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.
Per Curiam.
Disagreeing with an advisory opinion of the Appellate Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Montana Supreme Court held that the state court has jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding in which all parties are members of the Tribe and residents of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. We reverse.
Petitioner is the mother of Ivan Fireerow. On July 1, 1969, after petitioner and Ivan’s father were divorced, the Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe found that petitioner had neglected Ivan, awarded temporary custody to Josephine Runsabove, and made Ivan a ward of the court. In 1973 the Tribal Court rejected petitioner’s request to regain custody of her son. On August 30,1974, however, the Tribal Court entered an order granting petitioner temporary custody of Ivan “for a period of six weeks during the summer months.”
Four days before the entry of that order, Josephine Runsabove and her husband initiated an adoption proceeding in the District Court for the Sixteenth Judicial District of Montana. Petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Tribal Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction. After a hearing, the District Court certified to the Appellate Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe the question whether an ordinance of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe conferred jurisdiction upon the District Court. The Appellate Court of the Tribe expressed the opinion that it did not, and the State District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Runsaboves then filed an original application in the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control or other appropriate writ to set aside the order of dismissal. The Montana Supreme Court granted the requested relief, holding that the District Court possessed jurisdiction. The court reasoned that prior to the organization of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in 1935, the Montana courts possessed jurisdiction over adoptions involving tribal members residing on the reservation and that this jurisdiction could not be unilaterally divested by tribal ordinance; that Congress recognized that jurisdiction of state courts over Indian adoptions in 25 U. S. C. § 372a; and that depriving the Montana courts of jurisdiction would deny equal protection to Indian plaintiffs, at least under the Montana Constitution. State ex rel. Firecrow v. District Court, - Mont. -, 536 P. 2d 190 (1975).
In litigation between Indians and non-Indians arising out of conduct on an Indian reservation, resolution of conflicts between the jurisdiction of state and tribal courts has depended, absent a governing Act of Congress, on “whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959); accord, Kennedy v. District Court of Montana, 400 U. S. 423, 426-427 (1971) (per curiam). Since this litigation involves only Indians, at least the same standard must be met before the state courts may exercise jurisdiction. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 148 (1973); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 168-173, 179-180 (1973).
The right of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe to govern itself independently of state law has been consistently protected by federal statute. As early as 1877, Congress ratified an agreement between the Tribe and the United States providing that “Congress shall, by appropriate legislation, secure to [the Indians] an orderly government; they shall be subject to the laws of the United States, and each individual shall be protected in his rights of property, person, and life.” 19 Stat. 256. This provision remained unaffected by the Act enabling Montana to enter the Union, and by the other statutes specifically concerned with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. In 1935, the Tribe adopted a constitution and bylaws pursuant to § 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 48 Stat. 987, 25 U. S. C. § 476, a statute specifically intended to encourage Indian tribes to revitalize their self-government. Mescolero Apache Tribe, supra, at 151. Acting pursuant to the constitution and bylaws, the Tribal Council of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe established the Tribal Court and granted it jurisdiction over adoptions “among members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.”
State-court jurisdiction plainly would interfere with the powers of self-government conferred upon the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and exercised through the Tribal Court. It would subject a dispute arising on the reservation among reservation Indians to a forum other than the one they have established for themselves. As the present record illustrates, it would create a substantial risk of conflicting adjudications affecting the custody of the child and would cause a corresponding decline in the authority of the Tribal Court.
No federal statute sanctions this interference with tribal self-government. Montana has not been granted, nor has it assumed, civil jurisdiction over the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, either under the Act of Aug. 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, or under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 78, 25 U. S. C. § 1321 et seq. And contrary to the Runsaboves’ contention, 25 U. S. C. § 372a manifests no congressional intent to confer jurisdiction upon state courts over adoptions by-Indians. The statute is concerned solely with the documentation necessary to prove adoption by an Indian in proceedings before the Secretary of the Interior. It recognizes adoption “by a judgment or decree of a State court” as one means of documentation but nowhere addresses the jurisdiction of state courts to render such judgments or decrees. The statute does not confer jurisdiction upon the Montana courts. See McClanahan, 411 U. S., at 174-175; Williams, 358 U. S., at 220-221.
Since the adoption proceeding is appropriately characterized as litigation arising on the Indian reservation, the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court is exclusive. The Runsaboves have not sought to defend the state court’s jurisdiction by arguing that any substantial part of the conduct supporting the adoption petition took place off the reservation. Cf. DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U. S. 425, 428-430, and n. 3 (1975).
The remaining points may be dealt with briefly. The Runsaboves argue that the ordinances of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe could not deprive the Montana courts of the jurisdiction they exercised over tribal matters prior to organization of the Tribe in 1935. The tribal ordinance conferring jurisdiction on the Tribal Court was authorized by § 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U. S. C. § 476. Consequently, it implements an overriding federal policy which is clearly adequate to defeat state jurisdiction over litigation involving reservation Indians. Accordingly, even if we assume that the Montana courts properly exercised adoption jurisdiction prior to the organization of the Tribe, a question we do not decide, that jurisdiction has now been pre-empted.
Finally, we reject the argument that denying the Runs-aboves access to the Montana courts constitutes impermissible racial discrimination. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribal Court does not derive from the race of the plaintiff but rather from the quasi-sovereign status of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe under federal law. Moreover, even if a jurisdictional holding occasionally results in denying an Indian plaintiff a forum to which a non-Indian has access, such disparate treatment of the Indian is justified because it is intended to benefit the class of which he is a member by furthering the congressional policy of Indian self-government. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551-555 (1974).
The motion of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. The petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.
It is so ordered.
See State ex rel. Firecrow v. District Court, — Mont. —, —, 536 P. 2d 190, 192 (1975).
In re Firecrow (Northern Cheyenne Tribal Ct., filed Aug. 1, 1973). Defendant’s Exhibit C.
In re Firecrow (Northern Cheyenne Tribal Ct., filed Aug. 30, 1974). Defendant’s Exhibit A.
They alleged that petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the child to Josephine Runsabove on June 2, 1969, and had not supported the child for over a year. The natural father consented to the adoption and waived further notice.
Chapter 3, § 2, of the Revised Law and Order Ordinances of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, June 9, 1966. The ordinance provides:
“The Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation shall have jurisdiction to hear, pass upon, and approve applications for adoptions among members of the Northern Cheyenne 'Tribe.
“Upon proper showing and decision by the court, such adoptions shall be binding upon all concerned and hereafter only adoptions so approved by the Tribal Court shall be recognized.
“On all adoptions involving non-members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe or non-Indians or both who wish to adopt a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation shall have concurrent jurisdiction to hear, pass upon, and approve applications for adoption and upon written consent of the court, adoption proceedings affecting members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation may be tafeen up and consummated in the State Courts.”
The opinion of the Appellate Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe reads, in relevant part:
“It is the opinion of this Court, and this Court so rules, that the Tribal Court has exclusive jurisdiction of all adoptions of members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Indians where it appears that the minor who is being adopted and all other parties to the adoption proceedings, which is to say, the parent and/or parents of the minor and the person and/or persons adopting said minor are each and all members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and each and all reside within the exterior boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation.
“This Court has not been called upon to decide any issue involving non-members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe or non-Indians or both, who wish to adopt a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Therefore, this Court does not make any opinion or interpretation as to the provisions of the last (3rd) paragraph of said Section 1 of Chapter III of the Tribal Code.” In re Firecrow, at 5 (filed Apr. 12, 1975).
The writ of supervisory control issued by the Montana Supreme Court is a final judgment within our jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3). It is available only in original proceedings in. the Montana Supreme Court, Mont. Const., Art. VII, §§2(1), (2); Mont. Rule App. Civ. Proc. 17 (a), and although it may issue in a broad range of circumstances, it is not equivalent to an appeal. See ibid.; State ex rel. Amsterdam Lumber, Inc. v. District Court, 163 Mont. 182, 186-187, 516 P. 2d 378, 380-381 (1973); Walker v. Tschache, 162 Mont. 213, 215-217, 510 P. 2d 9, 10-11 (1973). A judgment that terminates original proceedings in a state appellate court, in which the only issue decided concerns the jurisdiction of a lower state court, is final, even if further proceedings are to be had in the lower court. Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U. S. 556, 557 n. 1 (1954); Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 565-568 (1947); Bandini Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U. S. 8, 14-15 (1931); see Costarelli v. Massachusetts, 421 U. S. 193, 197-199 (1975) (per curiam).
Act of Feb. 22, 1889, 25 Stat. 676. Section 4 (2) of the Act provides that “Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States ....’’ For an interpretation of this provision, and similar language in other statehood enabling Acts, see McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 175-176, and n. 15 (1973); Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60, 69-71 (1962).
The Northern Cheyenne Tribe first came under federal trusteeship by the Treaty of May 10, 1868, 15 Stat. 655, which was subsequently modified by the agreement quoted in text. The Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation was created by Executive Orders on November 26, 1884, and March 19, 1900, 1 C. Kapp-ler, Indian Affairs 860-861 (1904), and it was confirmed as property of the Tribe held in trust by the United States by the Act of June 3, 1926, c. 459, 44 Stat. pt. 2, 690. None of the cited sources grants jurisdiction to Montana.
Constitution and bylaws of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, Nov. 23, 1935. These have since been superseded by the Amended Constitution and By-Laws of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, July 8, 1960.
C. 3, §2, of the Revised Law and Order Ordinances of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Quoted at n. 5, supra.
The third paragraph of § 2 does not confer jurisdiction over this case upon the Montana courts. By its express terms, it confers concurrent jurisdiction only over “adoptions involving non-members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe or non-Indians or both who wish to adopt a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe,” see n. 5, supra, and only upon written consent of the Tribal Court.
Neither the constitution and bylaws nor the ordinance of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe manifests an intent to cede jurisdiction to Montana. This factor alone distinguishes the decisions upon which the Montana Supreme Court relied. Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 450-451, 517 P. 2d 893, 896, cert. denied, 419 U. S. 847 (1974); State ex rel. Iron Bear v. District Court, 162 Mont. 335, 337-338, 342-343, 512 P. 2d 1292, 1294, 1297 (1973). We do not decide, however, whether an enactment of a tribal council prior to the effective date of Pub. L. 280, Act of Aug. 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, may be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the state courts. See Kennerly v. District Court of Montana, 400 U. S. 423, 426-429 (1971) (per curiam); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, supra, at 179-180.
Act of July 8, 1940, c. 555, §§ 1, 2, 54 Stat. 746. The statute provides:
“[Sec. 1] [I]n probate matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, no person shall be recognized as an heir of a deceased Indian by virtue of an adoption—
“(1) Unless such adoption shall have been—
“(a) by a judgment or decree of a State court;
“(b) by a judgment or decree of an Indian court;-
“(c) by a written adoption approved by the superintendent of the agency having jurisdiction over the tribe of which either the adopted child or the adoptive parent is a member, and duly recorded in a book kept by the superintendent for that purpose; or
“(d) by an adoption in accordance with a procedure established by the tribal authority, lecognized by the Department of the Interior, of the tribe either of the adopted child or the adoptive parent, and duly recorded in a book kept by the tribe for that purpose; or
“(2) Unless such adoption shall have been recognized by the Department of the Interior prior to the effective date of this Act or in the distribution of the estate of an Indian who has died prior to that date: Provided, That an adoption by Indian custom made prior to the effective date of this Act may be made valid by recordation with the superintendent if both the adopted child and the adoptive parent are still living, if the adoptive parent requests that the adoption be recorded, and if the adopted child is an adult and makes such a request or the superintendent on behalf of a minor child approves of the recordation.
“Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply with respect to the distribution of the estates of Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes or the Osage Tribe in the State of Oklahoma, or with respect to the distribution of estates of Indians who have died prior to the effective date of this Act.”
The Runsaboves alleged as grounds for adoption that petitioner had abandoned Ivan and given custody to Josephine Runs-above and that petitioner had not supported the child for over a year. Since all parties resided on the reservation at all relevant times, and since the reservation has not been partially terminated, cf. DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U. S., at 429 n. 3, it appears that none of the acts giving rise to the adoption proceedings occurred off the reservation. The Runsaboves do not contend otherwise. They do, however, point out that the birth of Ivan and the marriage and divorce of his parents occurred off the reservation. These facts do not affect our conclusion that the adoption proceeding is within the Tribal Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. In a proceeding such as an adoption, which determines the permanent status of litigants, it is appropriate to predicate jurisdiction on the residence of the litigants rather than the location of particular incidents of marginal relevance, at best.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Zoning ordinances adopted by the city of Detroit differentiate between motion picture theaters which exhibit sexually explicit “adult” movies and those which do not. The principal question presented by this case is whether that statutory classification is unconstitutional because it is based on the content of communication protected by the First Amendment.
Effective November 2, 1972, Detroit adopted the ordinances challenged in this litigation. Instead of concentrating “adult” theaters in limited zones, these ordinances require that such theaters be dispersed. Specifically, an adult theater may not be located within 1,000 feet of any two other “regulated uses” or within 500 feet of a residential area. The term “regulated uses” includes 10 different kinds of establishments in addition to adult theaters.
The classification of a theater as “adult” is expressly predicated on the character of the motion pictures which it exhibits. If the theater is used to present “material distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to 'Specified Sexual Activities’ or 'Specified Anatomical Areas,’ ” it is an adult establishment.
The 1972 ordinances were amendments to an “Anti-Skid Row Ordinance” which had been adopted 10 years earlier. At that time the Detroit Common Council made a finding that some uses of property are especially injurious to a neighborhood when they are concentrated in limited areas. The decision to add adult motion picture theaters and adult book stores to the list of businesses which, apart from a special waiver, could not be located within 1,000 feet of two other “regulated uses,” was, in part, a response to the significant growth in the number of such establishments. In the opinion of urban planners and real estate experts who supported the ordinances, the location of several such businesses in the same neighborhood tends to attract an undesirable quantity and quality of transients, adversely affects property values, causes an increase in crime, especially prostitution, and encourages residents and businesses to move elsewhere.
Respondents are the operators of two adult motion picture theaters. One, the Nortown, was an established theater which began to exhibit adult films in March 1973. The other, the Pussy Cat, was a corner gas station which was converted into a “mini theater,” but denied a certificate of occupancy because of its plan to exhibit adult films. Both theaters were located within 1,000 feet of two other regulated uses and the Pussy Cat was less than 500 feet from a residential area. The respondents brought two separate actions against appropriate city officials, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinances were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement. Federal jurisdiction was properly invoked and the two cases were consolidated for decision.
The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On the basis of the reasons stated by the city for adopting the ordinances, the court concluded that they represented a rational attempt to preserve the city’s neighborhoods. The court analyzed and rejected respondents’ argument that the definition and waiver provisions in the ordinances were impermis-sibly vague; it held that the disparate treatment of adult theaters and other theaters was justified by a compelling state interest and therefore did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; and finally it concluded that the regulation of the places where adult films could be shown did not violate the First Amendment.
The Court of Appeals reversed. American Mini Theatres, Inc. v. Gribbs, 518 F. 2d 1014 (CA6 1975). The majority opinion concluded that the ordinances imposed a prior restraint on constitutionally protected communication and therefore “merely establishing that they were designed to serve a compelling public interest” provided an insufficient justification for a classification of motion picture theaters on the basis of the content of the materials they purvey to the public. Relying primarily on Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, the court held the ordinance invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. Judge Celebrezze, in dissent, expressed the opinion that the ordinance was a valid “ 'time, place and manner’ regulation,” rather than a regulation of speech on the basis of its content.
Because of the importance of the decision, we granted certiorari, 423 U. S. 911.
As they did in the District Court, respondents contend (1) that the ordinances are so vague that they violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that they are invalid under the First Amendment as prior restraints on protected communication; and (3) that the classification of theaters on the basis of the content of their exhibitions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We consider their arguments in that order.
I
There are two parts to respondents’ claim that the ordinances are too vague. They do not attack the specificity of the definition of “Specified Sexual Activities” or “Specified Anatomical Areas.” They argue, however, that they cannot determine how much of the described activity may be permissible before the exhibition is “characterized by an emphasis” on such matter. In addition, they argue that the ordinances are vague because they do not specify adequate procedures or standards for obtaining a waiver of the 1,000-foot restriction.
We find it unnecessary to consider the validity of either of these arguments in the abstract. For even if there may be some uncertainty about the effect of the ordinances on other litigants, they are unquestionably applicable to these respondents. The record indicates that both theaters propose to offer adult fare on a regular basis. Neither respondent has alleged any basis for claiming or anticipating any waiver of the restriction as applied to its theater. It is clear, therefore, that any element of vagueness in these ordinances has not affected these respondents. To the extent that their challenge is predicated on inadequate notice resulting in a denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be rejected. Cf. Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 754-757.
Because the ordinances affect communication protected by the First Amendment, respondents argue that they may raise the vagueness issue even though there is no uncertainty about the impact of the ordinances on their own rights. On several occasions we have determined that a defendant whose own speech was unprotected had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute which purported to prohibit protected speech, or even speech arguably protected. This exception from traditional rules of standing to raise constitutional issues has reflected the Court’s judgment that the very existence of some statutes may cause persons not before the Court to refrain from engaging in constitutionally protected speech or expression. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 611-614. The exception is justified by the overriding importance of maintaining a free and open market for the interchange of ideas. Nevertheless, if the statute’s deterrent effect on legitimate expression is not “both real and substantial,” and if the statute is “readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts,” see Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 216, the litigant is not permitted to assert the rights of third parties.
We are not persuaded that the Detroit zoning ordinances will have a significant deterrent effect on the exhibition of films protected by the First Amendment. As already noted, the only vagueness in the ordinances relates to the amount of sexually explicit activity that may be portrayed before the material can be said to be “characterized by an emphasis” on such matter. For most films the question will be readily answerable; to the extent that an area of doubt exists, we see no reason why the ordinances are not “readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts.” Since there is surely a less vital interest in the uninhibited exhibition of material that is on the borderline between pornography and artistic expression than in the free dissemination of ideas of social and political significance, and since the limited amount of uncertainty in the ordinances is easily susceptible of a narrowing construction, we think this is an inappropriate case in which to adjudicate the hypothetical claims of persons not before the Court.
The only area of protected communication that may be deterred by these ordinances comprises films containing material falling within the specific definitions of “Specified Sexual Activities” or “Specified Anatomical Areas.” The fact that the First Amendment protects some, though not necessarily all, of that material from total suppression does not warrant the further conclusion that an exhibitor’s doubts as to whether a borderline film may be shown in his theater, as well as in theaters licensed for adult presentations, involves the kind of threat to the free market in ideas and expression that justifies the exceptional approach to constitutional adjudication recognized in cases like Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479.
The application of the ordinances to respondents is plain; even if there is some area of uncertainty about their application in other situations, we agree with the District Court that respondents’ due process argument must be rejected.
II
Petitioners acknowledge that the ordinances prohibit theaters which are not licensed as “adult motion picture theaters” from exhibiting films which are protected by the First Amendment. Respondents argue that the ordinances are therefore invalid as prior restraints on free speech.
The ordinances are not challenged on the ground that they impose a limit on the total number of adult theaters which may operate in the city of Detroit. There is no claim that distributors or exhibitors of adult films are denied access to the market or, conversely, that the viewing public is unable to satisfy its appetite for sexually explicit fare. Viewed as an entity, the market for this commodity is essentially unrestrained.
It is true, however, that adult films may only be exhibited commercially in licensed theaters. But that is also true of all motion pictures. The city's general zoning laws require all motion picture theaters to satisfy certain locational as well as other requirements; we have no doubt that the municipality may control the location of theaters as well as the location of other commercial establishments, either by confining them to certain specified commercial zones or by requiring that they be dispersed throughout the city. The mere fact that the commercial exploitation of material protected by the First Amendment is subject to zoning and other licensing requirements is not a sufficient reason for invalidating these ordinances.
Putting to one side for the moment the fact that adult motion picture theaters must satisfy a locational restriction not applicable to other theaters, we are also persuaded that the 1,000-foot restriction does not, in itself, create an impermissible restraint on protected communication. The city's interest in planning and regulating the use of property for commercial purposes is clearly adequate to support that kind of restriction applicable to all theaters within the city limits. In short, apart from the fact that the ordinances treat adult theaters differently from other theaters and. the fact that the classification is predicated on the content of material shown in the respective theaters, the regulation of the place where such films may be exhibited does not offend the First Amendment. We turn, therefore, to the question whether the classification is consistent with the Equal Protection Clause.
Ill
A remark attributed to Voltaire characterizes our zealous adherence to the principle that the government may not tell the citizen what he may or may not say. Referring to a suggestion that the violent overthrow of tyranny might be legitimate, he said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The essence of that comment has been repeated time after time in our decisions invalidating attempts by the government to impose selective controls upon the dissemination of ideas.
Thus, the use of streets and parks for the free expression of views on national affairs may not be conditioned upon the sovereign's agreement with what a speaker may intend to say. Nor may speech be curtailed because it invites dispute, creates dissatisfaction with conditions the way they are, or even stirs people to anger. The sovereign's agreement or disagreement with the content of what a speaker has to say may not affect the regulation of the time, place, or manner of presenting the speech.
If picketing in the vicinity of a school is to be allowed to express the point of view of labor, that means of expression in that place must be allowed for other points of view as well. As we said in Mosley:
“The central problem with Chicago’s ordinance is that it describes permissible picketing in terms of its subject matter. Peaceful picketing on the subject of a school’s labor-management dispute is permitted, but all other peaceful picketing is prohibited. The operative distinction is the message on a picket sign. But, above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 24 (1971); Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576 (1969); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 269-270 (1964), and cases cited; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 445 (1963); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375, 388-389 (1962); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 365 (1937). To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 270.
“Necessarily, then, under the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. And it may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in public facilities. There is an ‘equality of status in the field of ideas,’ and government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone.” 408 U. S., at 95-96. (Footnote omitted.)
This statement, and others to the same effect, read literally and without regard for the facts of the case in which it was made, would absolutely preclude any regulation of expressive activity predicated in whole or in part on the content of the communication. But we learned long ago that broad statements of principle, no matter how correct in the context in which they are made, are sometimes qualified by contrary decisions before the absolute limit of the stated principle is reached. When we review this Court's actual adjudications in the First Amendment area, we find this to have been the case with the stated principle that there may be no restriction whatever on expressive activity because of its content.
The question whether speech is, or is not, protected by the First Amendment often depends on the content of the speech. Thus, the line between permissible advocacy and impermissible incitation to crime or violence depends, not merely on the setting in which the speech occurs, but also on exactly what the speaker had to say. Similarly, it is the content of the utterance that determines whether it is a protected epithet or an unprotected “fighting comment.” And in time of war “the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops” may unquestionably be restrained, see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 716, although publication of news stories with a different content would be protected.
Even within the area of protected speech, a difference in content may require a different governmental response. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 264, we recognized that the First Amendment places limitations on the States’ power to enforce their libel laws. We held that a public official may not recover damages from a critic of his official conduct without proof of “malice” as specially defined in that opinion. Implicit in the opinion is the assumption that if the content of the newspaper article had been different — that is, if its subject matter had not been a public official — a lesser standard of proof would have been adequate.
In a series of later cases, in which separate individual views were frequently stated, the Court addressed the broad problem of when the New York Times standard of malice was required by the First Amendment. Despite diversity of opinion on whether it was required only in cases involving public figures, or also in cases involving public issues, and on whether the character of the damages claim mattered, a common thread which ran through all the opinions was the assumption that the rule to be applied depended on the content of the communication. But that assumption did not contradict the underlying reason for the rule which is generally described as a prohibition of regulation based on the content of protected communication. The essence of that rule is the need for absolute neutrality by the government; its regulation of communication may not be affected by sympathy or hostility for the point of view being expressed by the communicator. Thus, although the content of a story must be examined to decide whether it involves a public figure or a public issue, the Court’s application of the relevant rule may not depend on its favorable or unfavorable appraisal of that figure or that issue.
We have recently held that the First Amendment affords some protection to commercial speech. We have also made it clear, however, that the content of a particular advertisement may determine the extent of its protection. A public rapid transit system may accept some advertisements and reject others. A state statute may permit highway billboards to advertise businesses located in the neighborhood but not elsewhere, and regulatory commissions may prohibit businessmen from making statements which, though literally true, are potentially deceptive. The measure of constitutional protection to be afforded commercial speech will surely be governed largely by the content of the communication.
More directly in point are opinions dealing with the question whether the First Amendment prohibits the State and Federal Governments from wholly suppressing sexually oriented materials on the basis of their “obscene character.” In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, the Court upheld a conviction for selling to a minor magazines which were concededly not “obscene” if shown to adults. Indeed, the Members of the Court who would accord the greatest protection to such materials have repeatedly indicated that the State could prohibit the distribution or exhibition of such materials to juveniles and unconsenting adults. Surely the First Amendment does not foreclose such a prohibition; yet it is equally clear that any such prohibition must rest squarely on an appraisal of the content of material otherwise within a constitutionally protected area.
Such a line may be drawn on the basis of content without violating the government's paramount obligation of neutrality in its regulation of protected communication. For the regulation of the places where sexually explicit films may be exhibited is unaffected by whatever social, political, or philosophical message a film may be intended to communicate; whether a motion picture ridicules or characterizes one point of view or another, the effect of the ordinances is exactly the same.
Moreover, even though we recognize that the First Amendment will not tolerate the total suppression of erotic materials that have some arguably artistic value, it is manifest that society's interest in protecting this type of expression is of a wholly different, and lesser, magnitude than the interest in untrammeled political debate that inspired Voltaire's immortal comment. Whether political oratory or philosophical discussion moves us to applaud or to despise what is said, every schoolchild can understand why our duty to defend the right to speak remains the same. But few of us would march our sons and daughters off to war to preserve the citizen’s right to see “Specified Sexual Activities” exhibited in the theaters of our choice. Even though the First Amendment protects communication in this area from total suppression, we hold that the State may legitimately use the content of these materials as the basis for placing them in a different classification from other motion pictures.
The remaining question is whether the line drawn by these ordinances is justified by the city’s interest in preserving the character of its neighborhoods. On this question we agree with the views expressed by District Judges Kennedy and Gubow. The record discloses a factual basis for the Common Council’s conclusion that this kind of restriction will have the desired effect. It is not our function to appraise the wisdom of its decision to require adult theaters to be separated rather than concentrated in the same areas. In either event, the city’s interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect. Moreover, the city must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems.
Since what is ultimately at stake is nothing more than a limitation on the place where adult films may be exhibited, even though the determination of whether a particular film fits that characterization turns on the nature of its content, we conclude that the city's interest in the present and future character of its neighborhoods adequately supports its classification of motion pictures. We hold that the zoning ordinances requiring that adult motion picture theaters not be located within 1,000 feet of two other regulated uses does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Part III of this opinion is joined by only The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice RehNQüist.
“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....” This Amendment is made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229.
The District Court held that the original form of the 500-foot restriction was invalid because it was measured from “any building containing a residential, dwelling or rooming unit.” The city did not appeal from that ruling, but adopted an amendment prohibiting the operation of an adult theater within 500 feet of any area zoned for residential use. The amended restriction is not directly challenged in this litigation.
In addition to adult motion picture theaters and “mini” theaters, which contain less than 50 seats, the regulated uses include adult bookstores; cabarets (group “D”); establishments for the sale of beer or intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises; hotels or motels; pawnshops; pool or billiard halls; public lodging houses; secondhand stores; shoeshine parlors; and taxi dance halls.
These terms are defined as follows:
“For the purpose of this Section, 'Specified Sexual Activities’ is defined as:
“1. Human Genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
“2. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or sodomy;
“3. Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttock or female breast.
“And ‘Specified Anatomical Areas’ is defined as:
“1. Less than completely and opaquely covered: (a) human genitals, pubic region, (b) buttock, and (e) female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and
“2. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.”
There are three types of adult establishments — bookstores, motion picture theaters, and mini motion picture theaters — defined respectively as follows:
“Adult Book Store
“An establishment having as a substantial or significant portion of its stock in trade, books, magazines, and other periodicals which are distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to ‘Specified Sexual Activities’ or ‘Specified Anatomical Areas,’ (as defined below), or an establishment with a segment or section devoted to the sale or display of such material.
“Adult Motion Picture Theater
“An enclosed building with a capacity of 50 or more persons used for presenting material distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to ‘Specified Sexual Activities’ or ‘Specified Anatomical Areas,’ (as defined below) for observation by patrons therein.
“Adult Mini Motion Picture Theater
“An enclosed building with a capacity for less than 50 persons used for presenting material distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to 'Specified Sexual Activities’ or ‘Specified Anatomical Areas,’ (as defined below), for observation by patrons therein.”
Section 66.000 of the Official Zoning Ordinance (1972) recited:
“In the development and execution of this Ordinance, it is recognized that there are some uses which, because of their very nature, are recognized as having serious objectionable operational characteristics, particularly when several of them are concentrated under certain circumstances thereby having a deleterious effect upon the adjacent areas. Special regulation of these uses is necessary to insure that these adverse effects will not contribute to the blighting or downgrading of the surrounding neighborhood. These special regulations are itemized in this section. The primary control or regulation is for the purpose of preventing a concentration of these uses in any one area (i. e. not more than two such uses within one thousand feet of each other which would create such adverse effects).”
The ordinance authorizes the Zoning Commission to waive the 1,000-foot restriction if it finds:
“a) That the proposed use will not be contrary to the public interest or injurious to nearby properties, and that the spirit and intent of this Ordinance will be observed,
“b) That the proposed use will not enlarge or encourage the development of a ‘skid row’ area.
“c) That the establishment of an additional regulated use in the area will not be contrary to any program of neigh[bof]hood conservation nor will it interfere with any program of urban renewal.
“d) That all applicable regulations of this Ordinance will be observed.”
A police department memorandum addressed to the assistant corporation counsel stated that since 1967 there had been an increase in the number of adult theaters in Detroit from 2 to 25, and a comparable increase in the number of adult book stores and other “adult-type businesses.”
Respondents alleged a claim for relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court under 28 U. S. C. §1343 (3).
Both cases were decided in a single opinion filed jointly by Judge Kennedy and Judge Gubow. Nortown Theatre v. Gribbs, 373 F. Supp. 363 (ED Mich. 1974).
“When, as here, the City has stated a reason for adopting an ordinance which is a subject of legitimate concern, that statement of purpose is not subject to attack.
“Nor may the Court substitute its judgment for that of the Common Council of the City of Detroit as to the methods adopted to deal with the City’s legitimate concern to preserve neighborhoods, so long as there is some rational relationship between the objective of the Ordinance and the methods adopted.” Id., at 367.
“Because the Ordinances distinguish adult theatres and bookstores from ordinary theatres and bookstores on the basis of the content of their respective wares, the classification is one which restrains conduct protected by the First Amendment. See Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U. S. 676... (1968). The appropriate standard for reviewing the classification, therefore, is a test of close scrutiny. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 670... (1966); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438... (1963). Under this test, the validity of the classification depends on whether it is necessary to further a compelling State interest.
“The compelling State interest which the Defendants point to as justifying the restrictions on locations of adult theatres and bookstores is the preservation of neighborhoods, upon which adult establishments have been found to have a destructive impact. The affidavit of Dr. Mel Ravitz clearly establishes that the prohibition of more than one regulated use within 1000 feet is necessary to promote that interest. This provision therefore does not offend the equal protection clause.” Id., at 369.
“Applying those standards to the instant case, the power to license and zone businesses and prohibit their location in certain areas is clearly within the constitutional power of the City. The government interest, i. e. the preservation and stabilization of neighborhoods in the City of Detroit, is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. First Amendment rights are indirectly related, but only in the sense that they cannot be freely exercised in specific locations. Plaintiffs would not contend that they are entitled to operate a theatre or bookstore, which are commercial businesses, in a residentially zoned area; nor could they claim the right to put on a performance for profit in a public street. Admittedly the regulation here is more restrictive, but it is of the same character.” Id., at 371.
“The City did not discharge its heavy burden of justifying the prior restraint which these ordinances undoubtedly impose by merely establishing that they were designed to serve a compelling public interest. Since fundamental rights are involved, the City had the further burden of showing that the method which it chose to deal with the problem at hand was necessary and that its effect on protected rights was only incidental. The City could legally regulate movie theatres and bookstores under its police powers by providing that such establishments be operated only in particular areas.... However, this ordinance selects for special treatment particular business enterprises which fall within the general business classifications permissible under zoning laws and classifies them as regulated uses solely by reference to the content of the constitutionally protected materials which they purvey to the public.” 518 F. 2d, at 1019-1020.
He stated in part:
“I do not view the 1000-foot provision as a regulation of speech on the basis of its content. Rather, it is a regulation of the right to locate a business based on the side-effects of its location. The interest in preserving neighborhoods is not a subterfuge for censorship.” Id., at 1023.
Both complaints allege that only adults are admitted to these theaters. Nortown expressly alleges that it “desires to continue exhibiting adulMype motion picture films at said theater.” Neither respondent has indicated any plan to exhibit pictures even arguably outside the coverage of the ordinances.
“Such claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate 'only spoken words.’ Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 520 (1972). See Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971); Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576 (1969); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969); Chaplinskij v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). In such cases, it has been the judgment of this Court that the possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted and perceived grievances left to fester because of the possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. Over-breadth attacks have also been allowed where the Court thought rights of association were ensnared in statutes which, by their broad sweep, might result in burdening innocent associations. See Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589 (1967); United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (1967); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500 (1964); Shelton v. Tucker, [364 U. S. 479 (1960)]. Facial overbreadth claims have also been entertained where statutes, by their terms, purport to regulate the time, place, and manner of expressive or communicative conduct, see Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra, at 114-121; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S., at 617-619; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 249-250 (1967) ; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940), and where such conduct has required official approval under laws that delegated stand-ardless discretionary power to local functionaries, resulting in virtually unreviewable prior restraints on First Amendment rights. See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147 (1969); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 553-558 (1965); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938).” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 612-613.
Reasonable regulations of the time, place, and manner of protected speech, where those regulations are necessary to further significant governmental interests, are permitted by the First Amendment. See, e. g., Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (limitation on use of sound trucks); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (ban on demonstrations in or near a courthouse with the intent to obstruct justice); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 (ban on willful making, on grounds adjacent to a school, of any noise which disturbs the good order of the school session).
S. Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire 199 (1907).
See Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 516 (opinion of Roberts, J.).
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4.
See, e. g., Kastigar v. United, States, 406 U. S. 441, 454-455; United Gas Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 381 U. S. 392, 404.
See Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 133-134; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 592; Musser v. Utah, 333 U. S. 95, 99-101.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 574, we held that a statute punishing the use of “damned racketeers] ” and “damned Facist[s]” did not unduly impair liberty of expression.
“Actual malice” is shown by proof that a statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” 376 U. S., at 280.
See, for example, the discussion of the " 'public or general interest’ test” for determining the applicability of the New York Times standard in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 346, and the reference, id., at 348, to a factual misstatement "whose content did not warn a reasonably prudent editor or broadcaster of its defamatory potential.” The mere fact that an alleged defamatory statement is false does not, of course, place it completely beyond the protection of the First Amendment. “The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.” Id., at 341.
Thus, Professor Kalven wrote in The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 29:
“[The Equal Protection Clause] is likely to provide a second line of defense for vigorous users of the public forum. If some groups are exempted from a prohibition on parades and pickets, the rationale for regulation is fatally impeached. The objection can then no longer be keyed to interferences with other uses of the public places, but would appear to implicate the kind of message that the groups were transmitting. The regulation would thus slip from the neutrality of time, place, and circumstance into a concern about content. The result is that equal-protection analysis in the area of speech issues would merge with considerations of censorship. And this is precisely what Mr. Justice Black argued in Cox:
“ ‘But by specifically permitting picketing for the publication of labor union views, Louisiana is attempting to pick and choose
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue before us is whether, consistently with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, an Oklahoma court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor in a products-liability action, when the defendants’ only connection with Oklahoma is the fact that an automobile sold in New York to New York residents became involved in an accident in Oklahoma.
I
Respondents Harry and Kay Robinson purchased a new Audi automobile from petitioner Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. (Seaway), in Massena, N. Y., in 1976. The following year the Robinson family, who resided in New York, left that State for a new home in Arizona. As they passed through the State of Oklahoma, another car struck their Audi in the rear, causing a fire which severely burned Kay Robinson and her two children.
