonably be expected to educate himself about the procedures available to protect his interests:
“[T]here is no indication in the record that a written account of [the utility’s dispute resolution] procedure was accessible to customers who had complaints about their bills. [The plaintiff’s] ease reveals that the opportunity to invoke that procedure, if it existed at all, depended on the vagaries of ‘word of mouth referral.’” Id., at 14, n. 14.
While Memphis Light demonstrates that notice of the procedures for protecting one’s property interests may be required when those procedures are arcane and are not set forth in documents accessible to the public, it does not support a general rule that notice of remedies and procedures is required.
The Court of Appeals’ far-reaching notice requirement not only lacks support in our precedent but also conflicts with the well-established practice of the States and the Federal Government. The notice required by the Court of Appeals far exceeds that which the States and the Federal Government have traditionally required their law enforcement agencies to provide. Indeed, neither the Federal Government nor any State requires officers to provide individualized notice of the procedures for seeking return of seized property. See Appendix, infra, p. 244.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(d), for example, requires federal agents seizing property pursuant to a warrant to “give to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken or [to] leave the copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken.” The Rule makes no provision for notifying property owners of the procedures for seeking return of their property. The Court of Appeals’ analysis would render the notice required by this Federal Rule — and by every analogous state statute — inadequate as a constitutional matter. In the shadow of this unwavering state and federal tradition, the Court of Appeals’ holding is all the more untenable; to sustain it, we would be required to find that due process requires notice that not one State or the Federal Government has seen fit to require, in the context of law enforcement practices that have existed for centuries.
Respondents urge that if we cannot uphold the Court of Appeals’ broad notice requirement, we should, at least, affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment on the narrower ground that the notice provided respondents was inadequate because it did not provide them with the factual information — specifically, the search warrant number — they needed to invoke their judicial remedies. The District Court, however, made an explicit factual finding that respondents failed to establish that they needed the search warrant number to file a eourt motion seeking return of their property:
“Perkins argues that this [court] procedure was not available to him because he did not know the number of the warrant pursuant to which his property was seized. Unfortunately for Perkins, there is no evidence either way about whether one must have the warrant number in order to obtain a court order releasing seized property. Defendants assert that it is not necessary, that as long as the claimant can sufficiently identify the property he seeks (i. e., by providing the date of the warrant, the name of the seizing agency and officer, and the identity of the issuing court and judge, all of which information was in Perkins’ possession), the court will release it. Plaintiffs want the Court simply to assume that if Perkins had filed a request with the court, it would have been denied because he did not have the warrant number. But there is no evidence to support that speculation.” No. CV 93-7084 SVW, App. to Pet. for Cert. E6.
This finding undermines the factual predicate for respondents’ alternative argument, and we need not discuss it further.
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.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OP THE COURT
Federal and State Laws Governing Execution of Search Warrants and Procedures for Return of Seized Property
Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41(d); Ala. Code §15-5-11 (1995); Ala. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.11 (1996); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.35.025 (1996); Alaska Rule Crim. Proc. 37 (1998); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§13-3919 to 13-3922 (1989); Ark. Rule Crim. Proc. 13.3 (1998); Cal. Penal Code Ann. §1535 (West 1982); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-305 (1997); Colo. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1997); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§54-33e, 54-36f (West Supp. 1998); Del. Ct. Common Pleas Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1997); Del. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1997); D. C. Code Ann. § 23-524 (1996); D. C. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998); Fla. Stat. Ann. §933.11 (West Supp. 1998); Ga. Code Ann. §§ 17-5-25,17-5-29 (1990); Haw. Rule Penal Proc. 41 (1997); Idaho Code §§19-4413, 19-4415, 19-4416 (1997); Idaho Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998); Ill. Comp. Stat. Aim., eh. 725, §§5/108-6, 5/108-10 (West 1992); Ind. Code Aim. §§35-33-5-2 to 35-33-5-7 (West 1998); Iowa Code Ann. §808.8 (West 1994); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§22-2506, 22-2512 (1988 and Supp. 1997); Ky. Rule Crim. Proe. 13.10 (1993); La. Code Crim. Proe. Ann., Art. 166 (West 1991); Me. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998); Md. Rule Crim. Proc. 4-601 (1997); Mass. Ann. Laws, ch. 276, §§ 1 to 4 (Law Co-op. 1992 ed. and Supp. 1998); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §780.655 (West 1998); Minn. Stat. Ann. §§626.16, 626.17 (West Supp. 1998); Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-157(a)(3) (1981), §99-27-15 (1994); Mo. Ann. Stat. §542.291 (Vernon Supp. 1998); Mont. Code Ann. §§46-5-227, 46-5-301 (1997); Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-815 (1995); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §179.075 (Miehie 1997); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 595-A:5 (1986); N. J. Stat. Ann. §33:1-61 (West 1994); N. J. Rule Crim. Prac. 3:5-5 (1998); N. M. Dist. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. §5-211 (1996); N. M. Magis. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. §6.208 (1996); N. Y. Crim. Proe. Law §690.50 (McKinney 1995); N. C. Gen. Stat. §§15A-252, 15A-254 (1997); N. D. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (Supp. 1987); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2933.241 (1997); Ohio Rule Crim. Proe. 41 (1994); OMa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, §§ 1232 to 1234 (West 1986 ed. and Supp. 1998); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§133.575, 133.595 (1991); Pa. Rules Crim. Proe. 2008, 2009 (1998); R. I. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proe. 41 (1998); S. C. Code Ann. §17-13-150 (1985); S. D. Codified Laws §23A-35-10 (Rule 41(d)) (1998); Tenn. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 18.06 (Vernon 1977 ed. and Supp. 1997); Utah Code Ann. §77-23-206 (1995); Vt. Rule Crim. Proe. 41 (1993 and Supp. 1998); Va. Code Ann. §19.2-57 (Miehie 1995); Wash. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. 2.3 (1996); W. Va. Code §62-lA-4 (1997); W. Va. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1997); Wis. Stat. Ann. §968.17 (West 1985); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §7-7-102 (Miehie 1997); Wyo. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Tax Injunction Act of 1937 provides that “[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U. S. C. § 1341. The question we must decide in this case is whether an Illinois remedy which requires property owners contesting their property taxes to pay under protest and if successful obtain a refund without interest in two years is “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy” within the meaning of the Act.
I
LaSalle National Bank is trustee of a land trust for Patricia Cook, the beneficial owner of property improved with a 22-unit apartment building in' the all-black low-income community of East Chicago Heights, Ill., located in Cook County. Respondent alleged that, as of January 1, 1977, her property had a fair market value of $46,000. In accordance with a Cook County ordinance, her property should have been assessed for property tax purposes at 33% of fair market value — $15,180. Instead, for the 1977 tax year, the County Assessor assessed the property at $52,150. As a result, respondent's property tax liability was $6,106 instead of $1,775, an overcharge of $4,331.
Respondent also claimed that the County Assessor “knowingly as official policy or governmental custom maintained, adopted or promulgated policy statements, regulations, decisions and systems of assessment which have produced egregious disparities in assessments throughout the County." Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶ 11, App. 7. In particular, she cited a study of the Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs showing that, for 1975, property in the same class as respondent's was assessed as low as 3% and as high as 973% of fair market value. She furthermore alleged that such disparities in assessments were “far greater in number and size in older, inner city and county areas, owned, inhabited or used to a larger extent by minorities and poorer people.” Ibid. Finally, she contended that the Assessor knew that she had previously challenged the 1974, 1975, and 1976 assessments of her property.
Respondent first exhausted her administrative remedy by appealing unsuccessfully for a correction of her 1977 assessment before the Cook County Board of Appeals. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, §§ 594 (1), 596, 597, 598, 599 (1977). Her only remaining state remedy was to pay the contested tax under protest, and then to file an objection to the Cook County Collector’s Application for Judgment before the Circuit Court of Cook County — in effect a reverse suit for refund. §§ 675, 716. Although Illinois’ statutory refund procedure could theoretically provide a final resolution of the dispute within one year of payment of the tax under protest, respondent alleged that the customary delay from the time of payment until the receipt of refund upon successful protest is two years. The tax refund is not accompanied by a payment of interest. Clarendon Associates v. Korzen, 56 Ill. 2d 101, 109, 306 N. E. 2d 299, 303 (1973); Lakefront Realty Corp. v. Lorenz, 19 Ill. 2d 415, 422-423, 167 N. E. 2d 236, 240-241 (1960).
Respondent refused to pay her 1977 property taxes and instead brought this 42 U. S. C. § 1983 action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent petitioner Rosewell from publishing an advertisement of notice and the intended date of Application for Judgment, from applying for judgment and order of sale against her property, and from selling it. Respondent contended that, by requiring payment of taxes times the lawful amount, petitioners deprived her of equal protection and due process secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and violated state constitutional and statutory rights as well. Respondent further alleged that she had no plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in the Illinois courts.
Petitioners moved to dismiss, claiming that actions challenging state tax assessments are not cognizable under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343, and that Illinois’ statutory refund procedure is a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy even though it fails to pay interest. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, App. 11.
The District Court denied respondent’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1341. App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a-21a. However, the court enjoined petitioner Rose well from proceeding to judgment and order of sale against respondent’s property pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 62 (c). The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar federal district court jurisdiction because Illinois’ procedure of no-interest refunds after two years was not “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy.” 604 F. 2d 530, 536-537 (1979). A petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc was denied. Id., at 530. We granted certiorari, 445 U. S. 925 (1980), and now reverse.
II
At the outset, it must be recognized that the issue we decide is one of statutory construction. Our task is to determine whether the Illinois refund procedure constitutes “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy... in the courts of such State” within the meaning of the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341, thereby barring federal jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. Our review of the plain language of the Act, its legislative history, and its underlying purpose persuades us that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Illinois remedy is not “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy.”
A
The starting point of our inquiry is the plain language of the statute itself. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 337 (1979); 62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U. S. 593, 596 (1951). See ERA v. National Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U. S. 64, 73 (1980). The Tax Injunction Act generally prohibits federal district courts from enjoining state tax administration except in instances where the state-court remedy is not “plain, speedy and efficient.” On its face, the “plain, speedy and efficient remedy” exception appears to require a state-court remedy that meets certain minimal procedural criteria. The Court has only occasionally sought to define the meaning of the exception since passage of the Act in 1937. When it has done so, however, the Court has emphasized a procedural interpretation in defining both the entire phrase and its individual word components.
Discussing the general meaning of the phrase, the Court, in Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U. S. 68, 74 (1976), described its “basic inquiry” as “whether under New York law there is a 'plain, speedy and efficient’ way for [the taxpayer] to press its constitutional claims while preserving the right to challenge the amount of tax due.” More directly, in Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 300-301 (1943), the Court stated:
“[I]t is the court’s duty to withhold such relief when, as in the present case, it appears that the state legislature has provided that on payment of any challenged tax to the appropriate state officer, the taxpayer may maintain a suit to recover it back. In such a suit he may assert his federal rights and secure a review of them by this Court. This affords an adequate remedy to the taxpayer, and at the same time leaves undisturbed the state’s administration of its taxes.” (Emphasis added.)
See Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 625 (1946) (issue is “whether the State affords full protection to the federal rights”).
What little can be gleaned from the legislative history of the Act on the phrase “plain, speedy and efficient remedy” lends further support to a procedural interpretation. Senator Bone, the Act’s primary sponsor, referred to the “plain, speedy and efficient remedy” provision and then stated: “Thus a full hearing and judicial determination of the controversy is assured.” 81 Cong. Rec. 1416 (1937). The Senate Report accompanying the Act mirrors Senator Bone’s understanding, adding that “[a]n appeal to the Supreme Court of the United State is available as in other cases.” S. Rep. No. 1035, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1937).
The phrase “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy” in the Tax Injunction Act was “modeled” after verbatim language in the Johnson Act of 1934, an Act prohibiting federal-court interference with orders issued by state administrative agencies to public utilities. As Senator Bone made clear, “[m]ost of the arguments which were used in support of the Johnson Act... apply in like manner” to the Tax Injunction Act. 81 Cong. Rec. 1416 (1937). Our examination of the Johnson Act and its legislative history reveals the same procedural emphasis as found in the Tax Injunction Act and its legislative history. As gloss on the words “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy,” the Senate Report on the Johnson Act spoke of state laws that provided for an appeal from the determination of the state agency by any dissatisfied party. S. Rep. No. 701, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1932). The Senate Report continued: “This appeal is taken to the courts of the State, thus giving to both sides of any controversy which may arise a full hearing and judicial determination of the controversy.” Id., at 2 (emphasis added).
There is no doubt that the Illinois state-court refund procedure provides the taxpayer with a “full hearing and judicial determination” at which she may ratee any and all constitutional objections to the tax. LaSalle National Bank v. County of Cook, 57 Ill. 2d 318, 324, 312 N. E. 2d 252, 255-256 (1974). Appeal to the higher Illinois courts is authorized, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, § 675 (1977), and review is ultimately available in this Court, 28 U. S. C. § 1257. Respondent does not allege any procedural defect in the Illinois remedy, other than delay, that would preclude preservation and consideration of her federal rights, since she is free to raise her equal protection and due process federal constitutional objections during the Application for Judgment proceedings before the Circuit Court of Cook County. Rather, respondent's argument — that Illinois’ failure to pay interest on the tax refund makes the remedy not “plain, speedy and efficient” — appears to address a more substantive concern. Whether she has any “federal right” to receive interest — a right she has not asserted and on which we express no view — it would appear that she could assert this right in the state-court proceeding. The procedural mechanism for correction of her tax bill remains the same, however, whether interest is paid or not.
B
A procedural interpretation of the phrase “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy,” and the procedural sufficiency of Illinois’ remedy, are supported further by analysis of the phrase’s individual words. According to the 1934 edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary, plain means “clear” or “manifest,” speedy means “quick,” efficient means “characterized by effective activity,” and a remedy is the “legal means to recover a right... or obtain redress for... a wrong.” Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 819, 1878, 2106, 2418 (2d ed. 1934).
While the Court has never addressed the meaning of the word “speedy,” it has interpreted the words “plain” and “efficient.” Thus, the Court suggested that “uncertainty concerning a State’s remedy may make it less than ‘plain’ under 28 U. S. C. § 1341.” Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U. S., at 76. Earlier cases, without making a direct connection to the word “plain,” have held that “uncertainty” surrounding a state-court remedy lifts the bar to federal-court jurisdiction. Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S., at 625-626. Respondent has made no argument that the Illinois refund procedure is uncertain or otherwise unclear. There is no question that under the Illinois procedure, the court will hear and decide any federal claim. Paying interest or eliminating delay would not make the remedy any more “plain.”
This Court’s interpretation of the word “efficient” has also stressed procedural elements. In Tully, the Court commented that “a State’s remedy does not become ‘inefficient,’ merely because a taxpayer must travel across a state line in order to resist or challenge the taxes sought to be imposed.” 429 U. S., at 73. In addition, without explicitly mentioning the word “efficient,” we have permitted federal-court jurisdiction when the taxpayer’s state-court remedy would require a multiplicity of suits, Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U. S. 299, 303 (1952) (where remedy “would require the filing of over three hundred separate claims in fourteen different counties to protect the single federal claim asserted by [the taxpayer]”), or when the remedy would allow a challenge against only one of many taxing authorities, id., at 301, 303 (where suit-for-refund remedy-applied only to state taxes, yet taxpayer railroad also wanted to challenge on the same basis taxes paid to counties, school districts, and municipalities). Because the Illinois remedy imposes no unusual hardship on respondent requiring ineffectual activity or an unnecessary expenditure of time or energy, we cannot say that it is not “efficient.”
This Court has never expressly discussed the meaning of the word “speedy,” an issue that is squarely presented in this case. We must decide whether Illinois’ refund after two years qualifies as a “speedy” remedy. “Speedy” is perforce a relative concept, and we must assess the 2-year delay against the usual time for similar litigation. It surely is no secret that state and federal trial courts have been beset by docket congestion and delay for many years. Whether this is a necessary, let alone a reasonable, condition of 20th-century litigation is beside the point: The fact of the matter is that legal conflicts are not resolved as quickly as we would like.
In 1976, the median number of days from filing a complaint to disposition of a civil trial matter in 13 urban trial courts ranged from 357 to 980. National Center for State Courts, Justice Delayed 10-11 (1978). In 7 of the 13, over 30% of the civil cases took more than two years from start to finish. Id., at 13. The Cook County Circuit Court had a similar record: from 1974 to 1975, the average time from date of filing to verdict was about 40 months. U. S. Department of Justice, State Court Caseload Statistics: The State of the Art 7 (1978). Federal district courts have not fared much better. As of 1980, the median time interval from filing to disposition for civil cases going to trial was 20 months; 10% of those took more than 46 months. Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts 81, A-30 (1980). For the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the District in which respondent brought this suit, the median time interval was 23 months, with 10% of all cases over 53 months. Id., at A-31.
Cast in this light, respondent’s 2-year wait, regrettably, is not unusual. Nowhere in the Tax Injunction Act did Congress suggest that the remedy must be the speediest. The payment of interest might make the wait more tolerable, but it would not affect the amount of time necessary to adjudicate respondent’s federal claims. Limiting ourselves to the circumstances of the instant case, we cannot say that respondent’s 2-year delay falls outside the boundary of a “speedy” remedy.
c
The overall purpose of the Tax Injunction Act is consistent with the view that the “plain, speedy and efficient remedy” exception to the Act’s prohibition was only designed to require that the state remedy satisfy certain procedural criteria, and that Illinois’ refund procedure meets such criteria. The statute “has its roots in equity practice, in principles of federalism, and in recognition of the imperative need of a State to administer its own fiscal operations.” Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U. S., at 73. This last consideration was the principal motivating force behind the Act: this legislation was first and foremost a vehicle to limit drastically federal district court jurisdiction to interfere with so important a local concern as the collection of taxes. 81 Cong. Rec. 1415 (1937) (remarks of Sen. Bone); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S., at 301 (Act “predicated upon the desirability of freeing, from interference by the federal courts, state procedures which authorize litigation challenging a tax after the tax has been paid”).
When it passed the Act, Congress knew that state tax systems commonly provided for payment of taxes under protest with subsequent refund as their exclusive remedy. The Senate Report to the Act noted:
“It is the common practice for statutes of the various States to forbid actions in State courts to enjoin the collection of State and county taxes unless the tax law is invalid or the property is exempt from taxation, and these statutes generally provide that taxpayers may contest their taxes only in refund actions after payment under protest. This type of State legislation makes it possible for the States and their various agencies to survive while long-drawn-out tax litigation is in progress.” S. Rep. No. 1035, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1937).
See H. R. Rep. No. 1503, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1937). See also Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U. S. 521, 526 (1932).
It is only common sense to presume that Congress was also aware that some of these same States did not pay interest on their refunds to taxpayers, following the then-familiar rule that interest in refund actions was recoverable only when expressly allowed by statute. 3 T. Cooley, Law of Taxation § 1308, pp. 2596-2597 (4th ed. 1924). It would be wholly unreasonable, therefore, to construe a statute passed to limit federal-court interference in state tax matters to mean that Congress nevertheless wanted taxpayers from States not paying interest on refunds to have unimpaired access to the federal courts. If Congress had meant to carve out such an expansive exception, one would expect to find some mention of it. The statute’s broad prophylactic language is incompatible with such an interpretation.
Ill
For the most part, respondent rests her case on the persuasiveness of a syllogism: the Tax Injunction Act is coterminous with pre-1937 federal equity treatment of challenges to state taxes; federal equity practice at that time viewed a no-interest refund remedy as inadequate; therefore, it must follow that the Tax Injunction Act would view a no-interest refund remedy as inadequate, thereby authorizing federal jurisdiction. Brief for Respondent 21. This argument also forms part of the basis for the Court of Appeals’ decision. 604 F. 2d, at 533, n. 4. And even petitioners, Brief for Petitioners 40, suggest that the Tax Injunction Act is “a congressional confirmation of the Court’s prior federal equity practice in the area of state and local taxation.” We are unpersuaded. It is true that post-1937 Court cases have suggested that the Tax Injunction Act recognized and sanctioned pre-existing federal equity practice. See Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U. S. 463, 470 (1976); Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S., at 622-623; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S., at 298-299. But these cases do no more than confirm that “the statute has its roots in equity practice,” Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U. S., at 73, and that it was a longstanding rule of federal equity to keep out of state tax matters as long as a “plain, adequate and complete remedy” could be had at law. Hillsborough v. Cromwell, supra, at 622-623. Nothing in our decisions suggests that every wrinkle of federal equity practice was codified, intact, by Congress.
Indeed, Congress, among other things, legislated to solve an existing problem by cutting back federal equity jurisdiction. Senator Bone commented that the “existing practice of the Federal courts to entertain tax-injunction suits make[s] it possible for foreign corporations to withhold from a State and its governmental subdivisions taxes in such vast amounts and for such long periods as to disrupt State and county finances, and thus make it possible for such corporations to determine for themselves the amount of taxes they will pay.” 81 Cong. Rec. 1416 (1937) (emphasis added). See S. Rep. No. 1035, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1937). He furthermore noted that “[p] revision is made that the bill is not to affect suits pending at the time of its enactment.” 81 Cong. Rec., at 1415. Thus, Congress plainly did not intend to permit the federal courts after passage of the Tax Injunction Act to entertain suits in all cases cognizable by them prior to the Act.
Furthermore, Congress did not equate § 1341’s “plain, speedy and efficient” with equity’s “plain, adequate and complete.” Ever since the early days of Congress, this “plain, adequate and complete”. standard of federal equity practice had been codified into statutory form. 1 Stat. 82. And it was not until 1948, more than 10 years after passage of the Tax Injunction Act, that the “Suits in Equity” statute was repealed. 28 U. S. C. § 384 (1946 ed.) (repealed June 25, 1948). Against this background, we will not interpret the Tax Injunction Act as substantially redundant of § 384.
IV
Finally, we note that the reasons supporting federal noninterference are just as compelling today as they were in 1937. If federal injunctive relief were available,
“state tax administration might be thrown into disarray, and taxpayers might escape the ordinary procedural requirements imposed by state law. During the pendency of the federal suit the collection of revenue under the challenged law might be obstructed, with consequent damage to the State’s budget, and perhaps a shift to the State of the risk of taxpayer insolvency. Moreover, federal constitutional issues are likely to turn on questions of state tax law, which, like issues of state regulatory law, are more properly heard in the state courts.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 128, n. 17 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The compelling nature of these considerations is underscored by the dependency of state budgets on the receipt of local tax revenues. In 1978, States derived over 61% of their revenue from property, sales, income, and other taxes. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism 53, 56 (1980). For Illinois, the percentage was even higher — 67.4%. Ibid. The property tax is by far the most important source of tax revenue for cities and counties. For the year 1977-1978, almost 33% of all their income nationwide came from the local property tax; for Illinois’ local governments, the amount was greater — 39.2%. Id., at 78.
The experience of Cook County itself demonstrates how ominous would be the potential for havoc should federal injunctive relief be widely available. The county collected over $1.5 billion in real estate taxes for the tax year 1975. Ganz & Laswell, Review of Real Estate Assessments — Cook County (Chicago) vs. Remainder of Illinois, 11 John Marshall J. Prac. & Proc. 19, and n. 2 (1977). During the same year, the number of complaints filed with the Cook County Board of Appeals totaled 22,262. Id., at 31, n. 61. We may readily appreciate the difficulties encountered by the county should a substantial portion of its rightful tax revenue be tied up in injunction actions. If each of these complaints alleged entitlement to a refund of around $5,000, as does respondent, over $113 million in revenues potentially could be encumbered in federal-court litigation. See also City of New York, Annual Report of the Tax Commission for Fiscal Year 1978-1979, p. 14 (1979) (41,449 applications for correction of taxes owed concerning 48,170 parcels of land, of which 40,793 applications concerning 47,512 parcels of land involved hearings).
Accordingly, we hold that Illinois' legal remedy that provides property owners paying property taxes under protest a refund without interest in two years is “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy” under the Tax Injunction Act.
Reversed.
This Court expressly did not decide whether omission to provide interest on a successful refund application rendered a state remedy not “plain, speedy and efficient,” in Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355, 358 (1966).
Patricia Cook, the real party in interest, is the beneficial owner of Illinois Land Trust No. 44891, of which LaSalle National Bank serves as trustee. Although she was not a named party in this litigation, this opinion will nevertheless refer to her as the respondent.
The facts as stated in this opinion are drawn largely from respondent’s complaint. For purposes of our consideration, the allegations of the complaint are accepted as true. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U. S. 172, 174-175 (1965).
Article IX, §4 (b), of the Illinois Constitution provides that, subject only to limitations prescribed by the State’s General Assembly, counties with populations of more than 200,000, which includes Cook County, may classify real property for purposes of taxation. The classification must be reasonable, and the assessments uniform within each class. Moreover, the level of assessment of the highest class canpot exceed 2% times the level of assessment of the lowest class in the county. Under authority of the Illinois Constitution, Art. IX, § 4, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation requiring that any “such classification must be established by ordinance of the county board.” Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, § 501a (1977).
Pursuant to this authority, the Cook County Board of Commissioners passed the following ordinance:
“Section 2. Real estate is divided into the following assessment classes:
“Class 1: Unimproved real estate.
“Class 2: Real estate used as a farm, or real estate used for residential purposes when improved with a house, an apartment building of not more than six living units, or residential condominium, a residential cooperative or a government-subsidized housing project if required by statute to be assessed in the lowest assessment category.
“Class 3: All improved real estate used for residential purposes which is not included in Class 2.
“Class 4: Real estate owned and used by a not-for-profit corporation in furtherance of the purposes set forth in its charter unless used for residential purposes. If such real estate is used for residential purposes it shall be classified in the appropriate residential class.
“Class 5: All real estate not included in any of the above four classes.
“Section 3. The Assessor shall assess, and the Board of Appeals shall review assessments on real estate in the various classes at the following percentages of market value:
“Class 1: — 22%
“Class 2: — 17%
“Class 3: — 33%
“Class 4: — 30%
“Class 5: — 40%”
Cook County, Ill., Real Property Assessment Classification Ordinance, §§ 2, 3 (originally enacted Dec. 17, 1973, as amended through June 6, 1977).
Respondent’s property qualified as Class 3 real estate.
Respondent had previously challenged her 1974, 1975, and 1976 property tax assessments, first by appealing to the Board of Appeals, and then by objecting in December 1975, November 1976, and December 1977 respectively to the Collector’s annual Applications for Judgment. The Circuit Court of Cook County, noting that the parties had agreed to a compromise and settlement at a pretrial conference, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, § 675a (1977), issued three separate judgments simultaneously on March 16, 1978, and ordered refunds to respondent on the erroneously collected portions of her protested tax payments, for $4,586.24, $3,656.29, and $3,937.66 respectively. Respondent had asked for refunds of $5,700, $4,750, and $5,452.41 for the three years.
To challenge a property tax assessment, a Cook County property owner must follow a specific statutory procedure. See generally Ganz & Laswell, Review of Real Estate Assessments — Cook County (Chicago) vs. Remainder of Illinois, 11 John Marshall J. Prac. & Proc. 19 (1977); Par-ham, Procedures For Obtaining Relief With Respect To Property Tax Assessments and Rates, 61 Ill. Bar J. 306 (1973). The taxpayer may file a written complaint with the County Assessor and is thereafter entitled to a hearing. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, §578 (1977). If no relief is obtained, the taxpayer may appeal to the Board of Appeals of Cook County for correction of the assessment. §§ 594 (1), 596, 597, 598, 599. The Board must forward one copy of the complaint to the County Assessor. § 598. Before seeking a legal remedy in state court, the taxpayer must exhaust the available administrative remedy before the Board of Appeals by filing a complaint. People ex rel. Korzen v. Fulton Market Cold Storage Co., 62 Ill. 2d 443, 446-447, 343 N. E. 2d 450, 452, cert. denied, 429 U. S. 833 (1976).
After exhaustion of the Board of Appeals’ administrative remedy, the taxpayer’s legal remedy requires payment of the tax under protest and a subsequent court challenge. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, §§ 675, 716 (1977). See Clarendon Associates v. Korzen, 56 Ill. 2d 101, 104, 306 N. E. 2d 299, 301 (1973). The tax is due in two installments. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, §§ 705, 705.1 (1977). The taxpayer must file a written protest along with the second installment payment setting forth grounds for the objection to the tax. § 675. Then, the Collector of -Cook County publishes an advertisement giving notice and stating the date of his intended application to the Circuit Court of Cook County for judgment fixing the correct amount of any tax paid under protest. § 706. Although the month of October is the apparent target date for applying for judgment, § 710, respondent contends that the Cook County Collector’s applications are not made until late November or early December, Brief for Respondent 14, n. 14. The Collector at the same time applies to the Circuit Court for judgment for sale of delinquent lands and lots whose owners have failed to pay their property tax bills. § 706.
Once the Collector’s Application for Judgment is filed with the Circuit Court, the taxpayer must file a written objection to the application within a period of time specified by the judge, stating his reasons for challenging the tax. The taxpayer may raise constitutional challenges to the assessment in his objection. LaSalle 'National Bank v. County of Cook, 57 Ill. 2d 318, 324, 312 N. E. 2d 252, 255-256 (1974). After the filing of the objection, the court must hold a settlement conference between the two sides within 90 days. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, § 675a (1977). If no settlement is reached, the court must upon demand of either party set the matter for hearing within 90 days of the conference, and decide the case. §§ 675a, 716. Finally, the court enters judgment and orders a refund for any or all of the tax erroneously paid by the taxpayer. §§ 675, 716. The dissatisfied taxpayer may appeal any such judgment to the higher courts of Illinois. § 675.
Illinois courts grant equitable relief by way of injunction against collection of property taxes only when the tax is unauthorized by law or when the tax is levied on exempt properties, LaSalle National Bank v. County of Cook, supra, at 323, 312 N. E. 2d, at 255, on the basis that the state statutory refund procedure is an adequate legal remedy. Ibid. It has been suggested, however, that in certain cases of fraudulently excessive assessments, the statutory remedy will be found inadequate and an equitable remedy will lie. See Clarendon Associates v. Korzen, supra, at 108, 306 N. E. 2d, at 303. Accord, Chicago Sheraton Corp. v. Zaban, 71 Ill. 2d 85, 92-93, 373 N. E. 2d 1318, 1322, appeal dism’d, 439 U. S. 998 (1978); LaSalle National Bank v. County of Cook, supra, at 323, 312 N. E. 2d, at 255; 28 East Jackson Enterprises, Inc. v. Cullerton, 523 F. 2d 439, 441-442 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1073 (1976). Neither petitioners nor respondent suggests that respondent could have obtained equitable relief.
For instance, respondent’s 1976 tax protest was resolved within one year from the date of payment. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶ 14, App. 9.
For purposes of their motion to dismiss in Federal District Court, petitioners agreed that the delay was two years. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9.
Respondent claimed that, based on an 8% average prime rate for the 3-year period during which she paid taxes under protest, she lost approximately $2,000 of potential interest on the use of her money. Plaintiff’s Complaint '¶ 14, App. 8-9.
Respondent sued Edward J. Rosewell, the Treasurer of Cook County, and Thomas M. Tully, the County Assessor.
Petitioners likewise urge 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: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Carroll, the petitioner, was an employee of Hogan, an intervenor, who in turn was a subcontractor doing work for the respondent Lanza, the general contractor. Carroll and Hogan were residents of Missouri; and Carroll’s employment contract with Hogan was made in Missouri. The work, however, was done in Arkansas; and it was there that the injury occurred.
Carroll, not aware that he had remedies under the Arkansas law, received 34 weekly payments for the injury under the Missouri Compensation Act. The Missouri Act is applicable to injuries received inside or outside the State where the employment contract, as here, is made in the State. Mo. Rev. Stat., 1949, § 287.110. The Missouri Act also provides that every employer and employee shall be “conclusively presumed to have elected to accept” its provisions unless “prior to the accident” he shall have filed with the compensation commission a written notice that he “elects” to reject the compensation provision. Id., § 287.060. No such notice, however, was filed in this case. Moreover, the Missouri Act provides that the rights and remedies granted by it “shall exclude all other rights and remedies ... at common law or otherwise,” on account of the injury or death. Id., § 287.120.
. Arkansas also has provisions for workmen’s compensation. Ark. Stat., 1947, § 81-1301 et seq. It provides the exclusive remedy of the employee against the employer (id., § 81-1304) but not against a third party. Id., § 81-1340. And the court below, on review of Arkansas authorities, concluded that a general contractor, such as Lanza, the respondent, was a third party within the meaning of the Arkansas Act. And see Baldwin Co. v. Maner, - Ark. -, 273 S. W. 2d 28.
While Carroll was receiving weekly payments under the Missouri Act, he decided to sue Lanza for common-law damages in the Arkansas courts. Lanza had the case removed to the Federal District Court where judgment was rendered for Carroll. 116 F. Supp. 491. The Court of Appeals, while agreeing with the District Court that the judgment was sustainable as a matter of -Arkansas law, reversed on the ground that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (Art. IV, § 1) barred recovery. 216 F. 2d 808. The case is here by petition for certiorari which we granted (348 U. S. 870) because of doubts as to the correctness of the decision raised by Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Commission, 306 U. S. 493.
The Court of Appeals thought Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U. S. 430, to be controlling. There the employee having received a final award for compensation in the forum of the injury returned to his home State and sued to recover under its Compensation Act. We held that the latter suit was precluded by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But here there was no final award under the Missouri Act. Under that Act the statutory payments apparently start automatically on receipt of notice of the injury. Mo. Rev. Stat., 1949, §§ 287.380, 287.400. While provision is made for an adjudication of disputes between an employee and his employer (id., §§ 287.400, 287.450), no adjudication was sought or obtained here.
Nor do we have a case where an employee, knowing of two remedies which purport to be mutually exclusive, chooses one as against the other and therefore is precluded a second choice by the law of the forum. Rather we have the naked question whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause makes Missouri’s statute a bar to Arkansas’ common-law remedy.
A statute is a “public act” within the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. See Bradford Electric Co. v. Clapper, 286 U. S. 145, 154-155, and cases cited; Alaska Packers Assn. v. Commission, 294 U. S. 532. It was indeed held in the Clapper case that a Vermont Compensation Act, which purported to give an exclusive remedy, barred a common-law action on the same claim in the New Hampshire courts by a Vermont employee against a Vermont employer, even though the injury occurred in New Hampshire. The Clapper case allowed a State to fix one exclusive remedy for personal injuries involving its residents, and required the other States to refuse to enforce any inconsistent remedy. Thus, as respects persons residing or businesses located in a State, a remedy was provided employees that was “both expeditious and independent of proof of fault,” and a liability was imposed on employers that was “limited and determinate.” 286 U. S., at 159.
Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Commission, 306 U. S. 493, departed, however, from the Clapper decision. There a resident of Massachusetts regularly employed in Massachusetts by a Massachusetts corporation was injured while doing temporary duty in California. The Massachusetts Compensation Act purported to give an exclusive remedy, even for injuries incurred beyond its borders. But California also had a Compensation Act which undertook to fix liability on employers, irrespective of any contract, rule, or regulation, a provision which the California courts strictly enforced. The Court, therefore, held that the exclusive nature of the Massachusetts Act was “obnoxious” to the policy of California. The Court proceeded on the premise, repeated over and again in the cases, that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the statute of another State reflecting a conflicting and opposed policy. Id., at 502.
The Pacific Employers Insurance Co. case allowed the Compensation Act of the place of the injury to override the Compensation Act of the home State. Here it is a common-law action that is asserted against the exclusiveness of the remedy of the home State; and that is seized on as marking a difference. That is not in our judgment a material difference. Whatever deprives the remedy of the home State of its exclusive character qualifies or contravenes the policy of that State and denies it full faith and credit, if full faith and credit is due. But the Pacific Employers Insurance Co. case teaches that in these personal injury cases the State where the injury occurs need not be a vassal to the home State and allow only that remedy which the home State has marked as the exclusive one. The State of the forum also has interests to serve and to protect. Here Arkansas has opened its courts to negligence suits against prime contractors, refusing to make relief by way of workmen’s compensation the exclusive remedy. Baldwin Co. v. Maner, supra. Her interests are large and considerable and are to be weighed not only in the light of the facts of this case but by the kind of situation presented. For we write not only for this case and this day alone, but for this type of case. The State where the tort occurs certainly has a concern in the problems following in the wake of the injury. The problems of medical care and of possible dependents are among these, as Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Commission, supra, emphasizes. Id., at 501. A State that legislates concerning them is exercising traditional powers of sovereignty. Cf. Watson v. Employers Liability Corp., 348 U. S. 66, 73. Arkansas therefore has a legitimate interest in opening her courts to suits of this nature, even though in this case Carroll’s injury may have cast no burden on her or on her institutions.
This is not a case like Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U. S. 609, where the State of the forum seeks to exclude from its courts actions arising under a foreign statute. In that case, we held that Wisconsin could not refuse to entertain a wrongful death action under an Illinois statute for an injury occurring in Illinois, since we found no sufficient policy considerations to warrant such refusal. And see Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U. S. 629. The present case is a much weaker one for application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Arkansas, the State of the forum, is not adopting any policy of hostility to the public Acts of Missouri. It is choosing to apply its own rule of law to give affirmative relief for an action arising within its borders.
Missouri can make her Compensation Act exclusive, if she chooses, and enforce it as she pleases within her borders. Once that policy is extended into other States, different considerations come into play. Arkansas can adopt Missouri’s policy if she likes. Or, as the Pacific Employers Insurance Co. case teaches, she may supplement it or displace it with another, insofar as remedies for acts occurring within her boundaries are concerned. Were it otherwise, the State where the injury occurred would be powerless to provide any remedies or safeguards to nonresident employees working within its borders. We do not think the Full Faith and Credit Clause demands that subserviency from the State of the injury.
Reversed.
The Missouri Supreme Court has construed the Missouri Compensation Act as providing the exclusive remedy, even when, as here, the employee of the subcontractor sues the general contractor for common-law damages. Bunner v. Patti, 343 Mo. 274, 283, 121 S. W. 2d 153, 156-157. The touchstone seems to be the existence of a Missouri employment contract, such as exists in the present case, wherever the injury may have occurred. We can find no suggestion in the Missouri cases that the Missouri Compensation Act is not the exclusive remedy against the prime contractor when his contract with the subcontractor is made outside Missouri. No such suggestion is made by any of the parties to this litigation.
Hogan and his Indemnity Company, intervenors, were granted a lien on the judgment in favor of Carroll for the amounts paid to Carroll as compensation.
Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution provides:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect 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.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners in this case seek to challenge an Ohio statute that prohibits certain "false statements" during the course of a political campaign. The question in this case is whether their preenforcement challenge to that law is justiciable-and in particular, whether they have alleged a sufficiently imminent injury for the purposes of Article III. We conclude that they have.
I
The Ohio statute at issue prohibits certain "false statement[s]" "during the course of any campaign for nomination or election to public office or office of a political party." Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3517.21(B) (Lexis 2013). As relevant here, the statute makes it a crime for any person to "[m]ake a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official," § 3517.21(B)(9), or to "[p]ost, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not," § 3517.21(B)(10).1
"[A]ny person" acting on personal knowledge may file a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (or Commission) alleging a violation of the false statement statute. § 3517.153(A) (Lexis Supp. 2014). If filed within 60 days of a primary election or 90 days of a general election, the complaint is referred to a panel of at least three Commission members. §§ 3517.156(A), (B)(1) (Lexis 2013). The panel must then hold an expedited hearing, generally within two business days, § 3517.156(B)(1), to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the alleged violation occurred, § 3517.156(C). Upon a finding of probable cause, the full Commission must, within 10 days, hold a hearing on the complaint. § 3517.156(C)(2); see also Ohio Admin. Code § 3517-1-10(E) (2008).
The statute authorizes the full Commission to subpoena witnesses and compel production of documents. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3517.153(B) (Lexis Supp. 2014). At the full hearing, the parties may make opening and closing statements and present evidence. Ohio Admin. Code §§ 3517-1-11(B)(2)(c), (d), (g). If the Commission determines by "clear and convincing evidence" that a party has violated the false statement law, the Commission "shall" refer the matter to the relevant county prosecutor. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 3517.155(D)(1)-(2) (Lexis Supp. 2014). Alternatively, the Commission's regulations state that it may simply issue a reprimand. See Ohio Admin. Code § 3517-1-14(D). Violation of the false statement statute is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months of imprisonment, a fine up to $5,000, or both. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 3599.40 (Lexis 2013), 3517.992(V) (Lexis Supp. 2014). A second conviction under the false statement statute is a fourth-degree felony that carries a mandatory penalty of disfranchisement. § 3599.39.
II
Petitioner Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) is a "pro-life advocacy organization." 525 Fed.Appx. 415, 416 (C.A.6 2013). During the 2010 election cycle, SBA publicly criticized various Members of Congress who voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). In particular, it issued a press release announcing its plan to "educat[e] voters that their representative voted for a health care bill that includes taxpayer-funded abortion." App. 49-50. The press release listed then-Congressman Steve Driehaus, a respondent here, who voted for the ACA. SBA also sought to display a billboard in Driehaus' district condemning that vote. The planned billboard would have read: "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion." Id., at 37. The advertising company that owned the billboard space refused to display that message, however, after Driehaus' counsel threatened legal action.
On October 4, 2010, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging, as relevant here, that SBA had violated §§ 3517.21(B)(9) and (10) by falsely stating that he had voted for "taxpayer-funded abortion." 2 Because Driehaus filed his complaint 29 days before the general election, a Commission panel held an expedited hearing. On October 14, 2010, the panel voted 2 to 1 to find probable cause that a violation had been committed. The full Commission set a hearing date for 10 business days later, and the parties commenced discovery. Driehaus noticed depositions of three SBA employees as well as individuals affiliated with similar advocacy groups. He also issued discovery requests for all evidence that SBA would rely on at the Commission hearing, as well as SBA's communications with allied organizations, political party committees, and Members of Congress and their staffs.
On October 18, 2010-after the panel's probable-cause determination, but before the scheduled Commission hearing-SBA filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that §§ 3517.21(B)(9) and (10) violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The District Court stayed the action under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), pending completion of the Commission proceedings. The Sixth Circuit denied SBA's motion for an injunction pending appeal. Driehaus and SBA eventually agreed to postpone the full Commission hearing until after the election.
When Driehaus lost the election in November 2010, he moved to withdraw his complaint against SBA. The Commission granted the motion with SBA's consent. Once the Commission proceedings were terminated, the District Court lifted the stay and SBA amended its complaint. As relevant here, the amended complaint alleged that Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 3517.21(B)(9) and (10) are unconstitutional both facially and as applied. Specifically, the complaint alleged that SBA's speech about Driehaus had been chilled; that SBA "intends to engage in substantially similar activity in the future"; and that it "face [d] the prospect of its speech and associational rights again being chilled and burdened," because "[a]ny complainant can hale [it] before the [Commission], forcing it to expend time and resources defending itself." App. 121-122.
The District Court consolidated SBA's suit with a separate suit brought by petitioner Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST), an advocacy organization that also alleged that the same Ohio false statement provisions are unconstitutional both facially and as applied.3 According to its amended complaint, COAST intended to disseminate a mass e-mail and other materials criticizing Driehaus' vote for the ACA as a vote "to fund abortions with tax dollars," but refrained from doing so because of the Commission proceedings against SBA. Id., at 146, 148, 162. COAST further alleged that it "desires to make the same or similar statements about other federal candidates who voted for" the ACA, but that fear "of finding itself subject to the same fate" as SBA has deterred it from doing so. Id., at 149, 157.4
The District Court dismissed both suits as non-justiciable, concluding that neither suit presented a sufficiently concrete injury for purposes of standing or ripeness. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on ripeness grounds. 525 Fed.Appx. 415. The Court of Appeals analyzed three factors to assess whether the case was ripe for review: (1) the likelihood that the alleged harm would come to pass; (2) whether the factual record was sufficiently developed; and (3) the hardship to the parties if judicial relief were denied.
Regarding the first factor, the Sixth Circuit concluded that SBA's prior injuries-the probable-cause determination and the billboard rejection-"do not help it show an imminent threat of future prosecution," particularly where "the Commission never found that SBA... violated Ohio's false-statement law." Id., at 420. The court further reasoned that it was speculative whether any person would file a complaint with the Commission in the future, in part because Driehaus took a 2-year assignment with the Peace Corps in Africa after losing the election. Finally, the court noted that SBA has not alleged that "it plans to lie or recklessly disregard the veracity of its speech" in the future, but rather maintains that the statements it intends to make are factually true. Id., at 422.
As for the remaining factors, the court concluded that the factual record was insufficiently developed with respect to the content of SBA's future speech, and that withholding judicial relief would not result in undue hardship because, in the time period leading up to the 2010 election, SBA continued to communicate its message even after Commission proceedings were initiated. The Sixth Circuit therefore determined that SBA's suit was not ripe for review, and that its analysis as to SBA compelled the same conclusion with respect to COAST.
We granted certiorari, 571 U.S. ----, --- S.Ct. ----, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2014), and now reverse.
III
A
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2. The doctrine of standing gives meaning to these constitutional limits by "identify[ing] those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process." 5Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). "The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches." Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1146, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013). To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an "injury in fact," (2) a sufficient "causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of," and (3) a "likel[ihood]" that the injury "will be redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan, supra, at 560-561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation marks omitted).
This case concerns the injury-in-fact requirement, which helps to ensure that the plaintiff has a "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). An injury sufficient to satisfy Article III must be "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical.' " Lujan, supra, at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (some internal question marks omitted). An allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is "certainly impending," or there is a "'substantial risk' that the harm will occur." Clapper, 568 U.S., at ----, ----, n. 5, 133 S.Ct., at 1147, 1150, n. 5 (emphasis deleted and internal quotation marks omitted).
" 'The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing' standing." Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1148. "[E]ach element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Lujan, supra, at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130.
B
One recurring issue in our cases is determining when the threatened enforcement of a law creates an Article III injury. When an individual is subject to such a threat, an actual arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action is not a prerequisite to challenging the law. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) ("[I]t is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights"); see also MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 128-129, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007) ("[W]here threatened action by government is concerned, we do not require a plaintiff to expose himself to liability before bringing suit to challenge the basis for the threat"). Instead, we have permitted pre-enforcement review under circumstances that render the threatened enforcement sufficiently imminent. Specifically, we have held that a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges "an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder." Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979). Several of our cases illustrate the circumstances under which plaintiffs may bring a preenforcement challenge consistent with Article III.
In Steffel, for example, police officers threatened to arrest petitioner and his companion for distributing handbills protesting the Vietnam War. Petitioner left to avoid arrest; his companion remained and was arrested and charged with criminal trespass. Petitioner sought a declaratory judgment that the trespass statute was unconstitutional as applied to him.
We determined that petitioner had alleged a credible threat of enforcement: He had been warned to stop handbilling and threatened with prosecution if he disobeyed; he stated his desire to continue handbilling (an activity he claimed was constitutionally protected); and his companion's prosecution showed that his "concern with arrest" was not " 'chimerical.' " 415 U.S., at 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209. Under those circumstances, we said, "it is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights." Ibid.
In Babbitt, we considered a preenforcement challenge to a statute that made it an unfair labor practice to encourage consumers to boycott an "agricultural product... by the use of dishonest, untruthful and deceptive publicity.' " 442 U.S., at 301, 99 S.Ct. 2301. The plaintiffs contended that the law "unconstitutionally penalize[d] inaccuracies inadvertently uttered in the course of consumer appeals." Ibid.
Building on Steffel, we explained that a plaintiff could bring a preenforcement suit when he "has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder." Babbitt, supra, at 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301. We found those circumstances present in Babbitt. In that case, the law "on its face proscribe [d] dishonest, untruthful, and deceptive publicity." 442 U.S., at 302, 99 S.Ct. 2301. The plaintiffs had "actively engaged in consumer publicity campaigns in the past" and alleged "an intention to continue" those campaigns in the future. Id., at 301, 99 S.Ct. 2301. And although they did not "plan to propagate untruths," they argued that " 'erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.' " Ibid. We concluded that the plaintiffs' fear of prosecution was not "imaginary or wholly speculative," and that their challenge to the consumer publicity provision presented an Article III case or controversy. Id., at 302, 99 S.Ct. 2301.
Two other cases bear mention. In Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn. Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 108 S.Ct. 636, 98 L.Ed.2d 782 (1988), we held that booksellers could seek preenforcement review of a law making it a crime to " 'knowingly display for commercial purpose' " material that is " 'harmful to juveniles' " as defined by the statute. Id., at 386, 108 S.Ct. 636. At trial, the booksellers introduced 16 books they believed were covered by the statute and testified that costly compliance measures would be necessary to avoid prosecution for displaying such books. Just as in Babbitt and Steffel, we determined that the "pre-enforcement nature" of the suit was not "troubl[ing]" because the plaintiffs had "alleged an actual and well-founded fear that the law will be enforced against them." 484 U.S., at 393, 108 S.Ct. 636.
Finally, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 130 S.Ct. 2705, 177 L.Ed.2d 355 (2010), we considered a preenforcement challenge to a law that criminalized "'knowingly provid[ing] material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.' " Id., at 8, 130 S.Ct. 2705. The plaintiffs claimed that they had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations prior to the law's enactment and would provide similar support in the future. The Government had charged 150 persons with violating the law and declined to disavow prosecution if the plaintiffs resumed their support of the designated organizations. We held that the claims were justiciable: The plaintiffs faced a " 'credible threat' " of enforcement and "'should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.' " Id., at 15, 130 S.Ct. 2705.
IV
Here, SBA and COAST contend that the threat of enforcement of the false statement statute amounts to an Article III injury in fact. We agree: Petitioners have alleged a credible threat of enforcement. See Babbitt, 442 U.S., at 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301.
A
First, petitioners have alleged "an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest." Ibid. Both petitioners have pleaded specific statements they intend to make in future election cycles. SBA has already stated that representatives who voted for the ACA supported "taxpayer-funded abortion," and it has alleged an "inten[t] to engage in substantially similar activity in the future." App. 49-50, 122. See also Humanitarian Law Project, supra, at 15-16, 130 S.Ct. 2705 (observing that plaintiffs had previously provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and alleged they "would provide similar support [to the same terrorist organizations] again if the statute's allegedly unconstitutional bar were lifted"). COAST has alleged that it previously intended to disseminate materials criticizing a vote for the ACA as a vote "to fund abortions with tax dollars," and that it "desires to make the same or similar statements about other federal candidates who voted for [the ACA]." App. 146, 149, 162. Because petitioners' intended future conduct concerns political speech, it is certainly "affected with a constitutional interest." Babbitt, supra, at 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301; see also Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971) ("[T]he constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office").
B
Next, petitioners' intended future conduct is "arguably... proscribed by [the] statute" they wish to challenge. Babbitt, supra, at 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301. The Ohio false statement law sweeps broadly, see supra, at 2338 - 2339, and n. 1, and covers the subject matter of petitioners' intended speech. Both SBA and COAST have alleged an intent to "[m]ake" statements "concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official," § 3517.21(B)(9), and to "disseminate" statements "concerning a candidate... to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate," § 3517.21(B)(10). And, a Commission panel here already found probable cause to believe that SBA violated the statute when it stated that Driehaus had supported "taxpayer-funded abortion"-the same sort of statement petitioners plan to disseminate in the future. Under these circumstances, we have no difficulty concluding that petitioners' intended speech is "arguably proscribed" by the law.
Respondents incorrectly rely on Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 89 S.Ct. 956, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969). In that case, the plaintiff had previously distributed anonymous leaflets criticizing a particular Congressman who had since left office. Id., at 104-106, and n. 2, 89 S.Ct. 956. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's challenge to the electoral leafletting ban as nonjusticiable because his " sole concern was literature relating to the Congressman and his record," and "it was most unlikely that the Congressman would again be a candidate." Id., at 109, 89 S.Ct. 956 (emphasis added). Under those circumstances, any threat of future prosecution was "wholly conjectural." Ibid.
Here, by contrast, petitioners' speech focuses on the broader issue of support for the ACA, not on the voting record of a single candidate. See Reply Brief 4-5 (identifying other elected officials who plan to seek reelection as potential objects of SBA's criticisms). Because petitioners' alleged future speech is not directed exclusively at Driehaus, it does not matter whether he "may run for office again." Brief for Respondents 33 (internal quotation marks omitted). As long as petitioners continue to engage in comparable electoral speech regarding support for the ACA, that speech will remain arguably proscribed by Ohio's false statement statute.
Respondents, echoing the Sixth Circuit, contend that SBA's fears of enforcement are misplaced because SBA has not said it " 'plans to lie or recklessly disregard the veracity of its speech.' " Id., at 15 (quoting 525 Fed.Appx., at 422). The Sixth Circuit reasoned that because SBA "can only be liable for making a statement 'knowing' it is false," SBA's insistence that its speech is factually true "makes the possibility of prosecution for uttering such statements exceedingly slim." Id., at 422.
The Sixth Circuit misses the point. SBA's insistence that the allegations in its press release were true did not prevent the Commission panel from finding probable cause to believe that SBA had violated the law the first time around. And, there is every reason to think that similar speech in the future will result in similar proceedings, notwithstanding SBA's belief in the truth of its allegations. Nothing in this Court's decisions requires a plaintiff who wishes to challenge the constitutionality of a law to confess that he will in fact violate that law. See, e.g.,Babbitt, 442 U.S., at 301, 99 S.Ct. 2301 (case was justiciable even though plaintiffs disavowed any intent to "propagate untruths").
C
Finally, the threat of future enforcement of the false statement statute is substantial. Most obviously, there is a history of past enforcement here: SBA was the subject of a complaint in a recent election cycle. We have observed that past enforcement against the same conduct is good evidence that the threat of enforcement is not "'chimerical.' " Steffel, 415 U.S., at 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209; cf. Clapper, 568 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1148 (plaintiffs' theory of standing was "substantially undermine[d]" by their "fail [ure] to offer any evidence that their communications ha[d] been monitored" under the challenged statute). Here, the threat is even more substantial given that the Commission panel actually found probable cause to believe that SBA's speech violated the false statement statute. Indeed future complainants may well "invoke the prior probable-cause finding to prove that SBA knowingly lied." Brief for Petitioners 32.
The credibility of that threat is bolstered by the fact that authority to file a complaint with the Commission is not limited to a prosecutor or an agency. Instead, the false statement statute allows "any person" with knowledge of the purported violation to file a complaint. § 3517.153(A). Because the universe of potential complainants is not restricted to state officials who are constrained by explicit guidelines or ethical obligations, there is a real risk of complaints from, for example, political opponents. See Brief for Michael DeWine, Attorney General of Ohio, as Amicus Curiae 8 (hereinafter DeWine Brief); see also id., at 6 (noting that "the Commission has no system for weeding out frivolous complaints"). And petitioners, who intend to criticize candidates for political office, are easy targets.
Finally, Commission proceedings are not a rare occurrence. Petitioners inform us that the Commission " 'handles about 20 to 80 false statement complaints per year,' " Brief for Petitioners 46, and respondents do not deny that the Commission frequently fields complaints alleging violations of the false statement statute. Cf. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S., at 16, 130 S.Ct. 2705 (noting that there had been numerous prior prosecutions under the challenged statute). Moreover, respondents have not disavowed enforcement if petitioners make similar statements in the future. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-30; see also Humanitarian Law Project, supra, at 16, 130 S.Ct. 2705 ("The Government has not argued to this Court that plaintiffs will not be prosecuted if they do what they say they wish to do"). In fact, the specter of enforcement is so substantial that the owner of the billboard refused to display SBA's message after receiving a letter threatening Commission proceedings. On these facts, the prospect of future enforcement is far from "imaginary or speculative." Babbitt, supra, at 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301.
We take the threatened Commission proceedings into account because administrative action, like arrest or prosecution, may give rise to harm sufficient to justify pre-enforcement review. See Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 625-626, n. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2718, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986) ("If a reasonable threat of prosecution creates a ripe controversy, we fail to see how the actual filing of the administrative action threatening sanctions in this case does not"). The burdens that Commission proceedings can impose on electoral speech are of particular concern here. As the Ohio Attorney General himself notes, the "practical effect" of the Ohio false statement scheme is "to permit a private complainant... to gain a campaign advantage without ever having to prove the falsity of a statement." DeWine Brief 7. "[C]omplainants may time their submissions to achieve maximum disruption of their political opponents while calculating that an ultimate decision on the merits will be deferred until after the relevant election." Id., at 14-15. Moreover, the target of a false statement complaint may be forced to divert significant time and resources to hire legal counsel and respond to discovery requests in the crucial days leading up to an election. And where, as here, a Commission panel issues a preelection probable-cause finding, "such a determination itself may be viewed [by the electorate] as a sanction by the State." Id., at 13.
Although the threat of Commission proceedings is a substantial one, we need not decide whether that threat standing alone gives rise to an Article III injury. The burdensome Commission proceedings here are backed by the additional threat of criminal prosecution. We conclude that the combination of those two threats suffices to create an Article III injury under the circumstances of this case. See Babbitt, supra, at 302, n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 2301 (In addition to the threat of criminal sanctions, "the prospect of issuance of an administrative cease-and-desist order or a court-ordered injunction against such prohibited conduct provides substantial additional support for the conclusion that appellees' challenge... is justiciable" (citations omitted)).
That conclusion holds true as to both SBA and COAST. Respondents, relying on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), appear to suggest that COAST lacks standing because it refrained from actually disseminating its planned speech in order to avoid Commission proceedings of its own. See Brief for Respondents 26-27, 34. In Younger, the plaintiff had been indicted for distributing leaflets in violation of the California Criminal Syndicalism Act. When he challenged the constitutionality of the law in federal court, several other plaintiffs intervened, arguing that their own speech was inhibited by Harris' prosecution. The Court concluded that only the plaintiff had standing because the intervenors "d[id] not claim that they ha[d] ever been threatened with prosecution, that a prosecution [wa]s likely, or even that a prosecution [wa]s remotely possible." 401 U.S., at 42, 91 S.Ct. 746.
That is not this case. Unlike the intervenors in Younger, COAST has alleged an intent to engage in the same speech that was the subject of a prior enforcement proceeding. Also unlike the intervenors in Younger, who had never been threatened with prosecution, COAST has been the subject of Commission proceedings in the past. See, e.g., COAST Candidates PAC v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 543 Fed.Appx. 490 (C.A.6 2013). COAST is far more akin to the plaintiff in Steffel, who was not arrested alongside his handbilling companion but was nevertheless threatened with prosecution for similar speech. 415 U.S., at 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209.
In sum, we find that both SBA and COAST have alleged a credible threat of enforcement.
V
In concluding that petitioners' claims were not justiciable, the Sixth Circuit separately considered two other factors: whether the factual record was sufficiently developed, and whether hardship to the parties would result if judicial relief is denied at this stage in the proceedings. 525 Fed.Appx., at 419. Respondents contend that these "prudential ripeness" factors confirm that the claims at issue are nonjusticiable. Brief for Respondents 17. But we have already concluded that petitioners have alleged a sufficient Article III injury. To the extent respondents would have us deem petitioners' claims nonjusticiable "on grounds that are 'prudential,' rather than constitutional," "[t]hat request is in some tension with our recent reaffirmation of the principle that 'a federal court's obligation to hear and decide' cases within its jurisdiction 'is virtually unflagging.' " Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014) (quoting Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 584, 591, 187 L.Ed.2d 505 (2013); some internal quotation marks omitted).
In any event, we need not resolve the continuing vitality of the prudential ripeness doctrine in this case because the "fitness" and "hardship" factors are easily satisfied here. First, petitioners' challenge to the Ohio false statement statute presents an issue that is "purely legal, and will not be clarified by further factual development." Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 U.S. 568, 581, 105 S.Ct. 3325, 87 L.Ed.2d 409 (1985). And denying prompt judicial review would impose a substantial hardship on petitioners, forcing them to choose between refraining from core political speech on the one hand, or engaging in that speech and risking costly Commission proceedings and criminal prosecution on the other.
* * *
Petitioners in this case have demonstrated an injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination whether the remaining Article III standing requirements are met.
It is so ordered.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
.Section 3517.21(B) provides in relevant part:
"No person, during the course of any campaign for nomination or election to public office or office of a political party, by means of campaign materials, including sample ballots, an advertisement on radio or television or in a newspaper or periodical, a public speech, press release, or otherwise, shall knowingly and with intent to affect the outcome of such campaign do any of the following:
.....
"(9) Make a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official;
"(10) Post, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate."
The dispute about the falsity of SBA's speech concerns two different provisions of the ACA: (1) the subsidy to assist lower income individuals in paying insurance premiums, and (2) the direct appropriation of federal money for certain health programs such as community health centers. See Brief for Petitioners 4-5.
Petitioners also challenged a related "disclaimer provision," App. 126-127, 156-157, under Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3517.20, and COAST raised pre-emption and due process claims. Reply Brief 21, n. 7. Petitioners do not pursue their "disclaimer," pre-emption, or due process claims before us. Ibid. We also need not address SBA's separate challenge to the Commission's investigatory procedures; petitioners have conceded that the procedures claim stands or falls with the substantive prohibition on false statements. Ibid.; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 19. Finally, the parties agree that petitioners' as-applied claims "are better read as facial objections to Ohio's law." Reply Brief 19. Accordingly, we do not separately address the as-applied claims.
SBA named Drieh
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The State of Nevada has moved to vacate an order of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting a stay of the execution of Thomas E. Baal. We grant the State’s motion to vacate the stay.
I
Thomas E. Baal was convicted and sentenced to death in Nevada District Court for first-degree murder and robbery with use of a deadly weapon. Evidence indicated that after attempting to rob Frances P. Maves, Baal stabbed her numerous times, took her car, and fled. Maves was pronounced dead some hours later. Police officers arrested Baal in Reno on February 28, 1988. After being given his Miranda warnings, Baal confessed to the robbery and murder.
In March 1988, two psychiatrists examined Baal and found that Baal was competent to stand trial, able to understand right from wrong at the time of the alleged offense, and disturbed but not psychotic. In June 1988, Baal was arraigned and pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. A third psychiatrist, Dr. O’Gorman, was appointed to examine Baal, and, following an examination on August 31, 1988, concluded that Baal was competent to stand trial. On September 22, 1988, Baal pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and to robbery, both with use of a deadly weapon. A three-judge panel unanimously sentenced Baal to death. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Baal’s conviction and sentence, rejecting Baal’s contention that he was incompetent to enter a guilty plea and that it was error not to conduct a competency hearing prior to accepting his pleas. Baal v. State, 106 Nev. 69, 787 P. 2d 391 (1990).
Baal filed a petition for state postconviction relief, but, prior to the hearing, changed his mind and withdrew the petition. On May 24, 1990, the state postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing to determine Baal’s competency. At that hearing, Baal testified that he did not want to continue any postconviction proceedings. He further testified that he knew the date he would be put to death, the reason he would be put to death, and that his waiver of postconviction relief would result in his death. A state psychiatrist testified that Baal was competent; a state prison official who had observed Baal also testified as to Baal’s competence. The court also reviewed the reports of three psychiatrists who had examined Baal and concluded that he was competent to stand trial. Based on this evidence, the court held that Baal was aware of his impending execution and of the reason for it, and thus was sane under the test set forth in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986). The court further held that Baal was in control of his faculties, was competent to choose to decline to pursue an appeal, and had made an intelligent waiver of his right to pursue postconviction relief.
Approximately one week later, on May 31, 1990, and hours before Baal’s scheduled execution, Edwin and Doris Baal (Baal’s parents) filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief as “next friend” of Thomas E. Baal. As one of their grounds for relief, petitioners asserted: “Thomas Baal is not competent to waive federal review of his claims.” In support of this claim, petitioners relied on an affidavit of a nonexamining psychiatrist, Dr. Jerry Howie, and an affidavit of Doris Baal.
The United States District Court conducted a hearing and denied petitioners’ application for stay of execution, holding that, under this Court’s recent decision in Whitmore v. Arkansas, ante, p. 149, petitioners had failed to establish that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. According to the District Court, petitioners had not provided an adequate explanation of why Baal could not appear on his own behalf to prosecute this action. Upon review of the record, the court found that all the evidence, other than the newly submitted affidavit of Dr. Howie, established that Baal was legally competent to understand the nature and consequences of his act and to represent his own interests in these proceedings. The court determined that Dr. Howie’s affidavit was not based on a first-hand examination, was conclusory, and was insufficient to warrant a psychiatric hearing or additional psychiatric examinations of Baal. The court subsequently denied petitioners’ motion for a certificate of probable cause. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals granted petitioners’ certificate of probable cause and stayed Thomas Baal’s execution. That court held that petitioners had made “some minimum showing of [Baal’s] incompetence” and evidence in the record provided “at least an arguable basis for finding that a full evidentiary hearing on competence should have been held by the district court.” Order in Baal v. Godinez, No. 90-15716 (CA9, June 2, 1990), pp. 3, 5. Judge Kozinski, in dissent, asserted that there was no substantial evidence of Baal’s incompetence to warrant a further evidentiary hearing or to upset the Nevada District Court’s finding that Baal was competent, which is entitled to a presumption of correctness upon federal habeas review. Dissent, at 6, 7.
II
In Whitmore v. Arkansas, ante, at 165, we held that “one necessary condition for ‘next friend’ standing in federal court is a showing by the proposed ‘next friend’ that the real party in interest is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity.” See also Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U. S. 273, 291 (1953). This prerequisite is not satisfied “where an evidentiary hearing shows that the defendant has given a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to proceed.” Whitmore, ante, at 165. In Whitmore, we relied on the competency findings made by the Arkansas Supreme Court and concluded that Whitmore lacked next-friend standing in federal court. Ante, at 165-166. In this case, the state court held such an evidentiary hearing just one week before petitioners brought this petition for habeas corpus. After reviewing the evidence and questioning Baal, the state court concluded that Baal had intelligently waived his right to pursue postconviction relief.
A state court’s determinations on the merits of a factual issue are entitled to a presumption of correctness on federal habeas review. A federal court may not overturn such determinations unless it concludes that they are not “fairly supported by the record.” See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8). We have held that a state court’s conclusion regarding a defendant’s competency is entitled to such a presumption. Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U. S. 111, 117 (1983). In this case, the state court’s conclusion that Baal was competent to waive his right to further proceedings was “fairly supported by the record.” Three psychiatrists who examined Baal had determined he was competent; a psychiatrist who had the opportunity to observe and talk to Baal testified that Baal was competent at the hearing; and the trial court concluded that Baal was competent after both observing Baal and questioning him extensively on the record. Accordingly, under §2254(d)’s presumption of correctness, the state court’s factual finding as to Baal’s competence is binding on a federal habeas court. See Maggio v. Fulford, supra; see also Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422 (1983) (§ 2254(d)’s presumption of correctness required federal habeas court to accept state court’s factual findings on the issue of respondent’s credibility).
The state evidentiary hearing took place on May 24, 1990. When petitioners filed their habeas petition in District Court the following week, on May 31, 1990, the only new evidence presented to the court was the affidavit of Dr. Jerry Howie, a psychiatrist who had not examined Baal. In the affidavit, Dr. Howie stated that he had examined the reports of the psychiatrists who had found Baal competent to stand trial and a 1987 admission, evaluation, and discharge summary from the Hawaii State Hospital. Dr. Howie did not directly assert that Baal was incompetent. Rather, based only on these reports, and without any opportunity personally to observe Baal, the doctor concluded that “there is reason to believe this person may not be competent to waive his legal remedies.” Petition for Habeas Corpus in Baal v. Godinez, No. 90-243 (D. Nev.), Exhibit D (emphasis added). Cf. Rees v. Peyton, 384 U. S. 312, 313 (1966) (District Court directed to make a judicial determination of petitioner’s competence after psychiatrist examined him and “filed a detailed report concluding that [petitioner] was mentally incompetent”). As the District Court determined, this affidavit is “conclusory and lacking sufficient foundation or substance to warrant either a psychiatric hearing or additional psychiatric examination of the defendant.” Order in Baal v. Godinez, No. CV-N-90-243-HDM (D. Nev., May 31, 1990), p. 3. The District Court also reviewed the state-court record and the transcript of the state-court proceeding, as well as speaking with Baal at length via telephone. Based on its review, it concluded that petitioners had failed to establish that Baal was not competent to waive further proceedings. In the absence of any “meaningful evidence” of incompetency, Whitmore v. Arkansas, ante, at 166, the District Court correctly denied petitioners’ motion for a further evidentiary hearing on the question of Baal’s competence to waive his right to proceed.
In holding that there was a “basis for finding that a full evidentiary hearing on competence should have been held,” Order in Baal v. Godinez, No. 90-15716 (CA9, June 2, 1990), p. 5, the Court of Appeals did not rely exclusively on the affidavit of Dr. Howie, the only evidence offered to indicate that Baal might have become incompetent at some time after the State’s evidentiary hearing. That affidavit, as noted, was not based on personal examination of Baal and stated only in conclusory and equivocal fashion that, based on his evaluation of the reports of the examining psychiatrists, Baal “may not be competent.” Rather, the Court of Appeals based its determination on the same evidence that had been before the State District Court — the reports of the three psychiatrists, the hospital report, and testimony regarding Baal’s prior suicide attempts. Indeed, because the Court of Appeals did not personally observe Baal, as the state court did, it had even less reason to overturn what is essentially a factual determination. See Maggio v. Fulford, supra, at 113. As there was no evidentiary basis for the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the District Court erred in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the stay granted by the court did not “reflect the presence of substantial grounds upon which relief might be granted.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 895 (1983).
We realize that last minute petitions from parents of death row inmates may often be viewed sympathetically. But federal courts are authorized by the federal habeas statutes to interfere with the course of state proceedings only in specified circumstances. Before granting a stay, therefore, federal courts must make certain that an adequate basis exists for the exercise of federal power. In this case, that basis was plainly lacking. The State is entitled to proceed without federal intervention. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion to vacate the stay entered by the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens dissent and would deny the application to vacate the stay.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner murdered and robbed Roger Sarfaty in 1985. In 1986, he murdered and robbed Lloyd Thompson. Petitioner was tried separately for each murder. The Thompson trial occurred first, and an Oklahoma jury found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to death. Petitioner was then tried for the Sarfaty murder. A different Oklahoma jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death. During the sentencing phase of the Sarfaty trial, the State introduced a copy of the judgment and sentence petitioner received for the Thompson murder. Petitioner contends that the admission of evidence regarding his prior death sentence undermined the Sarfaty jury’s sense of responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the death penalty, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We disagree and hold that the admission of this evidence did not amount to constitutional error.
In Oklahoma, capital trials are bifurcated into guilt and sentencing phases. Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, § 701.10 (1981). The sentencing jury may not impose a death sentence unless it unanimously finds the existence of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, and that any aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances. §701.12. At the sentencing phase of the Sarfaty trial, the State sought to prove four aggravating circumstances, two of which are relevant to our decision: (1) that petitioner had been previously convicted of a violent felony; and (2) that petitioner would constitute a continuing threat to society.
In attempting to establish these two aggravating circumstances, the State introduced evidence relating to the Thompson murder. The State presented testimony by Thompson’s neighbor concerning her observations the day of the murder, Thompson’s autopsy report, and photographs and fingerprints showing that the defendant in the Thompson case was in fact petitioner. The State also introduced a copy of the judgment and sentence from the Thompson murder conviction. That document revealed that petitioner had been convicted of first-degree murder and had been sentenced to death. App. 5-6. It also showed, and the trial court told the jury, that petitioner planned on appealing from the judgment and sentence. Id., at 7. Petitioner’s counsel objected to the admission of the document. He argued that, regardless of the admissibility of the evidence of petitioner’s conviction, the death sentence petitioner received was not proper for the jury to consider. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. Petitioner later presented evidence in mitigation.
Before closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury. It identified the four aggravating circumstances the State sought to establish and told the jury that “[i]n determining which sentence you may impose in this case, you may consider only those [four] circumstances.” Id., at 9. The court then identified the 17 mitigating circumstances offered by petitioner. The jury was instructed that it could not impose the death penalty unless it unanimously found that one or more aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt and that any such circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances. Id., at 8-12. In closing, the court admonished the jury:
“You are the determiner of the facts. The importance and worth of the evidence is for you to decide.
“I have made rulings during the second part of this trial. In ruling, I have not in any way suggested to you, nor intimidated [sic] in any way, what you should decide. I do not express any opinion whether or not aggravating circumstances or mitigating circumstances did or did not exist, nor do I suggest to you in any way the punishment to be imposed by you.
“You must not use any kind of chance in reaching a verdict, but you must rest it on the belief of each of you who agrees with it.” Id., at 13.
The jury found that all four aggravating circumstances existed and that they outweighed the mitigating circumstances. It accordingly imposed a death sentence. Petitioner appealed. While his appeal in this case was pending, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned petitioner’s conviction for the Thompson murder. See Romano v. Oklahoma, 827 P. 2d 1335 (1992) (Romano I). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that petitioner’s trial should have been severed from that of his codefendant; it therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial.
In his appeal in this case, petitioner argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his conviction and sentence for the Thompson murder. He asserted that it was improper to admit the conviction because it was not final at the time of admission, and it had since been overturned. He also contended that the evidence of his death sentence in the Thompson case impermissibly reduced the Sarfaty sentencing jury’s sense of responsibility for its decision, in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 (1985).
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. 847 P. 2d 368, 390 (1993) (Romano II). The Oklahoma court concluded that the evidence regarding petitioner’s prior death sentence was irrelevant. Because the jury was properly instructed in this case, however, it could not be said “that the jury in any way shifted the responsibility for their decision or considered their decision any less significant than they would otherwise.” Ibid. The Court of Criminal Appeals further held that the admission of the evidence “did not so infect the sentencing determination with unfairness as to make the determination to impose the death penalty a denial of due process.” Id., at 391.
Petitioner sought our review, and we granted certiorari, limited to the following question: “Does admission of evidence that a capital defendant already has been sentenced to death in another case impermissibly undermine the sentencing jury’s sense of responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant’s death, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?” 510 U. S. 943 (1993). We now affirm.
It is helpful to begin by placing petitioner’s challenge within the larger context of our Eighth Amendment death penalty jurisprudence. We have held that the Eighth Amendment’s concern that the death penalty be both appropriate and not randomly imposed requires the States to perform two somewhat contradictory tasks in order to impose the death penalty.
First, States must properly establish a threshold below which the penalty cannot be imposed. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279, 305 (1987). To ensure that this threshold is met, the “State must establish rational criteria that narrow the decisionmaker’s judgment as to whether the circumstances of a particular defendant’s case meet the threshold.” Ibid. As we stated in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U. S. 231 (1988), “[t]o pass constitutional muster, a capital sentencing scheme must ‘genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.’” Id., at 244 (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 877 (1983)). In this respect, a State’s sentencing procedure must suitably direct and limit the decisionmaker’s discretion “ ‘so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.’” Id., at 874 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 189 (1976)). Petitioner does not allege that Oklahoma’s sentencing scheme fails to adequately perform the requisite narrowing.
Second, States must ensure that “capital sentencing decisions rest on [an] individualized inquiry,” under which the “character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense” are considered. McCleskey, supra, at 303 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, 748 (1990). To this end, “States cannot limit the sentencer’s consideration of any relevant circumstance that could cause it to decline to impose the penalty. In this respect, the State cannot channel the sentencer’s discretion, but must allow it to consider any relevant information offered by the defendant.” McCleskey, supra, at 306.
Within these constitutional limits, “the States enjoy their traditional latitude to prescribe the method by which those who commit murder shall be punished.” Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U. S. 299, 309 (1990). This latitude extends to evidentiary rules at sentencing proceedings. See, e.g., Gregg, supra, at 203-204 (approving “the wide scope of evidence and argument allowed at presentence hearings” in Georgia). As we observed in California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992, 999 (1983):
“In ensuring that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily or capriciously, the Court’s principal concern has been more with the procedure by which the State imposes the death sentence than with the substantive factors the State lays before the jury as a basis for imposing death, once it has been determined that the defendant falls within the category of persons eligible for the death penalty.”
See also id., at 1008 (“Once the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty ... the jury then is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment”).
We have also held, in Caldwell v. Mississippi, that the jury must not be misled regarding the role it plays in the sentencing decision. See 472 U. S., at 336 (plurality opinion); id., at 341-342 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). The prosecutor in Caldwell, in remarks which “were quite focused, unambiguous, and strong,” misled the jury to believe that the responsibility for sentencing the defendant lay elsewhere. Id., at 340. The trial judge “not only failed to correct the prosecutor’s remarks, but in fact openly agreed with them.” Id., at 339.
The plurality concluded that the prosecutor’s remarks, along with the trial judge’s affirmation, impermissibly “minimize[d] the jury’s sense of responsibility for determining the appropriateness of death.” Id., at 341. Such a diminution, the plurality felt, precluded the jury from properly performing its responsibility to make an individualized determination of the appropriateness of the death penalty. Id., at 330-331. Justice O’Connor, in her opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, identified more narrowly the infirmity in the prosecutor’s remarks: “In my view, the prosecutor’s remarks were impermissible because they were inaccurate and misleading in a manner that diminished the jury’s sense of responsibility.” Id., at 342.
As Justice O’Connor supplied the fifth vote in Caldwell, and concurred on grounds narrower than those put forth by the plurality, her position is controlling. See Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188, 193 (1977); Gregg, supra, at 169, n. 15. Accordingly, we have since read Caldwell as “relevant only to certain types of comment — those that mislead the jury as to its role in the sentencing process in a way that allows the jury to feel less responsible than it should for the sentencing decision.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 168, 184, n. 15 (1986). Thus, “[t]o establish a Caldwell violation, a defendant necessarily must show that the remarks to the jury improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law.” Dugger v. Adams, 489 U. S. 401, 407 (1989); see also Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 233 (1990).
Petitioner argues that Caldwell controls this case. He contends that the evidence of his prior death sentence impermissibly undermined the sentencing jury’s sense of responsibility, in violation of the principle established in Caldwell. We disagree. The infirmity identified in Caldwell is simply absent in this case: Here, the jury was not affirmatively misled regarding its role in the sentencing process. The evidence at issue was neither false at the time it was admitted, nor did it even pertain to the jury’s role in the sentencing process. The trial court’s instructions, moreover, emphasized the importance of the jury’s role. As the Court of Criminal Appeals observed:
“The jury was instructed that it had the responsibility for determining whether the death penalty should be imposed.... It was never conveyed or intimated in any way, by the court or the attorneys, that the jury could shift its responsibility in sentencing or that its role in any way had been minimized.” Romano II, 847 P. 2d, at 390.
We do not believe that the admission of evidence regarding petitioner’s prior death sentence affirmatively misled the jury regarding its role in the sentencing process so as to diminish its sense of responsibility. The admission of this evidence, therefore, did not contravene the principle established in Caldwell.
That this case is different from Caldwell only resolves part of petitioner’s challenge. In addition to raising a “Caldwell” claim, petitioner presents a more general contention: He argues that because the evidence of his prior death sentence was inaccurate and irrelevant, the jury’s consideration of it rendered his sentencing proceeding so unreliable that the proceeding violated the Eighth Amendment. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 305 (1976). The Oklahoma court agreed that the “evidence of the imposition of the death penalty by another jury is not relevant in determining the appropriateness of the death sentence for the instant offense.” Romano II, supra, at 391. That the evidence may have been irrelevant as a matter of state law, however, does not render its admission federal constitutional error. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 67 (1991).
Some of the cases upon which petitioner relies for support, to be sure, do hold that the Constitution bars the introduction of certain evidence at sentencing proceedings. But these cases are plainly inapposite. Petitioner cites, for example, Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U. S. 159 (1992). There we held that the trial court erred by admitting evidence, at Dawson’s capital sentencing proceeding, regarding Dawson’s membership in a white racist prison gang known as the Aryan Brotherhood. See id., at 162-163. It was constitutional error, however, only because the admission violated “Dawson’s First Amendment rights.” Id., at 167. Dawson thus involved application of the principle first enunciated in Zant: An aggravating circumstance is invalid if “it authorizes a jury to draw adverse inferences from conduct that is constitutionally protected.” 462 U. S., at 885. Petitioner does not argue that the admission of evidence regarding his prior death sentence allowed the jury to consider, in aggravation, constitutionally protected conduct. Accordingly, our decisions in Dawson and Zant do not support petitioner’s contention.
Petitioner also cites Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U. S. 578 (1988), but it, too, is inapposite. There we reversed the imposition of Johnson’s death sentence because the only evidence supporting an aggravating factor turned out to be invalid, and because the Mississippi Supreme Court refused to reweigh the remaining, untainted aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances. Id., at 586, 590, n. 8. Similarly, in this case the only evidence supporting the “prior violent felony” aggravating circumstance was the judgment from petitioner’s conviction for the Thompson murder. That evidence, like the evidence in Johnson, was rendered invalid by the reversal of petitioner’s conviction on appeal.
Here, however, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals struck the “prior violent felony” aggravator, reweighed the three untainted aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances, and still concluded that the death penalty was warranted. See Romano II, supra, at 389, 393-394. The Court of Criminal Appeals’ approach is perfectly consistent with our precedents, including Johnson, where we remanded without limiting the Mississippi Supreme Court’s authority to reweigh the remaining aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances. See 486 U. S., at 590; id., at 591 (White, J., concurring); see also Clemons, 494 U. S., at 744-750. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, Johnson does not stand for the proposition that the mere admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence requires the overturning of a death sentence.
Petitioner’s argument, pared down, seems to be a request that we fashion general evidentiary rules, under the guise of interpreting the Eighth Amendment, which would govern the admissibility of evidence at capital sentencing proceedings. We have not done so in the past, however, and we will not do so today. The Eighth Amendment does not establish a federal code of evidence to supersede state evidentiary rules in capital sentencing proceedings. Cf. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 824-825 (1991); Blystone, 494 U. S., at 309.
Petitioner finally argues that the introduction of the evidence in question violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is settled that this Clause applies to the sentencing phase of capital trials. See, e.g., Payne, supra, at 825; Clemons, supra, at 746 (“[C]apital sentencing proceedings must of course satisfy the dictates of the Due Process Clause”).
We believe the proper analytical framework in which to consider this claim is found in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637, 643 (1974). There we addressed a claim that remarks made by the prosecutor during his closing argument were so prejudicial as to violate the defendant’s due process rights. We noted that the case was not one in which the State had denied a defendant the benefit of a specific constitutional right, such as the right to counsel, or in which the remarks so prejudiced a specific right as to amount to a denial of that right. Id., at 643. Accordingly, we sought to determine whether the prosecutor’s remark “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Ibid. We concluded, after an “examination of the entire proceedings,” that the remarks did not amount to a denial of constitutional due process. Ibid.
The relevant question in this case, therefore, is whether the admission of evidence regarding petitioner’s prior death sentence so infected the sentencing proceeding with unfairness as to render the jury’s imposition of the death penalty a denial of due process. See Sawyer, 497 U. S., at 244 (observing that “[t]he Caldwell rule was . .. added to [Donnelly’s] existing guarantee of due process protection against fundamental unfairness”); see also Darden, 477 U. S., at 178-181 (in analyzing allegedly improper comments made by prosecutor during closing argument of guilt-innocence stage of capital trial, “[t]he relevant question is whether the prosecutors’ comments ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process’ ” (quoting Donnelly, supra, at 643)). Under this standard of review, we agree with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals that the admission of this evidence did not deprive petitioner of a fair sentencing proceeding.
The evidence that petitioner received a death sentence for murdering Thompson was deemed irrelevant by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. See Romano II, 847 P. 2d, at 391. However, if the jurors followed the trial court’s instructions, which we presume they did, see Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 206-207, 211 (1987), this evidence should have had little — if any — effect on their deliberations. Those instructions clearly and properly described the jurors’ paramount role in determining petitioner’s sentence, and they also explicitly limited the jurors’ consideration of aggravating factors to the four which the State sought to prove. Regardless of the evidence as to petitioner’s death sentence in the Thompson case, the jury had sufficient evidence to justify its conclusion that these four aggravating circumstances existed. Although one of the aggravating circumstances proved invalid when petitioner’s conviction for the Thompson murder was overturned on appeal, the other three remained untainted and still outweighed the mitigating circumstances. See Romano II, supra, at 389, 393-394. In short, the instructions did not offer the jurors any means by which to give effect to the evidence of petitioner’s sentence in the Thompson murder, and the other relevant evidence presented by the State was sufficient to justify the imposition of the death sentence in this case.
Even assuming that the jury disregarded the trial court’s instructions and allowed the evidence of petitioner’s prior death sentence to influence its decision, it is impossible to know how this evidence might have affected the jury. It seems equally plausible that the evidence could have made the jurors more inclined to impose a death sentence, or it could have made them less inclined to do so. Either conclusion necessarily rests upon one’s intuition. To hold on the basis of this record that the admission of evidence relating to petitioner’s sentence in the Thompson case rendered petitioner’s sentencing proceeding for the Sarfaty murder fundamentally unfair would thus be an exercise in speculation, rather than reasoned judgment.
The judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is
Affirmed.
The other two aggravating circumstances were that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel, and that it was committed to avoid lawful arrest or prosecution.
On retrial for the Thompson murder, petitioner was again convicted and again sentenced to death. Brief for Petitioner 31, n. 11.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease presents the question whether a complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit must contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth by this Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973). We hold that an employment discrimination complaint need not include such facts and instead must contain only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
I
Petitioner Akos Swierkiewicz is a native of Hungary, who at the time of his complaint was 53 years old. In April 1989, petitioner began working for respondent Sorema N. A., a reinsurance company headquartered in New York and principally owned and controlled by a French parent corporation. Petitioner was initially employed in the position of senior vice president and chief underwriting officer (CUO). Nearly six years later, Frangois M. Chavel, respondent’s Chief Executive Officer, demoted petitioner to a marketing and services position and transferred the bulk of his underwriting responsibilities to Nicholas Papadopoulo, a 32-year-old who, like Mr. Chavel, is a French national. About a year later, Mr. Chavel stated that he wanted to “energize” the underwriting department and appointed Mr. Papadopoulo as CUO. Petitioner claims that Mr. Papadopoulo had only one year of underwriting experience at the time he was promoted, and therefore was less experienced and less qualified to be CUO than he, since at that point he had 26 years of experience in the insurance industry.
Following his demotion, petitioner contends that he “was isolated by Mr. Chavel . . . excluded from business decisions and meetings and denied the opportunity to reach his true potential at SOREMA.” App. 26. Petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to meet with Mr. Chavel to discuss his discontent. Finally, in April 1997, petitioner sent a memo to Mr. Chavel outlining his grievances and requesting a severance package. Two weeks later, respondent’s general counsel presented petitioner with two options: He could either resign without a severance package or be dismissed. Mr. Chavel fired petitioner after he refused to resign.
Petitioner filed a lawsuit alleging that he had been terminated on account of his national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V), and on account of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V). App. 28. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed petitioner’s complaint because it found that he “ha[d] not adequately alleged a prima facie case, in that he ha[d] not adequately alleged circumstances that support an inference of discrimination.” Id., at 42. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, relying on its settled precedent, which requires a plaintiff in an employment discrimination complaint to allege facts constituting a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth by this Court in McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802. See, e. g., Tarshis v. Riese Organization, 211 F. 3d 30, 35-36, 38 (CA2 2000); Austin v. Ford Models, Inc., 149 F. 3d 148, 152-153 (CA2 1998). The Court of Appeals held that petitioner had failed to meet his burden because his allegations were “insufficient as a matter of law to raise an inference of discrimination.” 5 Fed. Appx. 63, 65 (CA2 2001). We granted certiorari, 533 U. S. 976 (2001), to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals concerning the proper pleading standard for employment discrimination cases, and now reverse.
r — i HH
Applying Circuit precedent, the Court of Appeals required petitioner to plead a prima facie case of discrimination in order to survive respondent’s motion to dismiss. See 5 Fed. Appx., at 64-65. In the Court of Appeals’ view, petitioner was thus required to allege in his complaint: (1) membership in a protected group; (2) qualification for the job in question; (3) an adverse employment action; and (4) circumstances that support an inference of discrimination. Ibid.; cf. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U. S., at 802; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 253-254, n. 6 (1981).
The prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, however, is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement. In McDonnell Douglas, this Court made clear that “[t]he critical issue before us concerned] the order and allocation of proof in a private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination.” 411 U. S., at 800 (emphasis added). In subsequent cases, this Court has reiterated that the prima facie case relates to the employee’s burden of presenting evidence that raises an inference of discrimination. See Burdine, supra, at 252-253 (“In [McDonnell Douglas,] we set forth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging discriminatory treatment. First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination” (footnotes omitted)); 450 U. S., at 255, n. 8 (“This evidentiary relationship between the presumption created by a prima facie case and the consequential burden of production placed on the defendant is a traditional feature of the common law”).
This Court has never indicated that the requirements for establishing a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas also apply to the pleading standard that plaintiffs must satisfy in order to survive a motion to dismiss. For instance, we have rejected the argument that a Title VII complaint requires greater “particularity,” because this would “too narrowly constric[t] the role of the pleadings.” McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 283, n. 11 (1976). Consequently, the ordinary rules for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint apply. See, e. g., Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 236 (1974) (“When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims”).
In addition, under a notice pleading system, it is not appropriate to require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing a prima facie case because the McDonnell Douglas framework does not apply in every employment discrimination case. For instance, if a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination, he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111, 121 (1985) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination”). Under the Second Circuit’s heightened pleading standard, a plaintiff without direct evidence of discrimination at the time of his complaint must plead a prima facie case of discrimination, even though discovery might uncover such direct evidence. It thus seems incongruous to require a plaintiff, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, to plead more facts than he may ultimately need to prove to succeed on the merits if direct evidence of discrimination is discovered.
Moreover, the precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context and were “never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.” Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577 (1978); see also McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802, n. 13 (“[T]he specification ... of the prima facie proof required from respondent is not necessarily applicable in every respect to differing factual situations”); Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 358 (1977) (noting that this Court “did not purport to create an inflexible formulation” for a prima facie case); Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc., 984 F. 2d 924, 927 (CA8 1993) (“[T]o measure a plaintiff’s complaint against a particular formulation of the prima facie case at the pleading stage is inappropriate”). Before discovery has unearthed relevant facts and evidence, it may be difficult to define the precise formulation of the required prima facie case in a particular case. Given that the prima facie case operates as a flexible evidentiary standard, it should not be transposed into a rigid pleading standard for discrimination cases.
Furthermore, imposing the Court of Appeals’ heightened pleading standard in employment discrimination cases conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which provides that a complaint must include only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Such a statement must simply “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds.upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 47 (1957). This simplified notice pleading standard relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims. See id., at 47-48; Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. S. 163, 168-169 (1993). “The provisions for discovery are so flexible and the provisions for pretrial procedure and summary judgment so effective, that attempted surprise in federal practice is aborted very easily, synthetic issues detected, and the gravamen of the dispute brought frankly into the open for the inspection of the court.” 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1202, p. 76 (2d ed. 1990).
Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions. Rule 9(b), for example, provides for greater particularity in all averments of fraud or mistake. This Court, however, has declined to extend such exceptions to other contexts. In Leatherman we stated: “[T]he Federal Rules do address in Rule 9(b) the question of the need for greater particularity in pleading certain actions, but do not include among the enumerated actions any reference to complaints alleging municipal liability under § 1983. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius." 507 U. S., at 168. Just as Rule 9(b) makes no mention of municipal liability under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1994 ed., Supp. V), neither does it refer to employment discrimination. Thus, complaints in these cases, as in most others, must satisfy only the simple requirements of Rule 8(a).
Other provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are inextricably linked to Rule 8(a)’s simplified notice pleading standard. Rule 8(e)(1) states that “[n]o technical forms of pleading or motions are required,” and Rule 8(f) provides that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Given the Federal Rules’ simplified standard for pleading, “[a] court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 73 (1984). If a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding. Moreover, claims lacking merit may be dealt with through summary judgment under Rule 56. The liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim. See Conley, supra, at 48 (“The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits”).
Applying the relevant standard, petitioner’s complaint easily satisfies the requirements of Rule 8(a) because it gives respondent fair notice of the basis for petitioner’s claims. Petitioner alleged that he had been terminated on account of his national origin in violation of Title VII and on account of his age in violation of the ADEA. App. 28. His complaint detailed the events leading to his termination, provided relevant dates, and included the ages and nationalities of at least some of the relevant persons involved with his termination. Id., at 24-28. These allegations give respondent fair notice of what petitioner’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See Conley, supra, at 47. In addition, they state claims upon which relief could be granted under Title VII and the ADEA.
Respondent argues that allowing lawsuits based on conclu-sory allegations of discrimination to go forward will burden the courts and encourage disgruntled employees to bring unsubstantiated suits. Brief for Respondent 34-40. Whatever the practical merits of this argument, the Federal Rules do not contain a heightened pleading standard for employment discrimination suits. A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that “must be obtained by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.” Leatherman, supra, at 168. Furthermore, Rule 8(a) establishes a pleading standard without regard to whether a claim will succeed on the merits. “Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.” Scheuer, 416 U. S., at 236.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that an employment discrimination plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination and that petitioner’s complaint is sufficient to survive respondent’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Because we review here a decision granting respondent’s motion to dismiss, we must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. See, e. g., Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. S. 163, 164 (1993).
The majority of Courts of Appeals have held that a plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), in order to survive a motion to dismiss. See, e. g., Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F. 3d 1111, 1114 (CADC 2000); Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F. 3d 516, 518 (CA7 1998); Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc., 984 F. 2d 924 (CA8 1993). Others, however, maintain that a complaint must contain factual allegations that support each element of a prima facie ease. In addition to the case below, see Jackson v. Columbus, 194 F. 3d 737, 751 (CA6 1999).
“In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
These requirements are exemplified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Forms, which "are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 84. For example, Form 9 sets forth a complaint for negligence in which plaintiff simply states in relevant part: “On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was then crossing said highway.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 1928, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company purchased an easement from the Pueblo of Santa Ana for a telephone line. Mountain States contends that the conveyance of this easement was valid under §17 of the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 641, because it was “first approved by the Secretary of the Interior.” The Pueblo contends that §17 only authorizes such transfers “as may hereafter be provided by Congress,” and that Congress never provided legislation authorizing the conveyance of Pueblo lands with the approval of the Secretary. Both constructions find some support in the language of § 17.
I — I
Congress enacted the 1924 legislation “to provide for the final adjudication and settlement of a very complicated and difficult series of conflicting titles affecting lands claimed by the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.” The Committee Reports review the unique and “interesting history of the Pueblo Indians” and explain why special remedial legislation was necessary.
“These Indians were found by Coronado and the first Spanish explorers in 1541, many of them residing in villages and occupying the same lands that the Pueblo Indians now occupy.” From the earliest days, the Spanish conquerors recognized the Pueblos’ rights in the lands that they still occupy, and their ownership of these lands was confirmed in land grants from the King of Spain. Later, the independent Government of Mexico extended limited civil and political rights to the Pueblo Indians, and confirmed them in the ownership of their lands.
The United States acquired the territory that is now New Mexico in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. During the period between 1848 and 1910, when New Mexico became a State, inhabitants of that territory — and members of the bar who advised them — generally believed that the Pueblo Indians had the same unrestricted power to dispose of their lands as non-Indians whose title had originated in Spanish grants. This view was supported by decisions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico, and by this Court’s square holding in United States v. Joseph, 94 U. S. 614 (1877), that the Pueblo Indians were not an “Indian tribe” protected by the Nonintercourse Act. As a result, it was thought that the Pueblo Indians could convey good title to their lands notwithstanding the Act’s prohibition of any “purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands... from any... tribe of Indians.” 4 Stat. 730, 25 U. S. C. §177.
The prevailing opinion concerning the unique status of the Pueblo Indians was drawn into question as a result of the attempt by federal authorities to regulate the liquor trade with the Pueblos. They orginally brought charges under an 1897 criminal statute prohibiting the sale of liquor to any “Indian.” Relying on Joseph, however, the Territorial Supreme Court held, in 1907, that the Pueblos were not “Indians” within the meaning of the statute. In response, the New Mexico Enabling Act of 1910 expressly required that the new State’s Constitution prohibit “the introduction of liquors into Indian country, which term shall also include all lands now owned or occupied by the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.” In United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28 (1913), the Court noted that whatever doubts there previously were about the applicability of the Indian liquor statute to the Pueblos, “Congress, evidently wishing to make sure of a different result in the future, expressly declared” in the Enabling Act that “it should include them.” 231 U. S., at 38.
The narrow question decided in the Sandoval case was that the dependent status of the Pueblo Indians was such that Congress could expressly prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquors into their lands under its power “To regulate Commerce... with the Indian Tribes.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. In reaching that decision, however, the Court rejected the factual premises that had supported its judgment in Joseph, and suggested that “the observations there made respecting the Pueblos were evidently based upon statements in the opinion of the territorial court, then under review, which are at variance with other recognized sources of information, now available, and with the long-continued action of the legislative and executive departments.” 231 U. S., at 49. The Court’s disapproval of Joseph strongly implied that the restraints on alienation contained in the Nonintercourse Act — as well as the liquor statute — might apply to the Pueblos. As a result, the validity of all non-Indian claims to Pueblo lands was placed in serious doubt.
Relying on the rule established in Joseph, 3,000 non-Indians had acquired putative ownership of parcels of real estate located inside the boundaries of the Pueblo land grants. The Court’s decision in Sandoval cast a pall over all these titles by suggesting that the Pueblos had been wrongfully dispossessed of their lands, and that they might have the power to eject the non-Indian settlers. After conducting extensive hearings on the problem, Congress drafted and enacted the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924. The stated purpose of the Act was to “settle the complicated questions of title and to secure for the Indians all of the lands to which they are equitably entitled.” S. Rep. No. 492, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1924).
II
Under the Act, a Public Lands Board, composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General, and a third person to be appointed by the President of the United States, was established to determine conflicting claims to the Pueblo lands. § 2, 43 Stat. 636. The Board was instructed to issue a report setting forth the metes and bounds of the lands of each Pueblo that were found not to be extinguished under the rules established in the Act. Ibid. Continuous, open, and notorious adverse possession by non-Indian claimants, coupled with the payment of taxes from 1889 to the date of enactment in 1924, or from 1902 to 1924 if possession was under color of title, sufficed to extinguish a Pueblo’s title. §4. The Board’s reports were to be implemented by suits to quiet title in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. §§ 1, 3.
The Act also directed the Board to award the Pueblos compensation for the value of any rights that were extinguished if they “could have been at any time recovered for said Indians by the United States by seasonable prosecution.” §6. Settlers who had occupied their lands in good faith, but whose claims were rejected, might receive compensation for the value of any improvements they had erected on their lands, or for the full value of their lands if they had purchased those lands and entered them before 1912 under a deed purporting to convey title. §§ 7, 15.
After the Board determined who owned each parcel of land, the Act foresaw that some consolidation of each Pueblo’s land holdings might occur. The Board was directed to identify any parcels adjacent to a Pueblo settlement that should be purchased from non-Indian owners for transfer to the Pueblo. §8. In addition, §16 of the Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior, with consent of the Pueblo, to sell any lands owned by the Pueblo that were “situate among lands adjudicated or otherwise determined in favor of non-Indian claimants and apart from the main body of the Indian land.”
The foregoing provisions of the Pueblo Lands Act were all designed to settle the consequences of past transactions. In contrast, the section we must construe in this case — § 17— was entirely concerned with transactions in Pueblo lands that might occur in the future. It provides:
“No right, title, or interest in or to the lands of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico to which their title has not been extinguished as hereinbefore determined shall hereafter be acquired or initiated by virtue of the laws of the State of New Mexico, or in any other manner except as may hereafter be provided by Congress, and no sale, grant, lease of any character, or other conveyance of lands, or any title or claim thereto, made by any pueblo as a community, or any Pueblo Indian living in a community of Pueblo Indians, in the State of New Mexico, shall be of any validity in law or in equity unless the same be first approved by the Secretary of the Interior.” 43 Stat. 641-642 (emphasis added).
The question to be decided here is whether the second clause — the language following the word “and” — indicates that a Pueblo may convey good title to its lands with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
I — I J-H HH
In 1905 Mountain States’ predecessor allegedly acquired a right-of-way and constructed a telephone line across land owned by the Pueblo of Santa Ana. App. 8. Presumably the 1905 conveyance would have been invalid under the Non-intercourse Act. See n. 17, swpra. In all events, in 1927 the United States, acting as guardian for the Pueblo of Santa Ana, brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to quiet title to the lands of that Pueblo.
While the litigation was pending, the Pueblo entered into a right-of-way agreement with Mountain States granting it an easement “to construct, maintain and operate a telephone and telegraph pole line” on the land now in dispute. App. 39. The agreement was forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior by the Bureau of Indian Affairs with the recommendation that it be approved under § 17. Id., at 181-183. This agreement was approved, and the approval was received, and endorsed on the right-of-way agreement. Id., at 43. On the Government’s motion, id., at 36, the District Court thereafter dismissed Mountain States from the quiet title action on the ground that it had “secured good and sufficient title to the right of way and premises in controversy... in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Pueblo Lands Act.”
Mountain States removed the telephone line in 1980. On October 10 of that year, the Pueblo brought this action claiming trespass damages for the period prior to the removal of the line. The District Court granted partial summary judgment for the Pueblo on the issue of liability, holding that the grant of the right-of-way in 1928 was not authorized by § 17. Id., at 86-92.
The Court of Appeals allowed an interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) and affirmed. 734 F. 2d. 1402 (CA10 1984). The court held that Pueblo lands were protected by the Nonintercourse Act prior to 1924 and that § 17 of the Pueblo Lands Act did not authorize any conveyance of such lands. It reasoned:
“The two clauses of § 17 of the Pueblo Lands Act are joined by the conjunctive ‘and.’ To us that means exactly what it says. No alienation of the Pueblo lands shall be made ‘except as may hereafter be provided by Congress’ and no such conveyance ‘shall be of any validity in law or in equity unless the same be first approved by the Secretary of the Interior.’ Two things are required. First, the lands must be conveyed in a manner provided by Congress. Second, the Secretary of the Interior must approve. As to the first, at the time of the agreement between the Pueblo and [Mountain States], Congress had provided nothing. Hence, the first condition was not met. The fact that Congress had provided no method makes the approval of the Secretary meaningless. The operation of the second clause depends on compliance with the first clause.” Id., at 1406.
The Court of Appeals considered and rejected Mountain States’ reliance on the legislative history of the 1924 Act and its construction by the Secretary of the Interior.
Our concern that the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the Act might have a significant effect on other titles acquired pursuant to § 17 led us to grant certiorari. 469 U. S. 879 (1984). We now reverse.
HH <
The word “hereafter” in the first clause of § 17 supports the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the Act. Read literally, the statute seems to state unequivocally that no interest in Pueblo lands can be acquired “except as may hereafter be provided by Congress” — or, stated somewhat differently, until Congress enacts yet another statute concerning the lands of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.
The problem with this construction of the statute is that the requirement of the Secretary’s approval in the second clause of § 17 would be a nullity until Congress acts. Even if a later Congress did enact another statute authorizing the alienation of Pueblo lands, that Congress would be entirely free to accept or reject that requirement. Neither the Pueblo nor the Court of Appeals has offered any plausible reason for attributing this futile design to the 68th Congress. In light of “the elementary canon of construction that a statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative,” Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 392 (1979), the second clause of § 17 cannot be read as limiting the power of Congress to legislate in the “hereafter.”
The Court of Appeals’ literal interpretation of the first clause of § 17 would also nullify the effect of § 16. See n. 18, supra. The design of the Pueblo Lands Act indicates that Congress thought some consolidation of Pueblo land holdings might be desirable in connection with the claims settlement program to be promptly implemented by the Pueblo Lands Board. See supra, at 245-246. To this end, § 16 purports to authorize conveyances of Pueblo lands with the consent of the governing authorities of the Pueblo and the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. If the Court of Appeals’ literal construction of § 17 were accepted, the consolidation of properties foreseen by § 16 could have been implemented only as Congress might thereafter provide. It is inconceivable that Congress would have inserted § 16 in the comprehensive settlement scheme provided in the Act if it did not expect it to be effective forthwith.