The Robinsons subsequently brought a products-liability action in the District Court for Creek County, Okla., claiming that their injuries resulted from defective design and placement of the Audi’s gas tank and fuel system. They joined as defendants the automobile’s manufacturer, Audi NSU Auto Union Aktiengesellschaft (Audi); its importer, Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen); its regional distributor, petitioner World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. (World-Wide); and its retail dealer, petitioner Seaway. Seaway and World-Wide entered special appearances, claiming that Oklahoma’s exercise of jurisdiction over them would offend the limitations on the State’s jurisdiction imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The facts presented to the District. Court showed that World-Wide is incorporated and has its business office in New York. It distributes vehicles, parts, and accessories, under contract with Volkswagen, to retail dealers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Seaway, one of these retail dealers, is incorporated and has its place of business in New York. Insofar as the record reveals, Seaway and World-Wide are fully independent corporations whose relations with each other and with Volkswagen and Audi are contractual only. Respondents adduced no evidence that either World-Wide or Seaway does any business in Oklahoma, ships or sells any products to or in that State, has an agent to receive process there, or purchases advertisements in any media calculated to reach Oklahoma. In fact, as respondents’ counsel conceded at oral argument, Tr. of Oral Arg. 32, there was no showing that any automobile sold by World-Wide or Seaway has ever entered Oklahoma with the single exception of the vehicle involved in the present case.
Despite the apparent paucity of contacts between petitioners and Oklahoma, the District Court rejected their constitutional claim and reaffirmed that ruling in denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then sought a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to restrain the District Judge, respondent Charles S. Woodson, from exercising in personam jurisdiction over them. They renewed their contention that, because they had no “minimal contacts,” App. 32, with the State of Oklahoma, the actions of the District Judge were in violation of their rights under the Due Process Clause.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma denied the writ, 585 P. 2d 351 (1978), holding that personal jurisdiction over petitioners was authorized by Oklahoma’s “long-arm” statute, Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 1701.03 (a)(4) (1971). Although the court noted that the proper approach was to test jurisdiction against both statutory and constitutional standards, its analysis did not distinguish these questions, probably because § 1701.03 (a) (4) has been interpreted as conferring jurisdiction to the limits permitted by the United States Constitution. The court’s rationale was contained in the following paragraph, 585 P. 2d, at 354:
“In the case before us, the product being sold and distributed by the petitioners is by its very design and purpose so mobile that petitioners can foresee its possible use in Oklahoma. This is especially true of the distributor, who has the exclusive right to distribute such automobile in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The evidence presented below demonstrated that goods sold and distributed by the petitioners were used in the State of Oklahoma, and under the facts we believe it reasonable to infer, given the retail value of the automobile, that the petitioners derive substantial income from automobiles which from time to time are used in the State of Oklahoma. This being the case, we hold that under the facts presented, the trial court was justified in con-eluding that the petitioners derive substantial revenue from goods used or consumed in this State.”
We granted certiorari, 440 U. S. 907 (1979), to consider an important constitutional question with respect to state-court jurisdiction and to resolve a conflict between the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and the highest courts of at least four other States. We reverse.
II
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 91 (1978). A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732-733 (1878). Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313-314 (1950), and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945). In the present case, it is not contended that notice was inadequate; the only question is whether these particular petitioners were subject to the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts.
As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist “minimum contacts” between the defendant and the forum State. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 316. The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
The protection against inconvenient litigation is typically described in terms of “reasonableness” or “fairness.” We have said that the defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit “does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940). The relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is “reasonable ... to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there.” 326 U. S., at 317. Implicit in this emphasis on reasonableness is the understanding that the burden on the defendant, while always a primary concern, will in an appropriate case be considered in light of other relevant factors, including the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, see McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220, 223 (1957); the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, see Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 92, at least when that interest is not adequately protected by the plaintiff’s power to choose the forum, cf. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 211, n. 37 (1977); the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies, see Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 93, 98.
The limits imposed on state jurisdiction by the Due Process Clause, in its role as a guarantor against inconvenient litigation, have been substantially relaxed over the years. As we noted in McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., supra, at 222-223, this trend is largely attributable to a fundamental transformation in the American economy:
“Today many commercial transactions touch two or more States and may involve parties separated by the full continent. With this increasing nationalization of commerce has come a great increase in the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines. At the same time modern transportation and communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity.”
The historical developments noted in McGee, of course, have only accelerated in the generation since that case was decided.
Nevertheless, we have never accepted the proposition that state lines are irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes, nor could we, and remain faithful to the principles of interstate federalism embodied in the Constitution. The economic interdependence of the States was foreseen and desired by the Framers. In the Commerce Clause, they provided that the Nation was to be a common market, a “free trade unit” in which the States are debarred from acting as separable economic entities. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 538 (1949). But the Framers also intended that the States retain many essential attributes of sovereignty, including, in particular, the sovereign power to try causes in their courts. The sovereignty of each State, in turn, implied a limitation on the sovereignty of all of its sister States — a limitation express or implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hence, even while abandoning the shibboleth that “[t]he authority of every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established,” Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, at 720, we emphasized that the reasonableness of asserting jurisdiction over the defendant must be assessed “in the context of our federal system of government,” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 317, and stressed that the Due Process Clause ensures not only fairness, but also the “orderly administration of the laws,” id., at 319. As we noted in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 250-251 (1958):
“As technological progress has increased the flow of commerce between the States, the need for jurisdiction over nonresidents has undergone a similar increase. At the same time, progress in communications and transportation has made the defense of a suit in a foreign tribunal less burdensome. In response to these changes, the requirements for personal jurisdiction over nonresidents have evolved from the rigid rule of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, to the flexible standard of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310. But it is a mistake to assume that this trend heralds the eventual demise of all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction of state courts. [Citation omitted.] Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.”
Thus, the Due Process Clause “does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 319. Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment. Hanson v. Denckla, supra, at 251, 254.
III
Applying these principles to the ease at hand, we find in the record before us a total absence of those affiliating circumstances that are a necessary predicate to any exercise of state-court jurisdiction. Petitioners carry on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma. They close no sales and perform no services there. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of Oklahoma law. They solicit no business there either through salespersons or through advertising reasonably calculated to reach the State. Nor does the record show that they regularly sell cars at wholesale or retail to Oklahoma customers or residents or that they indirectly, through others, serve or seek to serve the Oklahoma market. In short, respondents seek to base jurisdiction on one, isolated occurrence and whatever inferences can be drawn therefrom: the fortuitous circumstance that a single Audi automobile, sold in New York to New York residents, happened to suffer an accident while passing through Oklahoma.
It is argued, however, that because an automobile is mobile by its very design and purpose it was “foreseeable” that the Robinsons’ Audi would cause injury in Oklahoma. Yet “foreseeability” alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. In Hanson v. Denckla, supra, it was no doubt foreseeable that the settlor of a Delaware trust would subsequently move to Florida and seek to exercise a power of appointment there; yet we held that Florida courts could not constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over a Delaware trustee that had no other contacts with the forum State. In Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84 (1978), it was surely “foreseeable” that a divorced wife would move to California from New York, the domicile of the marriage, and that a minor daughter would live with the mother. Yet we held that California could not exercise jurisdiction in a child-support action over the former husband who had remained in New York.
If foreseeability were the criterion, a local California tire retailer could be forced to defend in Pennsylvania when a blowout occurs there, see Erlanger Mills, Inc. v. Cohoes Fibre Mills, Inc., 239 F. 2d 502, 507 (CA4 1956); a Wisconsin seller of a defective automobile jack could be haled before a distant court for damage caused in New Jersey, Reilly v. Phil Tolkan Pontiac, Inc., 372 F. Supp. 1205 (NJ 1974); or a Florida soft-drink concessionaire could be summoned to Alaska to account for injuries happening there, see Uppgren v. Executive Aviation Services, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 165, 170-171 (Minn. 1969). Every seller of chattels would in effect appoint the chattel his agent for service of process. His amenability to suit would travel with the chattel. We recently abandoned the outworn rule of Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215 (1905), that the interest of a creditor in a debt could be extinguished or otherwise affected by any State having transitory jurisdiction over the debtor. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186 (1977). Having interred the mechanical rule that a creditor’s amenability to a quasi in rem action travels with his debtor, we are unwilling to endorse an analogous principle in the present case.
This is not to say, of course, that foreseeability is wholly irrelevant. But the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum State. Rather, it is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. See Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 97-98; Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 216; and see. id., at 217-219 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). The Due Process Clause, by ensuring the “orderly administration of the laws,” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 319, gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.
When a corporation “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State,” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S., at 253, it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the State. Hence if the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor such as Audi or Volkswagen is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to others. The forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State. Cf. Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill. 2d 432, 176 N. E. 2d 761 (1961).
But there is no such or similar basis for Oklahoma jurisdiction over World-Wide or Seaway in this case. Seaway’s sales are made in Massena, N. Y. World-Wide’s market, although substantially larger, is limited to dealers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. There is no evidence of record that any automobiles distributed by World-Wide are sold to retail customers outside this tristate area. It is foreseeable that the purchasers of automobiles sold by World-Wide and Seaway may take them to Oklahoma. But the mere “unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.” Hanson v. Denckla, supra, at 253.
In a variant on the previous argument, it is contended that jurisdiction can be supported by the fact that petitioners earn substantial revenue from goods used in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Supreme Court so found, 585 P. 2d, at 354-355, drawing the inference that because one automobile sold by petitioners had been used in Oklahoma, others might have been used there also. While this inference seems less than compelling on the facts of the instant case, we need not question the court’s factual findings in order to reject its reasoning.
This argument seems to make the point that the purchase of automobiles in New York, from which the petitioners earn substantial revenue, would not occur but for the fact that the automobiles are capable of use in distant States like Oklahoma. Respondents observe that the very purpose of an automobile is to travel, and that travel of automobiles sold by petitioners is facilitated by an extensive chain of Volkswagen service centers throughout the country, including some in Oklahoma. However, financial benefits accruing to the defendant from a collateral relation to the forum State will not support jurisdiction if they. do not stem from a constitutionally cognizable contact with that State. See Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S., at 94-95. In our view, whatever marginal revenues petitioners may receive by virtue of the fact that their products are capable of use in Oklahoma is far too attenuated a contact to justify that State’s exercise of in per-sonam jurisdiction over them.
Because we find that petitioners have no “contacts, ties, or relations” with the State of Oklahoma, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 319, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is
Reversed.
The driver of the other automobile does not figure in the present litigation.
Kay Robinson sued on her own behalf. The two children sued through Harry Robinson as their father and next friend.
Volkswagen also entered a special appearance in the District Court, but unlike World-Wide and Seaway did not seek review in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and is not a petitioner here. Both Volkswagen and Audi remain as defendants in the litigation pending before the District Court in Oklahoma.
The papers filed by the petitioners also claimed that the District Court lacked “venue of the subject matter,” App. 9, or “venue over the subject matter,” id., at 11.
The District Court’s rulings are unreported, and appear at App. 13 and 20.
Five judges joined in the opinion. Two concurred in the result, without opinion, and one concurred in part and dissented in part, also without opinion.
This subsection provides:
“A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person’s . . . causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state. . . .”
The State Supreme Court rejected jurisdiction based on § 1701.03 (a)(3), which authorizes jurisdiction over any person “causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission in this state.” Something in addition to the infliction of tortious injury was required.
Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 555 P. 2d 48 (Okla. 1976); Carmack v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co., 536 P. 2d 897 (Okla. 1975) ; Hines v. Clendenning, 465 P. 2d 460 (Okla. 1970).
Cf. Tilley v. Keller Truck & Implement Corp., 200 Kan. 641, 438 P. 2d 128 (1968); Granite States Volkswagen, Inc. v. District Court, 177 Colo. 42, 492 P. 2d 624 (1972); Pellegrini v. Sachs & Sons, 522 P. 2d 704 (Utah 1974); Oliver v. American Motors Corp., 70 Wash. 2d 875, 425 P. 2d 647 (1967).
Respondents argue, as a threshold matter, that petitioners waived any objections to personal jurisdiction by (1) joining with their special appearances a challenge to the District Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, see n. 4, supra, and (2) taking depositions on the merits of the ease in Oklahoma. The trial court, however, characterized the appearances as “special,” and the Oklahoma Supreme Court, rather than finding jurisdiction waived, reached and decided the statutory and constitutional questions. Cf. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 91, n. 5 (1978).
Respondents’ counsel, at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-22, 29, sought to limit the reach of the foreseeability standard by suggesting that there is something unique about automobiles. It is true that automobiles are uniquely mobile, see Tyson v. Whitaker & Son, Inc., 407 A. 2d 1, 6, and n. 11 (Me. 1979) (MeKusick, C. J.), that they did play a crucial role in the expansion of personal jurisdiction through the fiction of implied consent, e. g., Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352 (1927), and that some of the cases have treated the automobile as a “dangerous instrumentality.” But today, under the regime of International Shoe, we see no difference for jurisdictional purposes between an automobile and any other chattel. The “dangerous instrumentality” concept apparently was never used to support personal jurisdiction; and to the extent it has relevance today it bears not on jurisdiction but on the possible desirability of imposing substantive principles of tort law such as strict liability.
As we have noted, petitioners earn no direct revenues from these service centers. See supra, at 289.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This controversy grows out of an effort of a union to obtain a representation election among the employees of respondent, Duval Jewelry Co., a retail store. The latter moved to dismiss on the ground that its interstate operations were inadequate to meet the jurisdictional tests of the Act. Five subpoenas duces tecum and one subpoena ad testificandum were issued. The persons to whom the subpoenas were directed moved before both the Board and the hearing officer to revoke the subpoenas. The Board refused to entertain the motions to revoke on the grounds that those motions, under its Rules and Regulations, require an initial ruling by the hearing officer. That officer after granting an opportunity for a hearing denied the motions to revoke. That ruling was not appealed; and respondents refused to comply with the subpoenas. Thereupon the Board instituted this proceeding in the District Court for enforcement of them.
The District Court quashed the subpoenas holding them unreasonable and oppressive. It also held they had been invalidly issued. 141 F. Supp. 860. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court on the subpoena ad testificandum; and no question concerning it is before us. But it upheld the District Court as respects the subpoenas duces tecum, on the ground that the Board alone could rule on motions to revoke subpoenas duces tecum in representation proceedings. 243 F. 2d 427. The case is here on a writ of certiorari, 355 U. S. 809, which we granted because of a conflict among the Circuits. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Lewis, 249 F. 2d 832, 836-837; Labor Board v. Gunaca, 135 F. Supp. 790, aff’d 230 F. 2d 542.
There is a degree of delegation of authority in connection with a motion to revoke a subpoena duces tecum. The Board’s Rules and Regulations provide that a motion to revoke is first heard by the regional director or by the hearing officer. But the ruling of that subordinate official is not final. Machinery is provided in the Rules for an appeal from that ruling to the Board. We are advised that in practice the aggrieved party asks the Board for leave to appeal, stating the grounds relied upon. The Board in deciding whether to grant the appeal considers the merits. If no substantial question has been raised, leave to appeal is denied. If a substantial question is presented, leave to appeal is granted. Sometimes when leave to appeal is granted, action is forthwith taken on the merits, the ruling of the hearing officer being reversed or modified. Or where an immediate ruling by the Board on a motion to revoke is not required, the Board defers its ruling until the entire case is transferred to it in normal course.
Section 11 (1) of the Act, as noted, gives a person served with a subpoena duces tecum the right to “petition the Board to revoke”; and that section provides that "the Board shall revoke . . . such subpena if in its opinion” the statutory requirements are not satisfied. The limited nature of the delegated authority distinguishes the case from Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland, 315 U. S. 357, and Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking Co., 331 U. S. 111, where the person endowed with the power to issue subpoenas delegated the function to another. While there is delegation here, the ultimate decision on a motion to revoke is reserved to the Board, not to a subordinate. All that the Board has delegated is the preliminary ruling on the motion to revoke. It retains the final decision on the merits. One who is aggrieved by the ruling of the regional director or hearing officer can get the Board’s ruling. The fact that special permission of the Board is required for the appeal is not important. Motion for leave to appeal is the method of showing that a substantial question is raised concerning the validity of the subordinate’s ruling. If the Board denies leave, it has decided that no substantial question is presented. We think that no more is required of it under the statutory system embodied in § 11. No matter how strict or stubborn the statutory requirement may be, the law does not “preclude practicable administrative procedure in obtaining the aid of assistants in the department.” See Morgan v. United States, 298 U. S. 468, 481; Eagles v. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304, 315, 316. It is not of help to say that on some matters the Board has original jurisdiction, on others appellate jurisdiction. We are dealing with a matter on which the Board has the final say. As in the case of many other matters coming before hearing examiners, it merely delegates the right to make a preliminary ruling. Much of the work of the Board necessarily has to be done through agents. Section 5 of the Act provides that “The Board may, by one or more of its members or by such agents or agencies as it may designate, prosecute any inquiry necessary to its functions in any part of the United States.” As we have seen, hearings on these representation cases “may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office.” Certainly preliminary rulings on subpoena questions are as much in the purview of a hearing officer as his rulings on evidence and the myriad of questions daily presented to him. He does not, of course, have the final word. Ultimate decision on the merits of all the issues coming before him is left to the Board. That is true of motions to revoke subpoenas duces tecum, as well as other issues of law and fact. That degree of delegation seems to us wholly permissible under this statutory system. We need not go further and consider the legality of the more complete type of delegation to which most of the argument in the case has been directed.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
Section 9 (c) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. § 159, provides in part:
“Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board—
“the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.”
Section 11 (1) of the Act provides in part:
“For the purpose of all hearings and investigations, which, in the opinion of the Board, are necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers vested in it by section 9 and section 10—
“(1) The Board, or its duly authorized agents or agencies, shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purpose of examination, and the right to copy any evidence of any person being investigated or proceeded against that relates to any matter under investigation or in question. The Board, or any member thereof, shall upon application of any party to such proceedings, forthwith issue to such party subpenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of any evidence in such proceeding or investigation requested in such application.”
Section 102.58 (c) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, 29 CFR, 1958 Cum. Pocket Supp., § 102.58 (c), provides:
“Applications for subpenas may be filed in writing by any party, with the regional director if made prior to hearing, or with the hearing officer if made at the hearing. Applications for subpenas may be made ex parte. The regional director or the hearing officer, as the case may be, shall forthwith grant the subpenas requested. Any person subpenaed, if he does not intend to comply with the subpena, shall, within 5 days after the date of service of the subpena, petition in writing to revoke the subpena. Such petition shall be filed with the regional director who may either rule upon it or refer it for ruling to the hearing officer: Provided, however, That if the evidence called for is to be produced at a hearing and the hearing has opened, the petition to revoke shall be filed with the hearing officer. Notice of the filing of petitions to revoke shall be promptly given by the regional director or hearing officer, as the case may be, to the party at whose request the subpena was issued. The regional director or the hearing officer, as the case may be, shall revoke the subpena if, in his opinion, the evidence whose production is required does not relate to any matter under investigation or in question in the proceedings or the subpena does not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required. The regional director or the hearing officer, as the case may be, shall make a simple statement of procedural or other grounds for his ruling. The petition to revoke, any answer filed thereto, and any ruling thereon, shall not become part of the record except upon the request of the party aggrieved by the ruling. Persons compelled to submit data or evidence are entitled to retain or, on payment of lawfully prescribed costs, to procure, copies or transcripts of the data or evidence submitted by them.”
For the counterpart of this regulation in unfair labor practice cases see § 102.31.
The subpoenas in the instant case were issued by the regional director upon application of the Board’s attorney assigned to the case. These subpoenas contained the seal of the Board and the facsimile signature of a Board member. See § 102.31 (a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
Section 11 (1) of the Act contains the following provision respecting the revocation of subpoenas:
“Within five days after the service of a subpena on any person requiring the production of any evidence in his possession or under his control, such person may petition the Board to revoke, and the Board shall revoke, such subpena if in its opinion the evidence whose production is required does not relate to any matter under investigation, or any matter in question in such proceedings, or if in its opinion such subpena does not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required.”
See § 102.58 (c), supra, note 2.
Section 11 (2) of the Act provides:
“In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person, any district court of the United States or the United States courts of any Territory or possession, or the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, within the jurisdiction of which the inquiry is carried on or within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by the Board shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, there to produce evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony touching the matter under investigation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by said court as a contempt thereof.”
See § 102.58 (c), supra, note 2.
Section 102.57 (c) provides:
“All motions, rulings, and orders shall become a part of the record, except that rulings on motions to revoke subpenas shall become a part of the record only upon the request of the party aggrieved, as provided in § 102.58 (e). Unless expressly authorized by the rules and regulations in this part, rulings by the regional director and by the hearing officer shall not be appealed directly to the Board except by special permission of the Board, but shall be considered by the Board when it reviews the entire record. Requests to the Board for special permission to appeal from such rulings of the regional director or the hearing officer shall be filed promptly, in writing, and shall briefly state the grounds relied on. The moving party shall immediately serve a copy thereof on each other party.” (Italics added.)
The foregoing regulation applies in representation proceedings. For its counterpart in unfair labor practice' cases see § 102.26.
The Board has submitted the following statistics:
“An analysis of the Board’s records for the three-year period May 1, 1955, through April 30, 1958, reveals that there were thirteen requests for permission to appeal specially from rulings by hearing officers and trial examiners on petitions to revoke subpenas; that five of these requests were granted by the Board; and that on four of these appeals the hearing officer or trial examiner was reversed and the subpenas revoked, and that on one appeal the hearing officer or trial examiner was sustained.”
See note 2, supra. In Hertner Electric Co., 115 N. L. R. B. 820, 821-822; Jamestown Sterling Corp., 106 N. L. R. B. 466, 469; International Furniture Co., 106 N. L. R. B. 127, 128, n. 2; Bell Aircraft Corp., 98 N. L. R. B. 1277, 1282, n. 4; Burnup & Sims, Inc., 95 N. L. R. B. 1130, n. 1; Morrison Turning Co., 83 N. L. R. B. 687, 688, the Board decided the cases on the merits and also reviewed the decisions of the hearing officer or trial examiner to either revoke or refuse to revoke a subpoena.
See note 3, supra.
See note 7, supra.
See §9 (c)(1), sufra, note 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: | 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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In exchange for respondent’s promise to purchase prefabricated houses to be erected on land near Louisville, Ky., petitioners agreed to finance the cost of acquiring and developing the land. Difficulties arose while the development was in progress, and respondent (Fortner) commenced this treble-damages action, claiming that the transaction was a tying arrangement forbidden by the Sherman Act. Fortner alleged that competition for prefabricated houses (the tied product) was restrained by petitioners’ abuse of power over credit (the tying product). A summary judgment in favor of petitioners was reversed by this Court. Fortner Enterprises v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495 (Fortner I). We held that the agreement affected a “not insubstantial” amount of commerce in the tied product and that Fortner was entitled to an opportunity to prove that petitioners possessed “appreciable economic power” in the market for the tying product. The question now presented is whether the record supports the conclusion that petitioners had such power in the credit market.
The conclusion that a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act had been proved was only reached after two .trials. At the first trial following our remand, the District Court directed a verdict in favor of Fortner on the issue of liability, and submitted only the issue of damages to the jury. The jury assessed damages, before trebling, of $93,200.. The Court of Appeals reversed the directed verdict and remanded for a new trial on liability. 452 F. 2d 1095 (CA6 1971), cert. denied, 406 U. S. 919. The parties then waived the jury; the trial judge heard additional evidence, and entered extensive findings of fact which were affirmed on appeal. 523 F. 2d 961 (1975). Both courts held that the findings justified the conclusion that petitioners had sufficient economic power in the credit market to make the tying arrangement unlawful.
Before explaining why we disagree with the ultimate conclusion of the courts below, we first describe the tying arrangement and then summarize the findings on the economic-power issue.
I
Only the essential features of the arrangement between the parties need be described. Fortner is a corporation which was activated by an experienced real estate developer for the purpose of buying and improving residential lots. One petitioner, United States Steel Corp., operates a “Home Division” which manufactures and assembles components of prefabricated houses; the second petitioner, the “Credit Corp.,” is a wholly owned subsidiary, which provides financing to customers of the Home Division in order to promote sales. Although their common ownership and control make it appropriate to regard the two as a single seller, they sell two separate products — prefabricated houses and credit. The credit extended to Fortner was not merely for the price of the homes. Petitioners agreed to lend Fortner over $2,000,000 in exchange for Fortner’s promise to purchase the components of 210 homes for about $689,000. The additional borrowed funds were intended to cover Fortner’s cost of acquiring and developing the vacant real estate, and the cost of erecting the houses.
The impact of the agreement on the market for the tied product (prefabricated houses) is not in dispute. On the one hand, there is no claim — nor could there be — that the Home Division had any dominance in the prefabricated housing business. The record indicates that it was only moderately successful, and that its sales represented a small fraction of the industry total. On the other hand, we have already held that the dollar value of the sales to respondent was sufficient to meet the “not insubstantial” test described in earlier cases. See 394 U. S., at 501-502. We therefore confine our attention to the source of the tying arrangement— petitioners’ “economic power” in the credit market.
II
The evidence supporting the conclusion that the Credit Corp. had appreciable economic power in the credit market relates to four propositions: (1) petitioner Credit Corp. and the Home Division were owned by one of the Nation’s largest corporations; (2) petitioners entered into tying arrangements with a significant number of customers in addition to Fortner ; (3) the Home Division charged respondent a noncompetitive price for its prefabricated homes; and (4) the financing provided to Fortner was “unique,” primarily because it covered 100% of Fortner’s acquisition and development costs.
The Credit Corp. was established in 1954 to provide financing for customers of the Home Division. The United States Steel Corp. not only provided the equity capital, but also allowed the Credit Corp. to use its credit in order to borrow money from banks at the prime rate. Thus, although the Credit Corp. itself was not a particularly large company, it was supported by a corporate parent with great financial strength.
The Credit Corp.’s loan policies were primarily intended to help the Home Division sell its products. It extended credit only to customers of the Home Division, and over two-thirds of the Home Division customers obtained such financing. With few exceptions, all the loan agreements contained a tying clause comparable to the one challenged in this case. Petitioner’s home sales in 1960 amounted to $6,747,353. Since over $4,600,000 of these sales were tied to financing provided by the Credit Corp., it is apparent that the tying arrangement was used with a number of customers in addition to Fortner.
The least expensive house package that Fortner purchased from the Home Division cost about $3,150. One witness testified that the Home Division’s price was $455 higher than the price of comparable components in a conventional home; another witness, to whom the District Court made no reference in its findings, testified that the Home Division’s price was $443 higher than a comparable prefabricated product. Whether the price differential was as great as 15% is not entirely clear, but the record does support the conclusion that the contract required Fortner to pay a noncompetitive price for the Home Division’s houses.
The finding that the credit extended to Fortner was unique was based on factors emphasized in the testimony of Fortner’s expert witness, Dr. Masten, a professor with special knowledge of lending practices in the Kentucky area. Dr. Masten testified that mortgage loans equal to 100% of the acquisition and development cost of real estate were not otherwise available in the Kentucky area; that even though Fortner had a deficit of $16,000, its loan was not guaranteed by a shareholder, officer, or other person interested in its business; and that the interest rate of 6% represented a low rate under prevailing economic conditions. Moreover, he explained that the stable price levels at the time made the risk to the lender somewhat higher than would have been the case in a period of rising prices. Dr. Masten concluded that the terms granted to respondent by the Credit Corp. were so unusual that it was almost inconceivable that the funds could have been acquired from any other source. It is a fair summary of his testimony, and of the District Court’s findings, to say that the loan was unique because the lender accepted such a high risk and the borrower assumed such a low cost.
The District Court also found that banks and federally insured savings and loan associations generally were prohibited by law from making 100% land acquisition and development loans, and “that other conventional lenders would not have made such loans at the time in question since they were not prudent loans due to the risk involved.” App. 1596.
Accordingly, the District Court concluded “that all of the required elements of an illegal tie-in agreement did exist since the tie-in itself was present, a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product was restrained and the Credit Corporation did possess sufficient economic power or leverage to effect such restraint.” Id., at 1602.
III
Without the finding that the financing provided to Fortner was “unique,” it is clear that the District Court’s findings would be insufficient to support the conclusion that the Credit Corp. possessed any significant economic power in the credit market.
Although the Credit Corp. is owned by one of the Nation’s largest manufacturing corporations, there is nothing in the record to indicate that this enabled it to borrow funds on terms more favorable than those available to competing lenders, or that it was able to operate more efficiently than other lending institutions. In short, the affiliation between the petitioners does not appear to have given the Credit Corp. any cost advantage over its competitors in the credit market. Instead, the affiliation was significant only because the Credit Corp. provided a source of funds to customers of the Home Division. That fact tells us nothing about the extent of petitioners’ economic power in the credit market.
The same may be said about the fact that loans from the Credit Corp. were used to obtain house sales from Fortner and others. In some tying situations a disproportionately large volume of sales of the tied product resulting from only a few strategic sales of the tying product may reflect a form of economic “leverage” that is probative of power in the market for the tying product. If, as some economists have suggested, the purpose of a tie-in is often to facilitate price discrimination, such evidence would imply the existence of power that a free market would not tolerate. But in this case Fortner was only required to purchase houses for the number of lots for which it received financing. The tying product produced no commitment from Fortner to purchase varying quantities of the tied product over an extended period of time. This record, therefore, does not describe the kind of “leverage” found in some of the Court’s prior decisions condemning tying arrangements.
The fact that Fortner — and presumably other Home Division customers as well — paid a noncompetitive price for houses also lends insufficient support to the judgment of the lower court. Proof that Fortner paid a higher price for the tied product is consistent with the possibility that the financing was unusually inexpensive and that the price for the entire package was equal to, or below, a competitive price. And this possibility is equally strong even though a number of Home Division customers made a package purchase of homes and financing.
The most significant finding made by the District Court related to the unique character of the credit extended to Fortner. This finding is particularly important because the unique character of the tying product has provided critical support for the finding of illegality in prior cases. Thus, the statutory grant of a patent monopoly in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392; the copyright monopolies in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, and United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U. S. 38; and the extensive land holdings in Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, represented tying products that the Court regarded as sufficiently unique to give rise to a presumption of economic power.
As the Court plainly stated in its prior opinion in this case, these decisions do not require that the defendant have a monopoly or even a dominant position throughout the market for a tying product. See 394 U. S., at 502-503. They do, however, focus attention on the question whether the seller has the power, within the market for the tying product, to raise prices or to require purchasers to accept burdensome terms that could not be exacted in a completely competitive market. In short, the question is whether the seller has some advantage not shared by his competitors in the market for the tying product.
Without any such advantage differentiating his product from that of his competitors, the seller’s product does not have the kind of uniqueness considered relevant in prior tying-clause cases. The Court made this point explicitly when it remanded this case for trial:
“We do not mean to accept petitioner’s apparent argument that market power can be inferred simply because the kind of financing terms offered by a lending company are 'unique and unusual.’ We do mean, however, that uniquely and unusually advantageous terms can reflect a creditor’s unique economic advantages over his competitors.” 394 U. S., at 505.
An accompanying footnote explained:
“Uniqueness confers economic power only when other competitors are in some way prevented from offering the distinctive product themselves. Such barriers may be legal, as in the case of patented and. copyrighted products, e. g., International Salt; Loew’s, or physical, as when the product is land, e. g., Northern Pacific. It is true that the barriers may also be economic, as when competitors are simply unable to produce the distinctive product profitably, but the uniqueness test in such situations is somewhat confusing since the real source of economic power is not the product itself but rather the seller’s cost advantage in producing it.” Id., at 505 n. 2.
Quite clearly, if the evidence merely shows that credit terms are unique because the seller is willing to accept a lesser profit — or to incur greater risks — than its competitors, that kind of uniqueness will not give rise to any inference of economic power in the credit market. Yet this is, in substance, all that the record in this case indicates.
The unusual credit bargain offered to Fortner proves nothing more than a willingness to provide cheap financing in order to sell expensive houses. Without any evidence that the Credit Corp. had some cost advantage over its competitors — or could offer a form of financing that was significantly differentiated from that which other lenders could offer if they so elected — the unique character of its financing does not support the conclusion that petitioners had the kind of economic power which Fortner had the burden of proving in order to prevail in this litigation.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
So ordered.
As explained at the outset of the opinion, Fortner I involved “a variety of questions concerning the proper standards to be applied by a United States district court in passing on a motion for summary judgment in a civil antitrust action.” 394 U. S., at 496. Petitioners do not ask us to re-examine Fortner I, which left only the economic-power question open on the issue of whether a per se violation could be proved. On the other hand, Fortner has not pursued the suggestion in Fortner I that it might be able to prove a § 1 violation under the rule-of-reason standard. 394 U. S., at 500. Thus, with respect to § 1, only the economic-power issue is before us.
In Fortner I, the Court noted that Fortner also alleged a § 2 violation, namely, that petitioners “conspired together for the purpose of . . . acquiring a monopoly in the market for prefabricated houses.” 394 U. S., at 500. The District Court held that a § 2 violation had been proved. Although the Court of Appeals did not reach this issue, a remand is unnecessary. It is clear that neither the District Court’s findings of fact nor the record supports the conclusion that § 2 was violated. The District Court found only that “the defendants did combine or conspire to increase sales of prefabricated house packages by United States Steel Corporation by the making of loans to numerous builders containing the tie-in provision” and that “the sole purpose of the loan programs of the Credit Corporation was specifically and deliberately to increase the share of the market of United States Steel Corporation in prefabricated house packages . . . .” App. 1603 (emphasis added). But “increasing sales” and “increasing market share” are normal business goals, not forbidden by §2 without other evidence of an intent to monopolize. The evidence in this case does not bridge the gap between the District Court’s findings of intent to increase sales and its legal conclusion of conspiracy to monopolize. Moreover, petitioners did not have a large market share or dominant market position. See n. 3, infra. No inference of intent to monopolize can be drawn from the fact that a firm with a small market share has engaged in nonpredatory competitive conduct in the hope of increasing sales. Yet as we conclude, infra, at 621-622, that is all the record in this ease shows.
26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1.
In 1960, for example, the Home Division sold a total of 1,793 houses for $6,747,353. There were at least four larger prefabricated home manufacturers, the largest of which sold 16,804 homes in that year. In the following year the Home Division’s sales declined while the sales of each of its four principal competitors remained steady or increased.
After reviewing extensive evidence taken from the files of the Credit Corp., including a memorandum stating that “our only purpose in making the loan ... is shipping houses,” the District Court expressly found “that the Credit Corporation was not so much concerned with the risks involved in loans but whether they would help sell houses.” App. 1588-1589.
This figure is not stated in the District Court’s findings; it is derived from the finding of total sales and the finding that 68% of the sales in 1960 were made to dealers receiving financial assistance from the Credit Corp. See id., at 1589-1590.
The prime rate at the time was 5% or £%%.
See Bowman, Tying Arrangements and the Leverage Problem, 67 Yale L. J. 19 (1957).
See e. g., United Shoe Machinery v. United States, 258 U. S. 451; International Business Machines v. United States, 298 U. S. 131; International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392. In his article in the 1969 Supreme Court Review 16, Professor Dam suggests that this kind of leverage may also have been present in Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1.
Fortner’s expert witness agreed with the statement:
“The amount of the loan as a percentage of the collateral or security is only one element in determining its advantage to a borrower. The other relevant factors include the rate of interest charged, whether the lender discounts the amount loaned or charges service for [sic] other fees and maturity in terms of repayment.” App. 1686.
Relying on Advance Business Systems & Supply Co. v. SCM Corp., 415 F. 2d 55 (CA4 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 920, Fortner contends that acceptance of the package by a significant number of customers is itself sufficient to prove the seller's economic power. But this approach depends on the absence of other explanations for the willingness of buyers to purchase the package. See 415 F. 2d, at 68. In the Northern Pacific case, for instance, the Court explained:
"The very existence of this host of tying arrangements is itself compelling evidence of the defendant’s great power, at least where, as here, no other explanation has been offered for the existence of these restraints. The 'preferential routing’ clauses conferred no benefit on the purchasers or lessees. While they got the land they wanted by yielding their freedom to deal with competing carriers, the defendant makes no claim that it came any cheaper than if the restrictive clauses had been omitted. In fact any such price reduction in return for rail shipments would have quite plainly constituted an unlawful rebate to the shipper. So far as the Railroad was concerned its purpose obviously was to fence out competitors, to stifle competition.” 356 U. S., at 7-8 (footnote omitted).
As this passage demonstrates, this case differs from Northern Pacific because use of the tie-in in this case can be explained as a form of price competition in the tied product, whereas that explanation was unavailable to the Northern Pacific Railway.
The Court in Northern Pacific concluded that the railroad “possessed substantial economic power by virtue of its extensive landholdings” and then described those holdings as follows:
“As pointed out before, the defendant was initially granted large acreages by Congress in the several North-western States through which its lines now run. This land was strategically located in checkerboard fashion amid private holdings and within economic distance of transportation facilities. Not only the testimony of various witnesses but common sense makes it evident that this particular land was often prized by those who purchased or leased it and was frequently essential to their business activities.” Id., at 7.
“Since one of the objectives of the patent laws is to reward uniqueness, the principle of these cases was carried over into antitrust law on the theory that the existence of a valid patent on the tying product, without more, establishes a distinctiveness sufficient to conclude that any tying arrangement involving the patented product would have anti-competitive consequences.” United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U. S. 38, 46.
“Accordingly, the proper focus of concern is whether the seller has the power to raise prices, or impose other burdensome terms such as a tie-in, with respect to any appreciable number of buyers within the market.” 394 U. S., at 504.
Professor Dam correctly analyzed the burden of proof imposed on Fortner by this language. In his article in the 1969 Supreme Court Review 25-26, he reasoned:
“One important question in interpreting the Fortner decision is the meaning of this language. Taken out of context, it might be thought to mean that, just as the 'host of tying arrangements’ was 'compelling evidence’ of 'great power’ in Northern Pacific, so the inclusion of tie-in clauses in contracts with 'any appreciable numbers of buyers’ establishes market power. But the passage read in context does not warrant this interpretation. For the immediately preceding sentence makes clear that market power in the sense of power over price must still exist. If the price could have been raised but the tie-in was demanded in lieu of the higher price, then — and presumably only then — would the’ requisite economic power exist. Thus, despite the broad language available for .quotation in later cases, the treatment of the law on market power is on close reading not only consonant with the precedents but in some ways less far-reaching than Northern Pacific and Loew’s, which could be read to make actual market power irrelevant.” (Footnotes omitted.)
One commentator on Fortner I noted:
“The Court’s uniqueness test is adequate to identify a number of situations in which this type of foreclosure is likely to occur. Whenever there are some buyers who find a seller’s product uniquely attractive, and are therefore willing to pay a premium above the price of its nearest substitute, the seller has the opportunity to impose a tie to some other good.” Note, The Logic of Foreclosure: Tie-In Doctrine after Fortner v. U. S. Steel, 79 Yale L. J. 86, 93-94 (1969).
The opinion of the Court in Fortner I notes that smaller companies might not have the “financial strength to offer credit comparable to that provided by larger competitors under tying arrangements.” 394 U. S., at 509. Fortner’s expert witness was unaware of the financing practices of competing sellers of prefabricated homes, App. 1691-1692, but there is nothing to suggest that they were unable to offer comparable financing -if they chose to do so.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether a state-court judge has absolute immunity from a suit for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for his decision to dismiss a subordinate court employee. The employee, who had been a probation officer, alleged that she was demoted and discharged on account of her sex, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We conclude that the judge’s decisions were not judicial acts for which he should be held absolutely immune.
I
Respondent Howard Lee White served as Circuit Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois and Presiding Judge of the Circuit Court in Jersey County. Under Illinois law, Judge White had the authority to hire adult probation officers, who were removable in his discretion. 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶204-1 (1979). In addition, as designee of the Chief Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Judge White had the authority to appoint juvenile probation officers to serve at his pleasure. 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, ¶706-5 (1979).
In April 1977, Judge White hired petitioner Cynthia A. Forrester as an adult and juvenile probation officer. Forrester prepared presentence reports for Judge White in adult offender cases, and recommendations for disposition and placement in juvenile cases. She also supervised persons on probation and recommended revocation when necessary. In July 1979, Judge White appointed Forrester as Project Supervisor of the Jersey County Juvenile Court Intake and Referral Services Project, a position that carried increased supervisory responsibilities. Judge White demoted Forrester to a nonsupervisory position in the summer of 1980. He discharged her on October 1, 1980.
Forrester filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in July 1982. She alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., and § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. A jury found that Judge White had discriminated against Forrester on account of her sex, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The jury awarded her $81,818.80 in compensatory damages under § 1983. Forrester’s other claims were dismissed in the course of the lawsuit.
After Judge White’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied, he moved for a new trial. The District Court granted this motion, holding that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Judge White then moved for summary judgment on the ground that he was entitled to “judicial immunity” from a civil damages suit. This motion, too, was granted. Forrester appealed.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment. The majority reasoned that judges are immune for activities implicating the substance of their decisions in the cases before them, although they are not shielded “from the trials of life generally.” 792 F. 2d 647, 652 (1986). Some members of a judge’s staff aid in the performance of adjudicative functions, and the threat of suits by such persons could make a judge reluctant to replace them even after losing confidence in their work. This could distort the judge’s decisionmaking and thereby indirectly affect the rights of litigants. Here, Forrester performed functions that were “inextricably tied to discretionary decisions that have consistently been considered judicial acts.” Id., at 657. Unless Judge White felt free to replace Forrester, the majority thought, the quality of his own decisions might decline. The Court of Appeals therefore held that Judge White was absolutely immune from Forrester’s civil damages suit. In view of this holding, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether the District Court had erred in granting Judge White’s motion for a new trial.
In dissent, Judge Posner argued that judicial immunity should protect only adjudicative functions, and that employment decisions are administrative functions for which judges should not be given absolute immunity.
In Goodwin v. Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Mo., 729 F. 2d 541, 549, cert. denied, 469 U. S. 828 (1984), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a judge was not immune from civil damages for his decision to demote a hearing officer. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1083 (1987), to resolve the conflict.
II
Suits for monetary damages are meant to compensate the victims of wrongful actions and to discourage conduct that may result in liability. Special problems arise, however, when government officials are exposed to liability for damages. To the extent that the threat of liability encourages these officials to carry out their duties in a lawful and appropriate manner, and to pay their victims when they do not, it accomplishes exactly what it should. By its nature, however, the threat of liability can create perverse incentives that operate to inhibit officials in the proper performance of their duties. In many contexts, government officials are expected to make decisions that are impartial or imaginative, and that above all are informed by considerations other than the personal interests of the decisionmaker. Because government officials are engaged by definition in governing, their decisions will often have adverse effects on other persons. When officials are threatened with personal liability for acts taken pursuant to their official duties, they may well be induced to act with an excess of caution or otherwise to skew their decisions in ways that result in less than full fidelity to the objective and independent criteria that ought to guide their conduct. In this way, exposing government officials to the same legal hazards faced by other citizens may detract from the rule of law instead of contributing to it.
Such considerations have led to the creation of various forms of immunity from suit for certain government officials. Aware of the salutary effects that the threat of liability can have, however, as well as the undeniable tension between official immunities and the ideal of the rule of law, this Court has been cautious in recognizing claims that government officials should be free of the obligation to answer for their acts in court. Running through our cases, with fair consistency, is a “functional” approach to immunity questions other than those that have been decided by express constitutional or statutory enactment. Under that approach, we examine the nature of the functions with which a particular official or class of officials has been lawfully entrusted, and we seek to evaluate the effect that exposure to particular forms of liability would likely have on the appropriate exercise of those functions. Officials who seek exemption from personal liability have the burden of showing that such an exemption is justified by overriding considerations of public policy, and the Court has recognized a category of “qualified” immunity that avoids unnecessarily extending the scope of the traditional concept of absolute immunity. See, e. g., Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 (1974); Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478 (1978); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982).
This Court has generally been quite sparing in its recognition of claims to absolute official immunity. One species of such legal protection is beyond challenge: the legislative immunity created by the Speech or Debate Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 6, cl. 1. Even here, however, the Court has been careful not to extend the scope of the protection further than its purposes require. See, e. g., Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606, 622-627 (1972); see also Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U. S. 111, 123-133 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U. S. 306 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501 (1972); United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169 (1966); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168 (1881). Furthermore, on facts analogous to those in the case before us, the Court indicated that a United States Congressman would not be entitled to absolute immunity, in a sex-discrimination suit filed by a personal aide whom he had fired, unless such immunity was afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause. Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228, 246 (1979); see also id., at 246, n. 25 (reserving question of qualified immunity).
Among executive officials, the President of the United States is absolutely immune from damages liability arising from official acts. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982). This immunity, however, is based on the President’s “unique position in the constitutional scheme,” id., at 749, and it does not extend indiscriminately to the President’s personal aides, see Harlow, supra, or to Cabinet level officers, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511 (1985). Nor are the highest executive officials in the States protected by absolute immunity under federal law. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra.
Ill
As a class, judges have long enjoyed a comparatively sweeping form of immunity, though one not perfectly well defined. Judicial immunity apparently originated, in medieval times, as a device for discouraging collateral attacks and thereby helping to establish appellate procedures as the standard system for correcting judicial error. See Block, Stump v. Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 1980 Duke L. J. 879. More recently, this Court found that judicial immunity was “the settled doctrine of the English courts for many centuries, and has never been denied, that we are aware of, in the courts of this country.” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1872). Besides protecting the finality of judgments or discouraging inappropriate collateral attacks, the Bradley Court concluded, judicial immunity also protected judicial independence by insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants. Id., at 348.
In the years since Bradley was decided, this Court has not been quick to find that federal legislation was meant to diminish the traditional common-law protections extended to the judicial process. See, e. g., Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967). On the contrary, these protections have been held to extend to Executive Branch officials who perform quasi-judicial functions, see Butz v. Economou, supra, at 513-514, or who perform prosecutorial functions that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 430 (1976). The common law’s rationale for these decisions — freeing the judicial process of harassment or intimidation — has been thought to require absolute immunity even for advocates and witnesses. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325 (1983); Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S., at 512.
One can reasonably wonder whether judges, who have been primarily responsible for developing the law of official immunities, are not inevitably more sensitive to the ill effects that vexatious lawsuits can have on the judicial function than they are to similar dangers in other contexts. Cf. id., at 528, n. (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Although Congress has not undertaken to cut back the judicial immunities recognized by this Court, we should be at least as cautious in extending those immunities as we have been when dealing with officials whose peculiar problems we know less well than our own. At the same time, we cannot pretend that we are writing on a clean slate or that we should ignore compelling reasons that may well justify broader protections for judges than for some other officials.
The purposes served by judicial immunity from liability in damages have been variously described. In Bradley v. Fisher, supra, at 348, and again in Pierson v. Ray, supra, at 554, the Court emphasized that the nature of the adjudicative function requires a judge frequently to disappoint some of the most intense and ungovernable desires that people can have. As Judge Posner pointed out in his dissenting opinion below, this is the principal characteristic that adjudication has in common with legislation and with criminal prosecution, which are the two other areas in which absolute immunity has most generously been provided. 792 F. 2d, at 660. If judges were personally liable for erroneous decisions, the resulting avalanche of suits, most of them frivolous but vexatious, would provide powerful incentives for judges to avoid rendering decisions likely to provoke such suits. Id., at 660-661. The resulting timidity would be hard to detect or control, and it would manifestly detract from independent and impartial adjudication. Nor are suits against judges the only available means through which litigants can protect themselves from the consequences of judicial error. Most judicial mistakes or wrongs are open to correction through ordinary mechanisms of review, which are largely free of the harmful side-effects inevitably associated with exposing judges to personal liability.
When applied to the paradigmatic judicial acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial. Difficulties have arisen primarily in attempting to draw the line between truly judicial acts, for which immunity is appropriate, and acts that simply happen to have been done by judges. Here, as in other contexts, immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches.
This Court has never undertaken to articulate a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to immunity. The decided cases, however, suggest an intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned by law to perform. Thus, for example, the informal and ex parte nature of a proceeding has not been thought to imply that an act otherwise within a judge’s lawful jurisdiction was deprived of its judicial character. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349, 363, n. 12 (1978). Similarly, acting to disbar an attorney as a sanction for contempt of court, by invoking a power “possessed by all courts which have authority to admit attorneys to practice,” does not become less judicial by virtue of an allegation of malice or corruption of motive. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 354. As the Bradley Court noted: “Against the consequences of [judges’] erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort.” Ibid.
Administrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not similarly been regarded as judicial acts. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 (1880), for example, this Court declined to extend immunity to a county judge who had been charged in a criminal indictment with discriminating on the basis of race in selecting trial jurors for the county’s courts. The Court reasoned:
“Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . . . That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstaves, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?” Id., at 348.
Although this case involved a criminal charge against a judge, the reach of the Court’s analysis was not in any obvious way confined by that circumstance.
Likewise, judicial immunity has not been extended to judges acting to promulgate a code of conduct for attorneys. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U. S. 719 (1980). In explaining why legislative, rather than judicial, immunity furnished the appropriate standard, we said: “Although it is clear that under Virginia law the issuance of the Bar Code was a proper function of the Virginia Court, propounding the Code was not an act of adjudication but one of rulemaking.” Id., at 731. Similarly, in the same case, we held that judges acting to enforce the Bar Code would be treated like prosecutors, and thus would be amenable to suit for injunctive and declaratory relief. Id., at 734-737. Cf. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522 (1984). Once again, it was the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that informed our immunity analysis.
IV
In the case before us, we think it clear that Judge White was acting in an administrative capacity when he demoted and discharged Forrester. Those acts —like many others involved in supervising court employees and overseeing the efficient operation of a court — may have been quite important in providing the necessary conditions of a sound adjudicative system. The decisions at issue, however, were not themselves judicial or adjudicative. As Judge Posner pointed out below, a judge who hires or fires a probation officer cannot meaningfully be distinguished from a district attorney who hires and fires assistant district attorneys, or indeed from any other Executive Branch official who is responsible for making such employment decisions. Such decisions, like personnel decisions made by judges, are often crucial to the efficient operation of public institutions (some of which are at least as important as the courts), yet no one suggests that they give rise to absolute immunity from liability in damages under § 1983.
The majority below thought that the threat of vexatious lawsuits by disgruntled ex-employees could interfere with the quality of a judge’s decisions:
“The evil to be avoided is the following: A judge loses confidence in his probation officer, but hesitates to fire him because of the threat of litigation. He then retains the officer, in which case the parties appearing before the court are the victims, because the quality of the judge’s decision-making will decline.” 792 F. 2d, at 658.
There is considerable force in this analysis, but it in no way serves to distinguish judges from other public officials who hire and fire subordinates. Indeed, to the extent that a judge is less free than most Executive Branch officials to delegate decisionmaking authority to subordinates, there may be somewhat less reason to cloak judges with absolute immunity from such suits than there would be to protect such other officials. This does not imply that qualified immunity, like that available to Executive Branch officials who make similar discretionary decisions, is unavailable to judges for their employment decisions. See, e. g., Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 (1974); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U. S. 183 (1984). Cf. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 818. Absolute immunity, however, is “strong medicine, justified only when the danger of [officials’ being] deflect[ed from the effective performance of their duties] is very great.” 792 F. 2d, at 660 (Posner, J., dissenting). The danger here is not great enough. Nor do we think it significant that, under Illinois law, only a judge can hire or fire probation officers. To conclude that, because a judge acts within the scope of his authority, such employment decisions are brought within the court’s “jurisdiction,” or converted into “judicial acts,” would lift form above substance. Under Virginia law, only that State’s judges could promulgate and enforce a Bar Code, but we nonetheless concluded that neither function was judicial in nature. See Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, supra.
We conclude that Judge White was not entitled to absolute immunity for his decisions to demote and discharge Forrester. In so holding, we do not decide whether Judge White is entitled to a new trial, or whether he may be able to claim a qualified immunity for the acts complained of in Forrester’s suit. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun joins in all but Part II 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: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the motion to add parties are granted. The judgment of that court is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1. This class action to desegregate the public high schools of Fort Smith, Arkansas, was commenced several years ago in the name of two Negro students. One of the students has since graduated and the other has entered the last high school grade. A motion to add parties is made on behalf of two additional Negro students. It is alleged therein, and not denied by respondents, that these students are in the 10th and 11th grades of high school and that they are members of the class represented, seeking the same relief for all the reasons offered by the original party plaintiffs. That motion is accordingly granted.
2. The desegregation plan adopted in 1957 desegregates only one grade a year and the 10th, 11th and 12th high school grades are still segregated. The students who are petitioners here were assigned to a Negro high school on the basis of their race. Those assignments are constitutionally forbidden not only for the reasons stated in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, but also because petitioners are thereby prevented from taking certain courses offered only at another high school limited to white students, see Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337; Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629. Petitioners are entitled to immediate relief; we have emphasized that “[d]elays in desegregating school systems are no longer tolerable.” Bradley v. School Board, ante, p. 103, at 105. Pending the desegregation of the public high schools of Fort Smith according to a general plan consistent with this principle, petitioners and those similarly-situated shall be allowed immediate transfer to the high school that has the more extensive curriculum and from which they are excluded because of their race.
3. From the outset of these proceedings petitioners have challenged an alleged policy of respondents of allocating faculty on a racial basis. The District Court took the view that petitioners were without standing to challenge the alleged policy, and accordingly refused to permit any inquiry into the matter. The Court of Appeals sustained this ruling, holding that only students presently in desegregated grades would have the standing to make that challenge. 345 F. 2d 117, 125. We do not agree and remand for a prompt evidentiary hearing on this issue.
Even the Court of Appeals’ requirement for standing would be met on remand since petitioners’ transfer to the white high school would desegregate their grades to that limited extent. Moreover, we reject the Court of Appeals’ view of standing as being unduly restrictive. Two theories would give students not yet in desegregated grades sufficient interest to challenge racial allocation of faculty: (1) that racial allocation of faculty denies them equality of educational opportunity without regard to segregation of pupils; and (2) that it renders inadequate an otherwise constitutional pupil desegregation plan soon to be applied to their grades. See Bradley v. School Board, supra. Petitioners plainly had standing to challenge racial allocation of faculty under the first theory and thus they were improperly denied a hearing on this issue'
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Fortas would set the case down for argument and plenary consideration.
The constitutional adequacy of the method chosen for assigning students to the schools for purpose of desegregating the lower grades is not before us, and the method contemplated for the high schools is not part of the record.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III and VI, and an opinion with respect to Parts I, II, IV, and V, in which Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens join.
Hours after his client was indicted on criminal charges, petitioner Gentile, who is a member of the Bar of the State of Nevada, held a press conference. He made a prepared statement, which we set forth in Appendix A to this opinion, and then he responded to questions. We refer to most of those questions and responses in the course of our opinion.
Some six months later, the criminal case was tried to a jury and the client was acquitted on all counts. The State Bar of Nevada then filed a complaint against petitioner, alleging a violation of Nevada Supreme Court Rule 177, a rule governing pretrial publicity almost identical to ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6. We set forth the full text of Rule 177 in Appendix B. Rule 177(1) prohibits an attorney from making “an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” Rule 177(2) lists a number of statements that are “ordinarily... likely” to result in material prejudice. Rule 177(3) provides a safe harbor for the attorney, listing a number of statements that can be made without fear of discipline notwithstanding the other parts of the Rule.
Following a hearing, the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board of the State Bar found that Gentile had made the statements in question and concluded that he violated Rule 177. The board recommended a private reprimand. Petitioner appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, waiving the confidentiality of the disciplinary proceeding, and the Nevada court affirmed the decision of the board.
Nevada’s application of Rule 177 in this case violates the First Amendment. Petitioner spoke at a time and in a manner that neither in law nor in fact created any threat of real prejudice to his client’s right to a fair trial or to the State’s interest in the enforcement of its criminal laws. Furthermore, the Rule’s safe harbor provision, Rule 177(3), appears to permit the speech in question, and Nevada’s decision to discipline petitioner in spite of that provision raises concerns of vagueness and selective enforcement. I
—
The matter before us does not call into question the constitutionality of other States’ prohibitions upon an attorney’s speech that will have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding,” but is limited to Nevada’s interpretation of that standard. On the other hand, one central point must dominate the analysis: this case involves classic political speech. The State Bar of Nevada reprimanded petitioner for his assertion, supported by a brief sketch of his client’s defense, that the State sought the indictment and conviction of an innocent man as a “scapegoat” and had not “been honest enough to indict the people who did it; the police department, crooked cops.” See infra, Appendix A. At issue here is the constitutionality of a ban on political speech critical of the government and its officials.
A
Unlike other First Amendment cases this Term in which speech is not the direct target of the regulation or statute in question, see, e. g., Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., ante, p. 560 (ban on nude barroom dancing); Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U. S. 439 (1991) (sales tax on cable and satellite television), this case involves punishment of pure speech in the political forum. Petitioner engaged not in solicitation of clients or advertising for his practice, as in our precedents from which some of our colleagues would discern a standard of diminished First Amendment protection. His words were directed at public officials and their conduct in office.
There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the State’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment. Nevada seeks to punish the dissemination of information relating to alleged governmental misconduct, which only-last Term we described as “speech which has traditionally been recognized as lying at the core of the First Amendment.” Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U. S. 624, 632 (1990).
The judicial system, and in particular our criminal justice courts, play a vital part in a democratic state, and the public has a legitimate interest in their operations. See, e. g., Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829, 838-839 (1978). “[I]t would be difficult to single out any aspect of government of higher concern and importance to the people than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U. S. 555, 575 (1980). Public vigilance serves us well, for “[t]he knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.... Without publicity, all other checks are insufficient: in comparison of publicity, all other checks are of small account.” In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 270-271 (1948). As we said in Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252 (1941), limits upon public comment about pending cases are
“likely to fall not only at a crucial time but upon the most important topics of discussion....
“No suggestion can be found in the Constitution that the freedom there guaranteed for speech and the press bears an inverse ratio to the timeliness and importance of the ideas seeking expression.” Id., at 268-269.
In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 350 (1966), we reminded that “[t]he press... guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.”
Public awareness and criticism have even greater importance where, as here, they concern allegations of police corruption, see Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 606 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (“[C]ommen-tary on the fact that there is strong evidence implicating a government official in criminal activity goes to the very core of matters of public concern”), or where, as is also the present circumstance, the criticism questions the judgment of an elected public prosecutor. Our system grants prosecutors vast discretion at all stages of the criminal process, see Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 727-728 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The public has an interest in its responsible exercise.
B
We are not called upon to determine the constitutionality of the ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 (1981), but only Rule 177 as it has been interpreted and applied by the State of Nevada. Model Rule 3.6’s requirement of substantial likelihood of material prejudice is not necessarily flawed. Interpreted in a proper and narrow manner, for instance, to prevent an attorney of record from releasing information of grave prejudice on the eve of jury selection, the phrase substantial likelihood of material prejudice might punish only speech that creates a danger of imminent and substantial harm. A rule governing speech, even speech entitled to full constitutional protection, need not use the words “clear and present danger” in order to pass constitutional muster.
“Mr. Justice Holmes’ test was never intended ‘to express a technical legal doctrine or to convey a formula for adjudicating cases.’ Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 353 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Properly applied, the test requires a court to make its own inquiry into the imminence and magnitude of the danger said to flow from the particular utterance and then to balance the character of the evil, as well as its likelihood, against the need for free and unfettered expression. The possibility that other measures will serve the State’s interests should also be weighed.” Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, supra, at 842-843.
The drafters of Model Rule 3.6 apparently thought the substantial likelihood of material prejudice formulation approximated the clear and present danger test. See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 243 (1984) (“formulation in Model Rule 3.6 incorporates a standard approximating clear and present danger by focusing on the likelihood of injury and its substantiality”; citing Landmark Communications, supra, at 844; Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375 (1962); and Bridges v. California, supra, at 273, for guidance in determining whether statement “poses a sufficiently serious and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice”); G. Hazard & W. Hodes, The Law of Lawyering: A Handbook on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 397 (1985) (“To use traditional terminology, the danger of prejudice to a proceeding must be both clear (material) and present (substantially likely)”); In re Hinds, 90 N. J. 604, 622, 449 A. 2d 483, 493 (1982) (substantial likelihood of material prejudice standard is a linguistic equivalent of clear and present danger).
The difference between the requirement of serious and imminent threat found in the disciplinary rules of some States and the more common formulation of substantial likelihood of material prejudice could prove mere semantics. Each standard requires an assessment of proximity and degree of harm. Each may be capable of valid application. Under those principles, nothing inherent in Nevada’s formulation fails First Amendment review; but as this case demonstrates, Rule 177 has not been interpreted in conformance with those principles by the Nevada Supreme Court.
II
Even if one were to accept respondent’s argument that lawyers participating in judicial proceedings may be subjected, consistent with the First Amendment, to speech restrictions that could not be imposed on the press or general public, the judgment should not be upheld. The record does not support the conclusion that petitioner knew or reasonably should have known his remarks created a substantial likelihood of material prejudice, if the Rule’s terms are given any meaningful content.
We have held that “in cases raising First Amendment issues... an appellate court has an obligation to ‘make an independent examination of the whole record’ in order to make sure that ‘the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.’” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 499 (1984) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 284-286 (1964)).
Neither the disciplinary board nor the reviewing court explains any sense in which petitioner’s statements had a substantial likelihood of causing material prejudice. The only evidence against Gentile was the videotape of his statements and his own testimony at the disciplinary hearing. The Bar’s whole case rests on the fact of the statements, the time they were made, and petitioner’s own justifications. Full deference to these factual findings does not justify abdication of our responsibility to determine whether petitioner’s statements can be punished consistent with First Amendment standards.
Rather, this Court is
“compelled to examine for [itself] the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to see whether or not they do carry a threat of clear and present danger to the impartiality and good order of the courts or whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.” Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 335 (1946).
“ ‘Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech... are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain open to a defendant to present the issue whether there actually did exist at the time a clear danger; whether the danger, if any, was imminent; and whether the evil apprehended was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restriction interposed by the legislature.’” Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S., at 844 (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 378-379 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)).
Whether one applies the standard set out in Landmark Communications or the lower standard our colleagues find permissible, an examination of the record reveals no basis for the Nevada court’s conclusion that the speech presented a substantial likelihood of material prejudice.
Our decision earlier this Term in Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U. S. 415 (1991), provides a pointed contrast to respondent’s contention in this case. There, the community had been subjected to a barrage of publicity prior to Mu’Min’s trial for capital murder. News stories appeared over a course of several months and included, in addition to details of the crime itself, numerous items of prejudicial information inadmissible at trial. Eight of the twelve individuals seated on Mu’Min’s jury admitted some exposure to pretrial publicity. We held that the publicity did not rise even to a level requiring questioning of individual jurors about the content of publicity. In light of that holding, the Nevada court’s conclusion that petitioner’s abbreviated, general comments six months before trial created a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” the proceeding is, to say the least, most unconvincing.
A
Pre-Indictment Publicity. On January 31, 1987, undercover police officers with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) reported large amounts of cocaine (four kilograms) and travelers’ checks (almost $300,000) missing from a safety deposit vault at Western Vault Corporation. The drugs and money had been used as part of an undercover operation conducted by Metro’s Intelligence Bureau. Petitioner’s client, Grady Sanders, owned Western Vault. John Moran, the Las Vegas sheriff, reported the theft at a press conference on February 2, 1987, naming the police and Western Vault employees as suspects.
Although two police officers, Detective Steve Scholl and Sargeant Ed Schaub, enjoyed free access to the deposit box throughout the period of the theft, and no log reported comings and goings at the vault, a series of press reports over the following year indicated that investigators did not consider these officers responsible. Instead, investigators focused upon Western Vault and its owner. Newspaper reports quoted the sheriff and other high police officials as saying that they had not lost confidence in the “elite” Intelligence Bureau. From the beginning, Sheriff Moran had “complete faith and trust” in his officers. App. 85.
The media reported that, following announcement of the cocaine theft, others with deposit boxes at Western Vault had come forward to claim missing items. One man claimed the theft of his life savings of $90,000. Id., at 89. Western Vault suffered heavy losses as customers terminated their box rentals, and the company soon went out of business. The police opened other boxes in search of the missing items, and it was reported they seized $264,900 in United States currency from a box listed as unrented.
Initial press reports stated that Sanders and Western Vault were being cooperative; but as time went on, the press noted that the police investigation had failed to identify the culprit and through a process of elimination was beginning to point toward Sanders. Reports quoted the affidavit of a detective that the theft was part of an effort to discredit the undercover operation and that business records suggested the existence of a business relation between Sanders and the targets of a Metro undercover probe. Id., at 85.
The deputy police chief announced the two detectives with access to the vault had been “cleared” as possible suspects. According to an unnamed “source close to the investigation,” the police shifted from the idea that the thief had planned to discredit the undercover operation to the theory that the thief had unwittingly stolen from the police. The stories noted that Sanders “could not be reached for comment.” Id., at 93.
The story took a more sensational turn with reports that the two police suspects had been cleared by police investigators after passing lie detector tests. The tests were administered by one Ray Slaughter. But later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested Slaughter for distributing cocaine to an FBI informant, Belinda Antal. It was also reported that the $264,900 seized from the unrented safety deposit box at Western Vault had been stored there in a suitcase owned by one Tammy Sue Markham. Markham was “facing a number of federal drug-related charges” in Tucson, Arizona. Markham reported items missing from three boxes she rented at Western Vault, as did one Beatrice Connick, who, according to press reports, was a Columbian national living in San Diego and “not facing any drug related charges.” (As it turned out, petitioner impeached Connick’s credibility at trial with the existence of a money laundering conviction.) Connick also was reported to have taken and passed a lie detector test to substantiate her charges. Id., at 94-97. Finally, press reports indicated that Sanders had refused to take a police polygraph examination. Id., at 41. The press suggested that the FBI suspected Metro officers were responsible for the theft, and reported that the theft had severely damaged relations between the FBI and Metro.
B
The Press Conference. Petitioner is a Las Vegas criminal defense attorney, an author of articles about criminal law and procedure, and a former associate dean of the National College for Criminal Defense Lawyers and Public Defenders. Id., at 36-38. Through leaks from the police department, he had some advance notice of the date an indictment would be returned and the nature of the charges against Sanders. Petitioner had monitored the publicity surrounding the case, and, prior to the indictment, was personally aware of at least 17 articles in the major local newspapers, the Las Vegas Sun and Las Vegas Review-Journal, and numerous local television news stories which reported on the Western Vault theft and ensuing investigation. Id., at 38-39; see Respondent’s Exhibit A, before Disciplinary Board. Petitioner determined, for the first time in his career, that he would call a formal press conference. He did not blunder into a press conference, but acted with considerable deliberation.
1
Petitioner’s Motivation. As petitioner explained to the disciplinary board, his primary motivation was the concern that, unless some of the weaknesses in the State’s case were made public, a potential jury venire would be poisoned by repetition in the press of information being released by the police and prosecutors, in particular the repeated press reports about polygraph tests and the fact that the two police officers were no longer suspects. App. 40-42. Respondent distorts Rule 177 when it suggests this explanation admits a purpose to prejudice the venire and so proves a violation of the Rule. Rule 177 only prohibits the dissemination of information that one knows or reasonably should know has a ‘'substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” Petitioner did not indicate he thought he could sway the pool of potential jurors to form an opinion in advance of the trial, nor did he seek to discuss evidence that would be inadmissible at trial. He sought only to counter publicity already deemed prejudicial. The Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board so found. It said petitioner attempted
“(i) to counter public opinion which he perceived as adverse to Mr. Sanders, (ii)... to refute certain matters regarding his client which had appeared in the media, (iii) to fight back against the perceived efforts of the prosecution to poison the prospective juror pool, and (iv) to publicly present Sanders’ side of the case.” App. 3-4.
Far from an admission that he sought to “materially prejudice an adjudicative proceeding,” petitioner sought only to stop a wave of publicity he perceived as prejudicing potential jurors against his client and injuring his client’s reputation in the community.
Petitioner gave a second reason for holding the press conference, which demonstrates the additional value of his speech. Petitioner acted in part because the investigation had taken a serious toll on his client. Sanders was “not a man in good health,” having suffered multiple open-heart surgeries prior to these events. Id., at 41. And prior to indictment, the mere suspicion of wrongdoing had caused the closure of Western Vault and the loss of Sanders’ ground lease on an Atlantic City, New Jersey, property. Ibid.
An attorney’s duties do not begin inside the courtroom door. He or she cannot ignore the practical implications of a legal proceeding for the client. Just as an attorney may recommend a plea bargain or civil settlement to avoid the adverse consequences of a possible loss after trial, so too an attorney may take reasonable steps to defend a client’s reputation and reduce the adverse consequences of indictment, especially in the face of a prosecution deemed unjust or commenced with improper motives. A defense attorney may pursue lawful strategies to obtain dismissal of an indictment or reduction of charges, including an attempt to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not deserve to be tried.
2
Petitioner’s Investigation of Rule 177. Rule 177 is phrased in terms of what an attorney “knows or reasonably should know.” On the evening before the press conference, petitioner and two colleagues spent several hours researching the extent of an attorney’s obligations under Rule 177. He decided, as we have held, see Patton v. Yount, 467 U. S. 1025 (1984), that the timing of a statement was crucial in the assessment of possible prejudice and the Rule’s application, accord, Stroble v. California, 343 U. S. 181, 191-194 (1952). App. 44.
Upon return of the indictment, the court set a trial date for August 1988, some six months in the future. Petitioner knew, at the time of his statement, that a jury would not be empaneled for six months at the earliest, if ever. He recalled reported cases finding no prejudice resulting from juror exposure to “far worse” information two and four months before trial, and concluded that his proposed statement was not substantially likely to result in material prejudice. Ibid.
A statement which reaches the attention of the venire on the eve of voir dire might require a continuance or cause difficulties in securing an impartial jury, and at the very least could complicate the jury selection process. See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 243 (1984) (timing of statement a significant factor in determining seriousness and imminence of threat). As turned out to be the case here, exposure to the same statement six months prior to trial would not result in prejudice, the content fading from memory long before the trial date.
In 1988, Clark County, Nevada, had population in excess of 600,000 persons. Given the size of the community from which any potential jury venire would be drawn and the length of time before trial, only the most damaging of information could give rise to any likelihood of prejudice. The innocuous content of petitioner’s statements reinforces my conclusion.
3
The Content of Petitioner’s Statements. Petitioner was disciplined for statements to the effect that (1) the evidence demonstrated his client’s innocence, (2) the likely thief was a police detective, Steve Scholl, and (3) the other victims were not credible, as most were drug dealers or convicted money launderers, all but one of whom had only accused Sanders in response to police pressure, in the process of “trying to work themselves out of something.” Appendix A, infra, at 1059. App. 2-3 (Findings and Recommendation of the State Bar of Nevada, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board). He also strongly implied that Steve Scholl could be observed in a videotape suffering from symptoms of cocaine use. Of course, only a small fraction of petitioner’s remarks were disseminated to the public, in two newspaper stories and two television news broadcasts.
The stories mentioned not only Gentile’s press conference but also a prosecution response and police press conference. See App. 127-129, 131-132; Respondent’s Exhibit A, before Disciplinary Board. The chief deputy district attorney was quoted as saying that this was a legitimate indictment, and that prosecutors cannot bring an indictment to court unless they can prove the charges in it beyond a reasonable doubt. App. 128-129. Deputy Police Chief Sullivan stated for the police department: “ ‘We in Metro are very satisfied our officers (Scholl and Sgt. Ed Schaub) had nothing to do with this theft or any other. They are both above reproach. Both are veteran police officers who are dedicated to honest law enforcement.’ ” Id., at 129. In the context of general public awareness, these police and prosecution statements were no more likely to result in prejudice than were petitioner’s statements, but given the repetitive publicity from the police investigation, it is difficult to come to any conclusion but that the balance remained in favor of the prosecution.
Much of the information provided by petitioner had been published in one form or another, obviating any potential for prejudice. See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 243 (1984) (extent to which information already circulated significant factor in determining likelihood of prejudice). The remainder, and details petitioner refused to provide, were available to any journalist willing to do a little bit of investigative work.
Petitioner’s statements lack any of the more obvious bases for a finding of prejudice. Unlike the police, he refused to comment on polygraph tests except to confirm earlier reports that Sanders had not submitted to the police polygraph; he mentioned no confessions and no evidence from searches or test results; he refused to elaborate upon his charge that the other so-called victims were not credible, except to explain his general theory that they were pressured to testify in an attempt to avoid drug-related legal trouble, and that some of them may have asserted claims in an attempt to collect insurance money.
C
Events Folloioing the Press Conference. Petitioner’s judgment that no likelihood of material prejudice would result from his comments was vindicated by events at trial. While it is true that Rule 177’s standard for controlling pretrial publicity must be judged at the time a statement is made, ex post evidence can have probative value in some cases. Here, where the Rule purports to demand, and the Constitution requires, consideration of the character of the harm and its heightened likelihood of occurrence, the record is altogether devoid of facts one would expect to follow upon any statement that created a real likelihood of material prejudice to a criminal jury trial.