Finally, the practical effect of the Court of Appeals’ interpretation is to apply the requirements of the Nonintercourse Act to voluntary transfers of Pueblo lands. In 1924, Congress logically could have adopted any of three approaches to voluntary transfers. It could have left the matter to be decided by the courts; applied the rule of the Nonintercourse Act; or adopted a new rule of law. A review of the structure of the statute convinces us that Congress followed the last course.
In arguing that § 17 simply extended the provisions of the Nonintercourse Act to the Pueblos, the Pueblo relies on language in the first clause of the section. However, it is the second — not the first — clause of § 17 that closely resembles the language and structure of the Nonintercourse Act:
Section 17:
“[N]o sale, grant, lease of any character, or other conveyance of lands, or any title or claim thereto, made by any pueblo as a community, or any Pueblo Indian living in a community of Pueblo Indians, in the State of New Mexico, shall be of any validity in law or in equity unless the same be first approved by the Secretary of the Interior.” Nonintercourse Act:
“[N]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution.”
The language is slightly — but significantly — altered to provide for approval by the Secretary of the Interior instead of ratification by Congress.
In any case, if Congress had intended to apply the Nonin-tercourse Act to these lands, it is difficult to understand why it did not say so in simple language. When Congress considered it appropriate in the Act to extend generally applicable Indian statutes to the Pueblos it did so with concise language directed to that end. Indeed, in view of subsequent events, Congress might have achieved that result simply by omitting § 17 from the Act and leaving the matter to the courts. See n. 17, supra. In our view, it is much more likely that Congress intended to authorize a different procedure for Pueblo lands in view of their unique history — a history that is discussed at some length in the Committee Reports.
V
There is another reading of the statute that better harmonizes the two clauses of § 17 with the structure of the entire Act and with “its contemporary legal context.” After the Joseph decision, it was generally assumed that questions of title to Pueblo lands were to be answered by reference to New Mexico law, rather than to federal law. In 1924, Congress was legislating without the benefit of a clear holding from this Court that the Pueblos had been completely assimilated to the status of Indian tribes whose land titles were protected by federal law. Sandoval had established that the Indian liquor law applied to the Tribe, and had strongly implied that the Nonintercourse Act would also apply; but Congress surely wanted to make clear that state law, for the future, was entirely pre-empted in this area, and that Congress had assumed complete jurisdiction over these lands. The first clause of §17 is fairly read as a flat prohibition against reliance on New Mexico law in connection with future transactions involving Pueblo lands. After 1924, alienation of those lands, voluntary or involuntary, was only to occur if sanctioned by federal law.
While the first clause of § 17 refers generally to the acquisition of any “right, title, or interest in... lands of the Pueblo Indians,” the second clause refers to any “sale, grant, lease... or other conveyance of lands.” This language plainly refers to transfers of land freely made by a Pueblo. The second clause of § 17 is logically interpreted as providing a firm command, as a matter of federal law, that no future conveyance should be valid without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The language suggests that Congress assumed that the Secretary of the Interior could adequately protect the interests of the Pueblos in connection with future land transactions. This construction is supported by the language of § 16 allowing for the consolidation of Pueblo lands with the consent of the Pueblo and if “the Secretary of the Interior deems it to be for the best interest of the Indians.”
This interpretation of §17 gives both clauses a meaning that is consistent with the remainder of the statute and with the historical situation of the Pueblos. It is consistent with the limited legislative history available, and is supported by the contemporaneous opinion of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal District Judge who placed a stamp of approval on this transaction and numerous others in the years following the enactment of the Pueblo Lands Act in 1924. The uniform contemporaneous view of the Executive Officer responsible for administering the statute and the District Court with exclusive jurisdiction over the quiet title actions brought under the Pueblo Lands Act “is entitled to very great respect.” These individuals were far more likely to have had an understanding of the actual intent of Congress than judges who must consider the legal implications of the transaction over half a century after it occurred.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case.
43 Stat. 641. See infra, at 246, for the complete text of § 17.
S. Rep. No. 492, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1924).
Ibid. The House Report incorporates the Senate Report in verbatim text. H. R. Rep. No. 787, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924).
S. Rep. No. 492, at 3.
The 1924 Act affected “20 Pueblos... with a total Indian population of between 6,500 and 8,000. Each Pueblo consists of about 17,000 acres of land within its exterior boundaries, or a total of 340,000 acres in all.” Ibid.
Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, 9 Stat. 922.
United States v. Lucero, 1 N. M. 422 (1869); Pueblo of Nambe v. Romero, 10 N. M. 58, 61 P. 122 (1900); cf. United States v. Mares, 14 N. M. 1, 88 P. 1128 (1907).
In concluding that the Pueblos were excluded from the coverage of the Nonintercourse Act, the Court primarily relied upon its understanding of Pueblo culture:
“ ‘For centuries... the pueblo Indians have lived in villages, in fixed communities, each having its own municipal or local government.... [T]hey are a peaceable, industrious, intelligent, honest, and virtuous people. They are Indians only in feature, complexion, and a few of their habits; in all other respects superior to all but a few of the civilized Indian tribes of the country, and the equal of the most civilized thereof....’
“... When it became necessary to extend the laws regulating intercourse with the Indians over our new acquisitions from Mexico, there was ample room for the exercise of those laws among the nomadic Apaches, Comanches, Navajoes, and other tribes whose incapacity for self-government required both for themselves and for the citizens of the country this guardian care of the general government.
“The pueblo Indians, if, indeed, they can be called Indians, had nothing in common with this class. The degree of civilization which they had attained centuries before, their willing submission to the laws of the Mexican government... and their absorption into the general mass of the population... all forbid the idea that they should be classed with the Indian tribes for whom the intercourse acts were made....” United States v. Joseph, 94 U. S., at 616-617 (quoting United States v. Lucero, 1 N. M., at 453).
The current version of the Nonintercourse Act was enacted as § 12 of the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834:
“[N]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution.” 4 Stat. 730, 25 U. S. C. § 177.
Section 12 of the 1834 Act is the last in a series of enactments beginning with § 4 of the Indian Trade and Nonintercourse Act of 1790. 1 Stat. 138. See County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 470 U. S. 226, 231-232 (1985). In 1851, Congress extended the provisions of “the laws now in force regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes” to “the Indian tribes in the Territor[y] of New Mexico.” 9 Stat. 587.
29 Stat. 506.
United States v. Mares, 14 N. M., at 4, 88 P., at 1129.
36 Stat. 558.
“[B]y an uniform course of action beginning as early as 1854 and continued up to the present time, the legislative and executive branches of the Government have regarded and treated the Pueblos of New Mexico as dependent communities entitled to its aid and protection, like other Indian tribes, and, considering their Indian lineage, isolated and communal life, primitive customs and limited civilization, this assertion of guardianship over them cannot be said to be arbitrary but must be regarded as both authorized and controlling.” 231 U. S., at 47.
“These hearings disclosed that there are now approximately 3,000 claimants to lands within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo grants. The non-Indian claimants with their families comprise about 12,000 persons. With few exceptions, the non-Indian claims range from a town lot of 25 feet front to a few acres in extent. It was stated, however, in the hearings by all parties that probably 80 percent of the claims are not resisted by the Indians and only about 20 percent pf the number will be contested.” S. Rep. No. 492, at 5.
“The fact that the United States may... at any time in the future take steps to oust persons in possession of lands within these Pueblo grants, and the continuing uncertainty as to title, has cast a cloud on all lands held by white people within the Pueblo areas.... The mortgage value of the lands is almost nothing; [and] sales, leases, and transfers have been discontinued... Hearings on S. 3865 and S. 4223 before the Subcommittee Considering Bills Relative to the Pueblo Indian Lands of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., 51 (1923) (Senate Hearings) (report submitted with the testimony of R. E. Twitchell, Special Assistant to the Attorney General).
Ibid.; Hearings on H. R. 13452 and H. R. 13674 before the House Committee on Indian Affairs, 67th Cong., 4th Sess. (1923).
The Act itself did not purport to resolve the question whether the Non-intercourse Act applied to the Pueblos; § 4 provided that the statutes of limitations in that section were “in addition to any other legal or equitable defenses which [the claimants] may have or have had under the laws of the Territory and State of New Mexico.” 43 Stat. 637. In November 1924 the Government docketed an appeal in this Court arguing that the Pueblos had always been wards of the United States, and that adverse judgments entered in 1910 and 1916 in quiet title actions brought by the Pueblo of Laguna could not bar a later quiet title action brought by the United States on the Pueblo’s behalf concerning the same parcel of real estate. The Government filed a motion to expedite consideration of the case, informing the Court of the enactment of the Pueblo Lands Act, and noting that “[t]he Chairman [of the Pueblo Lands Board] has informed the Attorney General that an early determination of this ease will be helpful to the Board in the discharge of its duties and functions under this Act.” Motion to Advance of United States, O. T. 1925, No. 208, p. 2. In holding that the quiet title action was not barred, the Court expressly observed that the Pueblos were “Indian tribes” within the meaning of the Nonintercourse Act. United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432, 441-442 (1926). The practical result was that non-Indian claimants to Pueblo lands could only raise the defenses set out in §4. Unlike Candelaria, the present controversy involves a transaction that occurred after the passage of the Pueblo Lands Act and which is therefore governed by § 17.
The complete text of § 16 provides:
“That if any land adjudged by the court or said lands board against any claimant be situate among lands adjudicated or otherwise determined in favor of non-Indian claimants and apart from the main body of the Indian land, and the Secretary of the Interior deems it to be for the best interest of the Indians that such parcels so adjudged against the non-Indian claimant be sold, he may, with the consent of the governing authorities of the pueblo, order the sale thereof, under such regulations as he may make, to the highest bidder for cash; and if the buyer thereof be other than the losing claimant, the purchase price shall be used in paying to such losing claimant the adjudicated value of the improvements aforesaid, if found under the provisions of section 15 hereof, and the balance thereof, if any, shall be paid over to the proper officer, or officers, of the Indian community, but if the buyer be the losing claimant, and the value of his improvements has been adjudicated as aforesaid, such buyer shall be entitled to have credit upon his bid for the value of such improvements so adjudicated.”
The consideration paid for the easement was $101.60 or 80 cents a pole for 127 poles. App. 181.
The Government’s motion read in part:
“[Subsequent to the institution of this suit [Mountain States] has obtained a deed from the Pueblo of Santa Ana approved April 13,1928, by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with Section 17 of the Pueblo Lands Act of June 7, 1924, and... thereby [Mountain States] has obtained, for an adequate consideration, good and sufficient title to the right of way in controversy herein between [the Pueblo] and [Mountain States].” Id,., at 36.
Id,., at 37. Mountain States has argued that the 1928 dismissal precludes the Pueblo from challenging the validity of the 1928 right-of-way agreement. Brief for Petitioner 39-47. The Court of Appeals held that the dismissal of the quiet title action in 1928 was not a ruling on the merits that would bar this action. 734 F. 2d 1402, 1407-1408 (CA10 1984). In view of our disposition of the case, however, we do not evaluate the merits of this contention.
Congress did pass Acts in 1926, 44 Stat. 498 and 1928, 45 Stat. 442, authorizing the condemnation of rights-of-way over Pueblo lands, but these Acts were enacted in response to Pueblos that refused to make voluntary conveyances of easements to utilities and common carriers. See H. R. Rep. No. 955, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1926). Thus, the 1926 and 1928 Acts were designed to supplement the authority provided in the second clause of § 17, not replace it.
For example, § 4 of the Act recognized that a Pueblo might bring its own action to quiet title “Provided, however, That any contract entered into with any attorney or attorneys by the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, to carry on such litigation shall be subject to and in accordance with existing laws of the United States.” 43 Stat. 637; S. Rep. No. 492, at 7.
Francis Wilson, a representative for the Pueblos, apparently originated the first draft of § 17. In a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs he explained that “Section 17 of the Bill is, we think the shortest way to prevent present conditions from recurring or existing again.... This section is intended to cover the same ground as [the Nonintercourse Act] but it is changed so as to accord with the conditions of the Pueblo Indians.” App. to Brief in Opposition 12.
See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 699 (1979).
The Pueblo argues that the specific authority conferred by § 16 would be superfluous if § 17 is interpreted as generally authorizing conveyances with the approval of the Secretary. Provisions similar to § 16, however, were contained in early versions of the bill that did not contain § 17, see S. Rep. No. 1175, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., 5 (1923); H. R. Rep. No. 1730, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., 3, 7 (1923), and it was probably considered to be an isolated element in the comprehensive claims settlement procedure established by the Act, rather than a provision of general applicability like § 17. Section 16 was also no doubt designed to encourage the Secretary to take the initiative in urging the Pueblos to consolidate their land holdings after the Board’s work was completed.
The word “hereafter” in the first clause of § 17 remains a puzzle even under this interpretation. It may be that Congress inadvertently used the word “hereafter” when it intended to say “herein” or “hereinafter”; or perhaps when the word “hereafter” was included in the bill, the subsequent date of enactment might have been regarded as part of the “hereafter.” In any case, this ambiguity in the first clause of § 17 does not alter the clarity of the rule of law established in the second.
During the Senate Hearings the Chairman of the Subcommittee considering the bills on the Pueblo lands problem referred to the desirability of authorizing the Pueblos to convey their lands with the approval of the Secretary:
“Senator Lenroot. Have we not general legislation that provides for the alienation of Indian lands with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior?
“Commissioner Burke. Certainly, as to all Indians, except the Pueblos.
“Senator Lenroot. They are not included in the statute?
“Commissioner Burke. No; and no tribal lands can be alienated except by act of Congress. This land is not allotted.
“Mr. Wilson [representing Pueblos]. There is special legislation covering [the Five Civilized Tribes], and in the Sandoval case the court, in speaking of the tenure to lands of the Pueblo tenants, compared them directly with the tenure of the Five Civilized Tribes. That is patented land, but there was a parallel drawn in the mind of the court, which intended to convey the idea that the Pueblo lands could be handled in precisely the same way as the land of the Five Civilized Tribes.
“Senator Lenroot. I should like to have you consider whether it might not [be] advisable to provide that these lands may be sold or alienated with the consent of both the Pueblo and the Secretary of the Interior.
“Mr. Wilson. That is probably going to be quite desirable under some conditions. In fact we have at different times rather encouraged the idea that if they could make swaps and transfers they could get their lands into much better condition. In fact that was the policy at one time that we had with reference to it.
“Senator Lenroot. Mr Commissioner, would there be any objection to that on the part of the Government.
“Commissioner Burke. I do not think so. I think there should be authority so that where it was in the interest of the Indians, they might convey, but I would have it under strict supervision of the Department.” Senate Hearings, at 155.
Sections 16 and 17, authorizing conveyances of Pueblo lands with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, appeared in later versions of the bill. See also n. 24, supra.
In 1926, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General offered the same construction of the second clause of § 17 that we adopt today. See App. to Brief for Petitioner 3a-4a. As a result of this construction, the Secretary approved at least 8 other conveyances involving the Pueblo of Santa Ana, between 1926 and 1958, App. 112-115,129-180, and more than 50 involving other Pueblos. Many of the early transactions also involved dismissals from quiet title actions brought by the United States under the Pueblo Lands Act. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23; supra, at 247-248.
§§ 1, 3, 43 Stat. 636.
Edwards’
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner challenges a ruling of the Idaho Supreme Court that the denial of unemployment benefits to otherwise eligible persons who attend school during the day violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Idaho Code § 72-1312 (a) (1973) states that “no person shall be deemed to be unemployed while he is attending a regular established school excluding night school . . . The Idaho Supreme Court held that this provision impermissibly discriminates between those unemployed persons who attend night school and those who attend school during the day and that petitioner could not constitutionally deny unemployment benefits to an otherwise eligible person such as respondent whose attendance at daytime classes would not interfere with employment in her usual occupation and did not affect her availability for full-time work. We grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Idaho Supreme Court.
The holding below misconstrues the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause in the field of social welfare and economics. This Court has consistently deferred to legislative determinations concerning the desirability of statutory classifications affecting the regulation of economic activity and the distribution of economic benefits. “If the classification has some 'reasonable basis/ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification 'is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ ” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485 (1970), quoting Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78 (1911). See also Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307 (1976); Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S. 181 (1976); Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535 (1972). The legislative classification at issue here passes this test. It was surely rational for the Idaho Legislature to conclude that daytime employment is far more plentiful than nighttime work and, consequently, that attending school during daytime hours imposes a greater restriction upon obtaining full-time employment than does attending school at night. In a world of limited resources, a State may legitimately extend unemployment benefits only to those who are willing to maximize their employment potential by not restricting their availability during the day by attending school. Moreover, the classification serves as a predictable and convenient means for distinguishing between those who are likely to be students primarily and part-time workers only secondarily and thus ineligible for unemployment compensation and those who are primarily full-time workers and students only secondarily without the necessity of making costly individual eligibility determinations which would deplete available resources. The fact that the classification is imperfect and that the availability of some students desiring full-time employment may not be substantially impaired by their attendance at daytime classes does not, under the cases cited supra, render the statute invalid under the United States Constitution.
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Forty-eight States, the Federal Government, and the District of Columbia (all of which, for simplicity, we shall call “States”) have entered into the Interstate Agreement on De-tainers (Agreement), 18 U. S. C. App. § 2, p. 692, an interstate compact. The Agreement creates uniform procedures for lodging and executing a detainer, i. e., a legal order that requires a State in which an individual is currently imprisoned to hold that individual when he has finished serving his sentence so that he may be tried by a different State for a different crime.
The Agreement provides for expeditious delivery of the prisoner to the receiving State for trial prior to the termination of his sentence in the sending State. And it seeks to minimize the consequent interruption of the prisoner’s ongoing prison term. In particular, Article IV(c) specifies that the receiving State shall begin the prisoner’s “trial . . . within one hundred and twenty days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving State.” At the same time, Article IV(e) prohibits return of the individual to the sending State before that trial is complete. It says:
“If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner’s being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to article V(e) hereof, such indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.” (Emphasis added.)
The case before us requires us to interpret the Article IV language that we have just quoted. See New York v. Hill, 528 U. S. 110, 111 (2000) (“As ‘a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact’ within the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. I, § 10, cl. 3, the [Interstate Agreement on Detainers] is a federal law subject to federal construction”) (quoting Carchman v. Nash, 473 U. S. 716, 719 (1985); Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U. S. 433, 442 (1981)). The case concerns a defendant whose initial imprisonment was interrupted briefly — for a single day — during which time he was brought to the receiving State for purposes of arraignment and then returned immediately to his original place of imprisonment. The question is whether, in such circumstances, the literal language of Article IV(e) bars any further criminal proceedings — because the defendant was “returned to the original place of imprisonment” before “trial” was “had.” We conclude that Article IV(e) does bar further proceedings, despite the fact that the interruption of the initial imprisonment lasted for only one day.
I
A
The Council of State Governments drafted the language of the Agreement in 1956. See United States v. Mauro, 436 U. S. 340, 349-350 (1978). The United States joined in 1970. Id., at 343. And Alabama is one of the 49 other current members. Hill, supra, at 111; Ala. Code §15-9-81 (1995). The Agreement contains nine articles. Article I sets forth the problems that led to the Agreement’s creation, namely, that
“charges outstanding against a prisoner, detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions, produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation.”
Article I then adds that “it is the ... purpose of this agreement to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of such charges and determination of the proper status of. . . detainers .. .
Article II sets forth definitions. Article III gives a prisoner against whom a detainer has been lodged the right to “request” a “final disposition” of the relevant charges, in which case “he shall be brought to trial within one hundred and eighty days” (unless extended by the trial court for “good cause”); otherwise, the relevant “indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.” Art. 111(a), (d).
Article IV gives “the jurisdiction in which an untried indictment, information, or complaint is pending,” i. e., the receiving State, the right “to have a prisoner against whom” it “has lodged a detainer . . . made available” for trial. Art. IV(a). It says further that, once the prisoner arrives in the receiving State, the “trial” must begin “within one hundred and twenty days” unless extended for “good cause.” Art. IV(c). Article IV also sets forth the “antishuttling” provision at issue here. To repeat: that provision says that trial must be “had ... prior to the prisoner’s being returned to the original place of imprisonment”; otherwise, the charges “shall” be dismissed with prejudice. Art. IV(e). Article V sets forth conditions on the receiving State obtaining temporary custody of the prisoner. The remaining articles deal with subsidiary matters, not relevant here with one exception: Article IX provides that the “agreement shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes.”
For present purposes, it is important to keep in mind that the Agreement basically (1) gives a prisoner the right to demand a trial within 180 days; and (2) gives a State the right to obtain a prisoner for purposes of trial, in which case the State (a) must try the prisoner within 120 days of his arrival, and (b) must not return the prisoner to his “original place of imprisonment” prior to that trial.
B
In January 1997, respondent Michael Bozeman was serving a sentence of imprisonment for a federal drug crime in federal prison in Marianna, Florida. At the beginning of that month, the district attorney of Covington County, Alabama, who had earlier lodged a detainer against Bozeman in connection with charges related to discharging firearms, sought temporary custody in order to arraign Bozeman on those firearms charges and secure the appointment of counsel. On January 23, federal authorities released Bozeman to local officials. Those officials took him to Covington County, about 80 miles from the federal prison, where he arrived later in the day. Bozeman spent the night in the county jail, appeared in local court the next morning, obtained local appointed counsel, and was transported back to federal prison that evening. About one month later, Bozeman was brought back to Covington County for trial.
At that time, Bozeman’s local counsel filed a motion to dismiss the state charges on the ground that in January Boze-man had been “returned to the original place of imprisonment” (namely, the federal prison) “prior to” “trial” on state charges being “had.” See App. 37-42. Consequently, he argued, under Article IV(e) the state charges were without “any further force or effect,” and the local court had to “enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.”
Bozeman was convicted, and the trial court subsequently denied Bozeman’s motion for dismissal. It wrote that it “made much sense to bring” Bozeman “into the county briefly” to deal with “short pre-trial matters” and then to “return him to the surroundings to which he was accustomed.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. Doing so furthered Bozeman’s “interest in maintaining . . . rehabilitation available to him in federal prison.” Ibid. In the trial judge’s view, Bozeman “certainly would not [have] receive[d] much rehabilitation in a county jail.” Ibid. Consequently, the judge concluded, the January transfer was “wholly consistent with” the Agreement’s goal, “to expedite the prosecution of state charges without interfering with any rehabilitative programs of the federal government.” Id., at 29a.
An intermediate State Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 788 So. 2d 934 (1998). But the Alabama State Supreme Court reversed by a 5-to-3 vote. 781 So. 2d 165 (2000). In its view, the literal language of the Agreement controlled and required dismissal of the state charges. The dissenters argued that the Agreement violation was merely “technical,” and consequently did not require dismissal. Id., at 170. The State petitioned for certiorari. In light of differences among the lower courts, we granted the writ. Compare, e. g., United States v. Schrum, 638 F. 2d 214, 215 (CA10 1981) (per curiam) (adopting District Court’s literal interpretation of Agreement), with United States v. Daniels, 3 F. 3d 25, 27-28 (CA1 1993) (rejecting literal interpretation of Agreement). And we now affirm the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision.
II
Alabama does not deny a violation of Article IV(e) as literally interpreted, for it concedes that its officials “returned” Bozeman to his “original place of imprisonment,” before Bozeman’s county court “trial” was “had.” Nor does Alabama claim that Bozeman waived the right to trial before return that Article IV provides. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 1, n. 1. Cf. Hill, 528 U. S., at 114-115 (holding that defendant may waive his rights under Art. Ill of the Agreement). Rather, Alabama, supported by the United States Solicitor General and others, claims that Article IV(e)’s basic purpose is to prevent shuttling that would interrupt the prisoner’s rehabilitation. See, e.g., United States v. Roy, 830 F. 2d 628, 636 (CA7 1987) (provision is “meant to protect the prisoner against endless interruption of the rehabilitation programs because of criminal proceedings in other jurisdictions”). They say the one-day interruption that occurred here did not interrupt rehabilitation significantly. Hence, any violation is “technical,” “harmless,” or “de minimis.” And Article IV(e) contains an implicit exception for such trivial violations. Brief for Petitioner 26; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12-13. Cf. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U. S. 214, 231 (1992) (laws ordinarily are enacted with understanding that de minimis exceptions will be recognized). We cannot accept this argument, however, for two reasons.
A
First, the language of the Agreement militates against an implicit exception, for it is absolute. It says that, when a prisoner is “returned” before trial, the indictment, information, or complaint “shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.” Art. IV(e) (emphasis added). “The word 'shall’ is ordinarily ‘the language of command.’” Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U. S. 482, 485 (1947) (quoting Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U. S. 490, 493 (1935)).
The cases Alabama cites as supporting a “harmless error” construction involved statutes that lacked this absolute language. See, e.g., United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U. S. 711, 716-717 (1990) (Bail Reform Act “is silent on the issue of a remedy for violations of its time limits”). Cf. William Wrigley, Jr., supra, at 231-232 (applying “de minimis exception” presumption as “part of the established background of legal principles against which all enactments are adopted,” where text did not provide a “contrary indication”).
Moreover, the Agreement makes no distinction among different kinds of IV(c) “arrivals,” say, by exempting those that are followed by return within a short, specified period of time, or those that are simply for the purpose of arraignment. Given the Agreement’s language and the important consequences of starting the running of the 120-day time limit, we see no basis for such a distinction. Hence, we must assume that every prisoner arrival in the receiving State, whether followed by a very brief stay or a very long stay in the receiving State, triggers IV(e)’s “no return” requirement.
B
Second, even were we to assume for argument’s sake that the Agreement exempts violations that, viewed in terms of the Agreement’s purposes, are de minimis, cf. Article IX (stating that Agreement “shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes”), we could not say that the violation at issue here qualifies as trivial. That is because the purpose of the “no return” provision cannot be as Alabama and the Solicitor General describe it, namely, as a simple, direct effort to prevent the interruption of rehabilitation. A provision that prevents returning a prisoner who has arrived in the receiving State does not directly increase the number of days the prisoner will spend in rehabilitation in the sending State. Rather, it directly and intentionally decreases the number of days that prisoner will spend in the sending State.
This point is obvious once one keeps in mind that the trial must take place within 120 days of the prisoner’s arrival in the receiving State. Article IV(e)’s requirement that the prisoner remain in the county jail means that the prisoner will spend all of those 120 days away from the sending State’s rehabilitation programs. By contrast, returning the prisoner prior to trial — in violation of Article XV(e) — would permit the prisoner to participate in the sending State’s program for some, of those days. But to call such a violation “technical,” because it means fewer days spent away from the sending State, is to call virtually every conceivable anti-shuttling violation “technical” — a circumstance which, like the 13th chime of the clock, shows that Alabama’s conception of the provision’s purpose is seriously flawed.
Article IV(e) may seek to remove obstructions to prisoner rehabilitation in a different way. The Agreement not only prevents “return,” but it also requires the receiving State to pay for the prisoner’s incarceration in that State during the period prior to trial. Art. V(h) (“From the time that a party State receives custody of a prisoner pursuant to this agreement until such prisoner is returned to the territory and custody of the sending State, the [receiving] State . . . shall be responsible for the prisoner and shall also pay all costs of transporting, caring for, keeping, and returning the prisoner”). That requirement may provide the receiving State with an incentive to shorten the pretrial period — to proceed to trial faster than 120 days or not to seek extensions — thus disposing of detainers, and the attendant “uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation,” in the most “expeditious” manner. Art. I. See also Cuyler, 449 U. S., at 449 (discussing negative effects of de-tainers on prisoners). But if that is Article IV(e)’s purpose, the transfer here was inconsistent with it. By returning Bozeman to federal prison, the county saved itself the cost of housing him — and for a nontrivial several week period, which may have allowed it to delay resolving the detainer.
Alternatively, the Agreement’s drafters may have thought that the “shuttling” itself, i. e., the movement back and forth among prisons, adds to the “uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation.” Art. I (emphasis added). And they may have sought to minimize the number of “shuttles” for that reason alone.
Viewing the Agreement in terms of either purpose, we cannot say that the one-day violation here is de mimimis, technical, or harmless. Neither do the briefs (or, to our knowledge, any lower court opinion) point to any other plausible rehabilitation-related purpose of Article IV(e) specifically, in terms of which the violation here might count as trivial. But we need not decide precisely what led Congress and the many other legislatures to agree to Article IV(e)’s antishuttling remedy. Given the Agreement’s absolute language, it is enough to explain why Alabama’s view of the Agreement’s purpose is not plausible and to point to other purposes more easily squared with Article IV(e)’s text and operation.
C
Alabama and amici make additional claims, basically elaborating on the trial court's view that return to the sending State after a brief journey to the receiving State for pretrial purposes is helpful, not harmful, to the prisoner. But given Article IV’s text, which indicates a contrary view, the parties would more appropriately address these policy arguments to legislatures.
The Solicitor General also points to a federal statutory provision that says expressly that an “order of a court dismissing any indictment, information, or complaint may be with or without prejudice,” depending on the “seriousness of the offense,” the “facts and circumstances of the case,” and the “impact of a reprosecution on the administration of the agreement” and “on the administration of justice.” 18 U. S. C. App. § 9(1), p. 695. This statutory provision, however, governs only when “the United States is a receiving State.” §9. And here the United States is not the receiving State. We fail to see how this provision helps, rathér than hurts, Alabama’s cause. Although we reject Alabama’s interpretation of the Agreement, our decision does not bar a receiving State from returning a prisoner when it would be mutually advantageous and the prisoner accordingly waives his rights under Article IV(e). Cf. Hill, 528 U. S., at 114— 115 (holding that defendant may waive his rights under Art. Ill of the Agreement)
For these reasons, the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join all but Part II-B of this opinion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner contends that this action brought by the Government to recover $2,000 on each of five counts of a complaint based on § 26 (b)(1) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 places it twice in jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In an earlier proceeding it had pleaded nolo contendere to a five-count indictment bottomed on the same five transactions and paid fines in the aggregate amount of $25,000. In the present case the District Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 218 F. 2d 880. We granted certiorari, 349 U. S. 937, to resolve an asserted conflict between the decisions of the Courts of Appeals.
At the close of World War II the Government was faced with the problem of disposing of vast quantities of surplus war materials. A large part of this property, valued at many billions of dollars, was needed to satisfy the civilian demand caused by wartime shortages in consumer goods. To facilitate and regulate the orderly disposal of this property, Congress passed the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 765. The stated purposes of this statute included the re-establishment of returning veterans in business, agricultural, or professional life, the discouragement of speculation in surplus property, and the elimination of unusual and excessive profits to speculators. The concern of Congress for returning veterans is emphasized by its 1946 Amendment to the Act, 60 Stat. 168, which gave veterans a priority for the purchase of surplus property, second only to that of the Federal Government, and authorized the Administrator to assign the highest priority to veterans for the purchase of certain items. This legislation thus afforded veterans an opportunity to purchase goods not available elsewhere at a fair price and on good credit terms. The benefits were of great value to the millions of men and women returning to civilian life just after the war.
With this background in mind we may turn to the facts of the present case. In June 1947 the Rex Trailer Company purchased five motor vehicles from the War Assets Administration at Tinker Field, Oklahoma. Rex had only a nonpriority right of purchase under the Surplus Property Act; but, by the fraudulent use of the names of five persons possessing veteran priority rights, it was able to purchase the vehicles. Admittedly, the terms of the statute were violated, but the record does not show petitioner’s gain from the fraud. The United States limited itself to the recovery of the sum of $2,000 for each of the five overt acts alleged in its complaint.
Petitioner’s sole contention is that § 26 (b) (1) provides a criminal penalty and, having once been convicted and fined for the transactions in question, it cannot again be subjected to punishment. The only question for our decision, then, is whether § 26 (b) (1) is civil or penal, for “Congress may impose both a criminal and civil sanction in respect to the same act or omission; for the double jeopardy clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391, 399.
We conclude that the recovery here is civil in nature. The Government has the right to make contracts and hold and dispose of property, and, for the protection of its property rights, it may resort to the same remedies as a private person. Cotton v. United States, 11 How. 229. Liquidated damages are a well-known remedy, and in fact Congress has utilized this form of recovery in numerous situations. In all building contracts, for example, Congress has required the insertion of a liquidated-damage clause which “shall be conclusive and binding upon all parties” without proof of “actual or specific damages sustained . . . .” 32 Stat. 326, 40 U. S. C. § 269. Liquidated-damage provisions, when reasonable, are not to be regarded as penalties, United States v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 234 U. S. 236, 241, and are therefore civil in nature.
In § 26 of the Surplus Property Act, Congress has provided three alternative remedies. The first provides a recovery of $2,000 plus double the amount of the damage sustained; the second permits a recovery “as liquidated damages” of twice the consideration agreed upon; the third permits the Government to recover the property and retain “as liquidated damages” the consideration it received. These alternative remedies are set out in three consecutively numbered subsections of § 26(b). All three were recognized as civil remedies by Congress before the bill was passed, and the conclusion is inescapable that each was of the same nature and designed to serve the same purpose. Further, Congress provided in § 26 (d) that: “[t]he civil remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to all other criminal penalties and civil remedies provided by law.”
The case of United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537, involved a provision of the False Claims Act, R. S. §§ 5438,3490, 31 U. S. C. § 231, essentially the equivalent of § 26 (b)(1). In Marcus, as here, the defendant had pleaded nolo contendere in an earlier criminal prosecution based on the same transaction. This Court rejected the petitioner’s contention of double jeopardy and held that the statute involved was remedial and not penal, since it was unable to say that the provision for $2,000 plus double damages would “do more than afford the government complete indemnity for the injuries done it.” 317 U. S., at 549. In concluding, it recognized that “[t]he inherent difficulty of choosing a proper specific sum which would give full restitution was a problem for Congress.” 317 U. S., at 552.
It is insisted, however, that the failure of the Government to allege specific damages precludes recovery here. But there is no requirement, statutory or judicial, that specific damages be shown, and this was recognized by the Court in Marcus. The Government’s recovery here is comparable to the recovery under liquidated-damage provisions which fix compensation for anticipated loss. As this Court recognized in Priebe & Sons v. United States, 332 U. S. 407, 411-412, liquidated damages “serve a particularly useful function when damages are uncertain in nature or amount or are unmeasurable, as is the case in many government contracts. . . .” And the fact that no damages are shown is not fatal. Section 26 (b)(1) merely accomplishes the intended result of Congress by authorizing a separate proceeding for the recovery of a lump sum in damages.
It is obvious that injury to the Government resulted from the Rex Trailer Company’s fraudulent purchase of trucks. It precluded bona fide sales to veterans, decreased the number of motor vehicles available to Government agencies, and tended to promote undesirable speculation. The damages resulting from this injury may be difficult or impossible to ascertain, but it is the function of liquidated damages to provide a measure of recovery in such circumstances. On this record it cannot be said that the measure of recovery fixed by Congress in the Act is so unreasonable or excessive that it transformed what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurs in the judgment substantially for the reasons given by him in his opinion in support of the Marcus decision. 317 U. S., at 553.
Section 26 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 765, 780, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 1635, provided in pertinent part:
“(b) Every person who shall use or engage in or cause to be used or engaged in any fraudulent trick, scheme, or device, for the purpose of securing or obtaining, or aiding to secure or obtain, for any person any payment, property, or other benefits from the United States or any Government agency in connection with the disposition of property under this Act; or who enters into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing—
“(1) shall pay to the United States the sum of $2,000 for each such act, and double the amount of any damage which the United States may have sustained by reason thereof, together with the costs of suit; or
“(2) shall, if the United States shall so elect, pay to the United States, as liquidated damages, a sum equal to twice the consideration agreed to be given by such person to the United States or any Government agency; or
“(3) shall, if the United States shall so elect, restore to the United States the property thus secured and obtained and the United States shall retain as liquidated damages any consideration given to the United States or any Government agency for such property.
“(d) The civil remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to all other criminal penalties and civil remedies provided by law.”
In considering whether the statute of limitations contained in 28 U. S. C. § 2462 applied to § 26 (b) (1) of the Surplus Property Act, the Fifth Circuit held §26 (b)(1) to be a civil remedy in United States v. Weaver, 207 F. 2d 796, 797, and the Sixth Circuit held it to be penal in United States v. Witherspoon, 211 F. 2d 858.
In referring to these provisions, the Senate Committee on Military Affairs described them as providing for “the civil liability of persons who engage in false, fraudulent, or fictitious activities, or conceal or misrepresent material facts, or act with intent to defraud the United States .... The United States is given the option of electing’ among three different measures of damages.” S. Rep. No. 1057, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. 13-14.
The False Claims Act provides that the defrauder “shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of $2,000, and, in addition, double the amount of damages which the United States may have sustained by reason of the doing or committing such act, together with the costs of suit; and such forfeiture and damages shall be sued for in the same suit.” United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, holding this provision to provide a compensatory civil remedy, was decided on January 18, 1943. The Surplus Property Act, which employed virtually identical language in § 26 (b) (1), was enacted on October 3, 1944. Under these circumstances it would be very difficult to say that these words which provided a civil remedy in the False Claims Act were not intended to provide the same kind of remedy in the Surplus Property Act.
On several of the projects involved in the Marcus case, fraud was discovered by the Government in time for payments to be withheld. At trial in the District Court defendants urged that there could be no recovery of a penalty or forfeiture in these instances where no actual damage could be shown. The District Court held that failure to show actual damage in these instances would not preclude recovery under the statute. United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 41 F. Supp. 197, 218. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed here. See United States v. Rohleder, 157 F. 2d 126, 129.
It seems quite probable that there is also an element of unjust enrichment to the Rex Trailer Company from its fraudulent purchases. The record is silent on this point and we have not considered it in arriving at our decision, but the fact that Rex was willing to resort to fraud to purchase the vehicles at the veteran’s price strongly suggests an unfair gain from the purchases. The price for sales to priority purchasers was fixed by regulations published in 32 CFR (1946 Supp.) §§8302.8 (d), 8302.11, which provided: “Disposal agencies shall fix the fair value at which property shall be acquired by priority claimants. Such a fair value shall not be greater than the lowest price which is offered to any trade level at the time of acquisition by the priority claimant, or where the fair value is fixed after examining competitive bids, it shall not be greater than the lowest acceptable bid.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the State of West Virginia is liable for prejudgment interest on a debt arising from a contractual obligation to reimburse the United States for services rendered by the Army Corps of Engineers.
r-H
On February 26, 1972, heavy rains and resulting floods caused the collapse of a coal waste dam on Buffalo Creek in southwestern West Virginia. The “Buffalo Creek disaster” caused over 100 deaths and millions of dollars of property damage and left thousands homeless. In August of that year, a series of storms caused widespread flooding and mudslides in the same region of the State. Although there was no additional loss of life, the “Gilbert Creek disaster” caused substantial property damage.
The President declared both events “major disasters,” qualifying the affected areas for federal relief under the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-606, 84 Stat. 1744, 42 U. S. C. §4401 (1970 ed.) (DRA or Act), repealed Pub. L. 93-288, 88 Stat. 164. Section 226(a) of the Act authorized the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness to provide temporary housing, typically mobile homes, for persons displaced by the disaster. That section also governed site preparation for the mobile homes. It provided:
“Any mobile home or readily fabricated dwelling shall be placed on a site complete with utilities provided by State or local government, or by the owner or occupant of the site who was displaced by the major disaster, without charge to the United States. However, the Director may elect to provide other more economical and accessible sites at Federal expense when he determines such action to be in the public interest.” 42 U. S. C. §4436 (1970 ed.).
In the aftermath of both disasters, the State found itself unable to prepare sites for the mobile homes. It asked the Army Corps of Engineers to do so, and the Corps agreed. In late 1972 and early 1973, the Corps billed the State for its site preparation services. The State acknowledged the bills, but, despite several requests, failed to make any payment. After delaying at the State’s request, the United States brought suit against West Virginia in 1978, seeking to recover $4.2 million in site preparation costs plus prejudgment interest. West Virginia denied liability for the debt, claiming that the state official who had entered into the agreement had acted without authority. The District Court rejected this claim and found that the State was contractually obligated to the Corps for site preparation services. Civ. Action No. 78-2049 (SD W. Va., Sept. 27, 1982). The United States then moved for an order of prejudgment interest on the outstanding debt. The District Court denied the motion. It held that the appropriate analysis required an examination of the congressional purpose underlying the DRA and the relative equities between the parties. After completing that analysis, the District Court concluded that the State should not be liable for prejudgment interest. Civ. Action No. R-78-2049 (SD W. Va., Jan. 28, 1983).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s holding that the State was contractually obligated on the debt, but reversed the determination that the State was not liable for prejudgment interest. 764 F. 2d 1028 (1985). It held that the question was governed by federal law, under which prejudgment interest was allowable as a matter of right in a breach-of-contract action where the amount due was liquidated, ascertained, or agreed to. Id., at 1030-1031. The Court of Appeals rejected the District Court’s conclusion that the determination whether prejudgment interest was owing depended on a balancing of equities, but held that, even if it were to apply the balancing test, the United States would prevail. Id., at 1032-1033. It remanded the case to the District Court to enter an award of prejudgment interest. Wé granted certiorari, limited to the question whether West Virginia was properly required to pay prejudgmént interest. 475. U. S. 1009 (1986). We affirm.
II
“[T]he rule governing the interest to be recovered as damages for delayed payment of a contractual obligation to the United States is not controlled by state statute or local common law. In the absence of an applicable federal statute, it is for the federal courts to determine, according to their own criteria, the appropriate measure of damage, expressed in terms of interest, for nonpayment of the amount found to be due.” Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 289, 296 (1941); see also Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, 366-367 (1943). While there are instances in which state law may be adopted as the federal rule of decision, see United States v. Yazell, 382 U. S. 341 (1966), this case presents no compelling reason for doing so. A single nationwide rule would be preferable to one turning on state law, and the incorporation of state law would not give due regard to the federal interest in maintaining the apportionment of responsibility Congress devised in the DRA. Finally, application of a federal rule would not “disrupt commercial relationships predicated on state law,” United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U. S. 715, 729 (1979) (footnote omitted), since state law would not of its own force govern contracts between a State and the Federal Government.
Given that state law may neither govern of its own force nor be adopted as the federal rule of decision, it remains for us to apply the federal rule. In Board of Comm’rs of Jackson County v. United States, 308 U. S. 343 (1939), this Court addressed the issue. There, the Court considered whether the political subdivision of a State should be liable to the United States for prejudgment interest on a tax refund owed to a Native American on whose behalf the Federal Government had brought suit. The Court held that prejudgment interest would not be assessed. While the Court noted that certain defenses asserted by States were ineffective as against the Federal Government because of the historic immunity of the sovereign from those defenses, id., at 351, it determined that interest, which lacked comparable historical roots, could not simply be required with respect to all claims by the United States against a State or its political subdivision. It therefore held that, before applying the usual rule regarding prejudgment interest as against a private party to a State, a federal court should consider the interests of the two governments involved. Id., at 350. Noting that aggrieved taxpayers who were not Native Americans were not, under state law, entitled to interest on tax refunds, id., at 349, the Court concluded that individuals whose rights to a state tax refund arose under federal law should not be put in a better position than taxpayers whose rights arose under state law. Id., at 352. The Court further reasoned that it would be inequitable to award interest because the United States had not moved for eight years to collect the money owed by the county. Ibid.
Application of this analysis to the present case indicates that prejudgment interest should be required. No state policy compels any deviation from the longstanding rule that parties owing debts to the Federal Government must pay prejudgment interest where the underlying claim is a contractual obligation to pay money. Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, supra, at 295-297. Moreover, federal policy plainly calls for an award of interest. The purpose of the DRA was not to relieve States of the entire burden of disaster relief, but to apportion that responsibility between the State and Federal Governments. See, e. g., §§ 101(a)(2) and (b) (Act was intended “to assist the efforts of the affected States,” and to provide “an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State and local governments”); § 102(1) (Governor of any State in which a disaster occurs must certify the need for federal disaster assistance and “giv[e] assurance of the expenditure of a reasonable amount of the funds of such State, its local governments, or other agencies for alleviating the damage . . . resulting from such catastrophe”). Section 226(a) of the DRA reflects the statute’s allocative intent; it explicitly states that the Federal Government is not to bear the costs of site preparation for temporary housing for disaster victims. Prejudgment interest is an element of complete compensation, see, e. g., General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U. S. 648, 655-656, and n. 10 (1983); fully repaying the Federal Government for any costs of site preparation will further the distribution of the burdens of disaster relief that Congress intended.
This federal interest in complete compensation is likely to be present in any ordinary commercial contractual arrangement between a State and the Federal Government. In such a situation, it is also difficult to imagine a state interest that would justify relieving the State of its obligation to compensate the Federal Government fully for its efforts. Here, the State asserts none, except its understandable interest in not paying any more than it has to. The State argues that it should be exempt from paying prejudgment interest to the United States because, under its own law, it may not be held liable for interest unless it has consented to be. See Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. West Virginia Turnpike Comm’n, 144 W. Va. 266, 271, 107 S. E. 2d 792, 796 (1959). But the source of this exemption is the State’s sovereign immunity, see id., at 274-275, 107 S. E. 2d, at 797-798; since the State must consent to be sued by private parties, it may consent in a limited fashion and refuse to be liable for prejudgment interest. Because States have no sovereign immunity as against the Federal Government, United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 646 (1892), any rule exempting a sovereign from the payment of prejudgment interest not only does not apply of its own force to the State’s obligations to the Federal Government, cf. Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U. S. 310 (1986), but also does not represent a policy the federal courts are obliged to further. Cf. Board of Comm’rs of Jackson County, 308 U. S., at 349, 352; United States v. Yazell, 382 U. S., at 352 (while courts must show “solicitude for state interests, particularly in the field of family and family-property arrangements,” these interests may be overridden to avoid injury to “clear and substantial interests of the National Government”). Accordingly, we hold that West Virginia may under the circumstances of this case be held liable for prejudgment interest.
We recognize that our holding may work a hardship upon the citizens of West Virginia, who have already suffered greatly as a result of the tragedies that gave rise to this litigation. But the solution for that problem must lie with Congress and not the courts. The DRA expresses a clear policy that responsibility for disaster relief should be apportioned in a particular way between the State and Federal Governments. A remedy for any asserted unfairness in this apportionment must be sought through the political process. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The amount sought was $5,783,098.09 through October 18, 1982, plus $2,841.26 for every day thereafter until judgment was entered. App. to Pet. for Cert. C-3, n. 2.
Prejudgment interest serves to compensate for the loss of use of money due as damages from the time the claim accrues until judgment is entered, thereby achieving full compensation for the injury those damages are intended to redress. See Comment, Prejudgment Interest: Survey and Suggestion, 77 Nw. U. L. Rev. 192 (1982).
The District Court held that whether interest had to be paid depended on a balancing of equities between the parties; the Court of Appeals rejected such an approach, as do we. This is not to say that an equitable consideration such as laches cannot bar an otherwise valid claim for interest, see Board of Comm’rs of Jackson County v. United States, 308 U. S. 343, 352-353 (1939).
Petitioners contend that United States v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 211 (1890), establishes that a State may not be liable for interest, even to the United States, unless it consents either by statute or in a form authorized by statute. That case was decided before United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621 (1892), in which this Court held dispositively that States retain no sovereign immunity as against the Federal Government. We do not speculate as to whether the result in United States v. North Carolina could have been sustained on a rationale other than the one the Court articulated there.
West Virginia does not have a general policy against prejudgment interest. Under West Virginia law, such interest has been available by statute in contract actions between private parties since 1868. See W. Va. Code § 56-6-27 (1966) (the jury in all contract actions “shall find the aggregate of principal and interest due at the time of the trial”); W. Va. Code, Ch. 131, §14 (1923) (same); W. Va. Code, Ch. 120, §14 (1882) (same); W. Va. Code, Ch. 131, § 14 (1868) (same). Moreover, in 1981, W. Va. Code § 56-6-31 was amended to provide for prejudgment interest in cases other than contract actions, except where otherwise provided by law, where a judgment provided for special damages as defined in the statute, or liquidated damages. W. Va. Code § 56-6-31 (Supp. 1986).
We decline to attribute any significance for purposes of this case to the Act of Jan. 12, 1983, Pub. L. 97-452, 96 Stat. 2467. This statute prescribes the interest payable by “person[s]” to the Federal Government, 31 U. S. C. § 3717(a)(1), but excludes from the definition of “person” any “agency ... of a State government, or of a unit of general local government.” 31 U. S. C. § 3701(c). As stated in § 3717(g)(2), this statute does not apply to claims arising under contracts entered into before October 25, 1982, and therefore has no force here. We can draw no inference about Congress’ comprehension of the federal common law of interest from its enactment, without any discernible legislative history, of a definitional section excluding state agencies from those “persons” statutorily required to pay interest on debts owed to the Federal Government. Moreover, we venture no opinion regarding the question whether this enactment was intended to abrogate or leave intact the federal common law governing when a State must pay interest to the Federal Government. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. United States, 781 F. 2d 334, 341-342 (CA3 1986); Perales v. United States, 598 P. Supp. 19, 23-24 (SDNY), aff’d, 751 F. 2d 95 (CA2 1984) (per curiam).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In this original action, the State of Colorado seeks an equitable apportionment of the waters of the Vermejo River, an interstate river fully appropriated by users in the State of New Mexico. A Special Master, appointed by this Court, initially recommended that Colorado be permitted a diversion of 4,000 acre-feet per year. Last Term, we remanded for additional factual findings on five specific issues. 459 U. S. 176 (1982). The case is before us again on New Mexico’s exceptions to these additional findings. We now conclude that Colorado has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a diversion should be permitted. Accordingly, we sustain New Mexico’s exceptions and dismiss the case.
I — I
The facts of this litigation were set forth in detail in our opinion last Term, see id., at 178-183, and we need recount them here only briefly. The Vermejo River is a small, non-navigable stream, originating in the snow belt of the Rocky Mountains. The river flows southeasterly into New Mexico for roughly 55 miles before feeding into the Canadian River. Though it begins in Colorado, the major portion of the Vermejo River is located in New Mexico. Its waters historically have been used exclusively by farm and industrial users in that State.
In 1975, however, a Colorado corporation, Colorado Fuel and Iron Steel Corp. (C. F. & I.), proposed to divert water from the Vermejo River for industrial and other uses in Colorado. As a consequence, several of the major New Mexico users sought and obtained an injunction against the proposed diversion. The State of Colorado, in turn, filed a motion for leave to file an original complaint with this Court, seeking an equitable apportionment of the Vermejo River’s waters. We granted Colorado its leave to file, 439 U. S. 975 (1978), and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stayed C. F. & I.’s appeal pending our resolution of the equitable apportionment issue.
We then appointed a Special Master, 441 U. S. 902 (1979), the Honorable Ewing T. Kerr, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, who held a lengthy trial at which both States presented extensive evidence. On the basis of this evidence, the Master recommended that Colorado be allowed to divert 4,000 acre-feet of water per year. His recommendation rested on two grounds: first, that New Mexico could compensate for some or all of the Colorado diversion through reasonable water conservation measures; and second, that the injury, if any, to New Mexico would be outweighed by the benefit to Colorado from the diversion.
New Mexico took exceptions, both legal and factual, to the Master’s recommendation. As to the Master’s view of the law of equitable apportionment, New Mexico contended that the Master erred in not focusing exclusively on the priority of uses along the Vermejo River. 459 U. S., at 181-182. The Court rejected that contention:
“We recognize that the equities supporting the protection of existing economies will usually be compelling. . . . Under some circumstances, however, the countervailing equities supporting a diversion for future use in one State may justify the detriment to existing users in another State. This may be the case, for example, where the State seeking a diversion demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the benefits of the diversion substantially outweigh the harm that might result. In the determination of whether the State proposing the diversion has carried this burden, an important consideration is whether the existing users could offset the diversion by reasonable conservation measures . . . .” Id., at 187-188 (footnote omitted).
In short, though the equities presumptively supported protection of the established senior uses, the Court concluded that other factors — such as waste, availability of reasonable conservation measures, and the balance of benefit and harm from diversion — could be considered in the apportionment calculus. Ibid.
New Mexico also took issue with the factual predicates of the Master’s recommendation. Specifically, it contended that Colorado had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that New Mexico currently uses more than its equitable share of the Vermejo River’s waters. On this matter, we found the Master’s report unclear and determined that a remand would be appropriate.
To help this Court assess whether Vermejo River water could reasonably be made available for diversion, the Master was instructed to make specific findings concerning:
“(1) the existing uses of water from the Vermejo River, and the extent to which present levels of use reflect current or historical water shortages or the failure of existing users to develop their uses diligently;
“(2) the available supply of water from the Vermejo River, accounting for factors such as variations in stream flow, the needs of current users for a continuous supply, the possibilities of equalizing and enhancing the water supply through water storage and conservation, and the availability of substitute sources of water to relieve the demand for water from the Vermejo River; [and]
“(3) the extent to which reasonable conservation measures in both States might eliminate waste and inefficiency in the use of water from the Vermejo River[.]” Id., at 189-190.
Then, to assist this Court in balancing the benefit and harm from diversion, the Master was asked to make findings concerning:
“(4) the precise nature of the proposed interim and ultimate use in Colorado of water from the Vermejo River, and the benefits that would result from a diversion to Colorado; [and]
“(5) the injury, if any, that New Mexico would likely suffer as a result of any such diversion, taking into account the extent to which reasonable conservation measures could offset the diversion.” Id., at 190 (footnote omitted).
Finally, the Court authorized the Master to consider any other relevant factors, to gather any additional evidence necessary to making the requested findings, and to offer another — although not necessarily different — recommendation. Id., at 190, and n. 14.
On remand, New Mexico filed a motion to submit new evidence. Colorado opposed the motion and attested that, unless the record were reopened, it did not intend to offer any additional evidence in support of its case. The Special Master denied New Mexico’s motion. Then, on the basis of the evidence previously received, he developed additional factual findings and reaffirmed his original recommendation.
I — I h — i
Last Term, because our initial inquiry turned on the factors relevant to determining a just apportionment, the Court explained in detail the law of equitable apportionment. This Term, because our inquiry turns on the evidentiary material Colorado has offered in support of its complaint, we find it necessary to explain the standard by which we judge proof in actions for equitable apportionment.
The function of any standard of proof is to “instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.” In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). By informing the factfinder in this manner, the standard of proof allocates the risk of erroneous judgment between the litigants and indicates the relative importance society attaches to the ultimate decision. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 423-425 (1979).
Last Term, the Court made clear that Colorado’s proof would be judged by a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U. S., at 187-188, and n. 13. In contrast to the ordinary civil case, which typically is judged by a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, we thought a diversion of interstate water should be allowed only if Colorado could place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are “highly probable.” See C. McCormick, Law of Evidence § 320, p. 679 (1954). This would be true, of course, only if the material it offered instantly tilted the evidentiary scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence New Mexico offered in opposition. See generally McBaine, Burden of Proof: Degrees of Belief, 32 Calif. L. Rev. 242, 251-254 (1944).
Requiring Colorado to present clear and convincing evidence in support of its proposed diversion is necessary to appropriately balance the unique interests involved in water rights disputes between sovereigns. The standard reflects this Court’s long-held view that a proposed diverter should bear most, though not all, of the risks of erroneous decision: “The harm that may result from disrupting established uses is typically certain and immediate, whereas the potential benefits from a proposed diversion may be speculative and remote.” Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U. S., at 187; see also id., at 182, n. 9. In addition, the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard accommodates society’s competing interests in increasing the stability of property rights and in putting resources to their most efficient uses: “[T]he rule of priority [will] not be strictly applied where it ‘would work more hardship’ on the junior user ‘than it would bestow benefits’ on the senior user . . . [,though] the equities supporting the protection of existing economies will usually be compelling.” Id., at 186-187 (quoting Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 619 (1945)). In short, Colorado’s diversion should and will be allowed only if actual inefficiencies in present uses or future benefits from other uses are highly probable.
With these principles in mind, we turn to review the evidence the parties have submitted concerning the proposed diversion. As our opinion noted last Term, New Mexico has met its initial burden of showing “real or substantial injury” because “any diversion by Colorado, unless offset by New Mexico at its own expense, [would] necessarily reduce the amount of water available to New Mexico users.” 459 U. S., at 188, n. 13. Accordingly, the burden shifted on remand to Colorado to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that reasonable conservation measures could compensate for some or all of the proposed diversion and that the injury, if any, to New Mexico would be outweighed by the benefits to Colorado from the diversion. Though the Master’s findings on these issues deserve respect and a tacit presumption of correctness, the ultimate responsibility for deciding what are correct findings of fact remains with us. See Mississippi v. Arkansas, 415 U. S. 289, 291-292, 294 (1974); C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4054, pp. 196-197 (1978). Upon our independent review of the record, we find that Colorado has failed to meet its burden.
A
To establish whether Colorado’s proposed diversion could be offset by eliminating New Mexico’s nonuse or inefficiency, we asked the Master to make specific findings concerning existing uses, supplies of water, and reasonable conservation measures available to the two States. After assessing the evidence both States offered about existing uses and available supplies, the Master concluded that “current levels of use primarily reflect failure on the part of existing users to fully develop and put to work available water.” Additional Factual Findings 28. Moreover, with respect to reasonable conservation measures available, the Master indicated his belief that more careful water administration in New Mexico would alleviate shortages from unregulated stockponds, fishponds, and water detention structures, prevent waste from blockage and clogging in canals, and ensure that users fully devote themselves to development of available resources. He further concluded that “the heart of New Mexico’s water problem is the Vermejo Conservancy District,” id., at 20, which he considered a failed “reclamation project [that had] never lived up to its expectations or even proved to be a successful project, . . . and [that] quite possibly should never have been built.” Id., at 8. Though the District was quite arguably in the “middle range in reclamation project efficiencies,” id., at 20, the Master was of the opinion “that [the District’s] inefficient water use should not be charged to Colorado.” Ibid. Furthermore, though Colorado had not submitted evidence or testimony of any conservation measures that C. F. & I. would take, the Master concluded that “it is not for the Master or for New Mexico to say that reasonable attempts to conserve water will not be implemented by Colorado.” Id., at 21.
We share the Master’s concern that New Mexico may be overstating the amount of harm its users would suffer from a diversion. Water use by appropriators along the Vermejo River has remained relatively stable for the past 30 years, and this historic use falls substantially below the decreed rights of those users. Unreliable supplies satisfactorily explain some of this difference, but New Mexico’s attempt to excuse three decades of nonuse in this way is, at the very least, suspect. Nevertheless, whatever the merit of New Mexico’s explanation, we cannot agree that Colorado has met its burden of identifying, by clear and convincing evidence, conservation efforts that would preserve any of the Vermejo River water supply.
For example, though Colorado alleged that New Mexico could improve its administration of stockponds, fishponds, and water detention structures, it did not actually point to specific measures New Mexico could take to conserve water. Thus, ultimately all the Master could conclude was that some unspecified “[Reduction and/or regulation . . . could not help but be an effort, however small, to conserve the water supply. ...” Id., at 18. Similarly, though Colorado asserted that more rigorous water administration could eliminate blocked diversion works and ensure more careful development of water supplies, it did not show how this would actually preserve existing supplies. Even if Colorado’s generalizations were true, they would prove only that some junior users are diverting water that senior appropriators ultimately could call; they would not prove that water is being wasted or used inefficiently by those actually diverting it. In short, the administrative improvements Colorado suggests are either too general to be meaningful or involve redistribution, as opposed to preservation, of water supplies.
Colorado’s attack on current water use in the Vermejo Conservancy District is inadequate for much the same reason. Our cases require only conservation measures that are “financially and physically feasible” and “within practicable limits.” See, e. g., Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U. S., at 192; Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 484 (1922). New Mexico submitted substantial evidence that the District is in the middle of reclamation project efficiencies and that the District has taken considerable independent steps — including, the construction, at its own expense and on its own initiative, of a closed stockwater delivery system — to improve the efficiency of its future water use. Additional Factual Findings 20. The Master did not find to the contrary; indeed, he commended New Mexico for the substantial efforts it had taken. See ibid. Nevertheless, he accepted Colorado’s general assertion that the District was not as efficient as other reclamation projects and concluded that New Mexico’s inefficient use should not be charged to Colorado. But Colorado has not identified any “financially and physically feasible” means by which the District can further eliminate or reduce inefficiency and, contrary to the Master’s suggestion, we believe that the burden is on Colorado to do so. A State can carry its burden of proof in an equitable apportionment action only with specific evidence about how existing uses might be improved, or with clear evidence that a project is far less efficient than most other projects. Mere assertions about the relative efficiencies of competing projects will not do.
Finally, there is no evidence in the record that “Colorado has undertaken reasonable steps to minimize the amount of the diversion that will be required.” Colorado v. New Mexico, supra, at 186. Nine years have passed since C. F. & I. first proposed diverting water from the Vermejo River. Yet Colorado has presented no evidence concerning C. F. & I.’s inability to relieve its needs through substitute sources. Furthermore, there is no evidence that C. F. & I. has settled on a definite or even tentative construction design or plan, or that it has prepared an economic analysis of its proposed diversion. Indeed, C. F. & I. has not even conducted an operational study of the reservoir that Colorado contends will be built in conjunction with the proposed diversion. It may be impracticable to ask the State proposing a diversion to provide unerring proof of future uses and concomitant conservation measures that would be taken. But it would be irresponsible of us to apportion water to uses that have not been, at a minimum, carefully studied and objectively evaluated, not to mention decided upon. Financially and physically feasible conservation efforts include careful study of future, as well as prudent implementation of current, water uses. Colorado has been unwilling to take any concrete steps in this direction.
Society’s interest in minimizing erroneous decisions in equitable apportionment cases requires that hard facts, not suppositions or opinions, be the basis for interstate diversions. In contrast to Justice Stevens, we do not believe Colorado has produced sufficient facts to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that reasonable conservation efforts will mitigate sufficiently the injury that New Mexico successfully established last Term that it would suffer were a diversion allowed. No State can use its lax administration to establish its claim to water. But once a State successfully proves that a diversion will cause it injury, the burden shifts to the diverter to show that reasonable conservation measures exist. Colorado has not carried this burden.
B
We also asked the Master to help us balance the benefits and harms that might result from the proposed diversion. The Master found that Colorado’s proposed interim use is agricultural in nature and that more permanent applications might include use in coal mines, timbering, power generation, domestic needs, and other industrial operations. The Master admitted that “[t]his area of fact finding [was] one of the most difficult [both] because of the necessarily speculative nature of [the] benefits ...” and because of Colorado’s “natural reluctance to spend large amounts of time and money developing plans, operations, and cost schemes . . . .” Additional Factual Findings 23. Nevertheless, because the diverted water would, at a minimum, alleviate existing water shortages in Colorado, the Master concluded that the evidence showed considerable benefits would accrue from the diversion. Furthermore, the Master concluded that the injury, if any, to New Mexico would be insubstantial, if only becausi~reasonable conservation measures could, in his opinion, offset the entire impact of the diversion. Id., at 24-28.
Again, we find ourselves without adequate evidence to approve Colorado’s proposed diversion. Colorado has not committed itself to any long-term use for which future benefits can be studied and predicted. Nor has Colorado specified how long the interim agricultural use might or might not last. All Colorado has established is that a steel corporation wants to take water for some unidentified use in the future.
By contrast, New Mexico has attempted to identify the harms that would result from the proposed diversion. New Mexico commissioned some independent economists to study the economic effects, direct and indirect, that the diversion would have on persons in New Mexico. The study these economists produced was submitted at the original hearing, conducted prior to the remand, as evidence of the injury that would result from the reduction in water supplies. No doubt, this economic analysis involves prediction and forecast. But the analysis is surely no more speculative than the generalizations Colorado has offered as “evidence.” New Mexico, at the very least, has taken concrete steps toward addressing the query this Court posed last Term. Colorado has made no similar effort.
Colorado objects that speculation about the benefits of future uses is inevitable and that water will not be put to its best use if the expenditures necessary to development and operation must be made without assurance of future supplies. We agree, of course, that asking for absolute precision in forecasts about the benefits and harms of a diversion would be unrealistic. But we have not asked for such precision. We have only required that a State proposing a diversion conceive and implement some type of long-range planning and analysis of the diversion it proposes. Long-range planning and analysis will, we believe, reduce the uncertainties with which equitable apportionment judgments are made. If New Mexico can develop evidence to prove that its existing economy is efficiently using water, we see no reason why Colorado cannot take similar steps to prove that its future economy could do better.
In the nine years that have passed since C. F. & I. first requested a diversion, neither it nor Colorado has decided upon a permanent use for the diverted water. It therefore is no surprise that Colorado cannot conduct studies or make predictions about the benefits and harms of its proposed diversion. Under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, it is Colorado, and not New Mexico, that must bear the risk of error from the inadequacy of the information available.
C
As a final consideration, the Master pointed out that approximately three-fourths of the water in the Vermejo River system is produced in Colorado. He concluded, therefore, that “the equities are with Colorado, which requests only a portion of the water which it produces.” Additional Factual Findings 29. Last Term, the Court rejected the notion that the mere fact that the Vermejo River originates in Colorado automatically entitles Colorado to a share of the river’s waters. Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U. S., at 181, n. 8. Both Colorado and New Mexico recognize the doctrine of prior appropriation, id., at 179, and appropriative, as opposed to riparian, rights depend on actual use, not land ownership. See id., at 179, n. 4. It follows, therefore, that the equitable apportionment of appropriated rights should turn on the benefits, harms, and efficiencies of competing uses, and that the source of the Vermejo River’s waters should be essentially irrelevant to the adjudication of these sovereigns’ competing claims. Id., at 181, n. 8. To the extent the Master continued to think the contrary, he was in error.
f> HH
We continue to believe that the flexible doctrine of equitable apportionment extends to a State’s claim to divert previously appropriated water for future uses. But the State seeking such a diversion bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of certain relevant factors. The complainant must show, for example, the extent to which reasonable conservation measures can adequately compensate for the reduction in supply due to the diversion, and the extent to which the benefits from the diversion will outweigh the harms to existing users. This evidentiary burden cannot be met with generalizations about unidentified conservation measures and unstudied speculation about future uses. The Special Master struggled, as best he could, to balance the evidentiary requirement against the inherent limitations of proving a beneficial future use. However, we do not find enough evidence to sustain his findings. Until Colorado can generate sufficient evidence to show that circumstances have changed and that a diversion is appropriate, the equities compel the continued protection of the existing users of the Vermejo River’s waters.
Accordingly, we sustain the State of New Mexico’s exceptions to the Special Master’s Report and Additional Factual Findings, and dismiss the case.
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: | K | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Appellant Daniel was tried before a jury of the Twenty-second Judicial District Court of Louisiana and convicted of armed robbery on November 20, 1973. The jury that tried appellant was selected from a venire chosen in accordance with the procedures then provided for in La. Const., Art. VII, § 41, and La. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 402. Appellant raised a timely motion to quash the petit jury venire, contending that these procedures violated the Fourteenth Amendment because they resulted in the systematic exclusion of women from the petit jury venire from which his jury was chosen. His motion to quash was denied and this denial was affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court. 297 So. 2d 417 (1974).
In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975), we held that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments command that petit juries must be selected from a source fairly representative of the community. In this case, it is not disputed that the jury venire from which appellant's petit jury was chosen did not constitute a fair cross section of the community. The question is whether our decision in Taylor v. Louisiana is to be applied retroactively to other defendants whose opportunity to raise a timely objection to the jury-selection procedures had passed as of the date of our decision in Taylor. We hold that Taylor is not to be applied retroactively, as a matter of federal law, to convictions obtained by juries empaneled prior to the date of that decision.
As we stated in Taylor v. Louisiana, supra, at 535-536, “until today no case had squarely held that the exclusion of women from jury venires deprives a criminal defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community.” Given this statement, as well as the doctrinal underpinnings of the decision in Taylor, the question of the retroactive application of Taylor is clearly controlled by our decision in DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U. S. 631 (1968), where we held Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), to be applicable only prospectively. The three relevant factors, as identified in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297 (1967), are
“(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.”
In Taylor, as in Duncan, we were concerned generally with the function played by the jury in our system of criminal justice, more specifically the function of preventing arbitrariness and repression. In Taylor, as in Duncan, our decision did not rest on the premise that every criminal trial, or any particular trial, was necessarily unfair because it was not conducted in accordance with what we determined to be the requirements of the Sixth Amendment. In Taylor, as in Duncan, the reli-anee of law enforcement officials and state legislatures on prior decisions of this Court, such as Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57 (1961), in structuring their criminal justice systems is clear. Here, as in Duncan, the requirement of retrying a significant number of persons were Taylor to be held retroactive would do little, if anything, to vindicate the Sixth Amendment interest at stake and would have a substantial impact on the administration of criminal justice in Louisiana and in other States whose past procedures have not produced jury venires that comport with the requirement enunciated in Taylor.
The judgment is affirmed.
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellee William Baird was convicted at a bench trial in the Massachusetts Superior Court under Massachusetts General Laws Ann., c. 272, § 21, first, for exhibiting contraceptive articles in the course of delivering a lecture on contraception to a group of students at Boston University and, second, for giving a young woman a package of Emko vaginal foam at the close of his address. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously set aside the conviction for exhibiting contraceptives on the ground that it violated Baird’s First Amendment rights, but by a four-to-three vote sustained the conviction for giving away the foam. Commonwealth v. Baird, 355 Mass. 746, 247 N. E. 2d 574 (1969). Baird subsequently filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, which the District Court dismissed. 310 F. Supp. 951 (1970). On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the action with directions to grant the writ discharging Baird. 429 F. 2d 1398 (1970). This appeal by the Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, followed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 401 U. S. 934 (1971). We affirm.
Massachusetts General Laws Ann., c. 272, § 21, under which Baird was convicted, provides a maximum five-year term of imprisonment for “whoever . . . gives away . . . any drug, medicine, instrument or article whatever for the prevention of conception,” except as authorized in § 21A. Under § 21 A, “[a] registered physician may administer to or prescribe for any married person drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception. [And a] registered pharmacist actually engaged in the business of pharmacy may furnish such drugs or articles to any married person presenting a prescription from a registered physician.” As interpreted by the State Supreme Judicial Court, these provisions make it a felony for anyone, other than a registered physician or pharmacist acting in accordance with the terms of § 21A, to dispense any article with the intention that it be used for the prevention of conception. The statutory scheme distinguishes among three distinct classes of distributees — first, married persons may obtain contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, but only from doctors or druggists on prescription; second, single persons may not obtain contraceptives from anyone to prevent pregnancy; and, third, married or single persons may obtain contraceptives from anyone to prevent, not pregnancy, but the spread of disease. This construction of state law is, of course, binding on us. E. g., Groppi v. Wisconsin, 400 U. S. 505, 507 (1971).
The legislative purposes that the statute is meant to serve are not altogether clear. In Commonwealth v. Baird, supra, the Supreme Judicial Court noted only the State’s interest in protecting the health of its citizens: “[T]he prohibition in §21,” the court declared, “is directly related to” the State’s goal of “preventing the distribution of articles designed to prevent conception which may have undesirable, if not dangerous, physical consequences.” 355 Mass., at 753, 247 N. E. 2d, at 578. In a subsequent decision, Sturgis v. Attorney General, 358 Mass. 37, -, 260 N. E. 2d 687, 690 (1970), the court, however, found “a second and more compelling ground for upholding the statute” — namely, to protect morals through “regulating the private sexual lives of single persons.” The Court of Appeals, for reasons that will appear, did not consider the promotion of health or the protection of morals through the deterrence of fornication to be the legislative aim. Instead, the court concluded that the statutory goal was to limit contraception in and of itself — a purpose that the court held conflicted “with fundamental human rights” under Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), where this Court struck down Connecticut’s prohibition against the use of contraceptives as an unconstitutional infringement of the right of marital privacy. 429 F. 2d, at 1401-1402.
We agree that the goals of deterring premarital sex and regulating the distribution of potentially harmful articles cannot reasonably be regarded as legislative aims of §§21 and 21 A. And we hold that the statute, viewed as a prohibition on contraception per se, violates the rights of single persons under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
We address at the outset appellant’s contention that Baird does not have standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives because he was neither an authorized distributor under § 21A nor a single person unable to obtain contraceptives. There can be no question, of course, that Baird has sufficient interest in challenging the statute’s validity to satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the Constitution. Appellant’s argument, however, is that this case is governed by the Court’s self-imposed rules of restraint, first, that “one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the . ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional,” United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 21 (1960), and, second, the “closely related corollary that a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities,” id., at 22. Here, appellant contends that Baird’s conviction rests on the restriction in § 21A on permissible distributors and that that restriction serves a valid health interest independent of the limitation on authorized distributees. Appellant urges, therefore, that Baird’s action in giving away the foam fell squarely within the conduct- that the legislature meant and had power to prohibit and that Baird should not be allowed to attack the statute in its application to potential recipients. In any event, appellant concludes, since Baird was not himself a single person denied access to contraceptives, he should not be heard to assert their rights. We cannot agree.
The Court of Appeals held that the statute under which Baird was convicted is not a health measure. If that view is correct, we do not see how Baird may be prevented, because he was neither a doctor nor a druggist, from attacking the statute in its alleged discriminatory application to potential distributees. We think, too, that our self-imposed rule against the assertion of third-party rights must be relaxed in this case just as in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. There the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and a licensed physician who had prescribed contraceptives for married persons and been convicted as accessories to the crime of using contraceptives were held to have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the patients with whom they had a professional relationship. Appellant herPargues that the absence of a professional or aiding^aSM-abetting relationship distinguishes this case from (jmswold. 'Yet, as the Court’s discussion of prior authority in Griswold, 381 U. S., at 481, indicates, the doctor-patient and accessory-principal relationships are not the only circumstances in which one person has been found to have standing to assert the rights of another. Indeed, in Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953), a seller of land was entitled to defend against an action for damages for breach of a racially restrictive covenant on the ground that enforcement of the covenant violated the equal protection rights of prospective non-Caucasian purchasers. The relationship there between the defendant and those whose rights he sought to assert was not simply the fortuitous connection between a vendor and potential vendees, but the relationship between one who acted to protect the rights of a minority and the minority itself. Sedler, Standing to Assert Constitutional Jus Tertii in the Supreme Court, 71 Yale L. J. 599, 631 (1962). And so here the relationship between Baird and those whose rights he seeks to assert is not simply that between a distributor and potential distributees, but that between an advocate of the rights of persons to obtain contraceptives and those desirous of doing so. The very point of Baird’s giving away the vaginal foam was to challenge the Massachusetts statute that limited access to contraceptives.
In any event, more important than the nature of the relationship between the litigant and those whose rights he seeks to assert is the impact of the litigation on the third-party interests. In Griswold, 381 U. S., at 481, the Court stated: “The rights of husband and wife, pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely affected unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them.” A similar situation obtains here. Enforcement of the Massachusetts statute will materially impair the ability of single persons to obtain contraceptives. In fact, the case for according standing to assert third-party rights is stronger in this regard here than in Griswold because unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives in Massachusetts, unlike the users of contraceptives in Connecticut, are not themselves subject to prosecution and, to that extent, are denied a forum in which to assert their own rights. Cf. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958); Barrows v. Jackson, supra. The Massachusetts statute, unlike the Connecticut law considered in Gris-wold, prohibits, not use, but distribution.
For the foregoing reasons we hold that Baird, who is now in a position, and plainly has an adequate incentive, to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives, has standing to do so. We turn to the merits.
II
The basic principles governing application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are familiar. As The Chief Justice only recently explained in Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71, 75-76 (1971):
“In applying that clause, this Court has consistently recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to States the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 (1885); Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61 (1911); Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U. S. 106 (1949); McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, 394 U. S. 802 (1969). The Equal Protection Clause of that amendment does, however, deny to States the power to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute. A classification 'must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.’ Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415 (1920).”
The question for our determination in this case is whether there is some ground of difference that rationally explains the different treatment accorded married and unmarried persons under Massachusetts General Laws Ann., c. 272, §§21 and 21 A. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that no such ground exists.
First. Section 21 stems from Mass. Stat. 1879, c. 159, § 1, which prohibited, without exception, distribution of articles intended to be used as contraceptives. In Commonwealth v. Allison, 227 Mass. 57, 62, 116 N. E. 265, 266 (1917), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court explained that the law’s “plain purpose is to protect purity, to preserve chastity, to encourage continence and self restraint, to defend the sanctity of the home, and thus to engender in the State and nation a virile and virtuous race of men and women.” Although the State clearly abandoned that purpose with the enactment of § 21A, at least insofar as the illicit sexual activities of married persons are concerned, see n. 3, supra, the court reiterated in Sturgis v. Attorney General, supra, that the object of the legislation is to discourage premarital sexual intercourse. Conceding that the State could, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, regard the problems of extramarital and premarital sexual relations as “[e] vils ... of different dimensions and proportions, requiring different remedies,” Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489 (1955), we cannot agree that the deterrence of premarital sex may reasonably be regarded as the purpose of the Massachusetts law.
It would be plainly unreasonable to assume that Massachusetts has prescribed pregnancy and the birth of an unwanted child as punishment for fornication, which is a misdemeanor under Massachusetts General Laws Ann., c. 272, § 18. Aside from the scheme of values that assumption would attribute to the State, it is abundantly clear that the effect of the ban on distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons has at best a marginal relation to the proffered objective. What Mr. Justice Goldberg said in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, at 498 (concurring opinion), concerning the effect of Connecticut’s prohibition on the use of contraceptives in discouraging extramarital sexual relations, is equally applicable here. “The rationality of this justification is dubious, particularly in light of the admitted widespread availability to all persons in the State of Connecticut, unmarried as well as married, of birth-control devices for the prevention of disease, as distinguished from the prevention of conception.” See also id., at 505-507 (White, J., concurring in judgment). Like Connecticut’s laws, §§21 and 21A do not at all regulate the distribution of contraceptives when they are to be used to prevent, not pregnancy, but the spread of disease. Commonwealth v. Corbett, 307 Mass. 7, 29 N. E. 2d 151 (1940), cited with approval in Commonwealth v. Baird, 355 Mass., at 754, 247 N. E. 2d, at 579. Nor, in making contraceptives available to married persons without regard to their intended use, does Massachusetts attempt to deter married persons from engaging in illicit sexual relations with unmarried persons. Even on the assumption that the fear of pregnancy operates as a deterrent to fornication, the Massachusetts statute is thus so riddled with exceptions that deterrence of premarital sex cannot reasonably be regarded as its aim.
Moreover, §§21 and 21A on their face have a dubious relation to the State’s criminal prohibition on fornication. As the Court of Appeals explained, “Fornication is a misdemeanor [in Massachusetts], entailing a thirty dollar fine, or three months in jail. Massachusetts General Laws Ann. c. 272 § IS. Violation of the present statute is a felony, punishable by five years in prison. We find it hard to believe that the legislature adopted a statute carrying a five-year penalty for its possible, obviously by no means fully effective, deterrence of the commission of a ninety-day misdemeanor.” 429 F. 2d, at 1401. Even conceding the legislature a full measure of discretion in fashioning means to prevent fornication, and recognizing that the State may seek to deter prohibited conduct by punishing more severely those who facilitate than those who actually engage in its commission, we, like the Court of Appeals, cannot believe that in this instance Massachusetts has chosen to expose the aider and abetter who simply gives away a contraceptive to 20 times the 90-day sentence of the offender himself. The very terms of the State’s criminal statutes, coupled with the de minimis effect of §§21 and 21A in deterring fornication, thus compel the conclusion that such deterrence cannot reasonably be taken as the purpose of the ban on distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons.
Second. Section 21A was added to the Massachusetts General Laws by Stat. 1966, c. 265, § 1. The Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Baird, supra, held that the purpose of the amendment was to serve the health needs of the community by regulating the distribution of potentially harmful articles. It is plain that Massachusetts had no such purpose in mind before the enactment of § 21A. As the Court of Appeals remarked, “Consistent with the fact that the statute was contained in a chapter dealing with ‘Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order,’ it was cast only in terms of morals. A physician was forbidden to prescribe contraceptives even when needed for the protection of health. Commonwealth v. Gardner, 1938, 300 Mass. 372, 15 N. E. 2d 222.” 429 F. 2d, at 1401. Nor did the Court of Appeals “believe that the legislature [in enacting § 21A] suddenly reversed its field and developed an interest in health. Rather, it merely made what it thought to be the precise accommodation necessary to escape the Griswold ruling.” Ibid.
Again, we must agree with the Court of Appeals. If health were the rationale of § 21A, the statute would be both discriminatory and overbroad. Dissenting in Commonwealth v. Baird, 355 Mass., at 758, 247 N. E. 2d, at 581, Justices Whittemore and Cutter stated that they saw “in § 21 and § 21A, read together, no public health purpose. If there is need to have a physician prescribe (and a pharmacist dispense) contraceptives, that need is as great for unmarried persons as for married persons.” The Court of Appeals added: “If the prohibition [on distribution to unmarried persons] ... is to be taken to mean that the same physician who can prescribe for married patients does not have sufficient skill to protect the health of patients who lack a marriage certificate, or who may be currently divorced, it is illogical to the point of irrationality.” 429 F. 2d, at 1401. Furthermore, we must join the Court of Appeals in noting that not all contraceptives are potentially dangerous. As a result, if the Massachusetts statute were a health measure, it would not only invidiously discriminate against the unmarried, but also be overbroad with respect to the married, a fact that the Supreme Judicial Court itself seems to have conceded in Sturgis v. Attorney General, 358 Mass., at -, 260 N. E. 2d, at 690, where it noted that “it may well be that certain contraceptive medication and devices constitute no hazard to health, in which event it could be argued that the statute swept too broadly in its prohibition.” “In-this posture,” as the Court of Appeals concluded, “it is impossible to think of the statute as intended as a health measure for the unmarried, and it is almost as difficult to think of it as so intended even as to the married.” 429 F. 2d, at 1401.
But if further proof that the Massachusetts statute is not a health measure is necessary, the argument of Justice Spiegel, who also dissented in Commonwealth v. Baird, 355 Mass., at 759, 247 N. E. 2d, at 582, is conclusive : “It is at best a strained conception to say that the Legislature intended to prevent the distribution of articles 'which may have undesirable, if not dangerous, physical consequences.’ If that was the Legislature’s goal, § 21 is not required” in view of the federal and state laws already regulating the distribution of harmful drugs. See Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, § 503, 52 Stat. 1051, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 353; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., c. 94, § 187A, as amended. We conclude, accordingly, that, despite the statute’s superficial earmarks as a health measure, health, on the face of the statute, may no more reasonably be regarded as its purpose than the deterrence of premarital sexual relations.
Third. If the Massachusetts statute cannot be upheld as a deterrent to fornication or as a health measure, may it, nevertheless, be sustained simply as a prohibition on contraception? The Court of Appeals analysis “led inevitably to the conclusion that, so far as morals are concerned, it is contraceptives per se that are considered immoral — to thq extent that Griswold will permit such a declaration.” 429 F. 2d, at 1401-1402. The Court of Appeals went on to hold, id., at 1402:
“To say that contraceptives are immoral as such, and are to be forbidden to unmarried persons who will nevertheless persist in having intercourse, means that such persons must risk for themselves an unwanted pregnancy, for the child, illegitimacy, and for society, a possible obligation of support. Such a view of morality is not only the very mirror image of sensible legislation; we consider that it conflicts with fundamental human rights. In the absence of demonstrated harm, we hold it is beyond the competency of the state.”
We need not and do not, however, decide that important question in this case because, whatever the rights of the individual to access to contraceptives may be, the rights must be the same for the unmarried and the married alike.
If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the \ marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind . and heart of its own, but an association of two individ- | uals each with a separate intellectual and emotional / makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is j the right of the individual, married or single, to be free j from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters] so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision] whether to bear or beget a child. See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969). See also Skinner v. Okla homa, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 29 (1905).
On the other hand, if Griswold is no bar to a prohibition on the distribution of contraceptives, the State could not, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, outlaw distribution to unmarried but not to married persons. In each case the evil, as perceived by the State, would be identical, and the underinclusion would be invidious. Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U. S. 106, 112-113 (1949), made the point:
“The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in operation.”
Although Mr. Justice Jackson’s comments had reference to administrative regulations, the principle he affirmed has equal application to the legislation here. We hold that by providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are similarly situated, Massachusetts General Laws Ann., c. 272, §§21 and 21 A, violate the Equal Protection Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Court of Appeals below described the recipient of the foam as “an unmarried adult woman.” 429 F. 2d 1398, 1399 (1970). However, there is no evidence in the record about her marital status.
Section 21 provides in full:
“Except as provided in section twenty-one A, whoever sells, lends, gives away, exhibits or offers to sell, lend or give away an instrument or other article intended to be used for self-abuse, or any drug, medicine, instrument or article whatever for the prevention of conception or for causing unlawful abortion, or advertises the same, or writes, prints, or causes to be written or printed a card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement or notice of any kind stating when, where, how, of whom or by what means such article can be purchased or obtained, or manufactures or makes any such article shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.”
Section 21A provides in full:
“A registered physician may administer to or prescribe for any married person drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception. A registered pharmacist actually engaged in the business of pharmacy may furnish such drugs or articles to any married person presenting a prescription from a registered physician.
“A public health agency, a registered nurse, or a maternity health clinic operated by or in an accredited hospital may furnish information to any married person as to where professional advice regarding such drugs or articles may be lawfully obtained.
“This section shall not be construed as affecting the provisions of sections twenty and twenty-one relative to prohibition of advertising of drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception; nor shall this section be construed so as to permit the sale or dispensing of such drugs or articles by means of any vending machine or similar device.”
Appellant suggests that the purpose of the Massachusetts statute is to promote marital fidelity as well as to discourage premarital sex. Under § 21A, however, contraceptives may be made available to married persons without regard to whether they are living with their spouses or the uses to which the contraceptives are to be put. Plainly the legislation has no deterrent effect on extramarital sexual relations.
This factor decisively distinguishes Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44 (1943), where the Court held that a physician lacked standing to bring an action for declaratory relief to challenge, on behalf of his patients, the Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives. The patients were fully able to bring their own action. Underlying the decision was the concern that “the standards of 'case or controversy’ in Article III of the Constitution [not] become blurred,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 481 (1965)— a problem that is not at all involved in this ease.
Indeed, in First Amendment cases we have relaxed our rules of standing without regard to the relationship between the litigant and those whose rights he seeks to assert precisely because application of those rules would have an intolerable, inhibitory effect on freedom of speech. E. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97-98 (1940). See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 22 (1960).
See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), where a custodian, in violation of state law, furnished a child with magazines to distribute on the streets. The Court there implicitly held that the custodian had standing to assert alleged freedom of religion and equal protection rights of the child that were threatened in the very litigation before the Court and that the child had no effective way of asserting herself.
Of course, if we were to conclude that the Massachusetts statute impinges upon fundamental freedoms under Griswold, the statutory classification would have to be not merely rationally related to a valid public purpose but necessary to the achievement of a compelling state interest. E. g., Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967). But just as in Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), we do not have to address the statute’s validity under that test because the law fails to satisfy even the more lenient equal protection standard.
Appellant insists that the unmarried have no right to engage in sexual intercourse and hence no health interest in contraception that needs to be served. The short answer to this contention is that the same devices the distribution of which the State purports to regulate when their asserted purpose is to forestall pregnancy are available without any controls whatsoever so long as their asserted purpose is to prevent the spread of disease. It is inconceivable that the need for health controls varies with the purpose for which the contraceptive is to be used when the physical act in all cases is one and the same.
The Court of Appeals stated, 429 F. 2d, at 1401:
“[W]e must take notice that not all contraceptive devices risk 'undesirable . . . [or] dangerous physical consequences.’ It is 200 years since Casanova recorded the ubiquitous article which, perhaps because of the birthplace of its inventor, he termed a ‘redingote anglais.’ The reputed nationality of the condom has now changed, but we have never heard criticism of it on the side of health. We cannot think that the legislature was unaware of it, or could have thought that it needed a medical prescription. We believe the same could be said of certain other products.”
In Stanley, 394 U. S., at 564, the Court stated:
“[A]Iso fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one’s privacy.
“ ‘The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.’ Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
“See Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; cf. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 462 (1958).”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | E | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act), 100 Stat. 3756, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq., provides that a court may award attorney's fees and costs "incurred [by a claimant] in any proceeding on" an unsuccessful vaccine-injury "petition filed under section 300aa-11," if that petition "was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought." § 300aa-15(e)(1). The Act's limitations provision states that "no petition may be filed for compensation" more than 36 months after the claimant's initial symptoms occur. § 300aa-16(a)(2). The question before us is whether an untimely petition can garner an award of attorney's fees. We agree with a majority of the en banc Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it can.
I
A
The NCVIA "establishes a no-fault compensation program 'designed to work faster and with greater ease than the civil tort system.' " Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1068, 1073, 179 L.Ed.2d 1 (2011) (quoting Shalala v. Whitecotton, 514 U.S. 268, 269, 115 S.Ct. 1477, 131 L.Ed.2d 374 (1995) ). Congress enacted the NCVIA to stabilize the vaccine market and expedite compensation to injured parties after complaints mounted regarding the inefficiencies and costs borne by both injured consumers and vaccine manufacturers under the previous civil tort compensation regime. 562 U.S., at ---- - ----, 131 S.Ct., at 1072-1073; H.R.Rep. No. 99-908, pt. 1, pp. 6-7 (1986) (hereinafter H.R. Rep.).
The compensation program's procedures are straightforward. First, "[a] proceeding for compensation under the Program for a vaccine-related injury or death shall be initiated by service upon the Secretary [for the Department of Health and Human Services] and the filing of a petition containing the matter prescribed by subsection (c) of this section with the United States Court of Federal Claims." 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(a)(1). Subsection (c) provides in relevant part that a petition must include "an affidavit, and supporting documentation, demonstrating that the person who suffered such injury" was actually vaccinated and suffered an injury. § 300aa-11(c)(1). Next, upon receipt of an NCVIA petition, "[t]he clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims shall immediately forward the filed petition to the chief special master for assignment to a special master." § 300aa-11(a)(1). This special master then "makes an informal adjudication of the petition." Bruesewitz, 562 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 1073 (citing § 300aa-12(d)(3) ). A successful claimant may recover medical costs, lost earning capacity, and an award for pain and suffering, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a), with compensation paid out from a federal trust fund supported by an excise tax levied on each dose of certain covered vaccines, see 26 U.S.C. §§ 4131, 4132, 9510 ; 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(f)(4)(A). But under the Act's limitations provision, "no petition may be filed for compensation under the Program for [a vaccine-related] injury after the expiration of 36 months after the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of the significant aggravation of" the alleged injury. § 300aa-16(a)(2).
The Act also includes an unusual scheme for compensating attorneys who work on NCVIA petitions. See § 300aa-15(e). "No attorney may charge any fee for services in connection with a petition filed under section 300aa-11 of this title." § 300aa-15(e)(3). But a court may award attorney's fees in certain circumstances. In the case of successful petitions, the award of attorney's fees is automatic. § 300aa-15(e)(1) ("In awarding compensation on a petition filed under section 300aa-11 of this title the special master or court shall also award as part of such compensation an amount to cover ... reasonable attorneys' fees, and ... other costs"). For unsuccessful petitions, "the special master or court may award an amount of compensation to cover petitioner's reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in any proceeding on such petition if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought." Ibid. In other words, "[a]ttorney's fees are provided, not only for successful cases, but even for unsuccessful claims that are not frivolous." Bruesewitz, 562 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 1074.
B
Respondent, Dr. Melissa Cloer, received three Hepatitis-B immunizations from September 1996 to April 1997. Shortly after receiving the third vaccine, Dr. Cloer began to experience numbness and strange sensations in her left forearm and hand. She sought treatment in 1998 and 1999, but the diagnoses she received were inconclusive. By then, Dr. Cloer was experiencing numbness in her face, arms, and legs, and she had difficulty walking. She intermittently suffered these symptoms until 2003, when she began to experience the full manifestations of, and was eventually diagnosed with, multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2004, Dr. Cloer became aware of a link between MS and the Hepatitis-B vaccine, and in September 2005, she filed a claim for compensation under the NCVIA, alleging that the vaccinations she received had caused or exacerbated her MS.
Dr. Cloer's petition was sent by the clerk of the Court of Federal Claims to the Chief Special Master, who went on to adjudicate it. After reviewing the petition and its supporting documentation, the Chief Special Master concluded that Dr. Cloer's claim was untimely because the Act's 36-month limitations period began to run when she first experienced the symptoms of MS in 1997. Cloer v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 05-1002V, 2008 WL 2275574, at *1, *10 (Fed.Cl., May 15, 2008) (opinion of Golkiewicz, Chief Special Master) (citing § 300aa-16(a)(2) (NCVIA's limitations provision )). Relying on Federal Circuit precedent, the Chief Special Master also rejected Dr. Cloer's argument that the NCVIA's limitations period should be subject to equitable tolling. Id., at *9 (citing Brice v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 240 F.3d 1367, 1373 (2001) ). A divided panel of the Federal Circuit reversed the Chief Special Master, concluding that the NCVIA's limitations period did not commence until "the medical community at large objectively recognize[d] a link between the vaccine and the injury." Cloer v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 603 F.3d 1341, 1346 (2010).
The en banc court then reversed the panel's decision, Cloer v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322 (2011), cert. denied, 566 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1908, 182 L.Ed.2d 807 (2012), and held that the statute's limitations period begins to run on "the calendar date of the occurrence of the first medically recognized symptom or manifestation of onset of the injury claimed by the petitioner." 654 F.3d, at 1324-1325. The Court of Appeals also held that the Act's limitations provision was nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling in limited circumstances, overruling its prior holding in Brice . 654 F.3d, at 1341-1344. The court concluded, however, that Dr. Cloer was ineligible for tolling and that her petition was untimely. Id., at 1344-1345.
Following this decision, Dr. Cloer moved for an award of attorney's fees. The en banc Federal Circuit agreed with her that a person who files an untimely NCVIA petition "assert[ing] a reasonable limitations argument" may recover fees and costs so long as " 'the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.' " 675 F.3d 1358, 1359-1361 (2012) (quoting § 300aa-15(e)(1) ). Six judges disagreed with this conclusion and instead read the NCVIA to bar such awards for untimely petitions. Id., at 1364-1368 (Bryson, J., dissenting). We granted the Government's petition for writ of certiorari. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 638, 184 L.Ed.2d 452 (2012). We now affirm.
II
A
As in any statutory construction case, "[w]e start, of course, with the statutory text," and proceed from the understanding that " [u]nless otherwise defined, statutory terms are generally interpreted in accordance with their ordinary meaning." BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84, 91, 127 S.Ct. 638, 166 L.Ed.2d 494 (2006). The Act's fees provision ties eligibility for attorney's fees broadly to "any proceeding on such petition," referring specifically to "a petition filed under section 300aa-11." 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(e)(1), (3). Section 300aa-11 provides that "[a] proceeding for compensation" is "initiated" by "service upon the Secretary" and "the filing of a petition containing" certain documentation with the clerk of the Court of Federal Claims who then "immediately forward[s] the filed petition" for assignment to a special master. § 300aa-11(a)(1). See supra, at 2.
Nothing in these two provisions suggests that the reason for the subsequent dismissal of a petition, such as its untimeliness, nullifies the initial filing of that petition. We have explained that "[a]n application is 'filed,' as that term is commonly understood, when it is delivered to, and accepted by, the appropriate court officer for placement into the official record." Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000). When this ordinary meaning is applied to the text of the statute, it is clear that an NCVIA petition which is delivered to the clerk of the court, forwarded for processing, and adjudicated in a proceeding before a special master is a "petition filed under section 300aa-11." 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). And so long as such a petition was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis, it is eligible for an award of attorney's fees, even if it is ultimately unsuccessful. Ibid. If Congress had intended to limit fee awards to timely petitions, it could easily have done so. But the NCVIA instead authorizes courts to award attorney's fees for those unsuccessful petitions " brought in good faith and [for which] there was a reasonable basis." Ibid.
The Government argues that the Act's limitations provision, which states that "no petition may be filed for compensation" 36 months after a claimant's initial symptoms began, § 300aa-16(a)(2), constitutes "a statutory prerequisite to the filing of a petition 'for compensation under the Program,' " Brief for Petitioner 16. Thus, the Government contends, a petition that fails to comply with these time limits is not "a petition filed under section 300aa-11" and is therefore ineligible for fees under § 300aa-15(e)(1). See 675 F.3d, at 1364-1366 (Bryson, J., dissenting).
The Government's argument lacks textual support. First, as noted, there is no cross-reference to the Act's limitations provision in its fees provision, § 300aa-15(e), or the other section it references, § 300aa-11(a)(1). When these two linked sections are read in tandem they simply indicate that petitions filed with the clerk of the court are eligible for attorney's fees so long as they comply with the other requirements of the Act's fees provision. By its terms, the NCVIA requires nothing more for the award of attorney's fees. A petition filed in violation of the limitations period will not result in the payment of compensation, of course, but it is still a petition filed under § 300aa-11(a)(1). When the Act does require compliance with the limitations period, it provides so expressly. For example, § 300aa-11(a)(2)(A) prevents claimants from bringing suit against vaccine manufacturers "unless a petition has been filed, in accordance with section 300aa-16 of this title [the limitations provision], for compensation under the Program for such injury or death." (Emphasis added.) We have long held that "[w]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30, 118 S.Ct. 285, 139 L.Ed.2d 215 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The absence of any cross-reference to the limitations provision in either the fees provision, § 300aa-15(e)(1), or the instructions for initiating a compensation proceeding, § 300aa-11(a)(1), indicates that a petition can be "filed" without being "in accordance with [the limitations provision]." Tellingly, nothing in § 300aa-11(a)(1) requires a petitioner to allege or demonstrate the timeliness of his or her petition to initiate such a proceeding. Second, to adopt the Government's position, we would have to conclude that a petition like Dr. Cloer's, which was "filed" under the ordinary meaning of that term but was later found to be untimely, was never filed at all because, on the Government's reading, "no petition may be filed for compensation" late. § 300aa-16(a)(2) (emphasis added). Yet the court below identified numerous instances throughout the NCVIA where the word "filed" is given its ordinary meaning, 675 F.3d, at 1361, and the Government does not challenge this aspect of its decision. Indeed, the Government's reading would produce anomalous results with respect to these other NCVIA provisions. Consider § 300aa-12(b)(2), which provides that "[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 300aa-11 of this title the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register." If the NCVIA's limitations provision worked to void the filing of an untimely petition, then one would expect the Secretary to make timeliness determinations prior to publishing such notice or to strike any petitions found to be untimely from the Federal Register. But there is no indication that the Secretary does either of these things.
The Government asks us to adopt a different definition of the term "filed" for a single subsection so that for fees purposes, and only for fees purposes, a petition filed out of time must be treated retroactively as though it was never filed in the first place. Nothing in the text or structure of the statute requires the unusual result the Government asks us to accept. In the NCVIA, the word "filed" carries its common meaning. See Artuz, 531 U.S., at 8, 121 S.Ct. 361. That "no petition may be filed for compensation" after the limitations period has run does not mean that a late petition was never filed at all.
Our "inquiry ceases [in a statutory construction case] if the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent." Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The text of the statute is clear: like any other unsuccessful petition, an untimely petition brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis that is filed with-meaning delivered to and received by-the clerk of the Court of Federal Claims is eligible for an award of attorney's fees.
B
The Government's position is also inconsistent with the goals of the fees provision itself. A stated purpose of the Act's fees scheme was to avoid "limit[ing] petitioners' ability to obtain qualified assistance" by making fees awards available for "non-prevailing, good-faith claims." H.R. Rep., at 22. The Government does not explain why Congress would have intended to discourage counsel from representing petitioners who, because of the difficulty of distinguishing between the initial symptoms of a vaccine-related injury and an unrelated malady, see, e.g., Smith v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 02-93V, 2006 WL 5610517, at *6-*7 (Fed.Cl., July 21, 2006) (opinion of Golkiewicz, Chief Special Master), may have good-faith claims with a reasonable basis that will only later be found untimely.
III
The Government offers two additional lines of argument for barring the award of attorney's fees for untimely petitions. It first invokes two canons of construction: the canon favoring strict construction of waivers of sovereign immunity and the " 'presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar [common-law] principles.' " Brief for Petitioner 32 (quoting United States v. Texas, 507 U.S. 529, 534, 113 S.Ct. 1631, 123 L.Ed.2d 245 (1993) ). Similarly, the Government also argues that the NCVIA should be construed so as to minimize complex and costly fees litigation. But as the Government acknowledges, such canons and policy arguments come into play only "[t]o the extent that the Vaccine Act is ambiguous." Brief for Petitioner 28. These "rules of thumb" give way when "the words of a statute are unambiguous," as they are here. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992).
Second, the Government argues that permitting the recovery of attorney's fees for untimely petitions will force special masters to carry out costly and wasteful "shadow trials," with no benefit to claimants, in order to determine whether these late petitions were brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis. We reiterate that "when [a] statute's language is plain, the sole function of the courts-at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd-is to enforce it according to its terms." Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, even if the plain text of the NCVIA requires that special masters occasionally carry out such "shadow trials," that is not such an absurd burden as to require departure from the words of the Act. This is particularly true here because Congress has specifically provided for such "shadow trials" by permitting the award of attorney's fees "in any proceeding [on an unsuccessful] petition" if such petition was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1) (emphasis added), irrespective of the reasons for the petition's failure, see, e.g., Caves v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., No. 07-443V, 2012 WL 6951286, at *2, *13 (Fed.Cl., Dec. 20, 2012) (opinion of Moran, Special Master) (awarding attorney's fees despite petitioner's failure to prove causation).
In any event, the Government's fears appear to us exaggerated. Special masters consistently make fee determinations on the basis of the extensive documentation required by § 300aa-11(c) and included with the petition. Indeed, when adjudicating the timeliness of a petition, the special master may often have to develop a good sense of the merits of a case, and will therefore be able to determine if a reasonable basis exists for the petitioner's claim, including whether there is a good-faith reason for the untimely filing. In this case, for example, the Chief Special Master conducted a "review of the record as a whole," including the medical evidence that would have supported the merits of Dr. Cloer's claim, before determining that her petition was untimely. Cloer, 2008 WL 2275574, at *1-*2, *10.
The Government also argues that permitting attorney's fees on untimely petitions will lead to the filing of more untimely petitions. But the Government offers no evidence to support its speculation. Additionally, this argument is premised on the assumption that in the pursuit of fees, attorneys will choose to bring claims lacking good faith or a reasonable basis in derogation of their ethical duties. There is no basis for such an assumption. Finally, the special masters have shown themselves more than capable of discerning untimely claims supported by good faith and a reasonable basis from those that are specious. Supra, at 1896.
* * *
We hold that an NCVIA petition found to be untimely may qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for its claim.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Justice SCALIA and Justice THOMAS join all but Part II-B of this opinion.
The relevant paragraph provides:
"(1) In awarding compensation on a petition filed under section 300aa-11 of this title the special master or court shall also award as part of such compensation an amount to cover-
"(A) reasonable attorneys' fees, and
"(B) other costs,
"incurred in any proceeding on such petition. If the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims on such a petition does not award compensation, the special master or court may award an amount of compensation to cover petitioner's reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in any proceeding on such petition if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought." § 300aa-15(e).
For simplicity, we refer to attorney's fees and costs as simply attorney's fees.
The en banc dissent reasoned that a dismissal for untimeliness does not constitute a judgment on the merits of a petition. See 675 F.3d 1358, 1365 (C.A.Fed.2012) (opinion of Bryson, J.). That argument is not pressed here by the Government, which acknowledged at oral argument that dismissals for untimeliness result in judgment against the petitioner. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12-13.