The trial took place on schedule in August 1988, with no request by either party for a venue change or continuance. The jury was empaneled with no apparent difficulty. The trial judge questioned the jury venire about publicity. Although many had vague recollections of reports that cocaine stored at Western Vault had been stolen from a police undercover operation, and, as petitioner had feared, one remembered that the police had been cleared of suspicion, not a single juror indicated any recollection of petitioner or his press conference. App. 48-49; Respondent’s Exhibit B, before Disciplinary Board.
At trial, all material information disseminated during petitioner’s press conference was admitted in evidence before the jury, including information questioning the motives and credibility of supposed victims who testified against Sanders, and Detective Scholl’s ingestion of drugs in the course of undercover operations (in order, he testified, to gain the confidence of suspects). App. 47. The jury acquitted petitioner’s client, and, as petitioner explained before the disciplinary board,
“when the trial was over with and the man was acquitted the next week the foreman of the jury phoned me and said to me that if they would have had a verdict form before them with respect to the guilt of Steve Scholl they would have found the man proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 47-48.
There is no support for the conclusion that petitioner’s statements created a likelihood of material prejudice, or indeed of any harm of sufficient magnitude or imminence to support a punishment for speech.
Ill
As interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court, the Rule is void for vagueness, in any event, for its safe harbor provision, Rule 177(3), misled petitioner into thinking that he could give his press conference without fear of discipline. Rule 177(3)(a) provides that a lawyer “may state without elaboration... the general nature of the... defense.” Statements under this provision are protected “[notwithstanding subsection 1 and 2 (a-f).” By necessary operation of the word “notwithstanding,” the Rule contemplates that a lawyer describing the “general nature of the... defense” “without elaboration” need fear no discipline, even if he comments on “[t]he character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a... witness,” and even if he “knows or reasonably should know that [the statement] will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.”
Given this grammatical structure, and absent any clarifying interpretation by the state court, the Rule fails to provide “‘fair notice to those to whom [it] is directed.’” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 112 (1972). A lawyer seeking to avail himself of Rule 177(3)’s protection must guess at its contours. The right to explain the “general” nature of the defense without “elaboration” provides insufficient guidance because “general” and “elaboration” are both classic terms of degree. In the context before us, these terms have no settled usage or tradition of interpretation in law. The lawyer has no principle for determining when his remarks pass from the safe harbor of the general to the forbidden sea of the elaborated.
Petitioner testified he thought his statements were protected by Rule 177(3), App. 59. A review of the press conference supports that claim. He gave only a brief opening statement, see Appendix A, infra, at 1059-1060, and on numerous occasions declined to answer reporters’ questions seeking more detailed comments. One illustrative exchange shows petitioner’s attempt to obey the rule:
“QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR: Dominick, you mention you question the credibility of some of the witnesses, some of the people named as victims in the government indictment.
“Can we go through it and elaborate on their backgrounds, interests —
“MR. GENTILE: I can’t because ethics prohibit me from doing so.
“Last night before I decided I was going to make a statement, I took a good close look at the rules of professional responsibility. There are things that I can say and there are things that I can’t. Okay?
“I can’t name which of the people have the drug backgrounds. I’m sure you guys can find that by doing just a little bit of investigative work.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 11a (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, the disciplinary board said only that petitioner’s comments “went beyond the scope of the statements permitted by SCR 177(3),” App. 5, and the Nevada Supreme Court’s rejection of petitioner’s defense based on Rule 177(3) was just as terse, App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a. The fact that Gentile was found in violation of the Rules after studying them and making a conscious effort at compliance demonstrates that Rule 177 creates a trap for the wary as well as the unwary.
The prohibition against vague regulations of speech is based in part on the need to eliminate the impermissible risk of discriminatory enforcement, Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357-358, 361 (1983); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 572-573 (1974), for history shows that speech is suppressed when either the speaker or the message is critical of those who enforce the law. The question is not whether discriminatory enforcement occurred here, and we assume it did not, but whether the Rule is so imprecise that discriminatory enforcement is a real possibility. The inquiry is of particular relevance when one of the classes most affected by the regulation is the criminal defense bar, which has the professional mission to challenge actions of the State. Petitioner, for instance, succeeded in preventing the conviction of his client, and the speech in issue involved criticism of the government.
> I — I
The analysis to this point resolves the case, and m the usual order of things the discussion should end here. Five Members of the Court, however, endorse an extended discussion which concludes that Nevada may interpret its requirement of substantial likelihood of material prejudice under a standard more deferential than is the usual rule where speech is concerned. It appears necessary, therefore, to set forth my objections to that conclusion and to the reasoning which underlies it.
Respondent argues that speech by an attorney is subject to greater regulation than speech by others, and restrictions on an attorney’s speech should be assessed under a balancing test that weighs the State’s interest in the regulation of a specialized profession against the lawyer’s First Amendment interest in the kind of speech that was at issue. The cases cited by our colleagues to support this balancing, Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977); Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm’n of Ill., 496 U. S. 91 (1990); Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447 (1978); and Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U. S. 20 (1984), involved either commercial speech by attorneys or restrictions upon release of information that the attorney could gain only by use of the court’s discovery process. Neither of those categories, nor the underlying interests which justified their creation, were implicated here. Petitioner was disciplined because he proclaimed to the community what he thought to be a misuse of the prosecutorial and police powers. Wide-open balancing of interests is not appropriate in this context.
A
Respondent would justify a substantial limitation on speech by attorneys because “lawyers have special access to information, including confidential statements from clients and information obtained through pretrial discovery or plea negotiations,” and so lawyers’ statements “are likely to be received as especially authoritative.” Brief for Respondent 22. Rule 177, however, does not reflect concern for the attorney’s special access to client confidences, material gained through discovery, or other proprietary or confidential information. We have upheld restrictions upon the release of information gained “only by virtue of the trial court’s discovery processes.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, supra, at 32. And Seattle Times would prohibit release of discovery information by the attorney as well as the client. Similar mies require an attorney to maintain client confidences. See, e. g., ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 (1981).
This case involves no speech subject to a restriction under the rationale of Seattle Times. Much of the information in petitioner’s remarks was included by explicit reference or fair inference in earlier press reports. Petitioner could not have learned what he revealed at the press conference through the discovery process or other special access afforded to attorneys, for he spoke to the press on the day of indictment, at the outset of his formal participation in the criminal proceeding. We have before us no complaint from the prosecutors, police, or presiding judge that petitioner misused information to which he had special access. And there is no claim that petitioner revealed client confidences, which may be waived in any event. Rule 177, on its face and as applied here, is neither limited to nor even directed at preventing release of information received through court proceedings or special access afforded attorneys. Cf. Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U. S., at 632-634. It goes far beyond this.
B
Respondent relies upon obiter dicta from In re Sawyer, 360 U. S. 622 (1959), Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966), and Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976), for the proposition that an attorney’s speech about ongoing-proceedings must be subject to pervasive regulation in order to ensure the impartial adjudication of criminal proceedings. In re Sawyer involved general comments about Smith Act prosecutions rather than the particular proceeding in which the attorney was involved, conduct which we held not sanctionable under the applicable ABA Canon of Professional Ethics, quite apart from any
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to consider the constitutionality under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of instructing a capital sentencing jury regarding the Governor’s power to commute a sentence of life without possibility of parole. Finding no constitutional defect in the instruction, we reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of California and remand for further proceedings.
I
On the night of June 2, 1979, respondent Marcelino Ramos participated in the robbery of a fast-food restaurant where he was employed as a janitor. As respondent’s codefendant placed a food order, respondent entered the restaurant, went behind the front counter into the work area ostensibly for the purpose of checking his work schedule, and emerged with a gun. Respondent directed the two employees working that night into the restaurant’s walk-in refrigerator and ordered them to face the back wall. Respondent entered and emerged from the refrigerator several times, inquiring at one point about the keys to the restaurant safe. When he entered for the last time, he instructed the two employees to kneel on the floor of the refrigerator, to remove their hats, and to pray. Respondent struck both on the head and then shot them, wounding one and killing the other.
Respondent was charged with robbery, attempted murder, and first-degree murder. Defense counsel presented no evidence at the guilt phase of respondent’s trial, and the jury returned a verdict of guilt on all counts. Under California law, first-degree murder is punishable by death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole where an alleged “special circumstance” is found true by the jury at the guilt phase. At the separate penalty phase, respondent presented extensive evidence in an attempt to mitigate punishment. In addition to requiring jury instructions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, California law requires that the trial judge inform the jury that a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may be commuted by the Governor to a sentence that includes the possibility of parole. At the penalty phase of respondent’s trial, the judge delivered the following instruction:
“You are instructed that under the State Constitution a Governor is empowered to grant a reprieve, pardon, or commutation of a sentence following conviction of a crime.
“Under this power a Governor may in the future commute or modify a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole to a lesser sentence that would include the possibility of parole.” Tr. 1189-1190.
The jury returned a verdict of death.
On appeal the Supreme Court of California affirmed respondent’s conviction but reversed the death sentence, concluding that the Briggs Instruction required by Cal. Penal Code Ann. §190.3 (West Supp. 1983) violated the Federal Constitution. 30 Cal. 3d 553, 639 P. 2d 908 (1982). The court found two constitutional flaws in the instruction. First, it invites the jury to consider factors that are foreign to its task of deciding whether the defendant should live or die. According to the State Supreme Court, instead of assuring that this decision rests on “consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense,” Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 304 (1976), the instruction focuses the jury’s attention on the Governor’s power to render the defendant eligible for parole if the jury does not vote to execute him and injects an entirely speculative element into the capital sentencing determination. Second, the court concluded that because the instruction does not also inform the jury that the Governor possesses the power to commute a death sentence, it leaves the jury with the mistaken belief that the only way to keep the defendant off the streets is to condemn him to death. Accordingly, the court remanded for a new penalty phase.
We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 821 (1982), and now reverse and remand.
II
In challenging the constitutionality of the Briggs Instruction, respondent presses upon us the two central arguments advanced by the Supreme Court of California in its decision. He contends (1) that a capital sentencing jury may not constitutionally consider possible commutation, and (2) that the Briggs Instruction unconstitutionally misleads the jury by selectively informing it of the Governor’s power to commute one of its sentencing choices but not the other. Respondent’s first argument raises two related, but distinct concerns— viz., that the power of commutation is so speculative a factor that it injects an unacceptable level of unreliability into the capital sentencing determination, and that consideration of this factor deflects the jury from its constitutionally mandated task of basing the penalty decision on the character of the defendant and the nature of the offense. We address these points in Parts II-B and II-C, infra, and respondent’s second argument in Part III, infra. Before turning to the specific contentions of respondent’s first argument, however, we examine the general principles that have guided this Court’s pronouncements regarding the proper range of considerations for the sentencer in a capital case.
A
The Court, as well as the separate opinions of a majority of the individual Justices, has recognized that the qualitative difference of death from all other punishments requires a correspondingly greater degree of scrutiny of the capital sentencing determination. 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. In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), and its companion cases, the Court reviewed the capital sentencing schemes of five States to determine whether those schemes had cured the constitutional defects identified in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). In Gregg itself, the joint opinion of Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens concluded that the Georgia sentencing scheme met the concerns of Furman by providing a bifurcated proceeding, instruction on the factors to be considered, and meaningful appellate review of each death sentence. 428 U. S., at 189-195. Satisfied that these procedural safeguards “suitably directed and limited” the jury’s discretion “so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action,” id., at 189, the joint opinion did not undertake to dictate to the State the particular substantive factors that should be deemed relevant to the capital sentencing decision. Indeed, the joint opinion observed: “It seems clear that the problem [of channeling jury discretion] will be alleviated if the jury is given guidance regarding the factors about the crime and the defendant that the State, representing organized society, deems particularly relevant to the sentencing decision.” Id., at 192 (emphasis added). See also id., at 176 (“The deference we owe to the decisions of the state legislatures under our federal system... is enhanced where the specification of punishments is concerned, for ‘these are peculiarly questions of legislative policy’”).
It would be erroneous to suggest, however, that the Court has imposed no substantive limitations on the particular factors that a capital sentencing jury may consider in determining whether death is appropriate. In Gregg itself the joint opinion suggested that excessively vague sentencing standards might lead to the arbitrary and capricious sentencing patterns condemned in Furman. 428 U. S., at 195, n. 46. Moreover, in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976), the plurality concluded that a State must structure its capital sentencing procedure to permit consideration of the individual characteristics of the offender and his crime. This principle of individualization was extended in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), where the plurality determined that “the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer [in a capital case] not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Id., at 604 (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted). Finally, in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977), a plurality of the Court held that a death sentence may not be imposed on the basis of a presentence investigation report containing information that the defendant has had no opportunity to explain or deny.
Beyond these limitations, as noted above, the Court has deferred to the State’s choice of substantive factors relevant to the penalty determination. In our view, the Briggs Instruction does not run afoul of any of these constraints.
B
Addressing respondent’s specific arguments, we find unpersuasive the suggestion that the possible commutation of a life sentence must be held constitutionally irrelevant to the sentencing decision and that it is too speculative an element for the jury’s consideration. On this point, we find Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976), controlling.
The Texas capital sentencing system upheld in Jurek limits capital homicides to intentional and knowing murders committed in five situations. Id., at 268. Once the jury finds the defendant guilty of one of these five categories of murder, the jury must answer three statutory questions. If the jury concludes that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each question is answered in the affirmative, then the death sentence is imposed. In approving this statutory scheme, the joint opinion in Jurek rejected the contention that the second statutory question — requiring consideration of the defendant’s future dangerousness — was unconstitutionally vague because it involved prediction of human behavior.
“It is, of course, not easy to predict future behavior. The fact that such a determination is difficult, however, does not mean that it cannot be made. Indeed, prediction of future criminal conduct is an essential element in many of the decisions rendered throughout our criminal justice system.... And any sentencing authority must predict a convicted person’s probable future conduct when it engages in the process of determining what punishment to impose. For those sentenced to prison, these same predictions must be made by parole authorities. The task that a Texas jury must perform in answering the statutory question in issue is thus basically no different from the task performed countless times each day throughout the American system of criminal justice. What is essential is that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine. Texas law clearly assures that all such evidence will be adduced.” Id., at 274-276 (footnotes omitted).
By bringing to the jury’s attention the possibility that the defendant may be returned to society, the Briggs Instruction invites the jury to assess whether the defendant is someone whose probable future behavior makes it undesirable that he be permitted to return to society. Like the challenged factor in Texas’ statutory scheme, then, the Briggs Instruction focuses the jury on the defendant’s probable future dangerousness. The approval in Jurek of explicit consideration of this factor in the capital sentencing decision defeats respondent’s contention that, because of the speculativeness involved, the State of California may not constitutionally permit consideration of commutation.
Nor is there any diminution in the reliability of the sentencing decision of the kind condemned in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977). In Gardner, the Court reversed a death sentence that had been imposed in part on the basis of a confidential portion of a presentence investigation report that had not been disclosed to either the defendant or his counsel. Because of the potential that the sentencer might have rested its decision in part on erroneous or inaccurate information that the defendant had no opportunity to explain or deny, the need for reliability in capital sentencing dictated that the death penalty be reversed. Gardner provides no support for respondent. The Briggs Instruction gives the jury accurate information of which both the defendant and his counsel are aware, and it does not preclude the defendant from offering any evidence or argument regarding the Governor’s power to commute a life sentence.
c
Closely related to, yet distinct from, respondent’s specula-tiveness argument, is the contention that the Briggs Instruction is constitutionally infirm because it deflects the jury’s focus from its central task. Respondent argues that the commutation instruction diverts the jury from undertaking the kind of individualized sentencing determination that, under Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S., at 304, is “a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death.”
As we have already noted, supra, at 1003, as a functional matter the Briggs Instruction focuses the jury’s attention on whether this particular defendant is one whose possible return to society is desirable. In this sense, then, the jury’s deliberation is individualized. The instruction invites the jury to predict not so much what some future Governor might do, but more what the defendant himself might do if released into society.
Any contention that injecting this factor into the jury’s deliberations constitutes a departure from the kind of individualized focus required in capital sentencing decisions was implicitly rejected by the decision in Jurek. Indeed, after noting that consideration of the defendant’s future dangerousness was an inquiry common throughout the criminal justice system, the joint opinion of Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens observed: “What is essential is that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine. Texas law clearly assures that all such evidence will be adduced.” 428 U. S., at 276. As with the Texas scheme, the California sentencing system ensures that the jury will have before it information regarding the individual characteristics of the defendant and his offense, including the nature and circumstances of the crime and the defendant’s character, background, history, mental condition, and physical condition. Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 (West Supp. 1983).
Respondent also relies on Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980), as support for his contention that the Briggs Instruction undermines the jury’s responsibility to make an individualized sentencing determination. In Beck the Court held that the jury in a capital case must be permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a noncapital offense where the evidence would support such a verdict. In disapproving the Alabama statute that precluded giving a lesser included offense charge in capital cases, the Court concluded that the chief flaw of the statute “is that it interjects irrelevant considerations into the factfinding process, diverting the jury’s attention from the central issue of whether the State has satisfied its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a capital crime.” Id., at 642. The failure to give a lesser included offense instruction “diverted” the jury in two ways: a jury might convict a defendant of a capital offense because of its belief that he is guilty of some crime, or, given the mandatory nature of the death penalty under Alabama law, the jury might acquit because it does not think that the defendant’s crime warrants death. Id., at 642-643. According to the respondent, the Briggs Instruction, like the removal of the lesser included offense option in Beck, predisposes the jury to act without regard to whether the death penalty is called for on the facts before it.
We are unconvinced that the Briggs Instruction constrains the jury’s sentencing choice in the manner condemned in Beck. Restricting the jury in Beck to the two sentencing alternatives — conviction of a capital offense or acquittal — in essence placed artificial alternatives before the jury. The unavailability of the “third option” thereby created the risk of an unwarranted conviction. By contrast, the Briggs Instruction does not limit the jury to two sentencing choices, neither of which may be appropriate. Instead, it places before the jury an additional element to be considered, along with many other factors, in determining which sentence is appropriate under the circumstances of the defendant’s case.
More to the point, however, is the fundamental difference between the nature of the guilt/innocence determination at issue in Beck and the nature of the life/death choice at the penalty phase. As noted above, the Court in Beck identified the chief vice of Alabama’s failure to provide a lesser included offense option as deflecting the jury’s attention from “the central issue of whether the State has satisfied its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a capital crime.” Id., at 642 (emphasis added). In returning a conviction, the jury must satisfy itself that the necessary elements of the particular crime have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In fixing a penalty, however, there is no similar “central issue” from which the jury’s attention may be diverted. Once the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, as did respondent’s jury in determining the truth of the alleged special circumstance, the jury then is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment. In this sense, the jury’s choice between life and death must be individualized. “But the Constitution does not require the jury to ignore other possible... factors in the process of selecting... those defendants who will actually be sentenced to death.” Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 878 (1983) (footnote omitted). As we have noted, the essential effect of the Briggs Instruction is to inject into the sentencing calculus a consideration akin to the aggravating factor of future dangerousness in the Texas scheme. See supra, at 1003. This element “is simply one of the countless considerations weighed by the jury in seeking to judge the punishment appropriate to the individual defendant.” 462 U. S., at 900 (REHNQUIST, J., concurring in judgment).
In short, the concern of Beck regarding the risk of an unwarranted conviction is simply not directly translatable to the deliberative process in which the capital jury engages in determining the appropriate penalty, where there is no single determinative issue apart from the general concern that the penalty be tailored to the individual defendant and the offense.
Finally, we emphasize that informing the jury of the Governor’s power to commute a sentence of life without possibility of parole was merely an accurate statement of a potential sentencing alternative. To describe the sentence as “life imprisonment without possibility of parole” is simply inaccurate when, under state law, the Governor possesses authority to commute that sentence to a lesser sentence that includes the possibility of parole. The Briggs Instruction thus corrects a misconception and supplies the jury with accurate information for its deliberation in selecting an appropriate sentence. See also n. 18, supra.
Having concluded that a capital sentencing jury’s consideration of the Governor’s power to commute a life sentence is not prohibited by the Federal Constitution, we now address respondent’s contention that the Briggs Instruction must be held unconstitutional because it fails to inform jurors also that a death sentence may be commuted. In essence, respondent complains that the Briggs Instruction creates the misleading impression that the jury can prevent the defendant’s return to society only by imposing the death sentence, thus biasing the jury in favor of death. Respondent therefore concludes that “[i]f... commutation is a factor properly to be considered by the jury, then basic principles of fairness require that full disclosure be made with respect to commutation.” Brief for Respondent 35-36.
Thus, according to respondent, if the Federal Constitution permits the jury to consider possible commutation of a life sentence, the Federal Constitution requires that the jury also be instructed that a death sentence may be commuted. We find respondent’s argument puzzling. If, as we must assume, respondent’s principal objection is that the impact of the Briggs Instruction is to skew the jury toward imposing death, we fail to see how an instruction on the Governor’s power to commute death sentences as well as life sentences restores the situation to one of “neutrality.” Although such an instruction would be “neutral” in the sense of giving the jury complete and factually accurate information about the commutation power, it would not “balance” the impact of the Briggs Instruction, even assuming, arguendo, that the current instruction has any impermissible skewing effect. Disclosure of the complete nature of the commutation power would not eliminate any skewing in favor of death or increase the reliability of the sentencing choice. A jury concerned about preventing the defendant’s potential return to society will not be any less inclined to vote for the death penalty upon learning that even a death sentence may not have such an effect. In fact, advising jurors that a death verdict is theoretically modifiable, and thus not “final,” may incline them to approach their sentencing decision with less appreciation for the gravity of their choice and for the moral responsibility reposed in them as sentencers.
In short, an instruction disclosing the Governor’s power to commute a death sentence may operate to the defendant’s distinct disadvantage. It is precisely this perception that the defendant is prejudiced by an instruction on the possible commutation of a death sentence that led the California Supreme Court in People v. Morse, 60 Cal. 2d 631, 388 P. 2d 33 (1964), to prohibit the giving of such an instruction. Thus, state law at the time of respondent Ramos’ trial precluded the giving of the “other half” of the commutation instruction that respondent now argues is constitutionally required.
Moreover, we are not convinced by respondent’s argument that the Briggs Instruction alone impermissibly impels the jury toward voting for the death sentence. Any aggravating factor presented by the prosecution has this impact. As we concluded in Part II, supra, the State is constitutionally entitled to permit juror consideration of the Governor’s power to commute a life sentence. This information is relevant and factually accurate and was properly before the jury. Moreover, the trial judge’s instructions “did not place particular emphasis on the role of [this factor] in the jury’s ultimate decision.” Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S., at 889; cf. id., at 888-891.
<1
In sum, the Briggs Instruction does not violate any of the substantive limitations this Court’s precedents have imposed on the capital sentencing process. It does not preclude individualized sentencing determinations or consideration of mitigating factors, nor does it impermissibly inject an element too speculative for the jury’s deliberation. Finally, its failure to inform the jury also of the Governor’s power to commute a death sentence does not render it constitutionally infirm. Therefore, we defer to the State’s identification of the Governor’s power to commute a life sentence as a substantive factor to be presented for the sentencing jury’s consideration.
Our conclusion is not intended to override the contrary judgment of state legislatures that capital sentencing juries in their States should not be permitted to consider the Governor’s power to commute a sentence. It is elementary that States are free to provide greater protections in their criminal justice system than the Federal Constitution requires. We sit as judges, not as legislators, and the wisdom of the decision to permit juror consideration of possible commutation is best left to the States. We hold only that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not prohibit such an instruction.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.2 (West Supp. 1983). The alleged special circumstance found true in respondent’s case was commission of the murder during the course of a robbery. § 190.2(a)(17)(i).
Respondent offered evidence to show, inter alia, that his adoptive parents had died while he was young, that he then came under the bad influence of his codefendant, that respondent had mild congenital brain damage, a low intelligence quotient, and borderline schizophrenia, that he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the time of the offenses, and that he intended only to “graze” the victims when he shot them.
The jury “shall impose a sentence of death if [it] concludes that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances” and “shall impose” a sentence of life without possibility of parole if the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 (West Supp. 1983).
Ibid. This instruction, referred to hereinafter as the “Briggs Instruction,” was incorporated into the California Penal Code as a result of a 1978 voter initiative popularly known as the Briggs Initiative.
The trial judge gave the instruction over the objection of respondent on the ground that the instruction was mandated by legislation. Tr. 718.
In dissent Justice Richardson concluded that the Briggs Instruction was harmless and nonprejudicial because it merely informs jurors of information that is a matter of common knowledge. Further, the instruction is relevant because the issue of parole is injected into the sentencing process by one of the alternative punishments the jury must consider: life imprisonment without possibility of parole. In addition, the dissent concluded that the instruction’s failure also to inform the jury of the Governor’s power to commute a death sentence did not render it constitutionally infirm. In People v. Morse, 60 Cal. 2d 631, 388 P. 2d 33 (1964), the court had held, on the basis of its supervisory powers, that jurors should not be instructed that a death sentence could be commuted because it reduced the jury’s sense of responsibility in imposing a capital sentence. Therefore, the Briggs Instruction should not be struck down because it fails to require an instruction of the type condemned in Morse.
The Supreme Court of California also concluded that certain testimony by the defense psychiatrist was inadmissible as a matter of state evidence law. Over defense objection, at the penalty phase the prosecutor had been allowed to elicit on cross-examination of the psychiatrist that respondent was aware of the Governor’s power to commute a life sentence without parole to a lesser sentence that included the possibility of parole. According to the psychiatrist, respondent had indicated that, were he to be released on parole after 10 or 20 years in prison, “he would probably have built up within himself such feelings of anger and frustration that he would attempt to take revenge on anyone involved in the trial, including the district attorney who prosecuted the case, the judge who presided over it, and the jurors who voted to convict him.” 30 Cal. 3d 553, 598, 639 P. 2d 908, 934 (1982) (footnote omitted). The State Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting this testimony because the prejudice created by admission of the testimony outweighed its probative value. See Cal. Evid. Code Ann. § 352 (West 1966).
Respondent argues that this Court should not reach the constitutional issues raised by the State because the above ruling represents a possible adequate and independent state ground for the State Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the death sentence. We find no bar to reaching the federal questions. The State Supreme Court quite clearly rested its reversal of the death sentence solely on the Federal Constitution. 30 Cal. 3d, at 562, 600, 639 P. 2d, at 912, 936. Moreover, with respect to its ruling on the evidentiary question, the court did not determine whether this error warranted reversal of the death penalty. It held only that the testimony “should not be admitted if the penalty phase is retried.” Id., at 598, n. 22, 639 P. 2d at 934, n. 22. Therefore, the adequacy of this ruling to support reversal of the sentence was not addressed by the state court. See Michigan v. Long, post, p. 1032. Of course, on remand from this Court, the state court is free to determine whether as a matter of state law this evi-dentiary error is a sufficient basis for reversing the death sentence.
In addition, the Supreme Court of California expressly declined to decide whether the Briggs Instruction independently violates any provisions of the State Constitution. 30 Cal. 3d, at 600, n. 24, 639 P. 2d, at 936, n. 24. As with the evidentiary issue, of course, the state court may address this question on remand.
The Supreme Court of California construed the Briggs Instruction as inviting capital sentencing juries to consider the commutation power in its sentencing determination. See id., at 599-600, 639 P. 2d, at 935-936. We view the statute accordingly.
See Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 117-118 (1982) (O’Connor, J., concurring); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625, 637-638 (1980) (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun, and Powell, JJ.); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978) (opinion of Burger, C. J., joined by Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349, 357-358 (1977) (opinion of STEVENS, J., joined by Stewart, and Powell, JJ.); id., at 363-364 (White, J., concurring in judgment); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 305 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976); Woodson v. North Carolina, supra (plurality opinion); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U. S. 325 (1976) (plurality opinion).
Moreover, in approving the sentencing schemes of Georgia, Florida, and Texas, the joint opinions of Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens did not substitute their views for those of the state legislatures as to the particular substantive factors chosen to narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. For example, under the Georgia scheme examined in Gregg, at least 1 of 10 specified aggravating circumstances must be found beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury may consider whether death is the appropriate punishment for the individual defendant. 428 U. S., at 164-165. By contrast, under the Texas scheme approved in Júrele v. Texas, supra, the State attempted to limit the category of defendants upon whom the death sentence may be imposed by narrowing capital homicides to intentional and knowing murders committed in five particular situations. See id., at 268. In upholding the Texas scheme, the joint opinion observed: “While Texas has not adopted a list of statutory aggravating circumstances the existence of which can justify the imposition of the death penalty as have Georgia and Florida, its action in narrowing the categories of murders for which a death sentence may ever be imposed serves much the same purpose.” Id., at 270.
Cf. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980) (reversing death sentence that rested on unconstitutionally broad and vague construction of an aggravating circumstance).
“[W]e believe that in capital cases the fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment... requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death.” Woodson, supra, at 304. See also Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 189 (quoting Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U. S. 51, 55 (1937)).
See also Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 879 (1983); id., at 900 (Rehn-QUIST, J., concurring in judgment); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 798 (1982); id., at 827-828 (O’Connor, J., dissenting); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S., at 110-112; id., at 118 (O’Connor, J., concurring); id., at 121-122 (Burger, C. J., dissenting).
See also 30 Cal. 3d, at 596, 639 P. 2d, at 933 (“[The Briggs Instruction] injects into the sentencing calculus an entirely irrelevant factor...”); id., at 600, 639 P. 2d, at 935.
The questions are:
“ ‘(1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result;
“ ‘(2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and
“ ‘(3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.’ Art. 37.071(b) (Supp. 1975-1976).” 428 U. S., at 269.
This analogy between the matters raised in the jurors’ minds by the Briggs Instruction and the Texas statutory factor of the defendant’s future dangerousness is no “intellectual sleight of hand.” Post, at 1029 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). To avoid this analogy is to ignore the process of thought that the Briggs Instruction inevitably engenders in the jury’s deliberations. To be sure, the Briggs Instruction by its terms may incline their thoughts to the probability that the current or some future Governor might commute the defendant’s sentence. Nevertheless, whatever the jurors’ thoughts on this probability alone, the inextricably linked thought is whether it is desirable that this defendant be released into society. In evaluating this question, the jury will consider the defendant’s potential for reform and whether his probable future behavior counsels against the desirability of his release into society.
See also ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 18-2.5(c)(i) (2d ed. 1980) (giving as example of legitimate reason for selecting total confinement fact that “[confinement is necessary in order to protect the public from further serious criminal activity by the defendant”).
We also observe that, with respect to the relevance of the information conveyed by the Briggs Instruction, the issue of parole or commutation is presented by the language used to describe one of the jury’s sentencing choices — i. e., life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The State of California reasonably could have concluded that, while jurors are generally aware of the Governor’s power to commute a death sentence, most jurors would not be aware that the Governor also may commute a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole and that they should be so informed to avoid any possible misconception conveyed by the description of the sentencing alternative.
In dissent Justice Marshall argues that if a balanced instruction cannot or should not be given, “the solution is not to permit a misleading instruction, but to prohibit altogether any instruction concerning commutation.” Post, at 1017-1018. This observation is incorrect for at least two reasons. First, as discussed below, see n. 27, infra, we do not suggest that there would be any federal constitutional infirmity in giving an instruction concerning the Governor’s power to commute the death sentence. We note only that such comment is prohibited under state law. Second, the Briggs Instruction simply is not misleading. On the contrary, the instruction gives the jury accurate information in that it corrects a misleading description of a sentencing choice available to the jury. Although, as Justice Richardson noted below, 30 Cal. 3d, at 605, 639 P. 2d, at 938, most jurors may have a general awareness of the availability of commutation and parole, the statutory description of one of the sentencing choices as “life imprisonment without possibility of parole” may generate the misleading impression that the Governor could not commute this sentence to one that included the possibility of parole. The Briggs Instruction merely dispels that possible misunderstanding. Further, the defendant may offer evidence or argument regarding the commutation power, and respondent’s counsel addressed the possibility of the Governor’s commutation of a life sentence in his closing argument. Tr. 1161-1162. The Briggs Instruction thereby accomplishes the same result that would occur if,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Wisconsin courts have made the bad-faith handling of an insurance claim a tort under state law. Those courts have gone further and have applied this tort to the handling of a claim under a disability plan included in a collective-bargaining agreement. The question before us is whether, in the latter case, the state tort claim is pre-empted by the national labor laws.
I
A
Respondent Roderick S. Lueck began working for petitioner Allis-Chalmers Corporation in February 1975. He is a member of Local 248 of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Allis-Chalmers and Local 248 are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement. The agreement incorporates by reference a separately negotiated group health and disability plan fully fimded by Allis-Chalmers but administered by Aetna Life & Casualty Company. The plan provides that disability benefits are available for nonoccupational illness and injury to all employees, such as petitioner, who are represented by the union.
The collective-bargaining agreement also establishes a four-step grievance procedure for an employee’s contract grievance. This procedure culminates in final and binding arbitration if the union chooses to pursue the grievance that far. App. 18-29. A separate letter of understanding that binds the parties creates a special three-part grievance procedure for disability grievances. Id., at 43-44. The letter establishes a Joint Plant Insurance Committee composed of two representatives designated by the union and two designated by the employer. Id., at 43. The Committee has the authority to resolve all disputes involving “any insurance-related issues that may arise from provisions of the [Collective-Bargaining] Agreement.” Ibid. An employee having an insurance-related complaint is to address it first to the Supervisor of Employee Relations. If the complaint is rejected or otherwise remains unresolved, the employee then may bring the dispute before the Insurance Committee. If the Committee does not resolve the matter, the employee may bring it to arbitration in the manner established under the collective-bargaining agreement. As indicated, that agreement permits the union or the employer to request that a grievance be submitted to final and binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator agreed upon by the parties.
In July 1981, respondent Lueck suffered a nonoccupational back injury while carrying a pig to a friend’s house for a pig roast. He notified Allis-Chalmers of his injury, as required by the claims-proeessing procedure, and subsequently filed a disability claim with Aetna, also in accordance with the established procedure. After evaluating physicians’ reports submitted by Lueck, Aetna approved the claim. Lueck began to receive disability benefits effective from July 20, 1981, the day he filed his claim with Aetna.
According to Lueck, however, Allis-Chalmers periodically would order Aetna to cut off his payments, either without reason, or because he failed to appear for a doctor’s appointment, or because he required hospitalization for unrelated reasons. After each termination, Lueck would question the action or supply additional information, and the benefits would be restored. In addition, according to Lueck, Allis-Chalmers repeatedly requested that he be reexamined by different doctors, so that Lueck believed that he was being harassed. All of Lueck’s claims were eventually paid, although, allegedly, not until he began this litigation.
B
Lueck never attempted to grieve his dispute concerning the manner in which his disability claim was handled by Allis-Chalmers and Aetna. Instead, on January 18, 1982, he filed suit against both of them in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wis., alleging that they “intentionally, contemptuously, and repeatedly failed” to make disability payments under the negotiated disability plan, without a reasonable basis for withholding the payments. App. 4. This breached their duty “to act in good faith and deal fairly with [Lueck’s] disability claims.” Id., at 3. Lueck alleged that as a result of these bad-faith actions he incurred debts, emotional distress, physical impairment, and pain and suffering. He sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Id., at 4.
Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of Allis-Chalmers and Aetna. The court held that Lueck stated a claim under §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185(a), and that, in the alternative, if his claim “were deemed to arise under state law instead of Section 301,” it was “preempted by federal labor law.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 26-27. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in a decision “[n]ot recommended for publication in the official reports,” id., at 25, affirmed the judgment in favor of Aetna on the ground that it owed no fiduciary duty to deal in good faith with Lueck’s claim. The court agreed with the Circuit Court that federal law pre-empted the claim against Allis-Chalmers.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, with one justice dissenting, reversed. Lueck v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 116 Wis. 2d 559, 342 N. W. 2d 699 (1984). The court held, first, that the suit did not arise under § 301 of the LMRA, and therefore was not subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust the arbitration procedures established in the collective-bargaining agreement. The court reasoned that a § 301 suit arose out of a violation of a labor contract, and that the claim here was a tort claim of bad faith. Under Wisconsin law, the tort of bad faith is distinguishable from a bad-faith breach-of-contract claim: though a breach of duty exists as a consequence of the relationship established by contract, it is independent of that contract. Therefore, it said, the violation of the labor contract was “irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendants exercised bad faith in the manner in which they handled Lueck’s claim.” Id., at 566, 342 N. W. 2d, at 703. The action, thus, was not a § 301 suit.