The Government suggests that giving the words of their statute their plain meaning would produce incongruous results; notably, it might indicate that "a failure to comply with the limitations provision would not even bar recovery under the Compensation Program itself because 42 U.S.C. 300aa-13 ('Determination of eligibility and compensation') does not expressly cross-reference the limitations provision." Brief for Petitioner 18. The Government's argument assumes that both sections are equivalently affected by absence of a cross-reference. This is incorrect. The Government is right that because "the law typically treats a limitations defense as an affirmative defense," John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 133, 128 S.Ct. 750, 169 L.Ed.2d 591 (2008), a failure to apply the limitations provision to the section outlining the conditions under which compensation should be awarded would be "contrary to [the Act's] plain meaning and would produce an absurd result," Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229, 252, 130 S.Ct. 1324, 176 L.Ed.2d 79 (2010). In contrast, giving the Act's fees provision its plain meaning would produce no such absurd result. It would simply allow petitioners to recover attorney's fees for untimely petitions.
If the NCVIA's limitations period were jurisdictional, then we might reach a different conclusion because the Chief Special Master would have lacked authority to act on Dr. Cloer's untimely petition in the first place. But the Government chose not to seek certiorari from the Federal Circuit's en banc decision holding that the period is nonjurisdictional, see Cloer v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1341-1344 (2011), and the Government now acknowledges that the NCVIA contains no "clear statement" that § 300aa-16's filing deadlines carry jurisdictional consequences. See Reply Brief 7 (discussing Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 817, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013) ).
Dr. Cloer's petition was published, and remains, in the Federal Register. See 70 Fed.Reg. 73011, 73014 (2005).
See, e.g., Wells v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 28 Fed.Cl. 647, 649-651 (1993) ; Rydzewski v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 99-571V, 2008 WL 382930, at *2-*6 (Fed.Cl., Jan. 29, 2008) (opinion of Moran, Special Master); Hamrick v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., No. 99-683V, 2007 WL 4793152, at *2-*3, *5-*9 (Fed.Cl., Nov. 19, 2007) (opinion of Moran, Special Master).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue is whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services may rely on published medical-vocational guidelines to determine a claimant’s right to Social Security disability benefits.
I
The Social Security Act defines “disability” in terms of the effect a physical or mental impairment has on a person’s ability to function in the workplace. It provides disability benefits only to persons who are unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment.” 81 Stat. 868, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(1)(A). And it specifies that a person must “not only [be] unable to do his previous work but [must be unable], considering his age, education, and work experience, [to] engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.” 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
In 1978, the Secretary of Health and Human Services promulgated regulations implementing this definition. See 43 Fed. Reg. 55349 (1978) (codified, as amended, at 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P (1982)). The regulations recognize that certain impairments are so severe that they prevent a person from pursuing any gainful work. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(d) (1982) (referring to impairments listed at 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1). A claimant who establishes that he suffers from one of these impairments will be considered disabled without further inquiry. Ibid. If a claimant suffers from a less severe impairment, the Secretary must determine whether the claimant retains the ability to perform either his former work or some less demanding employment. If a claimant can pursue his former occupation, he is not entitled to disability benefits. See §404.1520(e). If he cannot, the Secretary must determine whether the claimant retains the capacity to pursue less demanding work. See §404.1520(f)(1).
■ The regulations divide this last inquiry into two stages. First, the Secretary must assess each claimant’s present job qualifications. The regulations direct the Secretary to consider the factors Congress has identified as relevant: physical ability, age, education, and work experience. See 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 CFR § 404.1520(f) (1982). Second, she must consider whether jobs exist in the national economy that a person having the claimant’s qualifications could perform. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1566-404.1569 (1982).
Prior to 1978, the Secretary relied on vocational experts to establish the existence of suitable jobs in the national economy. After a claimant’s limitations and abilities had been determined at a hearing, a vocational expert ordinarily would testify whether work existed that the claimant could perform. Although this testimony often was based on standardized guides, see 43 Fed. Reg. 9286 (1978), vocational experts frequently were criticized for their inconsistent treatment of similarly situated claimants. See Santise v. Schweiker, 676 F. 2d 925, 930 (CA3 1982); J. Mashaw, C. Goetz, F. Goodman, W. Schwartz, P. Verkuil, & M. Carrow, Social Security Hearings and Appeals 78-79 (1978). To improve both the uniformity and efficiency of this determination, the Secretary promulgated medical-vocational guidelines as part of the 1978 regulations. See 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2 (1982).
These guidelines relieve the Secretary of the need to rely on vocational experts by establishing through rulemaking the types and numbers of jobs that exist in the national economy. They consist of a matrix of the four factors identified by Congress — physical ability, age, education, and work experience — and set forth rules that identify whether jobs requiring specific combinations of these factors exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Where a claimant’s qualifications correspond to the job requirements identified by a rule, the guidelines direct a conclusion as to whether work exists that the claimant could perform. If such work exists, the claimant is not considered disabled.
t — I HH
In 1979, Carmen Campbell applied for disability benefits because a back condition and hypertension prevented her from continuing her work as a hotel maid. After her application was denied, she requested a hearing de novo before an Administrative Law Judge. He determined that her back problem was not severe enough to find her disabled without further inquiry, and accordingly considered whether she retained the ability to perform either her past work or some less strenuous job. App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. He concluded that even though Campbell’s back condition prevented her from returning to her work as a maid, she retained the physical capacity to do light work. Ibid. In accordance with the regulations, he found that Campbell was 52 years old, that her previous employment consisted of unskilled jobs, and that she had a limited education. Id., at 28a-29a. He noted that Campbell, who had been born in Panama, experienced difficulty in speaking and writing English. She was able, however, to understand and read English fairly well. App. 42. Relying on the medical-vocational guidelines, the Administrative Law Judge found that a significant number of jobs existed that a person of Campbell’s qualifications could perform. Accordingly, he concluded that she was not disabled. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a.
This determination was upheld by both the Social Security Appeals Council, id., at 16a, and the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, id., at 15a. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. Campbell v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Services, 665 F. 2d 48 (1981). It accepted the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that Campbell retained the ability to do light work. And it did not suggest that he had classified Campbell’s age, education, or work experience incorrectly. The court noted, however, that it
“has consistently required that ‘the Secretary identify specific alternative occupations available in the national economy that would be suitable for the claimant’ and that ‘these jobs be supported by “a job description clarifying the nature of the job, [and] demonstrating that the job does not require” exertion or skills not possessed by the claimant.’” Id., at 53 (quoting Decker v. Harris, 647 F. 2d 291, 298 (CA2 1981)).
The court found that the medical-vocational guidelines did not provide the specific evidence that it previously had required. It explained that in the absence of such a showing, “the claimant is deprived of any real chance to present evidence showing that she cannot in fact perform the types of jobs that are administratively noticed by the guidelines.” 665 F. 2d, at 53. The court concluded that because the Secretary had failed to introduce evidence that specific alternative jobs existed, the determination that Campbell was not disabled was not supported by substantial evidence. Id., at 54.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. Schweiker v. Campbell, 457 U. S. 1131 (1982). We now reverse.
III
The Secretary argues that the Court of Appeals’ holding effectively prevents the use of the medical-vocational guidelines. By requiring her to identify specific alternative jobs in every disability hearing, the court has rendered the guidelines useless. An examination of both the language of the Social Security Act and its legislative history clearly demonstrates that the Secretary may proceed by regulation to determine whether substantial gainful work exists in the national economy. Campbell argues in response that the Secretary has misperceived the Court of Appeals’ holding. Campbell reads the decision as requiring only that the Secretary give disability claimants concrete examples of the kinds of factual determinations that the administrative law judge will be making. This requirement does not defeat the guidelines’ purpose; it ensures that they will be applied only where appropriate. Accordingly, respondent argues that we need not address the guidelines’ validity.
A
The Court of Appeals held that “[i]n failing to show suitable available alternative jobs for Ms. Campbell, the Secretary’s finding of ‘not disabled’ is not supported by substantial evidence.” 665 F. 2d, at 54. It thus rejected the proposition that “the guidelines provide adequate evidence of a claimant’s ability to perform a specific alternative occupation,” id., at 53, and remanded for the Secretary to put into evidence “particular types of jobs suitable to the capabilities of Ms. Campbell,” id., at 54. The court’s requirement that additional evidence be introduced on this issue prevents the Secretary from putting the guidelines to their intended use and implicitly calls their validity into question. Accordingly, we think the decision below requires us to consider whether the Secretary may rely on medical-vocational guidelines in appropriate cases.
The Social Security Act directs the Secretary to “adopt reasonable and proper rules and regulations to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same” in disability cases. 42 U. S. C. § 405(a). As we previously have recognized, Congress has “conferred on the Secretary exceptionally broad authority to prescribe standards for applying certain sections of the [Social Security] Act.” Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. S. 34, 43 (1981); see Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 425 (1977). Where, as here, the statute expressly entrusts the Secretary with the responsibility for implementing a provision by regulation, our review is limited to determining whether the regulations promulgated exeeded the Secretary's statutory authority and whether they are arbitrary and capricious. Herweg v. Ray, 455 U. S. 265, 275 (1982); Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, supra, at 44.
We do not think that the Secretary’s reliance on medical-vocational guidelines is inconsistent with the Social Security Act. It is true that the statutory scheme contemplates that disability hearings will be individualized determinations based on evidence adduced at a hearing. See 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(2)(A) (specifying consideration of each individual’s condition); 42 U. S. C. § 405(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V) (disability determination to be based on evidence adduced at hearing). But this does not bar the Secretary from relying on rulemaking to resolve certain classes of issues. The Court has recognized that even where an agency’s enabling statute expressly requires it to hold a hearing, the agency may rely on its rulemaking authority to determine issues that do not require case-by-case consideration. See FPC v. Texaco Inc., 377 U. S. 33, 41-44 (1964); United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 205 (1956). A contrary holding would require the agency continually to relitigate issues that may be established fairly and efficiently in a single rulemaking proceeding. See FPC v. Texaco Inc., supra, at 44.
The Secretary’s decision to rely on medical-vocational guidelines is consistent with Texaco and Storer. As noted above, in determining whether a claimant can perform less strenuous work, the Secretary must make two determinations. She must assess each claimant’s individual abilities and then determine whether jobs exist that a person having the claimant’s qualifications could perform. The first inquiry involves a determination of historic facts, and the regulations properly require the Secretary to make these findings on the basis of evidence adduced at a hearing. We note that the regulations afford claimants ample opportunity both to present evidence relating to their own abilities and to offer evidence that the guidelines do not apply to them. The second inquiry requires the Secretary to determine an issue that is not unique to each claimant — the types and numbers of jobs that exist in the national economy. This type of general factual issue may be resolved as fairly through rulemaking as by introducing the testimony of vocational experts at each disability hearing. See American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 310, 319, 359 F. 2d 624, 633 (1966) (en banc).
As the Secretary has argued, the use of published guidelines brings with it a uniformity that previously had been perceived as lacking. To require the Secretary to relitigate the existence of jobs in the national economy at each hearing would hinder needlessly an already overburdened agency. We conclude that the Secretary’s use of medical-vocational guidelines does not conflict with the statute, nor can we say on the record before us that they are arbitrary and capricious.
B
We now consider Campbell’s argument that the Court of Appeals properly required the Secretary to specify alternative available jobs. Campbell contends that such a showing informs claimants of the type of issues to be established at the hearing and is required by both the Secretary’s regulation, 20 CFR §404.944 (1982), and the Due Process Clause.
By referring to notice and an opportunity to respond, see 665 F. 2d, at 53-54, the decision below invites the interpretation given it by respondent. But we do not think that the decision fairly can be said to present the issues she raises. The Court of Appeals did not find that the Secretary failed to give sufficient notice in violation of the Due Process Clause or any statutory provision designed to implement it. See 42 U. S. C. §405(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V) (requiring that disability claimants be given “reasonable notice and [an] opportunity for a hearing”). Nor did it find that the Secretary violated any duty imposed by regulation. See 20 CFR § 404.944 (1982) (requiring the administrative law judge to “loo[k] fully into the issues”). Rather the court’s reference to notice and an opportunity to respond appears to be based on a principle of administrative law — that when an agency takes official or administrative notice of facts, a litigant must be given an adequate opportunity to respond. See 5 U. S. C. § 556(e); McDaniel v. Celebrezze, 331 F. 2d 426 (CA4 1964).
This principle is inapplicable, however, when the agency has promulgated valid regulations. Its purpose is to provide a procedural safeguard: to ensure the accuracy of the facts of which an agency takes notice. But when the accuracy of those facts already has been tested fairly during rulemaking, the rulemaking proceeding itself provides sufficient procedural protection. See, e. g., Rivers v. Schweiker, 684 F. 2d 1144, 1156 (CA5 1982); Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F. 2d 1351, 1362 (CA11 1982); Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 677 F. 2d 167, 169 (CA1 1982).
> HH
The Court of Appeals’ decision would require the Secretary to introduce evidence of specific available jobs that respondent could perform. It would limit severely her ability to rely on the medical-vocational guidelines. We think the Secretary reasonably could choose to rely on these guidelines in appropriate cases rather than on the testimony of a vocational expert in each case. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
The regulations state that the Secretary will inquire into each of these factors and make an individual assessment of each claimant’s abilities and limitations. See 20 CFR §§404.1545-404.1565 (1982); cf. 20 CFR § 404.944 (1982). In determining a person’s physical ability, she will consider, for example, the extent to which his capacity for performing tasks such as lifting objects or his ability to stand for long periods of time has been impaired. See §404.1545.
The Social Security hearing system is “probably the largest adjudicative agency in the western world.” J. Mashaw, C. Goetz, F. Goodman, W. Schwartz, P. Verkuil, & M. Carrow, Social Security Hearings and Appeals xi (1978). Approximately 2.3 million claims for disability benefits were filed in fiscal year 1981. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 1981, pp. 32, 35 (1982). More than a quarter of a million of these claims required a hearing before an administrative law judge. Id., at 38. The need for efficiency is self-evident.
Each of these four factors is divided into defined categories. A person’s ability to perform physical tasks, for example, is categorized according to the physical exertion requirements necessary to perform varying classes of jobs — i. e., whether a claimant can perform sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work. 20 CFR §404.1567 (1982). Each of these work categories is defined in terms of the physical demands it places on a worker, such as the weight of objects he must lift and whether extensive movement or use of arm and leg controls is required. Ibid.
For example, Rule 202.10 provides that a significant number of jobs exist for a person who can perform light work, is closely approaching advanced age, has a limited education but who is literate and can communicate in English, and whose previous work has been unskilled.
The regulations recognize that the rules only describe “major functional and vocational patterns.” 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00(a) (1982). If an individual’s capabilities are not described accurately by a rule, the regulations make clear that the individual’s particular limitations must be considered. See app. 2, §§ 200.00(a), (d). Additionally, the regulations declare that the administrative law judge will not apply the age categories “mechanically in a borderline situation,” 20 CFR § 404.1563(a) (1982), and recognize that some claimants may possess limitations that are not factored into the guidelines, see app. 2, § 200.00(e). Thus, the regulations provide that the rules will be applied only when they describe a claimant’s abilities and limitations accurately.
The Social Security Act provides each claimant with a right to a de novo hearing. 42 U. S. C. § 405(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V); §421(d). The regulations specify when a claimant may exercise this right. See 20 CFR §§404.929-404.930 (1982).
The Administrative Law Judge did not accept Campbell’s claim that her hypertension constituted an impairment. He found that this claim was not documented by the record and noted that her current medication appeared sufficient to keep her blood pressure under control. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a.
Campbell later reapplied for disability benefits and was found disabled as of January 1,1981. See Brief for Petitioner 8, n. 7. The Secretary’s subsequent decision does not moot this case since Campbell is claiming entitlement to benefits prior to January 1, 1981.
Every other Court of Appeals addressing the question has upheld the Secretary’s use of the guidelines. See Rivers v. Schweiker, 684 F. 2d 1144, 1157-1158 (CA5 1982); McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F. 2d 1138, 1144-1146 (CA8 1982); Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 677 F. 2d 167, 169 (CA1 1982); Santise v. Schweiker, 676 F. 2d 925, 934-936 (CA3 1982); Cummins v. Schweiker, 670 F. 2d 81, 82-83 (CA7 1982); Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 667 F. 2d 524, 529-535 (CA6 1981); Frady v. Harris, 646 F. 2d 143, 145 (CA4 1981). One Court of Appeals has agreed that the Secretary may use medical-vocational guidelines but has found that with respect to age the guidelines are arbitrary. See Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F. 2d 1351, 1359-1361 (CA11 1982), cert. pending, No. 82-816. The instant case does not present the issue addressed in Broz.
The Courts of Appeals have read the decision below as implicitly invalidating the guidelines. See McCoy v. Schweiker, supra, at 1145; Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, supra, at 169; Santise v. Schweiker, supra, at 937, and n. 25.
Since Congress amended the Social Security Act in 1954 to provide for disability benefits, Pub. L. 761, § 106, 68 Stat. 1079, it repeatedly has suggested that the Secretary promulgate regulations defining the criteria for evaluating disability. See, e. g., Subcommittee on the Administration of the Social Security Laws of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Administration of Social Security Disability Insurance Program: Preliminary Report, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 17-18 (Comm. Print 1960) (requesting Secretary to develop “specific criteria for the weight to be given nonmedical factors in the evaluation of disability”); House Committee on Ways and Means, Committee Staff Report on the Disability Insurance Program, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (Comm. Print 1974) (recommending that the Secretary promulgate regulations defining disability to ease accelerating caseload); Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, H. R. 8076 — Disability Insurance Amendment of 1977, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (Comm. Print 1977) (comments of Rep. Burke) (noting with approval that the Secretary had promised to promulgate medical-vocational guidelines to define disability). While these sources do not establish the original congressional intent, they indicate that later Congresses perceived that regulations such as the guidelines would be consistent with the statute.
Both FPC v. Texaco Inc., 377 U. S. 33, 40 (1964), and United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 205 (1956), were careful to note that the statutory scheme at issue allowed an individual applicant to show that the rule promulgated should not be applied to him. The regulations here provide a claimant with equal or greater protection since they state that an administrative law judge will not apply the rules contained in the guidelines when they fail to describe a claimant’s particular limitations. See n. 5, supra.
Respondent did not raise either her due process or her regulatory argument below. See Brief for Appellant in Campbell v. Schweiker, No. 81-6108 (CA2); Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. Nor has respondent filed a cross-petition. As she prevailed below, we could consider grounds supporting her judgment different from those on which the Court of Appeals rested its decision. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475-476, n. 6 (1970). But where the ground presented here has not been raised below we exercise this authority “only in exceptional cases.” McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434 (1940). We do not think this is such a case.
Alternatively, respondent suggests that if the Administrative Law Judge had inquired conscientiously and fully into the relevant facts, as required by 20 CFR § 404.944 (1982), he would have concluded that she was not capable of performing light work. The Secretary concedes that § 404.944 requires such an inquiry, see Brief for Petitioner 42, but argues that the inquiry undertaken by the Administrative Law Judge satisfied any regulatory duty. Again respondent appears not to have presented her § 404.944 argument to the Court of Appeals, and we decline to reach it here.
The Court of Appeals did not identify any basis for imposing this requirement other than its earlier decision in Decker v. Harris, 647 F. 2d 291 (CA2 1981). Decker, however, identified the source of this requirement more clearly. It stated: “This requirement of specificity . . . assures the claimant of adequate notice of the grounds on which his claim may be denied, providing him with an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. See generally 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980).” Id., at 298.
In § 15.18 of his treatise, Professor Davis addresses the question of administrative or official notice of material facts in disability cases and the need for an adequate opportunity to respond. He states that an administrative law judge may take administrative notice of jobs in the national economy. He emphasizes, however, that “[a] quick remark by an ALJ that he takes official notice of availability of jobs in the national economy that would be suitable for the claimant could be unfair for lack of sufficient specificity. The jobs should be identified, their characteristics should be stated. . . .” § 15.18, at 204 (emphasis added). Decker’s reference to this treatise makes clear that the requirement of specificity derives from a principle of administrative law.
Respondent does not challenge the rulemaking itself, and, as noted above, respondent was accorded a de novo hearing to introduce evidence on issues, such as physical and mental limitations, that require individualized consideration. See supra, at 462-468.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
When a charge is filed under § 8 (b) (4) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the provision banning so-called jurisdictional disputes, the Board must under § 10 (k) “hear and determine the dispute out of which [the] unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless... the parties to such dispute” adjust or agree upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. The issue here is whether an employer, picketed to force reassignment of work, is a “party” to the “dispute” for purposes of § 10 (k). When the two unions involved, but not the employer, have agreed upon a method of settlement, must the Board dismiss the § 10 (k) proceedings or must it proceed to determine the dispute with the employer being afforded a chance to participate?
I
Texas State Tile & Terrazzo Co. (Texas State) and Martini Tile & Terrazzo Co. (Martini) are contractors in Houston, Texas, engaged in the business of installing tile and terrazzo. Both have collective-bargaining agreements with the Tile, Terrazzo and Marble Setters Local Union No. 20 (Tile Setters) and have characteristically used members of the Tile Setters union for laying tile and also for work described in the collective-bargaining contract as applying “a coat or coats of mortar, prepared to proper tolerance to receive tile on floors, walls and ceiling regardless of whether the mortar coat is wet or dry at the time the tile is applied to it.”
This case arose when Plasterers’ Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Association of Houston, Texas (Plasterers), picketed the job sites of Texas State and Martini claiming that the work of applying the mortar to receive tile was the work of the Plasterers’ union and not of the Tile Setters. Neither Texas State nor Martini had a collective-bargaining contract with the Plasterers or regularly employed workers represented by that union.
Before the Texas State picketing began, the Plasterers submitted their claim to the disputed work to the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes (Joint Board), a body established by the Building Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and by certain employer groups. Both the Plasterers’ and the Tile Setters’ locals were bound by Joint Board decisions because their international unions were members of the AFL-CIO’s Building Trades Department. Neither Texas State nor Martini had agreed to be bound by Joint Board procedures and decisions, however. The Joint Board found the work in dispute to be covered by an agreement of August 1917, between the two international unions, and awarded the work to the Plasterers. When Texas State and the Tile Setters refused to acquiesce in the Joint Board decision and change the work assignment, the Plasterers began the picketing of Texas State which formed the basis for the § 8 (b) (4) (D) charges. The Plasterers also picketed a jobsite where Martini employees, members of the Tile Setters, were installing tile, although this dispute had not been submitted to the Joint Board.
Martini and Southwestern Construction Co., the general contractor that had hired Texas State, filed § 8 (b) (4) (D) unfair labor practice charges against the Plasterers, and the NLRB’s Regional Director noticed a consolidated § 10 (k) hearing to determine the dispute. Southwestern, Texas State, Martini, and the two unions participated in the hearing. A panel of the Board noted that the Tile Setters admitted being bound by Joint Board procedures, but deemed the Joint Board decision to lack controlling weight, and “after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors” awarded the work to the Tile Setters. When the Plasterers refused to indicate that they would abide by the Board’s award, a § 8 (b) (4) (D) complaint was issued against them, and they were found to have committed an unfair labor practice by picketing to force Texas State and Martini to assign the disputed work to them. In making both the § 10 (k) and § 8 (b) (4) (D) decisions, the Board rejected the Plasterers’ contention that even though the employer had not agreed to be bound by the Joint Board decision, the provisions of § 10 (k) precluded a subsequent Board decision because the competing unions had agreed upon a voluntary method of adjustment.
On petition to review by the Plasterers and cross petition to enforce by the Board, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals set aside the order of the Board. It held that: “It is not the employer but the rival unions (or other employee groups) who are the parties to the jurisdictional dispute contesting which employees are entitled to seek the work in question.” It concluded that the Board may not make a § 10 (k) determination of a jurisdictional dispute where the opposing unions have agreed to settle their differences through binding arbitration. Both the Board and the employers petitioned for certiorari, and we granted the petitions.
II
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to strike or threaten or coerce an employer or other person in order to force or require an employer to assign particular work to one group of employees rather than to another, unless the employer is refusing to honor a representation order of the Board. On its face, the section would appear to cover any union challenge to an employer work assignment where the prohibited means are employed. NLRB v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, 364 U. S. 573, 576 (1961) (hereinafter CBS). As the charging or intervening party, the employer would normally be a party to any proceedings under that section. Section 8 (b) (4) (D), however, must be read in light of § 10 (k) with which it is interlocked. CBS, supra, at 576. When a § 8 (b) (4) (D) charge is filed and there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed, issuance of the complaint is withheld until the provisions of § 10 (k) have been satisfied. That section directs the Board to “hear and determine” the dispute out of which the alleged unfair labor practice arose; the Board is required to decide which union or group of employees is entitled to the disputed work in accordance with acceptable, Board-developed standards, unless the parties to the underlying dispute settle the case or agree upon a method for settlement. Whether the § 8 (b) (4) (D) charge will be sustained or dismissed is thus dependent on the outcome of the § 10 (k) proceeding. The Board allows an employer to fully participate in a § 10 (k) proceeding as a party. If the employer prefers the employees to whom he has assigned the work, his right to later relief against the other union’s picketing is conditioned upon his ability to convince the Board in the § 10 (k) proceeding that his original assignment is valid under the criteria employed by the Board.
The alleged unfair labor practice in this- cause was the picketing of the jobsites by the Plasterers, and the dispute giving rise to this picketing was the disagreement over whether Plasterers or Tile Setters were to lay the final plaster coat. This dispute was a three-cornered one. The Plasterers made demands on both Texas State and the Tile Setters and on both Martini and the Tile Setters. In both cases, the employers’ refusal to accede to the Plasterers’ demands inevitably and inextricably involved them with the Tile Setters against the Plasterers. It was this triangular dispute that the § 10 (k) proceeding was intended to resolve.
It may be that in some cases employers have no stake in how a jurisdictional dispute is settled and are interested only in prompt settlement. Other employers, as shown by this cause, are not neutral and have substantial economic interests in the outcome of the § 10 (k) proceeding. A change in work assignment may result in different terms or conditions of employment, a new union to bargain with, higher wages or costs, and lower efficiency or quality of work. In the construction industry, in particular, where employers frequently calculate bids on very narrow margins, small cost differences are likely to be extremely important. In the present cause, both employers had collective-bargaining contracts with the Tile Setters specifically covering the work at issue; neither had contracts with the Plasterers nor employed Plasterers regularly. Both employers determined it to be in their best interests to participate vigorously in the Board’s § 10 (k) proceeding. The employers contended it was more efficient and less costly to use the same craft for applying the last coat of plaster, putting on the bonding coat, and laying the tile and that it was more consistent with industry practice to use the Tile Setters as they did. Both companies claimed that their costs would be substantially increased if the award went to the Plasterers, and that without collective-bargaining contracts with the Plasterers, they would lose 30%-40% of their work to plastering contractors. It is obvious, therefore, that both Texas State and Martini had substantial stakes in the outcome of the § 10 (k) proceeding.
The phrase “parties to the dispute” giving rise to the picketing must be given its commonsense meaning corresponding to the actual interests involved here. Cf. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 286 v. Scofield, 382 U. S. 205, 220 (1965). Section 10 (k) does not expressly or impliedly deny party status to an employer, and since the section’s adoption in 1947, the Board has regularly accorded party status to the employer and has refused to dismiss the proceeding when the unions, but not the employer, have agreed to settle.
The Court of Appeals rejected this construction of § 10 (k). Its reasoning, which we find unpersuasive, was that because the employer is not bound by the § 10 (k) decision, he should have no right to insist upon participation. But the § 10 (k) decision standing alone, binds no one. No cease-and-desist order against either union or employer results from such a proceeding; the impact of the § 10 (k) decision is felt in the § 8 (b) (4) (D) hearing because for all practical purposes the Board’s award determines who will prevail in the unfair labor practice proceeding. If the picketing union persists in its conduct despite a § 10 (k) decision against it, a § 8 (b) (4) (D) complaint issues and the union will likely be found guilty of an unfair labor practice and be ordered to cease and desist. On the other hand, if that union wins the § 10 (k) decision and the employer does not comply, the employer’s § 8 (b) (4) (D) case evaporates and the charges he filed against the picketing union will be dismissed. Neither the employer nor the employees to whom he has assigned the work are legally bound to observe the § 10 (k) decision, but both will lose their § 8 (b) (4) (D) protection against the picketing which may, as it did here, shut down the job. The employer will be under intense pressure, practically, to conform to the Board’s decision. This is the design of the Act; Congress provided no other way to implement the Board’s § 10 (k) decision.
We do not find that the legislative history of § 8 (b) (4) (D) and § 10 (k) requires a different conclusion. The Court of Appeals and the Plasterers rely upon various statements in the legislative history of the two sections, particularly the remarks of Senator Morse, referring to jurisdictional disputes as controversies between two labor unions, and a passage in the House Conference Report referring to § 10 (k) as directing the Board to "hear and determine disputes between unions giving rise to unfair labor practices under section 8 (b)(4)(D).” Nothing in these remarks or in the other relevant legislative documents indicates an affirmative intent to exclude an interested employer from participating in a § 10 (k) proceeding. The usual focus of the legislative debates was on ways of protecting the employer from the economic havoc of jurisdictional strikes. But it does not follow from statements condemning the economically deleterious effects of inter-union strife that Congress intended an employer to have no say in a decision that may, practically, affect his business in a radical way. Congress did not expressly focus on the non-neutral employer, but there is nothing in the legislative history that negatives employer standing; and in referring to the “parties to the dispute,” Congress used terminology that would ordinarily include the employer in cases such as these.
The Court has frequently cautioned that “[i]t is at best treacherous to find in congressional silence alone the adoption of a controlling rule of law.” Girouard v. United States, 328 U. S. 61, 69 (1946); Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U. S. 235, 241 (1970). It is clear that Congress intended to protect employers and the public from the detrimental economic impact of “indefensible” jurisdictional strikes. It would therefore be myopic to transform a procedure that was meant to protect employer interests into a device that could injure them. In the absence of an “unmistakable directive,” the Court has refused to construe legislation aimed to protect a certain class in a fashion that will run counter to the goals Congress clearly intended to effectuate. FTC v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 390 U. S. 341, 349 (1968). We conclude, therefore, that these sections were enacted to protect employers who are partisan in a jurisdictional dispute as well as those who are neutral.
Nothing in CBS, supra, mandates a different conclusion. Until that case, the Board's practice had been to decide against the striking or picketing union unless it was entitled to the work pursuant to a Board certification or a collective-bargaining contract. The Court found the Board to have taken too narrow a view of its task and held that the Board, employing broader, more inclusive criteria with respect to entitlement, must make an affirmative award to one union or the other. In the course of its opinion, the Court referred to § 10 (k)’s phrase “the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen” as having “no other meaning except a jurisdictional dispute under § 8 (b) (4) (D) which is a dispute between two or more groups of employees over which is entitled to do certain work for an employer.” 364 U. S., at 579. Again, we have no quarrel with the view that § 10 (k) is designed to decide which union is entitled to the work. But the issue before us is whether the employer is also a party to that dispute and to the proceeding that decides that question. The Court in CBS did not have before it a case in which the employer was particularly interested in which union did the work, since it had collective-bargaining contracts with both unions and since both unions were able to do the disputed work with equal skill, expense, and efficiency. The Court recognized that there, “as in most instances” the quarrel was of “so little interest to the employer that he seems perfectly willing to assign work to either [union] if the other will just let him alone.” Ibid. (emphasis added). We have no doubt, therefore, that the Court had no intention of deciding the case now before us.
If employers must be considered parties to the dispute that the Board must decide under § 10 (k), absent private agreement, they must also be deemed parties to the adjustment or agreement to settle that will abort the § 10 (k) proceedings. It is insisted that so holding will encourage employers to avoid private arbitration, whereas holding union agreement alone sufficient to foreclose Board action will pressure employers to become part of private settlement mechanisms productive of sound result and much swifter decision.
The difficulties with this argument are several. First of all, if union agreements to arbitrate are sufficient to terminate § 10 (k) proceedings, there is no assurance that these private procedures will always be open to employer participation, that an employer will be afforded a meaningful chance to participate, or that all relevant factors will be properly considered.
Second, the argument for regarding the employer as a dispensable neutral is reminiscent of the position taken by the Board and rejected by the Court in the CBS case. There, the Board sought to justify a narrow view of its function and its failure to make affirmative awards as generating pressure to settle or arbitrate privately. As § 10 (k) passed the Senate, it directed the Board to decide the dispute or to order arbitration, but the arbitration alternative was deleted in Conference, and the amended bill was passed by the Senate over the strenuous objections of Senator Morse and others. By this amendment, the Court in CBS held that Congress had expressed a clear preference for Board decision as compared with compelled arbitration, and that this policy preference must be respected. 364 U. S., at 581-582. Although this Court has frequently approved an expansive role for private arbitration in the settlement of labor disputes, this enforcement of arbitration agreements and settlements has been predicated on the view that the parties have voluntarily bound themselves to such a mechanism at the bargaining table. In both Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U. S. 261, 262 (1964) and Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U. S., at 238, the employers had acceded to binding arbitration as the terminal step of the grievance procedure. This concession is not present in the instant case; the employers here did not even have a collective-bargaining contract with the Plasterers. Section 10 (k) contemplates only a voluntary agreement as a bar to a Board decision. As in CBS, we decline to narrow the Board's powers under § 10 (k) so that employers are coerced to accept compulsory private arbitration when Congress has declined to adopt such a policy.
There remains the matter of the so-called Safeway rule announced by the Board in 1962 and followed since. Under this rule, the Board has held that if one of the unions claiming work effectively renounces its claim, § 10 (k) proceedings are aborted despite legitimate interests an employer may have in securing a Board decision. It is urged that if union agreement prevents a § 10 (k) decision in such a situation, the employer cannot be considered a party to the § 10 (k) dispute when the unions but not the employer have agreed upon a method of settlement. As we understand the Safeway doctrine, however, when one union disclaims the work, § 10 (k) proceedings terminate, not because all “parties” to the dispute have settled or agreed to settle within the meaning of the statute, but on the ground that, in the words of the Board’s brief in this case, “the Board has power, under Section 10 (k), only to hear and determine the merits of a jurisdictional dispute and... by definition, such a dispute cannot exist unless there are rival claims to the work....” Concededly, an employer may be a third party to disputes over work assignments, but when the other two parties settle their differences and one union declines the work assigned to it, the inter-union conflict that §§ 8 (b) (4) (D) and 10 (k) were designed to eliminate disappears. A § 10 (k) hearing is a comparative proceeding aimed at determining which union is entitled to perform certain tasks. Its function evaporates when one of the unions renounces and refuses the work. Similarly, the applicability of § 8 (b) (4) (D) is premised on conflicting claims of unions or groups of employees for the same job; absent such an actual conflict, it would be futile to proceed under that section unless the employer replaces the disclaiming employees by a new third group of employees when they reject the work assignment, and the disfavored union resumes picketing.
If union settlement followed by disclaimer ends the § 10 (k) case, some of the argument about the employer’s party status becomes academic; for whether the employer is a party or not, the two unions alone can prevent a Board decision. But recognizing the employer’s party status insures his right to participate when the unions do not agree and the Board must come to a decision. Further, the Board’s Safeway rule applies only where the inter-union conflict is effectively settled and the employer no longer faces conflicting claims to the work. As this case demonstrates, the Board does not apply the Safeway rule to unimplemented agreements to arbitrate between the unions alone, and it does not consider it applicable where employees continue on the job after their international union loses an arbitration proceeding and renounces the work. These de facto disputes are real, and they deserve Board resolution if the purposes of § 10 (k) are to be.achieved. Cf. CBS, supra, at 579-580.
The Court of Appeals would extend the Safeway rule to foreclose Board decision where the two unions, but not the employer, have agreed to arbitrate; inter-union agreement was deemed equivalent to effective disclaimer by one of the unions. This view ignores the narrow view the Board has taken of the Safeway rule. It also fails to recognize the problem arising where a local union or group of employees continues to do work assigned by the employer despite agreement or disclaimer by their parent body. It makes little difference to the picketing union that there has been a “settlement” or an agreed-upon method of deciding the dispute as long as it is barred from enjoying the results of such a theoretical resolution. In the instant case, the Board held a § 10 (k) hearing for the simple reason that a live unresolved jurisdictional dispute between unions and employer in fact existed.
Our conclusion evinces no hostility to voluntary settlement of disputes and is wholly consistent with federal policy with respect to voluntary arbitration. In other contexts, where challenged conduct poses an arbitrable dispute under a collective-bargaining contract but is also an unfair labor practice within the jurisdiction of the Board, the Board will, as a matter of policy, defer to the arbitral settlement, although it is not bound to do so by the LMRA. See 29 U. S. C. § 160 (a); Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U. S., at 272; NLRB v. Strong, 393 U. S. 357, 360-361 (1969); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U. S. 432, 438 (1967). Although the Board is not statutorily required to honor arbitration awards in such situations, it often defers to them if the arbitrator has considered the alleged unfair labor practice. Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 N. L. R. B. 1080 (1955); International Harvester Co., 138 N. L. R. B. 923 (1962), enforced sub nom. Ramsey v. NLRB, 327 F. 2d 784 (CA7 1964). But again, such deference is in the context of voluntary arbitration. In the case before us, the LMRA requires that the Board defer only when all of the parties have agreed on a method of settlement; when there has been such an agreement, the Board cannot ignore or override the result of that settlement procedure. In the present cause, however, it is claimed the Board must defer when less than all the parties to the dispute have agreed to arbitrate.
Reversed.
61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. § 141 et seq.
Section 8 (b) (4) provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents “(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise, handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is—
“(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work.” 29 U. S. C. §158 (b)(4).
Section 10 (k) provides:
“Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of section 158 (b) of this title, the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless, within ten days after notice that such charge has been filed, the parties to such dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of, the dispute. Upon compliance by the parties to the dispute with the decision of the Board or upon such voluntary adjustment of the dispute, such charge shall be dismissed.” 29 U. S. C. § 160 (k).
App. 20.
This dispute grew out of a new method of applying tile that was developed in the mid-1950’s. R. 111, 123, 135.
The National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes is an arbitration panel established by a 1948 agreement between the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and the Associated General Contractors of America and several specialty contractors’ associations. The Joint Board consists of an equal number of representatives of employers and unions and a neutral chairman. An employer may become a party to a Joint Board proceeding by signing a stipulation agreeing to be bound by the results of the proceeding. Art. III, § 7, AFL-CIO, Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dept., Plan for Settling Jurisdictional Disputes Nationally and Locally 10 (1970). Member unions of the AFL-CIO’s Building Trades Department do not have to agree formally to abide by Joint Board decisions, because they are bound by virtue of provisions contained in their constitutions. AFL-CIO, Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dept., Procedural Rules and Regulations of the National Joint Board 2 (1970). See generally K. Strand, Jurisdictional Disputes in Construction: The Causes, the Joint Board, and the NLRB 89-104 (1961). In the cases here, both the Tile Setters and the Plasterers were members of the Building Trades Department.
In the Texas State case, the Joint Board on November 9, 1966, awarded all of the disputed work to the Plasterers except “any coat to be applied wet the same day under tile.” App. 316. The Tile Setters refused to give up the work of laying the plaster undercoat to which the dry mortar was applied, claiming that the Joint Board decision gave this work to them. The Plasterers established a picket line on January 24, 1967; on March 15, 1967, the Joint Board issued a clarification of its decision, stating that the final smooth plaster coat was to be done by the Plasterers unless it was laid the same day as the tile and dry-set mortar were applied, in which case it was to be done by the Tile Setters. App. 341.
The employer-subcontractor, Texas State, intervened as a party.
App. 22.
The NLRB considered the collective-bargaining agreements among the parties, industry and area practice, relative skills and efficiency of operation, past practices of the employers, agreements between the Plasterers and the Tile Setters, the Joint Board award (the NLRB refused to give this controlling weight because of its “ambiguous nature,” App. 22), and concluded:
“Tile setters are at least as skilled in the performance of the work as plasterers, and both Texas Tile and Martini, which assigned them to the work, have been satisfied with both the quality of their work and the cost of employing them. Moreover, the instant assignments of the disputed work to tile setters are consistent with the explicit provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Tile Setters and Texas Tile and Martini, are consistent with the past practice of the Employers, and are not inconsistent with area or industry practice....” App. 23. The Board’s decision in the § 10 (k) proceeding is reported at 167 N. L. R. B. 185 (1967) and its decision and order in the unfair labor practice proceeding are reported at 172 N. L. R. B. Nos. 70, 72 (1968).
The § 10 (k) determination is not binding as such even on the striking union. If that union continues to picket despite an adverse § 10 (k) decision, the Board must prove the union guilty of a § 8 (b) (4) (D) violation before a cease-and-desist order can issue. The findings and conclusions in a § 10 (k) proceeding are not res judicata on the unfair labor practice issue in the later § 8 (b) (4) (D) determination. International Typographical Union, 125 N. L. R. B. 759, 761 (1959). Both parties may put in new evidence at the § 8 (b) (4) (D) stage, although often, as in the present cases, the parties agree to stipulate the record of the § 10 (k) hearing as a basis for the Board’s determination of the unfair labor practice. Finally, to exercise its powers under § 10 (k), the Board need only find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a § 8 (b) (4) (D) violation has occurred, while in the § 8 (b) (4) (D) proceeding itself the Board must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the picketing union has violated § 8 (b) (4) (D). International Typographical Union, supra, at 761 n. 5 (1959).
142 U. S. App. D. C. 146, 440 F. 2d 174 (1970).
Id., at 152, 440 F. 2d, at 180. Although the dispute at the Martini worksite had not been submitted to the Joint Board, the Court of Appeals nevertheless held that, because the two unions had agreed to be bound by the procedures and decisions of the Joint Board, the NLRB was precluded from hearing and determining the Martini dispute under § 10 (k).
401 U. S. 973 (1971).
See 29 CFR §§ 102.8, 102.9, 102.109 (1971); International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 283 v. Scofield, 382 U. S. 205, 219-221 (1965).
See Comment, The Employer as a Necessary Party to Voluntary Settlement of Work Assignment Disputes Under Section 10 (k) of the NLRA, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 389, 400 (1971).
R. 96-97, 130-132, 141.
R. 95, 129, 145-148.
See, e. g., Lodge 68 of the Int’l Assn. of Machinists (Moore Drydock Co.), 81 N. L. R. B. 1108, 1113-1114, 1126-1128 (1949); Local 231, Int’l Hod Carriers (Middle States Telephone Co.), 91 N. L. R. B. 598, 604 (1950); United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 581 (Ora Collard), 98 N. L. R. B. 346, 348-349 (1952); United Assn. of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, 108 N. L. R. B. 186, 197 (1954); Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters, 115 N. L. R. B. 1757, 1766-1767 (1956); Local 173, Wood, Wire, & Metal Lathers’ Int’l Union (Newark & Essex Plastering Co.), 121 N. L. R. B. 1094, 1103-1104 (1958); Int’l Union of Operating Engineers (Schwerman Co. of Pa., Inc.), 139 N. L. R. B. 1426, 1429 (1962); Carpenters District Council of Denver (J. O. Veteto & Son), 146 N. L. R. B. 1242, 1245 (1964); Electrical Workers, Local 26 (McCloskey & Co.), 147 N. L. R. B. 1498, 1501-1503 (1964); Operative Plasterers Int’l Assn. (Twin City Tile & Marble Co.), 152 N. L. R. B. 1609, 1611, 1615 (1965); Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Egan-McKay Electrical Contractors, Inc.), 164 N. L. R. B. 672, 673 (1967). The Board has reasserted this view since the Court of Appeals’ decision in the instant case, Lathers Local 104 (Blaine Petty Co.), 186 N. L. R. B. No. 70 (1970). Until now, courts of appeals have uniformly upheld the Board’s position; see, e. g., New Orleans Typographical Union No. 17 v. NLRB, 368 F. 2d 755, 763 (CA5 1966), NLRB v. Local 825, Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, 326 F. 2d 213, 216 (CA3 1964); Local 450, Int’l Union of Operating Engineers v. Elliott, 256 F. 2d 630, 636 (CA5 1958). See also Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U. S. 261, 264 (1964), citing Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers Int’l Union (Acoustical Contractors Assn.), 119 N. L. R. B. 1345, 1347 (1958).
This dismissal will not be pursuant to the language of § 10 (k) directing dismissal upon “compliance by the parties... with the [Board’s] decision” but, rather, under § 8 (b) (4) (D) because the “employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work.” Apparently, the Board construes this language to include disregarding a § 10 (k) decision. Brief for the NLRB 23 n. 16, 28 n. 21. The Board’s regulations now provide that'“if the Board determination is that employees represented by a charged union are entitled to perform the work in dispute, the regional director shall dismiss the charge as to that union irrespective of whether
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again we are faced with the problem of defining the labor law obligations of a “successor” employer to the employees of its predecessors. In this case, petitioner Howard Johnson Co. is the bona fide purchaser of the assets of a restaurant and motor lodge. Respondent Union was the bargaining representative of the employees of the previous operators, and had successfully concluded collective-bargaining agreements with them. In commencing its operation of the restaurant, Howard Johnson hired only a small fraction of the predecessors' employees. The question presented in this case is whether the Union may compel Howard Johnson to arbitrate, under the arbitration provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements signed by its predecessors, the extent of its obligations under those agreements to the predecessors’ employees.
Prior to the sale at issue here, the Grissoms — Charles T. Grissom, P. L. Grissom, Ben Bibb, P. L. Grissom & Son, Inc., and the Belleville Restaurant Co., a corporation wholly owned by P. L. Grissom & Son — had operated a Howard Johnson’s Motor Lodge and an adjacent Howard Johnson’s Restaurant in Belleville, Michigan, under franchise agreements with the petitioner. Employees at both the restaurant and motor lodge were represented by the respondent Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union. The Grissoms had entered into separate collective-bargaining agreements with the Union covering employees at the two establishments. Both agreements contained dispute settlement procedures leading ultimately to arbitration. Both agreements also provided that they would be binding upon the employer’s “successors, assigns, purchasers, lessees or transferees.”
On June 16, 1972, the Grissoms entered into an agreement with Howard Johnson to sell it all of the personal property used in connection with operation of the restaurant and motor lodge. The Grissoms retained ownership of the real property, leasing both premises to Howard Johnson. Howard Johnson did not agree to assume any of the Grissoms’ obligations, except for four specific contracts relating to operation of the restaurant and motor lodge. On June 28, Howard Johnson mailed the Gris-soms a letter, which they later acknowledged and confirmed, clarifying that “[i]t was understood and agreed that the Purchaser . . . would not recognize and assume any labor agreements between the Sellers . . . and any labor organizations,” and that it was further agreed that “the Purchaser does not assume any obligations or liabilities of the Sellers resulting from any labor agreements . . .
Transfer of operation of the restaurant and motor lodge was set for midnight, July 23, 1972. On July 9, the Grissoms notified all of their employees that their employment would terminate as of that time. The Union was also notified of the termination of the Gris-soms’ business. On July 11, Howard Johnson advised the Union that it would not recognize the Union or assume any obligations under the existing collective-bargaining agreements.
After reaching agreement with the Grissoms, Howard Johnson began hiring its own work force. It placed advertisements in local newspapers, and posted notices in various places, including the restaurant and motor lodge. It began interviewing prospective employees on July 10, hired its first employees on July 18, and began training them at a Howard Johnson facility in Ann Arbor on July 20. Prior to the sale, the Grissoms had 53 employees. Howard Johnson commenced operations with 45 employees, 33 engaged in the restaurant and 12 in the motor lodge. Of these, only nine of the restaurant employees and none of the motor lodge employees had previously been employed by the Grissoms. None of the supervisory personnel employed by the Grissoms were hired by Howard Johnson.
The Union filed this action in the state courts on July 21. Characterizing Howard Johnson’s failure to hire all of the employees of the Grissoms as a “lockout” in violation of the collective-bargaining agreements, the Union sought a temporary restraining order enjoining this “lockout” and an Order compelling Howard Johnson and the Grissoms to arbitrate the extent of their obligations to the Grissom employees under the bargaining agreements. The state court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order, but the Company refused to honor it, claiming that it had not received adequate notice or service, and the order was dissolved after a hearing on July 24.
The defendants subsequently removed this action to the federal courts on the ground that it was brought under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185. At a hearing before the District Court on August 7, the Grissoms admitted that they were required to arbitrate in accordance with the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements they had signed and that an order compelling arbitration should issue. On August 22, the District Court, in a memorandum opinion unofficially reported at 81 L. R. R. M. 2329 (ED Mich. 1972), held that Howard Johnson was also required to arbitrate the extent of its obligations to the former Gris-som employees. The court denied, however, the Union’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the Company to hire all the former Grissom employees, and granted a stay of its arbitration, order pending appeal. Howard Johnson appealed the order compelling arbitration, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. 482 F. 2d 489 (CA6 1973). We granted certiorari, 414 U. S. 1091 (1973), to consider the important labor law question presented. We reverse.
Both courts below relied heavily on this Court’s decision in John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U. S. 543 (1964). In Wiley, the union representing the employees of a corporation which had disappeared through a merger sought to compel the surviving corporation, which had hired all of the merged corporation’s employees and continued to operate the enterprise in a substantially identical form after the merger, to arbitrate under the merged corporation’s collective-bargaining agreement. As Wiley was this Court’s first experience with the difficult “successorship” question, its holding was properly cautious and narrow:
“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.” Id., at 548.
Mr. Justice Harlan, writing for the Court, emphasized “the central role of arbitration in effectuating national labor policy” and preventing industrial strife, and the need to afford some protection to the interests of the employees during a change of corporate ownership. Id., at 549.
The courts below recognized that the reasoning of Wiley was to some extent inconsistent with our more recent decision in NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, 406 U. S. 272 (1972). Burns was the successful bidder on a contract to provide security services at a Lockheed Aircraft plant, and took a majority of its employees from the ranks of the guards employed at the plant by the previous contractor, Wackenhut. In refusing to enforce the Board’s order finding that Burns’ failure to honor the substantive provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated with Wackenhut was an unfair labor practice, we emphasized that freedom of collective bargaining — “ 'private bargaining under governmental supervision of the procedure alone, without any official compulsion over the actual terms of the contract’ ” — was a “ 'fundamental premise’ ” of the federal labor laws, id., at 287, quoting H. K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U. S. 99, 108 (1970), and that it was therefore improper to hold Burns to the substantive terms of a collective-bargaining agreement which it had neither expressly nor impliedly assumed. Burns also stressed that holding a new employer bound by the substantive terms of the preexisting collective-bargaining agreement might inhibit the free transfer of capital, and that new employers must be free to make substantial changes in the operation of the enterprise. 406 U. S., at 287-288.
The courts below held that Wiley rather than Burns was controlling here on the ground that Burns involved an NLRB order holding the employer bound by the substantive terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, whereas this case, like Wiley, involved a § 301 suit to compel arbitration. Although this distinction was in fact suggested by the Court’s opinion in Burns, see id., at 285-286, we do not believe that the fundamental policies outlined in Burns can be so lightly disregarded. In Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), this Court held that § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act authorized the federal courts to develop a federal common law regarding enforcement of collective-bargaining agreements. But Lincoln Mills did not envision any freewheeling inquiry into what the federal courts might find to be the most desirable rule, irrespective of congressional pronouncements. Rather, Lincoln Mills makes clear that this federal common law must be “fashion [ed] from the policy of our national labor laws.” Id., at 456. Mr. Justice Douglas described the process of analysis to be employed:
“The Labor Management Relations Act expressly furnishes some substantive law. It points out what the parties may or may not do in certain situations. Other problems will lie in the penumbra of express statutory mandates. Some will lack express statutory sanction but will be solved by looking at the policy of the legislation and fashioning a remedy that will effectuate that policy.” Id., at 457.
It would be plainly inconsistent with this view to say that the basic policies found controlling in an unfair labor practice context may be disregarded by the courts in a suit under § 301, and thus to permit the rights enjoyed by the new employer in a successorship context to depend upon the forum in which the union presses its claims. Clearly the reasoning of Burns must be taken into account here.
We find it unnecessary, however, to decide in the circumstances of this case whether there is any irreconcilable conflict between Wiley and Burns. We believe that even on its own terms, Wiley does not support the decision of the courts below. The Court in Burns recognized that its decision “turn[ed] to a great extent on the precise facts involved here.” 406 U. S., at 274. The same observation could have been made in Wiley, as indeed it could be made in this case. In our development of the federal common law under § 301, we must necessarily proceed cautiously, in the traditional case-by-case approach of the common law. Particularly in light of the difficulty of the successorship question, the myriad factual circumstances and legal contexts in which it can arise, and the absence of congressional guidance as to its resolution, emphasis on the facts of each case as it arises is especially appropriate. The Court was obviously well aware of this in Wiley, as its guarded, almost tentative statement of its holding amply demonstrates.
When the focus is placed on the facts of these cases, it becomes apparent that the decision below is an unwarranted extension of Wiley beyond any factual context it may have contemplated. Although it is true that both Wiley and this case involve § 301 suits to compel arbitration, the similarity ends there. Wiley involved a merger, as a result of which the initial employing entity completely disappeared. In contrast, this case involves only a sale of some assets, and the initial employers remain in existence as viable corporate entities, with substantial revenues from the lease of the. motor lodge and restaurant to Howard Johnson. Although we have recognized that ordinarily there is no basis for distinguishing among mergers, consolidations, or purchases of assets in the analysis of successorship problems, see Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U. S. 168, 182-183, n. 5 (1973), we think these distinctions are relevant here for two reasons. First, the merger in Wiley was conducted “against a background of state law that embodied the general rule that in merger situations the surviving corporation is liable for the obligations of the disappearing corporation,” Burns, 406 U. S., at 286, which suggests that holding Wiley bound to arbitrate under its predecessor’s collective-bargaining agreement may have been fairly within the reasonable expectations of the parties. Second, the disappearance of the original employing entity in the Wiley merger meant that unless the union were afforded some remedy against Wiley, it would have no means to enforce the obligations voluntarily undertaken by the merged corporation, to the extent that those obligations vested prior to the merger or to the extent that its promises were intended to survive a change of ownership. Here, in contrast, because the Grissom corporations continue as viable entities with substantial retained assets, the Union does have a realistic remedy to enforce their contractual obligations. Indeed, the Gris-soms have agreed to arbitrate the extent of their liability to the Union and their former employees; presumably this arbitration will explore the question whether the Gris-soms breached the successorship provisions of their collective-bargaining agreements, and what the remedy for this breach might be.
Even more important, in Wiley the surviving corporation hired all of the employees of the disappearing corporation. Although, under Burns, the surviving corporation may have been entitled to make substantial changes in its operation of the enterprise, the plain fact is that.it did not. As the arbitrator in Wiley subsequently stated:
“Although the Wiley merger was effective on October 2, 1961, the former Interscience employees continued to perform the same work on the same products under the same management at the same work place as before the change in the corporate employer.” Interscience Encyclopedia, Inc., 55 Lab. Arb. 210, 218 (1970).
The claims which the union sought to compel Wiley to arbitrate were thus the claims of Wiley’s employees as to the benefits they were entitled to receive in connection with their employment. It was on this basis that the Court in Wiley found that there was the “substantial continuity of identity in the business enterprise,” 376 U. S., at 551, which it held necessary before the successor employer could be compelled to arbitrate.
Here, however, Howard Johnson decided to select and hire its own independent work force to commence its operation of the restaurant and motor lodge. It therefore hired only nine of the 53 former Grissom employees and none of the Grissom supervisors. The primary purpose of the Union in seeking arbitration here with Howard Johnson is not to protect the rights of Howard Johnson’s employees; rather, the Union primarily seeks arbitration on behalf of the former Grissom employees who were not hired by Howard Johnson. It is the Union’s position that Howard Johnson was bound by the pre-existing collective-bargaining agreement to employ all of these former Grissom employees, except those who could be dismissed in accordance with the “just cause” provision or laid off in accordance with the seniority provision. It is manifest from the Union’s efforts to obtain injunctive relief requiring the Company to hire all of these employees that this is the heart of the controversy here. Indeed, at oral argument, the Union conceded that it would be making the same argument here if Howard Johnson had not hired any of the former Grissom employees, and that what was most important to the Union was the prospect that the arbitrator might order the Company to hire all of these employees.
What the Union seeks here is completely at odds with the basic principles this Court elaborated in Burns. We found there that nothing in the federal labor laws “requires that an employer . . . who purchases the assets of a business be obligated to hire all of the employees of the predecessor though it is possible that such an obligation might be assumed by the employer.” 406 U. S., at 280 n. 5. See also Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U. S., at 184 n. 6. Burns emphasized that “[a] potential employer may be willing to take over a moribund business only if he can make changes in corporate structure, composition of the labor force, . . . and nature of supervision.” 406 U. S., at 287-288. We rejected the Board's position in part because “[i]t would seemingly follow that employees of the predecessor would be deemed employees of the successor, dischargeable only in accordance with provisions of the contract and subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions thereof. Burns would not have been free to replace Wackenhut's guards with its own except as the contract permitted.” Id., at 288. Clearly, Burns establishes that Howard Johnson had the right not to hire any of the former Grissom employees, if it so desired. The Union’s effort to circumvent this holding by asserting its claims in a § 301 suit to compel arbitration rather than in an unfair labor practice context cannot be permitted.
We do not believe that Wiley requires a successor employer to arbitrate in the circumstances of this case. The Court there held that arbitration could not be compelled unless there was “substantial continuity of identity in the business enterprise” before and after a change of ownership, for otherwise the duty to arbitrate would be “something imposed from without, not reasonably to be found in the particular bargaining agreement and the acts of the parties involved.” 376 U. S., at 551. This continuity of identity in the business enterprise necessarily includes, we think, a substantial continuity in the identity of the work force across the change in ownership. The Wiley Court seemingly recognized this, as it found the requisite continuity present there in reliance on the “wholesale transfer” of Interscience employees to Wiley. Ibid. This view is reflected in the emphasis most of the lower courts have placed on whether the successor employer hires a majority of the predecessor’s employees in determining the legal obligations of the successor in § 301 suits under Wiley. This interpretation of Wiley is consistent also with the Court’s concern with affording protection to those employees who are in fact retained in “[t]he transition from one corporate organization to another” from sudden changes in the terms and conditions of their employment, and with its belief that industrial strife would be avoided if these employees’ claims were resolved by arbitration rather than by “ 'the relative strength ... of the contending forces.’ ” Id., at 549, quoting United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574, 580 (1960). At the same time, it recognizes that the employees of the terminating employer have no legal right to continued employment with the new employer, and avoids the difficulties inherent in the Union’s position in this case. This holding is compelled, in our view, if the protection afforded employee interests in a change of ownership by Wiley is to be reconciled with the new employer’s right to operate the enterprise with his own independent labor force.
Since there was plainly no substantial continuity of identity in the work force hired by Howard Johnson with that of the Grissoms, and no express or implied assumption of the agreement to arbitrate, the courts below erred ■ in compelling the Company to arbitrate the extent of its obligations to the former Grissom employees. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be
Reversed.
Actually, employees at the restaurant were officially represented by the Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, while employees at the motor lodge were represented by Local 705 of the Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union. As the Court of Appeals observed, however, “[wjhile the unions named in the two agreements bear distinct names they are apparently identical in interest and governance.” 482 F. 2d 489, 491 n. 3. Both have been represented throughout this litigation by the respondent Detroit Local Joint Executive Board.
See The Supreme Court, 1971 Term, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 255-256 (1972); Christensen, Successorships, Unit Changes, and the Bargaining Table, in Southwestern Leg. Found., 19th Institute on Labor Law, Labor Law Developments 1973, pp. 197,205-206.
The Union apparently did not explore another remedy which might have been available to it prior to the sale, i. e., moving to enjoin the sale to Howard Johnson on the ground that this was a breach by the Grissoms of the successorship clauses in the collective-bargaining agreements. See National Maritime Union v. Commerce Tankers Corp., 325 F. Supp. 360 (SDNY 1971), vacated, 457 F. 2d 1127 (CA2 1972). The mere existence of the successorship clauses in the bargaining agreements between the Union and the Grissoms, however, cannot bind Howard Johnson either to the substantive terms of the agreements or to the arbitration clauses thereof, absent the continuity required by Wiley, when it is perfectly clear the Company refused to assume any obligations under the agreements.
Subsequently, the .Interscience plant was closed and the former Interscience employees were integrated into Wiley’s work force. The arbitrator, relying in part on the NLRB’s decision in Burns, held that the provisions of the Interscience collective-bargaining agreement remained in effect for as long as Wiley continued to operate the former Interscienee enterprise as a unit in substantially the same manner as prior to the merger, but that the integration of the former Interscienee employees into Wiley’s operations destroyed this continuity of identity and terminated the effectiveness of the bargaining agreement. 55 Lab. Arb., at 218- 220.
It is important to emphasize that this is not a case where the successor corporation is the “alter ego” of the predecessor, where it is “merely a disguised continuance of the old employer.” Southport Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 315 U. S. 100, 106 (1942). Such cases involve a mere technical change in the structure or identity of the employing entity, frequently to avoid the effect of the labor laws, without any substantial change in its ownership or management. In these circumstances, the courts have had little difficulty holding that the successor is in reality the same employer and is subject to all the legal and contractual obligations of the predecessor. See Southport Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, supra; NLRB v. Herman Bros. Pet Supply, 325 P. 2d 68 (CA6 1963); NLRB v. Ozark Hardwood Co., 282 F. 2d 1 (CA8 1960); NLRB v. Lewis, 246 F. 2d 886 (CA9 1957).
There is not the slightest suggestion in this case that the sale of the restaurant and motor lodge by the Grissoms to Howard Johnson was in any sense a paper transaction without meaningful impact on the ownership or operation of the enterprise. Howard Johnson had no ownership interest in the restaurant or motor lodge prior to this transaction. Although the Grissoms’ operation of the enterprise as Howard Johnson’s franchisee was subject to substantial restraints imposed by the franchise agreements on some aspects of the business, the franchise agreements imposed no restrictions on the Grissoms’ hiring or labor relations policies. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Howard Johnson had had any previous dealings with the Union, or had participated in any way in negotiating or approving the collective-bargaining agreements.
"Question: . . . You say the man is a successor and therefore there never was a break in his contractual obligations. You’ve still got to make the case for the successorship.
“Mr. Gold [for the Union]: Well, that’s right. I think our first duty is to show that there is a continuity of the business enterprise which makes it proper to say that the second employer is a successor.
“Where there isn’t a continuity, then he is not a successor and he is not bound by the arbitration clause or any of the other potential obligations which are in the agreement.
"Question: But in deciding successorship, I take it you put aside the fact that he may not have hired any of the old employees?
“Mr. Gold: Yes, Your Honor . . . .” Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38 (emphasis added).
“Question: Well, isn’t part of your submission . . . that the arbitrator could decide to put all 41 [employees who had been hired by Howard Johnson] back to work?
“Mr. Gold: Yes, Your Honor.
“Question: Which means that the successor does not have the right not to hire, that he must perhaps take over the old employees?
“Mr. Gold: Yes, Your Honor.
“Question: . . . [Y]ou still say that he may bring his own employees along.
“Mr. Gold: Well, no, one of the rules is that the just cause and seniority provisions of the agreement apply. That is probably the most important aspect of the bargain from the union and the employees’ standpoint. And if-
“Question: You certainly are taking quite a bite out of Burns, I suppose, in these cases.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 27, 33.
See Crotona Service CorP., 200 N. L. R. B. 738 (1972). Of course, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in hiring or retention of employees on the basis of union membership or activity under § 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a)(3). Thus, a new owner could not refuse to hire the employees of his predecessor solely because they were union members or to avoid having to recognize the union. See NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, 406 U. S. 272, 280-281, n. 5 (1972); K. B. & J. Young’s Super Markets v. NLRB, 377 F. 2d 463 (CA9), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 841 (1967); Tri State Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 368, 408 F. 2d 171 (1968). There is no suggestion in this case that Howard Johnson in any way discriminated in its hiring against the former Grissom employees because of their union membership, activity, or representation.
The Court of Appeals stated that “[t]he first question we must face is whether Howard Johnson is a successor employer,” 482 F. 2d, at 492, and, finding that it was, that the next question was whether a successor is required to arbitrate under the collective-bargaining agreement of its predecessor, id., at 494, which the court found was resolved by Wiley. We do not believe that this artificial division between these questions is a helpful or appropriate way to approach these problems. The question whether Howard Johnson is a “successor” is simply not meaningful in the abstract. Howard Johnson is of course a successor employer in the sense that it succeeded to operation of a restaurant and motor lodge formerly operated by the Grissoms. But the real question in each of these “suceessorship” cases is, on the particular facts, what are the legal obligations of the new employer to the employees of the former owner or their representative? The answer to this inquiry requires analysis of the interests of the new employer and the employees and of the policies of the labor laws in light of the facts of each case and the particular legal obligation which is at issue, whether it be the duty to recognize and bargain with the union, the duty to remedy unfair labor practices, the duty to arbitrate, etc. There is, and can be, no single definition of “successor” which is applicable in every legal context. A new employer, in other words, may be a successor for some purposes and not for others. See Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U. S. 168, 181 (1973); International Assw. of Machinists v. NLRB, 134 U. S. App. D. C. 239, 244, 414 F. 2d 1135, 1140 (1969) (Leventhal, J., concurring) ; Goldberg, The Labor Law Obligations of a Successor Employer, 63 Nw. U. L. Rev. 735 (1969); Comment, Contractual Suc-cessorship: The Impact of Burns, 40 U. Chi. L. Rev. 617, 619 n. 10 (1973).
Thus, our holding today is that Howard Johnson was not required to arbitrate with the Union representing the former Grissom employees in the circumstances of this case. We necessarily do not decide whether Howard Johnson is or is not a “successor employer” for any other purpose.
See Printing Specialties Union v. Pride Papers Aaronson Bros. Paper Corp., 445 F. 2d 361, 363-364 (CA2 1971); Wackenhut Corp. v. Plant Guard Workers, 332 F. 2d 954, 958 (CA9 1964); International Assn. of Machinists v. NLRB, 134 U. S. App. D. C., at 244 n. 4, 414 F. 2d, at 1140 n. 4 (Leventhal, J., concurring) ; Boeing Co. v. International Assn. of Machinists, 351 F. Supp. 813 (MD Fla. 1972); Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. District 65, Retail, Wholesale, & Department Store Union, 276 F. Supp. 740 (SDNY 1967); Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel & Restaurant Employees v. Joden, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 390 (Mass. 1966). See also Comment, supra, n. 9, at 621.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In order to reach the merits of this case, we would have to address a question that was neither presented in the petition for certiorari nor fairly included in the one question that was presented. Because we will consider questions not raised in the petition only in the most exceptional cases, and because we conclude this is not such a case, we dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
Petitioner was named as a defendant, along with respondent Windmere Corporation, in an action brought by respondent U. S. Philips Corporation in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida claiming that the defendants had infringed Philips’ patent rights and engaged in unfair trade competition. Windmere counterclaimed for antitrust violations. At the first trial of the action, judgment was entered on a jury verdict for Philips on its patent infringement claim, and neither Izumi nor Windmere appealed. Philips also prevailed on Windmere’s antitrust counterclaim, and the District Court ordered a new trial on the unfair competition claim. On Windmere’s interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment on the antitrust counterclaim and remanded the case for a new trial. U. S. Philips Corp. v. Windmere Corp., 861 F. 2d 695 (CA Fed. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U. S. 1068 (1989). Izumi took no further part in the litigation.
A second jury found in favor of Windmere both on Philips’ unfair competition claim and on Windmere’s antitrust counterclaim, and judgment was entered in favor of Windmere on the latter for more than $89 million. Philips appealed both judgments to the Federal Circuit. Before the Court of Appeals decided the case, however, Windmere and Philips reached a settlement wherein Philips agreed to pay Wind-mere $57 million. Windmere and Philips also agreed jointly to request the Court of Appeals to vacate the District Court’s judgments, although the settlement was not conditioned on the Federal Circuit granting the vacatur motion. After Windmere and Philips filed their joint motion to vacate, petitioner sought to intervene on appeal for purposes of opposing vacatur.
The Court of Appeals denied Izumi’s motion to intervene. U. S. Philips Corp. v. Windmere Corp., 971 F. 2d 728,730-731 (CA Fed. 1992). It reasoned that Izumi was not a party to the second trial, and that its financial support of Windmere’s litigation as an indemnitor was not sufficient to confer party status. The Court of Appeals also concluded that Izumi’s interest in preserving the judgment for collateral estoppel purposes was insufficient to provide standing. Ibid. The Court of Appeals proceeded to review the vacatur motion and concluded that, because the settlement included all the parties to the appeal, vacatur was appropriate. Id., at 731.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1) provides, in relevant part:
“Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court. . .
“(1) [B]y writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree.” (Emphasis added.)
Because the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for intervention, Izumi is not a party to this particular civil ease. One who has been denied the right to intervene in a case in a court of appeals may petition for certiorari to review that ruling, Automobile Workers v. Scofield, 382 U. S. 205, 208-209 (1965), but Izumi presented no such question in its petition for certiorari. It presented a single question for our review: “Should the United States Courts of Appeals routinely vacate district court final judgments at the parties’ request when cases are settled while on appeal?” Because this question has divided the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 507 U. S. 907 (1993). In its brief on the merits, petitioner added the following to its list of questions presented: “Whether the court of appeals should have permitted Petitioner to oppose Respondents’ motion to vacate the district court judgment.”
This Court’s Rule 14.1(a) provides, in relevant part: “The statement of any question presented [in a petition for certiorari] will be deemed to comprise every subsidiary question fairly included therein. Only the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court.” Unless we can conclude that the question of the denial of petitioner’s motion to intervene in the Court of Appeals was “fairly included” in the question relating to the vacatur of final judgments at the parties’ request, Rule 14.1 would prevent us from reaching it.
It seems clear that a challenge to the Federal Circuit’s denial of petitioner’s motion to intervene is not “subsidiary” to the question on which we granted certiorari. On the contrary, it is akin to a question regarding a party’s standing, which we have described as a “threshold inquiry” that “ ‘in no way depends on the merits’ ” of the case. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 155 (1990) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 500 (1975)).
We also believe that the question is not “fairly included” in the question presented for our review. A question which is merely “complementary” or “related” to the question presented in the petition for certiorari is not “ ‘fairly included therein.’ ” Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 537 (1992). Thus, in Yee, we concluded that the question whether an ordinance effected a physical taking did not include the related question of whether it effected a regulatory taking. Ibid. Whether petitioner should have been granted leave to intervene below is quite distinct, both analytically and factually, from the question whether the Court of Appeals should vacate judgments where the parties have so stipulated. The questions are even less related or complementary to one another than were the questions in Yee.
The intervention question being neither presented as a question in the petition for certiorari nor fairly included therein, “Rule 14.1(a) accordingly creates a heavy presumption against our consideration” of that issue. Ibid. Rule 14.1(a), of course, is prudential; it “does not limit our power to decide important questions not raised by the parties.” Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 320, n. 6 (1971). A prudential rule, however, is more than a precatory admonition. As we have stated on numerous occasions, we will disregard Rule 14.1(a) and consider issues not raised in the petition “‘only in the most exceptional cases.’ ” Yee, supra, at 535 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976)); see also Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 443, n. 38 (1984) (“Absent unusual circumstances, ... we are chary of considering issues not presented in petitions for certiorari”).
We have made exceptions to Rule 14.1(a) in cases where we have overruled one of our prior decisions even though neither party requested it. See, e.g., Blonder-Tongue., supra, at 319-321. We have also decided a case on nonconstitutional grounds even though the petition for certiorari presented only a constitutional question. See, e. g., Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454, 457 (1960); Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U. S. 77, 78 (1955). We must also notice the possible absence of jurisdiction because we are obligated to do so even when the issue is not raised by a party. See, e. g., Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U. S. 391, 398 (1979); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U. S. 737, 740 (1976). And we may, pursuant to this Court’s Rule 24.1(a), “consider a plain error not among the questions presented but evident from the record and otherwise within [our] jurisdiction to decide.” See, e. g., Wood v. Georgia, 450 U. S. 261, 265, n. 5 (1981); see generally R. Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Supreme Court Practice §6.26 (6th ed. 1986) (discussing Rule 14.1(a) and its exceptions).
The present case bears scant resemblance to those cited above in which we have made exceptions to the provisions of Rule 14.1. While the decision on any particular motion to intervene may be a difficult one, it is always to some extent bound up in the facts of the particular case. Should we undertake to review the Court of Appeals’ decision on intervention, it is unlikely that any new principle of law would be enunciated, as is evident from the briefs of the parties on this question. As we said in Yee, Rule 14.1(a) helps us “[t]o use our resources most efficiently” by highlighting those cases “that will enable us to resolve particularly important questions.” 503 U. S., at 536. The Court of Appeals’ disposition of petitioner’s motion to intervene is simply not such a question.
Should we disregard the Rule here, there would also be a natural tendency — to be consciously resisted, of course — to reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals on the intervention question in order that we could address the merits of the question on which we actually granted certiorari; otherwise, we would have devoted our efforts solely to addressing a relatively factbound issue which does not meet the standards that guide the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction. Our faithful application of Rule 14.1(a) thus helps ensure that we are not tempted to engage in ill-considered decisions of questions not presented in the petition. Faithful application will also inform those who seek review here that we continue to strongly “disapprove the practice of smuggling additional questions into a ease after we grant certiorari.” Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 129 (1954) (plurality opinion).
Izumi was not a party to the appeal below, and the Court of Appeals denied its motion to intervene there. Because we decline to review the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ denial of intervention, petitioner lacks standing under §1254(1) to seek review of the question presented in the petition for certiorari. The writ of certiorari is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner hoped to preserve the judgment for use in a suit brought by Philips against Sears and Izumi in the United States District Court for the' Northern District of Illinois. As with Windmere, Izumi has agreed to indemnify Sears’ litigation expenses.
Like the Federal Circuit, the Second Circuit will generally grant motions to vacate when parties settle on appeal. See Nestle Co. v. Chester’s Market, Inc., 756 F. 2d 280, 282-284 (CA2 1985). The Third, District of Columbia, and Seventh Circuits will generally deny such motions. See Clarendon Ltd. v. Nu-West Industries, Inc., 936 F. 2d 127 (CA3 1991); In re United States, 927 F. 2d 626 (CADC 1991); In re Memorial Hospital of Iowa County, Inc., 862 F. 2d 1299 (CA7 1988). The Ninth Circuit requires district courts to balance “the competing values of finality of judgment and right to relitigation of unreviewed disputes.” Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 686 F. 2d 720, 722 (1982).
The initial version of this Rule, promulgated in 1954, stated: “The statement of a question presented will be deemed to include every subsidiary question fairly comprised therein. Only the questions set forth in the petition or fairly comprised therein will be considered by the court.” Rule 23.1(c), Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, 346 U. S. 951, 972 (1954). The current version dates back to 1980, when we amended the Rules. The 1980 changes in syntax obviously did not alter the substance of the Rule.
The Court of Appeals actually dismissed Izumi’s motion in terms of standing, concluding that Izumi did “not have standing to oppose the joint motion.” U. S. Philips Corp. v. Windmere Corp., 971 F. 2d 728, 731 (CA Fed. 1992).
We note that the fact that the parties devoted a portion of their merits briefs to the intervention issue does not bring that question properly before us. Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 151, n. 3 (1976). Nor does “[t]he fact that the issue was mentioned in argument. . . bring the question properly before us.” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U. S. 201, 206, n. 5 (1954). Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, see post, at 35-36, the fact that Izumi discussed this issue in the text of its petition for certiorari does not bring it before us. Rule 14.1(a) requires that a subsidiary question be fairly included in the question presented for our review.
Even before the first version of the current Rule 14.1(a) was adopted, we indicated our unwillingness to decide issues not presented in petitions for certiorari. As we stated in General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U. S. 175, 179 (1938): “One having obtained a writ of certiorari to review specified questions is not entitled here to obtain decision on any other issue.” And as Justice Jackson stated, writing for a plurality in Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 129-130 (1954): “We disapprove the practice of smuggling additional questions into a case after we grant certiorari. The issues here are fixed by the petition unless we limit the grant, as frequently we do to avoid settled, frivolous or state law questions.”
Justice Stevens in dissent urges that our disposition of United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. 36 (1992), provides authority for reaching the merits of this case. We disagree. There we applied a different prudential rule — the one which precludes our review of an issue that “was not pressed or passed upon below.” Id., at 41 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the issue there hod been passed upon by the lower court, see id., at 39, we reviewed it.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was brought to trial in a North Carolina court upon a charge of rape, an offense punishable in that State by death unless the jury recommends life imprisonment. Among the items of evidence introduced by the prosecution at the trial was a .22-caliber rifle allegedly used in the commission of the crime. The jury found the petitioner guilty, but recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. The trial court imposed that sentence, and the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the judgment. We granted certiorari to consider two separate constitutional claims pressed unsuccessfully by the petitioner throughout the litigation in the North Carolina courts. First, the petitioner argues that his constitutional right to an impartial jury was violated in this capital case when the prosecution was permitted to challenge for cause all prospective jurors who stated that they were opposed to capital punishment or had conscientious scruples against imposing the death penalty. Secondly, the petitioner contends that the .22-caliber rifle introduced in evidence against him was obtained by the State in a search and seizure violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I.
In Witherspoon v. Illinois, ante, p. 510, we have held that a death sentence cannot constitutionally be executed if imposed by a jury from which have been excluded for cause those who, without more, are opposed to capital punishment or have conscientious scruples against imposing the death penalty. Our decision in Witherspoon does not govern the present case, because here the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner argues, however, that a jury qualified under such standards must necessarily be biased as well with respect to a defendant’s guilt, and that his conviction must accordingly be reversed because of the denial of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by an impartial jury. Duncan v. Louisiana, ante, p. 145; Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466, 471-473; Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 722-723. We cannot accept that contention in the present case. The petitioner adduced no evidence to support the claim that a jury selected as this one was is necessarily “prosecution prone,” and the materials referred to in his brief are no more substantial than those brought to our attention in Witherspoon, Accordingly, we decline to reverse the judgment of conviction upon this basis.
II.
The petitioner lived with his grandmother, Mrs. Hattie Leath, a 66-year-old Negro widow, in a house located in a rural area at the end of an isolated mile-long dirt road. Two days after the alleged offense but prior to the petitioner’s arrest, four white law enforcement officers — the county sheriff, two of his deputies, and a state investigator — went to this house and found Mrs. Leath there with some young children. She met the officers at the front door. One of them announced, “I have a search warrant to search your house.” Mrs. Leath responded, “Go ahead,” and opened the door. In the kitchen the officers found the rifle that was later introduced in evidence at the petitioner’s trial after a motion to suppress had been denied.
At the hearing on this motion, the prosecutor informed the court that he did not rely upon a warrant to justify the search, but upon the consent of Mrs. Leath. She testified at the hearing, stating, among other things:
“Four of them came. I was busy about my work, and they walked into the house and one of them walked up and said, T have a search warrant to search your house,’ and I walked out and told them to come on in. . . . He just come on in and said he had a warrant to search the house, and he didn’t read it to me or nothing. So, I just told him to come on in and go ahead and search, and I went on about my work. I wasn’t concerned what he was about. I was just satisfied. He just told me he had a search warrant, but he didn’t read it to me. He did tell me he had a search warrant.
“. . . He said he was the law and had a search warrant to search the house, why I thought he could go ahead. I believed he had a search warrant. I took him at his word. ... I just seen them out there in the yard. They got through the door when I opened it. At that time, I did not know my grandson had been charged with crime. Nobody told me anything. They didn’t tell me anything, just picked it up like that. They didn’t tell me nothing about my grandson.”
Upon the basis of Mrs. Leath’s testimony, the trial court found that she had given her consent to the search, and denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court of North Carolina approved the admission of the evidence on the same basis.
The issue thus presented is whether a search can be justified as lawful on the basis of consent when that “consent” has been given only after the oficial conducting the search has asserted that he possesses a warrant. We hold that there can be no consent under such circumstances.
When a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given. This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. A search conducted in reliance upon a warrant cannot later be justified on the basis of consent if it turns out that the warrant was invalid. The result can be no different when it turns out that the State does not even attempt to rely upon the validity of the warrant, or fails to show that there was, in fact, any warrant at all.
When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search. The situation is instinct with coercion — albeit colorably lawful coercion. Where there is coercion there cannot be consent.
We hold that Mrs. Leath did not consent to the search, and that it was constitutional error to admit the rifle in evidence against the petitioner. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643. Because the rifle was plainly damaging evidence against the petitioner with respect to all three of the charges against him, its admission at the trial was not harmless error. Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is, accordingly, reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas joins Part II of the opinion of the Court. Since, however, the record shows that 16 of 53 prospective jurors were excused for cause because of their opposition to capital punishment, he would also reverse on the ground that petitioner was denied the right to trial on the issue of guilt by a Jury representing a fair cross-section of the community. Witherspoon v. Illinois, ante, at 523 (separate opinion). Under North Carolina law, rape is punishable by death unless the jury recommends life imprisonment. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-21 (1953). But an indictment for rape includes the lesser offense of an assault with intent to commit rape, and the court has the duty to submit to the jury the lesser degrees of the offense of rape which are supported by the evidence. State v. Green, 246 N. C. 717, 100 S. E. 2d 52 (1957). See N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15-169, 15-170 (1953). These include assault with intent to commit rape, for which the range of punishment is one to 15 years’ imprisonment (N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-22), and assault (N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33). In the instant case, the trial judge did in fact charge the jury with respect to these lesser offenses.
“Every person who is convicted of ravishing and carnally knowing any female of the age of twelve years or more by force and against her will, or who is convicted of unlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing any female child under the age of twelve years, shall suffer death: Provided, if the jury shall so recommend at the time of rendering its verdict in open court, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life in the State’s prison, and the court shall so instruct the jury.” N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-21 (1953).
The petitioner was also convicted upon two charges of felonious assault and sentenced to consecutive 10-year prison terms.
270 N. C. 521, 155 S. E. 2d 173.
389 U. S. 1034.
He did submit affidavits to the North Carolina Supreme Court referring to studies by W. C. Wilson and F. J. Goldberg, see Witherspoon v. Illinois, ante, at 517, n. 10. The court made no findings with respect to those studies and did not mention them in its opinion.
In addition to the materials mentioned in Witherspoon, ante, at 517, n. 10, the petitioner’s brief in this Court cites an unpublished dissertation by R. Crosson, An Investigation Into Certain Personality Variables Among Capital Trial Jurors (Western Reserve University, January 1966), involving a sample of 72 jurors in Ohio.
“The Court: There is a motion here that says the property [was] seized against the will of Mrs. Hattie Leath and without a search warrant. Now, the question is, are we going into the search warrant ?
“Mr. Cooper: The State is not relying on the search warrant.
“The Court: Are you stating so for the record?
“Mr. Cooper: Yes, sir.”
She also testified, at another point:
“I had no objection to them making a search of my house. I was willing to let them look in any room or drawer in my house they wanted to. Nobody threatened me with anything. Nobody told me they were going to hurt me if I didn’t let them search my house. Nobody told me they would give me any money if I would let them search. I let them search, and it was all my own free will. Nobody forced me at all.
“I just give them a free will to look because I felt like the boy wasn’t guilty.”
The transcript of the suppression hearing comes to us from North Carolina in the form of a narrative; i. e., the actual questions and answers have been rewritten in the form of continuous first person testimony. The effect is to put into the mouth of the witness some of the words of the attorneys. In the ease of an obviously compliant witness like Mrs. Leath, the result is a narrative that has the tone of decisiveness but is shot through with contradictions.
“The Court finds that from the evidence of Mrs. Hattie Leath that it is of a clear and convincing nature that she, the said Mrs. Hattie Leath, voluntarily consented to the search of her premises, as is more particularly set forth in her evidence, and that that consent was specifically given and is not the result of coercion from the officers.”
That court also stated: “The fact that [the search] did reveal the presence of the guilty weapon . . . justifies the search. . . . [The petitioner’s] rights have not been violated. Rather, his wrongs have been detected.” 270 N. C., at 530-531, 155 S. E. 2d, at 180.
Any idea that a search can be justified by what it turns up was long ago rejected in our constitutional jurisprudence. “A search prosecuted in violation of the Constitution is not made lawful by what it brings to light ...” Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 29. See also United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 595; Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 103.
Mrs. Leath owned both the house and the rifle. The petitioner concedes that her voluntary consent to the search would have been binding upon him. Conversely, there can be no question of the petitioner’s standing to challenge the lawfulness of the search. He was the “one against whom the search was directed,” Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 261, and the house searched was his home. The rifle was used by all members of the household and was found in the common part of the house.
Wren v. United States, 352 F. 2d 617; Simmons v. Bomar, 349 F. 2d 365; Judd v. United States, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 64, 190 F. 2d 649; Kovach v. United States, 53 F. 2d 639.
See, e. g., Amos v. United States, 255 U. S. 313, 317; Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 13; Higgins v. United States, 93 U. S. App. D. C. 340, 209 F. 2d 819; United States v. Marra, 40 F. 2d 271; MacKenzie v. Robbins, 248 F. Supp. 496.
“Orderly submission to law-enforcement officers who, in effect, represented to the defendant that they had the authority to enter and search the house, against his will if necessary, was not such consent as constituted an understanding, intentional and voluntary waiver by the defendant of his fundamental rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.” United States v. Elliott, 210 F. Supp. 357, 360.
“One is not held to have consented to the search of his premises where it is accomplished pursuant to an apparently valid search warrant. On the contrary, the legal effect is that consent is on the basis of such a warrant and his permission is construed as an intention to abide by the law and not resist the search under the warrant, rather than an invitation to search.” Bull v. Armstrong, 254 Ala. 390, 394, 48 So. 2d 467, 470.
“One who, upon the command of an officer authorized to enter and search and seize by search warrant, opens the door to the officer and acquiesces in obedience to such a request, no matter by what language used in such acquiescence, is but showing a regard for the supremacy of the law. . . . The presentation of a search warrant to those in charge at the place to be searched, by one authorized to serve it, is tinged with coercion, and submission thereto cannot be considered an invitation that would waive the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but rather is to be considered a submission to the law.” Meno v. State, 197 Ind. 16, 24, 164 N. E. 93, 96.
See also Salata v. United States, 286 F. 125; Brown v. State, 42 Ala. App. 429, 167 So. 2d 281; Mattingly v. Commonwealth, 199 Ky. 30, 250 S. W. 105. Cf. Gibson v. United States, 80 U. S. App. D. C. 81, 149 F. 2d 381; Naples v. Maxwell, 271 F. Supp. 850; Atwood v. State, 44 Okla. Cr. 206, 280 P. 319; State v. Watson, 133 Miss. 796, 98 So. 241.
During the course of the argument in this case we were advised that the searching officers did, in fact, have a warrant. But no warrant was ever returned, and there is no way of knowing the conditions under which it was issued, or determining whether it was based upon probable cause.
It is suggested in dissent that “[e]ven assuming . . . that there was no consent to search and that the rifle . . . should not have been admitted into evidence, . . . the conviction should stand.” This suggestion seems to rest on the “horrible” facts of the case, and the assumption that the petitioner was guilty. But it is not the function of this Court to determine innocence or guilt, much less to apply our own subjective notions of justice. Our duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
In view of the discursive factual recital contained in the dissenting opinion, however, an additional word may be in order. There can be no doubt that the crimes were grave and shocking. There can be doubt that the petitioner was their perpetrator. The crimes were committed at night. When, at first, the victims separately viewed a lineup that included the petitioner, each of the victims identified the same man as their assailant. That man was not the petitioner. Later, the victims together viewed another lineup, and every man in the lineup was made to speak his name for “voice identification.” This time the victims identified the petitioner as their assailant. At the time of the lineups a local newspaper had reported that a man named Wayne Bumper was being held by the sheriff as the “prime suspect” in the case, and at least one of the victims knew of that fact. Earlier both victims had been shown a collection of photographs. One victim identified a picture of the petitioner; the petitioner’s name was written on the back of the photograph.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Federal Power Commission in 1958-1959 granted unconditional certificates of public convenience and necessity to numerous producers of gas in south Louisiana, the sales contracts of the producers calling for initial prices ranging from 21.4 cents to 23.8 cents per Mcf. After deliveries commenced under those contracts, consumer interests challenged the orders in various courts of appeals. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sustained the Commission’s action (United Gas Improvement Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 269 F. 2d 865) but we vacated the judgment (Public Service Comm’n v. Federal Power Comm’n, 361 U. S. 195) for reconsideration in light of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n (CATCO), 360 U. S. 378; and the other courts of appeals did likewise.
The Commission thereupon instituted an area rate proceeding for south Louisiana and consolidated the remanded cases with that proceeding. 25 F. P. C. 942. It advised the producers of their potential obligation to refund any amounts eventually found to be inconsistent “with the requirements of the public interest and necessity” under § 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 52 Stat. 824, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717f. 27 F. P. C. 15. Later the Commission in the interest of expedition severed the present group of applications and set them for a hearing in a consolidated proceeding under § 7. 27 F. P. C. 482. At the end, the Commission imposed two conditions on the certificates granted in these cases. First, it provided that the producers commence service at 18.5 cents per Mcf., plus 1.5 cents tax reimbursement where applicable, a price that it found to be “in line” with prices for Commission-certificated sales of gas from the southern Louisiana production area under generally contemporaneous contracts, 30 F. P. C. 283, 288-289. Second, it provided that until just and reasonable area rates are determined for south Louisiana, or until July 1, 1967, whichever is earlier, the producers shall not file any increased rates above 23.55 cents, the level at which rate filings might trigger increased rates by other producers under the escalation provisions of their contracts with the pipeline companies here involved. 30 F. P. C. 283, 298.
In addition, the Commission ordered the producers to refund to their customers the amounts in excess of the proper initial price which they had already collected under the original certificate. 30 F. P. C. 283, 290.
On review the Court of Appeals held that the Commission erred in limiting producers to an initial “in-line” price without first canvassing evidence bearing on the question of what would be a just and reasonable price for the gas. It further held that the Commission had no power to place an upper limit on future rates that a producer might file. Finally, the Court of Appeals, while upholding the power of the Commission to order refunds, held that the measure of such refunds was not to be the difference between the “in-line” price and the original contract price, but between the latter and the just and reasonable price subsequently to be fixed. 335 F. 2d 1004. We granted certiorari, 380 U. S. 931. We reverse the Court of Appeals.
We think the Commission acted lawfully and responsibly, in line with our decision in the CATCO case where we held that it need not permit gas to be sold in the interstate market at the producer’s contract price, pending determination of just and reasonable rates under § 5, 52 Stat. 823, 15 U. S. C. § 717d. 360 U. S. 378, 388-391. Rather, we held that there is ample power under § 7 (e), to attach appropriate protective conditions. And see Federal Power Comm’n v. Hunt, 376 U. S. 515, 524-527. The fixing of an initial “in-line” price establishes a firm price at which a producer may operate, pending determination of a just and reasonable rate, without any contingent obligation to make refunds should a just and reasonable rate turn out to be lower than the “in-line” price. Consumer protection is afforded by keeping the “in-line” price at the level where substantial amounts of gas have been certificated to enter the market under other contemporaneous certificates, no longer subject to judicial review or in any way “suspect.” We believe the Commission can properly conclude under § 7 that adequate protection to the public interest requires as an interim measure that gas not enter the interstate market at prices higher than existing levels. To consider in this § 7 proceeding the mass of evidence relevant to the fixing of just and reasonable rates under § 5 might in practical effect render nugatory any effort to fix initial prices. We said in CATCO that § 7 procedures are designed “to hold the line awaiting adjudication of a just and reasonable rate” (360 U. S., at 392), and that “the inordinate delay” in § 5 proceedings (360 U. S., at 391) should not cripple them.
The second condition, which temporarily bars rate increases beyond 23.55 cents per Mcf., was likewise aimed at keeping the general price level relatively constant pending determination of the just and reasonable rate. We noted in Federal Power Comm’n v. Hunt, supra, at 524, that “a triggering of price rises often results from the out-of-line initial pricing of certificated gas” and that the possibility of refund does not afford sufficient protection. And see Federal Power Comm’n v. Texaco Inc., 377 U. S. 33, 42-43. We think, contrary to the Court of Appeals, that there was ample power under § 7 (e) for the Commission to attach these conditions for consumer protection during this interim period though the certificate was not a temporary one, as in Hunt, but a permanent one, as in CATCO and Federal Power Comm’n v. Texaco Inc., supra.
The “in-line” price of 18.5 cents is supported by the contract prices in the south Louisiana area that were not “suspect,” and the selection of 23.55 cents beyond which a price increase might trigger escalation reflects the Commission’s expertise.
We also conclude that the Commission’s refund order was allowable. We reject, as did the Court of Appeals below, the suggestion that the Commission lacked authority to order any refund. While the Commission “has no power to make reparation orders,” Federal Power Comm’n v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 618, its power to fix rates under § 5 being prospective only, Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, supra, at 389, it is not so restricted where its order, which never became final, has been overturned by a reviewing court. Here the original certificate orders were subject to judicial review; and judicial review at times results in the return of benefits received under the upset administrative order. See Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 200-201. An agency, like a court, can undo what is wrongfully done by virtue of its order. Under these circumstances, the Commission could properly conclude that the public interest required the producers to make refunds for the period in which they sold their gas at prices exceeding those properly determined to be in the public interest.
We think that the Commission could properly measure the refund by the difference between the rates charged and the “in-line” rates to which the original certificates should have been conditioned. The Court of Appeals would delay the payment of the refund until the “just and reasonable” rate could be determined. We have said elsewhere that it is the duty of the Commission, “where refunds are found due, to direct their payment at the earliest possible moment consistent with due process.” Federal Power Comm’n v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., 371 U. S. 145, 155. These excessive rates have been collected since 1958; under the circumstances, the Commission was not required to delay this refund further. And the imposition of interest on refunds is not an inappropriate means of preventing unjust enrichment. See Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 290 F. 2d 149, 157; Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Labor Board, 331 F. 2d 720, 729-731.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
See United Gas Improvement Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 283 F. 2d 817; Public Service Comm’n v. Federal Power Comm’n, 109 U. S. App. D. C. 292, 287 F. 2d 146; United Gas Improvement Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 287 F. 2d 159; United Gas Improvement Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 290 F. 2d 133; and United Gas Improvement Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 290 F. 2d 147.
Section 7 (e) provides in part:
“The Commission shall have the power to attach to the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the public convenience and necessity may require.”
In the early post-CATCO cases, the Commission apparently proceeded on a case-by-case basis, considering whatever evidence might have been presented. See, e. g., Continental Oil Co., 27 F. P. C. 96, 102-108. Experience convinced it that the minimal utility derived from cost and economic trend evidence was outweighed by the administrative burdens and delays its consideration inevitably produced. See Skelly Oil Co., 28 F. P. C. 401, 410-412. The Commission properly and constructively exercised its discretion in declining to consider this large quantity of evidence. To have done so would have required a considerable expenditure of manpower, cf. Wisconsin v. Federal Power Comm’n, 373 U. S. 294, 313. We have previously encouraged the Commission to devise reasonable means of streamlining its procedures, see Federal Power Comm’n v. Hunt, supra, at 527, and we regard the Commission’s decision here as an appropriate step in that direction. Cf. Federal Power Comm’n v. Texaco Inc., 377 U. S. 33, 44.
The problem of refunds for amounts collected above the “in-line” price is not affected here by any filing under § 4 for increases within the limits of the triggering moratorium. 52 Stat. 822, 15 U. S. C. § 717c. Under §4 (d), a 30-day notice to the Commission and to the public is required for all rate increases, the Commission having authority under § 4 (e) to suspend the new rate for five months and thereafter to act only “after full hearings.” If the Commission has not acted at the expiration of the period of suspension, the new rates become effective. The Commission may require the producer to furnish a bond, and thereafter may compel refund of “the portion of such increased rates or charges by its decision found not justified.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed tax deficiencies against petitioners David and Louise Gitlitz and Philip and Eleanor Winn because they used nontaxed discharge of indebtedness to increase their bases in S corporation stock and to deduct suspended losses. In this case we must answer two questions. First, we must decide whether the Internal Revenue Code (Code) permits taxpayers to increase bases in their S corporation stock by the amount of an S corporation’s discharge of indebtedness excluded from gross income. And, second, if the Code permits such an increase, we must decide whether the increase occurs before or after taxpayers are required to reduce the S corporation’s tax attributes.
I
David Gitlitz and Philip Winn were shareholders of P. D. W. & A., Inc., a corporation that had elected to be taxed under Subchapter S of the Code, 26 U. S. C. §§ 1361-1379 (1994 ed. and Supp. III). Subchapter S allows shareholders of qualified corporations to elect a “pass-through” taxation system under which income is subjected to only one level of taxation. See Bufferd v. Commissioner, 506 U. S. 523, 525 (1993). The corporation’s profits pass through directly to its shareholders on a pro rata basis and are reported on the shareholders’ individual tax returns. See § 1366(a)(1)(A). To prevent double taxation of income upon distribution from the corporation to the shareholders, § 1367(a)(1)(A).permits shareholders to increase their corporate bases by items of income identified in § 1366(a) (1994 ed. and Supp. III). Corporate losses and deductions are passed through in a similar manner, see § 1366(a)(1)(A), and the shareholders’ bases in the S corporation’s stock and debt are decreased accordingly, see §§ 1367(a)(2)(B), 1367(b)(2)(A). However, a shareholder cannot take corporate losses and deductions into account on his personal tax return to the extent that such items exceed his basis in the stock and debt of the S corporation. See § 1366(d)(1) (Supp. III). If those items exceed the basis, the excess is “suspended” until the shareholder’s basis becomes large enough to permit the deduction. See §§ 1366(d)(1), (2) (1994 ed. and Supp. III).
In 1991, P. D. W. & A. realized $2,021,296 of discharged indebtedness. At the time, the corporation was insolvent in the amount of $2,181,748. Because it was insolvent even after the discharge of indebtedness was added to its balance sheet, P. D. W. & A. excluded the entire discharge of indebtedness amount from gross income under 26 U. S. C. §§ 108(a) and 108(d)(7)(A). On their tax returns, Gitlitz and Winn increased their bases in P. D. W. & A. stock by their pro rata share (50 percent each) of the amount of the corporation’s discharge of indebtedness. Petitioners’ theory was that the discharge of indebtedness was an “item of income” subject to pass-through under § 1366(a)(1)(A). They used their increased bases to deduct on their personal tax returns corporate losses and deductions, including losses and deductions from previous years that had been suspended under § 1366(d). Gitlitz and Winn each had losses (including suspended losses and operating losses) that totaled $1,010,648. With the upward basis adjustments of $1,010,648 each, Gitlitz and Winn were each able to deduct the full amount of their pro rata share of P. D. W. & A.’s losses.
The Commissioner determined that petitioners could not use P. D. W. & A.’s discharge of indebtedness to increase their bases in the stock and denied petitioners’ loss deductions. Petitioners petitioned the Tax Court to review the deficiency determinations. The Tax Court, in its initial opinion, granted relief to petitioners and held that the discharge of indebtedness was an “item of income” and therefore could support a basis increase. See Winn v. Commissioner, 73 TCM 3167 (1997), ¶ 97,286 RIA Memo withdrawn and reissued, 75 TCM 1840 (1998), ¶ 98,071 RIA Memo TC. In light of the Tax Court’s decision in Nelson v. Commis sioner, 110 T. C. 114 (1998), aff’d, 182 E 3d 1152 (CA10 1999), however, the Tax Court granted the Commissioner’s motion for reconsideration and held that shareholders may not use an S corporation’s untaxed discharge of indebtedness to increase their bases in corporate stock. See Winn v. Commissioner, 75 TCM 1840 (1998), ¶ 98,071 RIA Memo TC.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. See 182 F. 3d 1143 (CA10 1999). It assumed that excluded discharge of indebtedness is an item of income subject to pass-through to shareholders pursuant to § 1366(a)(1)(A), id., at 1148, 1151, n. 7, but held that the discharge of indebtedness amount first had to be used to reduce certain tax attributes of the S corporation under § 108(b), and that only the leftover amount could be used to increase basis. The Court of Appeals explained that, because the tax attribute to be reduced (in this case the corporation’s net operating loss) was equal to the amount of discharged debt, the entire amount of discharged debt was absorbed by the reduction at the corporate level, and nothing remained of the discharge of indebtedness to be passed through to the shareholders under § 1366(a)(1)(A). Id., at 1151. Because Courts of Appeals have disagreed on how to treat discharge of indebtedness of an insolvent S corporation, compare Gaudiano v. Commissioner, 216 F. 3d 524, 535 (CA6 2000) (holding that tax attributes are reduced before excluded discharged debt income is passed through to shareholders), cert. pending, No. 00-459; Witzel v. Commissioner, 200 F. 3d 496, 498 (CA7 2000) (same), cert. pending, No. 99-1693; and 182 F. 3d, at 1150 (case below), with United States v. Farley, 202 F. 3d 198, 206 (CA3 2000) (holding that excluded discharged debt income is passed through to shareholders before tax attributes are reduced), cert. pending, No. 99-1675 [Reporter’s Note: See post, p. 1111]; see also Pugh v. Commissioner, 213 F. 3d 1324, 1330 (CA11 2000) (holding that excluded discharged debt income is subject to pass-through and can increase basis), cert. pending, No. 00-242, we granted certiorari. 529 U. S. 1097 (2000).
I
Before we can reach the issue addressed by the Court of Appeals — whether the increase in the taxpayers’ corporate bases occurs before or after the taxpayers are required to reduce the S corporation’s tax attributes — we must address the argument raised by the Commissioner. The Commissioner argues that the discharge of indebtedness of an insolvent S corporation is not an “item of income” and thus never passes through to shareholders. Under a plain reading of the statute, we reject this argument and conclude that excluded discharged debt is indeed an “item of income,” which passes through to the shareholders and increases their bases in the stock of the S corporation.
Section 61(a)(12) states that discharge of indebtedness generally is included in gross income. Section 108(a)(1) provides an express exception to this general rule:
“Gross income does not include any amount which (but for this subsection) would be includible in gross income by reason of the discharge ... of indebtedness of the taxpayer if—
“(B) the discharge occurs when the taxpayer is insolvent.”
The Commissioner contends that this exclusion from gross income alters the character of the discharge of indebtedness so that it is no longer an “item of income.” However, the text and structure of the statute do not support the Commissioner’s theory. Section 108(a) simply does not say that discharge of indebtedness ceases to be an item of income when the S corporation is insolvent. Instead it provides only that discharge of indebtedness ceases to be included in gross income. Not all items of income are included in gross income, see § 1366(a)(1) (providing that “items of income,” including “tax-exempt” income, are passed through to shareholders), so mere exclusion of an amount from gross income does not imply that the amount ceases to be an item of income. Moreover, §§ 101 through 136 employ the same construction to exclude various items from gross income: “Gross income does not include . . . .” The consequence of reading this language in the manner suggested by the Commissioner would be to exempt all items in these sections from pass-through under § 1366. However, not even the Commissioner encourages us to reach this sweeping conclusion. Instead the Commissioner asserts that discharge of indebtedness is unique among the types of items excluded from gross income because no economic outlay is required of the taxpayer receiving discharge of indebtedness. But the Commissioner is unable to identify language in the statute that makes this distinction relevant, and we certainly find none.
On the contrary, the statute makes clear that §108(a)’s exclusion does not alter the character of discharge of indebtedness as an item of income. Specifically, § 108(e)(1) reads:
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, there shall be no insolvency exception from the general rule that gross income includes income from the discharge of indebtedness.”
This provision presumes that discharge of indebtedness is always “income,” and that the only question for purposes of § 108 is whether it is includible in gross income. If discharge of indebtedness of insolvent entities were not actually “income,” there would be no need to provide an exception to its inclusion in gross income; quite simply, if discharge of indebtedness of an insolvent entity were not “income,” it would necessarily not be included in gross income.