The court went on to address the question whether the state-law claims nevertheless were pre-empted by §§ 8(a)(5) and (d) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158(a)(5) and (d). Applying the standard for determining NLRA pre-emption as enunciated in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 244-245 (1959), and Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290, 296-297 (1977), the court determined that the claims were not pre-empted. It found that the administration of disability-claim procedures under a collective-bargaining agreement is a matter only of peripheral concern to federal labor law, since payment of a disability claim is not a central aspect of labor relations. On the other hand, the court observed, the bad-faith insurance tort is of substantial significance to the State of Wisconsin, which has assumed a longstanding responsibility for assuring the prompt payment of disability claims. Permitting the state action to proceed would not have an adverse impact on the effective administration of national labor policy, since the courts will make no determination as to whether the labor agreement has been breached.
Finally, the court found that Aetna could be liable to Lueck for bad-faith administration of his disability claim since it was an agent of Allis-Chalmers for the purpose of administering claims. It thus reversed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded the case for a determination whether Aetna played any role in the processing of Lueck’s disability claim. Aetna has not sought review of that part of the judgment. We granted certiorari, 469 U. S. 815 (1984), to determine whether § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempts a state-law tort action for bad-faith delay in making disability-benefit payments due under a collective-bargaining agreement.
II
Congress’ power to pre-empt state law is derived from the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824). Congressional power to legislate in the area of labor relations, of course, is long established. See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1 (1937). Congress, however, has never exercised authority to occupy the entire field in the area of labor legislation. Thus the question whether a certain state action is pre-empted by federal law is one of congressional intent. “‘The purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone.’” Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S. 497, 504 (1978), quoting Retail Clerks v. Schermerhom, 375 U. S. 96, 103 (1963).
Congress did not state explicitly whether and to what extent it intended § 301 of the LMRA to pre-empt state law. In such instances courts sustain a local regulation “unless it conflicts with federal law or would frustrate the federal scheme, or unless the courts discern from the totality of the circumstances that Congress sought to occupy the field to the exclusion of the States.” Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S., at 504. The question posed here is whether this particular Wisconsin tort, as applied, would frustrate the federal labor-contract scheme established in § 301.
III
A
Section 301 of the LMRA states:
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce... may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties....” 29 U. S. C. § 185(a).
In Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), the Court ruled that § 301 expresses a federal policy that the substantive law to apply in § 301 cases “is federal law, which the courts must fashion from the policy of our national labor laws.” Id., at 456. That seminal case understood §301 as a congressional mandate to the federal courts to fashion a body of federal common law to be used to address disputes arising out of labor contracts.
The pre-emptive effect of § 301 was first analyzed in Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 103 (1962), where the Court stated that the “dimensions of § 301 require the conclusion that substantive principles of federal labor law must be paramount in the area covered by the statute [so that] issues raised in suits of a kind covered by § 301 [are] to be decided according to the precepts of federal labor policy. ” The Court concluded that “in enacting §301 Congress intended doctrines of federal labor law uniformly to prevail over inconsistent local rules.” Id., at 104.
The Lucas Flour Court specified why the meaning given to terms in collective-bargaining agreements must be determined by federal law:
“[T]he subject matter of § 301(a) ‘is peculiarly one that calls for uniform law.’... The possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon both the negotiation and administration of collective agreements. Because neither party could be certain of the rights which it had obtained or conceded, the process of negotiating an agreement would be made immeasurably more difficult by the necessity of trying to formulate contract provisions in such a way as to contain the same meaning under two or more systems of law which might someday be invoked in enforcing the contract. Once the collective bargain was made, the possibility of conflicting substantive interpretation under competing legal systems would tend to stimulate and prolong disputes as to its interpretation... [and] might substantially impede the parties’ willingness to agree to contract terms providing for final arbitral or judicial resolution of disputes.” Id., at 103-104 (footnote omitted).
For those reasons the Court in Lucas Flour held that a suit in state court alleging a violation of a provision of a labor contract must be brought under §301 and be resolved by reference to federal law. A state rule that purports to define the meaning or scope of a term in a contract suit therefore is pre-empted by federal labor law.
B
If the policies that animate §301 are to be given their proper range, however, the pre-emptive effect of § 301 must extend beyond suits alleging contract violations. These policies require that “the relationships created by [a collective-bargaining] agreement” be defined by application of “an evolving federal common law grounded in national labor policy.” Bowen v. United States Postal Service, 459 U. S. 212, 224-225 (1983). The interests in interpretive uniformity and predictability that require that labor-contract disputes be resolved by reference to federal law also require that the meaning given a contract phrase or term be subject to uniform federal interpretation. Thus, questions relating to what the parties to a labor agreement agreed, and what legal consequences were intended to flow from breaches of that agreement, must be resolved by reference to uniform federal law, whether such questions arise in the context of a suit for breach of contract or in a suit alleging liability in tort. Any other result would elevate form over substance and allow parties to evade the requirements of §301 by relabeling their contract claims as claims for tortious breach of contract.
Were state law allowed to determine the meaning intended by the parties in adopting a particular contract phrase or term, all the evils addressed in Lucas Flour would recur. The parties would be uncertain as to what they were binding themselves to when they agreed to create a right to collect benefits under certain circumstances. As a result, it would be more difficult to reach agreement, and disputes as to the nature of the agreement would proliferate. Exclusion of such claims “from the ambit of §301 would stultify the congressional policy of having the administration of collective bargaining contracts accomplished under a uniform body of federal substantive law.” Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195, 200 (1962).
Of course, not every dispute concerning employment, or tangentially involving a provision of a collective-bargaining agreement, is pre-empted by §301 or other provisions of the federal labor law. Section 301 on its face says nothing about the substance of what private parties may agree to in a labor contract. Nor is there any suggestion that Congress, in adopting § 301, wished to give the substantive provisions of private agreements the force of federal law, ousting any inconsistent state regulation. Such a rule of law would delegate to unions and unionized employers the power to exempt themselves from whatever state labor standards they disfavored. Clearly, §301 does, riot grant the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement the ability to contract for what is illegal under state law. In extending the preemptive effect of § 301 beyond suits for breach of contract, it would be inconsistent with congressional intent under that section to pre-empt state rules that proscribe conduct, or establish rights and obligations, independent of a labor contract.'
Therefore, state-law rights and obligations that do not exist independently of private agreements, and that as a result can be waived or altered by agreement of private parties, are pre-empted by those agreements. Cf. Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S., at 504-505 (NLRA preemption). Our analysis must focus, then, on whether the Wisconsin tort action for breach of the duty of good faith as applied here confers nonnegotiable state-law rights on employers or employees independent of any right established by contract, or, instead, whether evaluation of the tort claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract. If the state tort law purports to define the meaning of the contract relationship, that law is pre-empted.
IV
A
The Wisconsin Supreme Court asserted that the tort claim is independent of any contract claim. While the nature of the state tort is a matter of state law, the question whether the Wisconsin tort is sufficiently independent of federal contract interpretation to avoid pre-emption is, of course, a question of federal law. Though the Wisconsin court held that the “specific violation of the labor contract, if there was one, is irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendants exercised bad faith in the manner in which they handled Lueck’s claim,” 116 Wis. 2d, at 566, 342 N. W. 2d, at 703, upon analysis it appears that the court based this statement not solely on its unassailable understanding of the state tort, but also on assumptions about the scope of the contract provision which it had no authority to make under state law.
The Wisconsin court attempted to demonstrate, by a proffered example, the way in which a bad-faith tort claim could be unrelated to any contract claim. It noted that an insurer ultimately could pay a claim as required under a contract, but still cause injury through “unreasonably delaying payment” of the claim. Id., at 574, 342 N. W. 2d, at 707. In such a situation, the court reasoned, the state tort claim would be adjudicated without reaching questions of contract interpretation. Ibid. The court evidently assumed that the only obligations the parties assumed by contract are those expressly recited in the agreement, in this case the right to receive benefit payments for nonoccupational injuries. Thus, the court reasoned, the good-faith behavior mandated in the labor agreement was independent of the good-faith behavior required by state insurance law because “[g]ood faith in the labor agreement context means [only] that parties must abide by the specific terms of the labor agreement.” Id., at 569, 342 N. W. 2d, at 704.
If this is all there is to the independence of the state tort action, that independence does not suffice to avoid the preemptive effect of § 301. The assumption that the labor contract creates no implied rights is not one that state law may make. Rather, it is a question of federal contract interpretation whether there was an obligation under this labor contract to provide the payments in a timely manner, and, if so, whether Allis-Chalmers’ conduct breached that implied contract provision.
The Wisconsin court’s assumption that the parties contracted only for the payment of insurance benefits, and that questions about the manner in which the payments were made are outside the contract is, moreover, highly suspect. There is no reason to assume that, the labor contract as interpreted by the arbitrator would not provide such relief. On its face, the agreement allows the Joint Plant Insurance Committee to resolve disputes involving “any insurance-related issues that may arise” (emphasis added), App. 43, and hardly suggests that only disputes involving the right to receive benefits were addressed in the contract. And if the arbitrator ruled that the labor agreement did not provide such relief expressly or by implication, that too should end the dispute, for under Wisconsin law there is nothing that suggests that it is not within the power of the parties to determine what would constitute “reasonable” performance of their obligations under an insurance contract. In sum, the Wisconsin court’s statement that the tort was independent from a contract claim apparently was intended to mean no more than that the implied duty to act in good faith is different from the explicit contractual duty to pay. Since the extent of either duty ultimately depends upon the terms of the agreement between the parties, both ate tightly bound with questions of contract interpretation that must be left to federal law.
B
The conclusion that the Wisconsin court meant by “independent” that the tort is unrelated to an explicit provision of the contract is buttressed by analysis of the genesis and operation of the state tort. Under Wisconsin law, the tort intrinsically relates to the nature and existence of the contract. Hilker v. Western Automobile Ins. Co., 204 Wis. 1, 13-16, 235 N. W. 413, 414-415 (1931). Thus the tort exists for breach of a “duty devolved] upon the insurer by reasonable implication from the express terms of the contract,” the scope of which, crucially, is “ascertained from a consideration of the contract itself.” Id., at 16, 235 N. W., at 415. In Hilker, the court specifically noted:
“Generally speaking, good faith means being faithful to one’s duty or obligation; bad faith means being recreant thereto. In order to understand what is meant by bad faith a comprehension of one’s duty is generally necessary, and we have concluded that we can best indicate the circumstances under which the insurer may become liable to the insured... by giving with some particularity our conception of the duty which the written contract of insurance imposes upon the carrier.” Id., at 13, 235 N. W., at 414.
The duties imposed and rights established through the state tort thus derive from the rights and obligations established by the contract. In Anderson v. Continental Ins. Co., 85 Wis. 2d 675, 689, 271 N. W. 2d 368, 375-376 (1978), which established that in Wisconsin an insured may assert a cause of action in tort against an insurer for the bad-faith refusal to honor the insured’s claim, the court stated that the tort duty was derived from the.implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing found in every contract. It relied for that proposition on the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 (1981), as well as on the adoption of the Restatement’s position in Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co., 9 Cal. 3d 566, 575, 510 P. 2d 1032, 1038 (1973). The Gruenberg court explicitly stated that the breach sounded in both tort and contract, and there is no indication in Wisconsin law that the tort is anything more than a way to plead a certain kind of contract violation in tort in order to recover exemplary damages not otherwise available under Wisconsin law. Anderson v. Continental Ins. Co., 85 Wis. 2d, at 686-687, 271 N. W. 2d, at 374. Therefore, under Wisconsin law it appears that the parties to an insurance contract are free to bargain about what “reasonable” performance of their contract obligation entails. That being so, this tort claim is firmly rooted in the expectations of the parties that must be evaluated by federal contract law.
Because the right asserted not only derives from the contract, but is defined by the contractual obligation of good faith, any attempt to assess liability here inevitably will involve contract interpretation. The parties’ agreement as to the manner in which a benefit claim would be handled will necessarily be relevant to any allegation that the claim was handled in a dilatory manner. Similarly, the question whether Allis-Chalmers required Lueck to be examined by an inordinate number of physicians evidently depends in part upon the parties’ understanding concerning the medical evidence required to support a benefit claim. These questions of contract interpretation, therefore, underlie any finding of tort liability, regardless of the fact that the state court may choose to define the tort as “independent” of any contract question. Congress has mandated that federal law govern the meaning given contract terms. Since the state tort purports to give life to these terms in a different environment, it is pre-empted.
C
A final reason for holding that Congress intended § 301 to pre-empt this kind of derivative tort claim is that only that result preserves the central role of arbitration in our “system of industrial self-government.” Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574, 581 (1960). If respondent had brought a contract claim under § 301, he would have had to attempt to take the claim through the arbitration procedure established in the collective-bargaining agreement before bringing suit in court. Perhaps the most harmful aspect of the Wisconsin decision is that it would allow essentially the same suit to be brought directly in state court without first exhausting the grievance procedures established in the bargaining agreement. The need to preserve the effectiveness of arbitration was one of the central reasons that underlay the Court’s holding in Lucas Flour. See 369 U. S., at 105. The parties here have agreed that a neutral arbitrator will be responsible, in the first instance, for interpreting the meaning of their contract. Unless this suit is pre-empted, their federal right to decide who is to resolve contract disputes will be lost.
Since nearly any alleged willful breach of contract can be restated as a tort claim for breach of a good-faith obligation under a contract, the arbitrator’s role in every case could be bypassed easily if § 301 is not understood to pre-empt such claims. Claims involving vacation or overtime pay, work assignment, unfair discharge — in short, the whole range of disputes traditionally resolved through arbitration — could be brought in the first instance in state court by a complaint in tort rather than in contract. A rule that permitted an individual to sidestep available grievance procedures would cause arbitration to lose most of its effectiveness, Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650, 653 (1965), as well as eviscerate a central tenet of federal labor-contract law under §301 that it is the arbitrator, not the court, who has the responsibility to interpret the labor contract in the first instance.
Y
The right that Lueck asserts is rooted in contract, and the bad-faith claim he brings could have been pleaded as a contract claim under §301. Unless federal law governs that claim, the meaning of the health and disability-benefit provisions of the labor agreement would be subject to varying interpretations, and the congressional goal of a unified federal body of labor-contract law would be subverted. The requirements of § 301 as understood in Lucas Flour cannot vary with the name appended to a particular cause of action.
It is perhaps worth emphasizing the narrow focus of the conclusion we reach today. We pass no judgment on whether this suit also would have been pre-empted by other federal laws governing employment or benefit plans. Nor do we hold that every state-law suit asserting a right that relates in some way to a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement, or more generally to the parties to such an agreement, necessarily is pre-empted by §301. The full scope of the pre-emptive effect of federal labor-contract law remains to be fleshed out on a case-by-case basis. We do hold that when resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim, see Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge 735, 390 U. S. 557 (1968), or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law. This complaint should have been dismissed for failure to make use of the grievance procedure established in the collective-bargaining agreement, Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S., at 652, or dismissed as pre-empted by § 301. The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court therefore is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The letter of understanding states:
“Questions within the [Joint Plant Insurance] Committee’s scope shall be referred to it, and shall not be processed in the first three steps of the grievance procedure..., but may be presented for arbitration in the established manner once they have been discussed and have not been resolved.” App. 43.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Lueck v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 116 Wis. 2d 559, 564, 342 N. W. 2d 699, 701-702 (1984), correctly assumed that this provision required that disputes within the Committee’s scope be resolved exclusively through arbitration. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 184 (1967); Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650, 652-653 (1965). The use of the permissive “may” is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that parties are not free to avoid the contract’s arbitration procedures. Id., at 658-659.
Lueck asserts that ultimately he was given disability payments for a period up to March 12, 1982. We find no specific record evidence of this fact. An affidavit dated February 22, 1982, submitted by Allis-Chalmers, states that Lueck received payments from July 20, 1981, to January 15, 1982. App. to Pet. for Cert. 33. The complaint was filed on January 18.
In particular, the Court of Appeals found that since Allis-Chalmers’ conduct arguably constituted an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158(a)(5), that section pre-empted the bad-faith claim under the reasoning of Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290 (1977). The court did not reach the question whether § 301 of the LMRA also pre-empted the claim.
“We cannot declare pre-empted all local regulation that touches or concerns in any way the complex interrelationships between employees, employers, and unions; obviously, much of this is left to the States.” Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U. S. 274, 289 (1971). See also Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, 468 U. S. 491 (1984); Garner v. Teamsters, 346 U. S. 485, 488 (1953).
In Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 602 (1962), the Court held that state courts had concurrent jurisdiction over § 301 claims.
This is not to suggest that courts may not need to consider other factors in determining whether a state rule is pre-empted by § 7 or § 8 of the NLRA. See Cox, Recent Developments in Federal Labor Law Preemption, 41 Ohio St. L. J. 277, 294-800 (1980). The NLRA pre-empts state laws that “ ‘upset the balance of power between labor and management expressed in our national labor policy.’” Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132, 146 (1976), quoting Teamsters v. Morton, 377 U. S. 252, 260 (1964). See New York Telephone Co. v. New York Labor Dept., 440 U. S. 519 (1979). Thus pre-emption under § 7 or § 8 involves considerations related to but distinct from those at issue here. Nor do we need to discuss the different kinds of questions posed by pre-emption necessary to protect the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. See Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 101, n. 9 (1962).
The parties have not briefed the question whether this tort suit would be pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. Because we hold that this claim is pre-empted under §301, there is no occasion to address the separate question of pre-emption by ERISA. See 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(B).
Analogously, in Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S. 497 (1978), the Court rejected the view that a right established in a state pension statute was pre-empted by the NLRA simply because the NLRA empowered the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement to come to a private agreement about the subject of the state law:
“There is little doubt that under the federal statutes governing labor-management relations, an employer must bargain about wages, hours, and working conditions and that pension benefits are proper subjects of compulsory bargaining. But there is nothing in the NLRA... which expressly forecloses all state regulatory power with respect to those issues, such as pension plans, that may be the subject of collective bargaining." Id., at 504-505.
In Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974), the Court found that the NLRA conferred rights “on employees collectively to foster the processes of bargaining,” id., at 51, and distinguished such rights which could be waived by contract between the parties, on the one hand, from an individual’s substantive right derived from an independent body of law that could not be avoided by a contractual agreement, on the other.
116 Wis. 2d, at 565, 342 N. W. 2d, at 702. The Wisconsin court alternatively suggested that the tort claim was not pre-empted because the existence of a breach of contract, if relevant, “would constitute only a minor aspect of the controversy.” Id., at 570, 342 N. W. 2d, at 705. The court then applied the labor law pre-emption doctrine established in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), and concluded that since only minor aspects of the controversy were within the jurisdiction of the NLRB, Garmon pre-emption did not apply. 116 Wis. 2d, at 570-571, 342 N. W. 2d, at 705. The court’s pre-emption discussion thus concerned whether the tort claim should be pre-empted in order to protect the NLRB’s primary jurisdiction over unfair labor practice charges.
In addressing only the question of the necessity of protecting the Board’s jurisdiction, the court “confuse[d] pre-emption which is based on actual federal protection of the conduct at issue from that which is based on the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.” Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, 468 U. S., at 502. So-called Garmon pre-emption involves protecting the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB, and requires a balancing of state and federal interests. The present tort suit would allow the State to provide a rule of decision where Congress has mandated that federal law should govern. In this situation the balancing of state and federal interests required by Garmon pre-emption is irrelevant, since Congress, acting within its power under the Commerce Clause, has provided that federal law must prevail. 468 U. S., at 502-503.
This assumption also was relied on by respondent’s counsel during oral argument. Thus, counsel acknowledged that if the contract allowed the arbitrator to provide relief for bad-faith payment of benefits, respondent would have been required to make use of the arbitration procedure and the federal law of contracts to obtain relief. Tr. of Oral Arg. 25. Counsel argued that, under state law, respondent was entitled to recover in tort only because “I’m going for something that... the contract does not provide for. The contract provides for payment of disability benefits. That’s it.... [I]f the insurance company continued to sporadically make payments, Mr. Lueek wouldn’t be able to do anything under the contract because he wouldn’t have a grievance.” Id., at 35.
See also Kranzush v. Badger State Mutual Casualty Co., 103 Wis. 2d 56, 64, 307 N. W. 2d 256, 261 (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
When a state prisoner asks a federal court to set aside a sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, our cases require that the federal court use a " 'doubly deferential' " standard of review that gives both the state court and the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1403, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). In this case, the Sixth Circuit failed to apply that doubly deferential standard by refusing to credit a state court's reasonable factual finding and by assuming that counsel was ineffective where the record was silent. Because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), do not permit federal judges to so casually second-guess the decisions of their state-court colleagues or defense attorneys, the Sixth Circuit's decision must be reversed.
I
Respondent Titlow and Billie Rogers, respondent's aunt, murdered Billie's husband Don by pouring vodka down his throat and smothering him with a pillow. With help from attorney Richard Lustig, respondent reached an agreement with state prosecutors to testify against Billie, plead guilty to manslaughter, and receive a 7- to 15-year sentence. As confirmed at a plea hearing, Lustig reviewed the State's evidence with respondent "over a long period of time," and respondent understood that that evidence could support a conviction for first-degree murder. App. 43-44. The Michigan trial court approved the plea bargain.
Three days before Billie Rogers' trial was to commence, however, respondent retained a new lawyer, Frederick Toca. With Toca's help, respondent demanded a substantially lower minimum sentence (three years, instead of seven) in exchange for the agreement to plead guilty and testify. When the prosecutor refused to accede to the new demands, respondent withdrew the plea, acknowledging in open court the consequences of withdrawal (including reinstatement of the first-degree murder charge). Without respondent's critical testimony, Billie Rogers was acquitted, and later died.
Respondent subsequently stood trial. During the course of the trial, respondent denied any intent to harm Don Rogers or any knowledge, at the time respondent covered his mouth or poured vodka down his throat, that Billie intended to harm him. Indeed, respondent testified to attempting to prevent Billie from harming her husband. The jury, however, elected to believe respondent's previous out-of-court statements, which squarely demonstrated participation in the killing, and convicted respondent of second-degree murder. The trial court imposed a 20- to 40-year term of imprisonment.
On direct appeal, respondent argued that Toca advised withdrawal of the guilty plea without taking time to learn more about the case, thereby failing to realize the strength of the State's evidence and providing ineffective assistance of counsel. Rejecting that claim, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that Toca acted reasonably in light of his client's protestations of innocence. That court found that respondent's decision to hire Toca was "set in motion" by respondent's "statement to a sheriff's deputy that [respondent] did not commit the offense." App. to Pet. for Cert. 101a. Applying the standard set forth by our decision in Strickland, which requires that defense counsel satisfy "an objective standard of reasonableness," 466 U.S., at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that "[w]hen a defendant proclaims ... innocence ..., it is not objectively unreasonable to recommend that the defendant refrain from pleading guilty-no matter how 'good' the deal may appear." App. to Pet. for Cert. 102a.
Respondent then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Applying AEDPA's deferential standard of review, the District Court concluded that the Michigan Court of Appeals' ruling was "completely reasonable on the law and the facts" and denied relief. No. 07-CV-13614, 2010 WL 4115410, *15 (E.D.Mich., Oct. 19, 2010). In particular, the District Court concluded that "[c]ounsel could not be ineffective by trying to negotiate a better plea agreement for [Titlow] with Billie Rogers's trial imminent and [Titlow] stating at the time that Billie Rogers had committed the murder without ... assistance." Ibid.
The Sixth Circuit reversed. It found that the factual predicate for the state court's decision-that the withdrawal of the plea was based on respondent's assertion of innocence-was an unreasonable interpretation of the factual record, given Toca's explanation at the withdrawal hearing that "the decision to withdraw Titlow's plea was based on the fact that the State's plea offer was substantially higher than the Michigan guidelines for second-degree murder." 680 F.3d 577, 589 (2012). Further observing that "[t]he record in this case contains no evidence" that Toca fully informed respondent of the possible consequences of withdrawing the guilty plea, the Sixth Circuit held that Toca rendered ineffective assistance of counsel that resulted in respondent's loss of the benefit of the plea bargain. Id., at 589-592. Citing our decision in Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012), the Sixth Circuit remanded this case with instructions that the prosecution must reoffer the original plea agreement to respondent, and that the state court should "consul[t]" the plea agreement and "fashion" a remedy for the violation of respondent's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. 680 F.3d, at 592. Chief Judge Batchelder dissented on the grounds that the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision was reasonable. Id., at 593.
On remand, the prosecution followed the Sixth Circuit's instructions and reoffered the plea agreement it had offered some 10 years before-even though, in light of Billie Rogers' acquittal and subsequent death, respondent was no longer able to deliver on the promises originally made to the prosecution. At the plea hearing, however, respondent balked, refusing to provide a factual basis for the plea which the court could accept. Respondent admitted to pouring vodka down Don Rogers' throat, but denied assisting in killing him or knowing that pouring vodka down his throat could lead to his death. As at trial, respondent testified to attempting to prevent Billie Rogers from harming her husband. Eventually, after conferring with current counsel (not Toca), respondent admitted to placing Don Rogers in danger by pouring vodka down his throat with the knowledge that his death could result. The trial court took the plea under advisement, where the matter stands at present. We granted certiorari. 568 U.S. ---- (2013).
II
AEDPA instructs that, when a federal habeas petitioner challenges the factual basis for a prior state-court decision rejecting a claim, the federal court may overturn the state court's decision only if it was "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The prisoner bears the burden of rebutting the state court's factual findings "by clear and convincing evidence." § 2254(e)(1). We have not defined the precise relationship between § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1), and we need not do so here. See Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 293, 130 S.Ct. 841, 175 L.Ed.2d 738 (2010). For present purposes, it is enough to reiterate "that a state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance." Id., at 301, 130 S.Ct. 841. AEDPA likewise imposes a highly deferential standard for reviewing claims of legal error by the state courts: A writ of habeas corpus may issue only if the state court's decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by" this Court. § 2254(d)(1).
AEDPA recognizes a foundational principle of our federal system: State courts are adequate forums for the vindication of federal rights. "[T]he States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause. Under this system of dual sovereignty, we have consistently held that state courts have inherent authority, and are thus presumptively competent, to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States." Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458, 110 S.Ct. 792, 107 L.Ed.2d 887 (1990). This principle applies to claimed violations of constitutional, as well as statutory, rights. See Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 443, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977). Indeed, "state courts have the solemn responsibility equally with the federal courts to safeguard constitutional rights," and this Court has refused to sanction any decision that would "reflec[t] negatively upon [a] state court's ability to do so." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Especially where a case involves such a common claim as ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland-a claim state courts have now adjudicated in countless criminal cases for nearly 30 years-"there is no intrinsic reason why the fact that a man is a federal judge should make him more competent, or conscientious, or learned ... than his neighbor in the state courthouse." Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494, n. 35, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Recognizing the duty and ability of our state-court colleagues to adjudicate claims of constitutional wrong, AEDPA erects a formidable barrier to federal habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state court. AEDPA requires "a state prisoner [to] show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error ... beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-787, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). "If this standard is difficult to meet"-and it is-"that is because it was meant to be." Id., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 786. We will not lightly conclude that a State's criminal justice system has experienced the "extreme malfunctio[n]" for which federal habeas relief is the remedy. Id., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 786 (internal quotation marks omitted).
III
The record readily supports the Michigan Court of Appeals' factual finding that Toca advised withdrawal of the guilty plea only after respondent's proclamation of innocence. Respondent passed a polygraph denying planning to kill Don Rogers or being in the room when he died. Thereafter, according to an affidavit in the record, respondent discussed the case with a jailer, who advised against pleading guilty if respondent was not in fact guilty. App. 298 (affidavit of William Pierson).1 That conversation "set into motion" respondent's decision to retain Toca. Ibid., ¶ 8. Those facts, together with the timing of Toca's hiring-on the eve of the trial at which respondent was to self-incriminate-strongly suggest that respondent had second thoughts about confessing in open court and proclaimed innocence to Toca. That conclusion is further bolstered by respondent's maintenance of innocence of Don Rogers' death at trial.
Indeed, reading the record in any other way is difficult. Respondent's first lawyer, Lustig, had negotiated a deal that was quite favorable in light of the fact, admitted by respondent in open court, that the State's evidence could support a conviction for first-degree murder. This deal involved a guilty plea to manslaughter and a 7- to 15-year sentence-far less than the mandatory sentence of life in prison that results from a conviction for first-degree murder under Michigan law. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.316 (West Supp.2013). Yet after a jailer advised against pleading guilty if respondent was not guilty, something caused respondent both to fire Lustig and hire Toca (who within a few days withdrew the guilty plea), and then to maintain innocence at trial. If that something was not a desire to assert innocence, it is difficult to imagine what it was, and respondent does not offer an alternative theory.
The only evidence the Sixth Circuit cited for its conclusion that the plea withdrawal was not based on respondent's proclamation of innocence was that, when Toca moved to withdraw the guilty plea, he "did not refer to Titlow's claims of innocence," but instead "explained that the decision to withdraw [the] plea was based on the fact that the State's plea offer was substantially higher than the Michigan guidelines" for manslaughter. 680 F.3d, at 589. The Sixth Circuit believed that this fact "sufficiently rebuts the Michigan Court of Appeals'
finding that the plea withdrawal was based on Titlow's assertion of innocence." Ibid.
But the Michigan Court of Appeals was well aware of Toca's representations to the trial court, noting in its opinion that respondent "moved to withdraw [the] plea because the agreed upon sentence exceeded the sentencing guidelines range." App. to Pet. for Cert. 100a. The Michigan Court of Appeals, however-unlike the Sixth Circuit-also correctly recognized that there is nothing inconsistent about a defendant's asserting innocence on the one hand and refusing to plead guilty to manslaughter accompanied by higher-than-normal punishment on the other. Indeed, a defendant convinced of his or her own innocence may have a particularly optimistic view of the likelihood of acquittal, and therefore be more likely to drive a hard bargain with the prosecution before pleading guilty. Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the Sixth Circuit improperly set aside a "reasonable state-court determinatio[n] of fact in favor of its own debatable interpretation of the record." Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 335, 126 S.Ct. 969, 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006).
Accepting as true the Michigan Court of Appeals' factual determination that respondent proclaimed innocence to Toca, the Sixth Circuit's Strickland analysis cannot be sustained. Although a defendant's proclamation of innocence does not relieve counsel of his normal responsibilities under Strickland, it may affect the advice counsel gives. The Michigan Court of Appeals' conclusion that Toca's advice satisfied Strickland fell within the bounds of reasonableness under AEDPA, given that respondent was claiming innocence and only days away from offering self-incriminating testimony in open court pursuant to a plea agreement involving an above-guidelines sentence.2 See Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 187, 125 S.Ct. 551, 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004) (explaining that the defendant has the " 'ultimate authority' " to decide whether to accept a plea bargain); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 7-8, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966) (observing that a lawyer must not "override his client's desire ... to plead not guilty"). The Sixth Circuit's conclusion to the contrary was error.
Even more troubling is the Sixth Circuit's conclusion that Toca was ineffective because the "record in this case contains no evidence that" he gave constitutionally adequate advice on whether to withdraw the guilty plea. 680 F.3d, at 590. We have said that counsel should be "strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment," Strickland, 466 U.S., at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, and that the burden to "show that counsel's performance was deficient" rests squarely on the defendant, id., at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The Sixth Circuit turned that presumption of effectiveness on its head. It should go without saying that the absence of evidence cannot overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct [fell] within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Id., at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. As Chief Judge Batchelder correctly explained in her dissent, "[w]ithout evidence that Toca gave incorrect advice or evidence that he failed to give material advice, Titlow cannot establish that his performance was deficient." 680 F.3d, at 595.
The Sixth Circuit pointed to a single fact in support of its conclusion that Toca failed to adequately advise respondent: his failure to retrieve respondent's file from Lustig before withdrawing the guilty plea. Id., at 590. But here, too, the Sixth Circuit deviated from Strickland 's strong presumption of effectiveness. The record does not reveal how much Toca was able to glean about respondent's case from other sources; he may well have obtained copies of the critical materials from prosecutors or the court. (Indeed, Toca's statement at the plea withdrawal hearing that "[t]here's a lot of material here" strongly suggests that he did have access to a source of documentation other than Lustig's file. App. 71.)
In any event, the same considerations were relevant to entering and withdrawing the guilty plea, and respondent admitted in open court when initially pleading guilty that Lustig had explained the State's evidence and that this evidence would support a conviction for first-degree murder. Toca was justified in relying on this admission to conclude that respondent understood the strength of the prosecution's case and nevertheless wished to withdraw the plea. With respondent having knowingly entered the guilty plea, we think any confusion about the strength of the State's evidence upon withdrawing the plea less than a month later highly unlikely.
Despite our conclusion that there was no factual or legal justification for overturning the state court's decision, we recognize that Toca's conduct in this litigation was far from exemplary. He may well have violated the rules of professional conduct by accepting respondent's publication rights as partial payment for his services, and he waited weeks before consulting respondent's first lawyer about the case. But the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to perfect counsel; it promises only the right to effective assistance, and we have held that a lawyer's violation of ethical norms does not make the lawyer per se ineffective. See Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 171, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002). Troubling as Toca's actions were, they were irrelevant to the narrow question that was before the Sixth Circuit: whether the state court reasonably determined that respondent was adequately advised before deciding to withdraw the guilty plea. Because the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision that respondent was so advised is reasonable and supported by the record, the Sixth Circuit's judgment is reversed.3
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.
Under § 215 of the Social Security Act, as added, 64 Stat. 506, and amended, 42 U. S. C. § 415 (1970 ed. and Supp. V), old-age insurance benefits are computed on the basis of the wage earner’s “average monthly wage” earned during his “benefit computation years” which are the “elapsed years” (reduced by five) during which the wage earner’s covered wages were highest. Until a 1972 amendment, “elapsed years” depended upon the sex of the wage earner. Section 215 (b) (3) prescribed that the number of “elapsed years” for a male wage earner would be three higher than for an otherwise similarly situated female wage earner; for a male, the number of “elapsed years” equaled the number of years that elapsed after 1950 and before the year in which he attained age 65; for a female the number of “elapsed years” equaled the number of years that elapsed after 1950 and before the year in which she attained age 62. Thus, a male born in 1900 would have 14 “elapsed years” on retirement at age 65 but a female born in the same year would have only 11. Accordingly, a female wage earner could exclude from the computation of her “average monthly wage” three more lower earning years than a similarly situated male wage earner could exclude. This would result in a slightly higher “average monthly wage” and a correspondingly higher level of monthly old-age benefits for the retired female wage earner. A single-judge District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on review under § 205 (g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g), of a denial, after hearing, of appellee’s request that the more favorable formula be used to compute his benefits, held that, on two grounds, the statutory scheme violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment: (1) that to give women who reached age 62 before 1975 greater benefits than men of the same age and earnings record was irrational, and (2) that in any event the 1972 amendment was to be construed to apply retroactively, because construing the amendment to give men who reach age 62 in 1975 or later the benefit of the 1972 amendments but to deny older men the same benefit would render the amendment irrational, and therefore unconstitutional. 413 F. Supp. 127 (1976). We reverse.
To withstand scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, “classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 197 (1976). Reduction of the disparity in economic condition between men and women caused by the long history of discrimination against women has been recognized as such an important governmental objective. Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U. S. 498 (1975); Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S. 351 (1974). But “the mere recitation of a benign, compensatory purpose is not an automatic shield which protects against any inquiry into the actual purposes underlying a statutory scheme.” Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 648 (1975). Accordingly, we have rejected attempts to justify gender classifications as compensation for past discrimination against women when the classifications in fact penalized women wage earners, Califano v. Goldfarb, ante, at 209 n. 8; Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, supra, at 645, or when the statutory structure and its legislative history revealed that the classification was not enacted as compensation for past discrimination. Califano v. Goldfarb, ante, at 212-216 (plurality opinion), 221-222 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, supra, at 648.
The statutory scheme involved here is more analogous to those upheld in Kahn and Ballard than to those struck down in Wiesenfeld and Goldfarb. The more favorable treatment of the female wage earner enacted here was not a result of “archaic and overbroad generalizations” about women, Schlesinger v. Ballard, supra, at 508, or of “the role-typing society has long imposed” upon women, Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S. 7, 15 (1975), such as casual assumptions that women are “the weaker sex” or are more likely to be child-rearers or dependents. Cf. Califano v. Goldfarb, supra; Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, supra. Rather, “the only discernible purpose of [§ 215’s more favorable treatment is] the permissible one of redressing our society’s longstanding disparate treatment of women.” Califano v. Goldfarb, ante, at 209 n. 8.