Notwithstanding the plain language of the statute, the Commissioner argues, generally, that excluded discharge of indebtedness is not income and, specifically, that it is not “tax-exempt income” under § 1366(a)(1)(A). First, the Commissioner argues that § 108 merely codified the “judicial insolvency exception,” and that, under this exception, discharge of indebtedness of an insolvent taxpayer was not considered income. The insolvency exception was a rule that the discharge of indebtedness of an insolvent taxpayer was not taxable income. See, e. g., Dallas Transfer & Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Commissioner, 70 F. 2d 95 (CA5 1934); Astoria Marine Construction Co. v. Commissioner, 12 T. C. 798 (1949). But the exception has since been limited by § 108(e). Section 108(e) precludes us from relying on any understanding of the judicial insolvency exception that was not codified in § 108. And as explained above, the language and logic of §108 clearly establish that, although discharge of indebtedness of an insolvent taxpayer is not included in gross income, it is nevertheless income.
The Commissioner also relies on a Treasury Regulation to support his theory that no income is realized from the discharge of the debt of an insolvent:
“Proceedings under Bankruptcy Act.
“(1) Income is not realized by a taxpayer by virtue of the discharge, under section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U. S. C. 32), of his indebtedness as the result of an adjudication in bankruptcy, or by virtue of an agreement among his creditors not consummated under any provision of the Bankruptcy Act, if immediately thereafter the taxpayer’s liabilities exceed the value of his assets.” 26 CFR § 1.61-12(b) (2000).
Even if this regulation could be read (countertextually) to apply outside the bankruptcy context, it merely states that “[i]ncome is not realized.” The regulation says nothing about whether discharge of indebtedness is income subject to pass-through under § 1366.
Second, the Commissioner argues that excluded discharge of indebtedness is not “tax-exempt” income under § 1366(a)(1)(A), but rather “tax-deferred” income. According to the Commissioner, because the taxpayer is required to reduce tax attributes that could have provided future tax benefits, the taxpayer will pay taxes on future income that otherwise would have been absorbed by the forfeited tax attributes. Implicit in the Commissioner’s labeling of such income as “tax-deferred,” however, is the erroneous assumption that § 1366(a)(1)(A) does not include “tax-deferred” income. Section 1366 applies to “items of income.” This section expressly includes “tax-exempt” income, but this inclusion does not mean that the statute must therefore exclude “tax-deferred” income. The section is worded broadly enough to include any item of income, even tax-deferred income, that “could affect the liability for tax of any shareholder.” § 1366(a)(1)(A). Thus, none of the Commissioner’s contentions alters our conclusion that discharge of indebtedness of an insolvent S corporation is an item of income for purposes of § 1366(a)(1)(A).
III
Having concluded that excluded discharge of indebtedness is . an “item of income” and is therefore subject to pass-through to shareholders under § 1366, we must resolve the sequencing question addressed by the Court of Appeals— whether pass-through is performed before or after the reduction of the S corporation’s tax attributes under § 108(b). Section 108(b)(1) provides that “[t]he amount excluded from gross income under [§ 108(a)] shall be applied to reduce the tax attributes of the taxpayer as provided [in this section].” Section 108(b)(2) then lists the various tax attributes to be reduced in the order of reduction. The first tax attribute to be reduced, and the one at issue in this case, is the net operating loss. See § 108(b)(2)(A). Section 108(d)(7)(B) specifies that, for purposes of attribute reduction, the shareholders’ suspended losses for the taxable year of discharge are to be treated as the S corporation’s net operating loss. If tax attribute reduction is performed before the discharge of indebtedness is passed through to the shareholders (as the Court of Appeals held), the shareholders’ losses that exceed basis are treated as the corporation’s net operating loss and are then reduced by the amount of the discharged debt. In this case, no suspended losses would remain that would permit petitioners to take deductions. If, however, attribute reduction is performed after the discharged debt income is passed through (as petitioners argue), then the shareholders would be able to deduct their losses (up to the amount of the increase in basis caused by the discharged debt). Any suspended losses remaining then will be treated as the S corporation’s net operating loss and will be reduced by the amount of the discharged debt. Therefore, the sequence of the steps of pass-through and attribute reduction determines whether petitioners here were deficient when they increased their bases by the discharged debt amount and deducted their losses.
The sequencing question is expressly addressed in the statute. Section 108(b)(4)(A) directs that the attribute reductions “shall be made after the determination of the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year of the discharge.” (Emphases added.) See also § 1017(a) (applying the same sequencing when § 108 attribute reduction affects basis of corporate property). In order to determine the “tax imposed,” an S corporation shareholder must adjust his basis in his corporate stock and pass through all items of income and loss. See §§ 1866,1367 (1994 ed. and Supp. III). Consequently, the attribute reduction must be made after the basis adjustment and pass-through. In the case of petitioners, they must pass through the discharged debt, increase corporate bases, and then deduct their losses, all before any attribute reduction could occur. Because their basis increase is equal to their losses, petitioners have no suspended losses remaining. They, therefore, have no net operating losses to reduce.
Although the Commissioner has now abandoned the reasoning of the Court of Appeals below, we address the primary arguments made in the Courts of Appeals against petitioners’ reading of the sequencing provision. First, one court has expressed the concern that, if the discharge of indebtedness is passed through to the shareholder before the tax attributes are reduced, then there can never be any discharge of indebtedness remaining “at the corporate level,” § 108(d)(7)(A), by which to reduce tax attributes. Gaudino, 216 F. 3d, at 533. This concern presumes that tax attributes can be reduced only if the discharge of indebtedness itself remains at the corporate level. The statute, however, does not impose this restriction. Section 108(b)(1) requires only that the tax attributes be reduced by “[t]he amount excluded from gross income” (emphasis added), and that amount is not altered by the mere pass-through of the income to the shareholder.
Second, courts have discussed the policy concern that, if shareholders were permitted to pass through the discharge of indebtedness before reducing any tax attributes, the shareholders would wrongly experience a “double windfall”: They would be exempted from paying taxes on the full amount of the discharge of indebtedness, and they would be able to increase basis and deduct their previously suspended losses. See, e.g., 182 F. 3d, at 1147-1148. Because the Code’s plain text permits the taxpayers here to receive these benefits, we need not address this policy concern.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Each man filed a joint tax return with his wife.
Section 1366(a)(1) provides:
“In determining the tax under this chapter of a shareholder for the shareholder’s taxable year in which the taxable year of the S corporation ends . . . , there shall be taken into account the shareholder’s pro rata share of the corporation’s—
“(A) items of income (including tax-exempt income), loss, deduction, or credit the separate treatment of which could affect the liability for tax of any shareholder ....”
In Nelson, the Tax Court held that excluded discharge of indebtedness does not pass through to an S corporation’s shareholders because § 108 is an exception to normal S corporation pass-through rules. Specifically, the court held that, because § 108(d)(7)(A) requires that “subsections (a) [and (b) of § 108] shall be applied at the corporate level” in the case of an S corporation, it precludes any pass-through of the discharge of indebtedness to the shareholder level. See Nelson, 110 T. C., at 121-124.
Section 108(b)(1) reads: “The amount excluded from gross income under [§ 108(a)(1)] shall be applied to reduce the tax attributes of the taxpayer ....”
The Commissioner has altered his arguments throughout the course of this litigation. According to the Tax Court, during the first iteration of this case the Commissioner made several arguments but then settled on a “final” one — that the discharge of indebtedness of the insolvent S corporation was not an “item of income,” see 73 TCM 3167 (1997), ¶ 97,286 RIA Memo TC. In the Court of Appeals, the Commissioner argued instead that, because any pass-through of excluded discharge of indebtedness to petitioners took place after any reduction of tax attributes and by then the income would have been fully absorbed by the tax attributes, no discharged debt remained to flowthrough to petitioners. The Commissioner relegated to a footnote his argument that discharge of indebtedness is not an “item of income.” See Brief for Appellee in Nos. 98-9009 and 98-9010 (CA10), p. 33, n. 14.
The Commissioner also contends, as does the dissent, that because § 108(d)(7)(A) mandates that the discharged debt amount be determined and applied to reduce tax attributes “at the corporate level,” rather than at the shareholder level, the discharged debt, even if it is some type of income, simply cannot pass through to shareholders. In other words, the Commissioner contends' that § 108(d)(7)(A) excepts excluded discharged debt from the general pass-through provisions for S corporations. However, § 108(d)(7)(A) merely directs that the exclusion from gross income and the tax attribute reduction be made at the corporate level. Section 108(d)(7)(A) does not state or imply that the debt discharge provisions shall apply only “at the corporate level.” The very purpose of Subchap-ter S is to tax at the shareholder level, not the corporate level. Income is determined at the S corporation level, see § 1863(b), not in order to tax the corporation, see § 1363(a) (exempting an S corporation from income tax), but solely to pass through to the S corporation’s shareholders the corporation’s income. Thus, the controlling provision states that, in determining a shareholder’s liability, “there shall be taken into account the shareholder’s pro rata share of the corporation’s . . . items of income (including tax-exempt income)_” § 1366(a)(1). Nothing in § 108(d)(7)(A) suspends the operation of these ordinary pass-through rules.
Under this scenario, the shareholders’ losses would be reduced by the discharge of indebtedness. However, it is unclear precisely what would happen to the discharge of indebtedness. The Court of Appeals below stated that the discharged debt would be “absorbed” by the reduction to the extent of the net operating loss and that therefore only the excess excluded discharged debt would remain to pass through to the shareholders. 182 F. 3d 1143, 1149 (CA10 1999). In contrast, another Court of Appeals suggested, albeit in dictum, that the full amount of the discharge might still pass through to the shareholder and be used to increase basis; the discharged debt amount would reduce the net operating loss but would not be absorbed by it. Witzel v. Commissioner, 200 F. 3d 496, 498 (CA7 2000). We need not resolve this issue because we conclude that the discharge of indebtedness passes through before any attribute reduction takes place.
The Commissioner has abandoned his argument related to the sequencing issue before this Court. This abandonment is particularly odd given that the sequencing issue predominated in the Commissioner’s argument to the Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the Commissioner’s attempt at oral argument to distance himself from the reasoning of the Court of Appeals on this issue — the Commissioner represented to us that the Court of Appeals developed its reading of the statute sua sponte, Tr. of Oral Arg. 22-24, 27 — it is apparent from the Commissioner’s brief in the Court of Appeals that the Commissioner supplied the very sequencing theory that the Court of Appeals adopted. Compare, e. g., Brief for Appellee in Nos. 98-9009 and 98-9010 (CA10), p. 28 (“First, the discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded under Section 108(a) at the corporate level is temporarily set aside and has no tax consequences .... Second, PDW & A computes its tax attributes, i. e., taxpayers’ suspended losses. Third, the excluded discharge of indebtness income is applied against and eliminates the suspended losses. Because the excluded income is applied against — and offset by — the suspended losses, no item of income flows through to taxpayers under Section 1366(a), and no upward basis adjustment is made under Section 1367(a)” (citations omitted)), with, e. g., 182 F. 3d, at 1151 (“PDW & A first must compute its discharge of indebtedness income and set this figure aside temporarily. The corporation then must calculate its net operating loss tax attribute.... Finally, the corporation must apply the excluded discharged debt to reduce its tax attributes. In this case, the net operating loss tax attribute fully absorbs the corporation’s excluded- discharge of indebtedness income. Thus, there are no items of income to pass through to Gitlitz and Winn”).
Similar to this argument is the contention that, in cases such as this one in which the shareholders’ suspended losses are fully deducted before attribute reduction could take place, no net operating loss remains and no attribute reduction can occur, thus rendering § 108(b) inoperative. However, there will be other cases in which § 108(b) will be inoperative. In particular, if a taxpayer has no tax attributes at all, there will be no reduction. Certainly the statute does not condition the exclusion under § 108(a) on the ability of the taxpayer to reduce attributes under § 108(b). Likewise, in the case of shareholders similarly situated to petitioners in this case, there is also the possibility that other attributes, see §§ 108(b)(2)(B)-(G), could be reduced.
The benefit at issue in this ease arises in part because § 108(d)(7)(A) permits the exclusion of discharge of indebtedness income from gross income for an insolvent S corporation even when the S corporation shareholder is personally solvent. We are aware of no other instance in which § 108 directly benefits a solvent entity. However, the result is required by statute. Between 1982 and 1984, §108 provided that the exclusion from gross income and the reduction in tax attributes occurred at the shareholder level. See Subchapter S Revision Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-354, § 3(e), 96 Stat. 1689. This provision, which paralleled the current taxation of partnerships at the partner level, see 26 U. S. C. § 108(d)(6), prevented solvent shareholders from benefiting as a result of their S corporation’s insolvency. In 1984, however, Congress amended the Code to provide that §108 be applied “at the corporate level.” Tax Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, § 721(b), 98 Stat. 966. It is as a direct result of this amendment that the solvent petitioners in this case are able to benefit from § 108’s exclusion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The General Accounting Office audited transportation bills of the respondent, rendered and paid in 1944, and determined that the Government was overcharged in the amount of $1,025.26. When the respondent did not refund this amount on demand, the Government exercised the right, reserved in § 322 of the Transportation Act of 1940, to deduct the overpayments from a subsequent bill. The Government credited that amount against a bill of the respondent, admittedly owing, of $1,143.03 for 1950 transportation services, and paid the balance of $117.77 by check.
The respondent thereupon brought this action under the Tucker Act in the District Court for Massachusetts. The complaint seeks recovery not of the $1,025.26 deducted, but of the full amount of the 1950 bill of $1,143.03. The Government’s answer admits the 1950 bill but pleads its payment by the check of $117.77 and the credit of $1,025.26 in liquidation of the overcharges determined in the 1944 bills. The respondent filed a pleading in response to the government answer admitting “that it did receive the check in the amount of $117.77, all as recited by the defendant, leaving the balance due and to this date unpaid in the amount of $1025.26.”
The question presented in both courts below, and in this Court, is whether in this action the carrier has the burden of proving the correctness of the 1944 bills, or the Government the burden of proving that it was overcharged. The District Court held that the respondent carrier was pleading on a contract against which the Government was attempting to “set off” claims under other contracts, and that “whoever attempts to set off the other contractual claims has the burden of showing there are other claims.” In the absence of government evidence proving the claimed overcharges in the 1944 bills, a motion of the respondent for summary judgment was granted. The judgment entered, however, was for $402.84, because the respondent accepted the amount of 1944 overcharges in the difference between that sum and the amount of the bill. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment. 236 F. 2d 101. We granted certiorari, 352 U. S. 965.
Before enactment of § 322, the Government protected itself against transportation overcharges by not paying transportation bills until the responsible government officers, and, in doubtful cases, the General Accounting Office, first audited the bills and found that the charges were correct. When charges were questioned the carrier was required to justify them. If administrative settlement was not reached and the carrier sued the United States to recover the amount of the bill, no one questions that it was the carrier’s duty to sustain the burden of proving the correctness of the charges. Southern Pacific Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 445, 448.
Section 322, however, required the payment of such bills “upon presentation . . . prior to audit or settlement by the General Accounting Office . . . .” The audit procedures remained substantially the same as those in effect prior to the statute but the former means of protecting against overcharges — by not paying the bills until their correctness was proved — has, by force of the statute, been replaced by the method of collecting them from subsequent bills, under the right reserved by the section to the Government “to deduct the amount of any overpayment to any such carrier from any amount subsequently found to be due such carrier.” We recently said in United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 59, 74:
“. . . This right [to deduct overpayment from subsequent bills of the carrier] was thought to be a necessary measure to protect the Government, since carriers’ bills must be paid on presentation and before audit.”
Again at page 75:
“The fact that the Government paid the carrier’s bills as rendered is without significance in light of § 322 of the Transportation Act, supra, requiring payment ‘upon presentation’ of such bills and postponing final settlement until audit.”
This interpretation of § 322 finds full support in the legislative history of the section. The section was included in the omnibus transportation bill, which became the Transportation Act of 1940, in direct response to a demand of the railroads for legislation relieving them of the inordinate delays in payment of their bills attributable to the preaudit procedure, which tied up substantial amounts of accounts receivable and contributed to the financial difficulties which confronted the railroads during the depression years. The then President of the Association of American Railroads raised the issue in a letter to the Procurement Division of the Department of the Treasury dated October 5, 1937. (See Appendix to this opinion, post, p. 264.) Proposed legislation in almost the identical language which became § 322 was thereupon introduced in 1938. It failed of passage in the Seventy-fifth Congress and a number of similar proposals were therefore introduced in the Seventy-sixth Congress. None of these passed, but in the following year the provision was included as § 322 of the Transportation Act of 1940.
It is entirely clear that although the railroads sought, in the words of their spokesman, “corrective action . . . that will render impossible such long delays in payment for services rendered,” to gain that end the railroads recognized that any remedy suggested on their behalf should be “both practical and legal and [one] which can easily be made operative without the assumption of any risk insofar as the Government is concerned.” It was “with this thought in mind” that the railroads proposed the elimination of preaudit procedures and the prompt payment of transportation bills when rendered, with audit “after payment ... [of] these bills referred to the General Accounting Office or such other governmental auditing office as might be desired for audit.” The plan contemplated that “in the event . . . this audit reveals an over-payment” the same “will be promptly paid by the railway, preserving, however, the right of the carrier to make further effort to recollect in the event that it does not believe the proper charges resulted from the Government’s audit.”
In hearings before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held June 1, 1938, in connection with one of the bills incorporating the proposal which became § 322, the then General Counsel of the Association of American Railroads, arguing in support of the proposal, urged that “[i]f that section could be put in here, it would require the payment of the bills by the Government as they are rendered by the railroads, with the privilege, however, of course, if it should develop that there has been an overpayment, the Government may deduct that amount from subsequent bills.”
The conclusion is inescapable from this history that the Congress was desirous of aiding the railroads to secure prompt payment of their charges, but it is also clear that the Congress, and the railroads, contemplated that the Government’s protection against overcharges available under the preaudit practice should not be diminished. The burden of the carriers to establish the correctness of their charges was to continue unabridged. The carriers were to be paid immediately upon submission of their bills but the carriers were in return promptly to refund overcharges when such charges were administratively determined. The carrier would then have “to recollect” the sum refunded by justifying its bills to the agency or by proving its claim in the courts. The footing upon which each of the parties stood when controversies over charges developed was not to be changed. The right of the United States to deduct overpayments from subsequent bills was the carriers’ own proposal for securing the Government against the burden of having to prove the overpayment in proceedings for reimbursement.
In the light of this history, we are unable to agree with the holdings of the Court of Appeals that “[a] 11 that § 322 does is to authorize and direct disbursing officers of the United States to pay transportation bills upon presentation, without waiting for audit or settlement by the General Accounting Office,” and that the reservation of the right of offset against subsequent bills is without significance — “We suppose that this provision was inserted out of an abundance of caution, because the availability of a setoff by the United States need not depend upon specific statutory authorization,” citing Gratiot v. United, States, 15 Pet. 336, 370. 236 F. 2d 101, 105.
Nor do we share the view of the Court of Appeals that “the position of the United States as shipper, so far as the present case is concerned, is no different from that of a private shipper.” Id., at 104. Even if we assume that “[i]f a private shipper or consignee should pay the carrier before satisfying himself of the correctness of the charges demanded — as he may be required to do pursuant to § 3 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. A. § 3 (2) and regulations of the Commission thereunder — and later sues for a refund of alleged over-payments, or seeks to set off the amount of the overpay-ments against another claim admittedly due, in either case the shipper or consignee would have the burden of alleging and proving the fact and the amount of such overpayment,” the Court of Appeals overlooks the fact that the Government’s statutory right of setoff was designed to be the substantial equivalent of its previous right to withhold payment altogether until the carrier established the correctness of its charges. Thus the issue of overcharges, after the enactment of § 322, arises in a different way, but the differing procedures by which the issue is presented should not control the placement of the burden of proof. In effect the situation is that the railroad is suing to recover amounts which the Government initially paid conditionally, and then recaptured, under the § 322 procedure. We therefore hold that the burden of the carrier to establish the lawfulness of its charges is the same under § 322 as it was under the superseded practice.
Similarly, conventional principles of contractual setoff should not govern the determination of the carrier’s burden of proof in this action merely because the complaint frames an action for recovery of the full amount of the 1950 bill rather than the amount deducted therefrom. The respondent’s brief concedes that “[w]henever a railroad brings an action against the Government, directly upon the deduction [as, on the facts of the case, to recover the alleged 1944 overpayments], it has the burden of alleging and proving the facts of the case and establishing the validity of its claim in the light of the contract and the applicable tariffs.” There is also authority that the plaintiff has the same burden, although suing on the subsequent bill, when the claim for damages is for the amount of the deduction. Suncook Mills v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 744; Eastport S. S. Co. v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 210, 130 F. Supp. 333; Buck Express, Inc. v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 772, 132 F. Supp. 473. We do not see that a different issue was shaped by the pleadings in this action. Cf. Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 190, 212. Although the ad damnum clause of the complaint prays recovery of $1,143.03, respondent’s pleading filed in response to the Government’s answer admits the government payment of $117.77, and that the actual controversy concerns the balance of $1,025.26. The true dispute between the parties, arising from the determination and collection of the overpayments as authorized by § 322, involves the lawfulness of the 1944 bills. It is the substance, not the form, which should be our concern. Cf. Alcoa S. S. Co. v. United States, 338 U. S. 421; Reynolds v. United States, 292 U. S. 443. We hold that the respondent is entitled to recover only if it satisfies its burden of proving that its 1944 charges were computed at lawful and authorized rates.
We do not here intimate that the administrative determination of overpayment has binding effect in the judicial proceeding, see Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. United States, supra, at 211; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 112, 120-121; and we agree with the Court of Appeals that the extrinsic fact, namely the availability of the freight cars in the sizes ordered, remains to be proved in the suit. Our conclusion is that the burden in that respect is upon the carrier.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed with direction to remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissents, on the basis of the opinion of Chief Judge Magruder in the court below, 236 F. 2d 101, and more particularly because the respondent was not the initial carrier.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
The letter, dated October 5, 1937, was addressed by J. J. Pelley, President of the Association of American Railroads, to Captain H. E. Collins, Assistant Director, Procurement Division, Treasury Department, and reads:
“Dear Captain Collins:
“The railroads members of the Association of American Railroads, which comprise about 98% of all the Class I railroads in the United States, have been very much concerned by the long delay in securing payment for transportation services rendered for the U. S. Government. We know further, from conferences with the officers of the American Short Line Railroad Association, that their lines have been and are experiencing similar difficulty. These delays are not justified and the carriers should not be expected to finance the Government as they are now doing, insofar as transportation is concerned. Furthermore, the railroads are necessarily large borrowers and in that connection are required as a condition to their obtaining the necessary capital to pay substantial interest charges on all such borrowed money, whereas on the other hand the Government is paying no interest on its delayed payments to the railroad companies, which delays in many instances run over a year and invariably are not settled for sixty to ninety days. Although the railroads pay interest for the money they borrow, they cannot under the law collect interest from the Government no matter how long settlements may be delayed. This is obviously unfair.
“Under the law applicable to commercial shippers, transactions with railroads are required to be on substantially a cash basis. Shippers are required to pay freight charges within 48 hours, on a majority of the traffic, and in no case are they permitted credit in excess of 96 hours. It appears to us, and particularly under the present unfortunate financial position of the railroads, that the carriers ought to receive settlement from the Government within 96 hours after a bill has been presented and that would be possible providing the proper machinery were set up and the proper instructions issued.
“This matter is of very much greater importance today than it has been in years past, for the reason that under present conditions the Government is engaged in shipping to a very much greater extent than ever before. Due to the various bureaus and other agencies, particularly in connection with relief work and in connection with some of the governmental corporations that have been organized, the Government is today handling much tonnage which was previously commercial traffic so that the delay in settlement for the transportation charges is much more serious to the railroads today than would have been the case a decade ago. It should also be borne in mind in connection with Government freight shipped under Government bills of lading the railroads are under the law not assessing their commercial rates but are making such discounts as the law requires because of land-grants and which in many instances today means the handling of this traffic on a basis below the actual cost of performing the service. These facts are mentioned only as indicating the very great importance of providing some sort of a system which will permit the more prompt payment of these charges.
“That you may have a picture of the situation, your attention is directed to the fact that as of July 1, 1937, there were 94,182 outstanding unpaid railroad bills against the Government amounting to $11,749,774, all of which bills had been rendered prior to May 1, 1937, and of these bills and this amount there was unpaid $4,683,946, representing 35,761 bills which had been rendered prior to January 1, 1937.
“We feel very sure that you and the other officers of the Government will agree that this situation is one that is grossly unfair and that corrective action should be taken that will render impossible such long delays in payment for services rendered.
“We are also of the opinion that it is not sufficient for us to simply complain of this situation but that in addition thereto we ought to suggest a remedy which in our judgment is both practical and legal and which can easily be made operative without the assumption of any risk insofar as the Government is concerned, providing you and your associates will put the suggested plan in operation and with such instructions issued as may be needed in connection therewith. With this thought in mind, we very respectfully submit for your consideration the following:
“We believe that the delay in the payment of transportation charges by the Government to the railroads would be absolutely avoided if the various departments contracting for transportation were instructed to pay the bills as rendered and after payment have these bills referred to the General Accounting Office or such other governmental auditing office as might be desired for audit. In the event that this audit reveals an over-payment, then claim be presented to the carrier for the amount thereof which will be promptly paid by the railway, preserving, however, the right of the carrier to make further effort to recollect in the event that it does not believe the proper charges resulted from the Government’s audit. Attention is further directed to the fact that the railroads would never have, under such a plan, more money than the Government lawfully owed for the reason that the Government is shipping daily and is currently obligated to the railroad companies for transportation charges. This would place the handling of governmental transportation charges on substantially the same basis as applies in connection with commercial transactions.
“I am very sure from our previous negotiations with you and others connected with the Government with regard to the same subject that there exists no differences as between us as to the necessity of more prompt payment than has heretofore prevailed. I hope that you and your associates may consider the suggestions contained herein as reasonable and practical and that we may rely upon your good offices to bring about some such arrangement. It may be that you may desire to discuss this matter and perhaps make some suggestions that differ somewhat from the plan proposed herein. Should this situation develop, I want to assure you that either the officers of this Association or the appropriate officers of this Association with a committee of the lines will gladly discuss the subject with you at such time and place as may be mutually satisfactory. I feel sure that we both desire to obtain, a very substantial improvement in the situation that now exists, and I am of the opinion that if these matters can be handled along lines somewhat similar to those which we have recommended that it will not only create a much better feeling as between the railroads and the Government, but in addition thereto will materially reduce the expenditures of both parties in the handling of these accounts and give to the railroads money which is due and greatly needed.
“With very kindest regards, I beg to remain.
“Yours most cordially,
“(Signed) J. J. Pelley.”
Section 322 of the Transportation Act of September 18, 1940, 54 Stat. 955, 49 U. S. C. § 66, provides as follows:
“Payment for transportation of the United States mail and of persons or property for or on behalf of the United States by any common carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, or the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, shall be made upon presentation of bills therefor, prior to audit or settlement by the General Accounting Office, but the right is hereby reserved to the United States Government to deduct the amount of any overpayment to any such carrier from any amount subsequently found to be due such carrier.”
24 Stat. 505, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a) (2).
The Pleading is captioned “Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim.”
Government accounts generally are subject to audit prior to payment. 33 Op. Atty. Gen. 383. Prepayment examination of claims has statutory support in several statutes. See 55 Stat. 875, 31 U. S. C. § 82b; R. S. §3620, 31 U. S. C. §492; R. S. §3622, 31 U. S. C. § 496; R. S. § 3623, 31 U. S. C. § 498; R. S. § 3633, 31 U. S. C. §514; R. S. §3648, 31 U. S. C. § 529; 37 Stat. 375, as amended, 31 U. S. C. §82; 55 Stat. 875, 31 U. S. C. § 82c. The claimant must furnish proof satisfactorily establishing his claim. Charles v. United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 316. Doubtful accounts and claims are transmitted to the General Accounting Office for review. Section 1 of G. A. O. General Regulations No. 50, April 21, 1926, 4 CFR § 4.1.
The correctness of the 1944 bills' turned on the determination of fact whether freight cars of the shorter lengths ordered by the United States were available when the initial carrier supplied cars of larger sizes. A wartime measure permitted the charging of the tariffs applicable to the cars furnished if the carrier could not supply cars of the sizes ordered. 236 F. 2d 101, 103. The General Accounting Office determined the overpayment on a finding that the documents showed that longer cars were furnished than were ordered. On the question of whether cars of the sizes ordered were available, the Government stated its position in answer to interrogations: “Such information is peculiarly within the knowledge of plaintiff [respondent] and/or the initial carrier . . . .” The ordinary rule, based on considerations of fairness, does not place the burden upon a litigant of establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary. Cf. Sclma, R. & D. R. Co. v. United States, 139 U. S. 560, 566; United States v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 191 U. S. 84, 91-92. The position of the respondent herein is that the Government had all the information known to the carriers as to the availability of cars of the sizes ordered.
S. 3876, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., introduced April 20, 1938 (83 Cong. Rec. 5569). H. R. 10620, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., introduced May 12, 1938 (83 Cong. Rec. 6842).
See, e. g., S. 1915, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced March 23, 1939 (84 Cong. Rec. 3143); S. 1990, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced March 30, 1939 (84 Cong. Rec. 3509). Section 1 of both of these bills dealt with the elimination of land-grant rates; § 2 with the payment of transportation bills upon presentation.
H. R. 2531, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced January 13, 1939 (84 Cong. Rec. 345); H. R. 4862, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced March 8, 1939 (84 Cong. Rec. 2512). Section 501 of Title V of H. R. 2531 and §§ 201 and 202 of Title II of H. R. 4862 concerned government traffic. Their provisions were substantially the same as the provisions in S. 1915 and 1990.
H. R. Rep. No. 2016, 76th Cong., 3d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2832, 76th Cong., 3d Sess.
The postpayment audit of transportation bills by the General Accounting Office has been a large-scale operation since enactment of § 322. For example, the Annual Report of the Comptroller General for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, pages 31-32, reports that:
“During the fiscal year 1951, there was examined and reviewed in the regular audit of freight transportation payments — exclusive of special cases — a total of 633,706 vouchers covering 2,569,198 bills of lading, paid in the sum of $350,341,941 as to which there were stated for issuance 25,591 notices of overpayment totaling $6,301,799. There was examined and reviewed in the audit of passenger transportation payments a total of 400,639 vouchers covering 2,917,633 transportation requests, paid in the sum of $91,380,604, as to which there were stated for issuance 11,015 notices of overpayment totaling $672,708.”
A general practice of making refunds following determination of overpayments has apparently developed under § 322. A footnote to the Government's brief states:
“We are advised by the General Accounting Office that, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, carriers refunded a total of $40,941,188.78. The amount deducted from subsequent bills during that same period totaled $11,155,837.72. During the preceding fiscal year, the total amount refunded was approximately two and one-half times the amount deducted.”
Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives on H. R. 10620, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., June 1, 1938, pp. 34-35.
The statute was broadened before final passage to apply to any common carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, or the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. See Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives on H. R. 2531, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 472.
The private shipper must pay freight charges promptly and has no expressed right of offset of any overpayment against charges for other transportation services. 24 Stat. 380, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 3 (2). A limited exception allows carriers to extend credit for a period of 96 hours to private shippers under prescribed conditions and limitations. Ex parte No. 78, 57 I. C. C. 591.
Compare the practice followed in the Court of Claims, which has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court of actions under the Tucker Act. A “Memorandum Order as to Procedure in Common Carrier Cases,” issued March 11, 1953, by the Court of Claims (now, with some amendments, included as Appendix B in the Rules of the Court of Claims, revised December 2, 1957), expressly defines the “dispute” in cases of the instant kind, among others, brought in that court:
“The word 'dispute’. . . means the shipment or shipments with respect to which the General Accounting Office or other agency of the Government determined that the' carrier’s charges had been overpaid . . . rather than subsequent shipments which are not in dispute except for the fact that the overpayments determined as to the shipments in dispute have been deducted from the amount of the carrier’s bills covering such subsequent shipments.”-
The memorandum prescribes a procedure for the framing of the issues arising from the “dispute” as so defined. The carrier bringing the action must furnish a detailed schedule as to “each of the carrier’s bills for the shipments in dispute” and is required also to file, at the time of its petition or within 30 days thereafter, “a request for admission by the defendant [United States] of the genuineness of any relevant documents described in and exhibited with the request and of the truth of the material matters of fact relied on by the carrier for recovery in the action.” The statements are expressly required to be “sufficiently explicit to show the nature of the dispute and the specific reason or reasons why the plaintiff believes it is entitled to recover higher rates or charges than those allowed by the Government.” Failure to comply with the requirements of the memorandum may be cause for the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the carrier’s petition.
But see Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 1, 140 F. Supp. 569, 572. The Court of Claims there indicated that the burden would be on the United States while holding that the railroad had the duty to provide all the information it had on the issue of availability of cars.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-C, and an opinion with respect to Part II-B, in which White, J., joined.
A gray-market good is a foreign-manufactured good, bearing a valid United States trademark, that is imported without the consent of the United States trademark holder. These cases present the issue whether the Secretary of the Treasury’s regulation permitting the importation of certain gray-market goods, 19 CFR § 133.21 (1987), is a reasonable agency interpretation of § 526 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (1930 Tariff Act), 46 Stat. 741, as amended, 19 U. S. C. § 1526.
I
A
The gray market arises in any of three general contexts. The prototypical gray-market victim (case 1) is a domestic firm that purchases from an independent foreign firm the rights to register and use the latter’s trademark as a United States trademark and to sell its foreign-manufactured products here. Especially where the foreign firm has already registered the trademark in the United States or where the product has already earned a reputation for quality, the right to use that trademark can be very valuable. If the foreign manufacturer could import the trademarked goods and distribute them here, despite having sold the trademark to a domestic firm, the domestic firm would be forced into sharp intrabrand competition involving the very trademark it purchased. Similar intrabrand competition could arise if the foreign manufacturer markets its wares outside the United States, as is often the case, and a third party who purchases them abroad could legally import them. In either event, the parallel importation, if permitted to proceed, would create a gray market that could jeopardize the trademark holder’s investment.
The second context (case 2) is a situation in which a domestic firm registers the United States trademark for goods that are manufactured abroad by an affiliated manufacturer. In its most common variation (case 2a), a foreign firm wishes to control distribution of its wares in this country by incorporating a subsidiary here. The subsidiary then registers under its own name (or the manufacturer assigns to the subsidiary’s name) a United States trademark that is identical to its parent’s foreign trademark. The parallel importation by a third party who buys the goods abroad (or conceivably even by the affiliated foreign manufacturer itself) creates a gray market. Two other variations on this theme occur when an American-based firm establishes abroad a manufacturing subsidiary corporation (case 2b) or its own unincorporated manufacturing division (case 2c) to produce its United States trademarked goods, and then imports them for domestic distribution. If the trademark holder or its foreign subsidiary sells the trademarked goods abroad, the parallel importation of the goods competes on the gray market with the holder’s domestic sales.
In the third context (case 3), the domestic holder of a United States trademark authorizes an independent foreign manufacturer to use it. Usually the holder sells to the foreign manufacturer an exclusive right to use the trademark in a particular foreign location, but conditions the right on the foreign manufacturer’s promise not to import its trademarked goods into the United States. Once again, if the foreign manufacturer or a third party imports into the United States, the foreign-manufactured goods will compete on the gray market with the holder’s domestic goods.
B
Until 1922, the Federal Government did not regulate the importation of gray-market goods, not even to protect the investment of an independent purchaser of a foreign trademark, and not even in the extreme case where the independent foreign manufacturer breached its agreement to refrain from direct competition with the purchaser. That year, however, Congress was spurred to action by a Court of Appeals decision declining to enjoin the parallel importation of goods bearing a trademark that (as in case 1) a domestic company had purchased from an independent foreign manufacturer at a premium. See A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 275 F. 539 (CA2 1921), rev’d, 260 U. S. 689 (1923).
In an immediate response to Katzel, Congress enacted § 526 of the Tariff Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 975. That provision, later reenacted in identical form as § 526 of the 1930 Tariff Act, 19 U. S. C. § 1526, prohibits importing
“into the United States any merchandise of foreign manufacture if such merchandise . . . bears a trademark owned by a citizen of, or by a corporation or association created or organized within, the United States, and registered in the Patent and Trademark Office by a person domiciled in the United States . . . , unless written consent of the owner of such trademark is produced at the timé of making entry.” 19 U. S. C. § 1526(a).
The regulations implementing §526 for the past 50 years have not applied the prohibition to all gray-market goods. The Customs Service regulation now in force provides generally that “[f ]oreign-made articles bearing a trademark identical with one owned and recorded by a citizen of the United States or a corporation or association created or organized within the United States are subject to seizure and forfeiture as prohibited importations.” 19 CFR § 133.21(b) (1987). But the regulation furnishes a “common-control” exception from the ban, permitting the entry of gray-market goods manufactured abroad by the trademark owner or its affiliate:
“(c) Restrictions not applicable. The restrictions . . . do not apply to imported articles when:
“(1) Both the foreign and the U. S. trademark or trade name are owned by the same person or business entity; [or]
“(2) The foreign and domestic trademark or trade name owners are parent and subsidiary companies or are otherwise subject to common ownership or control. . .
The Customs Service regulation further provides an “authorized-use” exception, which permits importation of gray-market goods where
“(3) [t]he articles of foreign manufacture bear a recorded trademark or trade name applied under authorization of the U. S. owner . . . 19 CFR § 133.21(c) (1987).
Respondents, an association of United States trademark holders and two of its members, brought suit in Federal District Court in February 1984, seeking both a declaration that the Customs Service regulation, 19 CFR §§ 133.21(c)(1)-(3) (1987), is invalid and an injunction against its enforcement. Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of American Trademarks v. United States, 598 F. Supp. 844 (DC 1984). They asserted that the common-control and authorized-use exceptions are inconsistent with §526 of the 1930 Tariff Act. Petitioners K mart and 47th Street Photo intervened as defendants.
The District Court upheld the Customs Service regulation, 598 F. Supp., at 853, but the Court of Appeals reversed, Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of American Trademarks v. United States, 252 U. S. App. D. C. 342, 790 F. 2d 903 (1986) (hereinafter COPIAT), holding that the Customs Service regulation was an unreasonable administrative interpretation of § 526. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1005 (1986), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. Compare Vivitar Corp. v. United States, 761 F. 2d 1552, 1557-1560 (CA Fed. 1985), aff’g 593 F. Supp. 420 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1984), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1055 (1986); and Olympus Corp. v. United States, 792 F. 2d 315, 317-319 (CA2 1986), aff’g 627 F. Supp. 911 (EDNY 1985), cert. pending, No. 86-757, with COPIAT, supra, at 346-355, 790 F. 2d, at 907-916. In an earlier opinion, we affirmed the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the District Court had jurisdiction, and set the cases for reargument on the merits. 485 U. S. 176 (1988).
A majority of this Court now holds that the common-control exception of the Customs Service regulation, 19 CFR §§ 133.21(c)(1)-(2) (1987), is consistent with § 526. See post, at 309-310 (opinion of Brennan, J.). A different majority, however, holds that the authorized-use exception,. 19 CFR § 133.21(c)(3) (1987), is inconsistent with § 526. See post, at 328-329 (opinion of Scalia, J.). We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals in part and reverse in part.
hH
A
In determining whether a challenged regulation is valid, a reviewing court must first determine if the regulation is consistent with the language of the statute. “If the statute is clear and unambiguous ‘that is the end of the matter, for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.’. . . The traditional deference courts pay to agency interpretation is not to be applied to alter the clearly expressed intent of Congress.” Board of Governors, FRS v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U. S. 361, 368 (1986), quoting Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984). See also Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U. S. 153, 164 (1985). In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole. Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen, 485 U. S. 399, 403-405 (1988); Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U. S. 207, 220-221 (1986). If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue addressed by the regulation, the question becomes whether the agency regulation is a permissible construction of the statute. See Chevron, supra, at 843; Chemical Manufacturers Assn. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U. S. 116, 125 (1985). If the agency regulation is not in conflict with the plain language of the statute, a reviewing court must give deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statute. United States v. Boyle, 469 U. S. 241, 246, n. 4 (1985).
B
Following this analysis, I conclude that subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Customs Service regulation, 19 CFR §§ 133.21 (c)(1) and (c)(2) (1987), are permissible constructions designed to resolve statutory ambiguities. All Members of the Court are in agreement that the agency may interpret the statute to bar importation of gray-market goods in what we have denoted case 1 and to permit the imports under case 2a. See post, at 296, 298-299 (opinion of Brennan, J.); post, at 318 (opinion of Scalia, J.). As these writings state, “owned by” is sufficiently ambiguous, in the context of the statute, that it applies to situations involving a foreign parent, which is case 2a. This ambiguity arises from the inability to discern, from the statutory language, which of the two entities involved in case 2a can be said to “own” the United States trademark if, as in some instances, the domestic subsidiary is wholly owned by its foreign parent.
A further statutory ambiguity contained in the phrase “merchandise of foreign manufacture,” suffices to sustain the regulations as they apply to cases 2b and 2c. This ambiguity parallels that of “owned by,” which sustained case 2a, because it is possible to interpret “merchandise of foreign manufacture” to mean (1) goods manufactured in a foreign country, (2) goods manufactured by a foreign company, or (3) goods manufactured in a foreign country by a foreign company. Given the imprecision in the statute, the agency is entitled to choose any reasonable definition and to interpret the statute to say that goods manufactured by a foreign subsidiary or division of a domestic company are not goods “of foreign manufacture.”
C
(1)
Subsection (c)(3), 19 CFR § 133.21(c)(3) (1987), of the regulation, however, cannot stand. The ambiguous statutory phrases that we have already discussed, “owned by” and “merchandise of foreign manufacture,” are irrelevant to the proscription contained in subsection (3) of the regulation. This subsection of the regulation denies a domestic trademark holder the power to prohibit the importation of goods made by an independent foreign manufacturer where the domestic trademark holder has authorized the foreign manufacturer to use the trademark. Under no reasonable construetion of the statutory language can goods made in a foreign country by an independent foreign manufacturer be removed from the purview of the statute.
(2)
The design of the regulation is such that the subsection of the regulation dealing with case 3, § 133.21(c)(3), is sever-able. Cf. Board of Governors, FRS v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U. S., at 368 (invalidating a Federal Reserve Board definition of “bank” in 12 CFR § 225.2(a)(1) (1985), but leaving intact the remaining parts of the regulation). The severance and invalidation of this subsection will not impair the function of the statute as a whole, and there is no indication that the regulation would not have been passed but for its inclusion. Accordingly, subsection (c)(3) of § 133.21 must be invalidated for its conflict with the unequivocal language of the statute.
Ill
We hold that the Customs Service regulation is consistent with §526 insofar as it exempts from the importation ban goods that are manufactured abroad by the “same person” who holds the United States trademark, 19 CFR § 133.21(c) (1) (1987), or by a person who is “subject to common . . . control” -with the United States trademark holder, § 133.21(c)(2). Because the authorized-use exception of the regulation, § 133.21(c)(3), is in conflict with the plain language of the statute, that provision cannot stand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed insofar as it invalidated §§ 133.21(c)(1) and (c)(2), but affirmed with respect to § 133.21(c)(3).
It is so ordered.
The full text of § 526(a), as codified, 19 U. S. C. § 1526(a), is as follows: “(a) Importation prohibited
“Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section [an exception added in 1978 for the importation of articles for personal use], it shall be unlawful to import into the United States any merchandise of foreign manufacture if such merchandise, or the label, sign, print, package, wrapper, or receptacle, bears a trademark owned by a citizen of, or by a corporation or association created or organized within, the United States, and registered in the Patent and Trademark Office by a person domiciled in the United States, under the provisions of sections 81 to 109 of title 15, and if a copy of the certificate of registration of such trademark is filed with the Secretary of the Treasury, in the manner provided in section 106 of said title 15, unless written consent of the owner of such trademark is produced at the time of making entry.”
The Customs Service regulation provides:
Ҥ 133.21. Restrictions on importations of articles bearing recorded trademarks and trade names.
“(a) Copying or simulating marks or names. Articles of foreign or domestic manufacture bearing a mark or name copying or simulating a recorded trademark or trade name shall be denied entry and are subject to forfeiture as prohibited importations. A ‘copying or simulating’ mark or name is an actual counterfeit of the recorded mark or name or is one which so resembles it as to be likely to cause the public to associate the copying or simulating mark with the recorded mark or name.
“(b) Identical trademark. Foreign-made articles beaming a trademark identical with one owned and recorded by a citizen of the United States or a corporation or association created or organized within the United States are subject to seizure and forfeiture as prohibited importations.
“(c) Restrictions not applicable. The restrictions set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to imported articles when:
“(1) Both the foreign and the U. S. trademark or trade name are owned by the same person or business entity;
“(2) The foreign and domestic trademark or trade name owners are parent and subsidiary companies or are. otherwise subject to common ownership or control (see §§ 133.2(d) [defining “common ownership and common control”] and 133.12(d) [providing that application to record trademark must report identity of any affiliate that uses same trade name abroad]);
“(3) The articles of foreign manufacture bear a recorded trademark or trade name applied under authorization of the U. S. owner;
“(4) The objectionable mark is removed or obliterated prior to importation in such a manner as to be illegible and incapable of being reconstituted, for example by:
“(i) Grinding off imprinted trademarks wherever they appear;
“(ii) Removing and disposing of plates bearing a trademark or trade name;
“(5) The merchandise is imported by the recordant of the trademark or trade name or his designate;
“(6) The recordant gives written consent to an importation of articles otherwise subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, and such consent is furnished to appropriate Customs officials; or
“(7) The articles of foreign manufacture bear a recorded trademark and the personal exemption is claimed and allowed under § 148.55 of this chapter.” 19 CFR §§ 133.21(a), (b), (c) (1987).
Respondents sued the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury-, and the Commissioner of Customs. They also asserted that the Customs Service regulation was inconsistent with § 42 of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1124, which prohibits the importation of goods bearing marks that “copy or simulate” United States trademarks. That issue is not before us.
I disagree with Justice Scalia’s reasons for declining to recognize this ambiguity. See post, at 319-323. First, the threshold question in ascertaining the correct interpretation of a statute is whether the language of the statute is clear or arguably ambiguous. The purported gloss any party gives to the statute, or any reference to legislative history, is in the first instance irrelevant. Further, I decline to assign any binding or authoritative effect to the particular verbiage Justice Scalia highlights. The quoted phrases are simply the Government’s explanation of the practical effect the current regulation has in applying the statute, and come from the statement-of-the-case portion of its petition for a writ of certiorari.
Additionally, I believe that agency regulations may give a varying interpretation of the same phrase when that phrase appears in different statutes and different statutory contexts. There may well be variances in purpose or circumstance that have led the agency to adopt and apply dissimilar interpretations of the phrase “of foreign manufacture” in other regulations implementing different statutes.
I also disagree that our disposition necessarily will engender either enforcement problems for the Customs Service or problems we are unaware of arising out of our commercial treaty commitments to foreign countries. Initially, it is reasonable to think that any such problems or objections would have arisen before now since it is the current interpretation of the regulations we are sustaining. Second. I believe that the regulation speaks to the hypothetical situation Justice Scalia poses, and that the firm with the United States trademark could keep out “gray-market imports manufactured abroad by the other American firms," post, at 320, because the regulation allows a company justifiably invoking the protection of the statute to bar the importation of goods of foreign or domestic manufacture. 19 CFR § 133.21(a) (1987). In this instance, the domestic firm with the United States trademark could invoke the protection of the statute (ease 1) and bar the importation of the other domestic firm’s product manufactured abroad even though our interpretation of the phrase “of foreign manufacture" would characterize these latter goods to be of domestic manufacture.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The issue in this Chapter 11 reorganization case is whether a debtor’s prebankruptey equity holders may, over the objection of a senior class of impaired creditors, contribute new capital and receive ownership interests in the reorganized entity, when that opportunity is given exclusively to the old equity holders under a plan adopted without consideration of alternatives. We hold that old equity holders are disqualified from participating in such a “new value” transaction by the terms of 11 U. S. C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii), which in such circumstances bars a junior interest holder’s receipt of any property on account of his prior interest.
rH
Petitioner, Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association (Bank), is the major creditor of respondent, 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership (Debtor or Partnership), an Illinois real estate limited partnership. The Bank lent the Debtor some $93 million, secured by a nonrecourse first mortgage on the Debtor’s principal asset, 15 floors of an office building in downtown Chicago. In January 1995, the Debtor defaulted, and the Bank began foreclosure in a state court.
In March, the Debtor tion for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq., which automatically stayed the foreclosure proceedings, see § 362(a). In re 208 N. LaSalle Street Partnership, 126 F. 3d 955, 958 (CA7 1997); Bank of America, Illinois v. 208 N. LaSalle Street Partnership, 195 B. R. 692, 696 (ND Ill. 1996). The Debtor’s principal objective was to ensure that its partners retained title to the property so as to avoid roughly $20 million in personal tax liabilities, which would fall due if the Bank foreclosed. 126 F. 3d, at 958; 195 B. R., at 698. The Debtor proceeded to propose a reorganization plan during the 120-day period when it alone had the right to do so, see 11 U. S. C. § 1121(b); see also § 1121(c) (exclusivity period extends to 180 days if the debtor files plan within the initial 120 days). The Bankruptcy Court rejected the Bank’s motion to terminate the period of exclusivity to make way for a plan of its own to liquidate the property, and instead extended the exclusivity period for cause shown, under § 1121(d).
The value of the mortgaged property was less than the balance due the Bank, which elected to divide its under-secured claim into secured and unsecured deficiency claims under § 506(a) and § 1111(b). 126 P. 3d, at 958. Under the plan, the Debtor separately classified the Bank’s secured claim, its unsecured deficiency claim, and unsecured trade debt owed to other creditors. See § 1122(a). The Bankruptcy Court found that the Debtor’s available assets were prepetition rents in a cash account of $3.1 million and the 15 floors of rental property worth $54.5 million. The secured claim was valued at the latter figure, leaving the Bank with an unsecured deficiency of $38.5 million.
So far as we need be concerned here, the Debtor’s plan had these further features:
(1) The Bank’s $54.5 million secured claim would be paid in full between 7 and 10 years after the original 1995 repayment date.
(2) The Bank’s $88.5 million unsecured deficiency would be discharged for an estimated 16% of its present value.
(3) The remaining unsecured claims of $90,000, held by the outside trade creditors, would be paid in full, without interest, on the effective date of the plan.
(4) Certain former partners of the Debtor contribute $6,125 million in new capital over the course of five years (the contribution being worth some $4.1 million in present value), in exchange for the Partnership’s entire ownership of the reorganized debtor.
The last condition was an exclusive eligibility provision: the old equity holders were the only ones who could contribute new capital.
The Bank objected and, being the paired class of creditors, thereby blocked confirmation of the plan on a consensual basis. See § 1129(a)(8). The Debtor, however, took the alternate route to confirmation of a reorganization plan, forthrightly known as the judicial “cram-down” process for imposing a plan on a dissenting class. § 1129(b). See generally Klee, All You Ever Wanted to Know About Cram Down Under the New Bankruptcy Code, 53 Am. Bankr. L. J. 133 (1979).
There are two conditions for a cramdown. First, all requirements of § 1129(a) must be met (save for the plan’s acceptance by each impaired class of claims or interests, see § 1129(a)(8)). Critical among them are the conditions that the plan be accepted by at least one class of impaired creditors, see § 1129(a)(10), and satisfy the “best-interest-of-creditors” test, see § 1129(a)(7). Here, the class of trade creditors with impaired unsecured claims voted for the plan, 126 F. 3d, at 959, and there was no issue of best interest. Second, the objection of an impaired creditor class may be overridden only if “the plan does not discriminate unfairly, and is fair and equitable, with respect to each class of claims or interests that is impaired under, and has not accepted, the plan.” § 1129(b)(1). As to a dissenting class of impaired unsecured creditors, such a plan may be found to be “fair and equitable” only if the allowed value of the claim is to be paid in full, § 1129(b)(2)(B)(i), or, in the alternative, if “the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such [impaired unsecured] class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property,” § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). That latter condition is the core of what is known as the “absolute priority rule.”
The absolute priority rule was the basis for the Bank’s position that the plan could not be confirmed as a cram-down. As the Bank read the rule, the plan was open to objection simply because certain old equity holders in the Debtor Partnership would receive property even though the Bank’s unsecured deficiency claim would not be paid in full. The Bankruptcy Court approved the plan nonetheless, and accordingly denied the Bank’s pending motion to convert the case to Chapter 7 liquidation, or to dismiss the case. The District Court affirmed, 195 B. R. 692 (ND Ill. 1996), as did the Court of Appeals.
The majority of the Seventh ambiguity in the language of the statutory absolute priority rule, and looked beyond the text to interpret the phrase “on account of” as permitting recognition of a “new value corollary” to the rule. 126 F. 3d, at 964-965. According to the panel, the corollary, as stated by this Court in Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co., 308 U. S. 106, 118 (1939), provides that the objection of an impaired senior class does not bar junior claim holders from receiving or retaining property interests in the debtor after reorganization, if they contribute new capital in money or money’s worth, reasonably equivalent to the property’s value, and necessary for successful reorganization of the restructured enterprise. The panel majority held that
“when an old equity holder retains an equity interest in the reorganized debtor by meeting the requirements of the new value corollary, he is not receiving or retaining that interest ‘on account of’ his prior equitable ownership of the debtor. Rather, he is allowed to participate in the reorganized entity ‘on account of’ a new, substantial, necessary and fair infusion of capital.” 126 F. 3d, at 964.
In the dissent’s contrary view, there is nothing ambiguous about the text: the “plain language of the absolute priority rule... does not include a new value exception.” Id., at 970 (opinion of Kanne, J.). Since “[t]he Plan in this case gives [the Debtor’s] partners the exclusive right to retain their ownership interest in the indebted property because of their status as... prior interest holderfe],” id., at 973, the dissent would have reversed confirmation of the plan.
certiorari, 523 U. S. 1106 (1998), to resolve a Circuit split on the issue. The Seventh Circuit in this case joined the Ninth in relying on a new value corollary to the absolute priority rule to support confirmation of such plans. See In re Bonner Mall Partnership, 2 F. 3d 899, 910-916 (CA9 1993), cert. granted, 510 U. S. 1039, vacatur denied and appeal dism’d as moot, 513 U. S. 18 (1994). The Second and Fourth Circuits, by contrast, without explicitly rejecting the corollary, have disapproved plans similar to this one. See In re Coltex Loop Central Three Partners, L. P., 138 F. 3d 39, 44-45 (CA2 1998); In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F. 2d 496, 504 (CA4), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 866 (1992). We do not decide whether the statute includes a new value corollary or exception, but hold that on any reading respondent’s proposed plan fails to satisfy the statute, and accordingly reverse.
The terras “absolute priority rule” and “new value corollary” (or “exception”) are creatures of law antedating the current Bankruptcy Code, and to understand both those terras and the related but inexact language of the Code some history is helpful. The Bankruptcy Act preceding the Code contained no such provision as subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii), its subject having been addressed by two interpretive rules. The first was a specific gloss on the requirement of §77B (and its successor, Chapter X) of the old Act, that any reorganization plan be “fair and equitable.” 11 U. S. C. § 205(e) (1934 ed., Supp. I) (repealed 1938) (§77B); 11 U. S. C. §621(2) (1934 ed., Supp. IV) (repealed 1979) (Chapter X). The reason for such a limitation was the danger inherent in any reorganization plan proposed by a debtor, then and now, that the plan will simply turn out to be too good a deal for the debtor’s owners. See H. R. Boc. No. 93-137, pt. I, p. 255 (1973) (discussing concern with “the ability of a few insiders, whether representatives of management or major creditors, to use the reorganization process to gain an unfair advantage”); ibid. (“[I]t was believed that creditors, because of management’s position of dominance, were not able to bargain effectively without a clear standard of fairness and judicial control”); Ayer, Rethinking Absolute Priority After Aklers, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 963, 969-973 (1989). Hence the pre-Code judicial response known as the absolute priority rule, that fairness and equity required that “the creditors... be paid before the stockholders could retain [equity interests] for any purpose whatever.” Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Boyd, 228 U. S. 482, 508 (1913). See also Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, N. A & C. R. Co., 174 U. S. 674, 684 (1899) (reciting “the familiar rule that the stockholder’s interest in the property is subordinate to the rights of creditors; first of secured and then of unsecured creditors,” and concluding that “any arrangement of the parties by which the subordinate rights and interests of the stockholders are attempted to be secured at the expense of the prior rights of either class of creditors comes within judicial denunciation”).
the first. Its classic formulation occurred in Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co., in which the Court spoke through Justice Douglas in this dictum:
“It is, of course, clear that there are circumstances under which stockholders may participate in a plan of reorganization of an insolvent debtor.... Where th[e] necessity [for new capital] exists and the old stockholders make a fresh contribution and receive in return a participation reasonably equivalent to their contribution, no objection can be made....
“[W]e believe that to accord ‘the creditor his full right of priority against the corporate assets’ where the debtor is insolvent, the stockholder’s participation must be based on a contribution in money or in money’s worth, reasonably equivalent in view of all the circumstances to the participation of the stockholder.” 308 U. S., at 121-122.
Although counsel for one of the parties here has described the Case observation as “ ‘black-letter’ principle,” Brief for Respondent 38, it never rose above the technical level of dictum in any opinion of this Court, which last addressed it in Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U. S. 197 (1988), holding that a contribution of “‘labor, experience, and expertise’ ” by a junior interest holder was not in the “ ‘money’s worth’ ” that the Case observation required. 485 U. S., at 203-205. See also Marine Harbor Properties, Inc. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 317 U. S. 78, 85 (1942); Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Du Bois, 312 U. S. 510, 529, n. 27 (1941). Nor, prior to the enactment of the current Bankruptcy Code, did any court rely on the Case dictum to approve a plan that gave old equity a property right after reorganization. See Ayer, supra, at 1016; Markell, Owners, Auctions, and Absolute Priority in Bankruptcy Reorganizations, 44 Stan. L. Rev. 69, 92 (1991). Hence the controversy over how weighty the Case dictum had become, as reflected in the alternative labels for the new value notion: some writers and courts (including this one, see Ahlers, supra, at 203-204, n. 3) have spoken of it as an exception to the absolute priority rule, see, e. g., In re Potter Material Service, Inc., 781 F. 2d 99, 101 (CA7 1986); Miller, Bankruptcy’s New Value Exception: No Longer a Necessity, 77 B. U. L. Rev. 975 (1997); Georgakopoulos, New Value, Fresh Start, 3 Stan. J. L. Bus. & Fin. 125 (1997), while others have characterized it as a simple corollary to the rule, see, e. g., In re Bonner Mall Partnership, 2 F. 3d, at 906; Ayer, supra, at 999.
Enactment of the Bankruptcy Act might have resolved the status of new value by a provision bearing its name or at least unmistakably couched in its terms, but the Congress chose not to avail itself of that opportunity. In 1973, Congress had considered proposals by the Bankruptcy Commission that included a recommendation to make the absolute priority rule more supple by allowing nonmonetary new value contributions. H. R. Doc. No. 93-137, pt. I, at 258-259; id., pt. II, at 242, 252. Although Congress took no action on any of the ensuing bills containing language that would have enacted such an expanded new value concept, each of them was reintroduced in the next congressional session. See H. R. 31, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., §§7-303(4), 7-310(d)(2)(B) (1975); H. R. 32, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., §§7-301(4), 7-308(d)(2)(B) (1975); S. 235, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., §§7-301(4), 7-30S(d)(2)(B) (1975); S. 236, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., §§7-303(4), 7-310(d)(2)(B) (1975). After extensive hearings, a substantially revised House bill emerged, but without any provision for nonmonetary new value contributions. See H. R. 6, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., §§1123, 1129(b) (1977). After a lengthy markup session, the House produced H. R. 8200, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977), which would eventually become the law, H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 3 (1977). It had no explicit new value language, expansive or otherwise, but did codify the absolute priority rule in nearly its present form. See H. R. 8200, supra, § 1129(b)(2)(B)(iv) (“[T]he holders of claims or interests of any class of claims or interests, as the ease may be, that is junior to such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claims or interests any property”)-
For the purpose (b)(2)(B)(ii) in search of a possible statutory new value exception, the lesson of this drafting history is equivocal. Although hornbook law has it that “'Congress does not intend sub sileniio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded/ ” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 442-448 (1987), the phrase “on account of” is not silentium, and the language passed by in this instance had never been in the bill finally enacted, but only in predecessors that died on the vine. None of these contained an explicit codification of the absolute priority rule, and even in these earlier bills the language in question stated an expansive new value concept, not the rule as limited in the Case dictum.
The equivocal note of this by another feature of the legislative advance toward the current law. Any argument from drafting history has to account for the fact that the Code does not codify any authoritative pre-Code version of the absolute priority rule. Compare § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) (“[T]he holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such [impaired unsecured] class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property”) with Boyd, 228 U. S., at 508 (“[T]he creditors were entitled to be paid before the stockholders could retain [a right of property] for any purpose whatever”), and Case, 308 U. S., at 116 (“ ‘[Creditors are entitled to priority over stockholders against all the property of an insolvent corporation’ ” (quoting Kansas City Terminal R. Co. v. Central Union Trust Co. of N. Y., 271 U. S. 445, 455 (1926))). See H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 414 (characterizing § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) as a “partial codification of the absolute priority rule”); ibid. (“The elements of the [fair and equitable] test are new[,] departing from both the absolute priority rule and the best interests of creditors tests found under the Bankruptcy Act”).
The upshot is that this history does nothing to disparage the possibility apparent in the statutory text, that the absolute priority rule now on the books as subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) may carry a new value corollary. Although there is no literal reference to “new value” in the phrase “on account of such junior claim,” the phrase could arguably carry such an implication in modifying the prohibition against receipt by junior claimants of any interest under a plan while a senior class of unconsenting creditors goes less than fully paid.
r — ( 1 — H HH
Three basic interpretations have been suggested for the “on account of” modifier. The first reading is proposed by the Partnership, that “on account of” harks back to accounting practice and means something like “in exchange for,” or “in satisfaction of,” Brief for Respondent 12-13, 15, n. 16. On this view, a plan would not violate the absolute priority rule unless the old equity holders received or retained property in exchange for the prior interest, without any significant new contribution; if substantial money passed from them as part of the deal, the prohibition of subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) would not stand in the way, and whatever issues of fairness and equity there might otherwise be would not implicate the “on account of” modifier.
This position is beset with troubles, the first one being textual. Subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) forbids not only receipt of property on account of the prior interest but its retention as well. See also §§ 1129(a)(7)(A)(ii), (a)(7)(B), (b)(2)(B)(i), (b)(2)(C)(i), (b)(2)(C)(ii). A common instance of the latter would be a debtor’s retention of an interest in the insolvent business reorganized under the plan. Yet it would be exceedingly odd to speak of “retaining]” property in exchange for the same property interest, and the eccentricity of such a reading is underscored by the fact that elsewhere in the Code the drafters chose to use the very phrase “in exchange for,” § 112S(a)(5)(J) (a plan shall provide adequate means for implementation, including “issuance of securities of the debtor... for cash, for property, for existing securities, or in exchange for claims or interests”). It is unlikely that the drafters of legislation so long and minutely contemplated as the 1978 Bankruptcy Code would have used two distinctly different forms of words for the same purpose. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 28 (1983).
The Congress meant to impose a condition as manipulable as subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) would be if “on account of” meant to prohibit merely an exchange unaccompanied by a substantial infusion of new funds but permit one whenever substantial funds changed hands. “Substantial” or “significant” or “considerable” or like characterizations of a monetary contribution would measure it by the Lord Chancellor’s foot, and an absolute priority rule so variable would not be much of an absolute. Of course it is true (as already noted) that, even if old equity holders could displace the rule by adding some significant amount of cash to the deal, it would not follow that their plan would be entitled to adoption; a contested plan would still need to satisfy the overriding condition of fairness and equity. But that general fairness and equity criterion would apply in any event, and one comes back to the question why Congress would have bothered to add a separate priority rule without a sharper edge.
Since the “in exchange way is open to recognize the more common understanding of “on account of” to mean “because of.” This is certainly the usage meant for the phrase at other places in the statute, see § 1111(b)(1)(A) (treating certain claims as if the holder of the claim “had recourse against the debtor on account of such claim”); §522(d)(10)(E) (permitting debtors to exempt payments under certain benefit plans and contracts “on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service”); § 647(b)(2) (authorizing trustee to avoid a transfer of an interest of the debtor in property “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor”); § 547(c)(4)(B) (barring trustee from avoiding a transfer when a creditor gives new value to the debtor “on account of which new value the debtor did not make an otherwise unavoidable transfer to... such creditor”). So, under the eommonsense rule that a given phrase is meant to carry a given concept in a single statute, see Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U. S. 213, 219-220 (1998), the better reading of subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) recognizes that a causal relationship between holding the prior claim or interest and receiving or retaining property is what activates the absolute priority rule.
is the final bone of contention. We understand the Government, as amicus curiae, to take the starchy position not only that any degree of causation between earlier interests and retained property will activate the bar to a plan providing for later property, Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11-15, but also that whenever the holders of equity in the Debtor end up with some property there will be some causation; when old equity, and not someone on the street, gets property the reason is res ■ipsa loquitur. An old equity holder simply cannot take property under a plan if creditors are not paid in full. Id., at 10-11,18. See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 28.
There are, however, reasons counting against a ing. If, as is likely, the drafters were treating junior claimants or interest holders as a class at this point (see Ahlers, 485 U. S., at 202), then the simple way to have prohibited the old interest holders from receiving anything over objection would have been to omit the “on account of” phrase entirely from subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii). On this assumption, reading the provision as a blanket prohibition would leave “on account of” as a redundancy, contrary to the interpretive obligation to try to give meaning to all the statutory language. See, e. g., Moskal v. United States, 498 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1990); United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955). One would also have to ask why Congress would have desired to exclude prior equity categorically from the class of potential owners following a cramdown. Although we have some doubt about the Court of Appeals’s assumption (see 126 F. 3d, at 966, and n. 12) that prior equity is often the only source of significant capital for reorganizations, see, e. g., Blum & Kaplan, The Absolute Priority Doctrine in Corporate Reorganizations, 41 U. Chi. L. Rev. 651, 672 (1974); Mann, Strategy and Force in the Liquidation of Secured Debt, 96 Mich. L. Rev. 159, 182-183, 192-194, 208-209 (1997), old equity may well be in the best position to make a go of the reorganized enterprise and so may be the party most likely to work out an equity-for-value reorganization.
statutory prohibition would follow from reading the “on account of” language as intended to reconcile the two recognized policies underlying Chapter 11, of preserving going concerns and maximizing property available to satisfy creditors, see Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U. S. 157, 163 (1991). Causation between the old equity’s holdings and subsequent property substantial enough to disqualify a plan would presumably occur on this view of things whenever old equity’s later property would come at a price that failed to provide the greatest possible addition to the bankruptcy estate, and it would always come at a price too low when the equity holders obtained or preserved an ownership interest for less than someone else would have paid. A truly full value transaction, on the other hand, would pose no to the bankruptcy estate not posed by any reorganization, provided of course that the contribution be in cash or be realizable money’s worth, just as Ahlers required for application of Case’s new value rule. Cf. Ahlers, supra, at 203-205; Case, 308 U. S., at 121.
IV
Which of these positions is ultimately entitled to prevail is not to be decided here, however, for even on the latter view the Bank’s objection would require rejection of the plan at issue in this case. It is doomed, we can say without necessarily exhausting its flaws, by its provision for vesting equity in the reorganized business in the Debtor’s partners without extending an opportunity to anyone else either to compete for that equity or to propose a competing reorganization plan. Although the Debtor’s exclusive opportunity to propose a plan under § 1121(b) is not itself “property” within the meaning of subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii), the respondent partnership in this case has taken advantage of this opportunity by proposing a plan under which the benefit of equity ownership may be obtained by no one but old equity partners. Upon the court’s approval of that plan, the partners were in the same position that they would have enjoyed had they exercised an exclusive option under the plan to buy the equity in the reorganized entity, or contracted to purchase it from a seller who had first agreed to deal with no one else. It is quite true that the escrow of the partners’ proposed investment eliminated any formal need to set out an express option or exclusive dealing provision in the plan itself, since the court’s approval that created the opportunity and the partners’ action to. obtain its advantage were simultaneous. But before the Debtor’s plan was accepted no one else could propose an alternative one, and after its acceptance no one else could obtain equity in the reorganized entity. At the moment of the plan’s approval the Debtor’s partners necessarily enjoyed an exclusive opportunity that was in no economic sense distinguishable from the advantage of the exclusively entitled offeror or option holder. This opportunity should, first of all, be treated as an item of property in its own right. Cf. In re Coltex Loop Central Three Partners, L. P., 138 F. 3d, at 43 (exclusive right to purchase post-petition equity is itself property); In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F. 2d, at 504; Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2, Inc. v. First Bank, 908 F. 2d 1351, 1360 (CA7 1990); D. Baird, The Elements of Bankruptcy 261 (rev. ed. 1993) (“The right to get an equity interest for its fair market value is ‘property’ as the word is ordinarily used. Options to acquire an interest in a firm, even at its market value, trade for a positive price”). While it may be argued that the opportunity has no market value, being significant only to old equity holders owing to their potential tax liability, such an argument avails the Debtor nothing, for several reasons. It is to avoid just such arguments that the law is settled that any otherwise cognizable property interest must be treated as sufficiently valuable to be recognized under the Bankruptcy Code. See Ahlers, 485 U. S., at 207-208. Even aside from that rule, the assumption that no one but the Debtor’s partners might pay for such an opportunity would obviously support no inference that it is valueless, let alone that it should not be treated as property. And, finally, the source in the tax law of the opportunity’s value to the partners implies in no way that it lacks value to others. It might, indeed, be valuable to another precisely as a way to keep the Debtor from implementing a plan that would avoid a Chapter 7 liquidation.
Given that the opportunity is property of some value, the question arises why old equity alone should obtain it, not to mention at no cost whatever. The closest thing to an answer favorable to the Debtor is that the old equity partners would be given the opportunity in the expectation that in taking advantage of it they would add the stated purchase price to the estate. See Brief for Respondent 40-41. But this just begs the question why the opportunity should be exclusive to the old equity holders. If the price to be paid for the equity interest is the best obtainable, old equity does not need the protection of exclusiveness (unless to trump an equal offer from someone else); if it is not the best, there is no apparent reason for giving old equity a bargain. There is no reason, that is, unless the very purpose of the whole transaction is, at least in part, to do old equity a favor. And that, of course, is to say that old equity would obtain its opportunity, and the resulting benefit, because of old equity’s prior interest within the meaning of subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii). Hence it is that the exclusiveness of the opportunity, with its protection against the market’s scrutiny of the purchase price by means of competing bids or even competing plan proposals, renders the partners’ right a property interest extended “on account of” the old equity position and therefore subject to an unpaid senior creditor class’s objection.
It is no answer to say tunity should be treated merely as a detail of the broader transaction that would follow its exercise, and that in this wider perspective no favoritism may be inferred, since the old equity partners would pay something, whereas no one else would pay anything. If this argument were to carry the day, of course, old equity could obtain a new property interest for a dime without being seen to receive anything on account of its old position. But even if we assume that old equity’s plan would not be confirmed without satisfying the judge that the purchase price was top dollar, there is a further reason here not to treat property consisting of an exclusive opportunity as subsumed within the total transaction proposed. On the interpretation assumed here, it would, of course, be a fatal flaw if old equity acquired or retained the property interest without paying full value. It would thus be necessary for old equity to demonstrate its payment of top dollar, but this it could not satisfactorily do when it would receive or retain its property under a plan giving it exclusive rights and in the absence of a competing plan of any sort. Under a plan granting an exclusive right, making no provision for competing bids or competing plans, any determination that the price was top dollar would necessarily be made by a judge in bankruptcy court, whereas the best way to determine value is exposure to a market. See Baird, Elements of Bankruptcy, at 262; Bowers, Rehabilitation, Redistribution or Dissipation: The Evidence for Choosing Among Bankruptcy Hypotheses, 72 Wash. U. L. Q. 955, 959, 963, n. 34, 975 (1994); Markell, 44 Stan. L. Rev., at 73 (“Reorganization practice illustrates that the presence of competing bidders for a debtor, whether they are owners or not, tends to increase creditor dividends”). This is a point of some significance, since it was, after all, one of the Code’s innovations to narrow the occasions for courts to make valuation judgments, as shown by its preference for the supramajoritarian class creditor voting scheme in § 1126(e), see Ahlers, supra, at 207 (“[T]he Code provides that it is up to the creditors — and not the courts — to accept or reject a reorganization plan which fails to provide them adequate protection or fails to honor the absolute priority rule”). In the interest of statutory
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We granted certiorari in this case, 547 U. S. 1178 (2006), to determine whether our decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296 (2004), announced a new rule and, if so, whether it applies retroactively on collateral review. We do not answer these questions, however, because petitioner — a state prisoner seeking postconviction relief from the federal courts — failed to comply with the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b). That failure deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear his claims. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss petitioner’s habeas corpus application for lack of jurisdiction.
I
On October 31, 1994, a Washington jury convicted petitioner Lonnie Burton of rape, robbery, and burglary. App. 3-4. The state trial court initially entered judgment and sentence on December 19, 1994 (1994 judgment). In that judgment, the court sentenced Burton to a total of 562 months in prison. State v. Burton, No. 35747-6-I etc., 1997 WL 306429, *12 (Wash. App., June 9,1997). The trial court rested the 562-month sentence on two alternative grounds under Washington’s determinate sentencing scheme. First, it sentenced Burton to within-guidelines sentences for each offense — 153 months for robbery, 105 months for burglary, and 304 months for rape — and directed that the sentences be served consecutively, for a total term of 562 months. Id., at *13. Under Washington’s “multiple offense policy,” imposition of consecutive sentences constitutes an “exceptional” sentence, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9.94A.120(18), 9.94A.400(l)(a) (2000), but the trial court justified such a sentence on the ground that running the three terms concurrently would result in a sentence “clearly too lenient” in light of the purposes of Washington’s sentencing scheme. See § 9.94A.390(2)(i). The second basis on which the court calculated a 562-month term was by running the sentences concurrently but imposing an exceptional sentence of 562 months solely for the rape conviction — again on the ground that the total sentence would otherwise be “clearly too lenient.” State v. Burton, 1997 WL 306429, at *13.
After an unrelated prior conviction was overturned, Burton requested resentencing. Accordingly, over a year after the 1994 judgment, the trial court entered an amended judgment and sentence (1996 judgment), which, after recalculating Burton’s offender scores, imposed a new sentence that relied solely on an exceptional 562-month sentence for the rape conviction, run concurrently with the other two terms. Ibid.; App. 45. On direct review, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld Burton’s conviction, State v. Burton, supra, a decision the Washington Supreme Court declined to review, State v. Burton, 133 Wash. 2d 1025, 950 P. 2d 475 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U. S. 1082 (1998). The State Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing, however, because the trial court’s exclusive reliance on the exceptional rape sentence decreased Burton’s potential early release credits, raising vindictiveness concerns. State v. Burton, 1997 WL 306429, at *14.
In response, on March 16, 1998, the trial court entered a second amended judgment and sentence (1998 judgment). App. 8. In this judgment, the trial court recited the jury’s 1994 guilty verdicts, id., at 3-4, and again imposed a 562-month sentence, reverting to its original basis for doing so— running the three within-guidelines sentences consecutively, id., at 7, 29-32. Burton sought review of this sentence, but the Washington courts eventually rejected his challenges both on direct review and in state postconviction proceedings. Id., at 43-55; App. to Brief for Petitioner la-4a.
On December 28,1998, while state review of his sentence was still pending, Burton filed a petition under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (1998 petition). App. 34. The standard form he filled out warned applicants that they must “ordinarily first exhaust... available state court remedies as to each ground on which” they sought “action by the federal court,” or run the risk of being “barred from presenting additional grounds at a later date.” Id., at 37-38. Burton nonetheless challenged his custody only by disputing the constitutionality of his three convictions, not by pressing any sentencing claims. Where the form requested the “[d]ate of judgment of conviction,” Burton listed “Dee. 16,1994,” corresponding roughly to the date of the 1994 judgment. Id., at 34. The form asked whether the applicant had “any petition or appeal now pending in any court, either state or federal, as to the judgment under attack,” to which Burton answered “Yes,” explaining that “[the] sentence I received at resentencing is on direct appeal.” Id., at 40 (emphasis added). The District Court denied relief, id., at 42, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, Burton v. Walter, 21 Fed. Appx. 632 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U. S. 1060 (2002).
Over three years subsequent to filing the 1998 petition, after the Washington courts had rejected his sentencing challenges, Burton filed another federal habeas petition (2002 petition), again in the Western District of Washington. This time, Burton claimed to be contesting the 1998 judgment, and challenged only the constitutionality of his sentence. In particular, he alleged that it violated our decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), to the extent the sentencing court departed from a standard sentence based on its own factual determinations. The District Court again denied the petition, App. 77, and the Ninth Circuit again affirmed, Burton v. Waddington, 142 Fed. Appx. 297 (2005). Both courts rejected the State’s contention that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because Burton had not obtained an order from the Court of Appeals authorizing him to file a “second or successive” habeas petition, as required by the habeas gatekeeping provisions, 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3). On the merits, the Ninth Circuit rejected Burton’s Apprendi claim and agreed with the State that Burton could not benefit from Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, because that decision announced a new rule that did not apply retroactively to Burton’s sentence. 142 Fed. Appx., at 299.
It is this petition, the 2002 petition, that is before us today. We conclude, though, that because the 2002 petition is a “second or successive” petition that Burton did not seek or obtain authorization to file in the District Court, the District Court never had jurisdiction to consider it in the first place.
II
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established a stringent set of procedures that a prisoner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a), must follow if he wishes to file a “second or successive” habeas corpus application challenging that custody, § 2244(b)(1). In pertinent part, before filing the application in the district court, a prisoner “shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” § 2244(b)(3)(A). A three-judge panel of the court of appeals may authorize the filing of the second or successive application only if it presents a claim not previously raised that satisfies one of the two grounds articulated in § 2244(b)(2). § 2244(b)(3)(C); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524, 529-530 (2005); see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U. S. 651, 656-657, 664 (1996).
Burton’s 2002 petition was a “second or successive” habeas application for which he did not seek, much less obtain, authorization to file. When Burton filed his first petition, the 1998 petition, he was being held in custody pursuant to the 1998 judgment, which had been entered some nine months earlier. When he filed his second petition, the 2002 petition, he was still being held in custody pursuant to the same 1998 judgment. In short, Burton twice brought claims contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court. As a result, under AEDPA, he was required to receive authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing his second challenge. Because he did not do so, the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it.
The Ninth Circuit determined that the 2002 petition was not “second or successive” because, under McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467 (1991), Burton had a “legitimate excuse for failing to raise” his sentencing challenges in the 1998 petition. 142 Fed. Appx., at 299 (quoting McCleskey, supra, at 490; internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because Burton had not exhausted his sentencing claims in state court when he filed the 1998 petition, “they were not ripe for federal habeas review” at that time. 142 Fed. Appx., at 298.
We assume for purposes of this case, without deciding, that the Ninth Circuit’s “legitimate excuse” approach to determining whether a petition is “second or successive” is correct. That court’s ruling that Burton had a “legitimate excuse,” however, is inconsistent with the precise practice we have explained governs in circumstances such as Burton’s. The plurality opinion in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 520-522 (1982), stated that district courts should dismiss “mixed petitions” — those with exhausted and unexhausted claims— and that petitioners with such petitions have two options. They may withdraw a mixed petition, exhaust the remaining claims, and return to district court with a fully exhausted petition. We have held that in such circumstances the later filed petition would not be “second or successive.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 485-486 (2000).
Alternatively, prisoners filing mixed petitions may proceed with only the exhausted claims, but doing so risks subjecting later petitions that raise new claims to rigorous procedural obstacles. Lundy, supra, at 520-521 (plurality opinion); see also Slack, supra, at 486-487. As noted, the form Burton used in filing his first petition warned of just that consequence. App. 37-38; supra, at 151. There is no basis in our cases for supposing, as the Ninth Circuit did, that a petitioner with unexhausted claims who chooses the second of these options — who elects to proceed to adjudication of his exhausted claims — may later assert that a subsequent petition is not “second or successive” precisely because his new claims were unexhausted at the time he filed his first petition. This reasoning conflicts with both Lundy and § 2244(b) and would allow prisoners to file separate habeas petitions in the not uncommon situation where a conviction is upheld but a sentence is reversed. Such a result would be inconsistent with both the exhaustion requirement, with its purpose of reducing “piecemeal litigation,” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 180 (2001), and AEDPA, with its goal of “streamlining federal habeas proceedings,” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U. S. 269, 277 (2005).
Burton directs us to two decisions, Stewart v. MartinezVillareal, 523 U. S. 637 (1998), and Slack, supra, in which we have not regarded subsequent petitions to be “second or successive.” But these cases are readily distinguishable. In Martinez-Villareal, we held that the claim of a capital prisoner that he was insane and therefore could not be put to death was necessarily unripe until the State issued a warrant for his execution, and so the prisoner’s subsequent request for consideration of that previously unripe claim was not “second or successive” for purposes of § 2244(b). 523 U. S., at 644-645. But unlike Burton, the prisoner there had attempted to bring this claim in his initial habeas petition, prompting us to look to Lundy in concluding that the claim “should be treated in the same manner as the claim of a petitioner who returns to a federal habeas court after exhausting state remedies,” that is, characterizing it as not “second or successive.” Martinez-Villareal, 523 U. S., at 644. Indeed, we expressly declined to address the situation where a petitioner fails to raise the claim in the initial petition. See id., at 645, n. In this case, Burton did not raise the relevant claims in his 1998 petition. Without more, therefore, our holding in Martinez-Villareal does not support the conclusion that Burton’s 2002 petition was not “second or successive.”
Slack is equally unhelpful to Burton; that decision merely confirmed that when a “first” petition is dismissed because it contains unexhausted claims, a prisoner returning later with a fully exhausted petition would not confront the “second or successive” bar. 529 U. S., at 485-486. We held that a “petition filed after a mixed petition has been dismissed under Rose v. Lundy before the district court adjudicated any claims is to be treated as ‘any other first petition’ and is not a second or successive petition.” Id., at 487 (emphasis added). See also id., at 478 (“[A] habeas petition which is filed after an initial petition was dismissed without adjudication on the merits for failure to exhaust state remedies is not a ‘second or successive’ petition” (emphasis added)). Burton’s case is quite different — his first petition was not subject to dismissal as containing unexhausted claims, and in fact was adjudicated on the merits.
Moving beyond the ground relied upon by the Ninth Circuit, Burton argues that his 1998 and 2002 petitions challenged different judgments. He notes that his 1998 petition identified the pertinent judgment as the 1994 judgment, App. 34, while the 2002 petition challenged the sentence imposed in the 1998 judgment. The 1998 judgment, however, had been entered nine months before Burton filed his first petition. That judgment, the same one challenged in the subsequent 2002 petition, was the judgment pursuant to which Burton was being detained. Unlike In re Taylor, 171 F. 3d 185 (CA4 1999), cited by Burton, there was no new judgment intervening between the two habeas petitions. In his 1998 petition, Burton specifically described his unexhausted sentencing claims as claims “as to the judgment under attack,” App. 40, belying any notion that those claims arose from a judgment distinct from the one challenged in 1998.
Burton finally contends that had he not filed the 1998 petition when he did, and instead waited until state review of his sentencing claims was complete, he risked losing the opportunity to challenge his conviction in federal court due to AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations. See § 2244(d)(1). But this argument misreads AEDPA, which states that the limitations period applicable to “a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” shall run from, as relevant here, “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. ” § 2244(d)(1)(A). “Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” Berman v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 212 (1937). Accordingly, Burton’s limitations period did not begin until both his conviction and sentence “became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review” — which occurred well after Burton filed his 1998 petition.
Burton argues in rebuttal that this reasoning would necessarily mean the District Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the 1998 petition, but he is mistaken. Section 2254(a) states that a district court “shall entertain” a habeas petition “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” When he filed the 1998 petition, Burton assuredly was “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” — even if, at that point, the 1998 judgment was not final for purposes of triggering AEDPA’s statute of limitations.
The long and short of it is that Burton neither sought nor received authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing his 2002 petition, a “second or successive” petition challenging his custody, and so the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
As we noted in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, 298, n. 1 (2004), Washington has since amended and recodified its criminal code. Citations are to provisions in effect at the time of Burton’s sentencing.
Specifically, the standard range sentences for rape, robbery, and burglary, if run concurrently, would have punished Burton as if he had committed .only the rape. State v. Burton, No. 35747-6-I etc., 1997 WL 306429, *11 — *12 (Wash. App., June 9, 1997).
For the same reasons, Burton’s reliance on Castro v. United States, 540 U. S. 375 (2003), is misplaced. That case reversed a lower court’s recharacterization of a motion requesting a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 as a first habeas petition. Here Burton filed his first habeas petition as such in 1998; it involves no similar “recharacterization” to recognize that the judgment pursuant to which Burton was confined at the time was the same judgment that gave rise to the sentence later challenged in his second habeas petition.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The McCarran Amendment, 66 Stat. 560, 43 U. S. C. § 666, provides that “consent is hereby given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit.” The questions presented by this case concern the effect of the McCarran Amendment upon the jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U. S. C. § 1345 over suits for determination of water rights brought by the United States as trustee for certain Indian tribes and as owner of various non-Indian Government claims.
I
It is probable that no problem of the Southwest section of the Nation is more critical than that of scarcity of water. As southwestern populations have grown, conflicting claims to this scarce resource have increased. To meet these claims, several Southwestern States have established elaborate procedures for allocation of water and adjudication of conflicting claims to that resource. In 1969, Colorado enacted its Water Rights Determination and Administration Act in an effort to revamp its legal procedures for determining claims to water within the State.
Under the Colorado Act, the State is divided into seven Water Divisions, each Division encompassing one or more entire drainage basins for the larger rivers in Colorado. Adjudication of water claims within each Division occurs on a continuous basis.. Each month, Water Referees in each Division rule on applications for water rights filed within the preceding five months or refer those applications to the Water Judge of their Division. Every six months, the Water Judge passes on referred applications and contested decisions by Referees. A State Engineer and engineers for each Division are responsible for the administration and distribution of the waters of the State according to the determinations in each Division.
Colorado applies the doctrine of prior appropriation in establishing rights to the use of water. Under that doctrine, one acquires a right to water by diverting it from its natural source and applying it to some beneficial use. Continued beneficial use of the water is required in order to maintain the right. In periods of shortage, priority among confirmed rights is determined according to the date of initial diversion.
The reserved rights of the United States extend to Indian reservations, Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564 (1908), and other federal lands, such as national parks and forests, Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546 (1963). The reserved rights claimed by the United States in this case affect waters within Colorado Water Division No. 7. On November 14, 1972, the Government instituted this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, invoking the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1345. The District Court is located in Denver, some 300 miles from Division 7. The suit, against some 1,000 water users, sought declaration of the Government’s rights to waters in certain rivers and their tributaries located in Division 7. In the suit, the Government asserted reserved rights on its own behalf and on behalf of certain Indian tribes, as well as rights based on state law. It sought appointment of a water master to administer any waters decreed to the United States. Prior to institution of this suit, the Government had pursued adjudication of non-Indian reserved rights and other water claims based on state law in Water Divisions 4, 5, and 6, and the Government continues to participate fully in those Divisions.
Shortly after the federal suit was commenced, one of the defendants in that suit filed an application in the state court for Division 7, seeking an order directing service of process on the United States in order to make it a party to proceedings in Division 7 for the purpose of adjudicating all of the Government’s claims, both state and federal. On January 3, 1973, the United States was served pursuant to authority of thé McCarran Amendment. Several defendants and intervenors in the federal proceeding then filed a motion in the District Court to dismiss on the ground that under the Amendment, the court was without jurisdiction to determine federal water rights. Without deciding the jurisdictional question, the District Court, on June 21, 1973, granted the motion in an unreported oral opinion stating that the doctrine of abstention required deference to the proceedings in Division 7. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, United States v. Akin, 504 F. 2d 115 (1974), holding that the suit of the United States was within district-court jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1345, and that abstention was inappropriate. We granted certiorari to consider the important questions of whether the McCarran Amendment terminated jurisdiction of federal courts to adjudicate federal water rights and whether, if that jurisdiction was not terminated, the District Court’s dismissal in this case was nevertheless appropriate. 421 U. S. 946 (1975). We reverse.
II
We first consider the question of district-court jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1345. That section provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction over all civil actions brought by the Federal Government “[ejxcept as otherwise provided by Act of Congress.” It is thus necessary to examine whether the McCarran Amendment is such an Act of Congress excepting jurisdiction under § 1345.
The McCarran Amendment does not by its terms, at least, indicate any repeal of jurisdiction under § 1345. Indeed, subsection (d) of the Amendment, which is un-codified, provides:
“(d) None of the funds appropriated by this title may be used in the preparation or prosecution of the suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Southern Division, by the United States of America against Fallbrook Public Utility District, a public service corporation of the State of California, and others.” Act of July 10, 1952, Pub. L. 495, § 208 (d), 66 Stat. 560.
In prohibiting the use of funds for the maintenance by the United States of a specific suit then pending in a District Court, subsection (d) plainly implies that the Amendment did not repeal the jurisdiction of district courts under § 1345 to adjudicate suits brought by the United States for adjudication of claimed federal water rights.
Beyond its terms, the legislative history of the Amendment evidences no clear purpose to terminate any portion of i 1345 jurisdiction. Indeed, three bills, proposed at approximately the same time as the Amendment, which expressly would have had the effect of precluding suits by the United States in district court for the determination of water rights, failed of passage. Further, the Senate report on the Amendment states: “The purpose of the proposed legislation, as amended, is to permit the joinder of the United States as a party defendant in any suit for the adjudicátion of rights to the use of water_” Nothing in this statement of purpose indicates an intent correlatively to diminish federal-district-court jurisdiction. Similarly, Senator McCarran, who introduced the legislation in the Senate, stated in a letter made a part of the Senate report that the legislation was “not intended to be used for any other purpose than to allow the United States to be joined in a suit wherein it is necessary to adjudicate all of the rights of various owners on a given stream.”
In view of the McCarran Amendment’s language and legislative history, controlling principles of statutory construction require the conclusion that the Amendment did not constitute an exception “provided by Act of Congress” that repealed the jurisdiction of district courts under § 1345 to entertain federal water suits. “When there are statutes clearly defining the jurisdiction of the courts the force and effect of such provisions should not be disturbed by a mere implication flowing from subsequent legislation.” Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U. S. 257, 262 (1897). See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 549-551 (1974); United States v. Jackson, 302 U. S. 628, 632 (1938). “In the absence of some. affirmative showing of an intention to repeal, the only permissible justification for a repeal by implication is when the earlier and later statutes are irreconcilable.” Morton v. Mancari, supra, at 550. Not only do the terms and legislative history of the McCarran Amendment not indicate an intent to repeal § 1345, but also there is no irreconcilability in the operation of both statutes. The immediate effect of the Amendment is to give consent to jurisdiction in the state courts concurrent with jurisdiction in the federal courts over controversies involving federal rights to the use of water. There is no irreconcilability in the existence of concurrent state and federal jurisdiction. Such concurrency has, for example, long existed under federal diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, we hold that the Mc-Carran Amendment in no way diminished federal-district-court jurisdiction under § 1345 and that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear this case.
Ill
We turn next to the question whether this suit nevertheless was properly dismissed in view of the concurrent state proceedings in Division 7.
A
First, we consider whether the McCarran Amendment provided consent to determine federal reserved rights held on behalf of Indians in state court. This is a question not previously squarely addressed by this Court, and given the claims for Indian water rights in this case, dismissal clearly would have been inappropriate if the state court had no jurisdiction to decide those claims. We conclude that the state court had jurisdiction over Indian water rights under the Amendment.
United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U. S. 520 (1971), and United States v. District Court for Water Div. 5, 401 U. S. 527 (1971), held that the provisions of the McCarran Amendment, whereby “consent is... given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication... or (2) for the administration of [water] rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner... by appropriation under state law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise... subject federal reserved rights to general adjudication in state proceedings for the determination of water rights. More specifically, the Court held that reserved rights were included in those rights where the United States was “otherwise” the owner. United States v. District Court for Eagle County, supra, at 524. Though Eagle County and Water Div. 5 did not involve reserved rights on Indian reservations, viewing the Government’s trusteeship of Indian rights as ownership, the logic of those cases clearly extends to such rights. Indeed, Eagle County spoke of non-Indian rights and Indian rights without any suggestion that there was a distinction between them for purposes of the Amendment. 401 U. S., at 523.
Not only the Amendment’s language, but also its underlying policy, dictates a construction including Indian rights in its provisions. Eagle County rejected the conclusion that federal reserved rights in general were not reached by the Amendment for the reason that the Amendment “[deals] with an all-inclusive statute concerning ‘the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system.’ ” Id., at 524. This consideration applies as well to federal water rights reserved for Indian reservations. And cogently, the Senate report on the Amendment observed:
“In the administration of and the adjudication ol water rights under State laws the State courts are vested with the jurisdiction necessary for the propel' and efficient disposition thereof, and by reason of the interlocking of adjudicated rights on any stream system, any order or action affecting one right affects all such rights. Accordingly all water users on a stream, in practically every case, are interested and necessary parties to any court proceedings. It is apparent that if any water user claiming to hold such right by reason of the ownership thereof by the United States or any of its departments is permitted to claim immunity from suit in, or orders of, a State court, such claims could materially interfere with the lawful and equitable use of water for beneficial use by the other water users who are amenable to and bound by the decrees and orders of the State courts.”
Thus, bearing in mind the ubiquitous nature of Indian water rights in the Southwest, it is clear that a construction of the Amendment excluding those rights from its coverage would enervate the Amendment’s objective.
Finally, legislative history demonstrates that the McCarran Amendment is to be construed as reaching federal water rights reserved on behalf of Indians. It was unmistakably the understanding of proponents and opponents of the legislation that it comprehended water rights reserved for Indians. In the Senate hearings on the Amendment, participants for the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior made clear that the proposal would include water rights reserved on behalf of Indians. In addition, the Senate report on the Amendment took note of a recommendation in a Department of the Interior report that no consent to suit be given as to Indian rights and rejected the recommendation.
The Government argues that because of its fiduciary responsibility to protect Indian rights, any state-court jurisdiction over Indian property should not be recognized unless expressly conferred by Congress. It has been recognized, however, that an action for the destruction of personal property may be brought against an Indian tribe where “[a]uthority to sue... is implied.” Turner v. United States, 248 U. S. 364, 358 (1919). Moreover, the Government's argument rests on the incorrect assumption that consent to state jurisdiction for the purpose of determining water rights imperils those rights or in some way breaches the special obligation of the Federal Government to protect Indians. Mere subjection of Indian rights to legal challenge in state court, however, would no more imperil those rights than would a suit brought by the Government in district court for their declaration, a suit which, absent the consent of the Amendment, would eventually be necessitated to resolve conflicting claims to a scarce resource. The Government has not abdicated any responsibility fully to defend Indian rights in state court, and Indian interests may be satisfactorily protected under regimes of state law. See 25 U. S. C. §§ 1321, 1322 ; 28 U. S. C. § 1360. Cf. California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142, 164 n. 2 (1935). The Amendment in no way abridges any substantive claim on behalf of Indians under the doctrine of reserved rights. Moreover, as Eagle County said, “questions [arising from the collision of private rights and reserved rights of the United States], including the volume and scope of particular reserved rights, are federal questions which, if preserved, can be reviewed [by the Supreme Court] after final judgment by the Colorado court.” 401 U. S., at 526.
B
Next, we consider whether the District Court’s dismissal was appropriate under the doctrine of abstention. We hold that the dismissal cannot be supported under that doctrine in any of its forms.
Abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule. “The doctrine of abstention, under which a District Court may decline to exercise or postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction, is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified under this doctrine only in the exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to repair to the State court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.” County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U. S. 185, 188-189 (1959). “[I]t was never a doctrine of equity that a federal court should exercise its judicial discretion to dismiss a suit merely because a State court could entertain it.” Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., 341 U. S. 341, 361 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result). Our decisions have confined the circumstances appropriate for abstention to three general categories.
(a) Abstention is appropriate “in cases presenting a federal constitutional issue which might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a state court determination of pertinent state law.” County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., supra, at 189. See, e. g., Lake Carriers Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498 (1972); United Gas Pipeline Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U. S. 134 (1962); Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941). This case, however, presents no federal constitutional issue for decision.
(b) Abstention is also appropriate where there have been presented difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U. S. 25 (1959), for example, involved such a question. In particular, the concern there was with the scope of the eminent domain power of municipalities under state law. See also Kaiser Steel Corp. v. W. S. Ranch Co., 391 U. S. 593 (1968); Hawks v. Hamill, 288 U. S. 52 (1933). In some cases, however, the state question itself need not be determinative of state policy. It is enough that exercise of federal review of the question in a case and in similar cases would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern. In Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315 (1943), for example, the Court held that a suit seeking review of the reasonableness under Texas state law of a state commission’s permit to drill oil wells should have been dismissed by the District Court. The reasonableness of the permit in that case was not of transcendent importance, but review of reasonableness by the federal courts in that and future cases, where the State had established its own elaborate review system for dealing with the geological complexities of oil and gas fields, would have had an impermissibly disruptive effect on state policy for the management of those fields. See also Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., supra.
The present case clearly does not fall within this second category of abstention. While state claims are involved in the case, the state law to be applied appears to be settled. No questions bearing on state policy are presented for decision. Nor will decision of the state claims impair efforts to implement state policy as in Burford. To be sure, the federal claims that are involved in the case go to the establishment of water rights which may conflict with similar rights based on state law. But the mere potential for conflict in the results of adjudications, does not, without more, warrant staying exercise of federal jurisdiction. See Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U. S. 228 (1943); Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U. S. 226 (1922); McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268 (1910). The potential conflict here, involving state claims and federal claims, would not be such as to impair impermissibly the State’s effort to effect its policy respecting the allocation of state waters. Nor would exercise of federal jurisdiction here interrupt any such efforts by restraining the exercise of authority vested in state officers. See Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U. S. 176 (1935); Hawks v. Hamill, supra.
(c) Finally, abstention is appropriate where, absent bad faith, harassment, or a patently invalid state statute, federal jurisdiction has been invoked for the purpose of restraining state criminal proceedings, Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971); Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943); state nuisance proceedings antecedent to a criminal prosecution, which are directed at obtaining the closure of places exhibiting obscene films, Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975); or collection of state taxes, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293 (1943). Like the previous two categories, this category also does not include this case. We deal here neither with a criminal proceeding, nor such a nuisance proceeding, nor a tax collection. We also do not deal with an attempt to restrain such actions or to seek a declaratory judgment as to the validity of a state criminal law under which criminal proceedings are pending in a state court.
C
Although this case falls within none of the abstention categories, there are principles unrelated to considerations of proper constitutional adjudication and regard for federal-state relations which govern in situations involving the contemporaneous exercise of concurrent jurisdictions, either by federal courts or by state and federal courts. These principles rest on considerations of “[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U. S. 180, 183 (1952). See Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Security National Bank, 173 U. S. App. D. C. 403, 525 F. 2d 620 (1975). Generally, as between state and federal courts, the rule is that “the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction....” McClellan v. Garland, supra, at 282. See Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U. S. 408 (1964). As between federal district courts, however, though no precise rule has evolved, the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation. See Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., supra; Steelman v. All Continent Corp., 301 U. S. 278 (1937); Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248, 254 (1936). This difference in general approach between state-federal concurrent jurisdiction and wholly federal concurrent jurisdiction stems from the virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them. England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 415 (1964); McClellan v. Carland, supra, at 281; Cokens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (dictum). Given this obligation, and the absence of weightier considerations of constitutional adjudication and state-federal relations, the circumstances permitting the dismissal of a federal suit due to the presence of a concurrent state proceeding for reasons of wise judicial administration are considerably more limited than the circumstances appropriate for abstention. The former circumstances, though exceptional, do nevertheless exist.
It has been held, for example, that the court first assuming jurisdiction over property may exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. Donovan v. City of Dallas, supra, at 412; Princess Lida v. Thompson, 305 U. S. 456, 466 (1939); United States v. Bank of New York Co., 296 U. S. 463, 477 (1936). But cf. Markham v. Allen, 326 U. S. 490 (1946); United States v. Klein, 303 U. S. 276 (1938). This has been true even where the Government was a claimant in existing state proceedings and then sought to invoke district-court jurisdiction under the jurisdictional provision antecedent to 28 U. S. C. § 1345. United States v. Bank of New York Co., supra, at 479. But cf. Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 220, 227-228 (1957). In assessing the appropriateness of dismissal in the event of an exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, a federal court may also consider such factors as the inconvenience of the federal forum, cf. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501 (1947); the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation, cf. Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U. S. 491, 495 (1942); and the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums, Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Oregon Water Bd., 241 U. S. 440, 447 (1916). No one factor is necessarily determinative; a carefully considered judgment taking into account both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counselling against that exercise is required. See Landis v. North American Co., supra, at 254-255. Only the clearest of justifications will warrant dismissal.
Turning to the present case, a number of factors clearly counsel against concurrent federal proceedings. The most important of these is the McCarran Amendment itself. The clear federal policy evinced by that legislation is the avoidance of piecemeal adjudication of water rights in a river system. This policy is akin to that underlying the rule requiring that jurisdiction be yielded to the court first acquiring control of property, for the concern in such instances is with avoiding the generation of additional litigation through permitting inconsistent dispositions of property. This concern is heightened with respect to water rights, the relationships among which are highly interdependent. Indeed, we have recognized that actions seeking the allocation of water essentially involve the disposition of property and are best conducted in unified proceedings. See Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Oregon Water Bd., supra, at 449. The consent to jurisdiction given by the McCarran Amendment bespeaks a policy that recognizes the availability of comprehensive state systems for adjudication of water rights as the means for achieving these goals.
As has already been observed, the Colorado Water Rights Determination and Administration Act established such a system for the adjudication and management of rights to the use of the State’s waters. As the Government concedes and as this Court recognized in Eagle County and Water Div. 5, the Act established a single continuous proceeding for water rights adjudication which antedated the suit in District Court. United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U. S., at 525; United States v. District Court for Water Div. 5, 401 U. S., at 529. That proceeding “reaches all claims, perhaps month by month but inclusively in the totality.” Ibid. Additionally, the responsibility of managing the State’s waters, to the end that they be allocated in accordance with adjudicated water rights, is given to the State Engineer.
Beyond the congressional policy expressed by the Mc-Carran Amendment and consistent with furtherance of that policy, we also find significant (a) the apparent absence of any proceedings in the District Court, other than the filing of the complaint, prior to the motion to dismiss, (b) the extensive involvement of state water rights occasioned by this suit naming 1,000 defendants, (c) the 300-mile distance between the District Court in Denver and the court in Division 7, and (d) the existing participation by the Government in Division 4, 5, and 6 proceedings. We emphasize, however, that we do not overlook the heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction. We need not decide, for example, whether, despite the McCarran Amendment, dismissal would be warranted if more extensive proceedings had occurred in the District Court prior to dismissal, if the involvement of state water rights were less extensive than it is here, or if the state proceeding were in some respect inadequate to resolve the federal claims. But the opposing factors here, particularly the policy underlying the McCarran Amendment, justify the District Court’s dismissal in this particular case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint is affirmed for the reasons here stated.
It is so ordered.
The McCarran Amendment (also known as the McCarran Water Rights Suit Act), 43 U. S. C. §666, as codified, provides in full text:
“(a) Consent is hereby given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances: Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States in any such 6uit.
“(b) Summons or other process in any such suit shall be served upon the Attorney General or his designated representative.
“(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the joinder of the United States in any suit or controversy in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the right of States to the use of the water of any interstate stream.”
See also infra, at 807.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1345 provides:
“Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.”
See, e. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 45-102 to 45-106, 45-141 to 45-154, 45-180 to 45-193, 45-231 to 45-245 (1956 and Supp. 1975); Cal. Water Code §§ 174-192, 1000-5108 (1971 and Supp. 1976); Nev. Rev. Stat. §533.010 et seq. (1973); N. M. Stat. Ann. §§ 75-1-1 to 75-6-3 (1968 and Supp. 1975).
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37-92-101 et seq. (1974).
§ 37-92-201.
See §§ 37-92-302 to 37-92-303.
§ 37-92-303.
§ 37-92-304.
§ 37-92-301.
Colo. Const. Art. XVI, §§ 5, 6; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 37—92—102 to 37-92-306 (1974); Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443 (1882).
See City of Colorado Springs v. Bender, 148 Colo. 458, 366 P. 2d 552 (1961); City of Colorado Springs v. Yust, 126 Colo. 289; 249 P. 2d 151 (1952).
Jurisdiction in the specific District Court suit was based on 28 U. S. C. § 1345. See United States v. Fallbrook Util. Dist., 101 F. Supp. 298 (SD Cal. 1951).
H. R. 7691, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952); H. R. 5735, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951); H. R. 5368, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951).
S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1951).
Id., at 9.
The District Court also would have had jurisdiction of this suit under the general federal-question jurisdiction of 28 U. S. C. § 1331. For the same reasons, the McCarran Amendment did not affect jurisdiction under § 1331 either.
S. Rep. No. 755, supra, at 4-5.
Indeed, if exclusion of Indian rights were the conclusion, conflicts between Indian and non-Indian rights, as well as practical matters of adjudication, might have the effect of requiring district-court adjudication of non-Indian along with Indian rights, thereby effectively vitiating our construction of the Amendment in Eagle County and Water Div. 6.
See Hearings on S. 18 before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 6-7, 67-68 (1951).
S. Rep. No. 755, supra, at 2, 7-8.
To be sure, 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (b) and 28 U. S. C. § 1360 (b) provide that nothing in those sections “shall confer jurisdiction upon the State to adjudicate, in probate proceedings or otherwise, the ownership or right to possession of [any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe... that is held in trust by the United States].” This provision in both sections, however, only qualifies the import of the general consent to state jurisdiction given by those sections. It does not purport to limit the special consent to jurisdiction given by the McCarran Amendment. A contrary conclusion is foreclosed by the principle of construction that “[w]here there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” Morton v. Mancan, 417 U. S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
We note that Burford v. Sun Oil Co., and Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., differ from Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, and County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., in that the former two cases, unlike the latter two, raised colorable constitutional claims and were therefore brought under federal-question, as well as diversity, jurisdiction. While abstention in Burford and Alabama Pub. Serv. had the effect of avoiding a federal constitutional issue, the opinions indicate that this was not an additional ground for abstention in those cases. See Alabama: Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., 341 U. S., at 344; Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S., at 334; H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1005 (2d ed. 1973) (“The two groups of cases share at least one common characteristic: the Pullman purpose of avoiding the necessity for federal constitutional adjudication is not relevant”). We have held, of course, that the opportunity to avoid decision of a constitutional question does not alone justify abstention by a federal court. See Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528 (1965); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360 (1964). Indeed, the presence of a federal basis for jurisdiction may raise the level of justification needed for abstention. See Burford v. Sun Oil Co., supra, at 318 n. 5; Hawks v. Hamill, 288 U. S., at 61.
Where a case is properly within this category of cases, there is no discretion to grant injunctive relief. See Younger v. Harris. But cf. Samuels v. Mackell,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to No. 78, United States v. Allen-Bradley Co., ante, p. 306, which was also decided today. During World War II petitioner manufactured engine bearings. In 1944 petitioner expanded its plant in an effort to increase the output of these essential war products. At the same time it applied to the War Production Board for certification that the various additions were necessary in the interest of national defense. However the Board, as in Allen-Bradley, granted certificates of necessity for only a part of the cost of petitioner’s new facilities. In its income tax return for 1944 petitioner exercised the privilege such certification conferred by taking as a deduction a sum based on the accelerated amortization of that part of the costs which had been certified by the Board.
In 1951 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted a deficiency against petitioner on grounds unrelated to the present controversy. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for redetermination with the Tax Court claiming that it was entitled to a refund for overpayment of income taxes in 1944. The amount of this overpayment was calculated on the basis that petitioner was entitled to accelerate the amortization of the full cost of those facilities covered by the Board’s “partial certifications.” Petitioner contends that the Board was not authorized to certify only a part of the cost of a facility when the Board had determined that the facility as a whole was necessary to the national defense. The Tax Court granted petitioner’s claim, but on appeal the Second Circuit reversed, holding that petitioner had forfeited its right to challenge the Board’s action by waiting too long after accepting the tax benefits of the “partial certificates” to attack their validity. 230 F. 2d 161. The Court of Appeals did not reach the question whether the Board was authorized to issue such “partial certificates.” For reasons stated in our opinion in No. 78, United States v. Allen-Bradley Co., supra, we hold that the Board was empowered to issue certificates covering only a part of the cost of petitioner’s improvements. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan joins in the Court’s decision for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion in United States v. Allen-Bradley Co., ante, p. 311.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants “the owner of copyright under this title” certain “exclusive rights,” including the right “to distribute copies... of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership.” 17 U. S. C. § 106(3). These rights are qualified, however, by the application of various limitations set forth in the next several sections of the Act, §§ 107 through 122. Those sections, typically entitled “Limitations on exclusive rights,” include, for example, the principle of “fair use” (§ 107), permission for limited library archival reproduction (§ 108), and the doctrine at issue here, the “first sale” doctrine (§ 109).
Section 109(a) sets forth the “first sale” doctrine as follows:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [the section that grants the owner exclusive distribution rights], the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorec-ord.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, even though § 106(3) forbids distribution of a copy of, say, the copyrighted novel Herzog without the copyright owner’s permission, § 109(a) adds that, once a copy of Herzog has been lawfully sold (or its ownership otherwise lawfully transferred), the buyer of that copy and subsequent owners are free to dispose of it as they wish. In copyright jargon, the “first sale” has “exhausted” the copyright owner’s § 106(3) exclusive distribution right.
What, however, if the copy of Herzog was printed abroad and then initially sold with the copyright owner’s permission? Does the “first sale” doctrine still apply? Is the buyer, like the buyer of a domestically manufactured copy, free to bring the copy into the United States and dispose of it as he or she wishes?
To put the matter technically, an “importation” provision, § 602(a)(1), says that
“[importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies... of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies... under section 106... 17 U. S. C. § 602(a)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added).
Thus § 602(a)(1) makes clear that importing a copy without permission violates the owner’s exclusive distribution right. But in doing so, § 602(a)(1) refers explicitly to the §106(3) exclusive distribution right. As we have just said, § 106 is by its terms “[sjubject to” the various doctrines and principles contained in §§ 107 through 122, including § 109(a)’s “first sale” limitation. Do those same modifications apply—in particular, does the “first sale” modification apply—when considering whether § 602(a)(1) prohibits importing a copy?
In Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. Danza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U. S. 135, 145 (1998), we held that §602(a)(l)’s reference to § 106(3)’s exclusive distribution right incorporates the later subsections’ limitations, including, in particular, the “first sale” doctrine of § 109. Thus, it might seem that, § 602(a)(1) notwithstanding, one who buys a copy abroad can freely import that copy into the United States and dispose of it, just as he could had he bought the copy in the United States.
But Quality King considered an instance in which the copy, though purchased abroad, was initially manufactured in the United States (and then sent abroad and sold). This case is like Quality King but for one important fact. The copies at issue here were manufactured abroad. That fact is important because § 109(a) says that the “first sale” doctrine applies to “a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title.” And we must decide here whether the five words, “lawfully made under this title,” make a critical legal difference.
Putting section numbers to the side, we ask whether the “first sale” doctrine applies to protect a buyer or other lawful owner of a copy (of a copyrighted work) lawfully manufactured abroad. Can that buyer bring that copy into the United States (and sell it or give it away) without obtaining permission to do so from the copyright owner? Can, for example, someone who purchases, say, at a used bookstore, a book printed abroad subsequently resell it without the copyright owner’s permission?
In our view, the answers to these questions are, yes. We hold that the “first sale” doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.
I
A
Respondent, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., publishes academic textbooks. Wiley obtains from its authors various foreign and domestic copyright assignments, licenses, and permissions—to the point that we can, for present purposes, refer to Wiley as the relevant American copyright owner. See 654 F. 3d 210, 213, n. 6 (CA2 2011). Wiley often assigns to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd., rights to publish, print, and sell Wiley’s English-language textbooks abroad. App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a-48a. Each copy of a Wiley Asia foreign edition will likely contain language making clear that the copy is to be sold only in a particular country or geographical region outside the United States. 654 F. 3d, at 213.
For example, a copy of Wiley’s American edition says: “Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.... Printed in the United States of America.” J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, p. vi (8th ed. 2008). A copy of Wiley Asia’s Asian edition of that book says:
“Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd[.] All rights reserved. This book is authorized for sale in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East only and may be not exported [sic] out of these territories. Exportation from or importation of this book to another region without the Publisher’s authorization is illegal and is a violation of the Publisher’s rights. The Publisher may take legal action to enforce its rights.... Printed in Asia.” J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, p. vi (8th ed. 2008 Wiley Int’l Student ed.).
Both the foreign and the American copies say:
“No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means... except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act.” Compare, e.g., ibid. (Int’l ed.) with Walker, supra, at vi (American ed.).
The upshot is that there are two essentially equivalent versions of a Wiley textbook, 654 F. 3d, at 213, each version manufactured and sold with Wiley’s permission: (1) an American version printed and sold in the United States, and (2) a foreign version manufactured and sold abroad. And Wiley makes certain that copies of the second version state that they are not to be taken (without permission) into the United States. Ibid.
Petitioner, Supap Kirtsaeng, a citizen of Thailand, moved to the United States in 1997 to study mathematics at Cornell University. Ibid. He paid for his education with the help of a Thai Government scholarship which required him to teach in Thailand for 10 years on his return. Brief for Petitioner 7. Kirtsaeng successfully completed his undergraduate courses at Cornell, successfully completed a Ph. D. program in mathematics at the University of Southern California, and then, as promised, returned to Thailand to teach. Ibid. While he was studying in the United States, Kirtsaeng asked his friends and family in Thailand to buy copies of foreign edition English-language textbooks at Thai bookshops, where they sold at low prices, and mail them to him in the United States. Id., at 7-8. Kirtsaeng would then sell them, reimburse his family and friends, and keep the profit. App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a-49a.
B
In 2008 Wiley brought this federal lawsuit against Kirt-saeng for copyright infringement. 654 F. 3d, at 213. Wiley claimed that Kirtsaeng’s unauthorized importation of its books and his later resale of those books amounted to an infringement of Wiley’s § 106(3) exclusive right to distribute as well as § 602’s related import prohibition. 17 U. S. C. §§ 106(3) (2006 ed.), 602(a) (2006 ed., Supp. V). See also § 501 (2006 ed.) (authorizing infringement action). App. 204-211. Kirtsaeng replied that the books he had acquired were “ ‘lawfully made’” and that he had acquired them legitimately. Record in No. l:08-CV-7834-DCP (SDNY), Doc. 14, p. 3. Thus, in his view, §109(a)’s “first sale” doctrine permitted him to resell or otherwise dispose of the books without the copyright owner’s farther permission. Id., at 2-3.
The District Court held that Kirtsaeng could not assert the “first sale” defense because, in its view, that doctrine does not apply to “foreign-manufactured goods” (even if made abroad with the copyright owner’s permission). App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a. The jury then found that Kirtsaeng had willfully infringed Wiley’s American copyrights by selling and importing without authorization copies of eight of Wiley’s copyrighted titles. And it assessed statutory damages of $600,000 ($75,000 per work). 654 F. 3d, at 215.
On appeal, a split panel of the Second Circuit agreed with the District Court. Id., at 222. It pointed out that § 109(a)’s “first sale” doctrine applies only to “the owner of a particular copy... lawfully made under this title” Id., at 218-219, and n. 27 (emphasis added). And, in the majority’s view, this language means that the “first sale” doctrine does not apply to copies of American copyrighted works manufactured abroad. Id., at 221. A dissenting judge thought that the words “lawfully made under this title” do not refer “to a place of manufacture” but rather “focu[s] on whether a particular copy was manufactured lawfully under” America’s copyright statute, and that “the lawfulness of the manufacture of a particular copy should be judged by U. S. copyright law.” Id., at 226 (opinion of Murtha, J.).
We granted Kirtsaeng’s petition for certiorari to consider this question in light of different views among the Circuits. Compare id., at 221 (case below) (“first sale” doctrine does not apply to copies manufactured outside the United States), with Omega S. A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F. 3d 982, 986 (CA9 2008) (“first sale” doctrine applies to copies manufactured outside the United States only if an authorized first sale occurs within the United States), aff’d by an equally divided court, 562 U. S. 40 (2010), and Sebastian Int’l, Inc. v. Consumer Contacts (PTY) Ltd., 847 F. 2d 1093, 1098, n. 1 (CA3 1988) (limitation of the first sale doctrine to copies made within the United States “does not fit comfortably within the scheme of the Copyright Act”).
I I
We must decide whether the words lawfully made under this title” restrict the scope of § 109(a)’s “first sale” doctrine geographically. The Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, Wiley, and the Solicitor General (as amicus) all read those words as imposing a form of geographical limitation. The Second Circuit held that they limit the “first sale” doctrine to particular copies “made in territories in which the Copyright Act is law,” which (the Circuit says) are copies “manufactured domestically,” not “outside of the United States.” 654 F. 3d, at 221-222 (emphasis added). Wiley agrees that those five words limit the “first sale” doctrine “to copies made in conformance with the [United States] Copyright Act where the Copyright Act is applicable,” which (Wiley says) means it does not apply to copies made “outside the United States” and at least not to “foreign production of a copy for distribution exclusively abroad.” Brief for Respondent 15-16. Similarly, the Solicitor General says that those five words limit the “first sale” doctrine’s applicability to copies ‘“made subject to and in compliance with [the Copyright Act],’ ” which (the Solicitor General says) are copies “made in the United States.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 5 (hereinafter Brief for United States) (emphasis added). And the Ninth Circuit has held that those words limit the “first sale” doctrine’s applicability (1) to copies lawfully made in the United States, and (2) to copies lawfully made outside the United States but initially sold in the United States with the copyright owner’s permission. Den-bicare U. S. A. Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 84 F. 3d 1143, 1149-1150 (1996).
Under any of these geographical interpretations, § 109(a)’s “first sale” doctrine would not apply to the Wiley Asia books at issue here. And, despite an American copyright owner’s permission to make copies abroad, one who buys a copy of any such book or other copyrighted work—whether at a retail store, over the Internet, or at a library sale—could not resell (or otherwise dispose of) that particular copy without further permission.
Kirtsaeng, however, reads the words “lawfully made under this title” as imposing a wow-geographical limitation. He says that they mean made “in accordance with” or “in compliance with” the Copyright Act. Brief for Petitioner 26. In that case, § 109(a)’s “first sale” doctrine would apply to copyrighted works as long as their manufacture met the requirements of American copyright law. In particular, the doctrine would apply where, as here, copies are manufactured abroad with the permission of the copyright owner. See § 106 (referring to the owner’s right to authorize).
In our view, § 109(a)’s language, its context, and the common-law history of the “first sale” doctrine, taken together, favor a?wm-geographical interpretation. We also doubt that Congress would have intended to create the practical copyright-related harms with which a geographical interpretation would threaten ordinary scholarly, artistic, commercial, and consumer activities. See Part II-D, infra. We consequently conclude that Kirtsaeng’s nongeographical reading is the better reading of the Act.
A
The language of § 109(a) read literally favors Kirtsaeng’s nongeographical interpretation, namely, that “lawfully made under this title” means made “in accordance with” or “in compliance with” the Copyright Act. The language of § 109(a) says nothing about geography. The word “under” can mean “[i]n accordance with.” 18 Oxford English Dictionary 950 (2d ed. 1989). See also Black’s Law Dictionary 1525 (6th ed. 1990) (“according to”). And a nongeographical interpretation provides each word of the five-word phrase with a distinct purpose. The first two words of the phrase, “lawfully made,” suggest an effort to distinguish those copies that were made lawfully from those that were not, and the last three words, “under this title,” set forth the standard of “lawful[ness].” Thus, the nongeographical reading is simple, it promotes a traditional copyright objective (combating piracy), and it makes word-by-word linguistic sense.
The geographical interpretation, however, bristles with linguistic difficulties. It gives the word “lawfully” little, if any, linguistic work to do. (How could a book be %%-lawfully “made under this title”?) It imports geography into a statutory provision that says nothing explicitly about it. And it is far more complex than may at first appear.
To read the clause geographically, Wiley, like the Second Circuit and the Solicitor General, must first emphasize the word “under.” Indeed, Wiley reads “under this title” to mean “in conformance with the Copyright Act where the Copyright Act is applicable.” Brief for Respondent 15. Wiley must then take a second step, arguing that the Act “is applicable” only in the United States. Ibid. And the Solicitor General must do the same. See Brief for United States 6 (“A copy is ‘lawfully made under this title’ if Title 17 governs the copy’s creation and the copy is made in compliance with Title 17’s requirements”). See also post, at 562 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“under” describes something “governed or regulated by another”).
One difficulty is that neither “under” nor any other word in the phrase means “where.” See, e. g., 18 Oxford English Dictionary, supra, at 947-952 (definition of “under”). It might mean “subject to,” see post, at 561-562, but as this Court has repeatedly acknowledged,, the word evades a uniform, consistent meaning. See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U. S. 233, 245 (2010) (“‘under’ is chameleon”); Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 135 (1991) (“under” has “many dictionary definitions” and “must draw its meaning from its context”).
A far more serious difficulty arises out of the uncertainty and complexity surrounding the second step’s effort to read the necessary geographical limitation into the word “applicable” (or the equivalent). Where, precisely, is the Copyright Act “applicable”? The Act does not instantly protect an American copyright holder from unauthorized piracy taking place abroad. But that fact does not mean the Act is inapplicable to copies made abroad. As a matter of ordinary English, one can say that a statute imposing, say, a tariff upon “any rhododendron grown in Nepal” applies to all Nepalese rhododendrons. And, similarly, one can say that the American Copyright Act is applicable to all pirated copies, including those printed overseas. Indeed, the Act itself makes clear that (in the Solicitor General’s language) foreign-printed pirated copies are “subject to” the Act. § 602(a)(2) (2006 ed., Supp. V) (referring to importation of copies “the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable”); Brief for United States 5. See also post, at 561 (suggesting that “made under” may be read as “subject to”).
The appropriateness of this linguistic usage is underscored by the fact that § 104 of the Act itself says that works “subject to protection under this title” include unpublished works “without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author” and works “first published” in any one of the nearly 180 nations that have signed a copyright treaty with the United States. §§ 104(a), (b) (2006 ed.) (emphasis added); § 101 (2006 ed., Supp. V) (defining “treaty party”); U. S. Copyright Office, Circular No. 38A, International Copyright Relations of the United States (2010). Thus, ordinary English permits us to say that the Act “applies” to an Irish manuscript lying in its author’s Dublin desk drawer as well as to an original recording of a ballet performance first made in Japan and now on display in a Kyoto art gallery. Cf. 4 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright § 17.02, pp. 17-18, 17-19 (2012) (hereinafter Nimmer on Copyright) (noting that the principle that “copyright laws do not have any extraterritorial operation” “requires some qualification”).
The Ninth Circuit’s geographical interpretation produces still greater linguistic difficulty. As we said, that Circuit interprets the “first sale” doctrine to cover both (1) copies manufactured in the United States and (2) copies manufactured abroad but first sold in the United States with the American copyright owner’s permission. Denbicare U. S. A., 84 F. 3d, at 1149-1150. See also Brief for Respondent 16 (suggesting that the clause at least excludes “the foreign production of a copy for distribution exclusively abroad”); id., at 51 (the Court need “not decide whether the copyright owner would be able, to restrict further distribution” in the case of “a downstream domestic purchaser of authorized imports”); Brief for Petitioner in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A., O. T. 2010, No. 08-1423, p. 12 (excepting imported copies “made by unrelated foreign copyright holders” (emphasis deleted)).
We can understand why the Ninth Circuit may have thought it necessary to add the second part of its definition. As we shall later describe, see Part II-D, infra, without some such qualification a copyright holder could prevent a buyer from domestically reselling or even giving away copies of a video game made in Japan, a film made in Germany, or a dress fabric (with a design copyright) made in China, even if the copyright holder has granted permission for the foreign manufacture, importation, and an initial domestic sale of the copy. A publisher such as Wiley would be free to print its books abroad, allow their importation and sale within the United States, but prohibit students from later selling their used texts at a campus bookstore. We see no way, however, to reconcile this half-geographical/half-non-geographical interpretation with the language of the phrase, “lawfully made under this title.” As a matter of English, it would seem that those five words either do cover copies lawfully made abroad or they do not.
In sum, we believe that geographical interpretations create more linguistic problems than they resolve. And considerations of simplicity and coherence tip the purely linguistic balance in Kirtsaeng’s, nongeographical, favor.
B
Both historical and contemporary statutory context indicate that Congress, when writing the present version of § 109(a), did not have geography in mind. In respect to history, we compare § 109(a)’s present language with the language of its immediate predecessor. That predecessor said:
“[NJothing in this Act shall be deemed to forbid, prevent, or restrict the transfer of any copy of a copyrighted work the possession of which has been lawfully obtained.” Copyright Act of 1909, §41, B5 Stat. 1084 (emphasis added).
See also Copyright Act of 1947, §27, 61 Stat. 660. The predecessor says nothing about geography (and Wiley does not argue that it does). So we ask whether Congress, in changing its language, implicitly introduced a geographical limitation that previously was lacking. See also Part II-C, infra (discussing 1909 codification of common-law principle).
A comparison of language indicates that it did not. The predecessor says that the “first sale” doctrine protects “the transfer of any copy the possession of which has been lawfully obtained” The present version says that “the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title is entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.” What does this change in language accomplish?
The language of the former version referred to those who are not owners of a copy, but mere possessors who “lawfully obtained” a copy. The present version covers only those who are owners of a “lawfully made” copy. Whom does the change leave out? Who might have lawfully obtained a copy of a copyrighted work but not owned that copy? One answer is owners of movie theaters, who during the 1970⅛ (and before) often leased films from movie distributors or filmmakers. See S. Donahue, American Film Distribution 134, 177 (1987) (describing producer-distributer and distributer-exhibitor agreements); Note, The Relationship Between Motion Picture Distribution and Exhibition: An Analysis of the Effects of Anti-Blind Bidding Legislation, 9 Comm/Ent. L. J. 131, 135 (1986). Because the theater owners had “lawfully obtained” their copies, the earlier version could be read as allowing them to sell that copy, i. e., it might have given them “first sale” protection. Because the theater owners were lessees, not owners, of their copies, the change in language makes clear that they (like bailees and other lessees) cannot take advantage of the “first sale” doctrine. (Those who find legislative history useful will find confirmation in, e. g., House Committee on the Judiciary, Copyright Law Revision, Supplementary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U. S. Copyright Law: 1965 Revision Bill, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 6, p. 30 (Comm. Print 1965) (hereinafter Copyright Law Revision) (“[W]here a person has rented a print of a motion, picture from the copyright owner, he would have no right to lend, rent, sell, or otherwise dispose of the print without first obtaining the copyright owner’s permission”). See also Platt & Munk Co. v. Republic Graphics, Inc., 315 F. 2d 847, 851 (CA2 1963) (Friendly, J.) (pointing out predecessor statute’s leasing problem).)
This objective perfectly well explains the new language of the present version, including the five words here at issue. Section 109(a) now makes clear that a lessee of a copy will not receive “first sale” protection but one who owns a copy will receive “first sale” protection, provided, of course, that the copy was “lawfully made” and not pirated. The new language also takes into account that a copy may be “lawfully made under this title” when the copy, say, of a phonorec-ord, comes into its owner’s possession through use of a compulsory license, which “this title” provides for elsewhere, namely, in § 115. Again, for those who find legislative history useful, the relevant legislative Report makes this clear. H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 79 (1976) (“For example, any resale of an illegally ‘pirated’ phonorecord would be an infringement, but the disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory licensing provisions of section 115 would not”).
Other provisions of the present statute also support a nongeographical interpretation. For one thing, the statute phases out the “manufacturing clause,” a clause that appeared in earlier statutes and had limited importation of many copies (of copyrighted works) printed outside the United States. §601, 90 Stat. 2588 (“Prior to July 1, 1982... the importation into or public distribution in the United States of copies of a work consisting preponderantly of nondramatic literary material... is prohibited unless the portions consisting of such material have been manufactured in the United States or Canada”). The phasing out of this clause sought to equalize treatment of copies manufactured in America and copies manufactured abroad. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 165-166.
The “equal treatment” principle, however, is difficult to square with a geographical interpretation of the “first sale” clause that would grant the holder of an American copyright (perhaps a foreign national, see supra, at 532) permanent control over the American distribution chain (sales, resales, gifts, and other distribution) in respect to copies printed abroad but not in respect to copies printed in America. And it is particularly difficult to believe that Congress would have sought this unequal treatment while saying nothing about it and while, in a related clause (the manufacturing phaseout), seeking the opposite kind of policy goal. Cf. Golan v. Holder, 565 U. S. 302, 333 (2012) (Congress has moved from a copyright regime that, prior to 1891, entirely excluded foreign works from U. S. copyright protection to a regime that now “ensure[s] that most works, whether foreign or domestic, would be governed by the same legal regime” (emphasis added)).
Finally, we normally presume that the words “lawfully made under this title” carry the same meaning when they appear in different but related sections. Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 342 (1994). But doing so here produces surprising consequences. Consider:
(1) Section 109(c) says that, despite the copyright owner’s exclusive right “to display” a copyrighted work (provided in §106(5)), the owner of a particular copy “lawfully made under this title” may publicly display it without further authorization. To interpret these words geographically would mean that one who buys a copyrighted work of art, a poster, or even a bumper sticker, in Canada, in Europe, in Asia, could not display it in America without the copyright owner’s further authorization.
(2) Section 109(e) specifically provides that the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted video arcade game “lawfully made under this title” may “publicly perform or display that game in coin-operated equipment” without the authorization of the copyright owner. To interpret these words geographically means that an arcade owner could not (“without the authority of the copyright owner”) perform or display arcade games (whether new or used) originally made in Japan. Cf. Red Baron-Franklin Park, Inc. v. Taito Corp., 883 F. 2d 275 (CA4 1989).
(3) Section 110(1) says that a teacher, without the copyright owner’s authorization, is allowed to perform or display a copyrighted work (say, an audiovisual work) “in the course of face-to-face teaching activities”—unless the teacher knowingly used “a copy that was not lawfully made under this title.” To interpret these words geographically would mean that the teacher could not (without farther authorization) use a copy of a film during class if the copy was lawfully made in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Africa, or Asia.
(4) In its introductory sentence, §106 provides the Act’s basic exclusive rights to an “owner of a copyright under this title.” The last three words cannot support a geographic interpretation.
Wiley basically accepts the first three readings, but argues that Congress intended the restrictive consequences. And it argues that context simply requires that the words of the fourth example receive a different interpretation. Leaving the fourth example to the side, we shall explain in Part IID, infra, why we find it unlikely that Congress would have intended these and other related consequences.
C
A relevant canon of statutory interpretation favors a non-geographical reading. “[W]hen a statute covers an issue previously governed by the common law,” we must presume that “Congress intended to retain the substance of the common law.” Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U. S. 305, 320, n. 13 (2010). See also Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779, 783 (1952) (“Statutes which invade the common law... are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident”).
The “first sale” doctrine is a common-law doctrine with an impeccable historic pedigree. In the early 17th century Lord Coke explained the common law’s refusal to permit restraints on the alienation of chattels. Referring to Little-ton, who wrote in the 15th century, Gray, Two Contributions to Coke Studies, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1127, 1135 (2005), Lord Coke wrote:
“[If] a man be possessed of... a horse, or of any other chattell... and give or sell his whole interest... therein upon condition that the Donee or Vendee shall not alién-tate] the same, the [condition] is voi[d], because his whole interest... is out of him, so as he hath no possibility] of a Reverter, and it is against Trade and Traffi[e], and bargaining and contracting betwee[n] man and man: and it is within the reason of our Author that it should ouster him of all power given to him.” 1 E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England § 360, p. 223 (1628).
A law that permits a copyright holder to control the resale or other disposition of a chattel once sold is similarly “against Trade and Traffi[c], and bargaining and contracting.” Ibid.
With these last few words, Coke emphasizes the importance of leaving buyers of goods free to compete with each other when reselling or otherwise disposing of those goods. American law too has generally thought that competition, including freedom to resell, can work to the advantage of the consumer. See, e. g., Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U. S. 877, 886 (2007) (restraints with “manifestly anticompetitive effects” are per se illegal; others are subject to the rule of reason (internal quotation marks omitted)); 1 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 100, p. 4 (3d ed. 2006) (“[T]he principal objective of antitrust policy is to maximize consumer welfare by encouraging firms to behave competitively”).
The “first sale” doctrine also frees courts from the administrative burden of trying to enforce restrictions upon difficult-to-trace, readily movable goods. And it avoids the selective enforcement inherent in any such effort. Thus, it is not surprising that for at least a century the “first sale” doctrine has played an important role in American copyright law. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U. S. 339 (1908); Copyright Act of 1909, §41, 35 Stat. 1084. See also Copyright Law Revision, Further Discussions and Comments on Preliminary Draft for Revised U. S. Copyright Law, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 4, p. 212 (Comm. Print 1964) (Irwin Karp of Authors’ League of America expressing concern for “the very basic concept of copyright law that, once you’ve sold a copy legally, you can’t restrict its resale”).
The common-law doctrine makes no geographical distinctions; nor can we find any in Bobbs-Merrill (where this Court first applied the “first sale” doctrine) or in § 109(a)’s predecessor provision, which Congress enacted a year later. See supra, at 533. Rather, as the Solicitor General acknowledges, “a straightforward application of Bobbs-Merrill” would not preclude the “first sale” defense from applying to authorized copies made overseas. Brief for United States
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 case requires us to consider a basic aspect of the implied private right of action for violation of § 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, recognized by this Court in J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 (1964). As in Borak the asserted wrong is that a corporate merger was accomplished through the use of a proxy statement that was materially false or misleading. The question with which we deal is what causal relationship must be shown between such a statement and the merger to establish a cause of action based on the violation of the Act.
I
Petitioners were shareholders of the Electric Auto-Lite Company until 1963, when it was merged into Mergenthaler Linotype Company. They brought suit on the day before the shareholders’ meeting at which the vote was to take place on the merger, against Auto-Lite, Mergenthaler, and a third company, American Manufacturing Company, Inc. The complaint sought an injunction against the voting by Auto-Lite’s management of all proxies obtained by means of an allegedly misleading proxy solicitation; however, it did not seek a temporary restraining order, and the voting went ahead as scheduled the following day. Several months later petitioners filed an amended complaint, seeking to have the merger set aside and to obtain such other relief as might be proper.
In Count II of the amended complaint, which is the only count before us, petitioners predicated jurisdiction on §27 of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa. They alleged that the proxy statement sent out by the Auto-Lite management to solicit shareholders’ votes in favor of the merger was misleading, in violation of § 14 (a) of the Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 thereunder. (17 CFR § 240.14a-9.) Petitioners recited that before the merger Merganthaler owned over 50% of the outstanding shares of Auto-Lite common stock, and had been in control of Auto-Lite for two years. American Manufacturing in turn owned about one-third of the outstanding shares of Mergenthaler, and for two years had been in voting control of Mergenthaler and, through it, of Auto-Lite. Petitioners charged that in light of these circumstances the proxy statement was misleading in that it told Auto-Lite shareholders that their board of directors recommended approval of the merger without also informing them that all 11 of Auto-Lite’s directors were nominees of Mergenthaler and were under the “control and domination of Mergenthaler.” Petitioners asserted the right to complain of this alleged violation both derivatively on behalf of Auto-Lite and as representatives of the class of all its minority shareholders.
On petitioners’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Count II, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled as a matter of law that the claimed defect in the proxy statement was, in light of the circumstances in which the statement was made, a material omission. The District Court concluded, from its reading of the Borak opinion, that it had to hold a hearing on the issue whether there was “a causal connection between the finding that there has been a violation of the disclosure requirements of § 14 (a) and the alleged injury to the plaintiffs” before it could consider what remedies would be appropriate. (Unreported opinion dated February 14, 1966.)
After holding such a hearing, the court found that under the terms of the merger agreement, an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Auto-Lite shares was required for approval of the merger, and that the respondent companies owned and controlled about 54% of the outstanding shares. Therefore, to obtain authorization of the merger, respondents had to secure the approval of a substantial number of the minority shareholders. At the stockholders’ meeting, approximately 950,000 shares, out of 1,160,000 shares outstanding, were voted in favor of the merger. This included 317,000 votes obtained by proxy from the minority shareholders, votes that were “necessary and indispensable to the approval of the merger.” The District Court concluded that a causal relationship had thus been shown, and it granted an interlocutory judgment in favor of petitioners on the issue of liability, referring the case to a master for consideration of appropriate relief. (Unreported findings and conclusions dated Sept. 26, 1967; opinion reported at 281 F. Supp. 826 (1967)).
The District Court made the certification required by 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b), and respondents took an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court affirmed the District Court’s con-elusion that the proxy statement was materially deficient, but reversed on the question of causation. The court acknowledged that, if an injunction had been sought a sufficient time before the stockholders’ meeting, “corrective measures would have been appropriate.” 403 F. 2d 429, 435 (1968). However, since this suit was brought too late for preventive action, the courts had to determine “whether the misleading statement and omission caused the submission of sufficient proxies,” as a prerequisite to a determination of liability under the Act. If the respondents could show, “by a preponderance of probabilities, that the merger would have received a sufficient vote even if the proxy statement had not been misleading in the respect found,” petitioners would be entitled to no relief of any kind. Id., at 436.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that this test corresponds to the common-law fraud test of whether the injured party relied on the misrepresentation. However, rightly concluding that “[rjeliance by thousands of individuals, as here, can scarcely be inquired into” {id., at 436 n. 10), the court ruled that the issue was to be determined by proof of the fairness of the terms of the merger. If respondents' could show that the merger had merit and was fair to the minority shareholders, the trial court would be justified in concluding that a sufficient number of shareholders would have approved the merger had there been no deficiency in the proxy statement. In that case respondents would be entitled to a judgment in their favor.
Claiming that the Court of Appeals has construed this Court’s decision in Borak in a manner that frustrates the statute’s policy of enforcement through private litigation, the petitioners then sought review in this Court. We granted certiorari, 394 U. S. 971 (1969), believing that resolution of this basic issue should be made at this stage of the litigation and not postponed until after a trial under the Court of Appeals’ decision.
II
As we stressed in Borak, § 14 (a) stemmed from a congressional belief that “[fjair corporate suffrage is an important right that should attach to every equity security bought on a public exchange.” H. R. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 13. The provision was intended to promote “the free exercise of the voting rights of stockholders” by ensuring that proxies would be solicited with “explanation to the stockholder of the real nature of the questions for which authority to cast his vote is sought.” Id., at 14; S. Rep. No. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 12; see 377 U. S., at 431. The decision below, by permitting all liability to be foreclosed on the basis of a finding that the merger was fair, would allow the stockholders to be bypassed, at least where the only legal challenge to the merger is a suit for retrospective relief after the meeting has been held. A judicial appraisal of the merger’s merits could be substituted for the actual and informed vote of the stockholders.
The result would be to insulate from private redress an entire category of proxy violations — those relating to matters other than the terms of the merger. Even outrageous misrepresentations in a proxy solicitation, if they did not relate to the terms of the transaction, would give rise to no cause of action under § 14 (a). Particularly if carried over to enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission itself, such a result would subvert the congressional purpose of ensuring full and fair disclosure to shareholders.
Further, recognition of the fairness of the merger as a complete defense would confront small shareholders with an additional obstacle to making a successful challenge to a proposal recommended through a defective proxy statement. The risk that they would be unable to rebut the corporation’s evidence of the fairness of the proposal, and thus to establish their cause of action, would be bound to discourage such shareholders from the private enforcement of the proxy rules that “provides a necessary supplement to Commission action.” J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S., at 432.
Such a frustration of the congressional policy is not required by anything in the wording of the statute or in our opinion in the Borak case. Section 14 (a) declares it “unlawful” to solicit proxies in contravention of Commission rules, and SEC Rule 14a-9 prohibits solicitations “containing any statement which... is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading....” Use of a solicitation that is materially misleading is itself a violation of law, as the Court of Appeals recognized in stating that injunctive relief would be available to remedy such a defect if sought prior to the' stockholders’ meeting. In Borak, which came to this Court on a dismissal of the complaint, the Court limited its inquiry to whether a violation of § 14 (a) gives rise to “a federal cause of action for rescission or damages,” 377 U. S., at 428. Referring to the argument made by petitioners there “that the merger can be dissolved only if it was fraudulent or non-beneficial, issues upon which the proxy material would not bear,” the Court stated: “Rut the causal relationship of the proxy material and the merger are questions of fact to be resolved at trial, not here. We therefore do not discuss this point further.” Id., at 431. In the present case there has been a hearing specifically directed to the causation problem. The question before the Court is whether the facts found on the basis of that hearing are sufficient in law to establish petitioners’ cause of action, and we conclude that they are.
Where the misstatement or omission in a proxy statement has been shown to be “material,” as it was found to be here, that determination itself indubitably embodies a conclusion that the defect was of such a character that it might have been considered important by a reasonable shareholder who was in the process of deciding how to vote. This, requirement that the defect have a significant propensity to affect the voting process is found in the express terms of Rule 14a-9, and it adequately serves the purpose, of ensuring that a cause of action cannot be established by proof of a defect so trivial, or so unrelated to the transaction for which approval is sought, that correction of the defect or imposition of liability would not further the interests protected by § 14 (a).
There is no need to supplement this requirement, as did the Court of Appeals, with a requirement of proof of whether the defect actually had a decisive effect on the voting. Where there has been a finding of materiality, a shareholder has made a sufficient showing of causal relationship between the violation and the injury for which he seeks redress if, as here, he proves that the proxy solicitation itself, rather than the particular defect in the solicitation materials, was an essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction. This objective test will avoid the impracticalities of determining how many votes were affected, and, by resolving doubts in favor of -those the statute is designed to protect, will effectuate the congressional policy of ensuring that the shareholders are able to make an informed choice when they are consulted on corporate transactions. Cf. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 226 F. Supp. 400, 411 (D. C. N. D. Ill. 1964); 2 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 962 n. 411 (2d ed. 1961); 5 id., at 2929-2930 (Supp. 1969).
III
Our conclusion that petitioners have established their case by showing that proxies necessary to approval of the merger were obtained by means of a materially misleading solicitation implies nothing about the form of relief to which they may be entitled. We held in Borak that upon finding a violation the courts were “to be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose,” noting specifically that such remedies are not to be limited to prospective relief. 377 U. S., at 433, 434. In devising retrospective relief for violation of the proxy rules, the federal courts should consider the same factors that would govern the relief granted for any similar illegality or fraud. One important factor may be the fairness of the terms of the merger. Possible forms of relief will include setting aside the merger or granting other equitable relief, but, as the Court of Appeals below noted, nothing in the statutory policy “requires the court to unscramble a corporate transaction merely because a violation occurred.” 403 F. 2d, at 436. In selecting a remedy the lower courts should exercise “ 'the sound discretion which guides the determinations of courts of equity/ ” keeping in mind the role of equity as “the instrument for nice adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs as well as between competing private claims.” Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329-330 (1944), quoting from Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U. S. 228, 235 (1943).
We do not read § 29 (b) of the Act, which declares contracts made in violation of the Act or a rule thereunder “void... as regards the rights of” the violator and knowing successors in interest, as requiring that the merger be set aside simply because the merger agreement is a “void” contract. This language establishes that the guilty party is precluded from enforcing the contract against an unwilling innocent party, but it does not compel the conclusion that the contract is a nullity, creating no enforceable rights even in a party innocent of the violation. The lower federal courts have read § 29 (b), which has counterparts in the Holding Company Act, the Investment Company Act, and the Investment Advisers Act, as rendering the contract merely voidable at the option of the innocent party. See, e. g., Greater Iowa Corp. v. McLendon, 378 F. 2d 783, 792 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1967); Royal Air Properties, Inc. v. Smith, 312 F. 2d 210, 213 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1962); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Bellanca Corp., 288 F. 2d 784, 787 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1961); Kaminsky v. Abrams, 281 F. Supp. 501, 507 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1968); Maher v. J. R. Williston & Beane, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 133, 138-139 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1967); cf. Green v. Brown, 276 F. Supp. 753, 757 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1967), remanded on other grounds, 398 F. 2d 1006 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1968) (Investment Company Act). See also 5 Loss, supra, at 2925-2926 (Supp. 1969); 6 id., at 3866. This interpretation is eminently sensible. The interests of the victim are sufficiently protected by giving him the right to rescind; to regard the contract as void where he has not invoked that right would only create the possibility of hardships to him or others without necessarily advancing the statutory policy of disclosure.
The United States, as amicus curiae, points out that as representatives of the minority shareholders, petitioners are not parties to the merger agreement and thus do not enjoy a statutory right under § 29 (b) to set it aside. Furthermore, while they do have a derivative right to invoke Auto-Lite’s status as a party to the agreement, a determination of what relief should be granted in Auto-Lite’s name must hinge on whether setting aside the merger would be in the best interests of the shareholders as a whole. In short, in the context of a suit such as this one, § 29 (b) leaves the matter of relief where it would be under Borak without specific statutory language — the merger should be set aside only if a court of equity concludes, from all the circumstances, that it would be equitable to do so. Cf. SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U. S. 453, 456, 463-464 (1969).
Monetary relief will, of course, also be a possibility. Where the defect in the proxy solicitation relates to the specific terms of the merger, the district court might appropriately order an accounting to ensure that the shareholders receive the value that was represented as coming to them. On the other hand, where, as here, the misleading aspect of the solicitation did not relate to terms of the merger, monetary relief might be afforded to the shareholders only if the merger resulted in a reduction of the earnings or earnings potential of their holdings. In short, damages should be recoverable only to the extent that they can be shown. If commingling of the assets and operations of the merged companies makes it impossible to establish direct injury from the merger, relief might be predicated on a determination of the fairness of the terms of the merger at the time it was approved. These questions, of course, are for decision in the first instance by the District Court on remand, and our singling out of some of the possibilities is not intended to exclude others.
IV
Although the question of relief must await further proceedings in the District Court, our conclusion that petitioners have established their cause of action indicates that the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The result would have been not only that respondents, rather than petitioners, would have borne the costs of the appeal, but also, we think, that petitioners would have been entitled to an interim award of litigation expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Cf. Highway Truck Drivers Local 107 v. Cohen, 220 F. Supp. 735 (D. C. E. D. Pa. 1963). We agree with the position taken by petitioners, and by the United States as amicus, that petitioners, who have established a violation of the securities laws by their corporation and its officials, should be reimbursed by the corporation or its survivor for the costs of establishing the violation.
The absence of express statutory authorization for an award of attorneys’ fees in a suit under § 14 (a) does not preclude such an award in cases of this type. In a suit by stockholders to recover short-swing profits for their corporation under § 16 (b) of the 1934 Act, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has awarded attorneys’ fees despite the lack of any provision for them in § 16 (b), “on the theory that the corporation which has received the benefit of the attorney’s services should pay the reasonable value thereof.” Smolowe v. Delendo Corp., 136 E. 2d 231, 241 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1943). The court held that Congress’ inclusion in §§ 9 (e) and 18 (a) of the Act of express provisions for recovery of attorneys’ fees in certain other types of suits “does not impinge [upon] the result we reach in the absence of statute, for those sections merely enforce an additional penalty against the wrongdoer.” Ibid.
We agree with the Second Circuit that the specific provisions in §§ 9 (e) and 18 (a) should not be read as denying to the courts the power to award counsel fees in suits under other sections of the Act when circumstances make such an award appropriate, any more than the express creation by those sections of private liabilities negates the possibility of an implied right of action under § 14 (a). The remedial provisions of the 1934 Act are far different from those of the Lanham Act, § 35, 60 Stat. 439, 15 U. S. C. § 1117, which have been held to preclude an award of attorneys’ fees in a suit for trademark infringement. Fleischmann Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714 (1967). Since Congress in the Lanham Act had “meticulously detailed the remedies available to a plaintiff who proves that his valid trademark has been infringed,” the Court in Fleischmann concluded that the express remedial provisions were intended “to mark the boundaries of the power to award monetary relief in cases arising under the Act.” 386 U. S., at 719, 721. By contrast, we cannot fairly infer from the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 a purpose to circumscribe the courts’ power to grant appropriate remedies. Cf. Bakery Workers Union v. Ratner, 118 U. S. App. D. C. 269, 274-275, 335 F. 2d 691, 696-697 (1964). The Act makes no provision for private recovery for a violation of § 14 (a), other than the declaration of “voidness” in § 29 (b), leaving the courts with the task, faced by this Court in Borak, of deciding whether a private right of action should be implied. The courts must similarly determine whether the special circumstances exist that would justify an award of attorneys’ fees, including reasonable expenses of litigation other than statutory costs.
While the general American rule is that attorneys’ fees are not ordinarily recoverable as costs, both the courts and Congress have developed exceptions to this rule for situations in which overriding considerations indicate the need for such a recovery. A primary judge-created exception has been to award expenses where a plaintiff has successfully maintained a suit, usually on behalf of a class, that benefits a group of others in the same manner as himself. See Fleischmann Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S., at 718-719. To allow the others to obtain full benefit from the plaintiff’s efforts without contributing equally to the litigation expenses would be to enrich the others unjustly at the plaintiff’s expense. This suit presents such a situation. The dissemination of misleading proxy solicitations was a “deceit practiced on the stockholders as a group,” J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S., at 432, and the expenses of petitioners’ lawsuit have been incurred for the benefit of the corporation and the other shareholders.
The fact that this suit has not yet produced, and may never produce, a monetary recovery from which the fees could be paid does not preclude an award based on this rationale. Although the earliest cases recognizing a right to reimbursement involved litigation that had produced or preserved a “common fund” for the benefit of a group, nothing in these cases indicates that the suit must actually bring money into the court as a prerequisite to the court’s power to order reimbursement of expenses. “[T]he foundation for the historic practice of granting reimbursement for the costs of litigation other than the conventional taxable costs is part of the original authority of the chancellor to do equity in a particular situation.” Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 307 U. S. 161, 166 (1939). This Court in Sprague upheld the District Court’s power to grant reimbursement for a plaintiff’s litigation expenses even though she had sued only on her own behalf and not for a class, because her success would have a stare decisis effect entitling others to recover out of specific assets of the same defendant. Although those others were not parties before the court, they could be forced to contribute to the costs of the suit by an order reimbursing the plaintiff from the defendant’s assets out of which their recoveries later would have to come. The Court observed that “the absence of an avowed class suit or the creation of a fund, as it were, through stare decisis rather than through a decree— hardly touch [es] the power of equity in doing justice as between a party and the beneficiaries of his litigation.” Id., at 167.
Other cases have departed further from the traditional metes and bounds of the doctrine, to permit reimbursement in cases where the litigation has conferred a substantial benefit on the members of an ascertainable class, and where the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit makes possible an award that will operate to spread the costs proportionately among them. This development has been most pronounced in shareholders’ derivative actions, where the courts increasingly have recognized that the expenses incurred by one shareholder in the vindication of a corporate right of action can be spread among all shareholders through an award against the corporation, regardless of whether an actual money recovery has been obtained in the corporation’s favor. For example, awards have been sustained in suits by stockholders complaining that shares of their corporation had been issued wrongfully for an inadequate consideration. A successful suit of this type, resulting in cancellation of the shares, does not bring a fund into court or add to the assets of the corporation, but it does benefit the holders of the remaining shares by enhancing their value. Similarly, holders of voting trust certificates have been allowed reimbursement of their expenses from the corporation where they succeeded in terminating the voting trust and obtaining for all certificate holders the right to vote their shares. In these cases there was a “common fund” only in the sense that the court’s jurisdiction over the corporation as nominal defendant made it possible to assess fees against all of the shareholders through an award against the corporation.
In many of these instances the benefit conferred is capable of expression in monetary terms, if only by estimating the increase in market value of the shares attributable to the successful litigation. However, an increasing number of lower courts have acknowledged that a corporation may receive a “substantial benefit” from a derivative suit, justifying an award of counsel fees, regardless of whether the benefit is pecuniary in nature. A leading case is Bosch v. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Assn., 257 Minn. 362, 101 N. W. 2d 423 (1960), in which a stockholder was reimbursed for his expenses in obtaining a judicial declaration that the election of certain of the corporation’s directors was invalid. The Supreme Court of Minnesota stated:
“Where an action by a stockholder results in a substantial benefit to a corporation he should recover his costs and expenses.... [A] substantial benefit must be something more than technical in its consequence and be one that accomplishes a result which corrects or prevents an abuse which would be prejudicial to the rights and interests of the corporation or affect the enjoyment or protection of an essential right to the stockholder’s interest.” Id., at 366-367, 101 N. W. 2d, at 426-427.
In many suits under § 14 (a), particularly where the violation does not relate to the terms of the transaction for which proxies are solicited, it may be impossible to assign monetary value to the benefit. Nevertheless, the stress placed by Congress on the importance of fair and informed corporate suffrage leads to the conclusion that, in vindicating the statutory policy, petitioners have rendered a substantial service to the corporation and its shareholders. Cf. Bakery Workers Union v. Ratner, 118 U. S. App. D. C. 269, 274, 335 F. 2d 691, 696 (1964). Whether petitioners are successful in showing a need for significant relief may be a factor in determining whether a further award should later be made. But regardless of the relief granted, private stockholders’ actions of this sort “involve corporate therapeutics,” and furnish a benefit to all shareholders by providing an important means of enforcement of the proxy statute. To award attorneys’ fees in such a suit to a plaintiff who has succeeded in establishing a cause of action is not to saddle the unsuccessful party with the expenses but to impose them on the class that has benefited from them and that would have had to pay them had it brought the suit.
For the foregoing reasons we conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be vacated and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
48 Stat. 895, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78n (a).
In the other two counts, petitioners alleged common-law fraud and that the merger was ultra vires under Ohio law.
Petitioners cross-appealed from an order entered by the District Court two days after its summary judgment in their favor, deleting from that judgment a conclusion of law that “[u]nder the provisions of Section 29 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the merger effectuated through a violation of Section 14 of the Act is void.” This deletion was apparently made for the purpose of avoiding any prejudice on the question of relief, which remained open for consideration by the master. In light of its disposition of respondents’ appeal, the Court of Appeals had no need to consider the cross-appeal.
Respondents ask this Court to review the conclusion of the lower courts that the proxy statement was misleading in a material respect. Petitioners naturally did not raise this question in their petition for certiorari, and respondents filed no cross-petition. Since reversal of the Court of Appeals’ ruling on this question would not dictate affirmance of that court’s judgment, which remanded the case for proceedings to determine causation, but rather elimination of petitioners’ rights thereunder, we will not consider the question in these circumstances. United States v. American Ry. Exp. Co., 265 U. S. 425, 435 (1924); Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 535-539 (1931); Morley Constr. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 300 U. S. 185, 191-192 (1937); R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice 314, 315 (4th ed. 1969).
The Court of Appeals’ ruling that “causation” may be negated by proof of the fairness of the merger also rests on a dubious behavioral assumption. There is no justification for presuming that the shareholders of every corporation are willing to accept any and every fair merger offer put before them; yet such a presumption is implicit in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. That court gave no indication of what evidence petitioners might adduce, once respondents had established that the merger proposal was equitable, in order to show that the shareholders would nevertheless have rejected it if the solicitation had not been misleading. Proof of actual reliance by thousands of individuals would, as the court acknowledged, not be feasible, see It. Jennings & H. Marsh, Securities Regulation, Cases and Materials 1001 (2d ed. 1968); and reliance on the nondisclosure of a fact is a particularly difficult matter to define or prove, see 3 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 1766 (2d ed. 1961). In practice, therefore, the objective fairness of the proposal would seemingly be determinative of liability. But, in view of the many other factors that might lead shareholders to prefer their current position to that of owners of a larger, combined enterprise, it is pure conjecture to assume that the fairness of the proposal will always be determinative of their vote. Cf. Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union, 391 U. S. 492, 508 (1968).
Cf. List v. Fashion Park, Inc., 340 F. 2d 457, 462 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1965); General Time Corp. v. Talley Industries, Inc., 403 F. 2d 159, 162 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1968); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 538 (2) (a) (Tent. Draft No. 10, 1964); 2 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 917 (2d ed. 1961); 6 id., at 3534 (Supp. 1969).
In this case, where the misleading aspect of the solicitation involved failure to reveal a serious conflict of interest on the part of the directors, the Court' of Appeals concluded that the crucial question in determining materiality was “whether the minority shareholders were sufficiently alerted to the board’s relationship to their adversary to be on their guard.” 403 F. 2d, at 434. An adequate disclosure of this relationship would have warned the stockholders to give more careful scrutiny to the terms of the merger than they might to one recommended by an entirely disinterested board. Thus, the failure to make such a disclosure was found to be a material defect “as a matter of law,” thwarting the informed decision at which the statute aims, regardless of whether the terms of the merger were such that a reasonable stockholder would have approved the transaction after more careful analysis. See also Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, Inc., 415 F. 2d 1326 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1969).
We need not decide in this case whether causation could be shown where the management controls a sufficient number of shares to approve the transaction without any votes from the minority. Even in that situation, if the management finds it necessary for legal or practical reasons to solicit proxies from minority shareholders, at least one court has held that the proxy solicitation might be sufficiently related to the merger to satisfy the causation requirement, see Laurenza.no v. Einbender, 264 F. Supp. 356 (D. C. E. D. N. Y. 1966); cf. Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, Inc., 415 F. 2d 1326, 1331-1332 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1969); Eagle v. Horvath, 241 F. Supp. 341, 344 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1965); Globus, Inc. v. Jaroff, 271 F. Supp. 378, 381 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1967); Comment, Shareholders’ Derivative Suit to Enforce a Corporate Right of Action Against Directors Under SEC Rule 10b-5, 114 U. Pa. L. Rev. 578, 582 (1966). But see Hoover v. Allen, 241 F. Supp. 213, 231-232 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1965); Barnett v. Anaconda Co., 238 F. Supp. 766, 770-774 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1965); Robbins v. Banner Industries, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 758, 762-763 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1966). See generally 5 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 2933-2938 (Supp. 1969).
Section 29 (b) provides in pertinent part: “Every contract made in violation of any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder... shall be void (1) as regards the rights of any person who, in violation of any such provision, rule, or regulation, shall have made... any such contract, and (2) as regards the rights of any person who, not being a party to such contract
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, a former captain in the Army, was honorably discharged for physical disability and without retirement pay, as the result of a decision by an Army Retiring Board. Respondent applied to the Army Disability Review Board for review of that action. The Review Board held that respondent was not entitled to retirement pay. Respondent, having requested a rehearing, was allowed to examine the record on which the rehearing would be based. He discovered that the record contained certain medical reports of the Veterans’ Administration concerning his condition. Respondent requested the Review Board to remove those reports from the record. The Review Board refused. Respondent thereupon instituted this mandamus proceeding seeking a mandatory injunction directing the President of the Review Board to exclude those reports from the record. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed. 87 U. S. App. D. C. 91, 183 F. 2d 144. The case is here on certiorari. 340 U. S. 889.
The principal question relates to the provision in § 302 (a) of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 287, 59 Stat. 623, 38 U. S. C. § 693i (a), which describes the scope of review by the Review Board as follows: “Such review shall be based upon all available service records relating to the officer requesting such review, and such other evidence as may be presented by such officer.” Respondent contends that the term “service records” means the record of the service which the military man has rendered from the time of his entry into the service until his discharge. That was the view of the Court of Appeals. We, however, think otherwise.
Section 302 (a) grants the Review Board “the same powers as exercised by, or vested in, the board whose findings and decision are being reviewed.” That board is the Retiring Board which R. S. § 1248, 10 U. S. C. § 963, says may “inquire into and determine the facts touching the nature and occasion of the disability of any officer who appears to be incapable of performing the duties of his office, and shall have such powers of a court-martial and of a court of inquiry as may be necessary for that purpose.”
These powers of the Retiring Board have been given a wide reach, so that the nature and cause of the disability may be ascertained. Their broad character will not, of course, override the specific provision of § 302 (a) to the effect that the “review shall be based upon all available service records,” etc. But the nature of the powers granted under R. S. § 1248 has relevance to the arguments pressed on us for and against reading “service records” narrowly.
The powers granted the Retiring Board have been construed by the regulations in a liberal fashion, not in a narrow and stifling way. Thus the Adjutant General is required to furnish the board with the “originals or certified copies of the complete medical history, and of all other official records affecting the health and physical condition of the officer.” The oral examination of the officer is granted for the purpose “of making full discovery of all facts as to his condition.” These hearings are not contests; they are inquiries concerning disability. The purpose is to get at the truth of the matter.
The medical history following the retirement will often be of great importance to the Review Board, since the statute of limitations which governs review is a long one. Requests for review may be made within 15 years after the retirement or after June 22, 1944, whichever is the later. § 302 (b). Medical history may therefore be highly pertinent to the inquiry. Plainly the officer is granted authority under § 302 (a) to introduce such evidence; and it is certain he will do so if it is favorable. We hesitate at a construction of the statute which forecloses the Army from considering the evidence when it is unfavorable. Yet that would be the result if we construed “service records” narrowly. We think it would be more in harmony with the nature of the procedure, the purpose of the inquiry, and the powers granted the Review Board to construe “service records” broadly enough to include these medical reports.
The reports in issue were official government reports transmitted to the Army and incorporated in that department’s files. They therefore became a part of the record of the officer pertaining to his service. We conclude that they are “service records” within the meaning of § 302 (a).
Reversed.
Army Reg. 605-250, Mar. 28,1944, par. 3a.
Id. at par. 21.
The regulations governing the Disability Review Board have incorporated this broad construction of the powers granted. Thus the Adjutant General is to provide that Board with “all available Department of the Army and/or other records pertaining to the health and physical condition of the applicant.” 32 CFR § 581.1 (a) (2) (iii). And see note 4, infra.
The regulations promulgated to govern Disability Review Board proceedings have not restricted the inquiry by such a cramped construction. They authorize the Board “to receive additional evidence bearing on the causes and service-connection of [the disability]” without limitation. 32 CFR §581.1 (a) (1) (iii). Indeed they empower the Board to make its own physical examination of the retired officer at the time of the hearing. 32 CFR § 581.1 (b) (2) (v).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case, commenced in a state court, involves personal injury claims arising under state law. The case was removed to a federal court at a time when, the Court of Appeals concluded, complete diversity of citizenship did not exist among the parties. Promptly after the removal, the plaintiff moved to remand the case to the state court, but the District Court denied that motion. Before trial of the case, however, all claims involving the nondiverse defendant were settled, and that defendant was dismissed as a. party to the action. Complete diversity thereafter existed. The case proceeded to trial, jury verdict, and judgment for the removing defendant. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, concluding that, absent complete diversity at the time of removal, the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. of
The question presented is whether the absence of complete diversity at the time of removal is fatal to federal-court adjudication. We hold that a district court’s error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered.
I
Respondent James David Lewis, a resident of Kentucky, filed this lawsuit in Kentucky state court on June 22, 1989, after sustaining injuries while operating a bulldozer. Asserting state-law claims based on defective manufacture, negligent maintenance, failure to warn, and breach of warranty, Lewis named as defendants both the manufacturer of the bulldozer — petitioner Caterpillar Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois — and the company that serviced the bulldozer — Whayne Supply Company, a Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business in Kentucky.
Several months later, Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, the insurance carrier for Lewis’ employer, intervened in the lawsuit as a plaintiff. A Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in that State, Liberty Mutual asserted subrogation claims against both Caterpillar and Whayne Supply for workers’ compensation benefits Liberty Mutual had paid to Lewis on behalf of his employer.
Lewis entered into a settlement agreement with defendant Whayne Supply less than a year after filing his complaint. Shortly after learning of this agreement, Caterpillar filed a notice of removal, on June 21,1990, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Grounding federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, see 28 U. S. C. § 1332, Caterpillar satisfied with only a day to spare the statutory requirement that a diversity-based removal take place within one year of a lawsuit’s commencement, see 28 U. S. C. § 1446(b). Caterpillar’s notice of removal explained that the case was nonremovable at the lawsuit’s start: Complete diversity was absent then because plaintiff Lewis and defendant Whayne Supply shared Kentucky citizenship. App. 31. Proceeding on the understanding that the settlement agreement between these two Kentucky parties would result in the dismissal of Whayne Supply from the lawsuit, Caterpillar stated that the settlement rendered the case removable. Id., at 31-32.
Lewis objected to the removal and moved to remand the case to state court. Lewis acknowledged that he had settled his own claims against Whayne Supply. But Liberty Mutual had not yet settled its subrogation claim against Whayne Supply, Lewis asserted. Whayne Supply’s presence as a defendant in the lawsuit, Lewis urged, defeated diversity of citizenship. Id., at 36. Without addressing this argument, the District Court denied Lewis' motion to remand on September 24, 1990, treating as dispositive Lewis’ admission that he had settled his own claims against Whayne Supply. Id., at 55.
Discovery, begun in state court, continued in the now federal lawsuit, and the parties filed pretrial conference papers beginning in July 1991. In June 1993, plaintiff Liberty Mutual and defendant Whayne Supply entered into a settlement of Liberty Mutual’s subrogation claim, and the District Court dismissed Whayne Supply from the lawsuit. With Caterpillar as the sole defendant adverse to Lewis, the case proceeded to a six-day jury trial in November 1993, ending in a unanimous verdict for Caterpillar. The District Court entered judgment for Caterpillar on November 23, 1993, and denied Lewis’ motion for a new trial on February 1, 1994.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit accepted Lewis’ argument that, at the time of removal, Whayne Supply remained a defendant in the case due to Liberty Mutual’s subrogation claim against it. App. to Pet. for Cert. 8a. Because the party lineup, on removal, included Kentucky plaintiff Lewis and Kentucky defendant Whayne Supply, the Court of Appeals observed that diversity was not complete when Caterpillar took the case from state court to federal court. Id., at 8a-9a. Consequently, the Court of Appeals concluded, the District Court “erred in denying [Lewis’] motion to remand this case to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id., at 9a. That error, according to the Court of Appeals, made it necessary to vacate the District Court’s judgment. Ibid.
Caterpillar petitioned for this Court’s review. Caterpillar stressed that the nondiverse defendant, Whayne Supply, had been dismissed from the lawsuit prior to trial. It was therefore improper, Caterpillar urged, for the Court of Appeals to vacate the District Court’s judgment — entered after several years of litigation and a six-day trial — on account of a jurisdictional defect cured, all agreed, by the time of trial and judgment. Pet. for Cert. 8. We granted certiorari, 517 U. S. 1133 (1996), and now reverse.
II
The Constitution provides, in Article III, §2, that “[t]he judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend ... to Controversies . . . between Citizens of different States.” Commencing with the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 11, 1 Stat. 78, Congress has constantly authorized the federal courts to exercise jurisdiction based on the diverse citizenship of parties. In Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), this Court construed the original Judiciary Act’s diversity provision to require complete diversity of citizenship. Id., at 267. We have adhered to that statutory interpretation ever since. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185, 187 (1990). The current general-diversity statute, permitting federal district court jurisdiction over suits for more than $50,000 “between . . . citizens of different States,” 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a), thus applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.
When a plaintiff files in state court a civil action over which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, the defendant or defendants may remove the action to federal court, 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a), provided that no defendant “is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought,” § 1441(b). In a case not originally removable, a defendant who receives a pleading or other paper indicating the postcommencement satisfaction of federal jurisdictional requirements — for example, by reason of the dismissal of a nondiverse party — may remove the case to federal court within 30 days of receiving such information. § 1446(b). No case, however, may be removed from state to federal court based on diversity of citizenship “more than 1 year after commencement of the action.” Ibid.
Once a defendant has filed a notice of removal in the federal district court, a plaintiff objecting to removal “on the basis of any defect in removal procedure” may, within 30 days, file a motion asking the district court to remand the case to state court. § 1447(c). This 30-day limit does not apply, however, to jurisdictional defects: “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Ibid.
I — l I — < H-I
We note, initially, two givens in this case as we have accepted it for review. First, the District Court, in its decision denying Lewis’ timely motion to remand, incorrectly treated Whayne Supply, the nondiverse defendant, as effectively dropped from the case prior to removal. See App. 55. Second, the Sixth Circuit correctly determined that the complete diversity requirement was not satisfied at the time of removal. App. to Pet. for Cert. 8a-9a. We accordingly home in on this- question: Does the District Court’s initial misjudgment still burden and run with the case, or is it overcome by the eventual dismissal of the nondiverse defendant? decisions in
come Petitioner Caterpillar relies heavily on our decisions in American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6 (1951), and Grubbs v. General Elec. Credit Corp., 405 U. S. 699 (1972), urging that these decisions “long ago settled the proposition that remand to the state court is unnecessary even if jurisdiction did not exist at the time of removal, so long as the district court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time of judgment.” Brief for Petitioner 8-9. Caterpillar is right that Finn and Grubbs are key cases in point and tend in Caterpillar’s favor. Each suggests that the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction at time of judgment may shield a judgment against later jurisdictional attack. But neither decision resolves dispositively a controversy of the kind we face, for neither involved a plaintiff who moved promptly, but unsuccessfully, to remand a case improperly removed from state court to federal court, and then challenged on appeal a judgment entered by the federal court.
In Finn, two defendants removed a case to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. 341 U. S., at 7-8. Eventually, final judgment was entered for the plaintiff against one of the removing defendants. Id., at 8. The losing defendant urged on appeal, and before this Court, that the judgment could not stand because the requisite diversity jurisdiction, it turned out, existed neither at the time of removal nor at the time of judgment. Agreeing with the defendant, we held that the absence of federal jurisdiction at the time of judgment required the Court of Appeals to vacate the District Court’s judgment. Id., at 17-18. ■
Finn's holding does not speak to the situation here, where the requirement of complete diversity was satisfied at the time of judgment. But Caterpillar points to well-known dicta in Finn more helpful to its cause. “There are cases,” the Court observed, “which uphold judgments in the district courts even though there was no right to removal.” Id., at 16. “In those cases,” the Finn Court explained, “the federal trial court would have had original jurisdiction of the controversy had it been brought in the federal court in the posture it had at the time of the actual trial of the cause or of the entry of the judgment.” Ibid.
The discussion in Finn concentrated on cases in which courts held removing defendants estopped from challenging final judgments on the basis of removal errors. See id., at 17. The Finn Court did not address the situation of a plaintiff such as Lewis, who chose a state court as the forum for his lawsuit, timely objected to removal before the District Court, and then challenged the removal on appeal from an adverse judgment.
In Grubbs, a civil action filed in state court was removed to federal court on the petition of the United States, which had been named as a party defendant in a “cross-action” filed by the original defendant. 405 U. S., at 700-701; see 28 U. S. C. § 1444 (authorizing removal of actions brought against the United States, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2410, with respect to property on which the United States has or claims a lien). No party objected to the removal before trial or judgment. See Grubbs, 405 U. S., at 701. The Court of Appeals nonetheless held, on its own motion, that the “inter-pleader” of the United States was spurious, and that removal had therefore been improper under 28 U. S. C. § 1444. See Grubbs, 405 U. S., at 702. On this basis, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s judgment should be vacated and the case remanded to state court. See ibid.
This Court reversed. Id., at 700. We explained:
“Longstanding decisions of this Court make clear . . . that where after removal a case is tried on the merits without objection and the federal court enters judgment, the issue in subsequent proceedings on appeal is not whether the case was properly removed, but whether the federal district court would have had original jurisdiction of the case had it been filed in that court.” Id., at 702.
We concluded that, “whether or not the case was properly removed, the District Court did have jurisdiction of the parties at the time it entered judgment.” Id., at 700. “Under such circumstances,” we held, “the validity of the removal procedure followed may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Grubbs instructs that an erroneous removal need not cause the destruction of a final judgment, if the requirements of federal subject-matter jurisdiction are met at the time the judgment is entered. Grubbs, however, dealt with a case removed without objection. The decision is not dispositive of the question whether a plaintiff, who timely objects to removal, may later successfully challenge an adverse judgment on the ground that the removal did not comply with statutory prescriptions.
Beyond question, as Lewis acknowledges, there was in this case complete diversity, and therefore federal subject-matter jurisdiction, at the time of trial and judgment. See Brief for Respondent 18-19 (diversity became complete “when Liberty Mutual settled its subrogation claim with Whayne Supply and the latter was formally dismissed from the case”). The case had by then become, essentially, a two-party lawsuit: Lewis, a citizen of Kentucky, was the sole plaintiff; Caterpillar, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois, was the sole defendant Lewis confronted. Caterpillar maintains that this change cured the threshold statutory misstep, i. e., the removal of a case when diversity was incomplete. Brief for Petitioner 7,13.
Caterpillar moves too quickly over the terrain we must cover. The jurisdictional defect was cured, i. e., complete diversity was established before the trial commenced. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit erred in resting its decision on the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction. But a statutory flaw — Caterpillar’s failure to meet the § 1441(a) requirement that the case be fit for federal adjudication at the time the removal petition is filed — remained in the unerasable history of the case.
And Lewis, by timely moving for remand, did all that was required to preserve his objection to removal. An order denying a motion to remand, “standing alone,” is “[o]bviously . . . not final and [immediately] appealable” as of right. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U. S. 574, 578 (1954). Nor is a plaintiff required to seek permission to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) in order to avoid waiving whatever ultimate appeal right he may have. Indeed, if a party had to invoke § 1292(b) in order to preserve an objection to an interlocutory ruling, litigants would be obliged to seek § 1292(b) certifications constantly. Routine resort to § 1292(b) requests would hardly comport with Congress’ design to reserve interlocutory review for “ ‘exceptional’ ” cases while generally retaining for the federal courts a firm final judgment rule. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 475 (1978) (quoting Fisons, Ltd. v. United States, 458 F. 2d 1241, 1248 (CA7), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 1041 (1972)).
Having preserved his objection to an improper removal, Lewis urges that an “all’s well that ends well” approach is inappropriate here. He maintains that ultimate satisfaction of the subject-matter jurisdiction requirement ought not swallow up antecedent statutory violations. The course Caterpillar advocates, Lewis observes, would disfavor diligent plaintiffs who timely, but unsuccessfully, move to check improper removals in district court. Further, that course would allow improperly removing defendants to profit from their disregard of Congress’ instructions, and their ability to lead district judges into error.
Concretely, in this very case, Lewis emphasizes, adherence to the rules Congress prescribed for removal would have kept the case in state court. Only by removing prematurely was Caterpillar able to get to federal court inside the one-year limitation set in § 1446(b). Had Caterpillar waited until the case was ripe for removal, i. e., until Whayne Supply was dismissed as a defendant, the one-year limitation would have barred the way, and plaintiff’s choice of forum would have been preserved.
These arguments are hardly meritless, but they run up against an overriding consideration. Once a diversity case has been tried in federal court, with rules of decision supplied by state law under the regime of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy become overwhelming.
Our decision in Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826 (1989), is instructive in this regard. Newman-Green did not involve removal, but it did involve the federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction and a party defendant whose presence, like Whayne Supply’s in this case, blocked complete ' diversity. Newman-Green proceeded to summary judgment with the jurisdictional flaw — the absence of complete diversity — undetected. See id., at 828-829. The Court of Appeals noticed the flaw, invited the parties to address it, and, en banc, returned the case to the District Court “to determine whether it would be prudent to drop [the jurisdiction spoiler] from the litigation.” Id., at 830. We held that the Court of Appeals itself had authority “to dismiss a dispensable nondiverse party,” although we recognized that, ordinarily, district courts are better positioned to make such judgments. Id., at 837-838., “[Requiring dismissal after years of litigation,” the Court stressed in Newman-Green, “would impose unnecessary and wasteful burdens on the parties, judges, and other litigants waiting for judicial attention.” Id., at 836. The same may be said of the remand to state court Lewis seeks here. Cf. Knop v. McMahan, 872 F. 2d 1132, 1139, n. 16 (CA3 1989) (“To permit a case in which there is complete diversity throughout trial to proceed to judgment and then cancel the effect of that judgment and relegate the parties to a new trial in a state court because of a brief lack of complete diversity at the beginning of the case would be a waste of judicial resources.”).
Our view is in harmony with a main theme of the removal scheme Congress devised. Congress ordered a procedure calling for expeditious superintendence by district courts. The lawmakers specified a short time, 30 days, for motions to remand for defects in removal procedure, 28 U. S. C. § 1447(c), and district court orders remanding cases to state courts generally are “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise,” § 1447(d). Congress did not similarly exclude appellate review of refusals to remand. But an evident concern that may explain the lack of symmetry relates to the federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction. Despite -a federal trial court’s threshold denial of a motion to remand, if, at the end of the day and case, a jurisdictional defect remains uncured, the judgment must be vacated. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”); Finn, 341 U. S., at 18. In this case, however, no jurisdictional defect lingered through judgment in the District Court. To wipe out the adjudication postjudgment, and return to state court a case now satisfying all federal jurisdictional requirements, would impose an exorbitant cost on our dual court system, a cost incompatible with the fair and unprotracted administration of justice.
Lewis ultimately argues that, if the final judgment against him is allowed to stand, “all of the various procedural requirements for removal will become unenforceable”; therefore, “defendants will have an enormous incentive to attempt wrongful removals.” Brief for Respondent 9. In particular, Lewis suggests that defendants will remove prematurely “in the hope that some subsequent developments, such as the eventual dismissal of nondiverse defendants, will permit th[e] case to be kept in federal court.” Id., at 21. We do not anticipate the dire consequences Lewis forecasts.
The procedural requirements for removal remain enforceable by the federal trial court judges to whom those requirements are directly addressed. Lewis’ prediction that rejection of his petition will “encourag[e] state court defendants to remove cases improperly,” id., at 19, rests on an assumption we do not indulge — that district courts generally will not comprehend, or will balk at applying, the rules on removal Congress has prescribed. The prediction furthermore assumes defendants’ readiness to gamble that any jurisdictional defect, for example, the absence of complete diversity, will first escape detection, then disappear prior to judgment. The well-advised defendant, we are satisfied, will foresee the likely outcome of an unwarranted removal— a swift and nonreviewable remand order, see 28 U. S. C. . §§ 1447(c), (d), attended by the displeasure of a district court whose authority has been improperly invoked. The odds against any gain from a wrongful removal, in sum, render improbable Lewis’ projection of increased resort to the maneuver.
* * ‡
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In accord with 28 U. S. C. § 1367 and Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Caterpillar, after removing the case to federal court, impleaded Lewis’ employer, Gene Wilson Enterprises, a Kentucky corporation, as a third-party defendant. See App. 2. Gene Wilson Enterprises, so far as the record shows, remained a named third-party defendant, adverse solely to third-party plaintiff Caterpillar, through judgment. See Brief for Respondent 5. No dispute ran between Lewis and his employer, and Caterpillar’s third-party complaint against Gene Wilson Enterprises had no bearing on the authority of the federal court to adjudicate the diversity claims Lewis asserted against Caterpillar. See, e. g., Wichita Railroad & Light Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Kan., 260 U. S. 48, 54 (1922) (federal jurisdiction once acquired on the ground of complete diversity of citizenship is unaffected by the subsequent intervention “of a party whose presence is not essential to a- decision of the controversy between the original parties”). As elaborated in 3 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, p. 14-116 (2d ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted): “Once federal subject matter jurisdiction is established over the underlying case between [plaintiff] and [defendant], the jurisdictional propriety of each additional claim is to be assessed individually. Thus, assuming that jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship between [plaintiff] and [defendant], the question concerning impleader is whether there is a jurisdictional basis for the claim by [defendant] against [third-party defendant]. The fact that [plaintiff] and [third-party defendant] may be co-citizens is completely irrelevant. Unless [plaintiff] chooses to amend his complaint to assert a claim against [third-party defendant], [plaintiff] and [third-party defendant] are simply not adverse, and there need be no basis of jurisdiction between them.”
Because the Court of Appeals held the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the case, it did not reach several other issues Lewis raised on appeal. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a, 9a, n. 3.
This “complete diversity” interpretation of the general-diversity provision is a matter of statutory construction. “Article III poses no obstacle to the legislative extension of federal jurisdiction, founded on diversity, so long as any two adverse parties are not co-citizens.” State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 531 (1967).
In relevant part, 28 U. S. C. § 1441 provides:
In “(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.
“(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”
In full, 28 U. S. C. § 1446(b) provides:
“The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.
“If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, except that a case may not be removed on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 of this title more than 1 year after commencement of the action.”
In relevant part, 28 U. S. C. § 1447(e) provides:
“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect in removal procedure must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. . . . The State court may thereupon proceed with such case.”
Caterpillar’s subrogation claim asserted by Liberty Mutual, and thus the citizenship of Whayne Supply, should be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship, in view of the settlement agreed upon between Lewis and Whayne Supply. See Pet. for Cert, i, 18-23. Our order granting review did not encompass that question, see 517 U. S. 1133 (1996), and we express no opinion on it.
The Court left open in Finn the question whether, on remand to the District Court, “a new judgment [could] be entered on the old verdict without a new trial” if the nondiverse defendant were dismissed from the case. 341 U. S., at 18, n. 18. In the litigation’s second round, the District Court allowed the plaintiff to dismiss all claims against the nondiverse defendant. See Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 207 F. 2d 113, 114 (CA5 1953), cert. denied, 347 U. S. 912 (1954). Thereafter, the District Court granted a new trial, on the assumption that the original judgment could not stand for lack of jurisdiction. See 207 F. 2d, at 114. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit set aside the judgment entered after the second trial and ordered the original judgment reinstated. Id., at 117.
The Court cited Baggs v. Martin, 179 U. S. 206 (1900), and three lower federal-court cases. Finn, 341 U. S., at 16, n. 14.
Section 1292(b) provides for interlocutory appeals from otherwise not immediately appealable orders, if conditions specified in the section are met, the district court so certifies, and the court of appeals exercises its discretion to take up the request for revihis
On brief, Caterpillar argued that “Lewis effectively waived his objection to removal by failing to seek an immediate appeal of the district court’s refusal to remand.” Brief for Petitioner 13. We reject this waiver argument, though we recognize that it has attracted some support in Court of Appeals opinions. See, e. g., Able v. Upjohn Co., 829 F. 2d 1330, 1333-1334 (CA4 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 963 (1988).
Congress amended § 1446(b) in 1988 to include the one-year limitation in oi’der to “reducfe] the opportunity for removal after substantial progress has been made in state'court.” H. R. Rep. No. 100-889, p. 72 (1988).
On appeal, Lewis raised only the absence of diversity. He did not refer to the one-year limitation prior to his brief on the merits in this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 17, 30-81. Under this Court’s Rule 15.2, a nonjurisdictional argument not raised in a respondent’s brief in opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari “may be deemed waived.” Under the facts of this case, however, addressing the implications of § 1446(b)’s one-year limitation is “ ‘predicate to an intelligent resolution’ of the question presented.” Ohio v. Robinette, ante, at 38 (quoting Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 258-259, n. 5 (1980)). We therefore regard the issue as one “fairly included” within the question presented. This Court’s Rule 14.1. The parties addressed the issue in their briefs and at oral argument, and we exercise our discretion to decide it.
Lewis preferred state court to federal court based on differences he perceived in, inter alia, the state and federal jury systems and rules of evidence. See Brief for Respondent 22-23.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of the Hawaii liquor tax, which is a 20% excise tax imposed on sales of liquor at wholesale. Specifically at issue are exemptions from the tax for certain locally produced alcoholic beverages. The Supreme Court of Hawaii upheld the tax against challenges based upon the Equal Protection Clause, the Import-Export Clause, and the Commerce Clause. In re Bacchus Imports, Ltd., 65 Haw. 566, 656 P. 2d 724 (1982). We noted probable jurisdiction sub nom. Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Freitas, 462 U. S. 1130 (1983), and now reverse.
I — I
The Hawaii liquor tax was originally enacted in 1939 to defray the costs of police and other governmental services that the Hawaii Legislature concluded had been increased due to the consumption of liquor. At its inception the statute contained no exemptions. However, because the legislature sought to encourage development of the Hawaiian liquor industry, it enacted an exemption for okolehao from May 17, 1971, until June 20, 1981, and an exemption for fruit wine from May 17, 1976, until June 30, 1981. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§244-4(6), (7) (Supp. 1983). Okolehao is a brandy distilled from the root of the ti plant, an indigenous shrub of Hawaii. In re Bacchus Imports, Ltd., supra, at 569, n. 7, 656 P. 2d, at 727, n. 7. The only fruit wine manufactured in Hawaii during the relevant time was pineapple wine. Id., at 570, n. 8, 656 P. 2d, at 727, n. 8. Locally produced sake and fruit liqueurs are not exempted from the tax.
Appellants — Bacchus Imports, Ltd., and Eagle Distributors, Inc. — are liquor wholesalers who sell to licensed retailers. They sell the liquor at their wholesale price plus the 20% excise tax imposed by §244-4, plus a one-half percent tax imposed by Haw. Rev. Stat. §237-13 (Supp. 1983). Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. §40-35 (Supp. 1983), which authorizes a taxpayer to pay taxes under protest and to commence an action in the Tax Appeal Court for the recovery of disputed sums, the wholesalers initiated protest proceedings and sought refunds of all taxes paid. Their complaint alleged that the Hawaii liquor tax was unconstitutional because it violates both the Import-Export Clause and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The wholesalers sought a refund of approximately $45 million, representing all of the liquor tax paid by them for the years in question.
The Tax Appeal Court rejected both constitutional claims. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed the decision of the Tax Appeal Court and rejected an equal protection challenge as well. It held that the exemption was rationally related to the State’s legitimate interest in promoting domestic industry and therefore did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. 65 Haw., at 573, 656 P. 2d, at 730. It further held that there was no violation of the Import-Export Clause because the tax was imposed on all local sales and uses of liquor, whether the liquor was produced abroad, in sister States, or in Hawaii itself. Id., at 578-579, 656 P. 2d, at 732-733. Moreover, it found no evidence that the tax was applied selectively to discourage imports in a manner inconsistent with federal foreign policy or that it had any substantial indirect effect on the demand for imported liquor. Ibid. Turning to the Commerce Clause challenge, the Hawaii court held that the tax did not illegally discriminate against interstate commerce because “incidence of the tax ... is on wholesalers of liquor in Hawaii and the ultimate burden is borne by consumers in Hawaii.” Id., at 581, 656 P. 2d, at 734.
II
The State presents a claim not made below that the wholesalers have no standing to challenge the tax because they have shown no economic injury from the claimed discriminatory tax. The wholesalers are, however, liable for the tax. Although they may pass it on to their customers, and attempt to do so, they must return the tax to the State whether or not their customers pay their bills. Furthermore, even if the tax is completely and successfully passed on, it increases the price of their products as compared to the exempted beverages, and the wholesalers are surely entitled to litigate whether the discriminatory tax has had an adverse competitive impact on their business. The wholesalers plainly have standing to challenge the tax in this Court.
III
A cardinal rule of Commerce Clause jurisprudence is that “[n]o State, consistent with the Commerce Clause, may ‘impose a tax which discriminates against interstate commerce . . . by providing a direct commercial advantage to local business/” Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U. S. 318, 329 (1977) (quoting Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U. S. 450, 458 (1959)). Despite the fact that the tax exemption here at issue seems clearly to discriminate on its face against interstate commerce by bestowing a commercial advantage on okolehao and pineapple wine, the State argues — and the Hawaii Supreme Court held — that there is no improper discrimination.
A
Much of the State’s argument centers on its contention that okolehao and pineapple wine do not compete with the other products sold by the wholesalers. The State relies in part on statistics showing that for the years in question sales of okolehao and pineapple wine constituted well under one percent of the total liquor sales in Hawaii. It also relies on the statement by the Hawaii Supreme Court that “[w]e believe we can safely assume these products pose no competitive threat to other liquors produced elsewhere and consumed in Hawaii,” In re Bacchus Imports, Ltd., 65 Haw., at 582, n. 21, 656 P. 2d, at 735, n. 21, as well as the court’s comment that it had “good reason to believe neither okolehao nor pineapple wine is produced elsewhere.” Id., at 582, n. 20, 656 P. 2d, at 735, n. 20. However, neither the small volume of sales of exempted liquor nor the fact that the exempted liquors do not constitute a present “competitive threat” to other liquors is dispositive of the question whether competition exists between the locally produced beverages and foreign beverages; instead, they go only to the extent of such competition. It is well settled that “[w]e need not know how unequal the Tax is before concluding that it unconstitutionally discriminates.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 760 (1981).
The State’s position that there is no competition is belied by its purported justification of the exemption in the first place. The legislature originally exempted the locally produced beverages in order to foster the local industries by encouraging increased consumption of their product. Surely one way that the tax exemption might produce that result is that drinkers of other alcoholic beverages might give up or consume less of their customary drinks in favor of the exempted products because of the price differential that the exemption will permit. Similarly, nondrinkers, such as the maturing young, might be attracted by the low prices of okolehao and pineapple wine. On Hie stipulated facts in this case, we are unwilling to conclude that no competition exists between the exempted and the nonexempted liquors.
B
The State contends that a more flexible approach, taking into account the practical effect and relative burden on commerce, must be employed in this case because (1) legitimate state objectives are credibly advanced, (2) there is no patent discrimination against interstate trade, and (3) the effect on interstate commerce is incidental. See Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 624 (1978). On the other hand, it acknowledges that where simple economic protectionism is effected by state legislation, a stricter rule of invalidity has been erected. Ibid. See also Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456, 471 (1981); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U. S. 27, 36-37 (1980).
A finding that state legislation constitutes “economic protectionism” may be made on the basis of either discriminatory purpose, see Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 352-353 (1977), or discriminatory effect, see Philadelphia v. New Jersey, supra. See also Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., supra, at 471, n. 15. Examination of the State’s purpose in this case is sufficient to demonstrate the State’s lack of entitlement to a more flexible approach permitting inquiry into the balance between local benefits and the burden on interstate commerce. See Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 142 (1970). The Hawaii Supreme Court described the legislature’s motivation in enacting the exemptions as follows:
“The legislature’s reason for exempting Ti root okolehao’ from the ‘alcohol tax’ was to ‘encourage and promote the establishment of a new industry,’ S. L. H. 1960, c. 26; Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 87, in 1960 Senate Journal, at 224, and the exemption of ‘fruit wine manufactured in the State from products grown in the State’ was intended ‘to help’ in stimulating ‘the local fruit ■wine industry.’ S. L. H. 1976, c. 39; Sen; Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 408-76, in 1976 Senate Journal, at 1056.” In re Bacchus Imports, Ltd., supra, at 573-574, 656 P. 2d, at 780.
Thus, we need not guess at the legislature’s motivation, for it is undisputed that the purpose of the exemption was to aid Hawaiian industry. Likewise, the effect of the exemption is clearly discriminatory, in that it applies only to locally produced beverages, even though it does not apply to all such products. Consequently, as long as there is some competition between the locally produced exempt products and nonexempt products from outside the State, there is a discriminatory effect.
No one disputes that a State may enact laws pursuant to its police powers that have the purpose and effect of encouraging domestic industry. However, the Commerce Clause stands as a limitation on the means by which a State can constitutionally seek to achieve that goal. One of the fundamental purposes of the Clause “was to insure . . . against discriminating State legislation.” Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 280 (1876). In Welton, the Court struck down a Missouri statute that “discriminat[ed] in favor of goods, wares, and merchandise which are the growth, product, or manufacture of the State, and against those which are the growth, product, or manufacture of other states or countries. . . .” Id., at 277. Similarly, in Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 455 (1886), the Court struck down a law imposing a tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages produced outside the State, declaring:
“A discriminating tax imposed by a State operating to the disadvantage of the products of other States when introduced into the first mentioned State, is, in effect, a regulation in restraint of commerce among the States, and as such is a usurpation of the power conferred by the Constitution upon the Congress of the United States.”
See also I. M. Darnell & Son Co. v. Memphis, 208 U. S. 113 (1908).
More recently, in Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U. S. 318 (1977), the Court struck down a New York law that imposed a higher tax on transfers of stock occurring outside the State than on transfers involving a sale within the State. We observed that competition among the States for a share of interstate commerce is a central element of our free-trade policy but held that a State may not tax interstate transactions in order to favor local businesses over out-of-state businesses. Thus, the Commerce Clause limits the manner in which States may legitimately compete for interstate trade, for “in the process of competition no State may discriminatorily tax the products manufactured or the business operations performed in any other State.” Id., at 337. It is therefore apparent that the Hawaii Supreme Court erred in concluding that there was no improper discrimination against interstate commerce merely because the burden of the tax was borne by consumers in Hawaii.
The State attempts to put aside this Court’s cases that have invalidated discriminatory state statutes enacted for protectionist purposes. See Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., supra, at 471; Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., supra, at 36-37. The State would distinguish these cases because they all involved attempts “to enhance thriving and substantial business enterprises at the expense of any foreign competitors.” Brief for Appellee Dias 30. Hawaii’s attempt, on the other hand, was “to subsidize nonexistent (pineapple wine) and financially troubled (okolehao) liquor industries peculiar to Hawaii.” Id., at 33. However, we perceive no principle of Commerce Clause jurisprudence supporting a distinction between thriving and struggling enterprises under these circumstances, and the State cites no authority for its proposed distinction. In either event, the legislation constitutes “economic protectionism” in every sense of the phrase. It has long been the law that States may not “build up [their] domestic commerce by means of unequal and oppressive burdens upon the industry and business of other States.” Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434, 443 (1880). Were it otherwise, “the trade and business of the country [would be] at the mercy of local regulations, having for their object to secure exclusive benefits to the citizens and products of particular States.” Id., at 442. It was to prohibit such a “multiplication of preferential trade areas” that the Commerce Clause was adopted. Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U. S. 349, 356 (1951). Consequently, the propriety of economic protectionism may not be allowed to hinge upon the State’s — or this Court’s — characterization of the industry as either “thriving” or “struggling.”
We also find unpersuasive the State’s contention that there was no discriminatory intent on the part of the legislature because “the exemptions in question were not enacted to discriminate against foreign products, but rather, to promote a local industry.” Brief for Appellee Dias 40. If we were to accept that justification, we would have little occasion ever to find a statute unconstitutionally discriminatory. Virtually every discriminatory statute allocates benefits or burdens unequally; each can be viewed as conferring a benefit on one party and a detriment on the other, in either an absolute or relative sense. The determination of constitutionality does not depend upon whether one focuses upon the benefited or the burdened party. A discrimination claim, by its nature, requires a comparison of the two classifications, and it could always be said that there was no intent to impose a burden on one party, but rather the intent was to confer a benefit on the other. Consequently, it is irrelevant to the Commerce Clause inquiry that the motivation of the legislature was the desire to aid the makers of the locally produced beverage rather than to harm out-of-state producers.
We therefore conclude that the Hawaii liquor tax exemption for okolehao and pineapple wine violated the Commerce Clause because it had both the purpose and effect of discriminating in favor of local products.
> HH
The State argues in this Court that even if the tax exemption violates ordinary Commerce Clause principles, it is saved by the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution. Section 2 of that Amendment provides: “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
Despite broad language in some of the opinions of this Court written shortly after ratification of the Amendment, more recently we have recognized the obscurity of the legislative history of § 2. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97, 107, n. 10 (1980). No clear consensus concerning the meaning of the provision is apparent. Indeed, Senator Blaine, the Senate sponsor of the Amendment resolution, appears to have espoused varying interpretations. In reporting the view of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said that the purpose of §2 was “to restore to the States . . . absolute control in effect over interstate commerce affecting intoxicating liquors . . . 76 Cong. Rec. 4143 (1933). On the other hand, he also expressed a narrower view: “So to assure the so-called dry States against the importation of intoxicating liquor into those States, it is proposed to write permanently into the Constitution a prohibition along that line.” Id., at 4141.
It is by now clear that the Amendment did not entirely remove state regulation of alcoholic beverages from the ambit of the Commerce Clause. For example, in Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324, 331-332 (1964), the Court stated:
“To draw a conclusion. . .that the Twenty-first Amendment has somehow operated to ‘repeal’ the Commerce Clause wherever regulation of intoxicating liquors is concerned would, however, be an absurd oversimplification.”
We also there observed that “[b]oth the Twenty-first Amendment and the Commerce Clause are parts of the same Constitution [and] each must be considered in light of the other and in the context of the issues and interests at stake in any concrete case.” Id., at 332. Similarly, in Midcal Aluminum, supra, at 109, the Court, noting that recent Twenty-first Amendment cases have emphasized federal interests to a greater degree than had earlier cases, described the mode of analysis to be employed as a “pragmatic effort to harmonize state and federal powers.” The question in this case is thus whether the principles underlying the Twenty-first Amendment are sufficiently implicated by the exemption for okolehao and pineapple wine to outweigh the Commerce Clause principles that would otherwise be offended. Or as we recently asked in a slightly different way, “whether the interests implicated by a state regulation are so closely related to the powers reserved by the Twenty-first Amendment that the regulation may prevail, notwithstanding that its requirements directly conflict with express federal policies.” Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S. 691, 714 (1984).
Approaching the case in this light, we are convinced that Hawaii’s discriminatory tax cannot stand. Doubts about the scope of the Amendment’s authorization notwithstanding, one thing is certain: The central purpose of the provision was not to empower States to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition. It is also beyond doubt that the Commerce Clause itself furthers strong federal interests in preventing economic Balkanization. South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U. S. 82 (1984); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322 (1979); Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511 (1935). State laws that constitute mere economic protectionism are therefore not entitled to the same deference as laws enacted to combat the perceived evils of an unrestricted traffic in liquor. Here, the State does not seek to justify its tax on the ground that it was designed to promote temperance or to carry out any other purpose of the Twenty-first Amendment, but instead acknowledges that the purpose was “to promote a local industry.” Brief for Appellee Dias 40. Consequently, because the tax violates a central tenet of the Commerce Clause but is not supported by any clear concern of the Twenty-first Amendment, we reject the State’s belated claim based on the Amendment.
V
The State further contends that even if the challenged tax is adjudged to have been unconstitutionally discriminatory and should not have been collected from the wholesalers as long as the exemptions for local products were in force, the wholesalers are not entitled to refunds since they did not bear the economic incidence of the tax but passed it on as a separate addition to the price that their customers were legally obligated to pay within a certain time. Relying on United States v. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co., 291 U. S. 386 (1934), a case involving interpretation of a federal tax refund statute, the State asserts that only the parties bearing the economic incidence of the tax are constitutionally entitled to a refund of an illegal tax. It further asserts that the wholesalers, at least arguably, do not even bear the legal obligation for the tax and that they have shown no competitive injury from the alleged discrimination. The wholesalers assert, on the other hand, that they were liable to pay the tax whether or not their customers paid their bills on time and that if the tax was illegally discriminatory the Commerce Clause requires that the taxes collected be refunded to them. Their position is also that the discrimination has worked a competitive injury on their business that entitles them to a refund.
These refund issues, which are essentially issues of remedy for the imposition of a tax that unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce, were not addressed by the state courts. Also, the federal constitutional issues involved may well be intertwined with, or their consideration obviated by, issues of state law. Also, resolution of those issues, if required at all, may necessitate more of a record than so far has been made in this case. We are reluctant, therefore, to address them in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
An exemption for okolehao that had been enacted in 1960 expired in 1965. 1960 Haw. Sess. Laws, ch. 26, § 1. During the pendency of this litigation, the Hawaii Legislature enacted a similar exemption for rum manufactured in the State for the period May 17, 1981, to June 30, 1986.
Two other taxpayers — Foremost-McKesson, Inc., and Paradise Beverages, Inc. — were appellants in the consolidated suit in the Hawaii Supreme Court. They did not appeal to this Court and thus are appellees here pursuant to our Rule 10.4. For the sake of clarity, both appellants and appellee wholesalers will be referred to collectively as “wholesalers.”
Bacchus Imports, Ltd., was the first of the wholesalers to protest the assessment. It sent a letter dated May 30, 1979, protesting the payment of taxes for the period December 1977 through May 1979. Appellee Paradise Beverages, Inc., protested on July 30, 1979, for the period June 1977 through July 1979; appellant Eagle Distributors, Inc., protested on August 31, 1979, taxes paid from August 1974 through July 1979; and, on September 6,1979, appellee Foremost-McKesson, Inc., protested taxes paid from August 1974 through August 1979. In re Bacchus Imports, Ltd., 65 Haw. 566, 570, n. 11, 656 P. 2d 724, 728, n. 11 (1982).
Article I, § 10, cl. 2, of the Constitution provides in part:
“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports . . . .”
Article I, § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution provides in part:
“The Congress shall have power . . . [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States . . .
Eagle Distributors sought refund of $10,744,047, App. 7; Bacchus sought $75,060.22, id., at 13; Foremost-McKesson sought over $26 million, id., at 19; and Paradise sought $8,716,727.23, Record in No. 1862, p. 27.
The State also would have us avoid the merits by holding that the exemptions are severable and should not invalidate the entire tax. The argument was not presented to the Supreme Court of Hawaii and that court did not proceed on any such basis. Furthermore, the challenged exemptions have now expired and “severance” would not relieve the harm inflicted during the time the wholesalers’ imported products were taxed but locally produced products were not.
The State does not seriously defend the Hawaii Supreme Court’s conclusion that because there was no discrimination between in-state and out-of-state taxpayers there was no Commerce Clause violation. Our cases make clear that discrimination between in-state and out-of-state goods is as offensive to the Commerce Clause as discrimination between in-state and out-of-state taxpayers. Compare I. M. Darnell & Son Co. v. Memphis, 208 U. S. 113 (1908), with Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725 (1981).
The percentage of exempted liquor sales steadily increased from .2221% of total liquor sales in 1976 to .7739% in 1981. App. to Brief for Appellee Dias A-l.
The Hawaii Supreme Court’s assumption that okolehao and pineapple wine do not pose “a competitive threat” does not constitute a finding that there is no competition whatsoever between locally produced products and out-of-state products, nor do we understand the State to so argue.
Because of our disposition of the Commerce Clause issue, we need not address the wholesalers’ arguments based upon the Equal Protection Clause and the Import-Export Clause.
We note that the State expressly disclaimed any reliance upon the Twenty-first Amendment in the court below and did not cite it in its motion to dismiss or affirm. Apparently it was not until it prepared its brief on the merits in this Court that it became “clear” to the State that the Amendment saves the challenged tax. See Brief for Appellee Dias 36.
For example, in State Board of Equalization v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59, 62 (1936), the Court stated:
“The plaintiffs ask us to limit this broad command. They request us to construe the Amendment as saying, in effect: The State may prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquors provided it prohibits the manufacture and sale within its borders; but if it permits such manufacture and sale, it must let imported liquors compete with the domestic on equal terms. To say that, would involve not a construction of the Amendment, but a rewriting of it.”
The Court went on to observe, however, that a high license fee for importation may “serve as an aid in policing the liquor traffic.” Id., at 63.
See also Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U. S. 401, 403 (1938) (“since the adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment, the equal protection clause is not applicable to imported intoxicating liquor”). Cf. Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190 (1976).
It may be, for example, that given an unconstitutional discrimination, a full refund is mandated by state law.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Arizona has levied a tax of 2% on the “gross proceeds of sales, or gross income” of appellant Warren Trading Post Company, which does a retail trading business with Indians on the Arizona part of the Navajo Indian Reservation under a license granted by the United States Commissioner of Indian Affairs pursuant to 19 Stat. 200, 25 U. S. C. § 261 (1958 ed.). Appellant claimed that as applied to its income from trading with reservation Indians on the reservation the state tax was invalid as (1) in violation of Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, of the United States Constitution, which provides that “Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes”; (2) inconsistent with the comprehensive congressional plan, enacted under authority of Art. I, § 8, to regulate Indian trade and traders and to have Indian tribes on reservations govern themselves. The State Supreme Court rejected these contentions and upheld the tax, one Justice dissenting. 95 Ariz. 110, 387 P. 2d 809. The case is properly here on appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2) (1958 ed.). Since we hold that this state tax cannot be imposed consistently with federal statutes applicable to the Indians on the Navajo Reservation, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the tax is also barred by that part of the Commerce Clause giving Congress power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes.
The Navajo Reservation was set apart as a “permanent home” for the Navajos in a treaty made with the “Navajo nation or tribe of Indians” on June 1, 1868. Long before that, in fact from the very first days of our Government, the Federal Government had been permitting the Indians largely to govern themselves, free from state interference, and had exercised through statutes and treaties a sweeping and dominant control over persons who wished to trade with Indians and Indian tribes. As Chief Justice John Marshall recognized in Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 556-557:
“From the commencement of our government, congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate.”
He went on to say that:
“The treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union.” Id., at 557,
See also, e. g., United States v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U. S. 188. In the very first volume of the federal statutes is found an Act, passed in 1790 by the first Congress, “to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes,” requiring that Indian traders obtain a license from a federal official, and specifying in detail the conditions on which such licenses would be granted.
Such comprehensive federal regulation of Indian traders has continued from that day to this. Existing statutes make specific restrictions on trade with the Indians, and one of them, passed in 1876 and tracing back to comprehensive enactments of 1802 and 1834, provides that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall have “the sole power and authority to appoint traders to the Indian tribes” and to specify “the kind and quantity of goods and the prices at which such goods shall be sold to the Indians.” Acting under authority of this statute and one added in 1901, the Commissioner has promulgated detailed regulations prescribing in the most minute fashion who may qualify to be a trader and how he shall be licensed; penalties for acting as a trader without a license; conditions under which government employees may trade with Indians; articles that cannot be sold to Indians; and conduct forbidden on a licensed trader’s premises. He has ordered that detailed business records be kept and that government officials be allowed to inspect these records to make sure that prices charged are fair and reasonable; that traders pay Indians in money; that bonds be executed by proposed licensees; and that the governing body of an Indian reservation may assess from a trader “such fees, etc., as it may deem appropriate.” It was under these comprehensive statutes and regulations that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs licensed appellant to trade with the Indians on the Navajo Reservation. These apparently all-inclusive regulations and the statutes authorizing them would seem in themselves sufficient to show that Congress has taken the business of Indian trading on reservations so fully in hand that no room remains for state laws imposing additional burdens upon traders. In fact, the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior in 1940 and again in 1943 interpreted these statutes to bar States from taxing federally licensed Indian traders on their sales to reservation Indians on a reservation. We think those rulings were correct.
Congress has, since the creation of the Navajo Reservation nearly a century ago, left the Indians on it largely free to run the reservation and its affairs without state control, a policy which has automatically relieved Arizona of all burdens for carrying on those same responsibilities. And in compliance with its treaty obligations the Federal Government has provided for roads, education and other services needed by the Indians. We think the assessment and collection of this tax would to a substantial extent frustrate the evident congressional purpose of ensuring that no burden shall be imposed upon Indian traders for trading with Indians on reservations except as authorized by Acts of Congress or by valid regulations promulgated under those Acts. This state tax on gross income would put financial burdens on appellant or the Indians with whom it . deals in addition to those Congress or the tribes have prescribed, and could thereby disturb and disarrange the statutory plan Congress set up in order to protect Indians against prices deemed unfair or unreasonable by the Indian Commissioner. And since federal legislation has left the State with no duties or responsibilities respecting the reservation Indians, we cannot believe that Congress intended to leave to the State the privilege of levying this tax. Insofar as they are applied to this federally licensed Indian trader with respect to sales made to reservation Indians on the reservation, these state laws imposing taxes cannot stand. Cf. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings npt inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-1309, 42-1312. The tax is applicable to “every person engaging or continuing within this state in the business of selling any tangible personal property whatever at retail,” with stated exceptions. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-1312. Appellant’s challenge to these statutes is limited to the State’s attempt to apply them to gross income from sales made on the reservation to reservation Indians.