The challenged statute operated directly to compensate women for past economic discrimination. Retirement benefits under the Act are based on past earnings. But as we have recognized: “Whether from overt discrimination or from the socialization process of a male-dominated culture, the job market is inhospitable to the woman seeking any but the lowest paid jobs.” Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S., at 353. See generally id., at 353-354, and nn. 4-6. Thus, allowing women, who as such have been unfairly hindered from earning as much as men, to eliminate additional low-earning years from the calculation of their retirement benefits works directly to remedy some part of the effect of past discrimination. Cf. Schlesinger v. Ballard, supra, at 508.
The legislative history of § 215 (b) (3) also reveals that Congress directly addressed the justification for differing treatment of men and women in the former version of that section and purposely enacted the more favorable treatment for female wage earners to compensate for past employment discrimination against women. Before 1956, the sexes were treated equally by § 215 (b) (3); the computation it required turned on the attainment of “retirement age,” which was then defined in 42 U. S. C. § 416 (a) (1952 ed.) as 65 for both sexes. In 1956, however, retirement age was redefined as 62 for women and 65 for men, Social Security Amendments of 1956, § 102 (a), 70 Stat. 809, thereby changing the calculation under § 215 (b) (3). A House Report emphasizes that this reduction in the retirement age for women was purposely made to remedy discrimination against women in the job market:
“Your committee believes that the age of eligibility should be reduced to 62 for women workers. . . . A recent study by the United States Employment Service in the Department of Labor showed that age limits are applied more frequently to job openings for women than for men and that the age limits applied are lower.” H. R. Rep. No. 1189, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1955).
The effect of this change on § 215 (b) (3) was also discussed in connection with the amendment of that section in 1961. Social Security Amendments of 1961, § 102 (d) (2), 75 Stat. 135. During the hearings on that amendment Representative Watts asked why a woman would draw more benefits than a similarly situated man. After it was noted that this did not change the law as it had existed since 1956, Representative Boggs confirmed that the difference in treatment was not inadvertent:
“If I may interrupt, I think we went into this at great length some years ago when we adopted the 62-year provision for women and the theory was that a woman at that age was less apt to have employment opportunities than a man and despite the fact of some statistics to the effect that women live longer than men, I think the other fact is equally commanding, so there is some justification for a distinction between men and women.” Executive Hearings on Social Security Amendments of 1961, before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 146-147 (1961).
Thus, the legislative history is clear that the differing treatment of men and women in former § 215 (b) (3) was not “the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about females,” Califano v. Goldfarb, ante, at 223 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), but rather was deliberately enacted to compensate for particular economic disabilities suffered by women.
That Congress changed its mind in 1972 and equalized the treatment of men and women does not, as the District Court concluded, constitute an admission by Congress that its previous policy was invidiously discriminatory. 413 F. Supp., at 129. Congress has in recent years legislated directly upon the subject of unequal treatment of women in the job market. Congress may well have decided that “[t]hese congressional reforms . . . have lessened the economic justification for the more favorable benefit computation formula in § 215 (b) (3).” Kohr v. Weinberger, 378 F. Supp. 1299, 1305 (ED Pa. 1974), vacated on other grounds, 422 U. S. 1050 (1975). Moreover, elimination of the more favorable benefit computation for women wage earners, even in the remedial context, is wholly consistent with those reforms, which require equal treatment of men and women in preference to the attitudes of “romantic paternalism” that have contributed to the “long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination.” Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 684 (1973).
Finally, there is no merit in appellee’s argument that the failure to make the 1972 amendment retroactive constitutes discrimination on the basis of date of birth. Old-age benefit payments are not constitutionally immunized against alterations of this kind. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603 (1960). Congress expressly reserved “[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision” of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1304, and the Fifth Amendment “does not forbid . . . statutory changes to have a beginning and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time.” Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U. S. 502, 505 (1911). It follows that Congress may replace one constitutional computation formula with another and make the new formula prospective only.
Reversed.
Under § 202 (a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 402 (a) (1970 ed. and Supp. V), a fully insured individual who- has reached retirement age is entitled upon application to a monthly old-age insurance benefit equal to his “primary insurance amount.”
Section 215 (a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 415 (a) (1970 ed. and Supp. V), sets out a table for determining the primary insurance amount. This amount is based on an individual’s “average monthly wage” as defined in § 215 (b) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 415 (b) (1970 ed. and Supp. V).
Before it was amended in 1972, § 215 (b) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 415 (b), provided in part:
“(1) . . . [A]n individual’s‘average monthly wage’shall be the quotient obtained by dividing—
“(A) the total of his wages paid in and self-employment income credited to his ‘benefit computation years’ (determined under paragraph (2)), by
“ (B) the number of months in such years.
“ (2) (A) The number of an individual’s ‘benefit computation years’ shall be equal to the number of elapsed years (determined under paragraph (3) of this subsection), reduced by five; except that the number of an individual’s benefit computation years shall in no case be less than two.
“ (B) An individual’s ‘benefit computation years’ shall be those computation base years, equal in number to the number determined under subpara-graph (A), for which the total of his wages and self-employment income is the largest.
“(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), ‘computation base years’ include only calendar years in the period after 1950 and prior to the earlier of the following years—
“(i) the year in which occurred . . . the first month for which the individual was entitled to old-age insurance benefits, or
“ (ii) the year succeeding the year in which he died.
“(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the number of an individual’s elapsed years is the number of calendar years after 1950 . . . and before—
“(A) in the case of a woman, the year in which she died or, if it occurred earlier but after 1960, the year in which she attained age 62.
“(C) in the case of a man who has not died, the year occurring after 1960 in which he attained (or would attain) age 65.”
Gongress eliminated the distinction in 1972. As amended by § 104 (b), 86 Stat. 1340, 42 U. S. C. § 415 (b) (3) (1970 ed., Supp. V), now provides:
“[T]he number of an individual’s elapsed years is the number of calendar years after 1950 . . . and before the year in which he died, or if it occurred earlier but after 1960, the year in which he attained age 62.”
The amendment, however, does not apply to men who reached age 62 before its effective date in 1972, and so the former statute continues to govern the determination of this and some other claims of male wage earners.
For example, in this case, the District Court found that appellee was awarded a monthly benefit of $185.70, but that a similarly situated female wage earner would have been awarded $204 per month. 413 F. Supp. 127, 128.
Four other federal courts have reached a contrary conclusion. Gruenwald v. Gardner, 390 F. 2d 591 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Gruenwald v. Cohen, 393 U. S. 982 (1968); Kohr v. Weinberger, 378 F. Supp. 1299 (ED Pa. 1974), vacated on other grounds, 422 U. S. 1050 (1975); Polelle v. Secretary of HEW, 386 F. Supp. 443 (ND Ill. 1974); McEvoy v. Weinberger, CCH Unempl. Ins. Rep. ¶ 17,414 (SD Fla., Aug. 28, 1973).
Even with the advantage provided by former § 215 (b) (3), women on the average received lower retirement benefits than men. “As of December 1972, the average monthly retirement insurance benefit for males was $179.60 and for females, $140.50.” Polelle v. Secretary of HEW, supra, at 444 (emphasis omitted).
At that time, the calculation of the “average monthly wage” under § 215 (b) was somewhat different from the scheme set out in n. 1, supra, which was not adopted until Social Security Amendments of 1960, § 303 (a), 74 Stat. 960. The role of § 215 (b) (3) in the computation was similar under the old scheme, however, and the differences between the old and new methods of computation are essentially irrelevant to the effect of the 1956 change in the definition of retirement age on § 215 (b) (3).
Congress deliberately adopted the change notwithstanding the argument urged upon it that reducing the retirement age would not benefit women. S. Rep. No. 2133, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 14-15 (1956).
In 1961, in connection with the extension of reduced retirement benefits to men at age 62, the definition of retirement age in 42 U. S. C. § 416 (a) was repealed, and the differing ages for the computation of “elapsed years” under § 215 (b) (3) were written explicitly into that section for the first time. §§ 102 (c) (1), 102 (d) (2), 75 Stat. 134, 135. It was at that time that § 215 (b) (3) took on the form it was to retain until 1972. See nn. 1-2, supra.
See, e. g., Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U. S. C. § 206 (d); Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703 (a), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (a).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
This case raises the question whether 18 U. S. C. § 3013, which requires courts to impose a monetary “special assessment” on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor, was passed in violation of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. That Clause mandates that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 7, cl. 1. We conclude initially that this case does not present a political question and therefore reject the Government’s argument that the case is not justiciable. On the merits, we hold that the special assessment statute does not violate the Origination Clause because it is not a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue.”
I
In June 1985, German Munoz-Flores was charged with aiding the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. He subsequently pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of aiding and abetting aliens to elude examination and inspection by immigration officers. The Magistrate sentenced respondent to probation and ordered him to pay a special assessment of $25 on each count under the then-applicable version of 18 U. S. C. §3013 (1982 ed., Supp. V). Pet. for Cert. 27a-28a.
Respondent moved to correct his sentence, asserting that the special assessments were unconstitutional because Congress had passed § 3013 in violation of the Origination Clause. The Magistrate denied the motion, and the District Court affirmed. Id., at 26a. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated the portion of the District Court’s sentencing order that imposed the special assessments. 863 F. 2d 654 (1988). The court held that respondent’s claim did not raise a nonjusticiable political question. Id., at 656-657. On the merits, the court ruled that § 3013 was a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue,” id., at 657-660, and that it had originated in the Senate because that Chamber was the first to pass an assessment provision, id., at 660-661. The court therefore concluded that §3013 had been passed in violation of the Origination Clause. Id., at 661.
The United States petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing that § 3013 did not violate the Origination Clause. The Government noted that the Ninth Circuit had rejected its argument that the case raised a political question, Pet. for Cert. 5, n. 5, but did not ask this Court to review that ruling. We granted certiorari and directed the parties to brief the political question issue. 493 U. S. 808 (1989).
II
A
In Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962), this Court identified the features that characterize a case raising a nonjusticiable political question:
“Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
Accord, INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 941 (1983) (quoting Baker, supra, at 217).
The United States contends that “[t]he most persuasive factor suggesting nonjusticiability” is the concern that courts not express a “lack of . . . respect” for the House of Representatives. Brief for United States 10. In the Government’s view, the House’s passage of a bill conclusively establishes that the House has determined either that the bill is not a revenue bill or that it originated in the House. Hence, the Government argues, a court’s invalidation of a law on Origination Clause grounds would evince a lack of respect for the House’s determination. The Government may be right that a judicial finding that Congress has passed an unconstitutional law might in some sense be said to entail a “lack of respect” for Congress’ judgment. But disrespect, in the sense the Government uses the term, cannot be sufficient to create a political question. If it were, every judicial resolution of a constitutional challenge to a congressional enactment would be impermissible. Congress often explicitly considers whether bills violate constitutional provisions. See, e. g., 135 Cong. Rec. 23121-23122 (1989) (remarks of Sen. Biden) (expressing the view that the Flag Protection Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 777, does not violate the First Amendment); 133 Cong. Rec. 30498-30499 (1987) (remarks of Sen. Hatch) (arguing that the independent counsel law, 28 U. S. C. § 591 et seq., was unconstitutional). Because Congress is bound by the Constitution, its enactment of any law is predicated at least implicitly on a judgment that the law is constitutional. Indeed, one could argue that Congress explicitly determined that this bill originated in the House because it sent the bill to the President with an “H. J. Res.” designation. See post, at 409 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Yet such congressional consideration of constitutional questions does not foreclose subsequent judicial scrutiny of the law’s constitutionality. On the contrary, this Court has the duty to review the constitutionality of congressional enactments. As we have said in rejecting a claim identical to the one the Government, makes here: “Our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch. The alleged conflict that such an adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts’ avoiding their constitutional responsibility.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 549 (1969).
The United States seeks to differentiate an Origination Clause claim from other constitutional challenges in two ways. The Government first argues that the House has the power to protect its institutional interests by refusing to pass a bill if it believes that the Origination Clause has been violated. Second, the Government maintains that the courts should not review Origination Clause challenges because compliance with that provision does not significantly affect individual rights. Of course, neither the House’s power to protect itself nor the asserted lack of a connection between the constitutional claim and individual rights is a factor that Baker identifies as characteristic of cases raising political questions. Rather, the Government attempts to use its arguments to establish that judicial resolution of Origination Clause challenges would entail a substantial lack of respect for the House, a factor that Baker does identify as relevant to the political question determination. Neither of the Government’s arguments persuades us.
Although the House certainly can refuse to pass a bill because it violates the Origination Clause, that ability does not absolve this Court of its responsibility to consider constitutional challenges to congressional enactments. See supra, at 391. Nor do the House’s incentives to safeguard its origination prerogative obviate the need for judicial review. As an initial matter, we are unwilling to presume that the House has a greater incentive to safeguard its origination power than it does to refuse to pass a bill that it believes is unconstitutional for other reasons. Such a presumption would demonstrate a profound lack of respect for a coordinate branch of Government’s pledge to uphold the entire Constitution, not just those provisions that protect its institutional prerogatives.
Even if we were to assume that the House does have more powerful incentives to refuse to pass legislation that violates the Origination Clause, that assumption would not justify the Government’s conclusion that the Judiciary has no role to play in Origination Clause challenges. In many cases involving claimed separation-of-powers violations, the branch whose power has allegedly been appropriated has both the incentive to protect its prerogatives and institututional mechanisms to help it do so. Nevertheless, the Court adjudicates those separation-of-powers claims, often without suggesting that they might raise political questions. See, e. g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 371-379 (1989) (holding that Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. §3551 et seq., and 28 U. S. C. §991 et seq., did not result in Executive’s wielding legislative powers, despite either House’s power to block Act’s passage); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 685-696 (1988) (holding that independent counsel provision of Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 28 U. S. C. § 591 et seq., is not a congressional or judicial usurpation of executive functions, despite President’s veto power); INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983) (explicitly finding that separation-of-powers challenge to legislative veto presented no political question). In short, the fact that one institution of Government has mechanisms available to guard against incursions into its power by other governmental institutions does not require that the Judiciary remove itself from the controversy by labeling the issue a political question.
The Government’s second suggestion — that judicial intervention in this case is unwarranted because the case does not involve individual rights —reduces to the claim that a person suing in his individual capacity has no direct interest in our constitutional system of separation of powers, and thus has no corresponding right to demand that the Judiciary ensure the integrity of that system. This argument is simply irrelevant to the political question doctrine. That doctrine is designed to restrain the Judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of Government; the identity of the litigant is immaterial to the presence of these concerns in a particular case. And we are unable to discern how, from the perspective of interbranch relations, the asserted lack of connection between Origination Clause claims and individual rights means that adjudication of such claims would necessarily entail less respect for the House than would judicial consideration of challenges based on constitutional provisions more obviously tied to civil liberties.
Furthermore, and more fundamentally, the Government’s claim that compliance with the Origination Clause is irrelevant to ensuring individual rights is in error. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that “ The Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty.’” Morrison, supra, at 694 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)). See also Morrison, supra, at 697 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“The Framers of the Federal Constitution . . . viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of á just Government”). Recognizing this, the Court has repeatedly adjudicated separation-of-powers claims brought by people acting in their individual capacities. See, e. g., Mistretta, supra (adjudicating claim that United States Sentencing Commission violates separation of powers on direct appeal by an individual defendant who had been sentenced pursuant to guidelines created by the Commission).
What the Court has said of the allocation of powers among branches is no less true of such allocations within the Legislative Branch. See, e. g., Chadha, supra, at 948-951 (bicameral National Legislature essential to protect liberty); The Federalist No. 63 (defending bicameral Congress on ground that each House will keep the other in check). The Constitution allocates different powers and responsibilities to the House and Senate. Compare, e. g., U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2 (giving Senate “Advice and Consent” power over treaties and appointment of ambassadors, judges, and other officers of the United States), with Art. I, §7, cl. 1 (stating that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”). The authors of the Constitution divided such functions between the two Houses based in part on their perceptions of the differing characteristics of the entities. See The Federalist No. 58 (defending the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue); The Federalist No. 64 (justifying advice and consent function of the Senate on the ground that representatives with longer terms would better serve complex national goals). At base, though, the Framers’ purpose was to protect individual rights. As James Madison said in defense of that Clause: “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The Federalist No. 58, p. 859 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Provisions for the separation of powers within the Legislative Branch are thus not different in kind from provisions concerning relations between the branches; both sets of provisions safeguard liberty.
The Government also suggests that a second Baker factor justifies our finding that this case is nonjusticiable: The Court could not fashion “judicially manageable standards” for determining either whether a bill is “for raising Revenue” or where a bill “originates.” We do not agree. The Government concedes, as it must, that the “general nature of the inquiry, which involves the analysis of statutes and legislative materials, is one that is familiar to the courts and often central to the judicial function.” Brief for United States 9. To be sure, the courts must develop standards for making the revenue and origination determinations, but the Government suggests no reason that developing such standards will be more difficult in this context than in any other. Surely a judicial system capable of determining when punishment is “cruel and unusual,” when bail is “[ejxcessive,” when searches are “unreasonable,” and when congressional action is “necessary and proper” for executing an enumerated power is capable of making the more prosaic judgments demanded by adjudication of Origination Clause challenges.
In short, this case has none of the characteristics that Baker v. Carr identified as essential to a finding that a case raises a political question. It is therefore justiciable.
B
Although Justice Stevens agrees with the Government that this Court should not entertain Origination Clause challenges, he relies, on a novel theory that the Government does not advance. He notes that the Constitution is silent as to the consequences of a violation of the Origination Clause, but that it provides by implication that any bill that passes both Houses and is signed by the President becomes a law. See Art. I, § 7, cl. 2; post, at 401-403, and n. 1. From this Justice Stevens infers the proposition that “some bills may become law even if they are improperly originated.” Post, at 403.
We cannot agree with Justice Stevens’ approach. The better reading of § 7 gives effect to all of its Clauses in determining what procedures the Legislative and Executive Branches must follow to enact a law. In the case of “Bills for raising Revenue,” §7 requires that they originate in the House before they can be properly passed by the two Houses and presented to the President. The Origination Clause is no less a requirement than the rest of the section because “it does not specify what consequences follow from an improper origination,” post, at 402. None of the Constitution’s commands explicitly sets out a remedy for its violation. Nevertheless, the principle that the courts will strike down a law when Congress has passed it in violation of such a command has been well settled for almost two centuries. See, e. g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176-180 (1803). That principle applies whether or not the constitutional provision expressly describes the effects that follow from its violation.
Even were we to accept Justice Stevens’ contrary view — that § 7 provides that a bill becomes a “law” even if it is improperly originated — we would not agree with his conclusion that no remedy is available for a violation of the Origination Clause. Rather, the logical consequence of his view is that the Origination Clause would most appropriately be treated as a constitutional requirement separate from the provisions of § 7 that govern when a bill becomes a “law.” Of course, saying that a bill becomes a “law” within the meaning of the second Clause does not answer the question whether that “law” is constitutional. To survive this Court’s scrutiny, the “law” must comply with all relevant constitutional limits. A law passed in violation of the Origination Clause would thus be no more immune from judicial scrutiny because it was passed by both Houses and signed by the President than would be a law passed in violation of the First Amendment.
Ill
Both parties agree that “revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.” Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, 202 (1897) (citing 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 880, pp. 610-611 (3d ed. 1858)). The Court has interpreted this general rule to mean that a statute that creates a particular governmental program and that raises revenue to support that program, as opposed to a statute that raises revenue to support Government generally, is not a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue” within the meaning of the Origination Clause. For example, the Court in Nebeker rejected an Origination Clause challenge to what the statute denominated a “tax” on the circulating notes of banking associations. Despite its label, “[t]he tax was a means for effectually accomplishing the great object of giving to the people a currency .... There was no purpose by the act or by any of its provisions to raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the Government.” Nebeker, supra, at 203. The Court reiterated the point in Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429 (1906), where it upheld a statute that levied property taxes in the District of Columbia to support railroad projects. The Court rejected an Origination Clause claim, concluding that “[wjhatever taxes are imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act.” Id., at 437.
This case falls squarely within the holdings in Nebeker and Millard. The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 established a Crime Victims Fund, 98 Stat. 2170, 42 U. S. C. § 10601(a) (1982 ed., Supp. II), as a federal source of funds for programs that compensate. and assist crime victims. See § 10601(d) (allocating moneys among programs); § 10602 (delineating eligible compensation programs); §10603 (delineating eligible assistance programs). The scheme established by the Act includes various mechanisms to provide money for the Fund, including the simultaneously enacted special assessment provision at issue in this case. § 10601(b)(2). Congress also specified, however, that if the total income to the Fund from all sources exceeded $100 million in any one year, the excess would be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. § 10601(c)(1). Although nothing in the text or the legislative history of the statute explicitly indicates whether Congress expected that the $100 million cap would ever be exceeded, in fact it never was. The Government reports that the first and only excess occurred in fiscal year 1989, when the cap stood at $125 million and receipts were between $133 million and $134 million, Brief for United States 21, n. 21, a claim respondent does not dispute, Brief for Respondent 19, n. 16.
Moreover, only a small percentage of any excess paid into the General Treasury can be attributed to the special assessments. The legislative history of the special assessment provision indicates that Congress anticipated that “substantial amounts [would] not result” from that source of funds. S. Rep. No. 98-497, p. 13 (1984). Reality has accorded with Congress’ prediction. See U. S. Dept, of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, Victims of Crime Act of 1984: A Report to Congress by the Attorney General 12 (1988) (§ 3013 revenues accounted for four percent of all deposits into the Fund received by United States Attorneys’ Offices for fiscal year 1987). Four percent of a minimal and infrequent excess over the statutory cap is properly considered “incidental].”
As in Nebeker and Millard, then, the special assessment provision was passed as part of a particular program to provide money for that program — the Crime Victims Fund. Although any excess was to go to the Treasury, there is no evidence that Congress contemplated the possibility of a substantial excess, nor did such an excess in fact materialize. Any revenue for the general Treasury that § 3013 creates is thus “incidental]” to that provision’s primary purpose. This conclusion is reinforced, not undermined, by the Senate Report that respondent claims establishes that § 3013 is a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue.” That Report reads: “The purpose of imposing nominal assessment fees is to generate needed income to offset the cost of the [Crime Victims Fund]. Although substantial amounts will not result, these additional amounts will be helpful in financing the program and will constitute new income for the Federal government.” S. Rep. No. 98-497, supra, at 13-14 (emphasis added). Respondent’s reliance on the emphasized portion of the quoted passage avails him nothing. Read in its entirety, the passage clearly evidences Congress’ intent that § 3013 provide funds primarily to support the Crime Victims Fund.
Respondent next contends that even if §3013 is directed entirely to providing support for the Crime Victims Fund, it still does not fall within the ambit of Nebeker or Millard. Respondent accurately notes that the § 3013 assessments are not collected for the benefit of the payors, those convicted of federal crimes. He then contends, citing Nebeker and Millard, that any bill that provides for the collection of funds is a revenue bill unless it is designed to benefit the persons from whom the funds are collected. Respondent misreads Nebeker and Millard. In neither of those cases did the Court state that a bill must benefit the payor to avoid classification as a revenue bill. Indeed, had the Court adopted such a caveat, the Court in Nebeker would have found the statute to be unconstitutional. There, the Court expressly identified the “people” generally, rather than the banking associations required to pay the tax, as the beneficiaries of the system of currency at issue. 167 U. S., at 203. It nevertheless found that the bill was not a revenue bill, stating that a bill creating a discrete governmental program and providing sources for its financial support is not a revenue bill simply because it creates revenue, a holding that was reaffirmed by Millard. See supra, at 397-398. Thus, the beneficiaries of the bill are not relevant.
Section 3013 is not a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue.” We therefore need not consider whether the Origination Clause would require its invalidation if it were a revenue bill. Nebeker, 167 U. S., at 203 (holding consideration of origination question “unnecessary” in light of finding that bill was not a revenue bill).
IV
We hold that this case does not raise a political question and is justiciable. Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause. The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling that § 3013 was passed in violation of the Origination Clause is inconsistent with the holdings of the other six Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue. See United States v. Griffin, 884 F. 2d 655, 656-657 (CA2 1989) (§ 3013 not a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue”); United States v. Simpson, 885 F. 2d 36, 40 (CA3 1989) (same); United States v. Herrada, 887 F. 2d 524, 527 (CA5 1989) (same); United States v. Ashburn, 884 F. 2d 901, 903 (CA6 1989) (same); United States v. Tholl, 895 F. 2d 1178, 1181-1182 (CA7 1990) (same); United States v. King, 891 F. 2d 780, 782 (CA10 1989) (same).
This Court has reserved the question whether “there is judicial power after an act of Congress has been duly promulgated to inquire in which House it originated.” Rainey v. United States, 232 U. S. 310, 317 (1914). The Court has, however, resolved an Origination Clause claim without suggesting that the claim might be nonjusticiable. Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429, 436-437 (1906).
No Court of Appeals has held that an Origination Clause challenge to § 3013 raises a political question. The Ninth Circuit in this case rejected the claim that the issue raises a political question, 863 F. 2d 654, 656-657 (1988), and the Third Circuit has reached the same conclusion, Simpson, supra, at 38-39. Three Circuits have addressed the merits of an Origination Clause claim without mentioning the political question doctrine, Griffin, supra; Ashbum, supra; King, supra; and two Circuits have refused to decide whether the issue raises a political question, Herrada, supra, at 525, and n. 1; Tholl, supra, at 1181-1182, n. 7. But cf. Texas Assn. of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. United States, 772 F. 2d 163 (CA5 1985) (holding that an Origination Clause challenge to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 324, presented a nonjusticiable political question).
The Government does not argue that all of the factors enunciated in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962), suggest that this case raises a political question. The Government concedes that no provision of the Constitution demonstrably commits to the House of Representatives the determination of where a bill originated. Brief for United States 9. Moreover, the Government does not suggest that answering the origination question requires any sort of “initial policy determination” that courts ought not make or that the question presents an “unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.” Nor does it suggest that there is any more danger of “multifarious pronouncements” in this context than in any other in which a court determines the constitutionality of a federal law. Baker v. Carr, supra, at 217.
Justice Scalia apparently would revisit Poivell. He contends that Congress’ resolution of the constitutional question in passing the bill bars this Court from independently considering that question. The only case he cites for his argument is Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 (1892). But Field does not support his argument. That case concerned “the nature of the evidence” the Court would consider in determining whether a bill had actually passed Congress. Id., at 670. Appellants had argued that the constitutional Clause providing that “[e]ach House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings” implied that whether a bill had passed must be determined by an examination of the journals. See ibid, (quoting Art. I, § 5) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court rejected that interpretation of the Journal Clause, holding that the Constitution left it to Congress to determine how a bill is to be authenticated as having passed. Id., at 670-671. In the absence of any constitutional requirement binding Congress, we stated that “[t]he respect due to coequal and independent departments” demands that the courts accept as passed all bills authenticated in the manner provided by Congress. Id., at 672. Where, as here, a constitutional provision is implicated, Field does not apply.
In an attempt to resurrect in another guise an argument that we have rejected, see supra, at 392-394, Justice Stevens seeks to differentiate the Origination Clause from such other constitutional provisions by suggesting that the House would more effectively ensure compliance with the Clause than would this Court. Post, at 403-406. Yet he apparently concedes that this case is justiciable despite his argument that the House is a better forum than the Judiciary for the resolution of Origination Clause disputes. The reasoning does not become persuasive merely because it is used for a different purpose, and we continue to reject it.
The statute has since been amended to provide a cap of $125 million through fiscal year 1991. 102 Stat. 4419, 42 U. S. C. § 10601(c)(l)(B)(i). The amendment also provides that the Judicial Branch will receive the first $2.2 million of excess collections to cover the costs of assessing and collecting criminal fines. § 10601(c)(1)(A). After fiscal year 1991, the cap will be $150 million through fiscal year 1994. § 10601(c)(l)(B)(ii).
A different case might be presented if the program funded were entirely unrelated to the persons paying for the program. Here, § 3013 targets people convicted of federal crimes, a group to which some part of the expenses associated with compensating and assisting victims of crime can fairly be attributed. Whether a bill would be “for raising Revenue” where the connection between payor and program was more attenuated is not now before us.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether a State may retry a defendant after his conviction has been reversed by an appellate court on the ground that the evidence introduced at the prior trial was insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain the jury’s verdict.
I
On September 7, 1965, petitioner Greene and José Manuel Sosa were indicted by a Florida grand jury for the murder of Nicanor Martinez. The indictment charged that Sosa “did hire, procure, aid, abet and counsel” Greene to murder Martinez and that petitioner had carried out the premeditated plan, shooting the victim to death with a pistol. A state-court jury subsequently found the defendants guilty of first-degree murder, without a recommendation of mercy. Pursuant to Florida law at the time, the trial court sentenced both defendants to death.
On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, the convictions of Greene and Sosa were reversed and new trials ordered. The reviewing court was sharply divided, however, with a majority composed of four justices joining a brief per curiam opinion which disposed of the case in the following terms:
“After a careful review of the voluminous evidence here we are of the view that the evidence was definitely lacking in establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed murder in the first degree, and that the interests of justice require a new trial. The judgments are accordingly reversed and remanded for a new trial.” Sosa v. State, 215 So. 2d 736, 737 (1968). (Emphasis added.)
Three justices dissented without opinion; we can do no more than speculate that the dissenting justices concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. In addition, a separate “special concurrence” was filed on behalf of three of the four justices who had also joined the per curiam opinion remanding for a new trial. These three concurring justices undertook a detailed examination of various asserted trial errors and found that on at least one claim the trial court had committed reversible error. This point concerned the improper admission of certain hearsay evidence which, in the opinion of the concurring justices, had a “potential probative force” that could have been “highly incriminating or critical to the establishment of an ultimate fact in dispute.” Id., at 745. While the concurrence of the three justices makes no mention of evidentiary insufficiency as such, the opinion concludes:
“For the reasons stated the judgments should be reversed and remanded for a new trial so we have agreed to the Per Curiam order doing so.” Id., at 746.
The “reasons stated” by the concurring justices thus concerned trial error, but paradoxically, the three explicitly joined the court’s per curiam opinion which rested exclusively on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
The case was then remanded, and after some intervening procedural maneuvering, the defendants were ordered retried in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Fla. Prior to their second trial, however, the defendants filed a suggestion for a writ of prohibition, claiming that their retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Federal Constitution, as it was applied to the States by Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969). They contended that the per curiam opinion of the State Supreme Court was tantamount to a finding that the trial court should have directed a verdict of not guilty and hence a second trial for first-degree murder would constitute double jeopardy. When the trial court refused to issue the writ, review was sought in the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida. That court likewise declined to issue a writ of prohibition, but expressly stated that it was not rendering “an opinion as to the propriety of a new trial after a reversal for lack of sufficient evidence to establish, as a matter of law, the essential elements of the crime charged.” Sosa v. Maxwell, 234 So. 2d 690, 692 (1970). Rather, the District Court of Appeal was of the view that the Supreme Court’s reversal “appear [ed] to be based on a finding that the evidence, though technically sufficient, [was] so tenuous as to prompt an appellate court to exercise its discretion and, in the interest of justice, grant a new trial.” Id., at 691. Considering the case in this posture, the court indicated that it could find no precedent in Florida law which would bar a retrial on double jeopardy grounds. Certiorari was subsequently sought in the Supreme Court of Florida, which denied the petition without comment. 240 So. 2d 640 (1970).
Greene and Sosa were then retried. On January 15, 1972, they were convicted of first-degree murder and each received a life sentence, the second jury having recommended mercy. From this judgment they appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, raising again their contention that the second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. While conceding “the point to be academically intriguing,” Greene v. State, 302 So. 2d 202, 203 (1974), that court refused to reach the merits of the double jeopardy claim, holding instead that the Court of Appeal’s earlier disposition of the issue was res judicata. Greene and Sosa applied for a writ of certiorari in this Court and certiorari was denied. Greene v. Florida, 421 U. S. 932 (1975).
Having exhausted all avenues of direct relief, petitioner Greene applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, arguing once more that his second trial was held in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Although the District Court was sympathetic to petitioner’s claim, it felt constrained by prior Fifth Circuit precedent to dismiss the petition. From this ruling petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court on the basis of an earlier Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Musquiz, 445 F. 2d 963 (1971). 546 F. 2d 51 (1977). The Musquiz decision had interpreted several of this Court's cases to mean that under 28 U. S. C. § 2106, a court of appeals could order a new trial after a conviction had been reversed due to evidentiary insufficiency “if a motion for a new trial was made in the trial court.” 546 F. 2d, at 56. Noting that Greene had made a motion for a new trial after his first conviction, and that the Florida Supreme Court had “review power at least equal to that possessed by this Court [of Appeals] under § 2106,” ibid., the court held that a new trial had been a constitutionally permissible remedy.
We granted certiorari, 432 U. S. 905 (1977), to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals.
II
In Burks v. United States, ante, p. 1, decided today, we have held that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial once a reviewing court has determined that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the verdict. Since the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is fully applicable to state criminal proceedings, Benton v. Maryland, supra, we are bound to apply the standard announced in Burks to the case now under review.
If we were confronted only with the per curiam opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, reversal in this case would follow. The per curiam disposition, standing by itself, leaves no room for interpretation by us other than that a majority of the State Supreme Court was “of the view that the evidence was definitely lacking in establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed murder in the first degree ....” By using the precise terminology “lacking in establishing beyond a reasonable doubt,” the highest court in Florida seems to have clearly said that there was insufficient evidence to permit the jury to convict petitioner at his first trial. The dispositive per curiam opinion makes no reference to the trial errors raised on appeal. Viewed in this manner, the reasoning enunciated in Burks would obviously compel the conclusion that Greene’s second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
But the situation is confused by the fact that three of the four justices who joined in the per curiam disposition expressly qualified their action by “specially concurring” in an opinion which discussed only trial error. One could interpret this action to mean that the three concurring justices were concerned simply with trial error and joined in the remand solely to afford Greene and Sosa a fair, error-free trial — even though they were satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. A reversal grounded on such a holding, of course, would not prevent a retrial. See Burks, ante, at 15-16; United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S. 463, 465 (1964). The problem with this interpretation is that the opinion concludes by expressly stating that the three concurring justices had “agreed to the Per Curiam order ... A When the concurrence is considered in light of the language of the per curiam opinion, it could reasonably be said that the concurring justices thought that the legally competent evidence adduced at the first trial was insufficient to prove guilt. That is, they were of the opinion that once the inadmissible hearsay evidence was discounted, there was insufficient evidence to permit the jury to convict.
Given the varying interpretations that can be placed on the actions of the several Florida appellate courts, we conclude that this case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of this opinion and Burks v. United States, ante, p. 1. The Court of Appeals will be free to direct further proceedings in the District Court or to certify unresolved questions of state law to the Florida Supreme Court. See Fla. Stat. §25.031 (1977), Fla. App. Rule 4.61; Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U. S. 386 (1974).
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The concurrence also concluded that the trial court had improperly ruled on a question concerning a subpoena duces tecum, the result of which was that the defense may have been deprived of evidence to which it was entitled. It is not clear from the opinion whether the concurring justices would have regarded this error, in and of itself, as requiring reversal.
The District Court of Appeal noted that “on many occasions” Florida courts had “held that where the weight of evidence appears ... to be very weak, although apparently legally sufficient if all permissible inferences are made and certain witnesses believed or disbelieved, a new trial may be granted.” 234 So. 2d, at 691. That court construed the language in the per curiam opinion of the State Supreme Court “as indicating that although some evidence on all elements of the crime was present, a grave doubt that affirmance would be in the interests of justice was raised in the minds of those members of the supreme court joining in the per curiam decision.” Id., at 691 n. 1.
Although the District Court of Appeal thus failed to decide whether the State might retry a defendant after his conviction has been reversed on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, it did opine in dictum that in such circumstances “the trial judge should have directed a verdict of acquittal.” Id., at 692.
Sosa was not a party to the federal habeas corpus action; accordingly, our holding here has no effect on his conviction.
In its unreported order dismissing the petition, the District Court stated that “if this were a question of first impression in the Fifth Circuit, this Court might be inclined to grant the petition. Regardless of whether an appellate court or a trial jury makes the determination that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt as to a particular charge, and regardless of whether a petitioner moves for a new trial on other grounds in addition to asserting the ground of insufficiency of evidence, it would seem that the double jeopardy clause would preclude giving the prosecution a second chance.”