15 Stat. 667.
Arizona was admitted to the Union on its agreement that
“the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to . . . all lands lying within said boundaries owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, the right or title to which shall have been acquired through or from the United States or any prior sovereignty, and that until the title of such Indian or Indian tribes shall have been extinguished the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States . . . Act of June 20, 1910, 36 Stat. 557, 569. See also Act of Aug. 21, 1911, 37 Stat. 39.
Certain state laws have been permitted to apply to activities on Indian reservations, where those laws are specifically authorized by acts of Congress, or where they clearly do not interfere with federal policies concerning the reservations. See Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60, 72-75; Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 219-221; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264; Utah & N. R. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U. S. 28, 31-32. Compare, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 1161 (1958 ed.) (permitting application of state liquor law standards within an Indian reservation under certain conditions); 45 Stat. 1185, as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 231 (1958 ed.) (permitting application of state health and education laws within a reservation under certain conditions); 18 U. S. C. § 1162 .(1958 ed.) and 28 U. S. C. § 1360 (1958 ed.) (respectively granting certain States criminal and civil jurisdiction over offenses and causes of action involving Indians within specified Indian reservations).
In 1778, in its first treaty with an Indian tribe, the United States promised to provide for the Delaware Nation
“a well-regulated trade, under the conduct of an intelligent, candid agent, with an adequate sallery, one more influenced by the love of his country, and a constant attention to the duties of his department by promoting the common interest, than the sinister purposes of converting and binding all the duties of his office to his private emolument Treaty of Sept. 17, 1778, Art. V, 7 Stat. 13, 14.
Similar provisions were found in other early treaties, concluded before the first Congress legislated on the subject of Indian trade. See United States Department of the Interior, Federal Indian Law 96 (hereafter cited as Federal Indian Law). In 1871 Congress forbade future treaties with the Indian tribes but left the obligations of existing treaties unimpaired. 16 Stat. 544, 566, now 25 U. S. C. § 71 (1958 ed.).
Act of July 22, 1790, 1 Stat. 137.
See generally Federal Indian Law 94 — 138, 373-381.
E. g., 4 Stat. 729, now 25 U. S. C. § 263 (1958 ed.) (empowering the President in the public interest to forbid introduction of any or all goods into the territory of a tribe, and to revoke and refuse all licenses to trade with that tribe); 4 Stat. 729, as amended, now 25 U. S. C. § 264 (1958 ed.) (establishing penalties for trading without a license and forbidding traders to hire white persons as clerks unless licensed to do so); 18 U. S. C. § 3113 (1958 ed.) (forbidding unlawful introduction of liquor into Indian country and providing for revocation of the license of any trader violating this prohibition).
Act of March 30, 1802, 2 Stat. 139.
Act of June 30, 1834, 4 Stat. 729.
19 Stat. 200, 25 U. S. C. § 261 (1958 ed.), provides:
“The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall have the sole power and authority to appoint traders to the Indian tribes and to make such rules and regulations as he may deem just and proper specifying the kind and quantity of goods and the prices at which, such goods shall be sold to the Indians.”
31 Stat. 1066, as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 262 (1958 ed.), provides:
“Any person desiring to trade with the Indians on any Indian reservation shall, upon establishing the fact, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that he is a proper person to engage in such trade, be permitted to do so under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may prescribe for the protection of said Indians.”
25 CFR §§251.9, 252.6, 251.3, 252.3, 251.5, 251.8, 251.18, 251.19, 251.21, 252.15.
25 CFR §§252.7, 251.22, 251.24, 251.10, 252.9, 252.27c. See generally 25 CFR §§ 251, 252.
These statutes and regulations apply only to activities on reservations. See Taylor v. United States, 44 F. 2d 531 (C. A. 9th Cir.), cert. denied, 283 U. S. 820; 57 I. D. 124, 125.
57 I. D. 124.
58 I. D. 562.
Since 1950 Congress has authorized expenditure of over $100,-000,000 as part of an extensive plan to rehabilitate the Navajo and Hopi tribes of Arizona. 64 Stat. 44, as amended, 25 U. S. C. §§631-640 (1958 ed.). Detailed accounts of the ways in which the Federal Government has aided and supported the Navajos and other tribes may be found in Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1963, pp. 11-47; id., 1962, pp. 7-44; id., 1961, pp. 277-318. See also Federal Indian Law 268-306; Young, The Navajo Yearbook, Report No. viii, 1951-1961, A Decade of Progress (1961).
The Buck Act, now 4 U. S. C. §§ 105-110 (1964 ed.), in which Congress permitted States to levy sales or use taxes within certain federal areas, has been interpreted by what appears to be the only court to consider the question before this ease, and by the Interior Department, as not applying to Indian reservations. Your Food Stores, Inc. v. Village of Espanola, 68 N. M. 327, 334, 361 P. 2d 950, 955-956; 58 I. D. 562. Cf. 4 U. S. C. § 109 (1964 ed.), excepting taxes on Indians from the scope of the Act. We think that interpretation was correct. See S. Rep. No. 1625, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 2, 3. Moreover, we hold that Indian traders trading on a reservation with reservation Indians are immune from a state tax like Arizona’s, not simply because those activities take place on a reservation, but rather because Congress in the exercise of its power granted in Art. I, § 8, has undertaken to regulate reservation trading in such a comprehensive way that there is no room for the States to legislate on the subject. Cf. Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U. S. 647, 651. Even assuming that the Arizona tax here is of a kind to which the Buck Act applies, nothing whatever in that Act suggests to us that Congress meant to give States new power to tax federally licensed Indian traders. See 58 I. D. 562.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry for leave to file brief in Nos. 2, Original, 3, Original and 4, Original, as amicus curiae, is granted. The amended application of complainants for a reopening of the decree of April 21,1930, in Nos. 2, Original, 3, Original, and 4, Original [281 U. S-. 696], is granted.
The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in No. 15, Original, is granted.
It is ordered that Honorable Albert B. Maris, United States Senior Circuit Judge, be, and he is hereby,. appointed special master in each of these causes, with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The master is directed to hold hearings with all convenient speed, and to submit such reports as he may deem necessary.
The master shall be allowed his actual expenses. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his technical, stenographic and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses, shall bé charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court hereafter may direct.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner in this case, Richard Trest, seeks a writ of habeas corpus, which would vacate a long sentence that he is serving in a Louisiana prison for armed robbery. The District Court refused to issue the writ. Trest appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled against him on the ground of “procedural default.” Trest v. Whitley, 94 F. 3d 1005, 1007 (1996). The Fifth Circuit believed that Trest had failed to raise his federal claims on time in state court, that a state court would now refuse to consider his claims for that reason, and that this state procedural reason amounted to an adequate and independent state ground for denying Trest relief. Hence, in the absence of special circumstances, a federal habeas court could not reach the merits of Trest’s federal claims. Id., at 1007-1009; see generally Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982).
In his petition for certiorari to this Court, Trest pointed out that the Court of Appeals had raised and decided the question of “procedural default” sua sponte. The parties themselves had neither raised nor argued the matter. And language in the Court of Appeals’ opinion suggested that the court had thought that, once it had noticed the possibility of a procedural default, it was required to raise the matter on its own. Trest consequently asked us to decide whether a court of appeals, reviewing a district court’s habeas corpus decision, “is required to raise... sua sponte” a petitioner’s potential procedural default. Pet. for Cert. i (emphasis added). We agreed to do so.
Precedent makes clear that the answer to the question presented is “no.” A court of appeals is not “required” to raise the issue of procedural default sua sponte. It is not as if the presence of a procedural default deprived the federal court of jurisdiction, for this Court has made clear that in the habeas context, a procedural default, that is, a critical failure to comply with state procedural law, is not a jurisdictional matter. See Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U. S. 518, 522-523 (1997); Coleman, 501 U.S., at 730-731. Rather, “[i]n the habeas context, the application of the independent and adequate state ground doctrine,” of which a procedural default is typieally an instance, “is grounded in concerns of comity and federalism.” Id., at 730 (contrasting habeas proceeding with this Court’s direct review of a state court judgment). Thus, procedural default is normally a “defense” that the State is “obligated to raise” and “preserv[e]” if it is not to “lose the right to assert the defense thereafter.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U. S. 152, 166 (1996); see Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U. S. 231, 234, n. 1 (1980). We are not aware of any precedent stating that a habeas court must raise such a matter where the State itself does not do so. And Louisiana concedes as much, for it says in its brief that “the Fifth Circuit clearly was not ‘required’ to sua sponte invoke procedural default.” Brief for Respondent 16-17.
Louisiana, however, would like us to go beyond question presented and hold that the law permitted (though it did not require) the Fifth Circuit to raise the procedural default sua sponte. Cf. Granberry v. Greer, 481 U. S. 129, 133-134 (1987) (appellate court may raise sua sponte petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies). We recognize some uncertainty in the lower courts as to whether, or just when, a habeas court may consider a procedural default that the State at some point has waived, or failed to raise. Compare Esslinger v. Davis, 44 F. 3d 1515, 1525-1528 (CA11 1995) (sua sponte invocation of procedural default serves no important federal interest), with Hardiman v. Reynolds, 971 F. 2d 500, 502-505 (CA10 1992) (comity and scarce judicial resources may justify court raising state procedural default sua sponte); see also J. Liebman & R. Hertz, 2 Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 26.2, pp. 814-817 (1994) (citing cases). Nonetheless, we do not believe this is an appropriate ease in which to examine that question for several reasons. First, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion contains language suggesting the court believed that, despite Louisiana’s failure to raise the matter, Circuit precedent required the court (and did not simply permit the court) to consider a potential procedural default. See, e.g., 94 F. 3d, at 1007 (“[T]his court’s decision in Sones v. Hargett ... precludes us from reviewing the merits of Trest’s habeas challenge”).
Second, the language petition for certiorari, as well as the arguments made in his petition, made clear that Trest intended to limit the question in the way we have described. Yet Louisiana in its response did not object or suggest alternate wording. Nor did Louisiana ask us to consider the question in any broader context.
Third, we cannot now easily answer the in the context of this case, for we are uncertain about matters which arguably are relevant to the question whether the law permitted the Fifth Circuit to raise a procedural default sua sponte. The parties disagree, for example, about whether or not Trest has felly, or partially, exhausted his current federal claims by raising them in state court. Cf. Rose v. Lundy, supra, at 518-520. They disagree about whether Louisiana has waived any “nonexhaustion” defense. Cf. Granberry v. Greer, supra. They consequently disagree about whether this is, or is not, the kind of case in which a federal court might rely upon the existence of a state “procedural bar” despite the failure of any state court to assert one. See Coleman v. Thompson, supra, at 735, n.
The parties also seem to disagree about which State’s procedural rules are relevant. Trest’s federal claims focus upon the 35-year sentence of imprisonment that the Louisiana court imposed (under a Louisiana “habitual offender” law) in light of his earlier convictions in Mississippi for burglary. Trest argued that those earlier convictions were constitutionally invalid because they rested upon a guilty plea which he says the Mississippi court accepted without having first told him about his rights to appeal, to trial by jury, to confront witnesses, and not to incriminate himself. Cf. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242-244 (1969); State v. Robicheaux, 412 So. 2d 1313, 1316-1317 (La. 1982). The Fifth Circuit did not reach the merits of Trest’s claims because it believed that the Mississippi courts would have barred any challenge to his Mississippi convictions as a challenge that, under state law, came too late in the day. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (1994). Trest, and amici supporting him, state that the relevant procedural law (for the purposes of the “procedural default” doctrine) is that of Louisiana, rather than that of Mississippi, for it is Louisiana, not Mississippi, which holds Trest in custody. And it is not clear whether Mississippi’s procedural law would create a “default” that would bar federal courts from considering whether Louisiana, not Mississippi, could (or could not) use Mississippi convictions to enhance a sentence for a subsequent Louisiana crime.
We note that the parties might have considered these questions, and the Court of Appeals might have determined their relevance or their answers, had that court not decided the procedural default question without giving the parties an opportunity for argument. We do not say that a eourt must always ask for further briefing when it disposes of a case on a basis not previously argued. But often, as here, that somewhat longer (and often fairer) way ‘round is the shortest way home. Regardless, we have answered the question presented, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari in this case is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners were found guilty of felony murder by a jury in Westchester County, New York, and sentenced to death. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. We granted certiorari, because of questions raised by use of two confessions.
The trial lasted over seven weeks and the record runs to more than 3,000 pages. Evidence proffered and heard, subject to rejection or acceptance in the judgment of the jury, included two written confessions by petitioners Cooper and Stein, together with testimony as to their incidental oral confessions and admissions. Each written confession implicated all three defendants and all objected to introduction of each confession on the ground that it was coerced. Wissner further moved as to each that, if Cooper’s and Stein’s confessions were admitted, all reference to him be stricken from them. The trial court heard evidence in the presence of the jury as to the issue of coercion and left determination of the question to the jury. Petitioners claim that such use of these confessions creates a constitutional infirmity which requires this Court to set aside the conviction.
I. Facts About the Crime.
The main office of Reader’s Digest is thirty-one miles from New York City, in the relatively rural area of northern Westchester County, near the town of Pleasantville. From this secluded headquarters a truck several times each day makes a run to and from town. On April 3, 1950, William Waterbury was driver of the 2:50 p. m. trip into Pleasantville. He picked up Andrew Petrini, a fellow employee, and various bags containing mail, about $5,000 in cash, and about $35,000 in checks, and started down the lonely country roads to town. Neither was armed. After a few hundred yards, Waterbury was cut off and halted by another truck that had been meandering slowly in front of him. He observed a man wearing a false nose and eyeglasses and with a revolver in his hand running toward him. After an unsuccessful attempt to open the door, the assailant fired one shot into Petrini’s head. Waterbury was then ordered into the back of the truck where another man tied him up. His captors took the bag containing the money and checks and abandoned the truck on a side road with Waterbury bound and gagged therein. A few minutes later he was released by a passer-by and had Petrini hurried to the hospital where he died shortly from the effects of a.38 revolver bullet lodged in his skull.
Near the scene of the crime police found the abandoned truck used by the killers to block the way of Waterbury. It was learned to be the property of Spring Auto Rental Co., on New York’s lower East Side and at the time of the murder to have been out on hire to a man who had rented the same truck on three prior occasions and who each time had identified himself by producing New York driver’s license No. 1434549, issued to W. W. Comins, of 228 West 47th Street, New York City. The address turned out to be a hotel and the name fictitious. However, the police managed to establish that the license had been procured by one William Cooper.
It is more than a figure of speech to say that William Cooper had an ironclad alibi: at the time of this crime he was serving a sentence in a federal penitentiary. Suspicion attached to members of his family. Nearly two months ran on with no solution of the crime, however, until toward the end of May or the beginning of June, when police learned that William’s brother, petitioner Caiman Cooper, had served a sentence in federal prison where he was a “working partner” and chess-playing buddy of one Brassett, who was serving time for having rifled mails addressed to the Reader’s Digest while working in Pleas-antville. It appeared that during their prison association Brassett had told Caiman Cooper of the opportunity awaiting at Reader’s Digest for an enterprising and clever robber.
On June 5, 1950, police arranged for Arthur Jeppe-son, who had rented the Spring truck to “W. W. Comins,” to be on a street in New York City where they expected Caiman Cooper to pass. Jeppeson testified on the trial that Cooper recognized him'and said to him that “this truck that he rented from me was in a killing upstate and he had nothing to do with it....” Jeppeson testified that he then asked Cooper two questions: “Why the hell didn’t you report it to the police?” and “... why did he give me that license....”? Cooper’s reply was stated to be, “That is the license they give him to give me.” Jeppeson further testified that Cooper had inquired if the officers had shown him any pictures and asked him not to identify Cooper to the police.
At the end of this conversation, on Jeppeson’s signal, two policemen closed in and arrested Cooper. That night (2 a. m., June 6) petitioner Stein was arrested. On June 7, about 9 a. m., petitioner Wissner was arrested. The three petitioners were arraigned and charged with murder on the evening of June 8. A fourth suspect, Dorfman, was sought but remained at large until he voluntarily surrendered on June 19, 1950.
All four were indicted for murder. When the time came for trial, the case against Dorfman, who turned state’s evidence, was severed. A motion for separate trial by petitioner Wissner was denied, and trial proceeded against the three remaining defendants.
Other than two alibi witnesses offered by Wissner and a halfhearted attempt by Cooper to establish insanity, the defense consisted almost entirely of attempts to break down the prosecution’s case. None of the defendants testified.
The confessions constituted only a part of the evidence submitted to the jury. We can learn the context in which the confessions were obtained by the police and received in evidence only from a summary of the whole testimony.
Waterbury, who was in the truck with the murdered Petrini, identified Wissner as the man who fired the shot and Stein as the man who tied him up. He testified that on the 8th of June the police brought him to Hawthorne Barracks and that, upon entering a room in which Stein was present, defendant Stein pointed out Waterbury as the driver of the truck. On cross-examination, he recounted that he had picked Wissner out of a lineup at Hawthorne Barracks on June 8 and identified him as the killer.
Jeppeson testified that the rental truck had been let to Cooper on April 3 and on three previous occasions, Cooper having in each case used an alias and a false license as before stated, and having given his occupation as “bookseller.” He also testified as to his conversation with Cooper on the morning of the latter’s arrest.
Dorfman, in substance, testified that he and Wissner were partners in an auto rental business on the lower East Side of New York City. Cooper and Stein had approached them about six weeks before April 3 with the suggestion that they collaborate on a robbery at the Reader’s Digest. The truck used in the killing had been rented by Cooper on April 3 and on three previous occasions when the conspirators had driven to Pleasantville to “case” the area and determine whether conditions were favorable for success in the crime. At these times, and one other, they also brought to Pleasantville an auto owned by the Dorfman-Wissner agency. On April 3, the four set out for Pleasantville with the truck, the car, and a tan valise containing three guns owned by Wissner. They left the car about a mile from the Reader’s Digest and all got in the rented truck. The guns were distributed, Dorfman getting a black automatic and Wissner a nickel-plated revolver. The holdup proceeded in the manner described by Waterbury. Dorf-man heard a shot during the holdup, but did not see who fired it. On the way back, however, Wissner expressed regret at the necessity of shooting the guard. The defendants threw away their guns, left the Reader’s Digest truck, with Waterbury tied up inside, on a side road and left the rental truck at the place where the car had been parked during the commission of the crime. They drove back toward New York in the car. When they got to the Bronx, they parked the car and went on by subway and taxicab to Dorfman’s apartment in Brooklyn, where they divided up the proceeds and separated. Subsequently, Dorfman and one Homishak went up to the Bronx and picked up the car.
Under New York law, Dorfman’s testimony, since he was an accomplice, required corroboration. It was afforded in the following ways: (1) Mrs. Dorfman testified that Cooper, Stein and Wissner had come to her apartment with her husband on the evening of April 3 and that they carried with them the tan valise which Dorf-man had identified as that used in the robbery. It was established by police testimony that this valise had been found in June in Dorfman’s apartment and when searched was found to contain a fragment of paper from an order form used by the Reader’s Digest in April of 1950 — an order form to which subscribers frequently attached cash in such manner that on removal of the cash a portion of the order form would come with it. (2) Police testified that Dorfman’s automatic was found near the area where he said that he had thrown it away on April 3. (3) It was established that Petrini was killed by a bullet from a.38 revolver. (4) Homishak testified that he saw Dorfman in the company of the three petitioners on April 3 and that he accompanied Dorfman to the Bronx to pick up the car that night. (5) An employee of the Reader’s Digest at Pleasantville testified that he had seen the Spring Rental truck on the premises on April 3 and on one prior occasion. (6) Jep-peson’s testimony substantiated Dorfman’s story about rental of the truck. (7) It was established that Cooper had absented himself from his job on April 3. (8) Waterbury’s testimony about the events of April 3 and identification of Stein and Wissner checked with Dorfman’s story. (9) The two confessions, if accepted by the jury, also were corroborative of the accomplice Dorfman in many details.
The defendants made no attempt to contradict or explain away any of this damaging testimony. Cooper’s counsel, during a colloquy with the court, admitted that Cooper had rented the truck involved on April 3 and offered no explanation as to how this fact could be consistent with his client’s claim of innocence. An effort was made on summation to convince the jury that Dorf-man, who did not have a prior criminal record, was the killer and had accused these other three, with his wife’s cooperation, in order to save his own life. The tenor of the defense appears from Cooper’s counsel on summation:
“I don’t care whether Cooper is innocent or guilty, that is insignificant in the solution of the fundamental problem as to whether the state troopers and other enforcing authorities themselves have violated far more fundamental principles....
“... Don’t narrow yourselves into a mere solution of a petty murder.... Of course, we want a solution to that, but that is secondary, if the solution of that means that you are going to weaken the very foundations of the republic; then you would be unfit to be jurors.”
Wissner’s counsel devoted about half of his summation to arguing that the murder was not “premeditated” — a point without legal significance in felony murder under New York law.
II. Facts About the Confessions.
Against this background, we come to the controversy over the confessions. Uncontroverted evidence establishes the following:
Cooper. — Cooper, who made the first and most crucial confession, was arrested by the state police at 9 o’clock on Monday morning, June 5, under circumstances previously described. His father, who was with him at the time, also was arrested. Both were taken to a police station in New York City, where they were held (but not booked) until early in the afternoon. Thence, they were taken to state police headquarters at Hawthorne, in Westchester County, the county of the offense, arriving at about 2 o’clock.
At Hawthorne, the Coopers were separated; the father was detained in the police barracks and the son was taken to an office across the courtyard, known as the Bureau of Identification room, where Cooper’s interrogation and his ultimate confession took place.
Although Cooper was continuously under guard and handcuffed, no one questioned him until 8 p. m., at which time three officers interrogated him for four or five hours. During this period, Cooper was confronted with his former prison mate, Brassett. However, he did not confess. Questioning was resumed the following day (Tuesday) at 10 a. m. and continued until 6 p. m., the same three officers participating. Just after 6 p. m. Cooper began to discuss confessing. At this time his father was being held at Hawthorne; his brother Morris had been arrested in New York, where his mere presence violated terms of his parole and rendered him subject to disciplinary action. Cooper first obtained a commitment by the police that his father would be released if he confessed. He then asked to see an official of the Parole Board in order to obtain assurance that, if he confessed, his brother Morris would not be prosecuted for parole violation. Accordingly, about 8 p. m. Reardon, an employee of the Parole Board, came to see Cooper, but the latter was not satisfied with his interview. Reardon’s superior, Parole Commissioner Donovan, was sent for. Donovan arrived at about 10 p. m. and gave Cooper satisfactory assurance that Morris would be unmolested if Cooper “co-operated.” Cooper then confessed orally to Reardon and Donovan. Thus the confession was' first imparted, not to the police who are charged with brutality, but to visiting parole officials not so accused and called in at his own request. Thereupon, a typewritten confession was prepared which Cooper signed after making certain corrections, at about 1:30 or 2 on the morning of the 7th. It is twelve pages long, in great detail; it is corroborated throughout by other evidence, and its general character is such that it could have been fabricated only by a person gifted with extraordinarily creative imagination.
Stein. — Stein was arrested at his brother’s home at 2 a. m. on the morning of the 6th, before Cooper confessed. He was taken immediately to Hawthorne Barracks and confined in a room in the basement. The following morning, Captain Glasheen, commandant at the barracks, questioned him for an hour. After lunch questioning was resumed, with another officer joining in the questioning, and continued for two or three hours. That evening, Captain Glasheen returned and interrogated Stein from 7 p. m. until 2 a. m., with no result. At 2 a. m., Stein was informed about Cooper’s confession and left with, the advice to “sleep on it.” The following morning, Stein was ready to confess. By afternoon, a statement had been prepared, corrected and signed. This seven-page statement, like Cooper’s, was so complete and detailed and so dovetailed with the extrinsic evidence that, if it were not true, its author was possessed of amazing powers of divination.
The following day, Stein went to Pleasantville with two officers and explained on the ground how the crime had been committed.
Wissner. — Wissner was arrested about 9 a. m. on June 7 — subsequent to Cooper’s confession, which implicated him — and taken to Hawthorne, where he remained until his arraignment. He made no confession.
There is no direct testimony that petitioners were subjected to physical violence or the threat of it during their detention. None of the defendants took the witness stand to substantiate their claims. With one exception, every police officer who had contact with Cooper or Stein during detention was or could have been questioned about it by the defense. The exception came into contact with Stein only and was not shown to have been with him except in the presence of others who were witnesses. Thus, police testimony was consistent and unshaken that no violence or threats were used, that the accused were given food at mealtimes and, with the exceptions we have stated, were allowed to sleep at night.
The defendants’ contentions as to physical violence rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. They would be utterly without support except for inferences, which they urge, from the admitted fact that when first physically examined, the day after arraignment, they showed certain bruises and injuries which could have been sustained from violent “third-degree” methods. On the morning of June 9, they were examined by the prison physician. Cooper had been in custody at the barracks between three and four days, Stein three days and Wissner two days.
Testimony by the prison doctor who examined them predicated mainly on the notes he made at that time was that Wissner had a broken rib and various bruises and abrasions on the side, legs, stomach and buttocks; Cooper had bruises on the chest, stomach, right arm, and both buttocks; Stein had a bruise on his right arm. Counsel for the petitioners, who examined them on the 9th and 10th of June, testified that the injuries sustained by each were more extensive than those described in the doctor’s testimony.
The record stands that the injuries were of such nature that they might have been received prior to arrest; indeed, one of the petitioners — Wissner, who exhibited perhaps the worst of the injuries but never confessed — was undergoing treatment at the time he was arrested.
III. Constitutionality of Procedures Employed Below.
In the setting of these facts, the constitutional issues raised by petitioners involve procedural features not heretofore adjudicated by this Court. In view of the uncon-tradicted direct as well as circumstantial evidence against the defendants, the part, if any, played by the confessions in the conviction is uncertain. The jury was instructed to consider the confessions only if it found them to have been voluntary. It rendered a general verdict of guilty.
Under these circumstances, we cannot be sure whether the jury found the defendants guilty by accepting and relying, at least in part, upon the confessions or whether it rejected the confessions and found them guilty on the other evidence. Indeed, except as we rely upon a presumption that the jurors followed instructions, we cannot know that some jurors may not have acted upon one basis, while some convicted on the other. Also, since the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, we are not certain whether it did so on the ground that the confessions were properly relied on or that even without them the verdict was adequately supported.
The New York procedures in this case therefore must be examined, not only as to their own constitutionality, but as to their consequences if valid, and the weight to be given to conclusions so reached.
The ideal of fair procedure was self-imposed by New York long before it was imposed upon her. New York’s Constitution has enjoined observance of due process of law at least since 1821, and statute law has provided for exclusion from evidence of coerced confessions since 1881. The Court of Appeals is charged by the State with ultimate authority in such a case as this to adjudge and redress violations of that mandate.
Their appeal, taken as matter of right, afforded petitioners a review with a latitude much wider than is permitted to us. That court, in a death case, is empowered by statute to order a new trial for errors of law, or if the conviction is found to be “against the weight of evidence,” or if the court is satisfied for any reason whatever “that justice requires a new trial.” Even where it finds that the jury could “reasonably credit the denial of the police,” if it considers that the prosecution had failed to produce all reasonably available evidence to clear charges of coercion, it will order “a new trial where there can be a more adequate search for the truth.” People v. Mummiani, 258 N. Y. 394, 401, 403, 180 N. E. 94, 97, 98.
Although, even within this range, the Court of Appeals found no cause for upsetting this conviction, our review penetrates its judgment and searches the record in the trial court.
The procedure adopted by New York for excluding coerced confessions relies heavily on the jury. It requires a preliminary hearing as to admissibility, but does not permit the judge to make a final determination that a confession is admissible. He may — indeed, must — exclude any confession if he is convinced that it was not freely made or that a verdict that it was so made would be against the weight of evidence. But, while he may thus cast the die against the prosecution, he cannot do so against the accused. If the voluntariness issue presents a fair question of fact, he must receive the confession and leave to the jury, under proper instructions, the ultimate determination of its voluntary character and also its truthfulness. People v. Weiner, 248 N. Y. 118, 161 N. E. 441. The judge is not required to exclude the jury while he hears evidence as to voluntariness, People v. Brasch, 193 N. Y. 46, 85 N. E. 809, and perhaps is not permitted to do so, People v. Randazzio, 194 N. Y. 147, 159, 87 N. E. 112, 117.
The trial court held a preliminary hearing as to admissibility of these confessions before the jury. No defendant objected or requested a hearing with the jury absent. The court advised counsel for each defendant that he might cross-examine all witnesses called by the State and offer any on his own behalf, and both privileges were exercised. The judge ruled that a question of fact resulted, which he submitted under instructions which authorized the jury to find the confessions coerced not only because of “force and intimidation and fear” but also for any “implied coercion because of the manner in which they [the confessors] were kept in custody,” and on both grounds the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt was placed upon the State.
New York procedure does not leave the outcome finally to the caprice of a lay jury, unfamiliar with the techniques of trial practice. The trial judge, too, has a heavy responsibility resulting from broad powers to set aside a verdict if he thinks the evidence does not warrant it. Petitioners submitted such a motion, which the judge denied, thus adding the weight of his own approval to the jury verdict.
An attack on the fairness of New York procedure is that petitioners could not take the witness stand to support, with their own oaths, the charges their counsel made against the state police without becoming subject to general cross-examination. State law on the subject is disputed and uncertain. It is clear that the Court of Appeals would not have held it error had such witnesses been subjected to general cross-examination. Respondents, however, contend, and petitioners deny, that it is the practice of trial courts to limit cross-examination under these circumstances, and each cites records of prosecutions to confirm its position.
It is not impossible that cross-examination could be employed so as to work a denial of due process. But no basis is laid for such a contention here. Appellate courts leave an exceptional discretion to trial courts to prevent abuse and injustice. But here the defendants took no step which would call for or permit an exercise of such discretion. They made no request for a ruling by the trial court and made no offer or suggestion of readiness to testify, however restricted the cross-examination might be. We do not know whether, or how far, the court would have permitted any line of cross-examination, nor what specific limitation defendants would have claimed. We will not adjudge a trial court guilty of constructive abuse by imputing to it a ruling that never was made on a proposition that never was put to it.
Petitioners’ attack is so unbounded and unqualified that it could prevail only if the Fourteenth Amendment were construed to allow them to testify to their coercion by the police, shielded from any cross-examination whatever. If they had given such testimony, it would have been in direct conflict with that of the police, and the decision would depend on which was believable. Certainly the Constitution does not prohibit tests of credibility which American law uniformly applies to witnesses. If in open court, free from violence or threat of it, defendants had been obliged to admit incriminating facts, it might bear on the credibility of their claim that the same facts were admitted to the police only in response to beating. And if they became witnesses, does the Constitution compel the State to forego attack on their credibility by showing former convictions? We now know that each had an impressive felony record, one including murder and another perjury. Doubtless, to have testified would have resulted in disclosing this to the jury, while silence would keep it from being brought to light until after the verdict. We think, on any realistic view of this case, they stayed off the stand not because the State would subject them to any improper cross-examination but because their records made them vulnerable to any proper one.
The State did not seek to draw any inference adverse to defendants from their choice of silence, cf. Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, beyond the obvious fact that their confessions have not been repudiated, their charge of police violence is left without testimonial support, and the police account of the confessions is undenied. In trial of a coercion issue, as of every other issue, when the prosecution has made a case to go to the jury, an accused must choose between the disadvantage from silence and that from testifying. The Constitution safeguards the right of a defendant to remain silent; it does not assure him that he may remain silent and still enjoy the advantages that might have resulted from testifying. We cannot say that petitioners have been denied a fair hearing of the coercion charge.
Petitioners suffer a disadvantage inseparable from the issues they raise in that this procedure does not produce any definite, open and separate decision of the confession issue. Being cloaked by the general verdict, petitioners do not know what result they really are attacking here. For all we know, the confession issue may have been decided in their favor. The jury may have agreed that the confessions were coerced, or at least that the State had not met the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they were voluntary. If the method of submission is, as we believe, constitutional, it leaves us to review hypothetical alternatives.
This method of trying the coercion issue to a jury is not informative as to its disposition. Sometimes the record permits a guess or inference, but where other evidence of guilt is strong a reviewing court cannot learn, whether the final result was to receive or to reject the confessions as evidence of guilt. Perhaps a more serious, practical cause of dissatisfaction is the absence of any assurance that the confessions did not serve as makeweights in a compromise verdict, some jurors accepting the confessions to overcome lingering doubt of guilt, others rejecting them but finding their doubts satisfied by other evidence, and yet others or perhaps all never reaching a separate and definite conclusion as to the confessions but returning an unanalytical and impressionistic verdict based on all they had heard. Courts uniformly disapprove compromise verdicts but are without other means than admonitions to ascertain or control the practice. Defendants, when two or more issues are submitted, are entitled to instructions appropriate to discountenance, discourage and forbid such practice. However, no question is raised in this respect as to the charge in this case.
In civil cases, certainty and exposure of the process is sometimes sought by the special verdict or by submission of interrogatories. E. g., Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 49. But no general practice of these techniques has developed in American criminal procedure. Our own Rules of Criminal Procedure make no provision for anything but a general verdict. Indeed, departure from this has sometimes been resisted as an impairment of the right to trial by jury, see People v. Tessmer, 171 Mich. 522, 137 N. W. 214; State v. Boggs, 87 W. Va. 738, 106 S. E. 47, which usually implies one simple general verdict that convicts or frees the accused.
Nor have the courts favored any public or private post-trial inquisition of jurors as to how they reasoned, lest it operate to intimidate, beset and harass them. This Court will not accept their own disclosure of forbidden quotient verdicts in damage cases. McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264. Nor of compromise in a criminal case whereby some jurors exchanged their convictions on one issue in return for concession by other jurors on another issue. Hyde v. United States, 225 U. S. 347. “If evidence thus secured could be thus used, the result would be to make what was intended to be a private deliberation, the constant subject of public investigation — to the destruction of all frankness and freedom of discussion and conference.” McDonald v. Pless, supra, at 267-268.
But this inability of a reviewing court to see what the jury has really done is inherent in jury trial of any two or more issues, and departure from instruction is a risk inseparable from jury secrecy and independence. The uncertainty, while the cause of concern and dissatisfaction in the literature of the profession, does not render the customary jury practice unconstitutional.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid jury trial of the issue. The states are free to allocate functions as between judge and jury as they see fit. Cf. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211. Many states emulate the New York practice, while others hold that presence of the jury during preliminary hearing is not error. Despite the difficult problems raised by such jury trial, we will not strike down as unconstitutional procedures so long established and widely approved by state judiciaries, regardless of our personal opinion as to their wisdom.
We have, therefore, to consider the constitutional effect of both alternatives left to the jury by the court’s instruction, assuming it to have followed one or the other. They involve very different considerations and are best discussed separately.
IV. Was it Unconstitutional if These Confessions Were Used as the Basis of Conviction?
Since these convictions may rest in whole or in part upon the confessions, we must consider whether they are a constitutionally permissible foundation for a finding of guilt.
Inquiries on which this Court must be satisfied are: (1) Under what circumstances were the confessions obtained? (2) Has the use of the confessions been repugnant to “that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice”? Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 236. The first is identical with that litigated before the trial court and jury. The second is within, if not identical with, those questions considered by the state appellate court. As to both questions, we have the identical evidence that was before both state courts. At the threshold of our inquiry, therefore, lies the question: What, if any, weight do we give to the verdict of the jury, the rulings of the trial judge and the determination of the state appellate court?
Petitioners’ argument here essentially is that the conclusions of the New York judges and jurors are mistaken and that by reweighing the same evidence we, as a super-jury, should find that the confessions were coerced. This misapprehends our function and scope of review, a misconception which may be shared by some state courts with the result that they feel a diminished sense of responsibility for protecting defendants in confession cases.
Of course, this Court cannot allow itself to be completely bound by state court determination of any issue essential to decision of a claim of federal right, else federal law could be frustrated by distorted fact finding. But that does not mean that we give no weight to the decision below, or approach the record de novo or with the latitude of choice open to some state appellate courts, such as the New York Court of Appeals. Mr. Justice Brandéis, for this Court, long ago warned that the Fourteenth Amendment does not, in guaranteeing due process, assure immunity from judicial error. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. v. Milwaukee, 252 U. S. 100, 106. It is only miscarriages of such gravity and magnitude that they cannot be expected to happen in an enlightened system of justice, or be tolerated by it if they do, that cause us to intervene to review, in the name of the Federal Constitution, the weight of conflicting evidence to support a decision by a state' court.
It is common courtroom knowledge that extortion of confessions by “third-degree” methods is charged falsely as well as denied falsely. The practical problem is to separate the true from the false. Primary, and in most cases final, responsibility for determining contested facts rests, and must rest, upon state trial and appellate courts.
A jury and the trial judge — knowing local conditions, close to the scene of events, hearing and observing the witnesses and parties — have the same undeniable advantages over any appellate tribunal in determining the charge of coercion of a confession as in determining the main charge of guilt of the crime. When the issue has been fairly tried and reviewed, and there is no indication that constitutional standards of judgment have been disregarded, we will accord to the state’s own decision great and, in the absence of impeachment by conceded facts, decisive respect. Gallegos v. Nebraska, 342 U. S. 55, 60; Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596, 602-603; Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219.
Accordingly, we accept this verdict and judgment as a permissible resolution of contradictions in evidence or conflicting inferences unless, as is urged, undisputed facts indicate use of incorrect constitutional standards of judgment. This may best be determined by separate examination of the following conclusions, implicit in the judgments below: (1) that these confessions were not extorted by physical coercion; (2) that these confessions were not extorted by methods which, though short of physical coercion, were so oppressive as to render the confessions inadmissible; and (3) that admitted illegal detention of petitioners at the time of the confessions did not render them inadmissible.
1. Physical violence. — Physical violence or threat of it by the custodian of a prisoner during detention serves no lawful purpose, invalidates confessions that otherwise would be convincing, and is universally condemned by the law. When present, there is no need to weigh or measure its effects on the will of the individual victim. The tendency of the innocent, as well as the guilty, to risk remote results of a false confession rather than suffer immediate pain is so strong that judges long ago found it necessary to guard against miscarriages of justice by treating any confession made concurrently with torture or threat of brutality as too untrustworthy to be received as evidence of guilt.
Admitted injuries and bruises on defendants' bodies after arraignment were mute but unanswerable witnesses that their persons recently had been subjected to violence from some source. Slight evidence, even interested testimony, that it occurred during the period of detention or at the hands of the police, or failure by the prosecution to meet the charge with all reasonably available evidence, might well have tipped the scales of decision below. Even here, it would have force if there were any evidence whatever to connect the admitted injuries with the events or period of interrogation. But there is no such word in the record.
On the contrary, we have positive testimony of the police, not materially inconsistent or inherently improbable, unshaken on cross-examination. The only expert testimony on the subject is undisputed and is that the injuries may have been sustained before arrest. This becomes more than a possibility when we consider that neither defendants nor anyone else tells us what defendants were up to in the period just prior to arrest. We are not convinced from their criminal records and way
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether, under all the circumstances here, respondent School Board’s adoption of a “freedom-of-choice” plan which allows a pupil to choose his own public school constitutes adequate compliance with the Board’s responsibility “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis . . . .” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 300-301 (Brown II).
Petitioners brought this action in March 1965 seeking injunctive relief against respondent’s continued maintenance of an alleged racially segregated school system. New Kent County is a rural county in Eastern Virginia. About one-half of its population of some 4,500 are Negroes. There is no residential segregation in the county; persons of both races reside throughout. The school system has only two schools, the New Kent school on the east side of the county and the George W. Watkins school on the west side. In a memorandum filed May 17, 1966, the District Court found that the “school system serves approximately 1,300 pupils, of which 740 are Negro and 550 are White. The School Board operates one white combined elementary and high school [New Kent], and one Negro combined elementary and high school [George W. Watkins]. There are no attendance zones. Each school serves the entire county.” The record indicates that 21 school buses — 11 serving the Watkins school and 10 serving the New Kent school — travel overlapping routes throughout the county to transport pupils to and from the two schools.
The segregated system was initially established and maintained under the compulsion of Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating racial segregation in public education, Va. Const., Art. IX, § 140 (1902); Va. Code § 22-221 (1950). These provisions were held to violate the Federal Constitution in Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, decided with Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 487 (Brown I). The respondent School Board continued the segregated operation of the system after the Brown decisions, presumably on the authority of several statutes enacted by Virginia in resistance to those decisions. Some of these statutes were held to be unconstitutional on their face or as applied. One statute, the Pupil Placement Act, Va. Code §22-232.1 et seq. (1964), not repealed until 1966, divested local boards of authority to assign children to particular schools and placed that authority in a State Pupil Placement Board. Under that Act children were each year automatically reassigned to the school previously attended unless upon their application the State Board assigned them to another school; students seeking enrollment for the first time were also assigned at the discretion of the State Board. To September 1964, no Negro pupil had applied for admission to the New Kent school under this statute and no white pupil had applied for admission to the Watkins school.
The School Board initially sought dismissal of this suit on the ground that petitioners had failed to apply to the State Board for assignment to New Kent school. However on August 2, 1965, five months after the suit was brought, respondent School Board, in order to remain eligible for federal financial aid, adopted a “freedom-of-choice” plan for desegregating the schools. Under that plan, each pupil, except those entering the first and eighth grades, may annually choose between the New Kent and Watkins schools and pupils not making a choice are assigned to the school previously attended; first and eighth grade pupils must affirmatively choose a school. After the plan was filed the District Court denied petitioners’ prayer for an injunction and granted respondent leave to submit an amendment to the plan with respect to employment and assignment of teachers and staff on a racially nondiscriminatory basis. The amendment was duly filed and on June 28, 1966, the District Court approved the “freedom-of-choice” plan as so amended. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en banc, 382 F. 2d 338, affirmed the District Court’s approval of the “freedom-of-choice” provisions of the plan but remanded the case to the District Court for entry of an order regarding faculty “which is much more specific and more comprehensive” and which would incorporate in addition to a “minimal, objective time table” some of the faculty provisions of the decree entered by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F. 2d 836, aff’d en banc, 380 F. 2d 385 (1967). Judges Sobeloff and Winter concurred with the remand on the teacher issue but otherwise disagreed, expressing the view “that the District Court should be directed . . . also to set up procedures for periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the [Board’s] ‘freedom of choice’ [plan] in the elimination of other features of a segregated school system.” Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, 382 F. 2d 326, at 330. We granted certiorari, 389 U. S. 1003.
The pattern of separate “white” and “Negro” schools in the New Kent County school system established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown II were particularly addressed, and which Brown I declared unconstitutionally denied Negro school children equal protection of the laws. Racial identification of the system’s schools was complete, extending not just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools but to every facet of school operations — faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities. In short, the State, acting through the local school board and school officials, organized and operated a dual system, part “white” and part “Negro.”
It was such dual systems that 14 years ago Brown I held unconstitutional and a year later Brown II held must be abolished; school boards operating such school systems were required by Brown II “to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system.” 349 U. S., at 301. It is of course true that for the time immediately after Brown II the concern was with making an initial break in a long-established pattern of excluding Negro children from schools attended by white children. The principal focus was on obtaining for those Negro children courageous enough to break with tradition a place in the “white” schools. See, e. g., Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1. Under Brown II that immediate goal was only the first step, however. The transition to a unitary, nonracial system of public education was and is the ultimate end to be brought about; it was because of the “complexities arising from the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination” that we provided for “all deliberate speed” in the implementation of the principles of Brown I. 349 U. S., at 299-301. Thus we recognized the task would necessarily involve solution of “varied local school problems.” Id., at 299. In referring to the “personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” we also noted that “[t]o effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition . . . .” Id., at 300. Yet we emphasized that the constitutional rights of Negro children required school officials to bear the burden of establishing that additional time to carry out the ruling in an effective manner “is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date.” Ibid. We charged the district courts in their review of particular situations to
“consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system.” Id., at 300-301.
It is against this background that 13 years after Brown II commanded the abolition of dual systems we must measure the effectiveness of respondent School Board’s “freedom-of-choice” plan to achieve that end. The School Board contends that it has fully discharged its obligation by adopting a plan by which every student, regardless of race, may “freely” choose the school he will attend. The Board attempts to cast the issue in its broadest form by arguing that its “freedom-of-choice” plan may be faulted only by reading the Fourteenth Amendment as universally requiring “compulsory integration,” a reading it insists the wording of the Amendment will not support. But that argument ignores the thrust of Brown II. In the light of the command of that case, what is involved here is the question whether the Board has achieved the “racially nondiscriminatory school system” Brown II held must be effectuated in order to remedy the established unconstitutional deficiencies of its segregated system. In the context of the state-imposed segregated pattern of long standing, the fact that in 1965 the Board opened the doors of the former “white” school to Negro children and of the “Negro” school to white children merely begins, not ends, our inquiry whether the Board has taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system. Brown II was a call for the dismantling of well-entrenched dual systems tempered by an awareness that complex and multifaceted problems would arise which would require time and flexibility for a successful resolution. School boards such as the respondent then operating state-compelled dual systems were nevertheless clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch. See Cooper v. Aaron, supra, at 7; Bradley v. School Board, 382 U. S. 103; cf. Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 TJ. S. 526. The constitutional rights of Negro school children articulated in Brown I permit no less than this; and it was to this end that Brown II commanded school boards to bend their efforts.
In determining whether respondent School Board met that command by adopting its “freedom-of-choice” plan, it is relevant that this first step did not come until some 11 years after Brown I was decided and 10 years after Brown II directed the making of a “prompt and reasonable start.” This deliberate perpetuation of the unconstitutional dual system can only have compounded the harm of such a system. Such delays are no longer tolerable, for “the governing constitutional principles no longer bear the imprint of newly enunciated doctrine.” Watson v. City of Memphis, supra, at 529; see Bradley v. School Board, supra; Rogers v. Paul, 382 TJ. S. 198. Moreover, a plan that at this late date fails to provide meaningful assurance of prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system is also intolerable. “The time for mere ‘deliberate speed’ has run out,” Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U. S. 218, 234; “the context in which we must interpret and apply this language [of Brown II] to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered.” Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683, 689. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263. The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.
The obligation of the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan in achieving desegregation. There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the options available in each instance. It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed dual system “at the earliest practicable date,” then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith; and at the least it places a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less effective method. Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed. See No. 805, Raney v. Board of Education, post, at 449.
We do not hold that “freedom of choice” can have no place in such a plan. We do not hold that a “freedom-of-choice” plan might of itself be unconstitutional, although that argument has been urged upon us. Rather, all we decide today is that in desegregating a dual system a plan utilizing “freedom of choice” is not an end in itself. As Judge Sobeloff has put it,
“'Freedom of choice’ is not a sacred talisman; it is only a means to a constitutionally required end — the abolition of the system of segregation and its effects. If the means prove effective, it is acceptable, but if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve this end. The school officials have the continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a ‘unitary, nonracial system.’ ” Bowman v. County School Board, 382 F. 2d 326, 333 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1967) (concurring opinion).
Accord, Kemp v. Beasley, 389 F. 2d 178 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1968); United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, supra. Although the general experience under “freedom of choice” to date has been such as to indicate its ineffectiveness as a tool of desegregation, there may well be instances in which it can serve as an effective device. Where it offers real promise of aiding a desegregation program to effectuate conversion of a state-imposed dual system to a unitary, nonracial system there might be no objection to allowing such a device to prove itself in operation. On the other hand, if there are reasonably available other ways, such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system, “freedom of choice” must be held unacceptable.
The New Kent School Board’s “freedom-of-choice” plan cannot be accepted as a sufficient step to “effectuate a transition” to a unitary system. In three years of operation not a single white child has chosen to attend Watkins school and although 115 Negro children enrolled in New Kent school in 1967 (up from 35 in 1965 and 111 in 1966) 85% of the Negro children in the system still attend the all-Negro Watkins school. In other words, the school system remains a dual system. Rather than further the dismantling of the dual system, the plan has operated simply to burden children and their parents with a responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board. The Board must be required to formulate a new plan and, in light of other courses which appear open to the Board, such as zoning, fashion steps which promise realistically to convert promptly to a system without a “white” school and a “Negro” school, but just schools.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it affirmed the District Court and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
E. g., Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218; Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 304 F. 2d 118 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1962); Adkins v. School Board of City of Newport News, 148 F. Supp. 430 (D. C. E. D. Va.), aff'd, 246 F. 2d 325 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1957); James v. Almond, 170 F. Supp. 331 (D. C. E. D. Va. 1959); Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 439, 106 S. E. 2d 636 (1959).
Congress, concerned with the lack of progress in school desegregation, included provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deal with the problem through various agencies of the Federal Government. 78 Stat. 246, 252, 266, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000c et seq., 2000d et seq., 2000h-2. In Title VI Congress declared that
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000d.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued regulations covering racial discrimination in federally aided school systems, as directed by 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-l, and in a statement of policies, or “guidelines,” the Department’s Office of Education established standards according to which school systems in the process of desegregation can remain qualified for federal funds. 45 CFR §§ 80.1-80.13, 181.1-181.76 (1967). “Freedom-of-choice” plans are among those considered acceptable, so long as in operation such a plan proves effective. 45 CFR § 181.54. The regulations provide that a school system “subject to a final order of a court of the United States for the desegregation of such school . . . system” with which the system agrees to comply is deemed to be in compliance with the statute and regulations. 45 CFR § 80.4(c). See also 45 CFR §181.6. See generally Dunn, Title VI, the Guidelines and School Desegregation in the South, 53 Va. L. Rev. 42 (1967); Note, 55 Geo. L. J. 325 (1966); Comment, 77 Yale L. J. 321 (1967).
This case was decided per curiam on the basis of the opinion in Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, 382 F. 2d 326, decided the same day. Certiorari has not been sought for the Bowman case itself.
“We bear in mind that the court has not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the future.” Louisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145, 154. Compare the remedies discussed in, e. g., NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U. S. 241; United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1. See also Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U. S. 218, 232-234.
The views of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which we neither adopt nor refuse to adopt, are as follows:
“Freedom of choice plans, which have tended to perpetuate racially identifiable schools in the Southern and border States, require affirmative action by both Negro and white parents and pupils before such disestablishment can be achieved. There are a number of factors which have prevented such affirmative action by substantial numbers of parents and pupils of both races:
“(a) Fear of retaliation and hostility from the white community continue to deter many Negro families from choosing formerly all-white schools;
“(b) During the past school year [1966-1967], as in the previous year, in some areas of the South, Negro families with children attending previously all-white schools under free choice plans were targets of violence, threats of violence and economic reprisal by white persons and Negro children were subjected to harassment by white classmates notwithstanding conscientious efforts by many teachers and principals to prevent such misconduct;
“(c) During the past school year, in some areas of the South public officials improperly influenced Negro families to keep their children in Negro schools and excluded Negro children attending formerly all-white schools from official functions;
“(d) Poverty deters many Negro families in the South from choosing formerly all-white schools. Some Negro parents are embarrassed to permit their children to attend such schools without suitable clothing. In some districts special fees are assessed for courses which are available only in the white schools;
“(e) Improvements in facilities and equipment . . . have been instituted in all-Negro schools in some school districts in a manner that tends to discourage Negroes from selecting white schools.”
Southern School Desegregation, 1966-1967, at 88 (1967). See id,., at 45-69; Survey of School Desegregation in the Southern and Border States 1965-1966, at 30-44, 51-52 (U. S. Comm’n on Civil Rights 1966).
“In view of the situation found in New Kent County, where there is no residential segregation, the elimination of the dual school system and the establishment of a 'unitary, non-racial system’ could be readily achieved with a minimum of administrative difficulty by means of geographic zoning — simply by assigning students living in the eastern half of the county to the New Kent School and those living in the western half of the county to the Watkins School. Although a geographical formula is not universally appropriate, it is evident that here the Board, by separately busing Negro children across the entire county to the 'Negro’ school, and the white children to the 'white’ school, is deliberately maintaining a segregated system which would vanish with non-racial geographic zoning. The conditions in this county present a classical case for this expedient.” Bowman v. County School Board, supra, n. 3, at 332 (concurring opinion).
Petitioners have also suggested that the Board could consolidate the two schools, one site {e. g., Watkins) serving grades 1-7 and the other (e. g., New Kent) serving grades 8-12, this being the grade division respondent makes between elementary and secondary levels. Petitioners contend this would result in a more efficient system by eliminating costly duplication in this relatively small district while at the same time achieving immediate dismantling of the dual system.
These are two suggestions the District Court should take into account upon remand, along with any other proposed alternatives and in light of considerations respecting other aspects of the school system such as the matter of faculty and staff desegregation remanded to the court by the Court of Appeals.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The" respondent railroad company dismissed an employee named Humphries on the ground that he had assaulted two fellow employees. His union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, protested the discharge. The customary grievance procedures on the property were invoked, but to no avail. To .enforce its demand that Humphries be reinstated, the union threatened to call a strike. Before a strike was actually Called, the respondent submitted the dispute to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, pursuant to § 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. The Adjustment Board sustained the employee’s claim for reinstatement in the following brief order:
“Claim sustained with pay for time lost as the rule is construed on the property.”
. The respondent reinstated Humphries, and, for the purpose of computing his pay for lost time, it asked him to submit a record of the outside income he had earned during the period which followed his dismissal. Hum-phries and his union resisted this demand for information, claiming that the Adjustment Board’s award entitled him to full pay for the time lost, without deduction for outside income.
Several conferences were called to discuss this dispute. When the respondent refused to accede to the union’s interpretation of the award’s lost-time provision, the union again threatened to call a strike. To forestall "the impending work stoppage, the respondent twice petitioned the Adjustment Board to resolve the dispute as to the amount due Humphries under the award, asking the Board first for a clarification-of its earlier order and then submitting the disputed issue for resolution in a separate de novo proceeding. The Adjustment Board refused to entertain either petition, stating in its second order that “The matter must be ■ judged res judicata” in light of the original Adjustment Board decision dealing with the Humphries controversy.
After the respondent had submitted the dispute for the second time to the Adjustment Board, the union set a definite strike deadline. The respondent then brought the present lawsuit in a Federal District Court, requesting injunctive relief against the threatened strike. After the Adjustment Board proceedings were completed, the court issued the injunction, holding that under the Railway Labor Act the union could not legally strike for the purpose of enforcing its interpretation of the Board’s money award, but must instead utilize the judicial enforcement procedure provided by § 3 First (p) of the Act. 190 F. Supp. 829. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, 297 F. 2d 608, and we' granted certiorari to consider an obviously substantial question affecting the administration of the Railway Labor Act. 370 U. S. 908. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that the District Court and the Court of Appeals correctly decided the issues presented, and we accordingly affirm the judgment before us.
The statute governing the central issue in this case is § 3 First of the Railway Labor Act, covering so-called “minor disputes.” The present provisions of § 3 First were added to the Act in 1934. The historical background of these provisions has been described at length .in previous opinions of this Court. See Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711; Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price, 360 U. S. 601. As explained in detail in those opinions, the 1934 amendments were enacted because the scheme of voluntary arbitration contained in the original Railway Labor Act had proved incapable of achieving peaceful settlements of grievance disputes. To arrive at a more efficacious solution, Congress, at the behest of the several interests ■ involved, settled upon a new detailed' and comprehensive statutory grievance procedure.
Subsections (a) to (h) of § 3 First create the National Railroad Adjustment Board and define its composition and duties. Subsection (i) provides that it shall be the duty of both the carrier and the union to negotiate on the property concerning all minor disputes which arise; failing adjustment by this means, “the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board . ...” Subsection (l) directs the appointment of a neutral referee to sit on the Adjustment Board in the event its regular members are evenly divided. Subsection (m) makes awards of the Adjustment Board “final and binding upon both parties to the dispute, except insofar as' they shall contain a money award.” It further directs the Adjustment Board to entertain a petition for clarification of its award if a dispute should arise over its meaning. And finally, subsections (o) and (p) describe the manner in which Adjustment Board awards may be enforced, providing for the issuance of an order by the Board itself and for judicial action to enforce such orders.
The several decisions of this Court interpreting § 3 First have made it clear that this statutory grievance procedure is a mandatory, exclusive, and comprehensive system for resolving grievance disputes. The right of one party to place the disputed issue before the Adjustment Board, with or without the consent of the other, has been firmly established. Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S., at 34. And the-other party may not defeat this right by resorting to some other forum. Thus, in Order of Conductors v. Southern R. Co., 339 U. S. 255, the Court held that a state'court could not take jurisdiction over an employer’s declaratory judgment action concerning an employee grievance subject to § 3 First, because, “if a carrier or a union could choose a court instead of the Board, the other party would be deprived.of the privilege conferred by § 3 First (i) '. . . which provides that after negotiations have failed, 'either party’ may refer the dispute to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board.” Id., at 256-257. See Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239. Similarly, an employee is barred from choosing another forum in which to litigate claims arising under the collective agreement. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Day, 360 U. S. 548, 552-553. A corollary of this view has been the principle that the process of decision through the Adjustment Board cannot be challenged collaterally by methods of review not provided for in the statute. In Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price, 360 U. S. 601, the Court held that an employee could not resort to a. common law action for wrongful discharge after the same claim had been rejected on the merits in a proceeding before the Adjustment Board. The decision in that case was based upon the conclusion that, when invoked, the remedies provided for in § 3 First were intended by Congress to be the complete and final means for settling minor disputes. 360 U. S., at 616-617. See also, Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, 75 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 124 F. 2d 235 (per. Rutledge, J.), aff’d by an equally divided court, 319 U. S. 732.
Of even more particularized relevance to the issue now before us is this Court’s decision in Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., supra. There the railroad had submitted several common grievances.to the Adjustment Board pursuant to'§ 3 First (i). The union had resisted the submission, and called a strike to énforce its grievance demands. The Court held that the strike violated those provisions of the Act making the minor dispute procedures compulsory on both parties. In an opinion which reviewed at length the legislative history of the 1934 amendments, the Court concluded that this history • entirely supported the plain import of the statutory language — that Congress had intended the grievance procedures of § 3 First to be a compulsory substitute for economic self-help, not merely a voluntary alternative to it. For this reason, the Court concluded that the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 101-115, was not a bar to injunctive relief against strikes called in support of grievance disputes which had been submitted to the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
It is against this pattern of decisions that we must evaluate the petitioners’ claim that the District Court in the. present ease was wrong in enjoining the threaténed strike. The claim, simply stated, is that the power to issue injunctions recognized by the Chicago River decision is limited to those situations in which a strike is called during the'proceedings before the Adjustment Board. Once a favorable award has been rendered, say the petitioners, .the union becomes free to enforce the award as it will— by invoking the judicial enforcement procedures of § 3 First (p),'or by resorting to economic force. The right to strike, it is argued, is necessary to achieve “the congressional policy of requiring carriers and their employees to settle grievances by the collective bargaining process.”
The broad premise of the petitioners’ argument — that Congress intended to permit the settlement of minor disputes through the interplay of economic force — is squarely in conflict with the basic teaching of Chicago River. After a detailed analysis of the historic background of the 1934 Act, the Court there determined that “there was general understanding between both the supporters and the opponents of the 1934 amendment that the provisions dealing with the • Adjustment Board. were to be considered as-compulsory arbitration in this limited field.” 353 U. S., at 39.
The petitioners’ narrower argument — that, at the' least, strikes may be permitted after the Adjustment Board makes an award — is likewise untenable under the circumstances of this case. We do not deal here with non-money awards, which áre made “final and binding” by. § 3 First (m).. The- only' portion of the award which presently remains unsettled is the dispute concerning the computation of Humphries’ “time lost” award, an issue wholly separable from the merits of i the wrongful discharge issue. This, then, is clearly a controversy concerning a “money award,” as to which decisions of the Adjustment Board are not final and binding. Instead, the Act' provides a further step in the settlement process. If the carrier does not comply with the award, or with the employee’s or union’s interpretation, of it, § 3 First (p) authorizes the employee to bring an action in a Federal District Court to enforce the award. The lawsuit is to “proceed in all respects as other civil suits,” but the findings and order of the Adjustment Board are to be regarded as “prima facie evidence” of the facts stated in thé complaint. The employee, is excused from the costs of suit, and, in addition, is awarded attorney’s fees if he prevails. The total effect of these detailed provisions is to provide .a carefully designed procedure for reviewing money • awards, one which will achieve the reviewing function without any significant expense to the employee or his union. See Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, supra.
■ The express provision for this special form of judicial review for money awards, both in subsection (m) and again in subsection (p), makes it clear that Congress regarded this procedure as an integral part of the Act’s grievance machinery. Congress-has, in effect, decreed a two-step grievance procedure, for money awards, with the first step, the Adjustment Board order and findings, serving, as the foundation for the second. Money awards against carriers cannot be made final by any other means. To allow one of the parties to resort to economic self-help at this point in the process would violate this direct statu - tory. command. It would permit'that party to withdraw at will from the process of settlement which Congress has expressly required both parties to follow. ■ In addition, it would obviously render the earlier parts of the grievance procedure totally meaningless.
A strike in these circumstances would therefore be no less disruptive of the explicit statutory grievance procedure than was the strike enjoined in the Chicago River case. Consequently, the reasons which, in'that case, required accommodating the more generalized provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act' apply with equal force to the present case. We hold that the District Court was not in error in issuing the injunction.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
"(i) The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including .cases pending and unadjusted on June 21, 1934, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the. disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of .the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes.” 45 U. S. C. § 153 First (i).
“(p) If a carrier does not comply with an order of a division of the Adjustment Board within the time limit in such order, the petitioner, or any person for whose benefit such order was made, may. file in the District Court of the United States for the district in which he resides or in which is located the principal operating office of the carrier, or through' which the carrier operates, a petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he claims relief, and the order of the division of the- Adjustment Board in the premises. Such suit in the District Court of the United States shall proceed in all respects as other civil suits, except that on the trial of such suit the findings and order of the division of'the Adjustment Board shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and except that the petitioner shall not be liable for costs in the district court nor for costs at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, unless they accrue upon his appeal, and such costs shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. If the petitioner shall finally prevail he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit. The district courts are empowered, under the rules of the court governing actions at law, to make such order- and enter such judgment, by writ of mandamus of otherwise, as may be appropriate to enforce or set aside the order of the division of the Adjustment Board.” 45 U. S. C. § 153 First (p).
There can be no doubt that the controversy over the amount of the “time lost” award is a minor dispute, because it involves “the interpretation or application” of the collective agreement between the railroad and the union. See note 1, supra. See also, Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711; Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30.
48 Stat. 1185, 1189 (1934).
44 Stat. 577, 578 (1926).
45 U. S. C. § 153 First (a)-(h).
See note 1, supra.
45 U. S. C. § 153 First (1).
"(m) The awards of the several divisions of the Adjustment Board shall be stated in writing. A copy of the awards shall be furnished to the respective parties to the controversy, and the awards' shall be final and binding upon both parties to the dispute, except insofar as they shall contain a money award. In case a dispute arises involving an interpretation of the award, the division of the Board upon request of either' party shall interpret the award in the light of the dispute.” 45 U. S. C. § 153 First (m).
“(o) In case of an award by any division of-the Adjustment Board in favor of petitioned, the division of the Board shall make an order, directed to the carrier, to make the award effective and, if the' award-includes a.requirement for the payment of money, to pay to' the employee the sum to which he is entitled under the award on or be'fore a day named.” 45 U. S. C. §153 First (o).
The language of § 3 First (p).is set out in note 2, supra.
“[The Norris-LaGuardia Afct was designed primarily] to prevent the injunctions of the federal courts from upsetting the natural interplay of the competing economic forces of labor and capital. Rep. LaGuardia . . .. recognized that the machinery of the Railway Labor Act channeled these economic forces, in matters dealing with railway. labor, into special -processes intended to compromise them. Such controversies, therefore, are not the same as those- in which the injunction strips labor of its primary weapon without substituting any reasonable alternative.” 353 U. S., at 40-41. Cf. Manion v. Kansas City Terminal R. Co., 353 U. S. 927, which held that injune-tive relief is not available if the processes of the Railway Labor Act Jiave not actually been invoked. Compare Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, 210-212.
See note 9, supra.
See note 9, supra.
See note 2, supra.
See note 11; supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Petitioners, Autherine J. Lucy and Polly Anne Myers, citizens of Alabama, have been seeking admission to the University of Alabama since September 1952. Respondent William F. Adams is Dean of Admissions of the University. After hearings, United States District Judge Grooms of the Northern District of Alabama found that petitioners had been denied admission to the University “solely on account of their race and color.” Holding this denied petitioners equal protection of state laws, the court permanently enjoined respondent Adams, his agents, employees and others acting in concert with respondent “from denying the plaintiffs and others similarly situated the right to enroll in the University of Alabama and pursue courses of study thereat, solely on account of their race or color.” 134 F. Supp. 235. Respondent’s motion to suspend the injunction pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was granted by the District Judge. A judge of that court denied a motion to vacate the suspension and reinstate the injunction. A similar motion is now before us.
The motion is granted and the injunction is reinstated to the extent that it enjoins and restrains the respondent and others designated from denying these petitioners, Autherine Lucy and Polly Anne Myers, the right to enroll in the University of Alabama and pursue courses of study there. Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U. S. 637. In other respects, the motion is denied.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case is whether petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed within the time specified by Rule 37 (a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner was convicted on January 11, 1962, of violations of the postal laws. Four days later — on January 15 — he appeared for sentencing with the attorney who had been appointed to represent him at trial. Consecutive sentences aggregating 20 years were imposed, after which the defendant asked if he could appeal the case “as an insolvent.” The sentencing judge replied:
“Oh, yes, you always have a right to appeal; the Government provides for that.
“So that will be all. We are through with this case.
“Mr. Marshal, you may take charge of the defendant.”
Before he was taken out of the building, petitioner was given an opportunity to consult with his court-appointed attorney. According to the attorney’s later recollection, petitioner asked him at that time if he would be interested in representing him on an appeal. The attorney responded that his firm did not want him to undertake any further criminal matters, and that it would thus be best for petitioner to secure another attorney promptly so as not to forfeit his right to appeal. The attorney recalled that this conference lasted for about an hour and a half- — petitioner, that it lasted for only a few minutes. In any event, petitioner was then taken back to the medical center at which he had been quartered during the trial. Early the next morning, he was transferred to hospital facilities at Atlanta to commence his sentence. At neither place was he permitted to have visitors.
On January 29, 14 days after sentencing, the clerk of the court in which petitioner had been convicted received letters from petitioner asking for a new trial and for an appeal. The letters were dated January 23 by petitioner, and were mailed in a single envelope which bore a government frank but no postmark. No communications had been received in the interim from either petitioner or his court-appointed counsel.
The chief judge of the district then reappointed the same attorney for the purpose of presenting the motion for a new trial to the trial judge at a hearing which was set for that purpose. In due course the motion was denied on the merits, the time question having been argued but not decided. On the same day, petitioner’s reappointed attorney filed a notice of appeal and petitioner was granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Thereafter a new attorney was appointed to represent petitioner before the Court of Appeals and the case was set for hearing on the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal because the notice was not timely filed.
A divided Court of Appeals held, first, that petitioner’s motion for a new trial was not timely filed, and that the consideration of the motion on the merits by the trial judge was in error and thus could not serve to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. It then held that the time for filing the notice began on January 15 when petitioner was sentenced, and expired when on January 25 the clerk had not received the notice. 306 F. 2d 697. We granted certiorari, 374 U. S. 826, to consider whether the restrictive reading of the Rules by the court below was justified under the circumstances of this case. We have concluded that it was not, and accordingly remand the case for a disposition of petitioner’s appeal on the merits.
Rule 37 (a) provides that “[a]n appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from . . .” and that an appeal is taken “by filing with the clerk of the district court a notice of appeal . . . .” The Court of Appeals has read this to mean that, irrespective of the reason for the delay, the notice of appeal must actually be in the hands of the clerk on or before the 10th day. Since the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the hearing of the appeal, the court thus felt powerless to do anything but to dismiss.
Overlooked, in our view, was the fact that the Rules are not, and were not intended to be, a rigid code to have an inflexible meaning irrespective of the circumstances. Rule 2 begins with the admonition that “[tjhese rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.” That the Rules were not approached with sympathy for their purpose is apparent when the circumstances of this case are examined.
In the first place, in spite of the promise of the Rule, petitioner was forced to take his appeal without the assistance of counsel. He was whisked away from the place of trial (Jacksonville, Florida) on the day after he was sentenced, and, as he tells it without contradiction in the record, not permitted to have visitors, nor afforded the opportunity to secure another attorney. In addition to his normal physical problems, he was ill, and was thus confined in a hospital both in Jacksonville and in Atlanta.
It was not until January 23, as he tells it, again without contradiction in the record, that he felt well enough to write. Acting without advice as to the requirements of time, except that which he could acquire from other inmates, he then wrote two letters asking for a new trial and for the appeal which the trial judge promised that “the Government provides.” These letters were promptly mailed on January 23, for all the record shows, and by coincidence, no doubt, would thus in the normal course of events have been received by the clerk within the 10 days.
That they were not received within 10 days, however, is perhaps explained by the Government’s disclosure at oral argument that mail pickups at Atlanta at that time occurred only twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays. Thus, if petitioner deposited the letters with prison authorities after the hour of pickup on January 23, a Tuesday — and there is nothing in the record to show that anyone took the trouble to tell him about such mailing delays — his letters would not have been placed in the mail by prison authorities until Friday. They thus probably would not have been received by the clerk’s office until Monday the 29th, the day on which they were actually marked received by the clerk.
But whether or not this in fact occurred, there is no reason on the basis of what this record discloses to doubt that petitioner’s date at the top of the letter was an accurate one and that subsequent delays were not chargeable to him. Cf. Rosenbloom v. United States, 355 U. S. 80. There is no postmark on the envelope, nor any indication of the time at which the envelope came into the hands of prison officials. Other letters also mailed by petitioner from the prison took an equally long time to get to their destination. And although the Government had the opportunity, it introduced no evidence — and admitted on oral argument that it had none — to dispute the record facts that petitioner had done all that could reasonably be expected to get the letter to its destination within the required 10 days. Since petitioner did all he could under the circumstances, we decline to read the Rules so rigidly as to bar a determination of his appeal on the merits.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case remanded for a prompt disposition of the appeal on the merits.
It is so ordered.
Specifically, 18 U. S. C. §§ 371, 641, 2115.
As the result of an automobile accident in 1951, petitioner is a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair. In addition to complications which have resulted from his affliction, petitioner was at the time of sentencing suffering from the flu. He was kept in medical facilities, it appears, more because of his flu than his more permanent condition.
Rule 37 (a) (2) provides that if a motion for new trial is made within the 10 days during which an appeal must be taken, the appeal from the judgment of conviction may be taken within 10 days from the denial of the motion.
Rule 37 (a)(2) provides that “[w]hen a court after trial imposes sentence upon a defendant not represented, by counsel, the defendant shall be advised of his right to appeal and if he so requests, the clerk shall prepare and file forthwith a notice of appeal on behalf of the defendant.” (Emphasis added.) Although counsel was physically present at sentencing, it is an open question whether petitioner was “represented” by counsel within the meaning and purpose of the Rule.
See note 2, supra.
January 23 was the eighth day after sentencing, and the parties are agreed that a letter mailed on the 23d in Atlanta would normally be received in Jacksonville by the 25th.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Like Labor Board v. General Motors Corp., ante, p. 734, decided today, this case involves the status of an “agency shop” arrrangement. We have concluded that the contract involved here is within the scope of § 14 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act and therefore is congressionally made subject to prohibition by Florida law. We have not determined,' however, whether the Florida courts, rather than solely the National Labor Relations Board, are tribunals with jurisdiction to enforce the State’s prohibition against such arrangements. Accordingly, the case is retained on the calendar for reargument on the undecided issue.
Retail Clerks Local 1625 is the certified bargaining agent for the Food Fair Stores supermarket chain in five South Florida counties. In October I960- the union and the employer negotiated a collective bargaining agreement effective until April 1963. The contract provided for various terms and conditions of employment, such as protection against discharge except for just cause, paid vacations and holidays, pregnancy leaves of absence, life and hospitalization insurance, paid time off to vote, to serve on juries, and to attend funerals, as well as for wage-and-hour terms; a grievance and arbitration clause was inserted for enforcement of these terms, under which the union and employer agree to divide between them the cost of the grievance-arbitration machinery. The contract also contained Article 19, which is the subject of the present lawsuit:
“Employees shall have the right to voluntarily join or'refrain from joining the Union. Employees who choose not to join the Union, however, and who are covered by the terms of this contract, shall be required to pay as a condition of employment, an initial service fee and monthly service fees to the Union for the purpose of aiding the Union in defraying costs in connection with its legal obligations and responsibilities as -the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. The aforesaid fees shall be payable on or before the first day of each month, and such sums shall in no case exceed the initiation fees and the membership dues paid by those who voluntarily choose to join the Union. Other than the payment of these service fees, those employees who do not choose to join the Union shall be under ho further financial obligations or requirements of any kind to the Union. It shall also be a condition of employment that all employees covered by this Agreement shall on the 30th day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of this agreement, whichever is later, pay established initial and monthly service fees as shown above.”
The union and the employer jointly posted a notice to employees, immediately after execution of the collective agreement, explaining the new contract with particular reference to the agency shop clause:
“The Agency Shop recognizes that union membership in the State of Florida is a voluntary act of the employee.' On the other hand, under an Agency Shop Agreement, those Employees who do not become members of the Union nevertheless are required to pay the necessary service fees' to the Local Union in order to aid the Union in meeting its authorized expenses as the exclusive bargaining agent.
“Therefore, the Company and the Union have agreed that even though you may not have joined the Union, you are obligated, under the provisions of the Agency Shop, to pay an initial service fee which is the equal of the initiation fee for Union members and a monthly service fee which is the equal of the monthly dués for those who voluntarily become Union members. Note: An Employee who pays the regular initial fee and regular monthly service fee but does not voluntarily join the Union, does not participate' in the internal union affairs even though said Employee receives equal treatment under the . contract.”
The present class action was then instituted by respondents, four nonunion employees of Food Fair, who sought a declaration that Article 19 was “null and void and unenforceable,” a temporary and permanent injunction against petitioner and Food Fair to prevent them from requiring respondents or members of the class on behalf of which they sued (all Food Fair employees covered by the collective agreement) to contribute money to the union under Article 19, and an accounting. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss on the ground that Article 19 did not violate the Florida right-to-work law, Fla. Const. § 12. 47 L. R. R. M. 2300. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that state law forbade and that its courts could deal with the agency shop clause involved here, and remanded the ease for further proceedings in the trial court. 141 So. 2d 269, cert. granted, 371 U. S.909.
I.
The case to a great extent turns upon the scope and effect of § 14 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, added to the Act in 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 164 (b):
“Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution of application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.”
As is immediately apparent from its language, § 14 (b) was designed to prevent other sections of the Act from completely extinguishing state power over certain union-security arrangements. And it was the proviso to §8 (a) (3), expressly permitting agreements conditioning employment upon membership in a labor union, which Congress feared might have this result. It was desired to “make certain” that § 8 (a) (3) could not “be said to authorize arrangements of this sort in States where such arrangements were contrary to the State policy.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 60, 1 Leg. Hist. L. M. R. A. 564.
The connection between the §8(a)(3) proviso and § 14 (b) is clear. Whether they are perfectly coincident, we need not now decide, but unquestionably they overlap to some extent. At the very least, the agreements requiring “membership” in a labor union which are' expressly permitted by the proviso are the same “membership” agreements expressly placed within the reach of state law by § 14 (b). It follows that'the General Motors case rules this one, for we there held that the “agency shop” arrangement involved here — which imposes on employees the only membership obligation enforceable under § 8 (a) (3) by discharge, namely, the obligation to pay initiation fees and regular dues — is the “practical equivalent” of an “agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment.” Whatever may be the status of less stringent union-security arrangements, the agency shop is within § 14 (b). At least to that extent did Congress intend § 8(a)(3) and § 14 (b) to coincide.
Petitioners, belatedly, would now distinguish the contract involved here from the agency shop contract dealt with in the General Motors case on the basis of allegedly distinctive features which are said to require a different result. Article 19 provides for nonmember payments to the union “for the purpose of aiding the Union in defraying costs in connection with its legal obligations and responsibilities as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit,” a provision which petitioners say confines the use of nonmember payments to collective bargaining purposes alone and forbids their use by the union for institutional purposes unrelated to its exclusive agency functions, all.in sharp contrast, it is argued, to the General Motors situation where the nonmember contributions are available to the union without restriction.
We are wholly unpersuaded. There is before us little more than a complaint with its exhibits. The agency shop clause of the contract is, at best, ambiguous on its face and it should not, in the present posture of the case, be construed against respondent to raise a substantial difference between this and the General Motors case. There is no ironclad restriction imposed upon the use of nonmember fees, for the clause merely describes the payments as being for “the purpose of aiding the Union” in meeting collective bargaining expenses. The alleged restriction would not be breached if the service fee was used for both.collective bargaining and other expenses, for the union would be “aided” in meeting its agency obligations, not only by the part spent for bargaining purposes but also by the part spent for institutional items, since an equivalent amount of other union income would thereby be freed to pay the costs of bargaining agency functions.
But even if all collections from nonmembers must be directly committed to paying bargaining costs, this fact is of bookkeeping significance only rather than a matter of real substance. It must be remembered that the service fee is admittedly the exact equal of membership initiation fees and monthly dues, see p. 749, supm, and that, as the union says in its brief, dues collected from members ■ may be used for a “variety of purposes, in addition to meeting the union’s costs of collective bargaining.” Unions “rather typically” use their membership dues “to do those things which the members authorize the union to do in their interest and on their-behalf.” If the union’s total budget is divided between collective bargaining and institutional expenses and if nonmember payments, equal to those of a member, go entirely for collective bargaining costs, the nonmember will pay more of these expenses than his pro rata share. The member will pay less and to that extent a portion of his fees and dues is available to pay institutional expenses. The union’s budget is balanced. By paying a larger share of collective bargaining costs the nonmember subsidizes the union’s institutional activities. In over-all effect, economically, and we think for the purposes of § 14 (b), the contract here is the same as the General Motors agency shop arrangement. Petitioners’ argument, if accepted, would lead to the anomalous result of permitting Florida to invalidate the agency shop but forbidding it to ban the present service fee arrangement under which collective bargaining services cost the nonmember more than the member.
II.
The more difficult phases of this case remain. In petitioners’ motion to dismiss filed in the trial court the contract at issue was said to be. an arguable unfair labor practice and the subject matter of the action therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board and beyond the power of the state courts to prohibit. The motion was granted, but on- another ground, and the preemption argument was renewed but rejected in the Florida Supreme Court. It is now pressed here and has at least two related but distinctive aspects.
It is first urged that whether or not a particular union-security contract is within the category subjected to state law by § 14 (b) is a matter for the Board and no business of the state courts, at least in the doubtful cases where the coverage of § 14 (b) is not a clearly settled matter. If a contract is not within § 14 (b), the argument goes, it is protected by federal law.. If within § 14 (b), the arrangement is an unfair practice, at least arguably so. Therefore, where the status of a contract for the purposes of § 14 (b) is at all doubtful, the Board is assertedly the tribunal to deal with the question. Although we were asked in the petition for certiorari, and again in petitioners’ brief for oral argument, to resolve the § 14 (b) issue in this agency shop case, the clear thrust of this phase of petitioners’ preemption argument is that neither the Florida, courts nor this Court should purport in the first instance to determine the status of an agency shop contract under § 14 (b).
There is much force in the argument that the assessment of any union-security arrangement for the purposes of §§ 7, 8 and 14 (b), when there is significant doubt about the matter, is initially a task for the Board, so that it may finally come to this Court with the benefit of the affected agency’s views, and in all probability the preemption issue was entitled to different treatment than it received ip the Florida courts at the time this case was decided. Bht what was then an arguable matter under § 14 (b) is not necessarily arguable now. In the first place, as we have, held in the General Motors case, an agency shop arrangement is the equivalent of a permitted § 8 (a) (3) membership agreement, a result which rules this case since, as we have indicated, § 14 (b) subjects to state law the membership agreements, or their equivalent, which are permitted by §8 (a)(3). Secondly, the Board’s brief in the General Motors case contained the Board’s own view of the status of the agency shop agreement under § 14 (b): the provision conditioning employment upon the payment of sums equal to initiation fees and monthly dues is within the § 8 (a)(3) proviso, within the scope of § 14 (b), and hence subject to invalidation by state law. What was an arguable question of § 8 (a) (3) and § 14 (b) coverage has been settled, not only in the light of, but consistently with, the views of the Board. We see no reason to hold our hand at this juncture in order that the Board may arrive again at what is now a foregone conclusion. Cf. Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Co., 356 U. S. 481.
The second question implicit in petitioners’ preemption argument is whether"'a state court may enjoin the operation of an agency shop arrangement which the State has declared to be unlawful as it may do under § 14 (b). Without the proviso to § 8 (a)(3) and a similar saving clause in § 7, conditioning employment upon union membership would be an obvious unfair labor practice, under §§ 8 (a)(1), 8 (a)(3), and 8 (b)(2), as Congress recognized in adding the proviso to original § 8 (3). With the proviso, however, such arrangements, if they comply with the terms of the proviso, are not unfair practices. Section 14 (b), with obvious reference to § 8 (a) (3), declares that “nothing in this Act” is to authorize “the execution or application” of membership agreements in States in which such execution or operation is prohibited by state law. It is one thing if § 14 (b) and a state law prohibiting the union or the agency shop have no impact on §§ 7 and 8 at all, and the union and agency shops are therefore not unfair practices under federal law even in those States which prohibit them. It is quite another matter, however, if § 14 (b) removes the protection of the § 8 (a) (3) proviso and the union and agency shops become unfair labor practices in States where state law forbids them, for then the obvious question is precipitated as to whether a State as well as the Board may enjoin' such union-security arrangements. The scope and vitality of the Court’s decision in Algoma Plywood Co. v. Wisconsin Board, 336 U. S. 301, are involved, as is the applicability of the preemption doctrine, subsequently developed in many cases in this Court, such as Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485; San Diego Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, to situations where state law invalidates union-security contracts placed within their reach by § 14 (b).
We hold that § 14 (b) of the Act subjects this arrangement to state substantive law, and that the legality of Article 19 is governed by the decision of the Florida Supreme Court under review here. As to the unresolved issue of whether the Florida courts have jurisdiction to afford a remedy for violation of the state law, we prefer not to dispose of the matter without full, argument next Term. Moreover, since we have not had the benefit of the views of the National Labor Relations Board, the Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the Government. The case is retained on the calendar and set for reargument during the forthcoming Term on the remaining issue.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Article 45 provides:
“This Agreement shall continue in effect from April 18, 1960 to April 15, 1963, and continue in effect from year to year thereafter unless either party notifies the other party sixty (60) days prior to expiration date, or any anniversary date thereafter, of their desire to terminate' or open the agreement for the purpose of amendments and/or changes.”
“The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-membership in any labor union, or labor organization; provided, that this clause shall not be construed to deny or abridge the right of employees by and through a labor organization or labor union to bargain collectively with their employer.”
"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 ... 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
The petition for certiorari posed the question for review as whether § 14 (b) “authorizes the states both to'prohibit and to regulate an ‘agency shop’ clause.” The present clause was likened to, rather than distinguished from, the General Motors arrangement. It was only upon briefing and argument that petitioners sought to place this alleged “service fee” contract in a different category 'from the agency shop. Cf. National Licorice Co. v. Labor Board, 309 U. S. 350, 357, n. 2.
This is the factual posture in which the case comes to us, on motion to dismiss. The evidence on-this point, if any favorable to petitioners was adduced at the hearing for preliminary injunction, was not made part of the record.
“Rather typically, unions use their members’ dues to promote legislation which they regard as desirable and to defeat legislation which they regard as undesirable, to publish newspapers and magazines, to promote free labor institutions in other nations, to finance low cost housing, to aid victims of natural disaster, to support charities, to finance litigation, to provide scholarships, and to do those things which the members authorize the union to do in their interest and on their behalf.”
We cannot take seriously petitioners’ unsupported suggestion at the oral argument that we must assume that the union spends all of its income on collective bargaining expenses. The record is entirely silent on this matter one way or the other and it would be unique indeed if the union expended no funds for noncollective bargaining purposes. See Brief for N. L. R. B., Labor Board v. General Motors Corp., No. 404, p. 38. As indicated in the text, petitioners’ brief seems to concede as much and petitioners later appeared to modify or withdraw the suggestion at the oral argument. In any event, we have only the pleadings and we are bound to give the respondents the benefit of every reasonable inference from well-pleaded facts. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647, 648; Kendall v. United States, 7 Wall. 113, 116; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 15 Pet. 233, 272.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner stands convicted for violating an ordinance of Birmingham, Alabama, making it an offense to participate in any “parade or procession or other public demonstration” without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. The question before us is whether that conviction can be squared with the Constitution of the United States.
On the afternoon of April 12, Good Friday, 1963, 52 people, all Negroes, were led out of a Birmingham church by three Negro ministers, one of whom was the petitioner, Fred L. Shuttlesworth. They walked in orderly fashion, two abreast for the most part, for four blocks. The purpose of their march was to protest the alleged denial of civil rights to Negroes in the city of Birmingham. The marchers stayed on the sidewalks except at street intersections, and they did not interfere with other pedestrians. No automobiles were obstructed, nor were traffic signals disobeyed. The petitioner was with the group for at least part of this time, walking alongside the others, and once moving from the front to the rear. As the marchers moved along, a crowd of spectators fell in behind them at a distance. The spectators at some points spilled out into the street, but the street was not blocked and vehicles were not obstructed.
At the end of four blocks the marchers were stopped by the Birmingham police, and were arrested for violating § 1159 of the General Code of Birmingham. That ordinance reads as follows:
“It shall be unlawful to organize or hold, or to assist in organizing or holding, or to take part or participate in, any parade or procession or other public demonstration on the streets or other public ways of the city, unless a permit therefor has been secured from the commission.
“To secure such permit, written application shall be made to the commission, setting forth the probable number of persons, vehicles and animals which will be engaged in such parade, procession or other public demonstration, the purpose for which it is to be held or had, and the streets or other public ways over, along or in which it is desired to have or hold such parade, procession or other public demonstration. The commission shall grant a written permit for such parade, procession or other public demonstration, prescribing the streets or other public ways which may be used therefor, unless in its judgment the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused. It shall be unlawful to use for such purposes any other streets or public ways than those set out in said permit.
“The two preceding paragraphs, however, shall not apply to funeral processions.”
The petitioner was convicted for violation of § 1159 and was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment at hard labor and an additional 48 days at hard labor in default of payment of a $75 fine and $24 costs. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction, holding the evidence was insufficient “to show a procession which would require, under the terms of § 1159, the getting of a permit,” that the ordinance had been applied in a discriminatory fashion, and that it was unconstitutional in imposing an “invidious prior restraint” without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits. 43 Ala. App. 68, —, —, 180 So. 2d 114, 139, 127. The Supreme Court of Alabama, however, giving the language of § 1159 an extraordinarily narrow construction, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction. 281 Ala. 542, 206 So. 2d 348. We granted certiorari to consider the petitioner’s constitutional claims. 390 U. S. 1023.
There can be no doubt that the Birmingham ordinance, as it was written, conferred upon the City Commission virtually unbridled and absolute power to prohibit any “parade,” “procession,” or “demonstration” on the city’s streets or public ways. For in deciding whether or not to withhold a permit, the members of the Commission were to be guided only by their own ideas of “public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience.” This ordinance as it was written, therefore, fell squarely within the ambit of the many decisions of this Court over the last 30 years, holding that a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional. “It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 322. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license. “The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands.” Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S. 584, 602 (Stone, C. J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U. S. 103, 104.
It is argued, however, that what was involved here was not “pure speech,” but the use of public streets and sidewalks, over which a municipality must rightfully exercise a great deal of control in the interest of traffic regulation and public safety. That, of course, is true. We have emphasized before this that “the First and Fourteenth Amendments [do not] afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 555. “Governmental authorities have the duty and responsibility to keep their streets open and available for movement.” Id., at 554-555.
But our decisions have also made clear that picketing and parading may nonetheless constitute methods of expression, entitled to First Amendment protection. Cox v. Louisiana, supra; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88. “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.” Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 515-516 (opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts, joined by Mb. Justice Black).
Accordingly, “[although this Court has recognized that a statute may be enacted which prevents serious interference with normal usage of streets and parks, . . . we 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.” Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 293-294. See also Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268. Even when the use of its public streets and sidewalks is involved, therefore, a municipality may not empower its licensing officials to roam essentially at will, dispensing or withholding permission to speak, assemble, picket, or parade, according to their own opinions regarding the potential effect of the activity in question on the “welfare,” “decency,” or “morals” of the community.
Understandably, under these settled principles, the Alabama Court of Appeals was unable to reach any conclusion other than that § 1159 was unconstitutional. The terms of the Birmingham ordinance clearly gave the City Commission extensive authority to issue or refuse to issue parade permits on the basis of broad criteria entirely unrelated to legitimate municipal regulation of the public streets and sidewalks.
It is said, however, that no matter how constitutionally invalid the Birmingham ordinance may have been as it was written, nonetheless the authoritative construction that has now been given it by the Supreme Court of Alabama has so modified and narrowed its terms as to render it constitutionally acceptable. It is true that in affirming the petitioner’s conviction in the present case, the Supreme Court of Alabama performed a remarkable job of plastic surgery upon the face of the ordinance. The court stated that when § 1159 provided that the City Commission could withhold a permit whenever “in its judgment the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require,” the ordinance really meant something quite different:
“[W]e do not construe this [language] as vesting in the Commission an unfettered discretion in granting or denying permits, but, in view of the purpose of the ordinance, one to be exercised in connection with the safety, comfort and convenience in the use of the streets by the general public. . . . The members of the Commission may not act as censors of what is to be said hr displayed in any parade. . . .
“. . . [We] do not construe § 1159 as conferring upon the ‘commission’ of the City of Birmingham the right to refuse an application for a permit to carry on a parade, procession or other public demonstration solely on the ground that such activities might tend to provoke disorderly conduct. . . .
“We also hold that under § 1159 the Commission is without authority to act in an arbitrary manner or with unfettered discretion in regard to the issuance of permits. Its discretion must be exercised with 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 streets and sidewalks must be followed. Applications for permits to parade must be granted if, after an investigation it is found that the convenience of the public in the use of the streets or sidewalks would not thereby be unduly disturbed.” 281 Ala., at 545-546, 206 So. 2d, at 350-352.
In transforming § 1159 into an ordinance authorizing no more than the objective and even-handed regulation of traffic on Birmingham’s streets and public ways, the Supreme Court of Alabama made a commendable effort to give the legislation “a field of operation within constitutional limits.” 281 Ala., at 544, 206 So. 2d, at 350. We may assume that this exercise was successful, and that the ordinance as now authoritatively construed would pass constitutional muster. It does not follow, however, that the severely narrowing construction put upon the ordinance by the Alabama Supreme Court in November of 1967 necessarily serves to restore constitutional validity to a conviction that occurred in 1963 under the ordinance as it was written. The inquiry in every case must be that stated by Chief Justice Hughes in Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 — whether control of the use of the streets for a parade or procession was, in fact, “exerted so as not to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly and the opportunities for the communication of thought and the discussion of public questions immemorially associated with resort to public places.” Id., at 574.
In Cox the Court found that control of the streets had not been exerted unconstitutionally. There the Court was dealing with a parade-permit statute that was silent as to the criteria governing the granting of permits. In affirming the appellants’ convictions for parading without a permit, the New Hampshire Supreme Court had construed the statute to require the issuance of a permit to anybody who applied, subject only to the power of the licensing authority to specify the “time, place and manner” of the parade in order to accommodate competing demands for public use of the streets. This Court accepted the state court’s characterization of the statute, and its assurance that the appellants “ ‘had a right, under the Act, to a license to march when, where and as they did, if after a required investigation it was found that the convenience of the public in the use of the streets would not thereby be unduly disturbed, upon such conditions or changes in time, place and manner as would avoid disturbance.’ ” 312 U. S., at 576. In affirming the New Hampshire judgment, however, this Court was careful to emphasize:
“There is no evidence that the statute has been administered otherwise than in the fair and nondiscriminatory manner which the state court has construed it to require.” Id., at 577.
In the present case we are confronted with quite a different situation. In April of 1963 the ordinance that was on the books in Birmingham contained language that affirmatively conferred upon the members of the Commission absolute power to refuse a parade permit whenever they thought “the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused.” It would have taken extraordinary clairvoyance for anyone to perceive that this language meant what the Supreme Court of Alabama was destined to find that it meant more than four years later; and, with First Amendment rights hanging in the balance, we would hesitate long before assuming that either the members of the Commission or the petitioner possessed any such clairvoyance at the time of the Good Friday march.
But we need not deal in assumptions. For, as the respondent in this case has reminded us, in assessing the constitutional claims of the petitioner, “[i]t is less than realistic to ignore the surrounding relevant circumstances. These include not only facts developed in the Record in this case, but also those shown in the opinions in the related case of Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967), 388 U. S. 307 . . . ,” The petitioner here was one of the petitioners in the Walker case, in which, just two Terms ago, we had before us a record showing many of the “surrounding relevant circumstances” of the Good Friday march. As the respondent suggests, we may properly take judicial notice of the record in that litigation between the same parties who are now before us.
Uncontradicted testimony was offered in Walker to show that over a week before the Good Friday march petitioner Shuttlesworth sent a representative to apply for a parade permit. She went to the City Hall and asked “to see the person or persons in charge to issue permits, permits for parading, picketing, and demonstrating.” She was directed to Commissioner Connor, who denied her request in no uncertain terms. “He said, ‘No, you will not get a permit in Birmingham, Alabama to picket. I will picket you over to the City Jail,’ and he repeated that twice.” 388 U. S., at 317, n. 9, 325, 335, 339.
Two days later petitioner Shuttlesworth himself sent a telegram to Commissioner Connor requesting, on behalf of his organization, a permit to picket “against the injustices of segregation and discrimination.” His request specified the sidewalks where the picketing would take place, and stated that “the normal rules of picketing” would be obeyed. In reply, the Commissioner sent a wire stating that permits were the responsibility of the entire Commission rather than of a single Commissioner, and closing with the blunt admonition: “I insist that you and your people do not start any picketing on the streets in Birmingham, Alabama.” Id., at 318, n. 10, 325, 335-336, 339-340.
These “surrounding relevant circumstances” make it indisputably clear, we think, that in April of 1963 — at least with respect to this petitioner and his organization — the city authorities thought the ordinance meant exactly what it said. The petitioner was clearly given to understand that under no circumstances would he and his group be permitted to demonstrate in Birmingham, not that a demonstration would be approved if a time and place were selected that would minimize traffic problems. There is no indication whatever that the authorities considered themselves obligated — as the Alabama Supreme Court more than four years later said that they were — to issue a permit “if, after an investigation [they] found that the convenience of the public in the use of the streets or sidewalks would not thereby be unduly disturbed.”
This case, therefore, is a far cry from Cox v. New Hampshire, supra, where it could be said that there was nothing to show “that the statute has been administered otherwise than in the . . . manner which the state court has construed it to require.” Here, by contrast, it is evident that the ordinance was administered so as, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes, “to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly and the opportunities for the communication of thought . . . immemorially associated with resort to public places.” The judgment is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Except funeral processions.
See Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444; Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 163-165; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296; Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S. 418; Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S. 584, 600 (Stone, C. J., dissenting), 611 (Murphy, J., dissenting), vacated and previous dissenting opinions adopted per curiam, 319 U. S. 103; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501; Tucker v. Texas, 326 U. S. 517; Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495; Gelling v. Texas, 343 U. S. 960; Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Education, 346 U. S. 587; Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536; Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U. S. 676.
Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S., at 452-453; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S., at 159, 165; Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S., at 419, 422; Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S., at 602 (Stone, C. J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U. S., at 104; Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S., at 319; Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 56-57.
The validity of this assumption would depend upon, among other things, the availability of expeditious judicial review of the Commission’s refusal of a permit. Cf. Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395, 420 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51. See also the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, post, p. 159.
Brief for Respondent 1-2.
National Fire Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 281 U. S. 331, 336, and cases cited therein.
The legal and constitutional issues involved in the Walker ease were quite different from those involved here. The Court recently summarized the Walker decision as follows:
“In that case, the Court held that demonstrators who had proceeded with their protest march in face of the prohibition of an injunctive order against such a march, could not defend contempt charges by asserting the unconstitutionality of the injunction. The proper procedure, it was held, was to seek judicial review of the injunction and not to disobey it, no matter how well-founded their doubts might be as to its validity.” Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne, 393 U. S. 175, 179.
In Walker the petitioner made an offer of proof that parade permits had been issued to other groups by the city clerk at the request of the traffic bureau of the police department. 388 U. S., at 325-326, 336, 340.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 124 of the Traffic Regulations of the City of New York promulgated by the Police Commissioner provides:
“No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, in or upon any street an advertising vehicle; provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the putting of business notices upon business delivery-vehicles, so long as such vehicles are engaged in the usual business or regular work of the owner and not used merely or mainly for advertising.”
Appellant is engaged in a nation-wide express business. It operates about 1,900 trucks in New York City and sells the space on the exterior sides of these trucks for advertising. That advertising is for the most part unconnected with its own business.* It was convicted in the magistrate’s court and fined. The judgment of conviction was sustained in the Court of Special Sessions. 188 Misc. 342, 67 N. Y. S. 2d 732. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion by a divided vote. 297 N. Y. 703, 77 N. E. 2d 13. The case is here on appeal. Judicial Code § 237 (a), 28 U. S. C. § 344 (a), as amended, now 28 U. S. C. § 1257.
The Court in Fifth Ave. Coach Co. v. New York, 221 U. S. 467, sustained the predecessor ordinance to the present regulation over the objection that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is true that that was a municipal ordinance resting on the broad base of the police power, while the present regulation stands or falls merely as a traffic regulation. But we do not believe that distinction warrants a different result in the two cases.
The Court of Special Sessions concluded that advertising on vehicles using the streets of New York City constitutes a distraction to vehicle drivers and to pedestrians alike and therefore affects the safety of the public in the use of the streets. We do not sit to weigh evidence on the due process issue in order to determine whether the regulation is sound or appropriate; nor is it our function to pass judgment on its wisdom. See Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236. We would be trespassing on one of the most intensely local and specialized of all municipal problems if we held that this regulation had no relation to the traffic problem of New York City. It is the judgment of the local authorities that it does have such a relation. And nothing has been advanced which shows that to be palpably false.
The question of equal protection of the laws is pressed more strenuously on us. It is pointed out that the regulation draws the line between advertisements of products sold by the owner of the truck and general advertisements. It is argued that unequal treatment on the basis of such a distinction is not justified by the aim and purpose of the regulation. It is said, for example, that one of appellant’s trucks carrying the advertisement of a commercial house would not cause any greater distraction of pedestrians and vehicle drivers than if the commercial house carried the same advertisement on its own truck. Yet the regulation allows the latter to do what the former is forbidden from doing. It is therefore contended that the classification which the regulation makes has no relation to the traffic problem since a violation turns not on what kind of advertisements are carried on trucks but on whose trucks they are carried.
That, however, is a superficial way of analyzing the problem, even if we assume that it is premised on the correct construction of the regulation. The local authorities may well have concluded that those who advertise their own wares on their trucks do not present the same traffic problem in view of the nature or extent of the advertising which they use. It would take a degree of omniscience which we lack to say that such is not the case. If that judgment is correct, the advertising displays that are exempt have less incidence on traffic than those of appellants.
We cannot say that that judgment is not an allowable one. Yet if it is, the classification has relation to the purpose for which it is made and does not contain the kind of discrimination against which the Equal Protection Clause affords protection. It is by such practical considerations based on experience rather than by theoretical inconsistencies that the question of equal protection is to be answered. Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 144; Marcus Brown Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 198-199; Metropolitan Co. v. Brownell, 294 U. S. 580, 585-586. And the fact that New York City sees fit to eliminate from traffic this kind of distraction but does not touch what may be even greater ones in a different category, such as the vivid displays on Times Square, is immaterial. It is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all. Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 160.
It is finally contended that the regulation is a burden on interstate commerce in violation of Art. I, § 8 of the Constitution. Many of these trucks are engaged in delivering goods in interstate commerce from New Jersey to New York. Where trafile control and the use of highways are involved and where there is no conflicting federal regulation, great leeway is allowed local authorities, even though the local regulation materially interferes with interstate commerce. The case in that posture is controlled by S. C. Hwy. Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177, 187 et seq. And see Maurer v. Hamilton, 309 U. S. 598.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Rutledge
acquiesces in the Court’s opinion and judgment, dubitante on the question of equal protection of the laws.
This regulation was promulgated by the Police Commissioner pursuant to the power granted the police department under § 435 of the New York City Charter which provides as follows: “The police department and force shall have the power and it shall be their duty to . . . regulate, direct, control and restrict the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic for the facilitation of traffic and the convenience of the public as well as the proper protection of human life and health; . . . The commissioner shall make such rules and regulations for the conduct of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the use of the public streets, squares and avenues as he may deem necessary . . . .”
The advertisements for which appellant was convicted consisted of posters from three by seven feet to four by ten feet portraying Camel Cigarettes, Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, and radio station WOR. Drivers of appellant’s trucks carrying advertisements of Prince Albert Smoking Tobacco and the United States Navy were also convicted.
The element of safety was held to be one of the standards by which the regulations of the Police Commissioner were to be judged. We accept that construction of the authority of the Police Commissioner under § 435 of the Charter, note 1, supra. See Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446, 451; Hartford Accident Co. v. Nelson Co., 291 U. S. 352, 358; Central Hanover Bank Co. v. Kelly, 319 U. S. 94, 97.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 is a sequel to Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 340 U. S. 231 (1951), wherein the Court held that § 2 (b) of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13 (b), afforded a seller a complete defense to a charge of price discrimination if its lower price was “made in good faith to meet a lawful and equally low price of a competitor.” 340 U. S., at 246. We remanded the case with instructions that the Federal Trade Commission make findings on Standard’s contention that its discriminatory prices were so made. The subsequent findings are not altogether clear. The Commission, acting on the same record, seemingly does not contest the fact that Standard’s deductions were made to meet the equally low prices of its competitors. However, Standard was held not to have acted in good faith, and the § 2 (b) defense precluded, because of the Commission’s determination that Standard's reduced prices were made pursuant to a price system rather than being “the result of departures from a nondiscriminatory price scale.” 49 F. T. C. 923, 954. The Court of Appeals found no basis in the record for such a finding and vacated the order of the Commission, holding that Standard’s “ 'good faith’ defense was firmly established.” 233 F. 2d 649, 655. In view of our former opinion and the importance of bringing an end to this protracted litigation, we granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 950 (1956). Having concluded that the case turns on a factual issue, decided by the Court of Appeals upon a fair assessment of the record, we affirm the decision below.
The long history of this 17-year-old case may be found both in the original opinion of the Court of Appeals, 173 F. 2d 210, and in the original opinion of this Court, supra. The case arose as a companion to similar complaints filed by the Commission against Gulf Oil Company, the Texas Company, and Shell Oil Company. In its petition for certiorari, the Commission stresses the existence of an industry-wide “dual price system,” asserting that the decision below would “insulate from attack a price pattern deeply entrenched in the industry — not only in the Detroit area, but also elsewhere in the country.” The pendency of the Gulf, Texas, and Shell complaints is mentioned twice, and the Commission states in a footnote that “[proceedings thereon have been deferred until the disposition of this case.” However, on April 3, 1957, the Commission decided that “it will not now be practicable to try the issues raised” in the companion complaints “irrespective of the final outcome of . . . the matter of Standard Oil Company,” and dismissed all three of the companion cases. The claim that the asserted dual pricing system was of industry-wide scope is not vital to the Commission’s position here, was not alleged in its complaint, and is not included among its findings; therefore, we limit our consideration of the pricing system contention to Standard alone.
The Commission urges us to examine its 8-volume record of over 5,500 pages and determine if its finding that Standard reduced prices to four “jobbers” pursuant to a pricing system was erroneous, as held by the Court of Appeals. The Commission contends that a § 2 (b) defense is precluded if the reductions were so made. If wrong in this, it maintains that the “good faith” element of a § 2 (b) defense is not made out by showing that competitors employ such a pricing system, and in any event is negatived by Standard’s failure to make a bona fide effort to review its pricing system upon passage of the Robinson-Patman Act.
On the present posture of the case we believe that further review of the evidence is unwarranted. As stated in Federal Trade Comm’n v. American Tobacco Co., 274 U. S. 543, 544 (1927), although “[t]he statement of the petition for certiorari that the judgment and opinion below might seriously hinder future administration of the law was grave and sufficiently probable to justify issuance of the writ,” it now appears that “[p] roper decision of the controversy depends upon a question of fact,” and therefore “we adhere to the usual rule of non-interference where conclusions of Circuit Courts of Appeals depend on appreciation of circumstances which admit of different interpretations.” Moreover, in Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474, 491 (1951), we decided that substantiality of evidence on the record as a whole to support agency findings “is a question which Congress has placed in the keeping of the Courts of Appeals. This Court will intervene only in what ought to be the rare instance when the standard appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied.” We do no more on the issue of insubstantiality than decide that the Court of Appeals has made a “fair assessment” of the record. That conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the finding made by the Court of Appeals accords with that of the trial examiner, two dissenting members of the Commission, and another panel of the Court of Appeals when the case was first before that court in 1949, all of them being agreed that the prices were reduced in good faith to meet offers of competitors.
Both parties acknowledge that discrimination pursuant to a price system would preclude a finding of “good faith.” Federal Trade Comm’n v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 324 U. S. 746 (1945); Federal Trade Comm’n v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683 (1948); Federal Trade Comm’n v. National Lead Co., 352 U. S. 419 (1957). The sole question then is one of fact: were Standard’s reduced prices to four “jobber” buyers — Citrin-Kolb, Stikeman, Wayne, and Ned’s — made pursuant to a pricing system rather than to meet individual competitive situations?
We have examined the findings of the Commission, which relies most heavily on the fact that no competitors’ offers were shown to have been made to Citrin-Kolb, Stikeman, or Wayne prior to the time Standard initially granted them the reduced tank-car price. All three of these “jobbers,” however, were granted the tank-car price before the passage of the Robinson-Patman Act in 1936, and the trial examiner excluded proof of pre-1936 offers on the ground of irrelevancy. The Commission approved this ruling, and on remand failed to reopen the record to take any further proof. In our former opinion in this case, we said, “There is no doubt that under the Clayton Act, before its amendment by the Robinson-Patman Act, [such] evidence would have been material and, if accepted, would have established a complete defense to the charge of unlawful discrimination.” 340 U. S., at 239-240. The proof should have been admitted; its absence can hardly be relied on by the Commission now as a ground for reversal. In any event, the findings that were made are sufficient for our disposition of the case.
It appears to us that the crucial inquiry is not why reduced prices were first granted to Citrin-Kolb, Stikeman, and Wayne, but rather why the reduced price was continued subsequent to passage of the Act in 1936. The findings show that both major and local suppliers made numerous attempts in the 1936-1941 period to lure these “jobbers” away from Standard with cut-rate prices, oftentimes much lower than the one-and-one-half-cent reduction Standard was giving them. It is uncontradicted, as pointed out in one of the Commission dissents, that Standard lost three of its seven “jobbers” by not meeting competitors’ pirating offers in 1933-1934. All of this occurred in the context of a major gasoline price war in the Detroit area, .created by an extreme overabundance of supply — a setting most unlikely to lend itself to general pricing policies. The Commission itself stated:
“It may well be that [Standard] was convinced that if it ceased granting tank-car prices to Citrin-Kolb, Wayne, and Stikeman and continued to refuse the tank-car price to Ned’s Auto Supply Company it would lose these accounts. It had substantial reasons for believing this to be the case, for all of these concerns, except Ned’s Auto Supply Company, had already been recognized as entitled to the tank-car price under the commonly accepted standards of the industry, and Ned’s had achieved a volume of distribution which brought it within the range where it was likely to be so recognized by a major oil company at any time.” 49 F. T. C., at 952-953.
The findings as to Ned’s, the only one of the “jobbers” initially to receive the tank-car price post Robinson-Patman, are highly significant. After a prolonged period of haggling, during which Ned’s pressured Standard with information as to numerous more attractive price offers made by other suppliers, Standard responded to an ultimatum from Ned’s in 1936 with a half-cent-per-gallon reduction from the tank-wagon price. The Commission concedes that this first reduction occurred at a time when Ned’s did not meet the criteria normally-insisted upon by Standard before giving any reduction. Two years later, after a still further period of haggling and another Ned’s ultimatum, Standard gave a second reduction of still another cent.
In determining that Standard’s prices to these four "jobbers” were reduced as a response to individual competitive situations rather than pursuant to a pricing system, the Court of Appeals considered the factors just mentioned, all of which weigh heavily against the Commission’s position. The Commission’s own findings thus afford ample witness that a “fair assessment” of the record has been made. Standard’s use here of two prices, the lower of which could be obtained under the spur of threats to switch to pirating competitors, is a competitive deterrent far short of the discriminatory pricing of Staley, Cement, and National Lead, supra, and one which we believe within the sanction of § 2 (b) of the Robinson-Patman Act.
Affirmed.
The Commission admits that not all of the major suppliers were using the asserted dual price system, stating in its brief that Standard’s two largest competitors in the Detroit area, Socony-Vacuum and Sun Oil Company, sold only at the higher tank-wagon price. The Commission findings reveal that those suppliers who did offer a tank-car price to the Standard customers in question were not offering a uniform price: both Shell and the Texas Company, for example, made offers of two cents per gallon off the tank-wagon price, as contrasted with Standard’s one-and-one-half-cent reduction.
The particular tag “jobbers” is of no significance here in the light of our affirmance of the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the reductions in price complained of were not made pursuant to a pricing system. Standard’s use of the word, while not an accurate description of the economic function performed by the four purchasers, is as consistent with a desire to placate customers to whom Standard was not forced by lower offers to give a reduced price as it would be with any asserted reduction of prices pursuant to a pricing system.
“. . . [W]e are unable to discern any basis for the conclusion that petitioner’s prices ‘were not the result of departures from a nondiscriminatory price scale.’ The record affirmatively demonstrates to the contrary. Petitioner sold invariably at its uniform tank-wagon price, except when at different times it reduced its price to meet competitive offers in order to retain a customer.” Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 233 F. 2d 649, 654. (Emphasis added.)
This contention falls of its own weight, for the conclusion that the reductions here were not made pursuant to a pricing system negates the fact assumption underlying the Commission’s argument that there is no good faith when one price system is being matched against another. There is no showing or serious contention by the Commission that the offers of Standard’s competitors were unlawful. Indeed, the Court of Appeals stated, “[I]n the instant situation there is no finding, no contention and not even a suspicion but that the competing prices which petitioner met were lawful.” 233 F. 2d, at 654. The Commission admits that it “did not actually adjudicate the legality of the competing prices which Standard allegedly met . . . .” In the manner of a casual aside, the Commission belatedly suggests now that the competitors’ prices were unlawful since they were similar to Standard’s reductions and the latter were unlawful because made pursuant to a pricing system. If this be thought sufficient to raise the question, the foundation of the Commission’s logic is destroyed by our affirmance of the finding that Standard’s reductions were not made pursuant to any price system.
Our disposition eliminates the necessity of considering this last point. Nor need we consider the Commission’s claim that the Court of Appeals held the question involved here to be one of law. An examination of the court’s statement, 233 F. 2d, at 651, indicates it had reference to the broader issue of Standard’s “good faith” under §2 (b).
Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 340 U. S. 498, 502-503 (1951); see also Labor Board v. American National Ins. Co., 343 U. S. 395, 409-410 (1952). Those cases cannot be distinguished from the present one on the basis of the statutes involved. Compare National Labor Relations Act, § 10(e), 61 Stat. 147, 29 U. S. C. § 160(e), with Federal Trade Commission Act, § 5 (c) and (d), 52 Stat. 112-113, 15 U. S. C. §45 (c), (d). In Universal Camera, supra, the Court indicated that the review standard established in that case would apply to all instances of court review of agency decisions. 340 U. S., at 488-490.
The Commission brief also claims that reduction pursuant to a pricing system was admitted in the 1940 answer filed by Standard. That portion of the answer referred to, however, was concerned with establishing an alternative and altogether different defense, namely, cost justification on the basis of functional customer classification. Such defense could be argued even if the reductions were held made pursuant to a pricing method, and therefore is consistent with the claim of good faith meeting of competition.
The Commission places great importance on the fact that only one of these offers was a standing offer. This is not a situation involving only one or two competitive raids, however; continuation of reductions once granted is warranted by § 2 (b) when competitors’ reduced price offers are recurring again and again in a cutthroat market.
The findings indicate that similar haggling over an extended period of time occurred before each of the other “jobbers” obtained a reduced price. The great time consumed in the haggling process tends to negate any idea that the participants were only deciding whether a given purchaser met Standard's four well-defined “jobber” criteria— annual volume of one to two million gallons, own delivery facilities, bulk'storage capable of taking tank-car delivery, and responsible credit rating.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted.- The judgment is, vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S., at 358,.360.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal requires a determination of whether railroads serving the port of Norfolk, Virginia, must grant the United States an allowance for the Government’s performance of certain wharfage and handling services on its own export freight. For shippers who conform to the requirements of the tariff, the railroads assume these charges as a part of the rate. The United States, however, found it impractical to conform to the tariff requirements.
The present litigation was instituted pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2325 in a three-judge District Court of the District of Columbia by the United States, through its Department of the Army, against the Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States, to set aside the Commission’s order in United States v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co., 289 I. C. C. 49. That order dismissed a complaint filed by the United States on November 20, 1951, against several named railroads charging them with violations of the Interstate Commerce Act. The District Court, one judge dissenting, dismissed the complaint. 132 F. Supp. 34. We noted probable jurisdiction. 350 U. S. 930.
Since May 1, 1951, the railroads have refused to pay an allowance to the Army for the wharfage and handling services the Army performs on military export traffic passing through Army base piers in Norfolk, Virginia. The railroads have assumed in their tariffs the obligation to furnish these accessorial services for all shippers that comply with their tariffs. And, in accordance with these tariffs, the railroads have furnished the services for commercial shippers at public sections of the same piers without additional charge. These services were performed for the Army and the railroads by the same private company — for the Army under contract to carry out its orders for terminal and storage services; for the railroads by contract to act as the carriers’ agent in accordance with their tariffs.
The Army sought a determination that the railroads’ refusal to make an allowance to it to the same extent that the railroads paid the private company, Stevenson & Young, for handling of private shipments subjected the Government to unjust discrimination and constituted an unreasonable practice in violation of §§ 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act. The Army also requested an order that the railroads cease and desist from such refusal in the future.
The transfer of export freight from rail carriers to outbound water carriers is made on piers or wharves that allow the unloading of freight from railroad cars to within reach of ships’ tackle. Railroads are under no statutory-obligation to furnish such piers or to unload carlot freight, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kittanning Co., 253 U. S. 319, 323. In general the railroads have taken on the duty of wharfage and handling for freight consigned for overseas shipment. In some instances railroads have charged for the use of the piers (“wharfage”) and the necessary “handling” separately from their charge for line-haul transportation. In other cases there has been only a single factor export rate (one inclusive charge) providing for limited shipside delivery with the railroad furnishing these accessorial services pursuant to their tariffs at no extra charge to the shipper. The latter practice has been generally followed by railroads serving North Atlantic ports. Where railroads do not have their own piers, they have provided these services by contracting with commercial terminal operators.
1 — 1
The Norfolk piers, involved m this matter, were managed by such operators. They were built by the United States after World War I and have been leased in part or in whole to a series of commercial operators since then. The leases were cancelled during World War II but they were leased to Stevenson & Young, a private terminal operator, at the end of that war. The railroads here involved, using the single factor shipside rate described above, contracted with Stevenson & Young, as their agent, to perform the wharfage and handling for 25$ per ton for wharfage and 75«¡ per ton for handling, on both commercial and military freight. But with the advent of the Korean hostilities, the Government again cancelled the leases and the Army took entire control of the piers. Apparently the military shipments require special handling and storage. To assure its complete satisfaction, the Army hired Stevenson & Young to perform those services under a general pier-operating contract for the Army. The unused portions of the piers were later released by the Government, by a contract dated December 28, 1951, for the commercial operations of Stevenson & Young. By that contract Stevenson & Young leased the unused parts for 1952 from the United States, for a public commercial maritime terminal. It was over these leased portions of the piers that the lessee carried on its public warehousing activities in accordance with the railroad tariffs.
A typical tariff arrangement appears in the note below. It is the basic exhibit in this case. It was bottomed on a contract of April 5, 1947, between the Pennsylvania Railroad and Stevenson & Young. By that contract Stevenson & Young, as a public wharfinger, agreed to act “as directed by the Railroad” and as its agent for wharfage and handling of “export, import, coastwise and intercoastal freight” in accordance with the tariff upon the facilities it acquired on the Army base. The agent assumed responsibility for freight charges and care of freight in its charge. It agreed, paragraph 4, that:
“The Terminal [Stevenson & Young] shall provide adequate facilities for the handling and storage of the freight subject to this agreement, shall provide access to the Railroad or its agent, the Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad, for the delivery of cars to and from shipside without interference or interruption, and shall load and unload cars promptly without delay of freight or railroad equipment.”
Paragraph 13 said:
“This agreement shall terminate absolutely and immediately whenever the Terminal ceases to operate the said facilities as a public wharfinger for the handling of freight, and in any event shall be terminable by either party on thirty days notice in writing.”
A large amount of private commercial traific continued over the released portions of the piers, and the railroads continued to absorb the cost of that wharfage and handling by paying Stevenson & Young $1.00 per ton of freight.
The result of the Army’s insistence on operating its own pier facilities is that the Army pays the same export rates without receiving wharfage and handling services as commercial shippers do for whom the railroads provide those services at no additional charge. Because the Army provides these services itself, it claims a right to the $1.00 per ton payment paid by the railroads on behalf of the commercial shippers.
In terms of the Interstate Commerce Act, the Government bases its argument on two grounds:
“The railroads’ refusal to absorb wharfage and handling charges on Army freight to the same extent that they absorb such charges on civilian freight moving over the same piers under identical rates is unjustly discriminatory in violation of Section 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act.”
and
“The railroads’ refusal to- pay for wharfage and handling on Army freight was’‘an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of Section 1 (6) of the Act.”
It should be noted that the United States is not attacking the form of the tariff, which provides for both line-haul service and the accessorial services in the single factor export rate. Consequently, this case involves only charged discrimination and injustice. Cf. United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U. S. 426, 437-438. In short, the United States seeks to be excepted from the tariff requirement that calls for the shipper to use a public wharfinger under contract to the railroads for performance of the wharfage and handling.
This controversy is similar to one that arose out of the Army's cancellation of the Norfolk pier leases during World War II, United States v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co., 269 I. C. C. 141. Interpreting railroad practices much like those now before this Court, the I. C. C. determined that the Army was not being discriminated against. However, on review, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded the case to the I. C. C. for further exposition and clarification. 91 U. S. App. D. C. 178, 198 F. 2d 958. On remand the I. C. C. reaffirmed its earlier determination and no appeal has been taken from that order. 294 I. C. C. 203. Because the question of whether the Army was discriminated against following the Government’s World War II lease cancellation has never been finally passed upon, the District of Columbia ruling is not inconsistent with the Commission’s conclusion in this litigation.
II.
The Government asserts that it is charged more on its export shipments through the Norfolk Army Base than commercial shippers under substantially similar circumstances. Such an exaction would be, of course, an unjust and unreasonable practice of discrimination. But it seems apparent that the circumstances of Army shipments are markedly different from those of private shippers that receive wharfage and handling services. Moreover, it seems equally clear that the Army is treated identically with those shippers who for business reasons do not care to comply with the tariff requirements.
The Army routed its export shipments direct to itself at the Army base as consignee. As is shown by the contracts summarized above, the entire Army base property was under military control except for the commercial operations of Stevenson & Young. The base included piers, bulkheads, railways and storage warehouses, and railroad switches, tracks and yards. The Commission found that the Army had determined “that ports of embarkation must be operated by personnel of the military service and civilian employees of the Government.” 289 I. C. C., at 53.
Although the Army hired the Stevenson company to operate the Army portion of the base, the Army’s control was “absolute.”
“[An Army yardmaster] is on duty at all times to give instructions for disposition of cars of Army freight delivered at the base. When either the Belt Line or the Virginian has cars for delivery, the yard clerk at the base is notified by telephone. If placement at a pier or warehouse is ready for any of those cars, the carrier is told where to make delivery. These instructions are confirmed in writing and handed to the conductor when he arrives at the base. Cars for which placement orders are not ready are left in the pier No. 1 yard by the Belt Line and in the uptown yard by the Virginian, in accordance with a general understanding as to the disposition of such cars.” 289 I. C. C., at 54-55.
Such direction was necessary. As the Commanding Officer said, in regard to switching and placing by the carriers:
“The Witness: If you would let them switch themselves, they have to know what they are doing, we have to give them the switch list and know what to do with it.
“Q. Will you permit them to do it at their own convenience, in an orderly manner?
“A. I don’t know how any business can be run, if you run it at the convenience of someone else. They couldn’t possibly do it at their own convenience, unless their convenience coincided with our requirement.
“Q. And yet you couldn’t permit the terminal operator to operate in a normal way.
“A. No, because that involves a management problem. You would have to have a management team in here to settle the accounts of the terminal operator. They don’t work for' nothing, as you quite well know. Somebody has to monitor all that, manage the whole thing, and direct the bringing in of the cargo. That is all in over-lay staff of ours, which is large enough.”
This Army control over the movement of freight on those portions of the piers that were not leased to Stevenson & Young left the railroads serving the base without authority in those areas to direct the switching, spotting and removal of the cars according to their own convenience. 289 I. C. C., at 64.
The fact that the Army controls its areas of the base, and the fact that the railroads handle their own wharfage and switching on their portions as they choose, are not mere formal differences. They are factors in traffic movement.
“It is the right of every shipper including the Government as here concerned, to prohibit a carrier from performing switching upon private tracks, even though the carrier might be willing and able to perform the service. When so prohibited by the shipper, as was here done by the Army, the carrier’s obligation to perform the service is discharged, and the payment of allowances to the shipper for its performance of the service, in whole or in part, would be unlawful, except as a voluntary concession of the carriers to the Government under section 22.” 289 I. C. C., at 65.
The problems of the assumption by the carriers of the costs of wharfage and handling at ports have a long history. The Norfolk area has not been an exception, as has been heretofore indicated. See p. 168, supra. When the Government again in 1951 found it desirable to cancel the leases, it was familiar with the various facets of the controversy over wharfage and handling.
III.
It is obvious that the method of handling government freight does not comply with the tariff requirements. It does not move over wharf properties owned, leased and operated by the Stevenson company “as a public terminal facility of the rail carriers.” Rule 47 (b), n. 7, supra.
“At all times during that period, military traffic was stored on and handled over wharf and other properties on the Army Base which were under the exclusive control of the Army.” 289 I. C. C., at 60.
Any deviation from tariffs by carriers violates § 6 (7) of the Act, 49 U. S. C., unless they grant a concession under § 22.
IV.
The Government actually is being treated just as any shipper who decides not to take advantage of the services offered in the tariff. It seeks a preference over these other shippers who take deliveries of export rate traffic at piers under their own control, so-called private piers. The general practice at North Atlantic ports is to refuse to absorb handling charges at private piers, even though they are absorbed where the carriers have control of the facilities. The record shows 84 private piers along the Atlantic Coast where the railroads make no allowance or compensation for handling or wharfage. It was testified:
“One of the principal limitations on the port practices which I shall mention is the restriction of the loading practice to railroad or other public piers, as distinguished from private piers operated by shippers.”
There was no evidence to the contrary and the Commission accepted that situation as a fact. 289 I. C. C., at 58, 61, 63. The difference between a public and a private pier under the tariffs is whether the railroads have control of the areas directly or through their agents, or whether the shipper or consignee has control.
There is no objection to such a practice generally, whether the line-haul rates and the handling rates are stated in a single factor rate or separately. To require the carriers to furnish such accessorial services at every private pier would disperse the traffic, cause the maintenance of more crews or watchmen, and thus add to the cost of transportation.
The Government contends that it is not in the same position as other shippers who control private piers, because it took control of the Norfolk piers to meet a national emergency. But we think that the emergency cannot convert the Government’s operation of its private piers into a category different from that of private shippers. And, the fact that the operations of the Government and the railroads are in the same pier area seems to us immaterial. If the railroads gave an allowance here, excepting one given under § 22 of the Act, they would have to give it at all private piers where the shipper wanted to handle wharfage at its own discretion. Cf. Merchants Warehouse Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 501; Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 229 I. C. C. 463.
The Government has the right to have its shipments accorded the same privileges given others. Moreover, in emergencies its traffic may have “preference or priority in transportation,” 49 U. S. C. § 1 (15) (d), and it may be granted and may accept preferences in rates. But the Government cannot otherwise require extra services or allowances. In the situation here presented, it could have used the same facilities as commercial shippers and obtained the benefits of the tariff. The evidence to this effect is uncontradicted. The Commission accepted it as a fact. 289 I. C. C., at 58, 60-61, 63.
y.
The Commission drew from the above circumstances a conclusion that the tariffs and conduct of the railroads are not shown to have been unlawful.
The United States argues that carriers cannot perform accessorial services in such a way that “some shippers would pay an identical line-haul rate for less service than that required by other industrial plants.” United States v. United States Smelting Co., 339 U. S. 186, 197. To do so would indeed violate § 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act. But the Smelting case is not apposite. We affirmed a Commission order enjoining intra-plant car switching and spotting services after termination of the line haul. It terminated at a “convenient point” on a siding at consignee’s plant. Our decision there turned on and upheld the Commission’s power to determine the end point of the line haul. Because the line-haul tariffs included only car movement to and from that convenient point, some shippers received more service than others for the line-haul rate. P. 197. Thus our determination was based on the unlawful preference allowed some shippers by the tariffs since those discriminated against could not get the same service as other shippers.
Furthermore, whether the circumstances and conditions are sufficiently dissimilar to justify differences in rates or charges is a question of fact for the Commission’s determination.
The District Court dismissed the complaint on the record before the Commission, and we affirm.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Wharfage refers to the provision of space on the docks for storage of freight pending transfer between freight cars and cargo vessels; handling refers to the unloading of goods from freight cars and placing them on the docks within reach of ship’s tackle . . . .” United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 178, at 182, 198 F. 2d 958, at 962. See Wharfage Charges at Atlantic and Gulf Ports, 157 I. C. C. 663, 672.
“It is made the duty of all common carriers subject to the provisions of this chapter to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable classifications of property for transportation, with reference to which rates, tariffs, regulations, or practices are or may be made or prescribed, and just and reasonable regulations and practices affecting classifications, rates, or tariffs . . . which may be necessary or proper to secure the safe and prompt receipt, handling, transportation, and delivery of property subject to the provisions of this chapter upon just and reasonable terms, and every unjust and unreasonable classification, regulation, and practice is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.” 49 U. S. C. § 1 (6).
“If any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter shall, directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device, charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for any service rendered or to be rendered, in the transportation of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this chapter, than it charges, demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.” 49 U. S. C. § 2.
“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter to make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, association, locality, port, port district, gateway, transit point, region, district, territory, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever; or to subject 1 . . any particular description of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever . . . ." 49 U. S. C. § 3(1).
As §§ 1 (6), 2 and 3 (1) of the Act only are material on this appeal, they alone are quoted in pertinent part.
No reparations were requested in this proceeding. However, as the Government indicates, if the railroads’ refusal to pay for wharf-age and handling is held to be a violation of the Act, the Government may deduct the prior “overpayments” from future sums due the railroads. See 49 U. S. C. § 66.
See 289 I. C. C., at 61.
They can assume such and similar accessorial services by tariffs approved by the Commission as fair. See Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 305 U. S. 507, 524. It is discrimination or unfairness in the tariffs that calls for correction. United States v. United States Smelting Co., 339 U. S. 186, 194-197. Such determinations are on a case-by-case basis. See, e. g., United States v. Wabash R. Co., 321 U. S. 403.
It called for performance of “all terminal and pier warehouse intransit storage services excluding physical plant facilities (piers, warehouses, etc.); all checking and clerking services in connection therewith; all policing (sweeping and cleaning) services; and such other terminal services (excluding vessel checking and stevedoring; watchmen and guard service; utilities and maintenance of premises service) as may be designated herein, and, in connection therewith, . . . [the performance of] all the duties of a terminal operator in such areas of the Norfolk Army Base or at any pier in or about the Hampton Roads harbor area as may be designated by the Contracting Officer . . . ."
“Statement of Excerpts from Penna. R.R. Tariff ICC 3007, Setting Forth the Regulations and the Compensation Which the Penna. R.R. Will Pay to the Norfolk Terminals Division of Stevenson & Young, Inc., for Wharfage Facilities Furnished and Handling Services Performed at Norfolk, Va.
“Rule 47
“. . . wharfage and handling charges published in Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company Tariff No. 6-J, I.C.C. 105, will be included in the freight rate to or from Norfolk, Va., on Export, Import, Intercoastal and Coastwise freight traffic, any quantity, . . . subject to the following conditions:
“ (b) When receipt from or delivery to vessel is in rail service over wharf properties owned or leased by Norfolk Terminals Division of Stevenson & Young, Inc., and operated by Norfolk Terminals Division of Stevenson & Young, Inc., as a public terminal facility of the rail carriers.
[On January 1, 1952, the above rule (b) was changed. As the change strengthened the tariff in favor of the railroads, it is not quoted. See 289 I. C. C., at 59.]
“Compensation
“The Pennsylvania Railroad Company will pay to Norfolk Terminals Division of Stevenson & Young, Inc., as its agent, for wharfage facilities furnished and handling services performed on traffic described and conforming to the conditions specified above, compensation in the following amounts in cents per 100 pounds, except as otherwise provided.
Wharfage Handling
“[Generally] 1)4 3% or 75 cents per ton
[There were exceptions.]
“(1) (a) Handling Charges will not be absorbed on freight in open cars, except on lumber, ....
“(b) When stowing in open cars is required, handling charge of % cent per 100 pounds or 10 cents per 2000 pounds will be absorbed on lumber, all kinds ....
“(2) (a) Wharfage and/or handling charges will not be absorbed on freight accorded literage, or on Grain or any other inbound or outbound traffic milled, mixed, malted or stored in transit at the wharf properties operated by Norfolk Terminals Division of Stevenson & Young, Inc., [or numerous other warehouses and terminals].
“(b) In all other respects on Export, Import, Intercoastal and Coastwise traffic, the wharfage, handling, storage and/or other charges applicable at the wharf properties operated by Norfolk Terminals Division of Stevenson & Young, Inc., [or numerous other warehouses and terminals] will be in addition to the rate to and from Norfolk, Va. or Portsmouth, Va., as the case may be, published in tariffs lawfully on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
See United States v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co., 289 I. C. C., at 61. It seems clear that such an attack could be made if present conditions justified a re-examination. The War Department attacked the practice in 1921 but its objection was overruled by the I. C. C. in 1929 after a thorough investigation in a 6-5 vote. Wharfage Charges at Atlantic and Gulf Ports, 157 I. C. C. 663, 678-686. Separation was sought largely to force the railroads to increase terminal charges so that competitive municipal and other nonrailroad wharfingers might expand to develop better port facilities. The Commission reached the conclusion that such separation was inadvisable, as there was no evidence of injury from such practice.
“The carriers afford port facilities in competition with each other at the ports and a competitive condition exists which can not be eliminated by the mere segregation of uniform port charges. If the port charges were uniform at all ports the carriers still could meet competition by shrinking their line-haul rates. If the port charges were different at each port the carriers having the larger charge could shrink their line-haul rates sufficiently to offset the larger port charge, and the real substance of the present ship-side rates, where they exist, would be reestablished.” Id., at 684.
It was the sensitivity of the foreign importers and domestic ports to rates so stated that led to this conclusion. In the highly competitive railway network, export traffic is an important factor to the carriers and the ports. Costs of port handling vary widely, 157 I. C. C., at 673. Such variations are now absorbed in the practice of quoting shipside delivery in tariffs.
Such an exception is beyond the requirements of § 6 (8) of the Act that provides for preference and precedence for United States shipments in emergencies.
This conclusion was amply supported by testimony of a Government witness, the Commanding Officer, Hampton Roads, Port of Embarkation:
“Only such personnel has the requisite training in the intricate nomenclature pertaining to the items and to the documentation required in connection with the proper loading and dispatching of vessels.
“A vast amount of pre-stowage planning of vessels in a port of embarkation must precede the labor of actual loading. Precise knowledge of overseas requirements must be available. Therefore, controls required to be exercised of all shipments must be absolute. These, begin when freight is ordered shipped from points of origin and continue until the various commodities reach their final destination overseas.”
The Government’s request for export rates on its war shipments was granted by the railroads so that commercial and government export freight had the same rates. Cf. War Materials Reparation Cases, 294 I. C. C. 5. This was a substantial concession by the railroads, contrary to their tariffs, and done only because of § 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C., allowing concessions to the United States. 289 I. C. C., at 63. The railroads have also spotted cars for the Army after delivery in the storage yards without extra charge. Other shippers would be charged for such service. 289 I. C. C., at 55. See United States v. American Tin Plate Co., 301 U. S. 402. Such relaxation of possible additional charges-by the railroads does not decide the Army’s claim for allowances for handling. The Commission did take the concessions into consideration, however, as to the fairness of the refusal to grant the claimed allowances. 289 I. C. C., at 64.
Although the Government seeks only an allowance of the published charge absorbed by the carriers of $1.00 per ton, the kind of service it requires in its area is illustrated by the fact that it pays $2.87 for handling. 289 I. C. C., at 61 et seq.
The Army’s reliance on Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 232 U. S. 199, is misplaced. There this Court sustained the Commission in granting a shipper of fruit the right to precool the car and contents, although the carriers were in a position to refrigerate, though not in the better way. As the carriers were not in a position to perform the service properly, they could not by a tariff deny the consignor such right.
“Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the . . . handling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States ...” 49 U. S. C. § 22.
“If it were not for the fact that the Government has reasons for handling its water-borne traffic differently from commercial shippers, there would be no reason why the Government should not use public piers like other shippers. There is no question but that a private shipper operating his own pier and handling his own traffic in a manner similar to the operation of the Norfolk Army Base today would not be entitled to the port rates.”
289 I. C. C., at 63: “Evidence presented by the defendants supports their position that it is not unreasonable to refuse to extend wharfage and handling services to traffic handled over private piers when the shipper does not wish to use adequate facilities of the defendants. The defendants serving the Norfolk port area have had available port facilities more than ample to handle all the military traffic moving over the Army Base at Norfolk, at least on and since May 1,1951.”
49 U. S. C. § 2, n. 2, supra.
A typical tariff reads:
“Delivery of a line-haul carload shipment destined to smelter at Leadville, Colo., will include movement within smelter plant over track scales, to and from thaw-house, to and from a smelter sampler or to and from a combination sampler and concentrator to a designated unloading point indicated by the sampling company.” 339 U. S., at 196. See also United States Smelting & Refining Co., 266 I. C. C. 476, 478.
L. T. Barringer & Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 1, 6-7:
“Whether those circumstances and conditions are sufficiently dissimilar to justify a difference in rates, or whether, on the other hand, the difference in rates constitutes an unjust discrimination because based primarily on considerations relating to the identity or competitive position of the particular shipper rather than to circumstances attending the transportation service, is a question of fact for the Commission’s determination. Hence its conclusion that in view of all the relevant facts and circumstances a rate or practice either is or is not unjustly discriminatory within the meaning of § 2 of the Act will not be disturbed here unless we can say that its finding is unsupported by evidence or without rational basis, or rests on an erroneous construction of the statute.”
For the same reasons, in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 305 U. S. 507, 526, dealing with storage of goods in transit, and United States v. American Tin Plate Co., 301 U. S. 402, 407-408, dealing with post-line-haul switching practices, this Court has upheld the Commission’s determination of unfairness vis-á-vis other shippers and its prohibitory orders. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 57; Merchants Warehouse Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 501; United States v. Wabash R. Co., 321 U. S. 403, 410.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Two Liberian corporations sued the Argentine Republic in a United States District Court to recover damages for a tort allegedly committed by its armed forces on the high seas in violation of international law. We hold that the District Court correctly dismissed the action, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U. S. C. § 1330 et seq., does not authorize jurisdiction over a foreign state in this situation.
Respondents alleged the following facts in their complaints. Respondent United Carriers, Inc., a Liberian corporation, chartered one of its oil tankers, the Hercules, to respondent Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation, also a Liberian corporation. The contract was executed in New York City. Amerada Hess used the Hercules to transport crude oil from the southern terminus of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in Valdez, Alaska, around Cape Horn in South America, to the Hess refinery in the United States Virgin Islands. On May 25, 1982, the Hercules began a return voyage, without cargo but fully fueled, from the Virgin Islands to Alaska. At that time, Great Britain and petitioner Argentine Republic were at war over an archipelago of some 200 islands — the Falkland Islands to the British, and the Islas Malvinas to the Argentineans —in the South Atlantic off the Argentine coast. On June 3, United States officials informed the two belligerents of the location of United States vessels and Liberian tankers owned by United States interests then traversing the South Atlantic, including the Hercules, to avoid any attacks on neutral shipping.
By June 8, 1982, after a stop in Brazil, the Hercules was in international waters about 600 nautical miles from Argentina and 500 miles from the Falklands; she was outside the “war zones” designated by Britain and Argentina. At 12:15 Greenwich mean time, the ship’s master made a routine report by radio to Argentine officials, providing the ship’s name, international call sign, registry, position, course, speed, and voyage description. About 45 minutes later, an Argentine military aircraft began to circle the Hercules. The ship’s master repeated his earlier message by radio to Argentine officials, who acknowledged receiving it. Six minutes later, without provocation, another Argentine military plane began to bomb the Hercules; the master immediately hoisted a white flag. A second bombing soon followed, and a third attack came about two hours later, when an Argentine jet struck the ship with an air-to-surface rocket. Disabled but not destroyed, the Hercules reversed course and sailed to Rio de Janeiro, the nearest safe port. At Rio de Janeiro, respondent United Carriers determined that the ship had suffered extensive deck and hull damage, and that an undetonated bomb remained lodged in her No. 2 tank. After an investigation by the Brazilian Navy, United Carriers decided that it would be too hazardous to remove the undetonated bomb, and on July 20, 1982, the Hercules was scuttled 250 miles off the Brazilian coast.
Following unsuccessful attempts to obtain relief in Argentina, respondents commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the damage that they sustained from the attack. United Carriers sought $10 million in damages for the loss of the ship; Amerada Hess sought $1.9 million in damages for the fuel that went down with the ship. Respondents alleged that petitioner’s attack on the neutral Hercules violated international law. They invoked the District Court’s jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1350, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Amerada Hess also brought suit under the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1333, and “the principle of universal jurisdiction, recognized in customary international law.” Complaint of Amerada Hess ¶ 5, App. 20. The District Court dismissed both complaints for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 638 F. Supp. 73 (1986), ruling that respondents’ suits were barred by the FSIA.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 830 F. 2d 421 (1987). The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute, because respondents’ consolidated action was brought by Liberian corporations, it sounded in tort (“the bombing of a ship without justification”), and it asserted a violation of international law (“attacking a neutral ship in international waters, without proper cause for suspicion or investigation”). Id., at 424-425. Viewing the Alien Tort Statute as “no more than a jurisdictional grant based on international law,” the Court of Appeals said that “who is within” the scope of that grant is governed by “evolving standards of international law.” Id., at 425, citing Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876, 880 (CA2 1980). The Court of Appeals reasoned that Congress’ enactment of the FSIA was not meant to eliminate “existing remedies in United States courts for violations of international law” by foreign states under the Alien Tort Statute. 830 F. 2d, at 426. The dissenting judge took the view that the FSIA precluded respondents’ action. Id., at 431. We granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 1005 (1988), and now reverse.
We start from the settled proposition that the subject-matter jurisdiction of the lower federal courts is determined by Congress “in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good.” Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245 (1845); see Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 701 (1982) (jurisdiction of lower federal courts is “limited to those subjects encompassed within the statutory grant of jurisdiction”). In the FSIA, Congress added a new chapter 97 to Title 28 of the United States Code, 28 U. S. C. § 1602-1611, which is entitled “Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States.” Section 1604 provides that “[s]ubject to existing international agreements to which the United States [was] a party at the time of the enactment of this Act[,] a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to .1607 of this chapter.” The FSIA also added § 1330(a) to Title 28; it provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a foreign state ... as to any claim for relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity under sections 1605-1607 of this title or under any applicable international agreement.” § 1330(a).
We think that the text and structure of the FSIA demonstrate Congress’ intention that the FSIA be the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts. Sections 1604 and 1330(a) work in tandem: § 1604 bars federal and state courts from exercising jurisdiction when a foreign state is entitled to immunity, and § 1330(a) confers jurisdiction on district courts to hear suits brought by United States citizens and by aliens when a foreign state is not entitled to immunity. As we said in Verlinden, the FSIA “must be applied by the district courts in every action against a foreign sovereign, since subject-matter jurisdiction in any such action depends on the existence of one of the specified exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.” Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 493 (1983).
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the FSIA’s language and legislative history support the “general rule” that the Act governs the immunity of foreign states in federal court. 830 F. 2d, at 426. The Court of Appeals, however, thought that the FSIA’s “focus on commercial concerns” and Congress’ failure to “repeal” the Alien Tort Statute indicated Congress’ intention that federal courts continue to exercise jurisdiction over foreign states in suits alleging violations of international law outside the confines of the FSIA. Id., at 427. The Court of Appeals also believed that to construe the FSIA to bar the instant suit would “fly in the face” of Congress’ intention that the FSIA be interpreted pursuant to “‘standards recognized under international law.’” Ibid., quoting H. R. Rep., at 14.
Taking the last of these points first, Congress had violations of international law by foreign states in mind when it enacted the FSIA. For example, the FSIA specifically denies foreign states immunity in suits “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.” 28 U.. S. C. § 1605(a)(3). Congress also rested the FSIA in part on its power under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10, of the Constitution “[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” See H. R. Rep., at 12; S. Rep., at 12. From Congress’ decision to deny immunity to foreign states in the class of cases just mentioned, we draw the plain implication that immunity is granted in those cases involving alleged violations of international law that do not come within one of the FSIA’s exceptions.
As to the other point made by the Court of Appeals, Congress’ failure to enact a pro tanto repealer of the Alien Tort Statute when it passed the FSIA in 1976 may be explained at least in part by the lack of certainty as to whether the Alien Tort Statute conferred jurisdiction in suits against foreign states. Enacted by the First Congress in 1789, the Alien Tort Statute provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §1350. The Court of Appeals did not cite any decision in which a United States court exercised jurisdiction over a foreign state under the Alien Tort Statute, and only one such case has come to our attention — one which was decided after the enactment of the FSIA.
In this Court, respondents argue that cases were brought under the Alien Tort Statute against foreign states for the unlawful taking of a prize during wartime. Brief for Respondents 18-25. The Alien Tort Statute makes no mention of prize jurisdiction, and § 1333(2) now grants federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over “all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as a prize.” In The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283, 353-354 (1822), we held that foreign states were not immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts in prize proceedings. That case, however, was not brought under the Alien Tort Statute but rather as a libel in admiralty. Thus there is a distinctly hypothetical cast to the Court of Appeals’ reliance on Congress’ failure to repeal the Alien Tort Statute, and respondents’ arguments in this Court based on the principle of statutory construction that repeals by implication are disfavored.
We think that Congress’ failure in the FSIA to enact an express pro tanto repealer of the Alien Tort Statute speaks only faintly, if at all, to the issue involved in this case. In light of the comprehensiveness of the statutory scheme in the FSIA, we doubt that even the most meticulous draftsman would have concluded that Congress also needed to amend pro tanto the Alien Tort Statute and presumably such other grants of subject-matter jurisdiction in Title 28 as § 1331 (federal question), § 1333 (admiralty), § 1335 (interpleader), § 1337 (commerce and antitrust), and §1338 (patents, copyrights, and trademarks). Congress provided in the FSIA that “[c]laims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter,” and very likely it thought that should be sufficient. § 1602 (emphasis added); see also H. R. Rep., at 12; S. Rep., at 11 (FSIA “intended to preempt any other State and Federal law (excluding applicable international agreements) for according immunity to foreign sovereigns”).
For similar reasons we are not persuaded by respondents’ arguments based upon the rule of statutory construction under which repeals by implication are disfavored. This case does not involve two statutes that readily could be seen as supplementing one another, see Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 363 (1842), nor is it a case where a more general statute is claimed to have repealed by implication an earlier statute dealing with a narrower subject. See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 549-551 (1974). We think that Congress’ decision to deal comprehensively with the subject of foreign sovereign immunity in the FSIA, and the express provision in § 1604 that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605-1607,” preclude a construction of the Alien Tort Statute that permits the instant suit. See Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596, 601-602 (1883); United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 92 (1871). The Alien Tort Statute by its terms does not distinguish among classes of defendants, and it of course has the same effect after the passage of the FSIA as before with respect to defendants other than foreign states.
Respondents also argue that the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, § 1333(1), provides a basis for obtaining jurisdiction over petitioner for violations of international law, notwithstanding the FSIA. Brief for Respondents 42-49. But Congress dealt with the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts when it enacted the FSIA. Section 1605(b) expressly permits an in personam suit in admiralty to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel or cargo of a foreign state' Unless the present case is within § 1605(b) or another exception to the FSIA, the statute conferring general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the federal courts does not authorize the bringing of this action against petitioner.
Having determined that the FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court, we turn to whether any of the exceptions enumerated in the Act apply here. These exceptions include cases involving the waiver of immunity, § 1605(a)(1), commercial activities occurring in the United States or causing a direct effect in this country, § 1605(a)(2), property expropriated in violation of international law, § 1605(a)(3), inherited, gift, or immovable property located in the United States, § 1605(a)(4), noncommercial torts occurring in the United States, § 1605(a)(5), and maritime liens, § 1605(b). We agree with the District Court that none of the FSIA’s exceptions applies on these facts. See 638 F. Supp., at 75-77.
Respondents assert that the FSIA exception for noncommercial torts, § 1605(a)(5), is most in point. Brief for Respondents 50-52. This provision denies immunity in a case
“in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U. S. C. § 1605(a)(5).
Section 1605(a)(5) is limited by its terms, however, to those cases in which the damage to or loss of property occurs in the United States. Congress’ primary purpose in enacting § 1605(a)(5) was to eliminate a foreign state’s immunity for traffic accidents and other torts committed in the United States, for which, liability is imposed under domestic tort law. See H. R. Rep., at 14, 20-21; S. Rep., at 14, 20-21.
In this case, the injury to respondents’ ship occurred on the high seas some 5,000 miles off the nearest shores of the United States. Despite these telling facts, respondents nonetheless claim that the tortious attack on the Hercules occurred “in the United States.” They point out that the FSIA defines “United States” as including all “territory and waters, continental and insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” § 1603(c), and that their injury occurred on the high seas, which is within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, see The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 36 (1866). They reason, therefore, that “by statutory definition” petitioner’s attack occurred in the United States. Brief for Respondents 50-51.
We find this logic unpersuasive. We construe the modifying phrase “continental and insular” to restrict the definition of United States to the continental United States and those islands that are part of the United States or its possessions; any other reading would render this phrase nugatory. Likewise, the term “waters” in § 1603(c) cannot reasonably be read to cover all waters over which United States courts might exercise jurisdiction. When it desires to do so, Congress knows how to place the high seas within the jurisdictional reach of a statute. We thus apply “[t]he canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Foley Broth ers v. Filardo, 336 U. S. 281, 285 (1949); see also Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U. S. 25, 32 (1982). Because respondents’ injury unquestionably occurred well outside the 3-mile limit then in effect for the territorial waters of the United States, the exception for noncommercial torts cannot apply.
The result in this case is not altered by the fact that petitioner’s alleged tort may have had effects in the United States. Respondents state, for example, that the Hercules was transporting oil intended for use in this country and that the loss of the ship disrupted contractual payments due in New York. Brief for Respondents 51. Under the commercial activity exception to the FSIA, § 1605(a)(2), a foreign state may be hable for its commercial activities “outside the territory of the United States” having a “direct effect” inside the United States. But the noncommercial tort exception, § 1605(a)(5), upon which respondents rely, makes no mention of “territory outside the United States” or of “direct effects” in the United States. Congress’ decision to use explicit language in § 1605(a)(2), and not to do so in § 1605(a)(5), indicates that the exception in § 1605(a)(5) covers only torts occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Respondents do not claim that § 1605(a)(2) covers these facts.
We also disagree with respondents’ claim that certain international agreements entered into by petitioner and by the United States create an exception to the FSIA here. Brief for Respondents 17. As .noted, the FSIA was adopted “[s]ubject to international agreements to which the United States [was] a party at the time of [its] enactment.” § 1604. This exception applies when international agreements “expressly conflic[t]” with the immunity provisions of the FSIA, H. R. Rep., at 17; S. Rep., at 17, hardly the circumstances in this case. Respondents point to the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, [1962] 13 U. S. T. 2312, T. I. A. S. No. 5200, and the Pan American Maritime Neutrality Convention, Feb. 20, 1928, 47 Stat. 1989, 1990-1991, T. S. No. 845. Brief for Respondents 31-34. These conventions, however, only set forth substantive rules of conduct and state that compensation shall be paid for certain wrongs. They do not create private rights of action for foreign corporations to recover compensation from foreign states in United States courts. Cf. Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 598-599 (1884); Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314 (1829). Nor do we see how a foreign state can waive its immunity under § 1605(a)(1) by signing an international agreement that contains no mention of a waiver of immunity to suit in United States courts or even the availability of a cause of action in the United States. We find similarly unpersuasive the argument of respondents and Amicus Curiae Republic of Liberia that the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Aug. 8, 1938, United States-Liberia, 54 Stat. 1739, T. S. No. 956, carves out an exception to the FSIA. Brief for Respondents 52-53; Brief for the Republic of Liberia as Amicus Curiae 11. Article I of this Treaty provides, in pertinent part, that the nationals of the United States and Liberia “shall enjoy freedom of access to the courts of justice of the other on conforming to the local laws.” The FSIA is clearly one of the “local laws” to which respondents must “conform” before bringing suit in United States courts.
We hold that the FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country, and that none of the enumerated exceptions to the Act apply to the facts of this case. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
From the Nation’s founding until 1952, foreign states were “generally granted. . . complete immunity from suit” in United States courts, and the Judicial Branch deferred to the decisions of the Executive Branch on such questions. Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 486 (1983). In 1952, the State Department adopted the view that foreign states could be sued in United States courts for their commercial acts, but not for their public acts. Id., at 487. “For the most part,” the FSIA “codifies” this so-called “restrictive” theory of foreign sovereign immunity. Id., at 488.
Respondents did not invoke the District Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1330(a). They did, however, serve their complaints upon petitioner’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in conformity with the service of process provisions of the FSIA, 28 U. S. C. § 1608(a), and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Department of State, 22 CFR pt. 93 (1988). See App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a, 41a.
Subsection (b) of 28 U. S. C. § 1330 provides that “[pjersonal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have [subject-matter] jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under [28 U. S. C. § 1608].” Thus, personal jurisdiction, like subject-matter jurisdiction, exists only when one of the exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity in §§ 1605-1607 applies. Verlinden, supra, at 485, 489, and n. 14. Congress’ intention to enact a comprehensive statutory scheme is also supported by the inclusion in the FSIA of provisions for venue, 28 U. S. C. § 1391(f), removal, § 1441(d), and attachment and execution, §§ 1609-1611. Our conclusion here is supported by the FSIA’s legislative history. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 94-1487, p. 12 (1976) (H. R. Rep.); S. Rep. No. 94-1310, pp. 11-12 (1976) (S. Rep.) (FSIA “sets forth the sole and exclusive standards to be used in resolving questions of sovereign immunity raised by sovereign states before Federal and State courts in the United States,” and “prescribes. . . the jurisdiction of U. S. district courts in cases involving foreign states”).
See Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 623 F. Supp. 246 (DC 1985) (alternative holding). The Court of Appeals did cite its earlier decision in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 (1980), which involved a suit under the Alien Tort Statute by a Paraguayan national against a Paraguayan police official for torture; the Paraguayan Government was not joined as a defendant.
The FSIA amended the diversity statute to delete references to suits in which a “foreign stat[e]” is a party either as plaintiff or defendant, see 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332(a)(2) and (3) (1970 ed.), and added a new paragraph (4) that preserves diversity jurisdiction over suits in which foreign states are plaintiffs. As the legislative history explained, “[sjince jurisdiction in actions against foreign states is comprehensively treated by the new section 1330, a similar jurisdictional basis under section 1332 becomes superfluous.” H. R. Rep., at 14; S. Rep., at 13. Unlike the diversity statute, however, the Alien Tort Statute and the other statutes conferring jurisdiction in general terms on district courts cited in the text did not in' 1976 (or today) expressly provide for suits against foreign states.
The Court of Appeals majority did not pass on whether any of the exceptions to the FSIA applies here. It did note, however, that respondents’ arguments regarding § 1605(a)(5) were consistent with its disposition of the case. 830 F. 2d, at 429, n. 3. The dissent found none of the FSIA’s exceptions applicable on these facts. Id,., at 430 (Kearse, J. dissenting).
See, e. g., 14 U. S. C. § 89(a) (empowering Coast Guard to search and seize vessels “upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction” for “prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States”); 18 U. S. C. § 7 (“special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” in Federal Criminal Code extends to United States vessels on “[t]he high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State”); 19 U. S. C. § 1701 (permitting President to declare portions of “high seas” as customs-enforcement areas).
The United States has historically adhered to a territorial sea of 3 nautical miles, see United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 32-34 (1947), although international conventions permit a territorial sea of up to 12 miles. See 2 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of United States § 511 (1987). On December 28, 1988, the President announced that the United States would henceforth recognize a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles. See Presidential Proclamation No. 5928, 3 CFR 547 (1988).
Section 1605(a)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that foreign states shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts in cases “in which the 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.”
Article 22(1), (3), of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 13 U. S. T., at 2318-2319, for example, states that a warship may only board a merchant ship if it has a “reasonable ground for suspecting” the merchant ship is involved in piracy, the slave trade, or traveling under false colors. If an inspection fails to support the suspicion, the merchant ship “shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.” Article 23 contains comparable provisions for the stopping of merchant ships by aircraft. Similarly, Article 1 of the Pan American Maritime Neutrality Convention, 47 Stat., at 1990, 1994, permits a warship to stop a merchant ship on the high seas to determine its cargo, and whether it has committed “any violation of blockade,” but the warship may only use force if the merchant ship “fails to observe the instructions given it.” Article 27 provides: “A belligerent shall indemnify the damage caused by its violation of the foregoing provisions. It shall likewise be responsible for the acts of persons who may belong to its armed forces.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Sixth Amendment safeguards to an accused who faces incarceration the right to counsel at all critical stages of the criminal process. Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159, 170 (1985); United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 224 (1967). The entry of a guilty plea, whether to a misdemeanor or a felony charge, ranks as a “critical stage” at which the right to counsel adheres. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 34 (1972); White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59, 60 (1963) (per curiam). Waiver of the right to counsel, as of constitutional rights in the criminal process generally, must be a “knowing, intelligent ac[t] done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances.” Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 748 (1970). This case concerns the extent to which a trial judge, before accepting a guilty plea from an uncounseled defendant, must elaborate on the right to representation.
Beyond affording the defendant the opportunity to consult with counsel prior to entry of a plea and to be assisted by counsel at the plea hearing, must the court, specifically: (1) advise the defendant that “waiving the assistance of counsel in deciding whether to plead guilty [entails] the risk that a viable defense will be overlooked”; and (2) “admonis[h]” the defendant “that by waiving his right to an attorney he will lose the opportunity to obtain an independent opinion on whether, under the facts and applicable law, it is wise to plead guilty”? 656 N. W. 2d 112, 121 (Iowa 2003). The Iowa Supreme Court held both warnings essential to the “knowing and intelligent” waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Ibid.
We hold that neither warning is mandated by the Sixth Amendment. The constitutional requirement is satisfied when the trial court informs the accused of the nature of the charges against him, of his right to be counseled regarding his plea, and of the range of allowable punishments attendant upon the entry of a guilty plea.
I
On November 2, 1996, respondent Felipe Edgardo Tovar, then a 21-year-old college student, was arrested in Ames, Iowa, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OWI). See Iowa Code §321J.2 (1995). An intoxilyzer test administered the night of Tovar’s arrest showed he had a blood alcohol level of 0.194. App. 24. The arresting officer informed Tovar of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Tovar signed a form stating that he waived those rights and agreed to answer questions. Iowa State Univ. Dept. of Public Safety, OWI Supplemental Report 3 (Nov. 2,1996), Lodging of Petitioner; Iowa State Univ. Dept. of Public Safety, Rights Warnings (Nov. 2, 1996), Lodging of Petitioner.
Some hours after his arrest, Tovar appeared before a judge in the Iowa District Court for Story County. The judge indicated on the initial appearance form that Tovar appeared without counsel and waived application for court-appointed counsel. Initial Appearance in No. OWCR 23989 (Nov. 2, 1996), Lodging of Petitioner. The judge also marked on the form’s checklist that Tovar was “informed of the charge and his . . . rights and receive[d] a copy of the Complaint.” Ibid. Arraignment was set for November 18, 1996. In the interim, Tovar was released from jail.
At the November 18 arraignment, the court’s inquiries of Tovar began: “Mr. Tovar appears without counsel and I see, Mr. Tovar, that you waived application for a court appointed attorney. Did you want to represent yourself at today’s hearing?” App. 8-9. Tovar replied: “Yes, sir.” Id., at 9. The court soon after asked: “[H]ow did you wish to plead?” Tovar answered: “Guilty.” Ibid. Tovar affirmed that he had not been promised anything or threatened in any way to induce him to plead guilty. Id., at 13-14.
Conducting the guilty plea colloquy required by the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure, see Iowa Rule Crim. Proc. 8 (1992), the court explained that, if Tovar pleaded not guilty, he would be entitled to a speedy and public trial by jury, App. 15, and would have the right to be represented at that trial by an attorney, who “could help [Tovar] select a jury, question and cross-examine the State’s witnesses, present evidence, if any, in [his] behalf, and make arguments to the judge and jury on [his] behalf,” id., at 16. By pleading guilty, the court cautioned, “not only [would Tovar] give up [his] right to a trial [of any kind on the charge against him], [he would] give up [his] right to be represented by an attorney at that trial.” Ibid. The court further advised Tovar that, if he entered a guilty plea, he would relinquish the right to remain silent at trial, the right to the presumption of innocence, and the right to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony. Id., at 16-19.
Turning to the particular offense with which Tovar had been charged, the court informed him that an OWI conviction carried a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and a minimum penalty of two days in jail and a $500 fine. Id., at 20. Tovar affirmed that he understood his exposure to those penalties. Ibid. The court next explained that, before accepting a guilty plea, the court had to assure itself that Tovar was in fact guilty of the charged offense. Id., at 21-22. To that end, the court informed Tovar that the OWI charge had only two elements: first, on the date in question, Tovar was operating a motor vehicle in the State of Iowa; second, when he did so, he was intoxicated. Id., at 23. Tovar confirmed that he had been driving in Ames, Iowa, on the night he was apprehended and that he did not dispute the results of the intoxilyzer test administered by the police that night, which showed that his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit nearly twice over. Id., at 23-24.
After the plea colloquy, the court asked Tovar if he still wished to plead guilty, and Tovar affirmed that he did. Id., at 27-28. The court then accepted Tovar’s plea, observing that there was “a factual basis” for it, and that Tovar had made the plea “voluntarily, with a full understanding of [his] rights, [and] ... of the consequences of [pleading guilty].” Id., at 28.
On December 30, 1996, Tovar appeared for sentencing on the OWI charge and, simultaneously, for arraignment on a subsequent charge of driving with a suspended license. Id., at 45-46; see Iowa Code §321J.21 (1995). Noting that Tovar was again in attendance without counsel, the court inquired: “Mr. Tovar, did you want to represent yourself at today’s hearing or did you want to take some time to hire an attorney to represent you?” App. 46. Tovar replied that he would represent himself. Ibid. The court then engaged in essentially the same plea colloquy on the suspension charge as it had on the OWI charge the previous month. Id., at 48-51. After accepting Tovar’s guilty plea on the suspension charge, the court sentenced him on both counts: For the OWI conviction, the court imposed the minimum sentence of two days in jail and a $500 fine, plus a surcharge and costs; for the suspension conviction, the court imposed a $250 fine, plus a surcharge and costs. Id., at 55.
On March 16,1998, Tovar was convicted of OWI for a second time. He was represented by counsel in that proceeding, in which he pleaded guilty. Record 60; see App. to Pet. for Cert. 24, n. 1.
On December 14, 2000, Tovar was again charged with OWI, this time as a third offense, see Iowa Code §321J.2 (1999), and additionally with driving while license barred, see §321.561. Iowa law classifies first-offense OWI as a serious misdemeanor and second-offense OWI as an aggravated misdemeanor. §§321J.2(2)(a)-(7>). Third-offense OWI, and any OWI offenses thereafter, rank as class “D” felonies. §321J.2(2)(c). Represented by an attorney, Tovar pleaded not guilty to both December 2000 charges. Record 55.
In March 2001, through counsel, Tovar filed a motion for adjudication of law points; the motion urged that Tovar’s first OWI conviction, in 1996, could not be used to enhance the December 2000 OWI charge from a second-offense aggravated misdemeanor to a third-offense felony. App. 3-5. Significantly, Tovar did not allege that he was unaware at the November 1996 arraignment of his right to counsel prior to pleading guilty and at the plea hearing. Instead, he maintained that his 1996 waiver of counsel was invalid — not “full knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” — because he “was never made aware by the court... of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Id., at 3-4.
The court denied Tovar’s motion in May 2001, explaining: “Where the offense is readily understood by laypersons and the penalty is not unduly severe, the duty of inquiry which is imposed upon the court is only that which is required to assure an awareness of [the] right to counsel and a willingness to proceed without counsel in the face of such awareness.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 36-37 (brackets in original). Tovar then waived his right to a jury trial and was found guilty by the court of both the OWI third-offense charge and driving while license barred. Id., at 33. Four months after that adjudication, Tovar was sentenced. On the OWI third-offense charge, he received a 180-day jail term, with all but 30 days suspended, three years of probation, and a $2,500 fine plus surcharges and costs. App. 70-71. For driving while license barred, Tovar received a 30-day jail term, to run concurrently with the OWI sentence, and a suspended $500 fine. Id., at 71.
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, App. to Pet. for Cert. 23-30, but the Supreme Court of Iowa, by a 4-to-3 vote, reversed and remanded for entry of judgment without consideration of Tovar’s first OWI conviction, 656 N. W. 2d 112 (2003). Iowa’s highest court acknowledged that “the dangers of proceeding pro se at a guilty plea proceeding will be different than the dangers of proceeding pro se at a jury trial, [therefore] the inquiries made at these proceedings will also be different.” Id., at 119. The court nonetheless held that the colloquy preceding acceptance of Tovar’s 1996 guilty plea had been constitutionally inadequate, and instructed dispositively:
“[A] defendant such as Tovar who chooses to plead guilty without the assistance of an attorney must be advised of the usefulness of an attorney and the dangers of self-representation in order to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.... [T]he trial judge [must] advise the defendant generally that there are defenses to criminal charges that may not be known by laypersons and that the danger in waiving the assistance of counsel in deciding whether to plead guilty is the risk that a viable defense will be overlooked. The defendant should be admonished that by waiving his right to an attorney he will lose the opportunity to obtain an independent opinion on whether, under the facts and applicable law, it is wise to plead guilty. In addition, the court must ensure the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him and the range of allowable punishments.” Id., at 121.
We granted certiorari, 539 U. S. 987 (2003), in view of the division of opinion on the requirements the Sixth Amendment imposes for waiver of counsel at a plea hearing, compare, e. g., United States v. Akins, 276 F. 3d 1141, 1146-1147 (CA9 2002), with State v. Cashman, 491 N. W. 2d 462, 465-466 (S. D. 1992), and we now reverse the judgment of the Iowa Supreme Court.
II
The Sixth Amendment secures to a defendant who faces incarceration the right to counsel at all “critical stages” of the criminal process. See, e. g., Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S., at 170; United States v. Wade, 388 U. S., at 224. A plea hearing qualifies as a “critical stage.” White v. Maryland, 373 U. S., at 60. Because Tovar received a two-day prison term for his 1996 OWI conviction, he had a right to counsel both at the plea stage and at trial had he elected to contest the charge. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S., at 34, 37.
A person accused of crime, however, may choose to forgo representation. While the Constitution “does not force a lawyer upon a defendant,” Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 279 (1942), it does require that any waiver of the right to counsel be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, see Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938). Tovar contends that his waiver of counsel in November 1996, at his first OWI plea hearing, was insufficiently informed, and therefore constitutionally invalid. In particular, he asserts that the trial judge did not elaborate on the value, at that stage of the case, of an attorney’s advice and the dangers of self-representation in entering a plea. Brief for Respondent 15.
We have described a waiver of counsel as intelligent when the defendant “knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” Adams, 317 U. S., at 279. We have not, however, prescribed any formula or script to be read to a defendant who states that he elects to proceed without counsel. The information a defendant must possess in order to make an intelligent election, our decisions indicate, will depend on a range of case-specific factors, including the defendant’s education or sophistication, the complex or easily grasped nature of the charge, and the stage of the proceeding. See Johnson, 304 U. S., at 464.
As to waiver of trial counsel, we have said that before a defendant may be allowed to proceed pro se, he must be warned specifically of the hazards ahead. Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975), is instructive. The defendant in Faretta resisted counsel’s aid, preferring to represent himself. The Court held that he had a constitutional right to self-representation. In recognizing that right, however, we cautioned: “Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing____” Id., at 835 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Later, in Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U. S. 285 (1988), we elaborated on “the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” to which Faretta referred. “[A]t trial,” we observed, “counsel is required to help even the most gifted layman adhere to the rules of procedure and evidence, comprehend the subtleties of voir dire, examine and cross-examine witnesses effectively ..., object to improper prosecution questions, and much more.” 487 U. S., at 299, n. 13. Warnings of the pitfalls of proceeding to trial without counsel, we therefore said, must be “rigorous[ly]” conveyed. Id., at 298. We clarified, however, that at earlier stages of the criminal process, a less searching or formal colloquy may suffice. Id., at 299.
Patterson concerned postindictment questioning by police and prosecutor. At that stage of the case, we held, the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), adequately informed the defendant not only of his Fifth Amendment rights, but of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel as well. 487 U. S., at 293. Miranda warnings, we said, effectively convey to a defendant his right to have counsel present during questioning. In addition, they inform him of the “ultimate adverse consequence” of making uncounseled admissions, i. e., his statements may be used against him in any ensuing criminal proceeding. 487 U. S., at 293. The Miranda warnings, we added, “also sufficed ... to let [the defendant] know what a lawyer could ‘do for him,’ ” namely, advise him to refrain from making statements that could prove damaging to his defense. 487 U. S., at 294.
Patterson describes a “pragmatic approach to the waiver question,” one that asks “what purposes a lawyer can serve at the particular stage of the proceedings in question, and what assistance he could provide to an accused at that stage,” in order “to determine the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the type of warnings and procedures that should be required before a waiver of that right will be recognized.” Id., at 298. We require less rigorous warnings pretrial, Patterson explained, not because pretrial proceedings are “less important” than trial, but because, at that stage, “the full dangers and disadvantages of self-representation . . . are less substantial and more obvious to an accused than they are at trial.” Id., at 299 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In Tovar’s case, the State maintains that, like the Miranda warnings we found adequate in Patterson, Iowa’s plea colloquy suffices both to advise a defendant of his right to counsel, and to assure that his guilty plea is informed and voluntary. Brief for Petitioner 20; Tr. of Oral Arg. 3. The plea colloquy, according to the State, “makes plain that an attorney’s role would be to challenge the charge or senténce,” and therefore adequately conveys to the defendant both the utility of counsel and the dangers of self-representation. Brief for Petitioner 25. Tovar, on the other hand, defends the precise instructions required by the Iowa Supreme Court, see supra, at 86-87, as essential to a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea stage waiver of counsel. Brief for Respondent 15.
To resolve this case, we need not endorse the State’s position that nothing more than the plea colloquy was needed to safeguard Tovar’s right to counsel. Preliminarily, we note that there were some things more in this case. Tovar first indicated that he waived counsel at his initial appearance, see supra, at 82, affirmed that he wanted to represent himself at the plea hearing, see supra, at 82, and declined the court’s offer of “time to hire an attorney” at sentencing, when it was still open to him to request withdrawal of his plea, see supra, at 84, and n. 4. Further, the State does not contest that a defendant must be alerted to his right to the assistance of counsel in entering a plea. See Brief for Petitioner 19 (acknowledging defendant’s need to know “retained or appointed counsel can assist” at the plea stage by “work[ingj on the issues of guilt and sentencing”). Indeed, the Iowa Supreme Court appeared to assume that Tovar was informed of his entitlement to counsel’s aid or, at least, to have preter-mitted that issue. See 656 N. W. 2d, at 117. Accordingly, the State presents a narrower question: “Does the Sixth Amendment require a court to give a rigid and detailed admonishment to a pro se defendant pleading guilty of the usefulness of an attorney, that an attorney may provide an independent opinion whether it is wise to plead guilty and that without an attorney the defendant risks overlooking a defense?” Pet. for Cert. i.
Training on that question, we. turn to, and reiterate, the particular language the Iowa Supreme Court employed in announcing the warnings it thought the Sixth Amendment required: “[T]he trial judge [must] advise the defendant generally that there are defenses to criminal charges that may not be known by laypersons and that the danger in waiving the assistance of counsel in deciding whether to plead guilty is the risk that a viable defense will be overlooked,” 656 N. W. 2d, at 121; in addition, “[t]he defendant should be admonished that by waiving his right to an attorney he will lose the opportunity to obtain an independent opinion on whether, under the facts and applicable law, it is wise to plead guilty,” ibid. Tovar did not receive such advice, and the sole question before us is whether the Sixth Amendment compels the two admonitions here in controversy. We hold it does not.
This Court recently explained, in reversing a lower court determination that a guilty plea was not voluntary: “[T]he law ordinarily considers a waiver knowing, intelligent, and sufficiently aware if the defendant fully understands the nature of the right and how it would likely apply in general in the circumstances — even though the defendant may not know the specific detailed consequences of invoking it.” United States v. Ruiz, 536 U. S. 622, 629 (2002) (emphasis in original). We similarly observed in Patterson: “If [the defendant] .. . lacked a full and complete appreciation of all of the consequences flowing from his waiver, it does not defeat the State’s showing that the information it provided to him satisfied the constitutional minimum.” 487 U. S., at 294 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Iowa Supreme Court gave insufficient consideration to these guiding decisions. In prescribing scripted admonitions and holding them necessary in every guilty plea instance, we further note, the Iowa high court overlooked our observations that the information a defendant must have to waive counsel intelligently will “depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case,” Johnson, 304 U. S., at 464; supra, at 88.
Moreover, as Tovar acknowledges, in a collateral attack on an uncounseled conviction, it is the defendant’s burden to prove that he did not competently and intelligently waive his right to the assistance of counsel. See Watts v. State, 257 N. W. 2d 70, 71 (Iowa 1977); Brief for Respondent 5, 26-27. In that light, we note that Tovar has never claimed that he did not fully understand the charge or the range of punishment for the crime prior to pleading guilty. Further, he has never “articulate[d] with precision” the additional information counsel could have provided, given the simplicity of the charge. See Patterson, 487 U. S., at 294; supra, at 83. Nor does he assert that he was unaware of his right to be counseled prior to and at his arraignment. Before this Court, he suggests only that he “may have been under the mistaken belief that he had a right to counsel at trial, but not if he was merely going to plead guilty.” Brief for Respondent 16 (emphasis added).
Given “the particular facts and circumstances surrounding [this] case,” see Johnson, 304 U. S., at 464, it is far from clear that warnings of the kind required by the Iowa Supreme Court would have enlightened Tovar’s decision whether to seek counsel or to represent himself. In a case so straightforward, the United States as amicus curiae suggests, the admonitions at issue might confuse or mislead a defendant more than they would inform him: The warnings the Iowa Supreme Court declared mandatory might be misconstrued as a veiled suggestion that a meritorious defense exists or that the defendant could plead to a lesser charge, when neither prospect is a realistic one. If a defendant delays his plea in the vain hope that counsel could uncover a tenable basis for contesting or reducing the criminal charge, the prompt disposition of the case will be impeded, and the resources of either the State (if the defendant is indigent) or the defendant himself (if he is financially ineligible for appointed counsel) will be wasted. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9, 28-29; Tr. of Oral Arg. 20-21.
We note, finally, that States are free to adopt by statute, rule, or decision any guides to the acceptance of an uncoun-seled plea they deem useful. See, e. g., Alaska Rule Crim. Proc. 39(a) (2003); Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.111(d) (2003); Md. Ct. Rule 4-215 (2002); Minn. Rule Crim. Proc. 5.02 (2003); Pa. Rule Crim. Proc. 121, comment (2003). We hold only that the two admonitions the Iowa Supreme Court ordered are not required by the Federal Constitution.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“A person commits the offense of operating while intoxicated if the person operates a motor vehicle in this state in either of the following conditions: a. While under the influence of an alcoholic beverage .... b. While having an alcohol concentration ... of .10 or more.” Iowa Code § 321J.2(1) (1995).
Tovar appeared in court along with four other individuals charged with misdemeanor offenses. App. 6-10. The presiding judge proposed to conduct the plea proceeding for the five cases jointly, and each of the individuals indicated he did not object to that course of action. Id., at 11.
The Rule has since been renumbered 2.8.
At that stage, it was still open to Tovar to request withdrawal of his guilty plea on the OWI charge and to substitute a plea of not guilty. See Iowa Rule Crim. Proc. 8(2)(a) (1992).
In order to appear at the OWI arraignment, Tovar drove to the courthouse despite the suspension of his license; he was apprehended en route home. App. 50, 53.
Prior to asking Tovar whether he wished to hire counsel, the court noted that Tovar had applied for a court-appointed attorney but that his application had been denied because he was financially dependent upon his parents. Id., at 46. Tovar does not here challenge the absence of counsel at sentencing.
See Iowa Rule Crim. Proc. 10(2) (1992) (“Any defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion.”); State v. Wilt, 333 N. W. 2d 457, 460 (Iowa 1983) (approving use of motions for adjudication of law points under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(2) where material facts are undisputed).
Tovar conceded that the 1998 OWI conviction could be used for enhancement purposes. Record 60.
The dissenting justices criticized the majority’s approach as “rigid” and out of line with the pragmatic approach this Court described in Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U. S. 285, 298 (1988). 656 N. W. 2d, at 122. They noted that, in addition to advice concerning the constitutional rights a guilty plea relinquishes, Tovar was “made fully aware of the penal consequences that might befall him if he went forward without counsel and pleaded guilty.” Ibid.
The United States as amicus curiae reads our decision in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367 (1979), to hold that a constitutionally defective waiver of counsel in a misdemeanor prosecution, although warranting vacation of any term of imprisonment, affords no ground for disturbing the underlying conviction. Amicus accordingly contends that the Constitution should not preclude use of an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction to enhance the penalty for a subsequent offense, regardless of the validity of the prior waiver. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11, n. 3. The State, however, does not contest the Iowa Supreme Court’s determination that a conviction obtained without an effective waiver of counsel cannot be used to enhance a subsequent charge. See ibid. We therefore do not address arguments amicus advances questioning that premise. See also id., at 29, n. 12.
The Supreme Court of Iowa also held that “the court must ensure the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him and the range of allowable punishments.” 656 N. W. 2d, at 121. The parties do not dispute that Tovar was so informed.
The trial court’s comment that Tovar appeared without counsel at the arraignment and the court’s inquiry whether Tovar wanted to represent himself at that hearing, see App. 8-9, hardly lend support to Tovar’s suggestion of what he “may have” believed. See also id., at 46 (court’s inquiry at sentencing whether Tovar “want[ed] to take some time to hire an attorney”); Iowa Eule Crim. Proc. 8(2)(a) (1992) (“[a]t any time before judgment,” defendant may request withdrawal of guilty plea and substitution of not guilty plea).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this commercial suit against an Indian Tribe, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals rejected the Tribe’s claim of sovereign immunity. Our case law to date often recites the rule of tribal immunity from suit. While these precedents rest on early cases that assumed immunity without extensive reasoning, we adhere to these decisions and reverse the judgment.
I
Petitioner Kiowa Tribe is an Indian Tribe recognized by the Federal Government. The Tribe owns, land in Oklahoma, and, in addition, the United States holds land in that State in trust for the Tribe. Though the record is vague about some key details, the facts appear to be as follows: In 1990, a tribal entity called the Kiowa Industrial Development Commission agreed to buy from respondent Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., certain stock issued by Clinton-Sherman Aviation, Inc. On April 3, 1990, the then-chairman of the Tribe’s business committee signed a promissory note in the name of the Tribe. By its note, the Tribe agreed to pay Manufacturing Technologies $285,000 plus interest. The face of the note recites it was signed at Carnegie, Oklahoma, where the Tribe has a complex on land held in trust for the Tribe. According to respondent, however, the Tribe executed and delivered the note to Manufacturing Technologies in Oklahoma City, beyond the Tribe’s lands, and the note obligated the Tribe to make its payments in Oklahoma City. The note does not specify a governing law. In a paragraph entitled “Waivers and Governing Law,” it does provide: “Nothing in this Note subjects or limits the sovereign rights of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma.” App. 14.
The Tribe defaulted; respondent sued on the note in state court; and the Tribe moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, relying in part on its sovereign immunity from suit. The trial court denied the motion and entered judgment for respondent. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding Indian tribes are subject to suit in state court for breaches of contract involving off-reservation commercial conduct. The Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to review the judgment, and we granted certiorari. 521 U. S. 1117 (1997).
II
As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity. See Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 476 U. S. 877, 890 (1986); Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U. S. 49, 58 (1978); United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U. S. 506, 512 (1940) (USF&G). To date, our cases have sustained tribal immunity from suit without drawing a distinction based on where the tribal activities occurred. In one ease, a state court had asserted jurisdiction over tribal fishing “both on and off its reservation.” Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Wash., 433 U. S. 165, 167 (1977). We held the Tribe’s claim of immunity was “well founded,” though we did not discuss the relevance of where the fishing had taken place. Id., at 168, 172. Nor have we yet drawn a distinction between governmental and commercial activities of a tribe. See, e. g., ibid, (recognizing tribal immunity for fishing, which may well be a commercial activity); Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U. S. 505 (1991) (recognizing tribal immunity from suit over taxation of cigarette sales); USF&G, supra, (recognizing tribal immunity for coal-mining lease). Though respondent asks us to confine immunity from suit to transactions on reservations and to governmental activities, our precedents have not drawn these distinctions.
Our cases allowing States to apply their substantive laws to tribal activities are not to the contrary. We have recognized that a State may have authority to tax or regulate tribal activities occurring within the State but outside Indian country. See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 148-149 (1978); see also Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60, 75 (1962). To say substantive state laws apply to off-reservation conduct, however, is not to say that a tribe no longer enjoys immunity from suit. In Potawat-omi, for example, we reaffirmed that while Oklahoma may tax cigarette sales by a Tribe’s store to nonmembers, the Tribe enjoys immunity from a suit to collect unpaid state taxes. 498 U. S., at 510. There is a difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws and the means available to enforce them. See id., at 514.
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals nonetheless believed federal law did not mandate tribal immunity, resting its holding on the decision in Hoover v. Oklahoma, 909 P. 2d 59 (Okla. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U. S. 1188 (1996). In Hoover, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that tribal immunity for off-reservation commercial activity, like the decision not to exercise jurisdiction over a sister State, is solely a matter of comity. 909 P. 2d, at 62 (citing Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410, 426 (1979)). According to Hoover, because the State holds itself open to breach of contract suits, it may allow its citizens to sue other sovereigns acting within the State. We have often noted, however, that the immunity possessed by Indian tribes is not coextensive with that of the States. See, e. g., Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775 (1991). In Blatchford, we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention. They were thus not parties to the “mutuality of . . . concession” that “makes the States’ surrender of immunity from suit by sister States plausible.” Id., at 782; accord, Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 268-269 (1997). So tribal immunity is a matter of federal law and is not subject to diminution by the States. Three Affiliated Tribes, supra, at 891; Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 154 (1980).
Though the doctrine of tribal immunity is settled law and controls this ease, we note that it developed almost by accident. The doctrine is said by some of our own opinions to rest on the Court’s opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U. S. 354 (1919). See, e. g., Potawatomi, supra, at 510. Though Turner is indeed cited as authority for the immunity, examination shows it simply does not stand for that proposition. The case arose on lands within the Creek Nation’s “public domain” and subject to “the powers of [the] sovereign people.” 248 U. S., at 355. The Creek Nation gave each individual Creek grazing rights to a portion of the Creek Nation’s public lands, and 100 Creeks in turn leased their grazing rights to Turner, a non-Indian. He built a long fence around the land, but a mob of Creek Indians tore the fence down. Congress then passed a law allowing Turner to sue the Creek Nation in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims dismissed Turner’s suit, and the Court, in an opinion by Justice Brandéis, affirmed. The Court stated: “The fundamental obstacle to recovery is not the immunity of a sovereign to suit, but the lack of a substantive right to recover the damages resulting from failure of a government or its officers to keep the peace.” Id., at 358. “No such liability existed by the general law.” Id., at 357.
The quoted language is the heart of Turner. It is, at best, an assumption of immunity for the sake of argument, not a reasoned statement of doctrine. One cannot even say the Court or Congress assumed the congressional enactment was needed to overcome tribal immunity. There was a very different reason why Congress had to pass the Act: “The tribal government had been dissolved. Without authorization from Congress, the Nation could not then have been sued in any court; at least without its consent.” Id., at 358. The fact of tribal dissolution, not its sovereign status, was the predicate for the legislation authorizing suit. Turner, then, is but a slender reed for supporting the principle of tribal sovereign immunity.
Turner’s passing reference to immunity, however, did become an explicit holding that tribes had immunity from suit. We so held in USF&G, saying “These Indian Nations are exempt from suit without Congressional authorization.” 309 U. S., at 512 (citing Turner, supra, at 358). As sovereigns or quasi sovereigns, the Indian Nations enjoyed immunity “from judicial attack” absent consent to be sued. 309 U. S., at 513-514. Later eases, albeit with little analysis, reiterated the doctrine. E. g., Puyallup, 433 U. S., at 167, 172-173; Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U. S., at 58; Three Affiliated Tribes, 476 U. S., at 890-891; Blatchford, supra, at 782; Coeur d’Alene, supra, at 268.
The doctrine of tribal immunity came under attack a few years ago in Potawatomi, supra. The petitioner there asked us to abandon or at least narrow the doctrine because tribal businesses had become far removed from tribal self-governance and internal affairs. We retained the doctrine, however, on the theory that Congress had failed to abrogate it in order to promote economic development and tribal self-sufficiency. Id., at 510. The rationale, it must be said, can be challenged as inapposite to modern, wide-ranging tribal enterprises extending well beyond traditional tribal customs and activities. Justice Stevens, in a separate opinion, criticized tribal immunity as “founded upon an anachronistic fiction” and suggested it might not extend to off-reservation commercial activity. Id., at 514-515 (concurring opinion).
There are reasons to doubt the wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine. At one time, the doctrine of tribal immunity from suit might have been thought necessary to protect nascent tribal governments from encroachments by States. In our interdependent and mobile society, however, tribal immunity extends beyond what is needed to safeguard tribal self-governance. This is evident when tribes take part in the Nation’s commerce. Tribal enterprises now include ski resorts, gambling, and sales of cigarettes to non-Indians. See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145 (1973); Potawatomi, supra; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996). In this economic context, immunity can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims.
These considerations might suggest a need to abrogate tribal immunity, at least as an overarching rule. Respondent does not ask us to repudiate the principle outright, but suggests instead that we confine it to reservations or to noncommercial activities. We decline to draw this distinction in this case, as we defer to the role Congress may wish to exercise in this important judgment.
Congress has acted against the background of our decisions. It has restricted tribal immunity from suit in limited circumstances. See, e. g., 25 U. S. C. § 450f(e)(3) (mandatory liability insurance); § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) (gaming activities). And in other statutes it has declared an intention not to alter it. See, e.g., §450n (nothing in financial-assistance program is to be construed as “affecting, modifying, diminishing, or otherwise impairing the sovereign immunity from suit enjoyed by an Indian tribe”); see also Potawatomi, 498 U. S., at 510 (discussing Indian Financing Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 77, 25 U. S. C. § 1451 et seq.).
In considering Congress’ role in reforming tribal immunity,- we find instructive the problems of sovereign immunity for foreign countries. As with tribal immunity, foreign sovereign immunity began as a judicial doctrine. Chief Justice Marshall held that United States courts had no jurisdiction over an armed ship of a foreign state, even while in an American port. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812). While the holding was narrow, “that opinion came to be regarded as extending virtually absolute immunity to foreign sovereigns.” Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 486 (1983). In 1952, the State Department issued what came to be known as the Tate Letter, announcing the policy of denying immunity for the commercial acts of a foreign nation. See id., at 486-487. Difficulties in implementing the principle led Congress in 1976 to enact the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, resulting in more predictable and precise rules. See id., at 488-489 (discussing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1604, 1605, 1607).
Like foreign sovereign immunity, tribal immunity is a matter of federal law. Verlinden, supra, at 486. Although the Court has taken the lead in drawing the bounds of tribal immunity, Congress, subject to constitutional limitations, can alter its limits through explicit legislation. See, e. g., Santa Clara Pueblo, supra, at 58.
In both fields, Congress is in a position to weigh and accommodate the competing policy concerns and reliance interests. The capacity of the Legislative Branch to address the issue by comprehensive legislation counsels some caution by us in this area. Congress “has occasionally authorized limited classes of suits against Indian tribes” and “has always been at liberty to dispense with such tribal immunity or to limit it.” Potawatomi, supra, at 510. It has not yet done so.
In light of these concerns, we decline to revisit our case law and choose to defer to Congress. Tribes enjoy immunity from suits on contracts, whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities and whether they were made on or off a reservation. Congress has not abrogated this immunity, nor has petitioner waived it, so the immunity governs this case. The contrary decision of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals is
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a motor carrier in bankruptcy may recover for undercharges based on tariff rates that are void as a matter of law under the Interstate Commerce Commission’s regulations. We hold that the carrier may not rely on the filed but void tariff.
I
On August 20, 1984, petitioner Security Services, Inc., (then known as Riss International Corp.) filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission (Commission or ICC) a mileage (or distance) rate tariff having an effective date 30 days later. The tariff was received, accepted, and filed, and was never rejected by the ICC. Although the tariff specified rates to be charged per mile of carriage, it was not complete in itself, for it included no list of distances or map on which a shipper could rely in calculating charges for a given shipment. For the distance component of this mileage-based tariff, petitioner relied upon a Household Goods Carriers’ Bureau (HGCB) Mileage Guide, its supplements, and subsequent issues. HGCB is itself not a carrier, but a publisher of distance guides for use in tariff filings. The Mileage Guide is a 565-page volume of large format, which specifies the distances in miles between various points of origin and destination, and contains maps and supplemental rules. The Mileage Guide refers shippers to a separate HGCB tariff and its supplements, filed with the ICC, for a list of the carriers who are “participants” in the Mileage Guide. A participant is a carrier who pays HGCB a nominal fee and issues it a valid power of attorney. The first page of HGCB’s Mileage Guide states that it “MAY NOT BE EMPLOYED BY A CARRIER AS A GOVERNING PUBLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION RATES BASED ON MILEAGE OR DISTANCE, UNLESS .CARRIER IS SHOWN AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE ABOVE NAMED TARIFF.” HGCB, Mileage Guide No. 12, p. 1 (Dec. 1982). HGCB filed a tariff supplement to its Mileage Guide, effective February 19, 1985, listing participants and canceling Riss’s participation in the Mileage Guide for failure to pay the nominal participation fee to HGCB. HGCB treats a power of attorney issued to it as void if not renewed by remitting the participation fee within a reasonable time after cancellation. Riss did not renew.
On April 17,1986, Riss contracted with respondent Kmart Corporation to transport Kmart’s goods at rates specified in the contract, and from November 3, 1986, to December 29, 1989, Riss transported goods for Kmart under the contract. Riss billed, and Kmart paid, at the contract rate. In November 1989, Riss filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and while undergoing reorganization became Security Services. As debtor-in-possession, Security Services billed Kmart for undercharges (and interest) it was allegedly owed, based on the difference between the contract rate Kmart paid and the tariff rates that Riss assertedly had on file with the ICC. Security Services argued that under the Interstate Commerce Act’s filed rate doctrine, Kmart was liable for the tariff rates filed with the ICC, regardless of any contract rate negotiated. Kmart refused to pay, and this suit ensued.
The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for Kmart on the ground that Security Services had no valid tariff on file with the ICC (without which it could not collect for undercharges), because HGCB had canceled its participation in the Mileage Guide. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. 996 F. 2d 1516 (1993). The court reasoned that under ICC regulations Riss’s tariff was void for nonparticipation in the HGCB Mileage Guide, that Riss had not filed any mileages of its own to replace its canceled participation, and that the consequently incomplete and void tariff could not support a claim for undercharges. Id., at 1524. The court took the position that, although the ICC regulations operated retroactively to void a filed tariff, that retroactive application was permissible under this Court’s test in ICC v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 467 U. S. 354 (1984). 996 F. 2d, at 1524-1526. Finally, the court rejected Security Services’s argument that its failure to participate formally in the HGCB Mileage Guide was a mere technical defect excused by its substantial compliance with the rule requiring it to file its rates with the Commission. Id., at 1526.
We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 930 (1993), to resolve a Circuit conflict over the validity of the ICC void-fornonparticipation regulation, and now affirm.
II
A motor carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act must publish its rates in tariffs filed with the ICC. 49 U. S. C. §§ 10761(a), 10762(a)(1). The carrier “may not charge or receive a different compensation for that transportation . . . than the rate specified in the tariff . . . .” § 10761(a). We have held these provisions “to create strict filed rate requirements and to forbid equitable defenses to collection of the filed tariff.” Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116, 127 (1990); accord, Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U. S. 258, 266 (1993); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 97 (1915) (“Ignorance or misquotation of rates is not an excuse for paying or charging either less or more than the rate filed”). The purpose of the filed rate doctrine is “to ensure that rates are both reasonable and nondiscriminatory,” Maislin, supra, at 119 (citing 49 U.S.C. §§ 10101(a), 10701(a), 10741(b) (1982 ed.)), and failure to charge or pay the filed rate may result in civil or criminal sanctions. See 49 U. S. C. §§ 11902-11904.
The ICC has authority to “prescribe the form and manner” of tariff filing, § 10762(b)(1), and the information to be included in tariffs beyond any matter required by statute, § 10762(a)(1). Each carrier is responsible for ensuring that it has rates on file with the ICC. §§ 10702, 10762. Under ICC regulations, a carrier has some choice about the form in which to state its rates, one possibility being a rate based on mileage. A mileage rate has two components: the rate per mile and distances between shipping points. 49 CFR § 1312.30 (1993). A carrier may file the distance portion of the rate by listing in its own tariff the distances between all relevant points, by referring to a map attached to its tariff, or by referring to a separately filed distance guide, such as the HGCB Mileage Guide. § 1312.30(c)(1). Petitioner does not dispute that distance guides are themselves tariffs. Brief for Petitioner 9, n. 4. A carrier may refer to a tariff filed by another carrier or by an agent only by formally “participating” in the referenced tariff, which may be done only by issuing a power of attorney (or concurrence) to the other carrier or agent. 49 CFR §§ 1312.4(d), 1312.10, 1312.27(e) (1993). The Commission’s void-for-nonparticipation regulation provides that “a carrier may not participate in a tariff issued in the name of another carrier or an agent unless a power of attorney or concurrence has been executed. Absent effective concurrences or powers of attorney, tariffs are void as a matter of law.” § 1312.4(d). Tariff agents like HGCB are required to identify carriers participating in their tariffs, by listing their names either in the tariff containing the mileage guide itself, or in a separate tariff. §§ 1312.13(c), 1312.25. The listings are meant to be kept reasonably current, but are effective until changed. “Revocation or amendment of the power of attorney should be reflected through lawfully published tariff revisions effective concurrently. In the event of failure to so revise the applicable tariff or tariffs, the rates in such tariff or tariffs will remain applicable until lawfully changed.” § 1312.10(a). That is, cancellation of a power of attorney (whether by carrier or agent) is accomplished by filing or amending a tariff. §§ 1312.10(a), 1312.25(d), 1312.17(b). Until such filing or amendment, the carrier’s reference to the agent’s tariff remains effective, § 1312.10(a); once the agent’s tariff is filed or amended to note cancellation of the carrier’s participation, the carrier’s tariff is void as a matter of law (absent additional filing by the carrier). See § 1312.4(d). As the ICC explained, once cancellation of participation is published, as it was here, the mileage-based tariff is incomplete, and “eease[s] to satisfy the fundamental purpose of tariffs; to disclose the freight charges due to the carrier.” Jasper Wyman & Son — Petition for Declaratory Order — Certain Rates and Practices of Overland Express, Inc., 8 I. C. C. 2d 246,258 (1992) (applying void-for-nonparticipation regulation), petition for review granted, Overland Express, Inc. v. ICC, 996 F. 2d 356 (CADC 1993).
Congress passed the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 793, to encourage competition in the industry. In response to this enactment and changes in the carrier market, the ICC simplified its tariff filing rules, as by eliminating the requirement that the actual powers of attorney be filed with the ICC. See 48 Fed. Reg. 31265, 31266 (1983); see also Revision of Tariff Regulations, All Carriers, 1 I. C. C. 2d 404, 408 (1984). The ICC’s rule that “participation” is required, however, remained in force. See id., at 434; see also 48 Fed. Reg. 31266 (1983) (“The obligation to limit tariff publication to existing agency relationships remains, however, as a matter of law”). Many shippers and carriers nevertheless responded to the very changes in the market that prompted the ICC’s revision of its rules by ignoring the rates the carriers had filed with the ICC and instead negotiating rates for carriage lower than the filed rates. As a further result of competitive pressures, many carriers also went bankrupt. A number of trustees and debtors-in-possession then attempted to recover as undercharges the difference between the negotiated and filed rates. Since the market changes convinced the ICC that strict adherence to the filed rate doctrine was no longer necessary under some circumstances, Maislin, 497 U. S., at 121, the ICC decided to follow a new policy of determining, case by case, whether it would be an “unreasonable practice” under 49 U. S. C. § 10701 for a carrier (often by then bankrupt) to recover for undercharges from a shipper who had paid a negotiated, rather than filed, rate. See National Industrial Transportation League— Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 3 I. C. C. 2d 99, 104-108 (1986); 5 I. C. C. 2d 623, 628-634 (1989). In Maislin, we held that this ICC practice violated the core purposes of the Act, because “[b]y refusing to order collection of the filed rate solely because the parties had agreed to a lower rate, the ICC has permitted the very price discrimination that the Act by its terms seeks to prevent.” 497 U. S., at 130 (citing 49 U. S. C. § 10741). Thus, we held that any bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession was entitled to recover for undercharges based on effective, filed rates.
Petitioner argues that the effect of the void-for-non-participation rule is to allow transactions to be governed by secretly negotiated rates, rather than the publicly filed rates mandated by the Act. Petitioner would thus have us see the ICC’s recent enforcement of its void-for-nonparticipation regulation as merely an attempt to evade Maislin and undermine the filed rate doctrine by keeping trustees or debtors-in-possession from recovering for undercharges.
The argument is an odd one. The filed rate requirement mandates that carriers charge the rates filed in a tariff. We held in Maislin, swpra, that the requirement was not subject to discretionary enforcement when raised against a shipper who had agreed with a carrier to a negotiated rate lower than the rate on file. When the carrier’s bankruptcy prompted second thoughts about the wisdom of the agreement, the carrier and its creditors obtained the benefit of the requirement. Here, as in Jasper Wyman, supra, the carrier seeks to escape its burden by recovering for undercharges even though in effect it had no rates on file because its tariff lacked an essential element. The filed rate rule applied here to bar the carrier’s recovery is the same rule that was applied to bar the shipper’s defense. Nor is the rule somehow more technical or less equitable when applied against Security Services. It can hardly be gainsaid that a carrier employing distance rates without purporting to be bound by stated distances would be just as well placed to discriminate among shippers by measuring with rubber instruments as it would be by charging shippers for a stated distance at mutable rates per mile. While some may debate in other forums about the wisdom of the filed rate doctrine, it is enough to say here that the carriers cannot have it both ways.
Ill
Petitioner is left to invoke the limitations on the ICC’s authority to declare a rate void retroactively, and the “technical defect” rule. Neither is availing.
A
The Court of Appeals believed, 996 F. 2d, at 1524-1526, as petitioner now argues, that the void-for-nonparticipation rule retroactively voids rates and is thus subject to the analysis we applied in American Trucking, 467 U. S., at 361-364, 367. See also Overland Express, 996 F. 2d, at 360. In American Trucking, we held that the Commission could retroactively void effective tariffs ab initio only if the action “furthers] a specific statutory mandate of the Commission” and is “directly and closely tied to that mandate.” 467 U. S., at 367. But the rule is not apposite here, for the void-fornonparticipation regulation does not apply retroactively. The ICC did not, as in American Trucking, void a rate for a period during which an effective rate was filed. The ICC’s regulations operate to void tariffs that would otherwise apply to future transactions, by providing that the rate becomes inapplicable when the tariff reference to the Mileage Guide is canceled, i. e., from the moment at which examination of the tariff filings would show that the carrier’s tariff is incomplete, 49 CFR § 1312.10(a) (1993), after which the shipper would be unable to rely on the incomplete tariff to calculate the applicable charges. Transactions occurring before cancellation of the power of attorney are governed by the filed rate; transactions occurring after cancellation would have no filed mileages to which a carrier’s per-mile tariff rates would apply to determine charges due. The regulation does not require any ICC “retroactive rejection” of a filed rate, or indeed any agency action at all. The regulation works like an expiration date on an otherwise valid tariff in voiding its future application, in accordance with § 1312.23(a). Neither regulation works a retroactive voiding. We thus disagree with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that once a tariff is in effect, a regulation that voids the tariff operates retroactively. Overland Express, supra, at 360.
Here, petitioner’s tariff reference to the HGCB Mileage Guide became void as a matter of law and its tariff filings incomplete on their face on February 19, 1985, when HGCB canceled its participation in the Mileage Guide by filing a supplemental tariff. The transactions with Kmart occurred after that date.
B
Nor does the “technical defect” rule apply here. Under our cases, neither procedural irregularity nor unreasonableness nullifies a filed rate; the shipper’s remedy for irregularity or unreasonable rates is damages. See, e. g., BerwindWhite Coal Mining Co. v. Chicago & Erie R. Co., 235 U. S. 371 (1914); Davis v. Portland Seed Co., 264 U. S. 403 (1924). In Berwind-White, the Court held that filed tariffs falling short of full compliance in stylistic matters were still “adequate to give notice” and so could support a carrier’s claim against a shipper for charges due. 235 U. S., at 375. In Davis, the effect of applying the carrier’s tariff violated a former statutory bar to charging less for a longer distance than for a shorter one over the same route, other things being equal. The Court rejected the position that the higher rate was void and the lower rate legally applicable, so that damages would depend upon the difference between the two, and held that the shipper’s remedy was instead to be measured by its actual damages from having been charged the higher rate as compared to a reasonable one. 264 U. S., at 424-426.
Unlike the shippers in the “technical defect” cases, the shipper here could not determine the carrier’s rates, since under the regulations, distance tariffs are incomplete once the carrier’s participation in the Mileage Guide has been canceled by the agent’s filing. See 49 CFR §§ 1312.4(d), 1312.10(a), 1312.30 (1993). We are dealing not with a complete tariff subject to some blemish independently remediable, but with an incomplete tariff insufficient to support a reliable calculation of charges. Security Services, however, questions the distinction by arguing that a shipper is unlikely to search for the list of participating carriers and to determine from the agent’s supplemental tariffs that a carrier’s participation has been canceled. Rather, a shipper is likely only to follow the reference in the carrier’s tariff to the HGCB Mileage Guide, and can fully calculate the applicable charges. But the likelihood or unlikelihood of a shipper’s actually reading all the applicable tariffs is simply irrelevant, for carriers and shippers alike are charged with constructive notice of tariff filings, Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639,653 (1913); Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U. S., at 266, and the fact that shippers may take shortcuts through the filings cannot convert an incomplete tariff into a complete one. In sum, a tariff that refers to another tariff for essential information, which tariff in turn states that the carrier may not refer to it, does not provide the “adequate notice” of rates to be charged that our “technical defect” cases require.
IV
When a carrier relies on a mileage guide filed by another carrier or agent, under ICC regulations the carrier must participate in the guide by maintaining a power of attorney; when a carrier fails to maintain its power of attorney and its participation is canceled by its former agent’s filing of an appropriate tariff, the carrier’s tariff is void. Trustees in bankruptcy and debtors-in-possession may rely on the filed rate doctrine to collect for undercharges, Maislin Industries, U S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116 (1990), but they may not collect for undercharges based on filed, but void, rates. The decision of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Affirmed.
Compare Overland Express, Inc. v. ICC, 996 F. 2d 356 (CADC 1993); Security Services, Inc. v. P-Y Transp., Inc., 3 F. 3d 966 (CA6 1993); Brizendine v. Cotter & Co., 4 F. 3d 457 (CA71993), with the decision below, 996 F. 2d 1516 (CA3 1993); see also Atlantis Express, Inc. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 989 F. 2d 281 (CA8 1993); Freightcor Services, Inc. v. Vitro Packaging, Inc., 969 F. 2d 1563 (CA5 1992), cert, denied, 506 U. S. 1053 (1993).
Amicus Overland Express, Inc., contends that participation in mileage guides is not required, citing. Revision of Tariff Regulations, All Carriers, 1 I. C. C. 2d 404, 425 (1984). But the ICC has interpreted its rules to require such participation, Jasper Wyman & Son — Petition for Declaratory Order — Certain Rates and Practices of Overland Express, Inc., 8 I. C. C. 2d 246, 249-252 (1992) (applying void-for-nonparticipation regulation), petition for review granted, Overland Express, Inc. v. ICC, 996 F. 2d 356 (CADC 1993), and its interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to “controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation,” Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945). The ICC’s interpretation is neither.
The ICC has apparently had a similar rule for many decades. In Cancelation of Participation in Agency Tariffs, 4 Fed. Reg. 4440 (1939), the Commission made clear that if an agent in whose tariff a carrier participated canceled the carrier’s participation for nonpayment of dues or failure to follow the agent’s rules, the carrier could no longer lawfully rely on the agent’s tariffs and had to file its own tariffs to comply with the Act.
We have no occasion even to reach its factual predicate, which is vigorously disputed. Security Services argues that the agency failed to enforce its regulation from amendment in 1984 until 1993. Petitioner contends that the ICC routinely accepted tariffs containing methods for computing distances that were not authorized by 49 CFR § 1312.30(c) (1993), and that from 1984 to 1988, approximately 40 percent of all motor carriers filing distance rate tariffs referring to HGCB mileage guides did so without formally participating in them. See Overland Express, 996 F. 2d, at 359. Petitioner states that the ICC took no action after discovering these failures to participate. The Government argues that the ICC currently enforces its void-for-nonparticipation rule. It represents, for example, that in fiscal year 1993, the ICC “entered 24 consent decrees with carriers who had let their participations in mileage guides and other tariffs lapse, . . . sought and obtained one injunction, and . . . issued an order pursuant to its broad remedial powers” directing carriers who had let their participation in the HGCB lapse either to renew their participation or “strike any reference” to the Mileage Guide in their tariffs. Tr. of Oral Arg. 42. The Government also disputes the assertion that 40 percent of carriers referring to an HGCB guide failed to participate in the guide. The Government and Kmart claim that HGCB found only 111 süch failures among the filings of some 12,800 carriers who referred to HGCB guides, and that the ICC has taken action for failure to participate. See Household Goods Carriers’ Bureau, Inc. — Petition for Cancellation of Tariffs of Non-Participating Carriers, 9 I. C. C. 2d 378 (1993); National Motor Freight Traffic Assn. — Petition for Cancellation of Tariffs That Refer to the National Motor Freight Classification, but are Filed by or on Behalf of Non-Participating Carriers, 9 I. C. C. 2d 186 (1992).
Both Justice Thomas, post, at 451, and n. 3, and Justice Ginsburg, post, at 457-458, argue that the effect of today’s ruling is to validate secretly negotiated rates. Indeed, Justice Thomas goes so far as to suggest that our opinion would allow the ICC to circumvent Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc-, 497 U. S. 116 (1990), merely by declaring that a filed rate is void whenever another rate is negotiated, post, at 455. But our opinion does nothing of the kind. The Interstate Commerce Act states that carriers may provide transportation “only if the rate for the transportation or service is contained in a tariff that is in effect” under the provisions of the Act, 49 U. S. C. § 10761(a), and the Act provides for civil and criminal penalties for failure to maintain such rates, and to charge or pay them. See generally §§ 11901-11904.
Justice Thomas in dissent argues that we ignore petitioner’s “broader argument . . . that the rule is not within the Commission’s authority.” See post, at 453, n. 4. But petitioner’s question presented was whether “the Interstate Commerce Commission has discretionary authority to retroactively void an effective tariff.” Brief for Petitioner i. On the same page cited by Justice Thomas for petitioner’s “broader argument,” petitioner in fact describes the ICC rule as “treating [tariffs] as retroactively void,” id., at 20, and petitioner concludes the section by arguing that the ICC has no power “to retroactively void effective tariffs.” Id., at 24. Petitioner’s argument in that section is that the Interstate Commerce Act “prescribes the remedies available to Kmart,” id., at 17, not that the regulation is ultra vires. Indeed, at oral argument, counsel for petitioner stated that the ICC’s void-for-nonparticipation rule “is authorized. The rule is proper, but the application of the rule ... is contrary to law.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 17.
If a canceled participation is renewed before the effective cancellation date, participation may be restored on five days’ notice by filing an amended tariff. 49 CFR § 1312.39(a) (1993).