These included Forman v. United States, 361 U. S. 416 (1960); Sapir v. United States, 348 U. S. 373 (1955); Bryan v. United States, 338 U. S. 552 (1950).
Arguably, the per curiam opinion might be read as meaning that although there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendants of “murder in the first degree,” there was nonetheless evidence to support a conviction for a lesser included offense, e. g., second-degree murder, see Fla. Stat. §782.04 (1977). At the time of the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in this case, the Double Jeopardy Clause was not applicable to state proceedings, and hence that court conceivably did not see any need to consider whether, under the Federal Constitution, a retrial would be allowed only for some lesser included offense. Cf. Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184 (1957). Indeed, even if Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), had been decided prior to the State Supreme Court’s action, the Florida court might have reasonably concluded from our decisions that a retrial for first-degree murder was permissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Burks, ante, at 10. Given our decision today to remand this case for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals, we need not reach the question of whether the State could, consistent with the Double Jeopardy Clause, try Greene for a lesser included offense in the event that his first-degree murder conviction is voided.
Even if this view of the concurrence is accepted, it would still mean that only a plurality of the Florida Supreme Court embraced the conclusion that reversal was justified solely on trial-error grounds. We leave resolution of this ambiguity to the Court of Appeals on remand, which will undoubtedly be in a better position to understand how Florida law would construe such a disposition.
We express no opinion as to the double jeopardy implications of a retrial following such a holding.
We note that the Second District Court of Appeal attached still another interpretation to the Florida Supreme Court’s action, namely, that a new trial was being granted “in the interests of justice,” even though the evidence was technically sufficient to support a verdict of guilty. See supra, at 22 n. 2. We are unaware, however, of the amount of weight that Florida law would afford to a district court of appeal’s interpretation of its Supreme Court’s actions. Nor are we willing to express an opinion as to the double jeopardy implications of a retrial ordered on such grounds. We leave both of these considerations to the Court of Appeals on remand.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases call into question the constitutionality of the Department of Labor’s administration of that provision of the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 which prohibits the acceptance of attorney’s fees for the representation of claimants, except such fees as are approved by the Department. Respondent Triplett contends that the Secretary of Labor’s manner of implementing this restriction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it renders qualified attorneys unavailable and thereby deprives claimants of legal assistance in the prosecution of their claims.
I
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972, 83 Stat. 792, as amended, 30 U. S. C. §901 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V), provides federal funds to those who have been totally disabled by pneumoconiosis, a respiratory disease commonly caused by coal mine employment, and to their eligible survivors. See Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 U. S. 105, 108 (1988). The Department of Labor (Department) awards benefits after adjudication by a deputy commissioner, and after review (if requested) by an administrative law judge (ALJ), the Benefits Review Board, and a federal court of appeals. 20 CFR §§725.410, 725.419(a), 725.481 (1989); 30 U. S. C. §932(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V) (incorporating 33 U. S. C. § 921(c) (1982 ed.)).
A claimant may be represented throughout these proceedings by an attorney, 20 CFR §§725.362, 725.363(a) (1989), and the Act provides that when the claimant wins a contested case the employer, his insurer, or (in some cases, see 30 U. S. C. §934 (1982 ed.)) the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund shall pay a “reasonable attorney’s fee” to the claimant’s lawyer. 30 U. S. C. § 932(a) (incorporating 33 U. S. C. § 928(a) (1982 ed.)). The Act also incorporates, however, that provision of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 44 Stat. 1438, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 928(d) (1982 ed.), which prohibits an attorney from receiving a fee — whether from the employer, insurer, or Trust Fund, or from the claimant himself — unless approved by the appropriate agency or court. 30 U. S. C. § 932(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V). The Department’s regulations invalidate all contractual agreements for fees, see 20 CFR §§725.365, 802.203(f) (1989), and the Department will not approve a fee if the claimant is unsuccessful, see Director, OWCP v. Hemingway Transport Inc., 1 BRBS 73, 75 (1974). Once the claimant’s compensation order becomes final, 33 U. S. C. § 928(a), the attorney may apply to each tribunal before whom the services were performed, 20 CFR § 725.366(a) (1989), and shall be awarded a fee “reasonably commensurate with the necessary work done,” § 725.366(b), taking into account “the quality of the representation, the qualifications of the representative, the complexity of the legal issues involved, the level of proceedings to which the claim was raised, the level at which the representative entered the proceedings, and any other information which may be relevant to the amount of fee requested.” Ibid.
Respondent George R. Triplett (hereinafter respondent) violated these restrictions by receiving unapproved fees. He agreed to represent claimants in exchange for 25% of any award obtained, and collected those fees without the required approval. The Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar initiated a disciplinary action against respondent for these infractions. The committee, after a hearing, recommended a 6-month suspension, and filed a complaint in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to enforce that sanction.
That court denied enforcement. Although respondent had not raised such a contention, it occurred to the court that the Act’s restriction on payment of fees, as implemented by the Department, might violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and thus be impermissible as the premise for the disciplinary action. After asking for and receiving supplemental briefing on the issue, it held the Department’s implementation of the Act unconstitutional because it “effectively den[ied] claimants necessary access to counsel,” and, alternatively, because it “den[ied] qualified claimants the procedural safeguards provided by Congress that are essential to vindicate the right to benefits also granted by Congress.” 180 W. Va. 533, 536, 544, 378 S. E. 2d 82, 85, 93 (1988). Two justices dissented, finding the factual record upon which the majority relied “woefully inadequate.” Id., at 549, 378 S. E. 2d, at 98.
After issuing this opinion, the court invited the Department to intervene. The Department did so, supplemented the record, and petitioned for rehearing. The court denied the petition in a brief opinion that found the Department’s proffered justifications for the fee limitation system, and its new evidence, unpersuasive. Id., at 547, 378 S. E. 2d, at 96.
Both the Department (in No. 88-1671) and the committee (in No. 88-1688) petitioned for certiorari. We granted the petitions. 493 U. S. 807 (1989).
II
A
We deal first with the parties’ standing. On petitioners’ side, the Committee on Legal Ethics has the classic interest of a government prosecuting agency arguing for the validity of a law upon which its prosecution is based. It has preferred charges against respondent that rest upon his disregard of the fee restrictions administered by the Department; those charges cannot be sustained if the restrictions themselves are unlawful. Since the committee has standing, we need not inquire whether the Department does as well. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 721 (1986).
B
On respondent’s side, Triplett invokes not his own legal rights and interests, but those of the black lung claimants who hired him. Respondent’s defense to the disciplinary-proceeding is that the fee scheme he is accused of violating contravenes those claimants’ due process rights because, by prohibiting collection pursuant to voluntary fee agreements and failing to provide adequate alternative means of attorney compensation, it renders claimants unable to obtain legal representation for their black lung claims. Ordinarily, of course, a litigant “ ‘must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.’” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 474 (1982) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 499 (1975)). This is generally so even when the very same allegedly illegal act that affects the litigant also affects a third party. See United States v. Payner, 447 U. S. 727, 731-732 (1980) (criminal defendant “lacks [third-party] standing under the Fourth Amendment to suppress . . . documents illegally seized from” his banker). When, however, enforcement of a restriction against the litigant prevents a third party from entering into a relationship with the litigant (typically a contractual relationship), to which relationship the third party has a legal entitlement (typically a constitutional entitlement), third-party standing has been held to exist. See Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947, 954-958 (1984) (professional fundraiser given third-party standing to challenge statute limiting its commission to 25% as violation of clients’ First Amendment right to hire him for a higher fee). A restriction upon the fees a lawyer may charge that deprives the lawyer’s prospective client of a due process right to obtain legal representation falls squarely within this principle. See Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U. S. 617, 623-624, n. 3 (1989). There is no question that a due process right to representation is placed at issue here, since at least one of the claimants who retained respondent received benefits that the Government was seeking to recover as erroneously paid. See 180 W. Va., at 543, n. 31, 378 S. E. 2d, at 92, n. 31; Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305, 320, n. 8 (1985).
Accordingly, we find standing on both sides of this action.
Ill
In Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, supra, we upheld against due process attack a statutory $10 limitation on attorney’s fees payable by veterans seeking disability or death benefits in proceedings before the Veterans’ Administration. We began there, as we begin here, by noting the heavy presumption of constitutionality to which a “carefully considered decision of a coequal and representative branch of our Government” is entitled. Id., at 319. We determined in Walters that the Government had an interest in administering benefits in an informal and nonadversarial fashion so that claimants would receive the entirety of an award without having to divide it with a lawyer. Id., at 321-323. We accorded that interest “great weight,” id., at 326, and required those challenging the law to make “an extraordinarily strong showing of probability of error under the present system — and the probability that the presence of attorneys would sharply diminish that possibility — to warrant a holding that the fee limitation denies claimants due process of law.” Ibid. Applying a similar analysis here, we conclude that the fee limitation scheme must be upheld.
The Government pursues an obvious and legitimate interest through the current regime. The regulation of attorney’s fees payable by claimants themselves is designed to protect claimants from their “improvident contracts, in the interest not only of themselves and their families but of the public.” Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U. S. 540, 541 (1925) (upholding similar state limitation). When fees are payable by persons other than the claimants, as Congress has provided, regulation is designed to assure fairness to the employer, carrier, or Trust Fund, and to protect those sources from a depletion that would leave other claimants without a source of compensation. The Government has good reason, moreover, to defer payment until the compensation award is final. A regime of payment immediately upon success at every level, subject to recovery in the event the judgment in favor of the claimant is reversed at a higher level, would impose upon the payor the onerous task of seeking to obtain a refund.
In Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, supra, we assumed that the fee limitation would make attorneys unavailable to claimants, but nevertheless upheld the statute because attorneys were not essential to vindicate the claims. Here, we need not reach the latter issue unless respondent has proved what was assumed in that case, viz., that the regime made attorneys unavailable to his prospective clients at the time respondent violated the Act. That showing contains two component parts: (1) that claimants could not obtain representation, and (2) that this unavailability of attorneys was attributable to the Government’s fee regime. That is no small burden, and respondent has failed to bear it.
Since the due process issue in this case first arose during the original enforcement proceeding in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, no lower court had heard evidence or made factual findings. Although the committee had heard evidence concerning respondent’s misconduct, it made no findings regarding the effect .of the fee regime on the availability of lawyers. The “factual record” upon which the court relied to invalidate this federal program consisted of testimony by two lawyers in the disciplinary proceeding, five affidavits attached to an amicus brief to the court, and statements by attorneys in hearings before a House of Representatives Subcommittee in 1985. Since it is critical to our disposition of the case, we shall describe the evidence the court relied upon in some detail.
As to the first issue — unavailability of attorneys — the court relied upon three lawyers’ assessments. One stated that “fewer qualified attorneys are accepting black lung claims,” and that more claimants are proceeding pro se. 180 W. Va., at 541, 378 S. E. 2d, at 90. According to a second attorney, “few attorneys are willing to represent black lung claimants.” Ibid. A third lawyer’s evaluation was not contained in the record, but consisted of his 1985 testimony to the House subcommittee that “many of his colleagues had ‘ . . . stated unequivocally that they would not take black lung cases ....’” Id., at 542, 378 S. E. 2d, at 91 (quoting Hearings on Investigation of Backlog in Black Lung Cases before the Subcommittee on Labor Relations of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., 188 (1985)). (The court did not mention the testimony of other witnesses before the Subcommittee to the opposite effect. See, e. g., id., at 45.)
This will not do. We made clear in Walters that this sort of anecdotal evidence will not overcome the presumption of regularity and constitutionality to which a program established by Congress is entitled. 473 U. S., at 324, n. 11. The impressions of three lawyers that the current system has produced “few” lawyers, or “fewer qualified attorneys” (whatever that means), and that “many” have left the field, are blatantly insufficient to meet respondent’s burden of proof, even if entirely unrebutted.
In unneeded addition, there was rebuttal here — affirmative indication that attorneys willing to take black lung cases were in adequate supply. Data submitted by the Department in support of its petition for rehearing showed that in 1987 claimants were represented by counsel at the AL J stage in 92% of cases resulting in grant or denial of benefits. Although these statistics are not conclusive of adequate attorney availability (they do not show, for example, the proportion of unrepresented claimants who never reached the ALJ stage), they are the only nonanecdotal evidence in the record, and they powerfully suggest that claimants whose chances of success are high enough to attract contingent-fee lawyers have no difficulty finding them.
Even if respondent had demonstrated an unavailability of attorneys, he would have been obliged further to show that its cause was the regulation of fees. He did not do so. In finding to the contrary, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals relied mainly on statements by attorneys concerning the delay in receiving payment. Of the three lawyers who claimed that there was a shortage of attorneys (see supra, at 723), two attributed the shortage, in part, to the delay in payment of fees. 180 W. Va., at 541, 542, 378 S. E. 2d, at 90, 91. See also id., at 536, n. 6, 378 S. E. 2d, at 85, n. 6 (lawyer testified that he had not yet been paid in “three or four” cases in which he had prevailed); id., at 541-542, 378 S. E. 2d, at 90-91 (testimony at congressional hearings that payment was delayed 2-3 years); id., at 541, 378 S. E. 2d, at 90 (lawyer stated that he is owed more than $30,000 in fees that have been awarded but not paid). The court thought this proved that the delay built into the fee-approval system produced the unavailability of attorneys: “In a small, depressed West Virginia town $30,000 is a substantial amount of money for an individual practitioner. In the long run, as John Maynard Keynes once observed, we are all dead. In the short run, lawyers have offices to run, mortgages to pay and children to educate.” Ibid.
The court did not explain why the Keynesian imperative of cash-on-the-barrelhead has not eliminated the contingent fee, the very institution respondent seeks to shield from regulation — which itself yields no office funds, mortgage payments, or tuition fees until often lengthy litigation is completed. The answer, of course, is that the contingent fees contracted for are high enough to compensate not only for the contingency but also for the delay until the contingency is resolved. There is no apparent reason why compensation cannot render palatable the additional delay inherent in the Department’s approval procedure as well. At one point the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals seemed to acknowledge this, asserting that its whole case against the Department’s scheme boils down to the fact that the fees are too low: “It is clear from the evidence before us that most lawyers are unwilling to represent black lung claimants because of the inadequate fees awarded by the DOL.” Id., at 545, 378 S. E. 2d, at 94. The evidence to support this economic assessment is similar to that for the unavailability of attorneys: small in volume, anecdotal in character, and self-interested in motivation — to wit, a portion of the affidavit of one claimants’ attorney who has not abandoned the practice. Id., at 541, 378 S. E. 2d, at 90 (citing Muth affidavit). On the face of the matter, it is difficult to understand how the Department could maintain a system of inadequate fees if it wanted to. The statute itself requires that the fees awarded be “reasonable,” see 33 U. S. C. §928(a) (1982 ed.); 30 U. S. C. §932(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V), which the agency has interpreted to include a requirement that they compensate for delay, cf. Hobbs v. Director, OWCP, 820 F. 2d 1528, 1529 (CA9 1987) (applying LHWCA); and where the statutory requirement is not observed, the dissatisfied attorney has a remedy in the appropriate court of appeals, see 33 U. S. C. §§ 921(c), 928(a) (1982 ed.); 30 U. S. C. §932(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V); Hobbs v. Director, OWCP, supra.
To establish the requisite causality between the Department’s scheme and the (alleged) unavailability of attorneys, the court also relied upon the impressions of the three lawyers (see supra, at 723) who attributed the departure of many black lung attorneys to the risk of nonrecovery if the claimant loses. 180 W. Va., at 541-542, 378 S. E. 2d, at 90-91. But as noted above, the existence in this country of a thriving contingent-fee practice demonstrates that this risk can be compensated for — so it comes down once again to the level of compensation. And we note that the Benefits Review Board has construed the regulations of the Secretary of Labor governing the award of attorney’s fees to permit consideration of the attorney’s risk of going unpaid. See Risden v. Director, OWCP, 11 BRBS 819, 824 (1980).
Finally, to establish the necessary causality the court relied on the conclusory impressions of interested lawyers as tó the effect of the Department’s fee regime on the availability of attorneys. One lawyer, for example, whose experience consisted of representing two claimants prior to 1981, said that he did not take black lung cases because of the difficulty in obtaining fees. 180 W. Va., at 536, n. 6, 378 S. E. 2d, at 85, n. 6; Tr. 206. Cf. 180 W. Va., at 542, 378 S. E. 2d, at 91. Perhaps so; but that does not come close to proving that the fee regime dried up the supply of attorneys.
In sum, the evidence relied upon by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals did not remotely establish either that black lung claimants are unable to retain qualified counsel or that the cause of such inability is the attorney’s fee system administered by the Department. The court therefore had no basis for concluding that that system deprives claimants of property without due process of law.
IV
It is not clear to us what the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals meant by what it described as its “independent basis” for finding a due process violation, which was set forth as follows:
“Congress has conferred upon qualified claimants the right to receive black lung benefits. Congress has also prescribed the remedy (the claims process) to guarantee this right, an essential part of which is the right to counsel. It is, therefore, unconstitutional for the Department of Labor by its regulations to deny qualified claimants the procedural safeguards provided by Congress that are essential to vindicate the right to benefits also granted by Congress.” Id., at 544, 378 S. E. 2d, at 93.
It seems to us this adds nothing to the prior analysis except the assertion that the right to counsel, besides being constitutionally required (as we have earlier assumed), was part of the statutory “remedy” prescribed by Congress. If that were so, of course, it would not be necessary to invoke the Due Process Clause, since in denying the right the Department of Labor would be violating the statute. In any case, the asserted basis is not “independent” — or at least not independent of the central proposition that black lung claimants have been deprived of their ability to obtain counsel. Our conclusion that that proposition has not remotely been established disposes of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ alternative ground of decision as well.
* * *
The judgment of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice White and Justice Blackmun join all but Part II-B of this opinion.
We disagree with Justice Marshall’s view that ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U. S. 605 (1989), renders our inquiry into third-party standing inappropriate. See post, at 729-732. Whether a litigant can assert the rights of a third party under a particular statute is “closely related to the question whether a person in the litigant’s position would have a right of action on the claim,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 500, n. 12 (1975). Thus, while state courts are fully entitled to entertain disputes that would not qualify as cases or controversies under Article III, it is questionable whether they have the power, by granting or denying third-party standing, to create or destroy federal causes of action. See Haitian Refugee Center v. Gracey, 257 U. S. App. D. C. 367, 381-382, and n. 12, 809 F. 2d 794, 808-809, and n. 12 (1987). We follow longstanding precedent in ascertaining the third-party standing of a respondent in a case arising from state court. See Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947, 954 (1984); Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we consider whether the Eleventh Amendment bars enforcement of a federal consent decree entered into by state officials.
I
Medicaid is a cooperative federal-state program that provides federal funding for state medical services to the poor. See Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 U. S. 498, 502 (1990). State participation is voluntary; but once a State elects to join the program, it must administer a state plan that meets federal requirements. One requirement is that every participating State must have an Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. See 79 Stat. 343, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1396a(a)(43), 1396d(r). EPSDT programs provide health care services to children to reduce lifelong vulnerability to illness or disease. The EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid statute require participating States to provide various medical services to eligible children, and to provide notice of the services. See ibid.
Petitioners here are mothers of children eligible for EPSDT services in Texas. In 1993 they filed a civil action pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, seeking in-junctive relief against the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, as well as various officials at these agencies charged with implementing the Texas EPSDT program. The named officials included the commissioners of the two agencies, the Texas State Medicaid Director, and certain employees at the Texas Department of Health. The individuals were sued in their official capacities and were represented throughout the litigation by the office of the Texas attorney general.
Petitioners alleged that the Texas program did not satisfy the requirements of federal law. They asserted that the Texas program did not ensure eligible children would receive health, dental, vision, and hearing screens; failed to meet annual participation goals; and gave eligible recipients inadequate notice of available services. Petitioners also claimed the program lacked proper case management and corrective procedures and did not provide uniform services throughout Texas.
After the suit was filed, the two Texas state agencies named in the suit moved to dismiss the claims against them on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Petitioners did not object, and in 1994 the District Court dismissed the state agencies as parties. The state officials remained in the suit, and the District Court certified a class consisting of children in Texas entitled to EPSDT services, a class of more than 1 million persons. Following extensive settlement negotiations, petitioners and the state officials agreed to resolve the suit by entering into a consent decree. The District Court conducted a fairness hearing, approved the consent decree, and entered it in 1996.
Judicial enforcement of the 1996 consent decree is the subject of the present dispute. The decree is a detailed document about 80 pages long that orders a comprehensive plan for implementing the federal statute. In contrast with the brief and general mandate in the statute itself, the consent decree requires the state officials to implement many specific procedures. An example illustrates the nature of the difference. The EPSDT statute requires States to “provide] or arrang[e] for the provision of . . . screening services in all cases where they are requested,” and also to arrange for “corrective treatment” in such cases. 42 U. S. C. §§ 1396a(a)(43)(B), (C)., The consent decree implements the provision in part by directing the Texas Department of Health to staff and maintain toll-free telephone numbers for eligible recipients who seek assistance in scheduling and arranging appointments. Consent Decree ¶¶ 241-242, Lodging of Petitioners 63-64. According to the decree, the advi-sors at the toll-free numbers must furnish the name, address, and telephone numbers of one or more health care providers in the appropriate specialty in a convenient location, and they also must assist with transportation arrangements to and from appointments. Id., ¶¶ 243-245, Lodging of Petitioners 64. The advisers must inform recipients enrolled in managed care health plans ¿hat they are free to choose a primary care physician upon enrollment. Id., ¶244, Lodging of Petitioners 64.
Two years after the consent decree was entered, petitioners filed a motion to enforce it in the District Court. The state officials, it was alleged, had not complied with the decree in various respects. The officials denied the allegations and maintained that the Eleventh Amendment rendered the decree unenforceable even if they were in noncompliance. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court issued a detailed opinion concluding that certain provisions of the consent decree had been violated. Frew v. Gilbert, 109 F. Supp. 2d 579 (ED Tex. 2000). The District Court rejected the Eleventh Amendment argument, id., at 660-678, and directed the parties to submit proposals outlining possible remedies for the violations.
The state officials filed an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the Eleventh Amendment prevented enforcement of the decree unless the violation of the consent decree was also a statutory violation of the Medicaid Act that imposed a clear and binding obligation on the State. Frazar v. Gilbert, 300 F. 3d 530, 543 (2002). The Court of Appeals assessed the violations identified by the District Court and concluded that none provided a valid basis for enforcement. Regardless of whether the EPSDT program complied with the detailed consent decree, the Court of Appeals reasoned, the program was good enough to comply with the general mandates of federal law. The Court of Appeals concluded that because petitioners had not established a violation of federal law, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to remedy the consent decree violations. Id., at 546-551.
Other Circuits have reached a contrary result, holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar enforcement of consent decrees in like circumstances. See, e. g., Kozlowski v. Coughlin, 871 F. 2d 241, 244 (CA2 1989); Wisconsin Hospital Assn. v. Reivitz, 820 F. 2d 863, 868 (CA7 1987). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals. 538 U. S. 905 (2003).
II
Petitioners advance two reasons why the consent decree can be enforced without violating the Eleventh Amendment. First, they argue the State waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in the course of litigation. Second, they contend that enforcement is permitted under the principles of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908). We agree that the decree is enforceable under Ex parte Young, and so we do not address the waiver argument.
This case involves the intersection of two areas of federal law: the reach of the Eleventh Amendment and the rules governing consent decrees. The Eleventh Amendment con-, firms the. sovereign status of the States by shielding them from suits by individuals absent their consent. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996). To ensure- the enforcement of federal law, however, the Eleventh Amendment permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in violation of federal law. Ex parte Young, supra. This standard allows courts to order prospective relief, see Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267 (1977), as well as measures ancillary to appropriate prospective relief, Green v. Mansour, 474 U. S. 64, 71-73 (1985). Federal courts may not award retrospective relief, for instance, money damages or its equivalent, if the State invokes its immunity. Edelman, supra, at 668.
Consent decrees have elements of both contracts and judicial decrees.. Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U. S. 501, 519 (1986). A consent decree “embodies an agreement of the parties” and is also “an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U. S. 367, 378 (1992). Consent decrees entered in federal court must be directed to protecting federal interests. In Firefighters, we observed that a federal consent decree must spring from, and serve to resolve, a dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; must come within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings; and must further the objectives of the law upon which the complaint was based. 478 U. S., at 525.
This brings us to the intersection of the principles governing consent decrees and the Eleventh Amendment. As we understand their argument, the state officials do not contend that the terms of the decree were impermissible under Ex parte Young. Nor do they contend that the consent decree failed to comply with Firefighters. The officials challenge only the enforcement of the decree, not its entry. They argue that the Eleventh Amendment narrows the circumstances in which courts can enforce federal consent decrees involving state officials.
The theory advanced by the state officials is similar to the one accepted by the Court of Appeals. The officials reason that Ex parte Young creates a narrow exception to the general rule of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Consent decrees involving state representatives threaten to broaden this exception, they contend, because decrees allow state officials to bind state governments to significantly more commitments than what federal law requires. Brief for Respondents 9-22. Permitting the enforcement of a broad consent decree would give courts jurisdiction over not just federal law, but also everything else that officials agreed to when they entered into the consent decree. A State in full compliance with federal law could remain subject to federal-court oversight through a course of judicial proceedings brought to enforce the consent decree. To avoid circumventing Eleventh Amendment protections, the officials argue, a federal court should not enforce a consent decree arising from an Ex parte Young suit unless the court first identifies, at the enforcement stage, a violation of federal law such as the EPSDT statute itself. Brief for Respondents 9-22.
We disagree with this view of the Eleventh Amendment. The decree is a federal-court order that springs from a federal dispute and furthers the objectives of federal law. See Firefighters, supra, at 525. The decree states that it creates “a mandatory, enforceable obligation." Consent Decree ¶ 302, Lodging of Petitioners 76. In light of the State’s assertion of its Eleventh Amendment immunity, the state officials lacked the authority to agree to remedies beyond the scope of Ex parte Young absent a waiver, as petitioners concede. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12. We can assume, moreover, that the state officials could not enter into a consent decree failing to satisfy the general requirements of consent decrees outlined in Firefighters. Petitioners’ motion to enforce, however, sought enforcement of a remedy consistent with Ex parte Young and Firefighters, a remedy the state officials themselves had accepted when they asked the District Court to approve the decree. Enforcing the agreement does not violate the Eleventh Amendment.
The theory advanced by the state officials relies heavily on our decision in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89 (1984). Pennhurst is distinguishable. In that case we found the rationale of Ex parte Young inapplicable to suits brought against state officials alleging violations of state law. 465 U. S., at 106. Jurisdiction was improper because “[a] federal court’s grant of relief against state officials on the basis of state law, whether prospective or retroactive, does not vindicate the supreme authority of federal law.” Ibid. Here, by contrast, the order to be enforced is a federal decree entered to implement a federal statute. The decree does implement the Medicaid statute in a highly detailed way, requiring the state officials to take some steps that the statute does not specifically require. The same could be said, however, of any effort to implement the general EPSDT statute in a particular way. The decree reflects a choice among various ways that a State could implement the Medicaid Act. As a result, enforcing the decree vindicates an agreement that the state officials reached to comply with federal law.
Hutto v. Finney, 487 U. S. 678 (1978), is instructive on this point. In Finney, the Court upheld a District Court’s award of attorney's fees designed to encourage state compliance with an existing court order. State prisoners had sued state prison officials claiming that the conditions of their confinement violated the Eighth Amendment, and the District Court had ordered the officials to improve prison conditions. When the officials refused to comply in good faith with the order, the District Court awarded attorney’s fees to the prisoners’ lawyers to be paid from the state treasury. Id., at 685. The state officials objected, arguing that the relief was not valid under the Eleventh Amendment because it exceeded the scope of Ex parte Young. The Court rejected this argument:
“In exercising their prospective powers under Ex parte Young and Edelman v. Jordan, federal courts are not reduced to issuing injunctions against state officers and hoping for compliance. Once issued, an injunction may be enforced.... If a state agency refuses to adhere to a court order, a financial penalty may be the most effective means of insuring compliance. The principles of federalism that inform Eleventh Amendment doctrine surely do not require federal courts to enforce their decrees only by sending high state officials to jail. The less intrusive power to impose a fine is properly treated as ancillary to the federal court’s power to impose injunctive relief.” 437 U. S., at 690-691 (footnote omitted).
The award of attorney’s fees “vindicated the District Court’s authority over a recalcitrant litigant,” the Court continued. “We see no reason to distinguish this award from any other penalty imposed to enforce a prospective injunction.” Id., at 691-692.
While Finney is somewhat different from the present case in that it involved the scope of remedies for violation of a prior order rather than the antecedent question whether remedies are permitted in the first instance, a similar principle applies. Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and hoping for compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be enforced.
III
The state officials warn that enforcement of consent decrees can undermine the sovereign interests and accountability of state governments. Brief for Respondents 23-32. The attorneys general of 19 States assert similar arguments as amici curiae. Brief for Utah et al. as Amici Curiae. The concerns they express are legitimate ones. If not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law, remedies outlined in consent decrees involving state officeholders may improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers. They may also lead to federal-court oversight of state programs for long periods of time even absent an ongoing violation of federal law.
When a federal court has entered a consent decree under Ex parte Young, the law’s primary response to these concerns has its source not in the Eleventh Amendment but in the court’s equitable powers and the direction given by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, Rule 60(b)(5) allows a party to move for relief if “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” The Rule encompasses the traditional power of a court of equity to modify its decree in light of changed circumstances. In Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U. S. 367 (1992), the Court explored the application of the Rule to consent decrees involving institutional reform. The Court noted that district courts should apply a “flexible standard” to the modification of consent decrees when a significant change in facts or law warrants their amendment. Id., at 393. See also Philadelphia Welfare Rights Org. v. Shapp, 602 F. 2d 1114 (CA3 1979) (modifying consent decree implementing Pennsylvania’s EPSDT program in light of changed circumstances).
Rufo rejected the idea that the institutional concerns of government officials were “only marginally relevant” when officials moved to amend a consent decree, and noted that “principles of federalism and simple common sense require the [district] court to give significant weight” to the views of government officials. 502 U. S., at 392, n. 14. When a suit under Ex parte Young requires a detailed order to ensure compliance with a decree for prospective relief, and the decree in effect mandates the State, through its named officials, to administer a significant federal program, principles of federalism require that state officials with front-line responsibility for administering the program be given latitude and substantial discretion. •
The federal court must exercise its equitable powers to ensure that when the objects of the decree have been attained, responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials. As public servants, the officials of the State must be presumed to have a high degree of competence in deciding how best to discharge their governmental responsibilities. A State, in the ordinary course, depends upon successor officials, both appointed and elected, to bring new insights and solutions to problems of allocating revenues and resources. The basic obligations of federal law may remain the same, but the precise manner of their discharge may not. If the State establishes reason to modify the decree, the court should make the necessary changes; where it has not done so, however, the decree should be enforced according to its terms.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Menominee Tribe of Indians was granted a reservation in Wisconsin by the Treaty of Wolf River in 1854. 10 Stat. 1064. By this treaty the Menominees retro-ceded certain lands they had acquired under an earlier treaty and the United States confirmed to them the Wolf River Reservation “for a home, to be held as Indian lands are held.” Nothing was said in the 1854 treaty about hunting and fishing rights. Yet we agree with the Court of Claims that the language “to be held as Indian lands are held” includes the right to fish and to hunt. The record shows that the lands covered by the Wolf River Treaty of 1854 were selected precisely because they had an abundance of game. See Menominee Tribe v. United States, 95 Ct. Cl. 232, 240-241 (1941). The essence of the Treaty of Wolf River was that the Indians were authorized to maintain on the new lands ceded to them as a reservation their way of life which included hunting and fishing.
What the precise nature and extent of those hunting and fishing rights were we need not at this time determine. For the issue tendered by the present decision of the Court of Claims, 179 Ct. Cl. 496, 388 F. 2d 998, is whether those rights, whatever their precise extent, have been extinguished.
That issue arose because, beginning in 1962, Wisconsin took the position that the Menominees were subject to her hunting and fishing regulations. Wisconsin prosecuted three Menominees for violating those regulations and the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the state regulations were valid, as the hunting and fishing rights of the Menominees had been abrogated by Congress in the Menominee Indian Termination Act of 1954. 68 Stat. 250, as amended, 25 U. S. C. §§ 891-902.
Thereupon the tribe brought suit in the Court of Claims against the United States to recover just compensation for the loss of those hunting and fishing rights. The Court of Claims by a divided vote held that the tribe possessed hunting and fishing rights under the Wolf River Treaty; but it held, contrary to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, that those rights were not abrogated by the Termination Act of 1954. We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in order to resolve that conflict between the two courts. 389 U. S. 811. On oral argument both petitioner and respondent urged that the judgment of the Court of Claims be affirmed. The State of Wisconsin appeared as amicus curiae and argued that that judgment be reversed.
In 1953 Congress by concurrent resolution instructed the Secretary of the Interior to recommend legislation for the withdrawal of federal supervision over certain American Indian tribes, including the Menominees. Several bills were offered, one for the Menominee Tribe that expressly preserved hunting and fishing rights. But the one that became the Termination Act of 1954, viz., H. R. 2828, did not mention hunting and fishing rights. Moreover, counsel for the Menominees spoke against the bill, arguing that its silence would by implication abolish those hunting and fishing rights. It is therefore argued that they were abolished by the Termination Act.
The purpose of the 1954 Act was by its terms “to provide for orderly termination of Federal supervision over the property and members” of the tribe. Under its provisions, the tribe was to formulate a plan for future control of tribal property and service functions theretofore conducted by the United States. On or before April 30, 1961, the Secretary was to transfer to a tribal corporation or to a trustee chosen by him all property real and personal held in trust for the tribe by the United States.
The Menominees submitted a plan, looking toward the creation of a county in Wisconsin out of the former reservation and the creation by the Indians of a Wisconsin corporation to hold other property of the tribe and its members. The Secretary of the Interior approved the plan with modifications; the Menominee Enterprises, Inc., was incorporated; and numerous ancillary laws were passed by Wisconsin integrating the former reservation into its county system of government. The Termination Act provided that after the transfer by the Secretary of title to the property of the tribe, all federal supervision was to end and “the laws of the several States shall apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they apply to other citizens or persons within their jurisdiction.”
It is therefore argued with force that the Termination Act of 1954, which became fully effective in 1961, submitted the hunting and fishing rights of the Indians to state regulation and control. We reach, however, the opposite conclusion. The same Congress that passed the Termination Act also passed Public Law -280, 67 Stat. 588, as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 1162. The latter came out of the same committees of the Senate and the House as did the Termination Act; and it was amended in a way that is critical here only two months after the Termination Act became law. As amended, Public Law 280 granted designated States, including Wisconsin, jurisdiction “over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country” named in the Act, which in the case of Wisconsin was described as “All Indian country within the State.” But Public Law 280 went on to say that “Nothing in this section . . . shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement, or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof.” (Emphasis added.) That provision on its face contains no limitation; it protects any hunting, trapping, or fishing right granted by a federal treaty. Public Law 280, as amended, became the law in 1954, nearly seven years before the Termination Act became fully effective in 1961. In 1954, when Public Law 280 became effective, the Menominee Reservation was still “Indian country” within the meaning of Public Law 280.
Public Law 280 must therefore be considered in pari materia with the Termination Act. The two Acts read together mean to us that, although federal supervision of the tribe was to cease and all tribal property was to be transferred to new hands, the hunting and fishing rights granted or preserved by the Wolf River Treaty of 1854 survived the Termination Act of 1954.
This construction is in accord with the overall legislative plan. The Termination Act by its terms provided for the “orderly termination of Federal supervision over the property and members” of the tribe. 25 U. S. C. § 891. (Emphasis added.) The Federal Government ceded to the State of Wisconsin its power of supervision over the tribe and the reservation lands, as evident from the provision of the Termination Act that the laws of Wisconsin “shall apply to the tribe and its members in the same manner as they apply to other citizens or persons within [its] jurisdiction.”
The provision of the Termination Act (25 U. S. C. § 899) that “all statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall no longer be applicable to the members of the tribe” plainly refers to the termination of federal supervision. The use of the word “statutes” is potent evidence that no treaty was in mind.
We decline to construe the Termination Act as a backhanded way of abrogating the hunting and fishing rights of these Indians. While the power to abrogate those rights exists (see Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553, 564-567) “the intention to abrogate or modify a treaty is not to be lightly imputed to the Congress.” Pigeon River Co. v. Cox Co., 291 U. S. 138, 160. See also Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U. S. 1.