See also Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204 U. S. 449 (1907) (Tariff rates filed with ICC and furnished to freight officers of railroad are legally operative despite railroad’s failure to post two copies in each railroad depot); Genstar Chemical Ltd. v. ICC, 665 F. 2d 1304, 1309 (CADC 1981) (“[T]he ‘error’ in the tariff was certainly not apparent on its face”), cert, denied, 456 U. S. 905 (1982).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), provides that "any civil action" over which a federal court would have original jurisdiction may be removed to federal court by "the defendant or the defendants." The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) provides that "[a] class action" may be removed to federal court by "any defendant without the consent of all defendants." 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b). In this case, we address whether either provision allows a third-party counterclaim defendant-that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant-to remove the counterclaim filed against it. Because in the context of these removal provisions the term "defendant" refers only to the party sued by the original plaintiff, we conclude that neither provision allows such a third party to remove.
I
A
We have often explained that "[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U. S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution delineates "[t]he character of the controversies over which federal judicial authority may extend." Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 701, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). And lower federal-court jurisdiction "is further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction." Ibid. Accordingly, "the district courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent a statutory basis." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U. S. 546, 552, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005).
In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that "aris[e] under" federal law, § 1331, and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a). These jurisdictional grants are known as "federal-question jurisdiction" and "diversity jurisdiction," respectively. Each serves a distinct purpose: Federal-question jurisdiction affords parties a federal forum in which "to vindicate federal rights," whereas diversity jurisdiction provides "a neutral forum" for parties from different States. Exxon Mobil Corp., supra, at 552, 125 S.Ct. 2611.
Congress has modified these general grants of jurisdiction to provide federal courts with jurisdiction in certain other types of cases. As relevant here, CAFA provides district courts with jurisdiction over "class action[s]" in which the matter in controversy exceeds $ 5,000,000 and at least one class member is a citizen of a State different from the defendant. § 1332(d)(2)(A). A "class action" is "any civil action filed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure." § 1332(d)(1)(B).
In addition to granting federal courts jurisdiction over certain types of cases, Congress has enacted provisions that permit parties to remove cases originally filed in state court to federal court. Section 1441(a), the general removal statute, permits "the defendant or the defendants" in a state-court action over which the federal courts would have original jurisdiction to remove that action to federal court. To remove under this provision, a party must meet the requirements for removal detailed in other provisions. For one, a defendant cannot remove unilaterally. Instead, "all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action." § 1446(b)(2)(A). Moreover, when federal jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction, the case generally must be removed within "1 year after commencement of the action," § 1446(c)(1), and the case may not be removed if any defendant is "a citizen of the State in which such action is brought," § 1441(b)(2).
CAFA also includes a removal provision specific to class actions. That provision permits the removal of a "class action" from state court to federal court "by any defendant without the consent of all defendants" and "without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought." § 1453(b).
At issue here is whether the term "defendant" in either § 1441(a) or § 1453(b) encompasses a party brought into a lawsuit to defend against a counterclaim filed by the original defendant or whether the provisions limit removal authority to the original defendant.
B
In June 2016, Citibank, N. A., filed a debt-collection action against respondent George Jackson in North Carolina state court. Citibank alleged that Jackson was liable for charges he incurred on a Home Depot credit card. In August 2016, Jackson answered and filed his own claims: an individual counterclaim against Citibank and third-party class-action claims against Home Depot U. S. A., Inc., and Carolina Water Systems, Inc.
Jackson's claims arose out of an alleged scheme between Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems to induce homeowners to buy water treatment systems at inflated prices. The crux of the claims was that Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems engaged in unlawful referral sales and deceptive and unfair trade practices in violation of North Carolina law, Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 25A-37, 75-1.1 (2013). Jackson also asserted that Citibank was jointly and severally liable for the conduct of Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems and that his obligations under the sale were null and void.
In September 2016, Citibank dismissed its claims against Jackson. One month later, Home Depot filed a notice of removal, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446, and 1453. Jackson moved to remand, arguing that precedent barred removal by a "third-party/additional counter defendant like Home Depot." App. 51-52. Shortly thereafter, Jackson amended his third-party class-action claims to remove any reference to Citibank.
The District Court granted Jackson's motion to remand, and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted Home Depot permission to appeal and affirmed. 880 F. 3d 165, 167 (2018) ; see 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). Relying on Circuit precedent, it held that neither the general removal provision, § 1441(a), nor CAFA's removal provision, § 1453(b), allowed Home Depot to remove the class-action claims filed against it. 880 F. 3d at 167-171.
We granted Home Depot's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether a third party named in a class-action counterclaim brought by the original defendant can remove if the claim otherwise satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA. 585 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 51, 201 L.Ed.2d 1129 (2018). We also directed the parties to address whether the holding in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941) -that an original plaintiff may not remove a counterclaim against it-should extend to third-party counterclaim defendants. 585 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 51.
II
A
We first consider whether 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) permits a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove a claim filed against it. Home Depot contends that because a third-party counterclaim defendant is a "defendant" to the claim against it, it may remove pursuant to § 1441(a). The dissent agrees, emphasizing that "a 'defendant' is a 'person sued in a civil proceeding.' " Post, at 1755 (opinion of ALITO, J.). This reading of the statute is plausible, but we do not think it is the best one. Of course the term "defendant," standing alone, is broad. But the phrase "the defendant or the defendants" "cannot be construed in a vacuum." Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989). "It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Ibid. ; see also A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 167 (2012) ("The text must be construed as a whole"); accord, Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137, 145-146, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). Considering the phrase "the defendant or the defendants" in light of the structure of the statute and our precedent, we conclude that § 1441(a) does not permit removal by any counterclaim defendant, including parties brought into the lawsuit for the first time by the counterclaim.
Home Depot emphasizes that it is a "defendant" to a "claim," but the statute refers to "civil action[s]," not "claims." This Court has long held that a district court, when determining whether it has original jurisdiction over a civil action, should evaluate whether that action could have been brought originally in federal court. See Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U. S. 201, 208, 15 S.Ct. 563, 39 L.Ed. 672 (1895) ; Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 461, 14 S.Ct. 654, 38 L.Ed. 511 (1894). This requires a district court to evaluate whether the plaintiff could have filed its operative complaint in federal court, either because it raises claims arising under federal law or because it falls within the court's diversity jurisdiction. E.g., Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 10, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) ; cf. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U. S. 826, 831, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 153 L.Ed.2d 13 (2002) ("[A] counterclaim... cannot serve as the basis for 'arising under' jurisdiction"); § 1446(c)(2) (deeming the "sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading... the amount in controversy"). Section 1441(a) thus does not permit removal based on counterclaims at all, as a counterclaim is irrelevant to whether the district court had "original jurisdiction" over the civil action. And because the "civil action... of which the district cour[t]" must have "original jurisdiction" is the action as defined by the plaintiff's complaint, "the defendant" to that action is the defendant to that complaint, not a party named in a counterclaim. It is this statutory context, not "the policy goals behind the [well-pleaded complaint] rule," post, at 1763, that underlies our interpretation of the phrase "the defendant or the defendants."
The use of the term "defendant" in related contexts bolsters our determination that Congress did not intend for the phrase "the defendant or the defendants" in § 1441(a) to include third-party counterclaim defendants. For one, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure differentiate between third-party defendants, counterclaim defendants, and defendants. Rule 14, which governs "Third-Party Practice," distinguishes between "the plaintiff," a "defendant" who becomes the "third-party plaintiff," and "the third-party defendant" sued by the original defendant. Rule 12 likewise distinguishes between defendants and counterclaim defendants by separately specifying when "[a] defendant must serve an answer" and when "[a] party must serve an answer to a counterclaim." Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1)(A)-(B).
Moreover, in other removal provisions, Congress has clearly extended the reach of the statute to include parties other than the original defendant. For instance, § 1452(a) permits "[a] party" in a civil action to "remove any claim or cause of action" over which a federal court would have bankruptcy jurisdiction. And §§ 1454(a) and (b) allow "any party" to remove "[a] civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights." Section 1441(a), by contrast, limits removal to "the defendant or the defendants" in a "civil action" over which the district courts have original jurisdiction.
Finally, our decision in Shamrock Oil suggests that third-party counterclaim defendants are not "the defendant or the defendants" who can remove under § 1441(a). Shamrock Oil held that a counterclaim defendant who was also the original plaintiff could not remove under § 1441(a)'s predecessor statute. 313 U. S. at 106-109, 61 S.Ct. 868. We agree with Home Depot that Shamrock Oil does not specifically address whether a party who was not the original plaintiff can remove a counterclaim filed against it. And we acknowledge, as Home Depot points out, that a third-party counterclaim defendant, unlike the original plaintiff, has no role in selecting the forum for the suit. But the text of § 1441(a) simply refers to "the defendant or the defendants" in the civil action. If a counterclaim defendant who was the original plaintiff is not one of "the defendants," we see no textual reason to reach a different conclusion for a counterclaim defendant who was not originally part of the lawsuit. In that regard, Shamrock Oil did not view the counterclaim as a separate action with a new plaintiff and a new defendant. Instead, the Court highlighted that the original plaintiff was still "the plaintiff." Id., at 108, 61 S.Ct. 868 ("We can find no basis for saying that Congress, by omitting from the present statute all reference to 'plaintiffs,' intended to save a right of removal to some plaintiffs and not to others"). Similarly here, the filing of counterclaims that included class-action allegations against a third party did not create a new "civil action" with a new "plaintiff" and a new "defendant."
Home Depot asserts that reading "the defendant" in § 1441(a) to exclude third-party counterclaim defendants runs counter to the history and purposes of removal by preventing a party involuntarily brought into state-court proceedings from removing the claim against it. But the limits Congress has imposed on removal show that it did not intend to allow all defendants an unqualified right to remove. E.g., § 1441(b)(2) (preventing removal based on diversity jurisdiction where any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought). Moreover, Home Depot's interpretation makes little sense in the context of other removal provisions.
For instance, when removal is based on § 1441(a), all defendants must consent to removal. See § 1446(b)(2)(A). Under Home Depot's interpretation, "defendants" in § 1446(b)(2)(A) could be read to require consent from the third-party counterclaim defendant, the original plaintiff (as a counterclaim defendant), and the original defendant asserting claims against them. Further, Home Depot's interpretation would require courts to determine when the original defendant is also a "plaintiff" under other statutory provisions. E.g., § 1446(c)(1). Instead of venturing down this path, we hold that a third-party counterclaim defendant is not a "defendant" who can remove under § 1441(a).
B
We next consider whether CAFA's removal provision, § 1453(b), permits a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove. Home Depot contends that even if it could not remove under § 1441(a), it could remove under § 1453(b) because that statute is worded differently. It argues that although § 1441(a) permits removal only by "the defendant or the defendants" in a "civil action," § 1453(b) permits removal by "any defendant" to a "class action." (Emphasis added.) Jackson responds that this argument ignores the context of § 1453(b), which he contends makes clear that Congress intended only to alter certain restrictions on removal, not expand the class of parties who can remove a class action. Although this is a closer question, we agree with Jackson.
The two clauses in § 1453(b) that employ the term "any defendant" simply clarify that certain limitations on removal that might otherwise apply do not limit removal under § 1453(b). Section 1453(b) first states that "[a] class action may be removed... without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought." There is no indication that this language does anything more than alter the general rule that a civil action may not be removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction "if any of the... defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." § 1441(b)(2). Section 1453(b) then states that "[a] class action... may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants." This language simply amends the rule that "all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action." § 1446(b)(2)(A). Rather than indicate that a counterclaim defendant can remove, "here the word 'any' is being employed in connection with the word 'all' later in the sentence-'by any... without... the consent of all.' " Westwood Apex v. Contreras, 644 F. 3d 799, 804 (CA9 2011) ; see Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F. 3d 327, 335-336 (CA4 2008). Neither clause-nor anything else in the statute-alters § 1441(a)'s limitation on who can remove, which suggests that Congress intended to leave that limit in place. See supra, at 1747 - 1750.
Thus, although the term "any" ordinarily carries an " 'expansive meaning,' " post, at 1756, the context here demonstrates that Congress did not expand the types of parties eligible to remove a class action under § 1453(b) beyond § 1441(a)'s limits. If anything, that the language of § 1453(b) mirrors the language in the statutory provisions it is amending suggests that the term "defendant" is being used consistently across all provisions. Cf.
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U. S. 161, 169-170, 134 S.Ct. 736, 187 L.Ed.2d 654 (2014) (interpreting CAFA consistently with Rule 20 where Congress used terms in a like manner in both provisions).
To the extent Home Depot is arguing that the term "defendant" has a different meaning in § 1453(b) than it does in § 1441(a), we reject its interpretation. Because §§ 1453(b) and 1441(a) both rely on the procedures for removal in § 1446, which also employs the term "defendant," interpreting "defendant" to have different meanings in different sections would render the removal provisions incoherent. See First Bank v. DJL Properties, LLC, 598 F. 3d 915, 917 (CA7 2010) (Easterbrook, C. J.). Interpreting the removal provisions together, we determine that § 1453(b), like § 1441(a), does not permit a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove.
Finally, the dissent argues that our interpretation allows defendants to use the statute as a "tactic" to prevent removal, post, at 1754, but that result is a consequence of the statute Congress wrote. Of course, if Congress shares the dissent's disapproval of certain litigation "tactics," it certainly has the authority to amend the statute. But we do not.
* * *
Because neither § 1441(a) nor § 1453(b) permits removal by a third-party counterclaim defendant, Home Depot could not remove the class-action claim filed against it. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice GORSUCH, and Justice KAVANAUGH join, dissenting.
The rule of law requires neutral forums for resolving disputes. Courts are designed to provide just that. But our legal system takes seriously the risk that for certain cases, some neutral forums might be more neutral than others. Or it might appear that way, which is almost as deleterious. For example, a party bringing suit in its own State's courts might (seem to) enjoy, so to speak, a home court advantage against outsiders. Thus, from 1789 Congress has opened federal courts to certain disputes between citizens of different States. Plaintiffs, of course, can avail themselves of the federal option in such cases by simply choosing to file a case in federal court. But since their defendants cannot, the law has always given defendants the option to remove (transfer) cases to federal court. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100, 105, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941). The general removal statute, which authorizes removal by "the defendant or the defendants," thus ensures that defendants get an equal chance to choose a federal forum. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
But defendants cannot remove a case unless it meets certain conditions. Some of those conditions have long made important (and often costly) consumer class actions virtually impossible to remove. Congress, concerned that state courts were biased against defendants to such actions, passed a law facilitating their removal. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) allows removal of certain class actions "by any defendant." 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b). Our job is not to judge whether Congress's fears about state-court bias in class actions were warranted or indeed whether CAFA should allay them. We are to determine the scope of the term "defendant" under CAFA as well as the general removal provision, § 1441.
All agree that if one party sues another, the latter-the original defendant-is a "defendant" under both removal laws. But suppose the original defendant then countersues, bringing claims against both the plaintiff and a new party. Is this new defendant-the "third-party defendant"-also a "defendant" under CAFA and § 1441? There are, of course, some differences between original and third-party defendants. One is brought into a case by the first major filing, the other by the second. The one filing is called a complaint, the other a countercomplaint.
But both kinds of parties are defendants to legal claims. Neither chose to be in state court. Both might face bias there, and with it the potential for crippling unjust losses. Yet today's Court holds that third-party defendants are not "defendants." It holds that Congress left them unprotected under CAFA and § 1441. This reads an irrational distinction into both removal laws and flouts their plain meaning, a meaning that context confirms and today's majority simply ignores.
I
A
To appreciate what Congress sought to achieve with CAFA, consider what Congress failed to accomplish a decade earlier with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Reform Act), 109 Stat. 737 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-1 and 78u-4 ). The Reform Act was "targeted at perceived abuses of the class-action vehicle in litigation involving nationally traded securities," including spurious lawsuits, "vexatious discovery requests, and'manipulation by class action lawyers of the clients whom they purportedly represent.' " Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U. S. 71, 81, 126 S.Ct. 1503, 164 L.Ed.2d 179 (2006) (quoting H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, p. 31 (1995)). As a result of these abuses, Congress found, companies were often forced to enter "extortionate settlements" in frivolous cases, just to avoid the litigation costs-a burden with scant benefits to anyone. 547 U. S. at 81, 126 S.Ct. 1503. To curb these inefficiencies, the Reform Act "limit[ed] recoverable damages and attorney's fees,... impose[d] new restrictions on the selection of (and compensation awarded to) lead plaintiffs, mandate[d] imposition of sanctions for frivolous litigation, and authorize[d] a stay of discovery pending resolution of any motion to dismiss." Ibid.
But "at least some members of the plaintiffs' bar" found a workaround: They avoided the Reform Act's limits on federal litigation by "avoid[ing] the federal forum altogether" and heading to state court. Id., at 82, 126 S.Ct. 1503. Once there, they were able to keep defendants from taking them back to federal court (under the rules then in force) simply by naming an in-state defendant. See § 1441(b)(2). And the change in plaintiffs' strategy was marked: While state-court litigation of such class actions had been "rare" before the Reform Act's passage, id., at 82, 126 S.Ct. 1503, within a decade state courts were handling most such cases, see S. Rep. No. 109-14, p. 4 (2005).
Some in Congress feared that plaintiffs' lawyers were able to " 'game' the procedural rules and keep nationwide or multi-state class actions in state courts whose judges have reputations for readily certifying classes and approving settlements without regard to class member interests."Ibid. The result, in Congress's judgment, was that "State and local courts" were keeping issues of "national importance" out of federal court, "acting in ways that demonstrate[d] bias against out-of-State defendants" and imposing burdens that hindered "innovation" and drove up "consumer prices." §§ 2(a)(4), (b), 119 Stat. 5.
So Congress again took action. But rather than get at the problem by imposing limits on federal litigation that plaintiffs could sidestep by taking defendants to state court, Congress sought to make it easier for defendants to remove to federal court: thus CAFA.
B
To grasp how CAFA changed the procedural landscape for class actions, it helps to review the rules that govern removal in the mine run of cases, and that once limited removal of all class actions as well. Those general rules appear in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.
Under § 1441(a), "any civil action brought in a State court... may be removed by the defendant or the defendants" as long as federal district courts would have "original jurisdiction" over the case. Such jurisdiction comes in two varieties. Federal courts have "federal question jurisdiction" if the case "aris[es] under" federal law-for instance, if the plaintiff alleges violations of a federal statute. § 1331. But even when the plaintiff brings only state-law claims-alleging a breach of a contract, for example-federal courts have "diversity jurisdiction" if the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is complete diversity of parties, meaning that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as any defendant. § 1332(a) ; Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U. S. 81, 89, 126 S.Ct. 606, 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (2005). While § 1441 normally allows removal of either kind of case, it bars removal in diversity cases brought in the home State of any defendant. § 1441(b)(2).
Another subsection of § 1441 addresses removal of a subset of claims (not an entire action) when a case involves some claims that would be removable because they arise under federal law and others that would not (because they involve state-law claims falling outside both the original and the supplemental jurisdiction of federal courts ). In these hybrid cases, § 1441(c)(2) allows the federal claims to be removed while the state-law claims are severed and sent back to state court.
The procedural rules for removing an action or claim from state to federal court under § 1441 are set forth in § 1446. Section 1446(b)(2)(A) requires the consent of all the defendants before an entire case may be removed under § 1441(a). (If a defendant instead invokes § 1441(c)(2), to remove a subset of claims, consent is required only from defendants to the claims that are removed.) And if diversity jurisdiction arises later in litigation-which may occur if, for instance, dismissal of an original defendant creates complete diversity- § 1446(c)(1) allows removal only within one year of the start of the action in state court.
To this general removal regime, CAFA made several changes specific to class actions. Instead of allowing removal by "the defendant or the defendants," see § 1441(a), § 5 of CAFA allowed removal by "any defendant" to certain class actions, § 1453(b), even when the other defendants do not consent, the case was filed in a defendant's home forum, or the case has been pending in state court for more than a year. See 119 Stat. 12-13.
Of course, these changes would be of no use to a class-action defendant hoping to remove if there were no federal jurisdiction over its case. So CAFA also lowered the barriers to diversity jurisdiction. While complete diversity of parties is normally required, CAFA eliminates that rule for class actions involving at least 100 members and more than $ 5 million in controversy. In such cases, CAFA vests district courts with diversity jurisdiction anytime there is minimal diversity-which occurs when at least one plaintiff and defendant reside in different States. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B).
We were asked to decide whether these loosened requirements are best read to allow removal by third-party defendants like Home Depot. The answer is clear when one considers Home Depot's situation against CAFA's language and history.
C
This case began as a garden-variety debt-collection action: Citibank sued respondent George Jackson in state court seeking payment on his purchase from petitioner Home Depot of a product made by Carolina Water Systems (CWS). Jackson came back with a counterclaim class action that roped in Home Depot and CWS as codefendants. (Until then, neither Home Depot nor CWS had been a party.) Citibank then dismissed its claim against Jackson, and Jackson amended his complaint to remove any mention of Citibank. So now all that remains in this case is Jackson's class-action counterclaims against Home Depot and CWS.
Invoking CAFA, Home Depot filed a notice of removal; it also moved to realign the parties to make Jackson the plaintiff, and CWS, Home Depot, and Citibank the defendants (just before Citibank had dropped out entirely). The District Court denied the motion and remanded the case to state court, holding that Home Depot cannot remove under CAFA because CAFA's "any defendant" excludes defendants to counterclaim class actions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, citing Circuit precedent that hung on this Court's decision in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941). We granted certiorari to decide whether the lower court's reading of Shamrock Oil is correct and whether CAFA allows third-party defendants like Home Depot to remove an action to federal court.
All agree that the one dispute that now constitutes this lawsuit-Jackson's class action against Home Depot and CWS-would have been removable under CAFA had it been present from the start of a case. Is it ineligible for removal just because it was not contained in the filing that launched this lawsuit?
Several lower courts think so. In holding as much, they have created what Judge Niemeyer called a "loophole" that only this Court "can now rectify." Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F. 3d 327, 345 (CA4 2008) (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). The potential for that "loophole" was first spotted by a civil procedure scholar writing shortly after CAFA took effect. See Tidmarsh, Finding Room for State Class Actions in a Post-CAFA World: The Case of the Counterclaim Class Action, 35 W. St. U. L. Rev. 193, 198 (2007). The article outlined a "tactic" for plaintiffs to employ if they wanted to thwart a defendant's attempt to remove a class action to federal court under CAFA: They could raise their class-action claim as a counterclaim and "hope that CAFA does not authorize removal." Ibid. In a single stroke, the article observed, a defendant's routine attempt to collect a debt from a single consumer could be leveraged into an unremovable attack on the defendant's "credit and lending policies" brought on behalf of a whole class of plaintiffs-all in the very state courts that CAFA was designed to help class-action defendants avoid. Id., at 199.
The article is right to call this approach a tactic; it subverts CAFA's evident aims. I cannot imagine why a Congress eager to remedy alleged state-court abuses in class actions would have chosen to discriminate between two kinds of defendants, neither of whom had ever chosen the allegedly abusive state forum, all based on whether the claim against them had initiated the lawsuit or arisen just one filing later (in the countercomplaint). Of course, what finally matters is the text, and in reading texts we must remember that "no legislation pursues its purposes at all costs," Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U. S. 522, 525-526, 107 S.Ct. 1391, 94 L.Ed.2d 533 (1987) (per curiam ); Congress must often strike a balance between competing purposes. But a good interpreter also reads a text charitably, not lightly ascribing irrationality to its author; and I can think of no rational purpose for this limit on which defendants may remove. Even respondent does not try to defend its rationality, suggesting instead that it simply reflects a legislative compromise. Yet there is no evidence that anyone thought of this potential loophole before CAFA was enacted, and it is hard to believe that any of CAFA's would-be opponents agreed to vote for it in exchange for this way of keeping some cases in state court. The question is whether the uncharitable reading here is inescapable-whether, unwittingly or despite itself, Congress adopted text that compels this bizarre result.
II
There are different schools of thought about statutory interpretation, but I would have thought this much was common ground: If it is hard to imagine any purpose served by a proposed interpretation of CAFA, if that reading appears nowhere in the statutory or legislative history or our cases on CAFA, if it makes no
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion,
in which The Chief Justice, Justice Stevens, and Justice Ginsburg join.
In consequence of life’s two certainties a decedent’s estate faced federal estate tax deficiencies, giving rise to this case. The issue is whether the amount of the estate tax deduction for marital or charitable bequests must be reduced to the extent administration expenses were paid from income generated during administration by assets allocated to those bequests.
I
The estate of Otis C. Hubert was substantial, valued at more than $30 million when he died. Considerable probate and civil litigation ensued soon after his death. The parties to the various proceedings included his wife and children; his nephew; one of the estate’s coexecutors, Citizens and Southern Trust Company (Georgia), N. A., the predecessor of respondent C & S Sovran Trust Company (Georgia), N. A.; the district attorney for Cobb County, Georgia, on behalf of certain charitable beneficiaries; and the Georgia State Revenue Commission. Hubert had made various wills and codicils, and the legal disputes for the most part concerned the distribution of estate assets; but they were not confined to this. In addition to will contests alleging fraud and undue influence, there were satellite civil suits including claims of slander and abuse of process. The principal proceedings were in the Probate and the Superior Courts of Cobb County, Georgia.
The estate attracted the attention of petitioner, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The executors filed the federal estate tax return in 1987, about a year after Hubert died. In 1990, the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency, claiming underreporting of federal estate tax liability by some $14 million. The Commissioner’s major challenge then was to the estate’s claimed entitlement to two deductions. One was the marital deduction, under 68A Stat. 392, as amended, 26 U. S. C. § 2056, for qualifying property passing from a decedent to the surviving spouse. The other was the charitable deduction, under §2055, for qualifying property passing from a decedent to a charity. The Commissioner’s notice of deficiency asserted, for reasons not relevant here, that the property passing to Hubert’s surviving wife and to charity did not qualify for the marital and charitable deductions. The estate petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.
Within days of the estate’s petition in the Tax Court, much of the other litigation surrounding the estate settled. The settlement agreement divided the estate’s residue principal between a marital and a charitable share, which we can assume for purposes of our discussion were worth a total of $26 million on the day Hubert died. The settlement agreement divided the $26 million principal about half to trusts for the surviving spouse and half to a trust for the charities. The Commissioner stipulated that the nature of the trusts did not prevent them from qualifying for the marital and charitable deductions. The stipulation streamlined the Tax Court litigation but did not resolve it.
The settlement agreement provided that the estate would pay its administration expenses either from the principal or from the income of the assets that would comprise the residue and the corpus of the trusts, preserving the discretion Hubert’s most recent will had given his executors to apportion administration expenses. The apportionment provisions of the agreement and the will were consistent for all relevant purposes with the law of Georgia, the State where the decedent resided. The estate’s administration expenses, including attorney’s fees, were on the order of $2 million. The estate paid about $500,000 in expenses from principal and the rest from income.
The estate recalculated its estate tax liability based on the settlement agreement and the payments from principal. The estate did not include in its marital and charitable deductions the amount of residue principal used to pay administration expenses. The parties here have agreed throughout that the marital or charitable deductions could not include those amounts. The estate, however, did not reduce its marital or charitable deductions by the amount of the income used to pay the balance of the administration expenses. The Commissioner disagreed and contended that use of income for this purpose required a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the amounts of the marital and charitable deductions.
In a reviewed opinion, the Tax Court, with two judges concurring in part and dissenting in part, rejected the Commissioner’s position. 101 T. C. 314 (1993). The court noted it had resolved the same issue against the Commissioner in Estate of Street v. Commissioner, 56 TCM 774, 57 TCM 2851 (1988), ¶ 88,553 P-H Memo TC. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had reversed this aspect of Estate of Street, see 974 F. 2d 723, 727-729 (1992), but in the instant case the Tax Court adhered to its view and said, given all the circumstances here, no reduction was required by reason of the executors’ power, or the exercise of their power, to pay administration expenses from income. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court, adopting the latter’s opinion and noting the resulting conflict with the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Street and with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Burke v. United States, 994 F. 2d 1576, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 990 (1993). See 63 F. 3d 1083, 1084-1085 (CA11 1995). We granted certiorari, 517 U. S. 1166 (1996), and, in agreement with the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, we now affirm the judgment.
II
A necessary first step in calculating the taxable estate for federal estate tax purposes is to determine the property in-eluded in the gross estate, and its value. Though an alternative valuation date is authorized, the executors of the Hubert estate used the standard date-of-death valuation. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 2031(a), 2051. A later step is to compute any claimed charitable or marital deductions. See §§ 2055 (charitable), 2056 (marital). Our inquiry here involves the relationship between valuation principles and those computations. The language of the charitable and marital deduction sections differs. For instance, § 2056 requires consideration, in valuing a marital bequest, of obligations or encumbrances the decedent imposes on the bequest, “in the same manner as if the amount of a gift to such spouse of such interest were being determined.” § 2056(b)(4). Section 2055 has no similar language. Treasury Reg. § 20.2056(b)-4(a), 26 CFR § 20.2056(b)-4(a) (1996), moreover, has amplified aspects of the marital deduction statute, as we discuss. There is no similar regulation for the charitable deduction statute. These differences notwithstanding, the Commissioner and respondent agree that, for purposes of the question presented, the two deduction statutes should be read to require the same answer. We adopt this approach. For the issue we decide, the marital deduction statute and regulation speak in more specific terms than the charitable deduction statute, so we concentrate on the marital provisions. Our holding in the case applies to both deductions.
We begin with the language of the marital deduction statute. It allows an estate to deduct for federal estate tax purposes “an amount equal to the value of any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse, but only to the extent that such interest is included in determining the value of the gross estate.” 26 U. S. C. § 2056(a).
The statute allows deduction for qualifying property only to the extent of the property’s “value.” So when the executors value the property for gross estate purposes as of the date of death, the value of the marital deduction will be limited by its date-of-death value. This is directed by the statutory language capping the deduction at “the value of any interest . . . included in determining the value of the gross estate.” It is made explicit by Treas. Reg. § 20.2056(b)-4(a), which says “value, for the purpose of the marital deduction ... is to be determined as of the date of the decedent’s death [unless the estate uses the alternative valuation date].”
Section 20.2056(b)-4(a) provides that “value” for marital deduction purposes is “net value,” determined by applying “the same principles ... as if the amount of a gift to the spouse were being determined.” Section 25.2523(a)-l, entitled “Gift to spouse; in general,” includes a subsection (e), entitled “Valuation,” which parallels § 20.2056(b) — 4(d); see also § 20.2055-2(f)(l). Section 25.2523(a)-l(e) provides:
“If the income from property is made payable to the donor or another individual for life or for a term of years, with remainder to the donor’s spouse . . . the marital deduction is computed . . . with respect to the present value of the remainder, determined under [26 U. S. C. § ]7520. The present value of the remainder (that is, its value as of the date of gift) is to be determined in accordance with the rules stated in § 25.2512-5 or, for certain prior periods, § 25.2512-5A.”
Section 7520, in turn, refers to present-value tables located in regulation § 20.2031-7. The question presented here, involving date-of-death valuation of property or a principal amount, some of the income from which may be used to pay administration expenses, is not controlled by the exact terms of these provisions. For that reason, we do not attempt to force it into their detailed mold. It is natural, however, to apply the present-value principle to the question at hand, as we are directed to do by §20.2056(b)-4(a). In other words, assuming it were necessary for valuation purposes to take into account that income, see infra, at 106-107 (discussing materiality), this would be done by subtracting from the value of the bequest, computed as if the income were not subject to administration expense charges, the present value (as of the controlling valuation date) of the income expected to be used to pay administration expenses.
Our application of the present-value principle to the issue here is further supported by Justice Holmes’ explanation of valuation theory in his opinion for the Court in Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States, 279 U. S. 151 (1929). The decedent there bequeathed the residue of his estate in trust to charity, subject to a particular life interest in his wife. After holding that the charitable bequest qualified for the charitable deduction under the law as it stood in 1929, the Court considered how to value the bequest. The Government argued the value should be reduced to reflect the wife’s probable life expectancy as of the date the decedent died. The estate argued for a smaller reduction than the Government, because by the time of the litigation it was known that the wife had, in fact, lived for only six months after the decedent died. Justice Holmes wrote:
“The first impression is that it is absurd to resort to statistical probabilities when you know the fact. But this is due to inaccurate thinking. . . . [Value] depends largely on more or less certain prophecies of the future; and the value is no less real at that time if later the prophecy turns out false than when it comes out true.... Tempting as it is to correct uncertain probabilities by the now certain fact, we are of opinion that it cannot be done. . . . Our opinion is not changed by the necessary exceptions to the general rule specifically made by the Act.” Id., at 155.
So the charitable deduction had to be valued based on the wife’s probable life expectancy as of the date of death rather than the known fact that she died only six months after her husband.
It is suggested that § 20.2056(b)-4(a)’s direction to value the marital deduction as a spousal gift refers to a gift tax qualification regulation, § 25.2523(e) — 1(f), and a Revenue Ruling interpreting it, Rev. Rul. 69-56, 1969-1 Cum. Bull. 224. Post, at 116 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). The suggestion misunderstands the regulations and the Revenue Ruling. Section 20.2056(b)-4(a) concerns how to determine the “value, for the purpose of the marital deduction, of any deductible interest.” Before determining an interest’s value under § 20.2056(b)-4(a), one must decide the extent to which the interest qualifies as deductible.
There is a structural problem with interpreting § 20.2056(b)-4(a) as directing reference to § 25.2523(e) — 1(f) for valuation purposes. Qualification and valuation are different steps. Section 25.2523(e) — 1(f) prescribes conditions under which an interest transferred in trust qualifies for a marital deduction under the gift tax. It tracks the language of § 20.2056(b)-5(f), which prescribes the same conditions for determining whether an interest transferred in trust qualifies for a marital deduction under the estate tax. Any interest to which § 25.2523(e) — 1(f) would apply, were its principles understood to be incorporated into § 20.2056(b)-4(a), would, of necessity, already have been analyzed under the same principles at the earlier, qualification stage of the estate-tax marital-deduction inquiry under § 20.2056(b)-5(f). So under the suggested interpretation, whether or not an interest passed the qualification test, there would never be a need to value it. If it failed, there would be nothing to value; if it passed, its value would never be reduced at the valuation stage. The qualification step of the estate-tax marital-deduction inquiry would render the valuation step superfluous.
We do not think the Commissioner adopted this view of the regulations in Revenue Ruling 69-56. The Revenue Ruling held that a trustee’s power to:
“charge to income or principal, executor’s or trustee’s commissions, legal and accounting fees, custodian fees, and similar administration expenses ... [does] not result
“[does] in the disallowance or diminution of the marital deduction for estate and gift tax purposes unless the execution of such directions would or the exercise of such powers could, cause the spouse to have less than substantially full beneficial enjoyment of the particular interest transferred.” Rev. Rul. 69-56, 1969-1 Cum. Bull. 224.
The Revenue Ruling cites for this proposition §§ 20.2056(b)-5(f)(1) and 25.2523(e)-l(f)(l), parts of the estate and gift tax qualification regulations discussed above. The qualification regulations provide that an interest may qualify as deductible only in part. Where that happens, the deduction need not be disallowed but it must be diminished. See, e.g., § 20.2056(b)-5(b); § 25.2523(e)-l(b); see also 26 U. S. C. §§ 2056(b)(5), 2523(e). It is in this qualification context that the Revenue Ruling speaks of “diminution” of the marital deduction. There is no dispute the entire interests transferred in trust here qualify for the estate tax marital and charitable deductions, respectively. The question before us is one of valuation. Sections 25.2523(e)-l(f) and 20.2056(b)-5(f) and Revenue Ruling 69-56 do not bear on our inquiry.
The parties here agree that the marital and charitable deductions had to be reduced by the amount of marital and charitable residue principal used to pay administration expenses. The Commissioner contends that the estate must reduce its marital and charitable deductions by the amount of administration expenses paid not only from principal but also, and in all events, from income and by a dollar-for-dollar amount. The Commissioner cites the controlling regulation in support of her position. The regulation says:
“The value, for the purpose of the marital deduction, of any deductible interest which passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse is to be determined as of the date of the decedent’s death [unless the estate uses the alternative valuation date]. The marital deduction may be taken only with respect to the net value of any deductible interest which passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse, the same principles being applicable as if the amount of a gift to the spouse were being determined. In determining the value of the interest in property passing to the spouse account must be taken of the effect of any material limitations upon her right to income from the property. An example of a case in which this rule may be applied is a bequest of property in trust for the benefit of the decedent’s spouse but the income from the property from the date of the decedent’s death until distribution of the property to the trustee is to be used to pay expenses incurred in the administration of the estate.” 26 CFR § 20.2056(b)-4(a) (1996).
The regulation does not help the Commissioner. It says a limitation providing that income “is to be used” throughout the administration period to pay administration expenses “may” be material in a given case and, if it is, account must be taken of it for valuation purposes as if it were a gift to the spouse, as we have discussed, see supra, at 101-102. The Tax Court was quite accurate in its description of the regulation when it said:
“That section is merely a valuation provision which requires material limitations on the right to receive income to be taken into account when valuing the property interest passing to the surviving spouse. The fact that income from property is to be used to pay expenses during the administration of the estate is not necessarily a material limitation on the right to receive income that would have a significant effect on the date-of-death value of the property of the estate.” 101 T. C., at 324-325.
There is no indication in the case before us that the executor’s power to charge administration expenses to income is equivalent to an express postponement of the spouse’s right to income beyond a reasonable period of administration. Cf. 26 CFR § 20.2056(b)-5(f)(9) (1996) (requiring valuation of express postponements of the spouse’s right to income beyond a reasonable period of administration). By contrast, we have no difficulty conceiving of situations where a provision requiring or allowing administration expenses to be paid from income could be deemed a “material limitation” on the spouse’s right to income. Suppose the decedent’s other bequests account for most of the estate’s property or that most of its assets are nonincome producing, so that the corpus of the surviving spouse’s bequest, and the income she could expect to receive from it, would be quite small. In these circumstances, the amount of the estate’s anticipated administration expenses chargeable to income may be material as compared with the anticipated income used to determine the assets’ date-of-death value. If so, a provision requiring or allowing administration expenses to be charged to income would be a material limitation on the spouse’s right to income, reducing the marital bequest’s date-of-death value and the allowable marital deduction.
Whether a limitation is “material” will also depend in part on the nature of the spouse’s interest in the assets generating income. This analysis finds strong support in the text of § 20.2056(b)-4(a). The regulation gives an example of where a limitation on the right to income “may” be material — bequests “in trust” for the benefit of a decedent’s spouse. The example suggests a significant difference between a bequest of income and an outright gift of the fee interest in the income-producing property. A fee in the same interest will almost always be worth much more. Where the value of the trust to the beneficiaries is derived solely from income, an obligation to pay administration expenses from that income is more likely to be “material.” In the case of a specific bequest of income, for example, valued only for its future income stream, a diversion of that income would be more significant. The marital property in this case, however, comprising trusts involving either a general power of appointment (the GPA trust) or an irrevocable election (the QTIP trust), was valued as being equivalent to a transfer of the fee. See Brief for Petitioner 8-9, n. 1 (“[T]he corpus of both trusts is includable in the estate of the surviving spouse”). As a result, the limitation on the right to income here is less likely to be material. The inquiry into the value of the estate’s anticipated administration expenses should be just as administrable, if not more so, than valuing property interests like going-concern businesses, see, e. g., § 20.2031-3, involving much greater complexity and uncertainty.
The Tax Court concluded here: “On the facts before us, we find that the trustee’s discretion to pay administration expenses out of income is not a material limitation on the right to receive income.” 101 T. C., at 325. The Tax Court did not specify the facts it considered relevant to the materiality inquiry. As we have explained, however, the Commissioner does not contend the estate failed to give adequate consideration to expected future administration expenses as of the date of death in determining the amount of the marital deduction. We have no basis to reverse for the Tax Court’s failure to elaborate. Here, given the size and complexity of the estate, one might have expected it to incur substantial litigation costs. But the anticipated expenses could nonetheless have been thought immaterial in light of the income the trust corpus could have been expected to generate.
The major disagreement in principle between the Tax Court majority and dissenters involved the distinction between expected and actual income and expenses. Judge Halpern’s opinion, joined by Judge Beghe, explained:
“I believe the majority is undone by its view that income earned on estate property is not included in the gross estate. Once it is accepted that income earned on estate property (as anticipated at the appropriate valuation date) is included in the gross estate, the next question is whether, but for the use of such income to pay administration expenses, it would be received by the surviving spouse or charitable beneficiary. If the answer is yes, then it follows easily that, when such income is used for administration expenses, rather than received by the surviving spouse or charitable beneficiary, the value of the interest passing from the decedent to the surviving spouse or charitable beneficiary is decreased.” Id., at 342-343 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The Tax Court dissenters recognized that only anticipated, not actual, income is included in the gross estate, as the gross estate is based on date-of-death value. See also id., at 342, n. 5 (opinion of Halpern, J.) (“It is true, of course, that income actually earned on . . . property [included in valuing the gross estate] during the period of estate administration is not included in the gross estate. The gross estate, however, does’ include the discounted value of post mortem income expected to be earned during estate administration” (emphasis deleted)). The dissenters failed to recognize that following their own logic, as a general rule, assuming compliance with § 20.2056(b)-4(a)’s limitation to relevant facts on the controlling valuation date, only anticipated administration expenses payable from income, not the actual ones, affect the date-of-death value of the marital or charitable bequests. The dissenters were, in a sense, a step closer to § 25.2523(a)-l(e)’s present-value approach than the Commissioner, for they would have required the estate to reduce the marital or charitable deduction by only the discounted value of the actual administration expenses, whereas the Commissioner insists on a dollar-for-dollar reduction. The dissenters’ wait-and-see approach to the valuation inquiry, however, is still at odds with the valuation inquiry required by the regulations: What is the net value of the marital or charitable bequest on the controlling valuation date, determined as if it were a gift to the spouse?
The Commissioner directs us to the language of § 2056(b)(4), which says:
“In determining . .. the value of any interest in property passing to the surviving spouse for which a deduction is allowed by this section—
“(B) where such interest or property is encumbered in any manner, or where the surviving spouse incurs any obligation imposed by the decedent with respect to the passing of such interest, such encumbrance or obligation shall be taken into account in the same manner as if the amount of a gift to such spouse of such interest were being determined.”
We interpreted this language in United States v. Stapf, 375 U. S. 118 (1963). The husband’s will there gave property to his wife, conditioned on her relinquishing other property she owned to the couple’s children. We held that the husband’s estate was entitled to a marital deduction only to the extent the value of the property the husband gave his wife exceeded the value of the property she relinquished to receive it. The marital deduction, we explained, should not exceed the “net economic interest received by the surviving spouse.” Id., at 126. The statutory language, as we interpreted it in Stapf, is consistent with our analysis here. Where the will requires or allows the estate to pay administration expenses from income that would otherwise go to the surviving spouse, our analysis requires that the marital deduction reflect the date-of-death value of the expected future administration expenses chargeable to income if they are material as compared with the date-of-death value of the expected future income. Using this approach to valuation, the estate will arrive at the “net economic interest received by the surviving spouse.” Ibid.
For the first time at oral argument, the Commissioner suggested that the reduction she seeks is necessary to avoid a “double deduction” in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 642(g). Under § 642(g), an estate may take an estate tax deduction for administration expenses under § 2053(a)(2), or it may take them, if deductible, off its taxable income, but it may not do both. The so-called double deduction argument is rhetorical, not statutory. As our colleagues in dissent recognize, “nothing in § 642(g) compels the conclusion that the marital (or charitable) deduction must be reduced whenever an estate elects to deduct expenses from income.” Post, at 137 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original). The Commissioner nevertheless suggests that, unless we reduce the estate’s marital deduction by the amount of administration expenses paid from income and deducted on its income tax, the estate will receive a deduction for them on its income tax as well as a deduction for them on its estate tax in the form of inflated marital and charitable deductions. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 15. The marital and charitable estate tax deductions do not include income, however. When income is used, consistent with state law and the will, to pay administration expenses, this does not require that the estate tax deductions be diminished. The deductions include asset values determined with reference to expected income, but under our analysis the values must also be reduced to reflect material expected administration expense charges to which that income may be subjected. As noted above, the Commissioner has not contended the estate’s marital and charitable deductions fail to reflect such expected payments. So there is no basis for the double deduction argument. Our analysis is consistent with the design of the statute.
The Commissioner also invites our attention to the legislative history of the marital deduction statute. Assuming for the sake of argument it would have relevance here, it does not support her position. The Senate Report accompanying the statute says:
“The interest passing to the surviving spouse from the decedent is only such interest as the decedent can give. If the decedent by his will leaves the residue of his estate to the surviving spouse and she pays, or if the estate income is used to pay, claims against the estate so as to increase the residue, such increase in the residue is acquired by purchase and not by bequest. Accordingly, the value of any additional part of the residue passing to the surviving spouse cannot be included in the amount of the marital deduction.” S. Rep. No. 1013, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, p. 6 (1948).
The Report supports our analysis. It underscores that valuation for marital deduction purposes occurs on the date of death.
The Commissioner’s position is inconsistent with the controlling regulations. The Tax Court and the Court of Appeals were correct in finding for the taxpayer on these facts, and we affirm the judgment.
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 Red River Compact, (or Compact), 94 Stat. 3305, allocates water rights among the States within the Red River basin as it winds through Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Petitioner Tarrant Regional Water District (Tarrant), a Texas agency, claims that it is entitled to acquire water under the Compact from within Oklahoma and that therefore the Compact pre-empts several Oklahoma statutes that restrict out-of-state diversions of water. In the alternative, Tarrant argues that the Oklahoma laws are unconstitutional restrictions on interstate commerce. We hold that Tarrant's claims lack merit.
I
A
The Red River (or River) begins in the Llano Estacado Mesa on the border between New Mexico and Texas. From this broad plain, it first runs through the Texas Panhandle and then marks the border between Texas and Oklahoma. It continues in an easterly direction until it reaches the shared border with Arkansas. Once the River enters Arkansas, it turns southward and flows into Louisiana, where it empties into the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.
As an important geographic feature of this region, the Red River has lent its name to a valley, a Civil War campaign, and a famed college football rivalry between the Longhorns of Texas and the Sooners of Oklahoma. But college pride has not been the only source of controversy between Texas and Oklahoma regarding the Red River. The River has been the cause of numerous historical conflicts between the two States, leading to a mobilization of their militias at one time, Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S. 574, 580, 42 S.Ct. 406, 66 L.Ed. 771 (1922), and the declaration of martial law along a stretch of the River by Oklahoma Governor "Alfalfa Bill" Murray at another, see Okla. H. Res. 1121, 50th Legislature, 2d Sess. (2006) (resolution commemorating "Alfalfa Bill" Murray's actions during the "Red River Bridge War"). Such disputes over the River and its waters are a natural result of the River's distribution of water flows. The River's course means that upstream States like Oklahoma and Texas may appropriate substantial amounts of water from both the River and its tributaries to the disadvantage of downstream States like Arkansas and especially Louisiana, which lacks sufficiently large reservoirs to store water.
Absent an agreement among the States, disputes over the allocation of water are subject to equitable apportionment by the courts, Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 609, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983), which often results in protracted and costly legal proceedings.
Thus in 1955, to forestall future disputes over the River and its water, Congress authorized the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas to negotiate a compact to apportion the water of the Red River basin among themselves. See Act of Aug. 11, 1955, Pub.L. 346, 69 Stat. 654. These negotiations lasted over 20 years and finally culminated in the signing of the Red River Compact in 1978. Congress approved the Compact in 1980, transforming it into federal law. See Act of Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3305; Compact, 1 App. 7-51.
One of the Compact's principal purposes was "[t]o provide an equitable apportionment among the Signatory States of the water of the Red River and its tributaries." § 1.01(b), id., at 9. The Compact governs the allocation of water along the Red River and its tributaries from the New Mexico and Texas border to its terminus in Louisiana. §§ 2.12(a)-(e), id., at 13. This stretch is divided into five separate subdivisions called "Reach[es]," ibid., each of which is further divided into smaller "subbasins," see, e.g., §§ 5.01-5.05, id., at 22-26 (describing subbasins 1 through 5 of Reach II). (See Appendix A, infra, for a map.)
At issue in this case are rights under the Compact to water located in Oklahoma's portion of subbasin 5 of Reach II, which occupies "that portion of the Red River, together with its tributaries, from Denison Dam down to the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary, excluding all tributaries included in the other four subbasins of Reach II." § 5.05(a), 1 App. 24-25. (See Appendix B, infra, for a map.) The Compact's interpretive comments explain that during negotiations, Reach II posed the greatest difficulty to the parties' efforts to reach agreement. Comment on Art. V, 1 App. 27. The problem was that Louisiana, the farthest downstream State, lacks suitable reservoir sites and therefore cannot store water during high flow periods to meet its future needs. The upstream States (Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas), which control the River's flow, were unwilling to release water stored within their own reservoirs for the benefit of any downstream States, like Louisiana. Without any such release, there would be no guaranteed flow of water to Louisiana.
The provisions of the Compact relating to Reach II were crafted to address this problem. To this end, Reach II was divided into five subbasins. The upstream subbasins, numbered 1 through 4, were drawn to end at "existing, authorized or proposed last downstream major damsites," see, e.g., § 5.01(a), id., at 22, on the tributaries leading to the Red River before reaching the main stem of the River. These dams allow the parties managing them to control water along the tributaries before it travels farther downstream and joins the flow of the main stem of the River. For the most part, the Compact granted control over the water in these subbasins to the States in which each subbasin is located. The remaining subbasin, subbasin 5, instead requires that water be allowed to flow to Louisiana through the main stem of the River at certain minimum levels, assuring Louisiana an allocation of the River's waters and solving its flowthrough problem.
The provision of the Compact central to the present dispute is § 5.05 (b)(1), which sets the following allocation during times of normal flow:
"(1) The Signatory States shall have equal rights to the use of runoff originating in subbasin 5 and undesignated water flowing into subbasin 5, so long as the flow of the Red River at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary is 3,000 cubic feet per second [hereinafter CFS] or more, provided no state is entitled to more than 25 percent of the water in excess of 3,000 [CFS]." Id., at 25.
In these normal circumstances (i.e., when flows at the Arkansas-Louisiana border are above 3,000 CFS), this provision and its interpretive comment make clear that "all states are free to use whatever amount of water they can put to beneficial use." Comment on Art. V, id., at 30. But if the amount of water above 3,000 CFS cannot satisfy all such uses, then "each state will honor the other's right to 25% of the excess flow." Ibid. However, when the flow of the River diminishes at the Arkansas-Louisiana border, the upstream States must permit more water to reach Louisiana.
Subbasin 5's allocation scheme allows upstream States to keep the water that they have stored, but also ensures that Louisiana will receive a steady supply of water from the Red River, with each upstream State contributing during times of low flow.
To ensure that its apportionments are honored, the Compact includes an accounting provision, but an accounting is not mandatory "until one or more affected states deem the accounting necessary." § 2.11, id., at 13; see Comment on Art. II, id., at 15-16. This is because the "extensive gaging and record keeping required" to carry out such an accounting would impose "a significant financial burden on the involved states." Id., at 16. Given these costs, the signatory States did "not envisio[n] that it w[ould] be undertaken as a routine matter."Ibid. Indeed, it appears that no State has ever asked for such an accounting in the Compact's history. See Brief for Respondents 45; Reply Brief 11-12.
While the Compact allocates water rights among its signatories, it also provides that it should not "be deemed to... [i]nterfere with or impair the right or power of any Signatory State to regulate within its boundaries the appropriation, use, and control of water, or quality of water, not inconsistent with its obligations under this Compact." § 2.10, 1 App. 12. Rather, "[s]ubject to the general constraints of water availability and the apportionment of the Compact, each state [remains] free to continue its existing internal water administration." Comment on Art. II, id., at 14. Even during periods of water shortage, "no attempt is made to specify the steps that will be taken [by States to ensure water deliveries]; it is left to the state's internal water administration." Ibid. B
In the years since the Red River Compact was ratified by Congress, the region's population has increased dramatically. In particular, the population of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area in north Texas has grown from roughly 5.1 million inhabitants in 2000 to almost 6.4 million in 2010, a jump of over 23 percent and among the largest in the United States during this period. See Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, P. Mackun & S. Wilson, Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010 (Mar. 2011). This growth has strained regional water supplies, and north Texas' need for water has been exacerbated in recent years by a long and costly drought. See generally Galbraith, A Drought More Than Texas-Size, International Herald Tribune, Oct. 3, 2011, p. 4.
Against this backdrop, petitioner Tarrant, a Texas state agency responsible for providing water to north-central Texas (including the cities of Fort Worth, Arlington, and Mansfield), has endeavored to secure new sources of water for the area it serves. From 2000 to 2002, Tarrant, along with several other Texas water districts, offered to purchase water from Oklahoma and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. See 2 App. 336-382. But these negotiations were unsuccessful and Tarrant eventually abandoned these efforts.
Because Texas' need for water only continued to grow, Tarrant settled on a new course of action. In 2007, Tarrant sought a water resource permit from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), respondents here, to take 310,000 acre feet per year of surface water from the Kiamichi River, a tributary of the Red River located in Oklahoma. Tarrant proposed to divert the Kiamichi River, at a point located in subbasin 5 of Reach II, before it discharges into the Red River and, according to Tarrant, becomes too saline for potable use.
Tarrant knew, however, that Oklahoma would likely deny its permits because various state laws (collectively, the Oklahoma water statutes) effectively prevent out-of-state applicants from taking or diverting water from within Oklahoma's borders. These statutes include a requirement that the OWRB consider, when evaluating an application to take water out of State, whether that water "could feasibly be transported to alleviate water shortages in the State of Oklahoma." Okla. Stat., Tit. 82, § 105.12(A)(5) (West 2013). The statutes also require that no permit issued by the OWRB to use water outside of the State shall "[i]mpair the ability of the State of Oklahoma to meet its obligations under any interstate stream compact." § 105.12A(B)(1). A separate provision creates a permitting review process that applies only to out-of-state water users. § 105.12(F). Oklahoma also requires legislative approval for out-of-state water-use permits, § 105.12A(D), and further provides that "[w]ater use within Oklahoma... be developed to the maximum extent feasible for the benefit of Oklahoma so that out-of-state downstream users will not acquire vested rights therein to the detriment of the citizens of this state," § 1086.1(A)(3). Interpreting these laws, Oklahoma's attorney general has concluded that "we consider the proposition unrealistic that an out-of-state user is a proper permit applicant before the [OWRB]" because "[w]e can find no intention to create the possibility that such a valuable resource as water may become bound, without compensation, to use by an out-of-state user." 1 App. 118.
When Tarrant filed its permit application, it also filed suit against respondents in Federal District Court. As relevant here, Tarrant sought to enjoin enforcement of the Oklahoma water statutes by the OWRB. Tarrant argued that the statutes, and the interpretation of them adopted by Oklahoma's attorney general, were pre-empted by federal law and violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce in water.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the OWRB on both of Tarrant's claims. See No. CIV-07-0045-HE, 2010 WL 2817220, *4 (W.D.Okla., July 16, 2010) ; No. CIV-07-0045-HE (W.D.Okla., Nov. 18, 2009), App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a-73a, 2009 WL 3922803, *8. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. 656 F.3d 1222, 1250 (2011).
We granted Tarrant's petition for a writ of certiorari, 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 831, 184 L.Ed.2d 646 (2013), and now affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.
II
A
Tarrant claims that under § 5.05(b)(1) of the Compact, it has the right to cross state lines and divert water from Oklahoma located in subbasin 5 of Reach II and that the Oklahoma water statutes interfere with its ability to exercise that right. Section 5.05(b)(1) provides:
"The Signatory States shall have equal rights to the use of runoff originating in subbasin 5 and undesignated water flowing into subbasin 5, so long as the flow of the Red River at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary is 3,000 [CFS] or more, provided no state is entitled to more than 25 percent of the water in excess of 3,000 [CFS]." 1 App. 25.
In Tarrant's view, this provision essentially creates a borderless common in which each of the four signatory States may cross each other's boundaries to access a shared pool of water. Tarrant reaches this interpretation in two steps. First, it observes that § 5.05(b)(1)'s "equal rights" language grants each State an equal entitlement to the waters of subbasin 5, subject to a 25 percent cap. Second, Tarrant argues § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence concerning state lines indicates that the Compact's drafters did not intend to allocate water according to state borders in this section. According to Tarrant, "the '25 percent' language [of § 5.05(b)(1) ] makes clear that, in exercising its 'equal rights' to the common pool of water, no State may take more than a one-quarter share, " Reply Brief 3, but any of the signatory States may "cross state lines to obtain [its]
shar[e] of Subbasin 5 waters," Brief for Petitioner 32.
The OWRB disputes this reading. In its view, the "equal rights" promised by § 5.05(b)(1) afford each State an equal opportunity to make use of the excess water within subbasin 5 of Reach II but only within each State's own borders. This is because the OWRB reads § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence differently from Tarrant. The OWRB interprets that provision's absence of language granting any cross-border rights to indicate that the Compact's drafters had no intention to create any such rights in the signatory States.
Unraveling the meaning of § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence with respect to state lines is the key to resolving whether the Compact pre-empts the Oklahoma water statutes. If § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence means that state borders are irrelevant to the allocation of water in subbasin 5 of Reach II, then the Oklahoma water laws at issue conflict with the cross-border rights created by federal law in the form of the Compact and must be pre-empted. But if § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence instead reflects a background understanding on the part of the Compact's drafters that state borders were to be respected within the Compact's allocation, then the Oklahoma statutes do not conflict with the Compact's allocation of water.
B
Interstate compacts are construed as contracts under the principles of contract law. Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124, 128, 107 S.Ct. 2279, 96 L.Ed.2d 105 (1987). So, as with any contract, we begin by examining the express terms of the Compact as the best indication of the intent of the parties, see also Montana v. Wyoming, 563 U.S. ----, ----, and n. 4, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1765, 1771-1772, and n. 4, 1778, 179 L.Ed.2d 799 (2011) ; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203(b) (1979).
Tarrant argues that because other provisions of the Compact reference state borders, § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence with respect to state lines must mean that the Compact's drafters intended to permit cross-border diversions. For example, § 5.03(b), which governs subbasin 3 of Reach II, provides that
"[t]he States of Oklahoma and Arkansas shall have free and unrestricted use of the water of this subbasin within their respective states, subject, however, to the limitation that Oklahoma shall allow a quantity of water equal to... 40 percent of the total runoff originating below the following existing, authorized or proposed last major downstream damsites in Oklahoma to flow into Arkansas." 1 App. 23-24 (emphasis added).
Section 6.03(b), which covers subbasin 3 of Reach III, similarly provides that "Texas and Louisiana within their respective boundaries shall each have the unrestricted use of the water of this subbasin subject to the following [conditions]." Id., at 33 (emphasis added). Thus, § 5.03 (b) and § 6.03(b) mimic § 5.05(b)(1) in allocating water rights within a subbasin, but differ in that they make explicit reference to water use "within" state boundaries. Relying on the expressio unius canon of construction, Tarrant finds that § 5.05(b)'s silence regarding borders is significant because " '[w]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed [that] Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.' " Brief for Petitioner 29 (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) ).
But Tarrant's argument fails to account for other sections of the Compact that cut against its reading. For example, § 5.05(b)(3), which governs the waters of subbasin 5 in Reach II when flows are below 1,000 CFS, requires that during such periods, Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma allow water "within their respective states to flow into the Red River as required to maintain a 1,000 [CFS] flow at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary." 1 App. 25 (emphasis added). Obviously none of the upstream States can redirect water that lies outside of their borders, so the phrase "within their respective states" is superfluous in § 5.05(b)(3). In contrast, § 5.05(b)(2), which governs when the River's flow at the Arkansas-Louisiana border is above 1,000 CFS but below 3,000 CFS, requires that upstream States allow a flow to Louisiana equivalent to 40 percent of total weekly runoff originating within the subbasin and 40 percent of undesignated water flowing into subbasin 5 of Reach II. Id., at 25. This language can only refer to water within each State's borders because otherwise each State would have to contribute 40 percent to the total water flow, which would add up to more than 100 percent. Read together and to avoid absurd results, §§ 5.05(b)(2) and (3) suggest that each upstream State is individually responsible for ensuring that sufficient subbasin 5 water located within its respective borders flows down to Louisiana, even though § 5.05(b)(2) lacks any explicit reference to state lines.
Applying Tarrant's understanding of § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence regarding state lines to other of the Compact's provisions would produce further anomalous results. Consider § 6.01(b). That provision states that "Texas is apportioned sixty (60) percent of the runoff of [subbasin 1 of Reach III] and shall have unrestricted use thereof; Arkansas is entitled to forty (40) percent of the runoff of this subbasin." Id., at 32. Because Texas is upstream from Arkansas, water flows from Texas to Arkansas. Given this situation, the commonsense reason for § 6.01(b)'s 60-to-40 allocation is to prevent Texas from barring the flow of water to Arkansas. While there is no reference to state boundaries in the section's text, the unstated assumption underlying this provision is that Arkansas must wait for its 40 percent share to go through Texas before it can claim it. But applying Tarrant's understanding of silence regarding state borders to this section would imply that Arkansas could enter into Texas without having to wait for the water that will inevitably reach it. This counterintuitive outcome would thwart the self-evident purposes of the Compact. Further, other provisions of the Compact share this structure of allocating a proportion of water that will flow from an upstream State to a downstream one. Accepting Tarrant's reading would upset the balance struck by all these sections.
At the very least, the problems that arise from Tarrant's proposed reading suggest that § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence is ambiguous regarding cross-border rights under the Compact. We therefore turn to other interpretive tools to shed light on the intent of the Compact's drafters. See Oklahoma v. New Mexico, 501 U.S. 221, 235, n. 5, 111 S.Ct. 2281, 115 L.Ed.2d 207 (1991). Three things persuade us that cross-border rights were not granted by the Compact: the well-established principle that States do not easily cede their sovereign powers, including their control over waters within their own territories; the fact that other interstate water compacts have treated cross-border rights explicitly; and the parties' course of dealing.
1
The background notion that a State does not easily cede its sovereignty has informed our interpretation of interstate compacts. We have long understood that as sovereign entities in our federal system, the States possess an "absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them for their own common use." Martin v. Lessee of Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 410, 10 L.Ed. 997 (1842). Drawing on this principle, we have held that ownership of submerged lands, and the accompanying power to control navigation, fishing, and other public uses of water, "is an essential attribute of sovereignty," United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1, 5, 117 S.Ct. 1888, 138 L.Ed.2d 231 (1997). Consequently, " '[a] court deciding a question of title to [a] bed of navigable water [within a State's boundaries] must... begin with a strong presumption' against defeat of a State's title." Id., at 34, 117 S.Ct. 1888 (quoting Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 552, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981) ). See also Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 174, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576 (2001) ; Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. 193, 195, 107 S.Ct. 2318, 96 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987).
Given these principles, when confronted with silence in compacts touching on the States' authority to control their waters, we have concluded that "[i]f any inference at all is to be drawn from [such] silence on the subject of regulatory authority, we think it is that each State was left to regulate the activities of her own citizens." Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 56, 67, 124 S.Ct. 598, 157 L.Ed.2d 461 (2003). Cf. New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767, 783, n. 6, 118 S.Ct. 1726, 140 L.Ed.2d 993 (1998) ("[T]he silence of the Compact was on the subject of settled law governing avulsion, which the parties' silence showed no intent to modify").
Tarrant asks us to infer from § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence regarding state borders that the signatory States have dispensed with the core state prerogative to control water within their own boundaries. But as the above demonstrates, States rarely relinquish their sovereign powers, so when they do we would expect a clear indication of such devolution, not inscrutable silence. We think that the better understanding of § 5.05(b)(1)'s silence is that the parties drafted the Compact with this legal background in mind, and therefore did not intend to grant each other cross-border rights under the Compact.
In response, Tarrant contends that its interpretation would not intrude on any sovereign prerogative of Oklahoma because that State would retain its authority to regulate the water within its borders. Because anyone seeking water from Oklahoma would still have to apply to the OWRB, receive a permit, and abide by its conditions, Tarrant argues that Oklahoma's sovereign authority remains untouched by its interpretation. But Tarrant cannot have it both ways. Adopting Tarrant's reading would necessarily entail assuming that Oklahoma and three other States silently surrendered substantial control over the water within their borders when they agreed to the Compact. Given the background principles we have described above, we find this unlikely to have been the intent of the Compact's signatories.
2
Looking to the customary practices employed in other interstate compacts also helps us to ascertain the intent of the parties to this Compact. See Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330, ----, ----, 130 S.Ct. 2295, 176 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2010); Oklahoma, 501 U.S., at 235, n. 5, 111 S.Ct. 2281; Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 565, 103 S.Ct. 2558, 77 L.Ed.2d 1 (1983). See also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203(b) (explaining that "usage of trade" may be relevant in interpreting a contract). Many of these other compacts feature language that unambiguously permits signatory States to cross each other's borders to fulfill obligations under the compacts. See, e.g., Amended Bear River Compact, Art. VIII(A), 94 Stat. 12 ("[N]o State shall deny the right of another signatory State... to acquire rights to the use of water... in one State for use of water in another"). The absence of comparable language in the Red River Compact counts heavily against Tarrant's reading of it.
Tellingly, many of these compacts provide for the terms and mechanics of how such cross-border relationships will operate, including who can assert such cross-border rights, see, e.g., Kansas-Nebraska Big Blue River Compact, Art. VII(1), 86 Stat. 198, who should bear the costs of any cross-border diversions, see, e.g., Belle Fourche River Compact, Art. VI, 58 Stat. 96-97, and how such diversions should be administered, Arkansas River Basin Compact, Kansas-Oklahoma, Art. VII(A), 80 Stat. 1411. See also Brief for Professors of Law and Political Science as Amici Curiae 11-14 (giving more examples).
Provisions like these are critical for managing the complexities that ensue from cross-border diversions. Consider the mechanics of a cross-border diversion or taking of water in this case. If Tarrant were correct, then applicants from Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana could all apply to the OWRB for permits to take water from Oklahoma. The OWRB would then be obligated to determine the total amount of water in Oklahoma beyond the 25 percent cap created in § 5.05(b)(1), given that the Compact would only obligate Oklahoma to deliver water beyond its quarter share. This alone would be a herculean task because the Compact does not require ongoing monitoring or accounting, see Compact § 2.11, 1 App. 13, and not all of the water in subbasin 5 is located or originates in Oklahoma. Moreover, the OWRB would be tasked with determining the priority under the Compact of applicants from other States. This would almost certainly require the OWRB to not only determine whether Oklahoma had received more or less than its 25 percent allotment, but whether other States had as well.
Put plainly, the end result would be a jurisdictional and administrative quagmire. The provisions in the other interstate water compacts resolve these complications. The absence of comparable provisions in the Red River Compact strongly suggests that cross-border rights were never intended to be part of the States' agreement.
Tarrant counters that not all interstate compacts that permit cross-border diversions have explicit language to this effect. On this front, Tarrant manages to identify one interstate compact that it contends permits cross-border diversions without express language to that effect, the Upper Niobrara River Compact, Pub.L. 91-52, 83 Stat. 86. Tarrant observes that this compact, which deals with a river mostly located in Nebraska with only a small portion in Wyoming, provides that "[t]here shall be no restrictions on the use of the surface waters of [the river] by Wyoming." See Art. V(A) 1, id., at 88. Tarrant suggests that this language, coupled with the fact that the bulk of the river is in Nebraska, implicitly indicates that the compact grants Wyoming a right to enter Nebraska and use the river's water. First, we are not convinced that a single compact's failure to reference state borders does much to detract from the overall custom in this area. See supra, at 2133 - 2134, and n. 12. Second, the Upper Niobrara River Compact is not a helpful counterexample for Tarrant. The general provision that Tarrant quotes is paired with a host of detailed conditions. See Arts. V(A) 1(a)-(f), 83 Stat. 88. Contrary to Tarrant's position, then, assuming that the Upper Niobrara River compact does create any cross-border rights, it does so not through silence, but through the detailed scheme that would apply to any such contemplated diversions.
Tarrant also argues that § 2.05(d) of the Red River Compact, which provides that "[e]ach Signatory State shall have the right to" "[u]se the bed and banks of the Red River and its tributaries to convey stored water, imported or exported water, and water apportioned according to this Compact,"
1 App. 11, in fact authorizes cross-border diversions. Because the present border between Texas and Oklahoma east of the Texas Panhandle is set by the vegetation line on the south bank of the River, Red River Boundary Compact, 114 Stat. 919, Tarrant contends that § 2.05(d) reflects an understanding on the part of the Compact's drafters that state borders could be crossed. But the issue is not as simple as Tarrant makes it out to be. When the Compact was drafted, the Texas-Oklahoma border was fixed at the south bank of the River. See Texas v. Oklahoma, 457 U.S. 172, 102 S.Ct. 2923, 72 L.Ed.2d 762 (1982). If Texas was able to access water through the south bank of the River-an issue left unbriefed by the parties-the Compact's framers may have believed that Texas could reach the River and take water from it without having to enter Oklahoman land, casting doubt on Tarrant's theory. In any event, even if § 2.05(d) is read to establish a cross-border right, it does so through express language setting forth the location and purposes under which such an incursion is permissible. This is different from the inference from silence that Tarrant asks us to draw in § 5.05(b)(1).
3
The parties' conduct under the Compact also undermines Tarrant's position. A "part[y's] course of performance under the Compact is highly significant" evidence of its understanding of the compact's terms. Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct. 2295. Since the Compact was approved by Congress in 1980, no signatory State had pressed for a cross-border diversion under the Compact until Tarrant filed its suit in 2007. Brief for Respondents 26, 49-51. Indeed, Tarrant attempted to purchase water from Oklahoma over the course of 2000 until 2002, see supra, at 2128, a strange offer if Tarrant believed it was entitled to demand such water without payment under the Compact.
In response, Tarrant maintains that there were "compelling business reasons" for it to purchase water. Reply Brief 17. We are unpersuaded. If Tarrant believed that it had a right to water located in Oklahoma, there would have been "compelling business reasons" to mention this right given that billions of dollars were at stake. See 2 App. 362-363 (summarizing Texas purchase proposal). Yet there is no indication that Tarrant or any other Texas agency or the State of Texas itself previously made any mention of cross-border rights within the Compact, and none of the other signatory States has ever made such a claim.
4
The Compact creates no cross-border rights in Texas. Tarrant's remaining arguments do not persuade us otherwise.
First, Tarrant argues that its interpretation of the Compact is necessary to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant brought this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York seeking reinstatement as a New York City patrolman and back pay. He claimed he was unlawfully dismissed because he refused to waive his privilege against self-incrimination. In August 1965, pursuant to subpoena, appellant appeared before a New York County grand jury which was investigating alleged bribery and corruption of police officers in connection with unlawful gambling operations. He was advised that the grand jury proposed to examine him concerning the performance of his official duties. He was advised of his privilege against self-incrimination, but he was asked to sign a “waiver of immunity” after being told that he would be fired if he did not sign. Following his refusal, he was given an administrative hearing and was discharged solely for this refusal, pursuant to § 1123 of the New York City Charter.
The New York Supreme Court dismissed his petition for reinstatement, 27 App. Div. 2d 800, 279 N. Y. S. 2d 150 (1967), and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed. 20 N. Y. 2d 227, 229 N. E. 2d 184 (1967). We noted probable jurisdiction. 390 U. S. 918 (1968).
Our decisions establish beyond dispute the breadth of the privilege to refuse to respond to questions when the result may be self-incriminatory, and the need fully to implement its guaranty. See Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511 (1967); Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 585-586 (1892); Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 80 (1965). The privilege is applicable to state as well as federal proceedings. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964); Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52 (1964). The privilege may be waived in appropriate circumstances if the waiver is knowingly and voluntarily made. Answers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution against the person testifying. Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra, at 585-586; Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, supra, at 79.
The question presented in the present case is whether a policeman who refuses to waive the protections which the privilege gives him may be dismissed from office because of that refusal.
About a year and a half after New York City discharged petitioner for his refusal to waive this immunity, we decided Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967). In that case, we held that when a policeman had been compelled to testify by the threat that otherwise he would be removed from office, the testimony that he gave could not be used against him in a subsequent prosecution. Garrity had not signed a waiver of immunity and no immunity statute was applicable in the circumstances. Our holding was summarized in the following statement (at 500):
“We now hold the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic.”
The New York Court of Appeals considered that Garrity did not control the present case. It is true that Garrity related to the attempted use of compelled testimony. It did not involve the precise question which is presented here: namely, whether a State may discharge an officer for refusing to waive a right which the Constitution guarantees to him. The New York Court of Appeals also distinguished our post -Garrity decision in Spevack v. Klein, supra. In Spevack, we ruled that a lawyer could not be disbarred solely because he refused to testify at a disciplinary proceeding on the ground that his testimony would tend to incriminate him. The Court of Appeals concluded that Spevack does not control the present case because different considerations apply in the case of a public official such as a policeman. A lawyer, it stated, although licensed by the state is not an employee. This distinction is now urged upon us. It is argued that although a lawyer could not constitutionally be confronted with Hobson’s choice between self-incrimination and forfeiting his means of livelihood, the same principle should not protect a policeman. Unlike the lawyer, he is directly, immediately, and entirely responsible to the city or State which is his employer. He owes his entire loyalty to it. He has no other “client” or principal. He is a trustee of the public interest, bearing the burden of great and total responsibility to his public employer. Unlike the lawyer who is directly responsible to his client, the policeman is either responsible to the State or to no one.
We agree that these factors differentiate the situations. If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself, Garrity v. New Jersey, supra, the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal.
The facts of this case, however, do not present this issue. Here, petitioner was summoned to testify before a grand jury in an investigation of alleged criminal conduct. He was discharged from office, not for failure to answer relevant questions about his official duties, but for refusal to waive a constitutional right. He was dismissed for failure to relinquish the protections of the privilege against self-incrimination. The Constitution of New York State and the City Charter both expressly provided that his failure to do so, as well as his failure to testify, would result in dismissal from his job. He was dismissed solely for his refusal to waive the immunity to which he is entitled if he is required to testify despite his constitutional privilege; Garrity v. New Jersey, supra.
We need not speculate whether, if appellant had executed the waiver of immunity in the circumstances, the effect of our subsequent decision in Garrity v. New Jersey, supra, would have been to nullify the effect of the waiver. New York City discharged him for refusal to execute a document purporting to waive his constitutional rights and to permit prosecution of himself on the basis of his compelled testimony. Petitioner could not have assumed — and certainly he was not required to assume — that he was being asked to- do an idle act of no legal effect. In any event, the mandate of the great privilege against self-incrimination does not tolerate the attempt, regardless of its ultimate effectiveness, to coerce a waiver of the immunity it confers on penalty of the loss of employment. It is clear that petitioner’s testimony was demanded before the grand jury in part so that it might be used to prosecute him, and not solely for the purpose of securing an accounting of his performance of his public trust. If the latter had been the only purpose, there would have been no reason to seek to compel petitioner to waive his immunity.
Proper regard for the history and meaning of the privilege against self-incrimination, applicable to the States under our decision in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), and for the decisions of this Court, dictate the conclusion that the provision of the New York City Charter pursuant to which petitioner was dismissed cannot stand. Accordingly, the judgment is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in the result, see post, p. 285.]
The Assistant District Attorney said to appellant:
“You understand . . . that under the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of New York, no one can be compelled to testify against himself, and that he has a right, the absolute right to refuse to answer any questions that would tend to incriminate him?”
Appellant was told:
“You understand . . . that under the Constitution of New York, as well as the Charter of the City of New York, ... a public officer, which includes a police officer, when called before a Grand Jury to answer questions concerning the conduct of his public office and the performance of his duties is required to sign a waiver of immunity if he wishes to retain that public office?”
The document appellant was asked to sign was phrased as follows:
“I . . . do hereby waive all benefits, privileges, rights and immunity which I would otherwise obtain from indictment, prosecution, and punishment for or on account of, regarding or relating to any matter, transaction or things, concerning the conduct of my office or the performance of my official duties, or the property, government or affairs of the State of New York or of any county included within its territorial limits, or the nomination, election, appointment or official conduct of any officer of the city or of any such county, concerning any of which matters, transactions or things I may testify or produce evidence documentary or otherwise, before the [blank] Grand Jury in the County of New York, in the investigation being conducted by said Grand Jury.”
That section provides:
“If any councilman or other officer or employee of the city shall, after lawful notice or process, wilfully refuse or fail to appear before any court or judge, any legislative committee, or any officer, board or body authorized to conduct any hearing or inquiry, or having appeared shall refuse to testify or to answer any question regarding the property, government or affairs of the city or of any county included within its territorial limits, or regarding the nomination, election, appointment or official conduct of any officer or employee of the city or of any such county, on the ground that his answer would tend to incriminate him, or shall refuse to waive immunity from prosecution on account of any such matter in relation to which he may be asked to testify upon .any such hearing or inquiry, his term or tenure of office or employment shall terminate and such office or employment shall be vacant, and he shall not be eligible to election or appointment to any office or employment under the city or any agency.”
Section 6 of Article I of the New York Constitution provides:
“No person shall be . . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, providing, that any public officer who, upon being called before a grand jury to testify concerning the conduct of his present office ... or the performance of his official duties . . . refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, shall by virtue of such refusal, be disqualified from holding any other public office or public employment for a period of five years . . . and shall be removed from his present office by the appropriate authority or shall forfeit his present office at the suit of the attorney-general.”
Cf. Spevack v. Klein, supra, at 519-520 (concurring in judgment).
The statements in my separate opinion in Spevack v. Klein, supra, at 519-520, to which the New York Court of Appeals referred, are expressly limited to situations of this kind.
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 458-466 (1966), and authorities cited therein.
See, e. g., Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965); Malloy v. Hogan, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Anthony Palazzolo owns a waterfront parcel of land in the town of Westerly, Rhode Island. Almost all of the property is designated as coastal wetlands under Rhode Island law. After petitioner’s development proposals were rejected by respondent Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (Council), he sued in state court, asserting the Council’s application of its wetlands regulations took the property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, binding upon the State through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner sought review in this Court, contending the Supreme Court of Rhode Island erred in rejecting his takings claim. We granted certiorari. 531 U. S. 923 (2000).
I
The town of Westerly is on an edge of the Rhode Island coastline. The town’s western border is the Pawcatuck River, which at that point is the boundary between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Situated on land purchased from the Narragansett Indian Tribe, the town was incorporated in 1669 and had a precarious, though colorful, early history. Both Connecticut and Massachusetts contested the boundaries — and indeed the validity — of Rhode Island’s royal charter; and Westerly’s proximity to Connecticut invited encroachments during these jurisdictional squabbles. See M. Best, The Town that Saved a State — Westerly 60-83 (1943); see also W. McLoughlin, Rhode Island: A Bicentennial History 39-57 (1978). When the borders of the Rhode Island Colony were settled by compact in 1728, the town’s development was more orderly, and with some historical distinction. For instance, Watch Hill Point, the peninsula at the southwestern tip of the town, was of strategic importance in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. See Best, supra, at 190; F. Denison, Westerly and its Witnesses 118-119 (1878).
In later times Westerly’s coastal location had a new significance: It became a popular vacation and seaside destination. One of the town’s historians gave this happy account:
“After the Civil War the rapid growth of manufacture and expansion of trade had created a spending class on pleasure bent, and Westerly had superior attractions to offer, surf bathing on ocean beaches, quieter bathing in salt and fresh water ponds, fishing, annual sail and later motor boat races. The broad beaches of clean white sand dip gently toward the sea; there are no odorous marshes at low tide, no railroad belches smoke, and the climate is unrivalled on the coast, that of Newport only excepted. In the phenomenal'heat wave of 1881 ocean resorts from northern New England to southern New Jersey sweltered as the thermometer climbed to 95 and 104 degrees, while Watch Hill enjoyed a comfortable 80. When Providence to the north runs a temperature of 90, the mercury in this favored spot remains at 77.” Best, supra, at 192.
Westerly today has about 20,000 year-round residents, and thousands of summer visitors come to enjoy its beaches and coastal advantages.
One of the more popular attractions is Misquamicut State Beach, a lengthy expanse of coastline facing Block Island Sound and beyond to the Atlantic Ocean. The primary point of access to the beach is Atlantic Avenue, a well-traveled 3-mile stretch of road running along the coastline within the town’s limits. At its western end, Atlantic Avenue is something of a commercial strip, with restaurants, hotels, arcades, and other typical seashore businesses. The pattern of development becomes more residential as the road winds eastward onto a narrow spine of land bordered to the south by the beach and the ocean, and to the north by Winnapaug Pond, an intertidal inlet often used by residents for boating, fishing, and shellfishing.
In 1959 petitioner, a lifelong Westerly resident, decided to invest in three undeveloped, adjoining parcels along this eastern stretch of Atlantic Avenue. To the north, the property faces, and borders upon, Winnapaug Pond; the south of the property faces Atlantic Avenue and the beachfront homes abutting it on the other side, and beyond that the dunes and the beach. To purchase and hold the property, petitioner and associates formed Shore Gardens, Inc. (SGI). After SGI purchased the property petitioner bought out his associates and became the sole shareholder. In the first decade of SGI’s ownership of the property the corporation submitted a plat to the town subdividing the property into 80 lots; and it engaged in various transactions that left it with 74 lots, which together encompassed about 20 acres. During the same period SGI also made initial attempts to develop the property and submitted intermittent applications to state agencies to fill substantial portions of the parcel. Most of the property was then, as it is now, salt marsh subject to tidal flooding. The wet ground and permeable soil would require considerable fill — as much as six feet in some places — before significant structures could be built. SGPs proposal, submitted in 1962 to the Rhode Island Division of Harbors and Rivers (DHR), sought to dredge from Winna-paug Pond and fill the entire property. The application was denied for lack of essential information. A second, similar proposal followed a year later. A third application, submitted in 1966 while the second application was pending, proposed more limited filling of the land for use as a private beach club. These latter two applications were referred to the Rhode Island Department of Natural Resources, which indicated initial assent. The agency later withdrew approval, however, citing adverse environmental impacts. SGI did not contest the ruling.
No further attempts to develop the property were made for over a decade. Two intervening events, however, become important to the issues presented. First, in 1971, Rhode Island enacted legislation creating the Council, an agency charged with the duty of protecting the State’s coastal properties. 1971 R. I. Pub. Laws, ch. 279, § 1 et seq. Regulations promulgated by the Council designated salt marshes like those on SGPs property as protected “coastal wetlands,” Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program (CRMP) §210.3 (as amended, June 28,1983) (lodged with the Clerk of this Court), on which development is limited to a great extent. Second, in 1978, SGPs corporate charter was revoked for failure to pay corporate income taxes; and title to the property passed, by operation of state law, to petitioner as the corporation’s sole shareholder.
In 1983, petitioner, now the owner, renewed the efforts to develop the property. An application to the Council, resembling the 1962 submission, requested permission to construct a wooden bulkhead along the shore of Winnapaug Pond and to fill the entire marshland area. The Council rejected the application, noting it was “vague and inadequate for a project of this size and nature.” App. 16. The agency also found that “the proposed activities will have significant impacts upon the waters and wetlands of Winnapaug Pond,” and concluded that “the proposed alteration... will conflict with the Coastal Resources Management Plan presently in effect.” Id., at 17. Petitioner did not appeal the agency’s determination.
Petitioner went back to the drawing board, this time hiring counsel and preparing a more specific and limited proposal for use of the property. The new application, submitted to the Council in 1985, echoed the 1966 request to build a private beach club. The details do not tend to inspire the reader with an idyllic coastal image, for the proposal was to fill 11 acres of the property with gravel to accommodate “50 cars with boat trailers^ a dumpster, port-a-johns, picnic tables, barbecue pits of concrete, and other trash receptacles.” Id., at 25.
The application fared no better with the Council than previous ones. Under the agency’s regulations, a landowner wishing to fill salt marsh on Winnapaug Pond needed a “special exception” from the Council. CRMP § 180. In a short opinion the Council said the beach club proposal conflicted with the regulatory standard for a special exception. See App. 27. To secure a special exception the proposed activity must serve “a compelling public purpose which provides benefits to the public as a whole as opposed to individual or private interests.” CRMP § 130A(l). This time petitioner appealed the decision to the Rhode Island courts, challenging the Council’s conclusion as contrary to principles of state administrative law. The Council’s decision was affirmed. See App. 31-42.
Petitioner filed an inverse condemnation action in Rhode Island Superior Court, asserting that the State’s wetlands regulations, as applied by the Council to his parcel, had taken the property without compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See id., at 45. The suit alleged the Council’s action deprived him of “economically, beneficial use” of his property, ibid., resulting in a total taking requiring compensation under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003 (1992). He sought damages in the amount of $3,150,000, a figure derived from an appraiser’s estimate as to the value of a 74-lot residential subdivision. The State countered with a host of defenses. After a bench trial, a justice of the Superior Court ruled against petitioner, accepting some of the State’s theories. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-l to B-13.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed. 746 A. 2d 707 (2000). Like the Superior Court, the State Supreme Court recited multiple grounds for rejecting petitioner’s suit. The court held, first, that petitioner’s takings claim was not ripe, id., at 712-715; second, that petitioner had no right to challenge regulations predating 1978, when he succeeded to legal ownership of the property from SGI, id., at 716; and third, that the claim of deprivation of all economically beneficial use was contradicted by undisputed evidence that he had $200,000 in development value remaining on an upland parcel of the property, id., at 715. In addition to holding petitioner could not assert a takings claim based on the denial of all economic use, the court concluded he could not recover under the more general test of Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978). On this claim, too, the date of acquisition of the parcel was found determinative, and the court held he could have had “no reasonable investment-backed expectations that were affected by this regulation” because it predated his ownership, 746 A. 2d, at 717; see also Penn Central, supra, at 124.
We disagree with the Supreme Court of Rhode Island as to the first two of these conclusions; and,, we hold, the court was correct to conclude that the owner is not deprived of all economic use of his property because the value of upland portions is substantial. We remand for further consideration of the claim under the principles set forth in Penn Central.
II
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897), prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The clearest sort of taking occurs when the government encroaches upon or occupies private land for its own proposed use. Our cases establish that even a minimal “permanent physical occupation of real property” requires compensation under the Clause. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 427 (1982). In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393 (1922), the Court recognized that there will be instances when government actions do not encroach upon or occupy the property yet still affect and limit its use to such an extent that a taking occurs. In Justice Holmes’ well-known, if less than self-defining, formulation, “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” Id., at 415.
Since Mahon, we have given some, but not too specific, guidance to courts confronted with deciding whether a particular government action goes too far and effects a regulatory taking. First, we have observed, with certain qualifications, see infra, at 629-630, that a regulation which “denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land” will require compensation under the Takings Clause. Lucas, 505 U. S., at 1015; see also id., at 1035 (Kennedy, J., concurring); Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 261 (1980). Where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending on a complex of factors including the regulation’s economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Penn Central, supra, at 124. These inquiries are informed by the purpose of the Takings Clause, which is to prevent the 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.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960).
Petitioner seeks compensation under these principles. At the outset, however, we face the two threshold considerations invoked by the state court to bar the claim: ripeness, and acquisition which postdates the regulation.
A
In Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985), the Court explained the requirement that a takings claim must be ripe. The Court held that a takings claim challenging the application of land-use regulations is not ripe unless “the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” Id., at 186. A final decision by the responsible state agency informs the constitutional determination whether a regulation has deprived a landowner of “all economically beneficial use” of the property, see Lucas, supra, at 1015, or defeated the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the landowner to the extent that a taking has occurred, see Penn Central, supra, at 124. These matters cannot be resolved, in definitive terms until a court knows “the extent of permitted development” on the land in question. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U. S. 340, 351 (1986). Drawing on these principles, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that petitioner had not taken the necessary steps to ripen his takings claim.
The central question in resolving the ripeness issue, under Williamson County and other relevant decisions, is whether petitioner obtained a final decision from the Council determining the permitted use for the land. As we have noted, SGI’s early applications to fill had been granted at one point, though that assent was later revoked. Petitioner then submitted two proposals: the 1988 proposal to fill the entire parcel, and the 1985 proposal to fill 11 of the property’s 18 wetland acres for construction of the beach club. The court reasoned that, notwithstanding the Council’s denials of the applications, doubt remained as to the extent of development the Council would allow on petitioner’s parcel. We cannot agree.
The court based its holding in part upon petitioner’s failure to explore “any other use for the property that would involve filling substantially less wetlands.” 746 A. 2d, at 714. It relied upon this Court’s observations that the final decision requirement is not satisfied when a developer submits, and a land-use authority denies, a grandiose development proposal, leaving open the possibility that lesser uses of the property might be permitted. See MacDonald, supra, at 353, n. 9. The suggestion is that while the Council rejected petitioner’s effort to fill all of the wetlands, and then rejected his proposal to fill 11 of the wetland acres, perhaps an application to fill (for instance) 5 acres would have been approved. Thus, the reasoning goes, we cannot know for sure the extent of permitted development on petitioner’s wetlands.
This is belied by the unequivocal nature of the wetland regulations at issue and by the Council’s application of the regulations to the subject property. Winnapaug Pond is classified under the CRMP as a Type 2 body of water. See CRMP § 200.2. A landowner, as a general rule, is prohibited from filling or building residential structures on wetlands adjacent to Type 2 waters, see id., Table 1, p. 22, and § 210.3(C)(4), but may seek a special exception from the Council to engage in a prohibited use, see id., § 130. The Council is permitted to allow the exception, however, only where a “compelling public purpose” is served. Id., § 130A(2). The proposal to fill the entire property was not accepted under Council regulations and did not qualify for the special exception. The Council determined the use proposed in the second application (the beach club) did not satisfy the “compelling public purpose” standard. There is no indication the Council would have accepted the application had petitioner’s proposed beach club occupied a smaller surface area. To the contrary, it ruled that the proposed activity was not a “compelling public purpose.” App. 27; cf. id., at 17 (1983 application to fill wetlands proposed an “activity” conflicting with the CEMP).
Williamson County’s final decision requirement “responds to the high degree of discretion characteristically possessed by land-use boards in softening the strictures of the general regulations they administer.” Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U. S. 725, 738 (1997). While a landowner must give a land-use authority an opportunity to exercise its discretion, once it becomes clear that the agency lacks the discretion to permit any development, or the permissible uses of the property are known to a reasonable degree of certainty, a takings claim is likely to have ripened. The case is quite unlike those upon which respondents place principal reliance, which arose when an owner challenged a land-use authority’s denial of a substantial project, leaving doubt whether a more modest submission or an application for a variance would be accepted. See MacDonald, supra, at 342 (denial of 159-home residential subdivision); Williamson County, supra, at 182 (476-unit subdivision); cf. Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980) (case not ripe because no plan to develop was submitted).
These cases stand for the important principle that a landowner may not establish a taking before a land-use authority has the opportunity, using its own reasonable procedures, to decide and explain the reach of a challenged regulation. Under our ripeness rules a takings claim based on a law or regulation which is alleged to go too far in burdening property depends upon the landowner’s first having followed reasonable and necessary steps to allow regulatory agencies to exercise their full discretion in considering development plans for the property, including the opportunity to grant any variances or waivers allowed by law. As a general rule, until these ordinary processes have been followed the extent of the restriction on property is not known and a regulatory taking has not yet been established. See Suitum, supra, at 736, and n. 10 (noting difficulty of demonstrating that “mere enactment” of regulations restricting land use effects a taking). Government authorities, of course, may not burden property by imposition of repetitive or unfair land-use procedures in order to avoid a final decision. Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U. S. 687, 698 (1999).
With respect to the wetlands on petitioner’s property, the Council’s decisions make plain that the agency interpreted its regulations to bar petitioner from engaging in any filling or development activity on the wetlands, a fact reinforced by the Attorney General’s forthright responses to our questioning during oral argument in this case. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 26, 31. The rulings of the Council interpreting the regulations at issue, and the briefs, arguments, and candid statements by counsel for both sides, leave no doubt on this point: On the wetlands there can be no fill for any ordinary land use. There can be no fill for its own sake; no fill for a beach club, either rustic or upscale; no fill for a subdivision; no fill for any likely or foreseeable use. And with no fill there can be no structures and no development on the wetlands. Further permit applications were not necessary to establish this point.
As noted above, however, not all of petitioner’s parcel constitutes protected wetlands. The trial court accepted uncontested testimony that an upland site located at the eastern end of the property would have an estimated value of $200,000 if developed. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-5. While Council approval is required to develop upland property which lies within 200 feet of protected waters, see CRMP § 100.1(A), the strict “compelling public purpose” test does not govern proposed land uses on property in this classification, see id., § 110, Table 1A, § 120. Council officials testified at trial, moreover, that they would have allowed petitioner to build a residence on the upland parcel. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-5. The State Supreme Court found petitioner’s claim unripe for the further reason that he “has not sought permission for any... use of the property that would involve... development only of the upland portion of the parcel.” 746 A. 2d, at 714.
In assessing the significance of petitioner’s failure to submit applications to develop the upland area it is important to bear in mind the purpose that the final decision requirement serves. Our ripeness jurisprudence imposes obligations on landowners because “[a] court cannot determine whether a regulation goes ‘too far’ unless it knows how far the regulation goes.” MacDonald, All U. S., at 348. Ripeness doctrine does not require a landowner to submit applications for their own sake. Petitioner is required to explore development opportunities on his upland parcel only if there is uncertainty as to the land’s permitted use.
The State asserts the value of the uplands is in doubt. It relies in part on a comment in the opinion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court that “it would be possible to build at least one single-family home on the upland portion of the parcel.” 746 A. 2d, at 714. It argues that the qualification “at least” indicates that additional development beyond the single dwelling was possible. The attempt to interject ambiguity as to the value or use of the uplands, however, comes too late in the day for purposes of litigation before this Court. It was stated in the petition for certiorari that the uplands on petitioner’s property had an estimated worth of $200,000. See Pet. for Cert. 21. The figure not only was uncontested but also was cited as fact in the State’s brief in opposition. See Brief in Opposition 4, 19. In this circumstance ripeness cannot be contested by saying that the value of the nonwetland parcels is unknown. See Lucas, 505 U. S., at 1020, and n. 9.
The State’s prior willingness to accept the $200,000 figure, furthermore, is well founded. The only reference to upland property in the trial court’s opinion is to a single parcel worth an estimated $200,000. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-5. There was, it must be acknowledged, testimony at trial suggesting the existence of an additional upland parcel elsewhere on the property. See Tr. 190-191, 199-120 (testimony of Dr. Grover Fugate, Council Executive Director); see also id., at 610 (testimony of Steven Clarke). The testimony indicated, however, that the potential, second upland parcel was on an “island” which required construction of a road across wetlands, id., at 610, 623-624 (testimony of Mr. Clarke) — and, as discussed above, the filling of wetlands for such a purpose would not justify a special exception under Council regulations. See supra, at 619-621; see also Brief for Respondents 10 (“Residential construction is not the basis of such a ‘special exception’”). Perhaps for this reason, the State did not maintain in the trial court that additional uplands could have been developed. To the contrary, its post-trial memorandum identified only the single parcel that petitioner concedes retains a development value of $200,000. See State’s Post-Trial Memorandum in No. 88-0297 (Super. Ct. R. I.), pp. 25, 81. The trial court accepted the figure. So there is no genuine ambiguity in the record as to the extent of permitted development on petitioner’s property, either on the wetlands or the uplands.
Nonetheless, there is some suggestion that the use permitted on the uplands is not known, because the State accepted the $200,000 value for the upland parcel on the premise that only a Lucas claim was raised in the pleadings in the state trial court. See Brief for Respondents 29-30. Since a. Penn Central argument was not pressed at trial, it is argued, the State had no reason to assert with vigor that more than a single-family residence might be placed on the uplands. We disagree; the State was aware of the applicability of Penn Central. The issue whether the Council’s decisions amounted to a taking under Penn Central was discussed in the trial court, App. to Pet. for Cert. B-7, the State Supreme Court, 746 A. 2d, at 717, and the State’s own post-trial submissions, see State’s Post-Trial Supplemental Memorandum 7-10. The state-court opinions cannot be read as indicating that a Penn Central claim was not properly presented from the outset of this litigation.
A final ripeness issue remains. In concluding that Williamson County’s final decision requirement was not satisfied, the State Supreme Court placed emphasis on petitioner’s failure to “appl[y] for permission to develop [the] seventy-four-lot subdivision” that was the basis for the damages sought in his inverse condemnation suit. 746 A. 2d, at 714. The court did not explain why it thought this fact significant, but respondents and amici defend the ruling. The Council’s practice, they assert, is to consider a proposal only if the applicant has satisfied all other regulatory preconditions for the use envisioned in the application. The subdivision proposal that was the basis for petitioner’s takings claim, they add, could not have proceeded before the Council without, at minimum, zoning approval from the town of Westerly and a permit from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management allowing the installation of individual sewage disposal systems on the property. Petitioner is accused of employing a hide the ball strategy of submitting applications for moré modest uses to the Council, only to assert later a takings action predicated on the purported inability to build a much larger project. Brief for the National Wildlife Federation et al. as Amici Curiae 9.
It is difficult to see how this concern is relevant to the inquiry at issue here. Petitioner was informed by the Council that he could not fill the wetlands; it follows of necessity that he could not fill and then build 74 single-family dwellings upon it. Petitioner’s submission of this proposal would not have clarified the extent of development permitted by the wetlands regulations, which is the inquiry required under our ripeness decisions. The State’s concern may be that landowners could demand damages for a taking based on a project that could not have been constructed under other, valid zoning restrictions quite apart from the regulation being challenged. This, of course, is a valid concern in inverse condemnation cases alleging injury from wrongful refusal to permit development. The instant case does not require us to pass upon the authority of a State to insist in such cases that landowners follow normal planning procedures or to enact rules to control damages awards based on hypothetical uses that should have been reviewed in the normal course, and we do not intend to cast doubt upon such rules here. The mere allegation of entitlement to the value of an intensive use will not avail the landowner if the project would not have been allowed under other existing, legitimate land-use limitations. When a taking has occurred, under accepted condemnation principles the owner’s damages will be based upon the property’s fair market value, see, e. g., Olson v. United States, 292 U. S. 246,255 (1934); 4 J. Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain § 12.01 (rev. 3d ed. 2000) — an inquiry which will turn, in part, on restrictions on use imposed by legitimate zoning or other regulatory limitations, see id., § 12C.03[1].
The state court, however, did not rely upon state-law ripeness or exhaustion principles in holding that petitioner’s takings claim was barred by virtue of his failure to apply for a 74-lot subdivision; it relied on Williamson County. As we have explained, Williamson County and our other ripeness decisions do not impose further obligations on petitioner, for the limitations the wetland regulations imposed were clear from the Council’s denial of his applications, and there is no indication that any use involving any substantial structures or improvements would have been allowed. Where the state agency charged with enforcing a challenged land-use regulation entertains an application from an owner and its denial of the application makes clear the extent of development permitted, and neither the agency nor a reviewing state court has cited noncompliance with reasonable state-law exhaustion or pre-permit processes, see Felder v. Casey, 487 U. S. 131, 150-151 (1988), federal ripeness rules do not require the submission of further and futile applications with other agencies.
B
We turn to the second asserted basis for declining to address petitioner’s takings claim on the merits; When the Council promulgated its wetlands regulations, the disputed parcel was owned not by petitioner but by the corporation of which he was sole shareholder. When title was transferred to petitioner by operation of law, the wetlands regulations were in force. The state court held the postregulation acquisition of title was fatal to the claim for deprivation of all economic use, 746 A. 2d, at 716, and to the Penn Central claim, 746 A. 2d, at 717. While the first holding was couched in terms of background principles of state property law, see Lucas, 505 U. S., at 1015, and the second in terms of petitioner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations, see Penn Central, 438 U. S., at 124, the two holdings together amount to a single, sweeping, rule: A purchaser qr a successive title holder like petitioner is deemed to have notice of an earlier-enacted restriction and is barred from claiming that it effects a taking.
The theory underlying the argument that postenactment purchasers cannot challenge a regulation under the Takings Clause seems to run on these lines: Property rights are created by the State. See, e. g., Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 163 (1998). So, the argument goes, by prospective legislation the State can shape and define property rights and reasonable investment-backed expectations, and subsequent owners cannot claim any injury from lost value. After all, they purchased or took title with notice of the limitation.
The State may not put so potent a Hobbesian stick into the Lockean bundle. The right to improve property, of course, is subject to the reasonable exercise of state authority, including the enforcement of valid zoning and land-use restrictions. See Pennsylvania Coal Co., 260 U. S., at 413 (“Government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law”). The Takings Clause, however, in certain circumstances allows a landowner to assert that a particular exercise of the State’s regulatory power is so unreasonable or onerous as to compel compensation. Just as a prospective enactment, such as a new zoning ordinance, can limit the value of land without effecting a taking because it can be understood as reasonable by all concerned, other enactments are unreasonable and do not become less so through passage of time or title. Were we to accept the State’s rule, the postenactment transfer of title would absolve the State of its obligation to defend any action restricting land use, no matter how extreme or unreasonable. A State would be allowed, in effect, to put an expiration date on the Takings Clause. This ought not to be the rule. Future generations, too, have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land.
Nor does the justification of notice take into account the effect on owners at the time of enactment, who are prejudiced as well. Should an owner attempt to challenge a new regulation, but not survive the process of ripening his or her claim (which, as this case demonstrates, will often take years), under the proposed rule the right to compensation may not be asserted by an heir or successor, and so may not be asserted at all. The State’s rule would work a critical alteration to the nature of property, as the newly regulated landowner is stripped of the ability to transfer the interest which was possessed prior to the regulation. The State may not by this means secure a windfall for itself. See Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 164 (1980) (“[A] State, by ipse dixit, may not transform private property into public property without compensation”); cf. Ellickson, Property in Land, 102 Yale L. J. 1315, 1368-1369 (1993) (right to transfer interest in land is a defining characteristic of the fee simple estate). The proposed rule is, furthermore, capricious in effect. The young owner contrasted with the older owner, the owner with the resources to hold contrasted with the owner with the need to sell, would be in different positions. The Takings Clause is not so quixotic. A blanket rule that purchasers with notice have no compensation right when a claim becomes ripe is too blunt an instrument to accord with the duty to compensate for what is taken.
Direct condemnation, by invocation of the State’s power of eminent domain, presents different considerations from cases alleging a taking based on a burdensome regulation. In a direct condemnation action, or when a State has physically invaded the property without filing suit, the fact and extent of the taking are known. In such an instance, it is a general rule of the law of eminent domain that any award goes to the owner at the time of the taking, and that the right to compensation is not passed to a subsequent purchaser. See Danforth v. United States, 308 U. S. 271, 284 (1939); 2 Sack-man, Eminent Domain, at § 5.01[5][d][i] (“It is well settled that when there is a taking of property by eminent domain in compliance with the law, it is the owner of the property at the time of the taking who is entitled to compensation”). A challenge to the application of a land-use regulation, by contrast, does not mature until ripeness requirements have been satisfied, under principles we have discussed; until this point an inverse condemnation claim alleging a regulatory taking cannot be maintained. It would be illogical, and unfair, to bar a regulatory takings claim because of the post-enactment transfer of ownership where the steps necessary to make the claim ripe were not taken, or could not have been taken, by a previous owner.
There is controlling precedent for our conclusion. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 488 U. S. 825 (1987), presented the question whether it
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner applied to the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Southern Division, for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court from a conviction for a capital offense had been heard upon a fraudulently prepared transcript of the trial proceedings. The official court reporter had died before completing the transcription of his stenographic notes of the trial, and petitioner alleges that the prosecuting attorney and the substitute reporter selected by him had, by corrupt arrangement, prepared the fraudulent transcript. On the record before us, there is no denial of petitioner’s allegations. The District Court, without issuing the writ or an order to show cause, dismissed the application as not stating a cause of action. 128 F. Supp. 600. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the District Court. 221 F. 2d 276. The charges of fraud as such set forth a denial of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103. Without intimating any opinion regarding the validity of the claim, we hold that in the circumstances disclosed by the record before us the application should not have been summarily dismissed. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for a hearing.
Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Clark dissent..
The Chief Justice 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: | A | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.