Our conclusion is buttressed by the remarks of the legislator chiefly responsible for guiding the Termination Act to enactment, Senator Watkins, who stated upon the occasion of the signing of the bill that it “in no way violates any treaty obligation with this tribe.”
We find it difficult to believe that Congress, without explicit statement, would subject the United States to a claim for compensation by destroying property rights conferred by treaty, particularly when Congress was purporting by the Termination Act to settle the Government's financial obligations toward the Indians.
Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Claims is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Menominee Tribe v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 496, 503-504, 388 F. 2d 998, 1002.
As stated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin:
“It would seem unlikely that the Menominees would have knowingly relinquished their special fishing and hunting rights which they enjoyed on their own lands, and have accepted in exchange other lands with respect to which such rights did not extend. They undoubtedly believed that these rights were guaranteed to them when these- other lands were ceded to them ‘to be held as Indian lands are held.’ Construing this ambiguous provision of the 1854 treaty favorably to the Menominees, we determine that they enjoyed the same exclusive hunting rights free from the restrictions of the state’s game laws over the ceded lands, which comprised the Menominee Indian Reservation, as they had enjoyed over the lands ceded to the United States by the 1848 treaty.” State v. Sanapaw, 21 Wis. 2d 377, 383, 124 N. W. 2d 41, 44 (1963).
The Court said in United States v. Winans, 198 U. S. 371, 380-381, “[W]e will construe a treaty with the Indians as ‘that unlettered people’ understood it, and ‘as justice and reason demand, in all cases where power is exerted by the strong over those to whom they owe care and protection,’ and counterpoise the inequality ‘by the superior justice which looks only to the substance of the right without regard to technical rules.’ ”
As the Solicitor General points out in his brief, the words “to be held as Indian lands are held” sum up in a single phrase the familiar provisions of earlier treaties which recognized hunting and fishing as normal incidents of Indian life. See Treaty of January 3, 1786, with the Choctaws, 7 Stat. 22; Treaty of January 31, 1786, with the Shawnees, 7 Stat. 27; Treaty of January 9, 1789, with the Wyandots, 7 Stat. 29; Treaty of August 3, 1795, with the Wyandots, 7 Stat. 52; Treaty of November 10, 1808, with the Osages, 7 Stat. 109; Treaty of August 24, 1835, with the Comanches, 7 Stat. 475.
State v. Sanapaw, 21 Wis. 2d 377, 124 N. W. 2d 41.
See Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U. S. 476.
H. R. Con. Res. 108, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 67 Stat. b132.
S. 2813 and H. R. 7135, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.
Joint Hearings, Subcommittees of Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., Pt. 6, on S. 2813, H. R. 2828, and H. R. 7135, pp. 697, 704.
The Termination Act also provided for a closing of the membership roll of the tribe with distribution to the enrollees of certificates of beneficial interest in the tribal property. The roll was closed in December 1957. 22 Fed. Reg. 9951.
26 Fed. Reg. 3726.
Wisconsin questions whether Menominee Enterprises, Inc., to which all tribal assets were conveyed pursuant to the termination plan (26 Fed. Reg. 3726), should be viewed as the successor entity to the tribe and the present holder of the hunting and fishing rights, and, if so, to what extent the corporation or the tribal members thereof can withhold or parcel out these rights.
The Menominees, on the other hand, claim the rights are held by Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Inc., a tribal body organized in 1962. Its Articles of Incorporation provide for four categories of membership (Article X): Menominee Indian membership (§1 (a)) (all Menominee Indians appearing on the final roll of the tribe approved by the Secretary of the Interior, n. 8, supra); Associate membership of Menominee descendants (§ 1 (b)) (any descendants of enrolled Menominee Indians or recipients through inheritance of Menominee Enterprises securities); Associate membership of persons married to enrolled Menominees (§1 (c)); and Associate membership of non-Indians (§ 1 (d)). In March 1968, the first category was enlarged by amendment of Art. X, § 1 (a), of the Articles of Incorporation to include all descendants of enrolled Menominee Indians with at least one-quarter Menominee blood, one or both of whose parents resided on the Menominee Reservation at the time of the descendant’s birth. The corporation also adopted a resolution defining those persons entitled to exercise the hunting and fishing rights, which provided:
“All tribal members, as defined in Article X of the Articles of Incorporation, Section 1 (a), and only such members, shall have the right to exercise tribal hunting and fishing rights, subject to tribal regulations;
“PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that any member who violates any tribal hunting or fishing regulation may upon finding of the Council of Chiefs be declared ineligible to exercise such rights, for such period of time as the Council of Chiefs may specify.”
We believe it inappropriate, however, to resolve the question of who the beneficiaries of the hunting and fishing rights may be; and we expressly reserve decision on it. Neither it nor the nature of those rights nor the extent, if any, to which Wisconsin may regulate them has been fully briefed and argued by the parties either in the Court of Claims or in this Court, and the posture of the present litigation does not require their resolution.
As originally enacted Public Law 280 exempted the Menominees from its provisions. The House Reports on Pub. L. 280 (H. R. 1063, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.) and on Pub. L. 661 (H. R. 9821, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.) indicate that the Menominees had specifically asked for exemption from the provisions of the bill that eventually became Pub. L. 280, on the ground that their tribal law and order program was functioning satisfactorily. Subsequently, the tribe reconsidered its position and sponsored H. R. 9821, amending Pub. L. 280 to extend its provisions to the Menominee Reservation. The Department of the Interior recommended favorable action on the proposed amendment, and the amendment was enacted into law on August 24, 1954 (68 Stat. 795), two months after the passage of the Menominee Termination Act. See H. R. Rep. No. 848, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1953); H. R. Rep. No. 2322, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954).
The Act creating the Wisconsin Territory (5 Stat. 10) contained an express reservation of Indian rights, though both the Enabling Act of 1846 (9 Stat. 56), and the Act admitting Wisconsin to the Union in 1848 (9 Stat. 233) were silent on the subject. It was only a few months after Wisconsin achieved statehood that the Menominees ceded all of their Wisconsin lands to the United States in anticipation of the tribe’s removal to other lands west of the Mississippi. Treaty of October 18, 1848, 9 Stat. 952. But as already noted, this removal never fully succeeded, and the Menominee Reservation created by the Treaty of Wolf River was carved out of the lands the Indians had previously ceded to the United States.
The State argues that since it was admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, its sovereignty over the lands designated in 1854 as the Menominee Reservation attached in some degree between the time the Indians ceded all of their Wisconsin lands to the United States in 1848 and the time when the United States ceded back a certain portion of those lands for the reservation in 1854. Wisconsin contends that any hunting or fishing privileges guaranteed the Menominees free from state regulation did not survive the dissolution of the reservation and the termination of the trusteeship of the United States over the Menominees. At that time, it is said, Wisconsin’s long dormant power to exercise jurisdiction over those reservation lands was awakened by the termination of the reservation.
If any hiatus in title to the reservation lands in question occurred between 1848 and 1854, any jurisdiction that the State may have acquired over those would not have survived the Treaty of 1854. The Treaty of Wolf River was, under Article VI of the Constitution, the “supreme law of the land,” and the exercise of rights on reservation lands guaranteed to the tribe by the Federal Government would not be subject to state regulation, at least in absence of a cession by Congress. Cf. Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 504, 514. In this connection it should be noted that in 1853 the Wisconsin Legislature consented to the establishment of the Menominee Reservation subsequently confirmed by the 1854 Treaty (1853 Wis. Jt. Res., c. I), an action which can be fairly construed as a disclaimer of any jurisdiction the State may have possessed.
100 Cong. Rec. 8538.
See n. 4, supra.
Compare the hearings on the Klamath Termination bill, which took place shortly before the Menominee bills were reached, in which Senator Watkins expressed the view that perhaps the Government should “buy out” the Indians’ hunting and fishing rights rather than preserve them after termination. See Joint Hearings, Subcommittees of the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., Pt. 4, on S. 2745 and H. R. 7320, pp. 254-255.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether governmental restrictions upon commercial speech are invalid if they go beyond the least restrictive means to achieve the desired end.
HH
The State University of New York (SUNY) has promulgated regulations governing the use of school property, including dormitories. One of these, Resolution 66-156 (1979), states:
“No authorization will be given to private commercial enterprises to operate on State University campuses or in facilities furnished by the University other than to provide for food, legal beverages, campus bookstore, vending, linen supply, laundry, dry cleaning, banking, barber and beautician services and cultural events.”
American Future Systems, Inc. (AFS), is a company that sells housewares, such as china, crystal, and silverware, to college students; it markets its products exclusively by the technique popularly called (after the company that pioneered it) “Tupperware parties.” This consists of demonstrating and offering products for sale to groups of 10 or more prospective buyers at gatherings assembled and hosted by one of those prospective buyers (for which the host or hostess stands to receive some bonus or reward).
In October 1982, an AFS representative was conducting a demonstration of the company’s products in a student’s dormitory room at SUNY’s Cortland campus. Campus police asked her to leave because she was violating Resolution 66-156. When she refused, they arrested her and charged her with trespass, soliciting without a permit, and loitering. Respondent Fox, along with several fellow students at SUNY/ Cortland, sued for declaratory judgment that in prohibiting their hosting and attending AFS demonstrations, and preventing their discussions with other “commercial invitees” in their rooms, Resolution 66-156 violated the First Amendment. AFS joined the students as a plaintiff. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, American Future Systems, Inc. v. State University of New York College at Cortland, 565 F. Supp. 754 (NDNY 1983), but, after a trial, found for the university on the ground that the SUNY dormitories did not constitute a public forum for the purpose of commercial activity and. that the restrictions on speech were reasonable in light of the dormitories’ purpose, 649 F. Supp. 1393 (1986).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. 841 F. 2d 1207 (1988). Because AFS had dropped out of the suit as a party, the only remaining issue was the students’ claim that their First Amendment rights had been infringed. Viewing the challenged application of Resolution 66-156 as a restriction on commercial speech, and therefore applying the test articulated in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 447 U. S. 557 (1980), the Court of Appeals concluded that it was unclear whether Resolution 66-156 directly advanced the State’s asserted interests and whether, if it did, it was the least restrictive means to that end. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the judgment and remanded to the trial court for “a suitable order” based upon “appropriate findings” on these points. We granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 815 (1988).
In reviewing the reasoning the Court of Appeals used to decide this case, the first question we confront is whether the principal type of expression at issue is commercial speech. There is no doubt that the AFS “Tupperware parties” the students seek to hold “propose a commercial transaction,” Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 762 (1976), which is the test for identifying commercial speech, see Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U. S. 328, 340 (1986). They also touch on other subjects, however, such as how to be financially responsible and how to run an efficient home. Relying on Riley v. National Federation of Blind of North Carolina, Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 796 (1988), respondents contend that here pure speech and commercial speech are “inextricably intertwined,” and that the entirety must therefore be classified as noncommercial. We disagree,
Riley involved a state-law requirement that in conducting fundraising for charitable organizations (which we have held to be fully protected speech) professional fundraisers must insert in their presentations a statement setting forth the percentage of charitable contributions collected during the previous 12 months that were actually turned over to charities (instead of retained as commissions). In response to the State’s contention that the statement was merely compelled commercial speech, we responded that, if so, it was “inextricably intertwined with otherwise fully protected speech,” and that the level of First Amendment scrutiny must depend upon “the nature of the speech taken as a whole and the effect of the compelled statement thereon.” Ibid. There, of course, the commercial speech (if it was that) was “inextricably intertwined” because the state law required it to be included. By contrast, there is nothing whatever “inextricable” about the noncommercial aspects of these presentations. No law of man or of nature makes it impossible to sell housewares without teaching home economics, or to teach home economics without selling housewares. Nothing in the resolution prevents the speaker from conveying, or the audience from hearing, these noncommercial messages, and nothing in the nature of things requires them to be combined with commercial messages.
Including these home economics elements no more converted AFS’ presentations into educational speech, than opening sales presentations with a prayer or a Pledge of Allegiance would convert them into religious or political speech. As we said in Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 67-68 (1983), communications can “constitute commercial speech notwithstanding the fact that they contain discussions of important public issues. ... We have made clear that advertising which ‘links a product to a current public debate’ is not thereby entitled to the constitutional protection afforded noncommercial speech. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 447 U. S., at 563, n. 5.” We discuss this case, then, on the basis that commercial speech is at issue.
We have described our mode of analyzing the lawfulness of restrictions on commercial speech as follows:
“At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” Central Hudson, supra, at 566.
The Court of Appeals held, and the parties agree, that the speech here proposes a lawful transaction, is not misleading, and is therefore entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court of Appeals also held, and we agree, that the governmental interests asserted in support of the resolution are substantial: promoting an educational rather than commercial atmosphere on SUNY’s campuses, promoting safety and security, preventing commercial exploitation of students, and preserving residential tranquility. The Court of Appeals did not decide, however, whether Resolution 66-156 directly advances these interests, and whether the regulation it imposes is more extensive than is necessary for that purpose. As noted earlier, it remanded to the District Court for those determinations. We think that remand was correct, since further factual findings had to be made. It is the terms of the remand, however, that are the. major issue here — specifically, those pertaining to the last element of the Central Hudson analysis. The Court of Appeals in effect instructed the District Court that it could find the resolution to be “not more extensive than is necessary” only if it is the “least restrictive measure” that could effectively protect the State’s interests.
Our cases have repeatedly stated that government restrictions upon commercial speech may be no more broad or no more expansive than “necessary” to serve its substantial interests, see, e. g., Central Hudson, 447 U. S., at 566; Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U. S. 490, 507-508 (1981) (plurality opinion); In re R. M. J., 455 U. S. 191, 203 (1982); Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 644 (1985); Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, supra, at 343; San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U. S. 522, 535 (1987); Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn., 486 U. S. 466, 472 (1988). If the word “necessary” is interpreted strictly, these statements would translate into the “least-restrictive-means” test used by the Court of Appeals here. There are undoubtedly formulations in some of our cases that support this view — for example, the statement in Central Hudson itself that “if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restrictions cannot survive.” 447 U. S., at 564. We have indeed assumed in dicta the validity of the “least-restrictive-means” approach. See Zauderer, supra, at 644, 651, n. 14. However, as we long ago had occasion to observe with respect to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), the word “necessary” is sometimes used more loosely. And other formulations in our commercial speech cases support a more flexible meaning for the Central Hudson test. In In re R. M. J., for example, we said that restrictions designed to prevent deceptive advertising must be “narrowly drawn,” 455 U. S., at 203, and “no more extensive than reasonably necessary to further substantial interests,” id., at 207; see also id., at 203. We repeated the latter formulation last Term in Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn., supra, at 472. In San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, supra, at 537, n. 16, we said that the application of the Central Hudson test was “substantially similar” to the application of the test for validity of time, place, and manner restrictions upon protected speech — which we have specifically held does not require least restrictive means. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288 (1984); see also infra, at 478. Whatever the conflicting tenor of our prior dicta may be, we now focus upon this specific issue for the first time, and conclude that the reason of the matter requires something short of a least-restrictive-means standard.
Our jurisprudence has emphasized that “commercial speech [enjoys] a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values,” and is subject to “modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression.” Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 456 (1978). The ample scope of regulatory authority suggested by such statements would be illusory if it were subject to a least-restrictive-means requirement, which imposes a heavy burden on the State. See Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960); see also Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 467 (1977). Cf. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 279, n. 3 (1981) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).
We have refrained from imposing a least-restrictive-means requirement — even where core political speech is at issue — in assessing the validity of so-called time, place, and manner restrictions. We uphold such restrictions so long as they are “narrowly tailored” to serve a significant governmental interest, Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, supra, at 293; City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 808 (1984), a standard that we have not interpreted to require elimination of all less restrictive alternatives, see, e. g., Community for Creative Non-Violence, supra, at 299; Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U. S. 641, 657 (1984) (plurality opinion) (“The less-restrictive-alternative analysis . . . has never been a part of the inquiry into the validity of a time, place, and manner regulation”). Similarly with respect to government regulation of expressive conduct, including conduct expressive of political views. In requiring that to be “narrowly tailored” to serve an important or substantial state interest, see Community for Creative Non-Violence, supra, at 293, 298 (discussing United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968)); Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, at 804-805, we have not insisted that there be no conceivable alternative, but only that the regulation not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests,” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 799 (1989). And we have been loath to second-guess the Government’s judgment to that effect. See Community for Creative Non-Violence, supra, at 299; United States v. Albertini, 472 U. S. 675, 689 (1985). While these two lines of authority do not of course govern here, we think it would be incompatible with the asserted “subordinate position [of commercial speech] in the scale of First Amendment values” to apply a more rigid standard in the present context.
None of our cases invalidating the regulation of commercial speech involved a provision that went only marginally beyond what would adequately have served the governmental interest. To the contrary, almost all of the restrictions disallowed under Central Hudson’s, fourth prong have been substantially excessive, disregarding “far less restrictive and more precise means.” Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn., 486 U. S., at 476. See, e. g., Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626 (1985); In re R. M. J., 455 U. S. 191 (1982); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977). On the other hand, our decisions upholding the regulation of commercial speech cannot be reconciled with a requirement of least restrictive means. In Posadas, for example, where we sustained Puerto Rico’s blanket ban on promotional advertising of casino gambling to Puerto Rican residents, we did not first satisfy ourselves that the governmental goal of deterring casino gambling could not adequately have been served (as the appellant contended) “not by suppressing commercial speech that might encourage such gambling, but by promulgating additional speech designed to discourage it.” 478 U. S., at 344. Rather, we said that it was “up to the legislature to decide” that point, so long as its judgment was reasonable. Ibid. Similarly, in Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U. S., at 513 (plurality opinion), where we upheld San Diego’s complete ban of off-site billboard advertising, we did not inquire whether any less restrictive measure (for example, controlling the size and appearance of the signs) would suffice to meet the city’s concerns for traffic safety and esthetics. It was enough to conclude that the ban was “perhaps the only effective approach.” Id., at 508. And in San Francisco Aids & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U. S., at 539, it was enough to uphold the restrictions placed on commercial speech by a federal trademark statute that they were “not broader than Congress reasonably could have determined to be necessary.”
In sum, while we have insisted that “ ‘the free flow of commercial information is valuable enough to justify imposing on would-be regulators the costs of distinguishing. . . the harmless from the harmful,’” Shapero, supra, at 478, quoting Zauderer, supra, at 646, we have not gone so far as to impose upon them the burden of demonstrating that the distinguishment is 100% complete, or that the manner of restriction is absolutely the least severe that will achieve the desired end. What our decisions require is a “ ‘fit’ between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends,” Posadas, sitpra, at 341 — a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is “in proportion to the interest served,” In re R. M. J., supra, at 203; that employs not necessarily the least restrictive means but, as we have put it in the other contexts discussed above, a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective. Within those bounds we leave it to governmental deci-sionmakers to judge what manner of regulation may best be employed.
We reject the contention that the test we have described is overly permissive. It is far different, of course, from the “rational basis” test used for Fourteenth Amendment equal protection analysis. See, e. g., Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U. S. 106, 109-110 (1949). There it suffices if the law could be thought to further a legitimate governmental goal, without reference to whether it does so at inordinate cost. Here we require the government goal to be substantial, and the cost to be carefully calculated. Moreover, since the State bears the burden of justifying its restrictions, see Zauderer, supra, at 647, it must affirmatively establish the reasonable fit we require. By declining to impose, in addition, a least-restrictive-means requirement, we take account of the difficulty of establishing with precision the point at which restrictions become more extensive than their objective requires, and provide the Legislative and Executive Branches needed leeway in a field (commercial speech) “traditionally subject to governmental regulation,” Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S., at 455-456. Far from eroding the essential protections of the First Amendment, we think this disposition strengthens them. “To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment’s guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech.” Id., at 456.
r-H HH HH
Finally, we must address respondents’ objection that, even if the principal First Amendment interests they asserted involve commercial speech and have not improperly been restricted, Resolution 66-156 must nonetheless be invalidated as overbroad, since it prohibits as well fully protected, noncommercial speech. Although it is true that overbreadth analysis does not normally apply to commercial speech, see Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra, at 380-381; Ohralik, supra, at 462, n. 20; Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 496-497 (1982), that means only that a statute whose overbreadth consists of unlawful restriction of commercial speech will not be facially invalidated on that ground — our reasoning being that commercial speech is more hardy, less likely to be “chilled,” and not in need of surrogate litigators. See Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra; Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., supra. Here, however, although the principal attack upon the resolution concerned its application to commercial speech, the alleged overbreadth (if the commercial-speech application is assumed to be valid) consists of its application to noncommercial speech, and that is what counts. Cf. Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809, 815-819 (1975); Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., supra, at 495-497.
On the record before us here, Resolution 66-156 must be deemed to reach some noncommercial speech. A stipulation entered into by the university stated that the resolution reaches any invited speech “where the end result is the intent to make a profit by the invitee.” App. 87. More specifically, a SUNY deponent authorized to speak on behalf of the university under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) testified that the resolution would prohibit for-profit job counseling in the dormitories, id., at 133; and another SUNY official testified that it would prohibit tutoring, legal advice, and medical consultation provided (for a fee) in students’ dormitory rooms, see id., at 162, 181-183. While these examples consist of speech for a profit, they do not consist of speech that proposes a commercial transaction, which is what defines commercial speech, see Virginia Pharmacy Board, 425 U. S., at 761 (collecting cases). Some of our most valued forms of fully protected speech are uttered for a profit. See, e. g., Neto York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam).
In addition to being clear about the difference between commercial and noncommercial speech, it is also important to be clear about the difference between an as-applied and an overbreadth challenge. Quite obviously, the rule employed in as-applied analysis that a statute regulating commercial speech must be “narrowly tailored,” which we discussed in the previous portion of this opinion, prevents a statute from being overbroad. The overbreadth doctrine differs from that rule principally in this: The person invoking the commercial-speech narrow-tailoring rule asserts that the acts of his that are the subject of the litigation fall outside what a properly drawn prohibition could cover. As we put it in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S., at 462, he “attacks the validity of [the statute] not facially, but as applied to his acts of solicitation,” whereas the person invoking overbreadth “may challenge a statute that infringes protected speech even if the statute constitutionally might be applied to him,” id., at 462, n. 20. Thus in Bates, the case that established the nonap-plicability of overbreadth analysis to commercial speech, we said that appellants could not “expect to benefit [from the statute’s overinclusiveness] regardless of the nature of their acts,” 433 U. S., at 380, and framed as the relevant question “Is . . . appellants’ advertisement outside the scope of basic First Amendment protection?” id., at 381 (emphasis added). Where an overbreadth attack is successful, the statute is obviously invalid in all its applications, since every person to whom it is applied can defend on the basis of the same over-breadth. A successful attack upon a commercial-speech restriction on narrow-tailoring grounds, by contrast, does not assure a defense to those whose own commercial solicitation can be constitutionally proscribed — though obviously the rationale of the narrow-tailoring holding may be so broad as to render the statute effectively unenforceable. See, e. g., Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 447 U. S. 557 (1980); Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn., 486 U. S. 466 (1988).
Ordinarily, the principal advantage of the overbreadth doctrine for a litigant is that it enables him to benefit from the statute’s unlawful application to someone else. Respondents’ invocation of the doctrine in the present case is unusual in that the asserted extensions of Resolution 66-156 beyond commercial speech that are the basis for their overbreadth challenge are not hypothetical applications to third parties, but applications to the student respondents themselves, which were part of the subject of the complaint and of the testimony adduced at trial. Perhaps for that reason, the overbreadth issue was not (in the District Court at least) set forth in the normal fashion — viz., by arguing that even if the commercial applications of the resolution are valid, its noncommercial applications are not, and this invalidates its commercial applications as well. Rather, both commercial and (less prominently) noncommercial applications were attacked on their own merit — with no apparent realization, we might add, on the part of either respondents or the District Court, that separate categories of commercial speech and noncommercial speech, rather than simply various types of commercial speech, were at issue.
The First Amendment doctrine of overbreadth was designed as a “departure from traditional rules of standing,” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 613 (1973), to enable persons who are themselves unharmed by the defect in a statute nevertheless “to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the Court,” id., at 610. We see no reason, however, why the doctrine may not be invoked in the unusual situation, as here, where the plaintiff has standing to challenge all the applications of the statute he contends are unlawful, but his challenge to some of them (here, the commercial applications of the statute, assuming for the moment they are valid) will fail unless the doctrine of overbreadth is invoked. It would make little sense to reject these plaintiffs’ as-applied attack upon the statute’s restriction of commercial speech (on the ground that in its commercial-speech applications the statute is narrowly tailored) and to preclude them from attacking that restriction on grounds that the statute is overbroad (because they have standing to attack its overbroad applications directly and therefore cannot invoke the overbreadth doctrine) — and then, next week, to permit some person whose noncommercial speech is not restricted (so that he has no standing to attack that aspect of the statute directly) to succeed in his attack on the commercial applications because the statute is overbroad. In other words, while the overbreadth doctrine was born as an expansion of the law of standing, it would produce absurd results to limit its application strictly to that context.
It is not the usual judicial practice, however, nor do we consider it generally desirable, to proceed to an overbreadth issue unnecessarily — that is, before it is determined that the statute would be valid as applied. Such a course would convert use of the overbreadth doctrine from a necessary means of vindicating the plaintiff’s own right not to be bound by a statute that is unconstitutional into a means of mounting gratuitous wholesale attacks upon state and federal laws. Moreover, the overbreadth question is ordinarily more difficult to resolve than the as-applied, since it requires determination whether the statute’s overreach is substantial, not only as an absolute matter, but “judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep,” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, supra, at 615, and therefore requires consideration of many more applications than those immediately before the court. Thus, for reasons relating both to the proper functioning of courts and to their efficiency, the lawfulness of the particular application of the law should ordinarily be decided first.
In the present case, it has not yet been properly determined that the restrictions on respondents’ commercial speech are valid as applied. In fact, neither the legal issues nor the factual questions involved in that portion of the case have been separately addressed by either of the courts below. As we have described, the District Court held that the restrictions on both types of speech were valid without specifically considering (or apparently even recognizing the presence of) noncommercial speech; and the Court of Appeals reversed, again without separate analysis of noncommercial speech, for failure to apply the least-restrictive-means test — which, as we have held, was error. We decline to resolve those as-applied challenges here, not only for reasons of economy but also because a holding for respondents would produce a final judgment in their favor, according them more relief than they obtained from the Court of Appeals (which entered only a remand). Such a result is generally impermissible where, as here, respondents have not filed a cross-petition for certio-rari. See R. Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Supreme Court Practice 382-387 (6th ed. 1986). For the same reasons, and indeed a fortiori, we decline to resolve here the issue normally subsequent to rejection of the as-applied challenge, whether the statute is overbroad. We remand this case for determination, pursuant to the standards described above, of the validity of this law’s application to the commercial and noncommercial speech that is the subject of the complaint; and, if its application to speech in either such category is found to be valid, for determination whether its substantial overbreadth nonetheless makes it unenforceable.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
On October 3, 1988, the same day on which we granted certiorari, the District Court issued its decision on remand, striking down Resolution 66-156 because it did not accomplish the State’s goals through the least restrictive means possible. 695 F. Supp. 1409 (NDNY). By stipulation of the parties the District Court stayed its mandate and all further proceedings pending our action. See Stipulation, No. 82-CV-1363 (Nov. 23, 1988).
Besides attacking the judgment on the ground that the Court of Appeals mispereeived the constitutional principles governing restriction of commercial speech, the State argues that the resolution should be upheld even if the speech here was not commercial, because SUNY dormitories are not a public forum, and the restrictions constitute permissible “time, place, and manner” limitations. Pursuing such an analysis would require us to resolve both legal and factual issues that the Court of Appeals did not address. Since we find that the Court of Appeals must be reversed on the basis of its own analysis, we decline to go further.
It is interesting that in the expressive conduct and time, place, and manner contexts, where, as just discussed, it is now well established that a least-restrietive-means standard does not apply, we have sometimes used the same sort of “necessity” language which is the asserted precedential authority for that standard in commercial speech cases. For example, in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376-377 (1968), we stated that restrictions on expressive conduct must be “no greater than essential.” And in City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 810 (1984), we sustained the time, place, and manner restriction because it “curtail[ed] no more speech than [was] necessary to accomplish its purpose.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these cases we are called upon to construe § 7 of the McFadden Act of 1927, 44 Stat. 1228, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 36, as it relates to the definition of a branch bank for the purpose of determining the scope of branch banking available to a national bank in a State that prohibits branches for state banks.
12 U. S. C. § 36 (f) provides in pertinent part:
“(f) The term ‘branch' as used in this section shall be held to include any branch bank, branch office, branch agency, additional office, or any branch place of business ... at which deposits are received, or checks paid, or money lent.”
Florida prohibits all branch banking by state chartered banks; by statute a Florida bank may “have only one place of doing business,” and all the business of the bank is to be carried on at that place “and not elsewhere.” The issue must be resolved by determining what constitutes a “branch” or “additional office”; there is a threshold question of the extent to which this is governed by federal law.
The First National Bank in Plant City, Florida, is a national banking association organized and operated pursuant to the National Bank Act, 12 U. S. C. § 21 et seq.; it sought and received from the United States Comptroller of the Currency permission to operate two services for the convenience of customers; one was an armored car messenger service and the other an off-premises receptacle for the receipt of packages containing cash or checks for deposit. The Comptroller’s letter authorizing the armored car messenger service relied upon paragraph 7490 of the Comptroller’s Manual for National Banks, a relatively recent ruling which specifically authorizes such a service. A second letter authorizing construction of an off-premises receptacle authorized such a service “as an incident to” the bank’s ordinary business. Both letters contained explicit instructions to First National designed to insure that deposits so received would not become bank liabilities until actually in the hands of the bank teller at the chartered office or regular “banking house”; and that checks cashed for customers would be deemed paid at the bank when the cash was handed to the messenger, not when the cash was delivered to the customer by the armored car teller.
Relying on these letters, First National offered an armored car service and a secured receptacle for receipt of monies intended as deposits. The bank advertised “Full Service Banking at your doorstep . . .” and a “mobile drive-in . . . where customers may be served . . . .” A more detailed examination of the services shows that customers having an account with First National could, upon signing a “Comprehensive Dual Control Contract,” arrange to have the armored car call at their place of business to pick up cash and checks for deposit, or to bring cash to them in exchange for checks delivered to the armored car teller. The contract provided that in each situation the bank’s armored car messenger would be the agent of the customer. Additionally, proffered deposits were accompanied by a transmittal slip upon which the customer itemized the funds being deposited in the same manner as with deposits made at the chartered office of the bank. The transmittal slip contained a “Contract” which provided that in this off-premises transaction the bank was the agent of the customer, and that “the transmittal of said currency, coin and checks, shall not be deemed to be a deposit until delivered into the hands of the bank’s tellers at the said banking house.” Sums of cash for transmission to the customer were accompanied by a charge slip indicating that the customer’s account had been charged for the amount of the order.
The armored car was owned and controlled by the bank; the teller and driver-guard in the car were bank employees. The bank paid the cost of armored car operations and assumed complete responsibility for the monies, checks, and deposits during transit by means of an insurance policy bought and paid for by it to protect the customer and the bank. The armored car service operated six days per week in Plant City and the surrounding trade area in Hillsborough and Polk Counties. The armored car had a plate glass window, a sliding drawer, and a counter on one side where customers might be served. The truck bore the name of the bank and had two-way radiophone communication with the bank. All movements and routing of the armored car were directed by the bank. First National handled about $1,000,000 per week through the armored car.
The stationary off-premises receptacle for receipt of monies intended for deposit was located in a shopping center one mile from First National’s banking house in a space leased by the bank. The facility consisted of a secured receptacle for monies and night bags, together with a writing table supplied with envelopes and transmittal slips identical to those used by the armored car messenger service. The envelopes recited that the funds transported were accepted in accordance with the contract printed on the transmittal slip. A sign at the receptacle recited that the messenger who collected the funds acted as agent for the customer, that funds would not be deemed to have been deposited until delivered at the bank’s premises, and that insurance on the funds was provided by the bank. Customers maintaining an account with the bank who had signed the Comprehensive Dual Control Contract were issued a key to open the off-premises depository to drop off the night pouches in the receptacle. The armored car serviced the receptacle daily. The armored car teller, upon making pickups of such night pouches, promptly identified all monies and other items placed in the depository and immediately recorded them by the depositor’s number. The driver-guard verified all items collected by the teller and signed the written bank record identifying the monies obtained at the stationary depository.
On September 28, 1966, the Comptroller of the State of Florida, respondent herein, addressed a letter to First National advising it that the proposed depository then under construction and the provision of an armored car messenger service would each violate the prohibition under Florida law against branch banking. The letter requested that First National cease and desist all such operations.
First National then sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against respondent. The United States Comptroller intervened as plaintiff on the side of First National; several state banks intervened to support the Florida Comptroller. The District Court granted judgment for petitioners, 274 F. Supp. 449 (D. C. N. D. Fla. 1967). The Court of Appeals reversed, 400 F. 2d 548 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1968). We affirm the Court of Appeals.
Federal Statute and Policy
The conditions under which national banks may establish branches are embodied in § 7 of the McFadden Act, 44 Stat. 1228, as amended, codified in 12 U. S. C. § 36. One such condition is that a “branch” may be established only when, where, and how state law would authorize a state bank to establish and operate such a branch, 12 U. S. C. §36 (c). First National Bank of Logan v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., 385 U. S. 252 (1966).
We have noted that the State of Florida permits no branch banking under a statute providing that banks are to “have only one place of doing business”; the business of the bank may be transacted at that place “and not elsewhere.” The parties agree generally that the McFadden Act permits national banks to branch if and only if the host State would permit one of its own banks to branch; the Florida Bank Comptroller insists that the State of Florida unequivocally forbids off-premises banking of any kind. Thus the lines are clearly drawn; the question presented is whether the activities of First National authorized by the United States Comptroller are branch banking.
At the outset we note that, while Congress has absolute authority over national banks, the federal statute has incorporated by reference the limitations which state law places on branch banking activities by state banks. Congress has deliberately settled upon a policy intended to foster “competitive equality.” Walker Bank, 385 U. S., at 261. State law has been utilized by Congress to provide certain guidelines to implement its legislative policy.
We need not review the legislative history of the McFadden Act and prior national bank legislation as it relates to this problem; that task was performed by Mr. Justice Clark in Walker Bank, supra, where a unanimous Court noted that the McFadden Act was a response to the competitive tensions inherent in a dual banking structure where state and national banks coexist in the same area. That Act reflects the congressional concern that neither system have advantages over the other in the use of branch banking. A House Report shows that in 1926 there was congressional concern to protect national banks from the unrestricted branch bank competition of state banks:
“The present situation is intolerable to the national banking system. The bill proposes the only practicable solution by stopping the further extension of state-wide branch banking in the Federal reserve system by State member banks and by permitting national banks to have branches in those cities where State banks are allowed to have them under State laws.” H. R. Rep. No. 83, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1926).
The bill to which this report was addressed failed to pass in the Senate. In tracing the legislative history of the bill which passed the following year, this Court in Walker Bank, supra, observed:
“The intent of the Congress to leave the question of the desirability of branch banking up to the States is indicated by the fact that the Senate struck from the House bill the time limitation, thus permitting a subsequent change in state law to have a corresponding effect on the authority of national banks to engage in branching. The Senate Report concluded that the Act should permit ‘national banks to have branches in those cities where State banks are allowed to have them under State laws.’ ” 385 U. S., at 258, quoting from S. Rep. No. 473, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1926).
At the time of its enactment into law, Representative McFadden stated that:
“As a result of the passage of this act, the national bank act has been so amended that national banks are able to meet the needs of modern industry and commerce and competitive equality has been established . . . .” 68 Cong. Rec. 5815 (1927). (Emphasis supplied.)
When the economic depression of the 1930’s brought on widespread bank failures, Congress responded by amending the McFadden Act with the passage of the Banking Act of 1933, which further strengthened the policy of competitive equality. Some Members argued that bank failures were due to the undercapitalization of small rural banks and sought to authorize national banks to engage in branch banking without regard to state law; but that approach was rejected. As finally passed, the Act was reported to the House by one of the members of the Conference Committee, Representative Luce, with this statement:
“In the controversy over the respective merits of what are known as ‘unit banking’ and ‘branch banking’ . . . branch banking has been steadily gaining in favor. It is not, however, here proposed to give the advocates of branch banking any advantage. We do not go an inch beyond saying that the two ideas shall compete on equal terms and only where the States make the competition possible by letting their oiun institutions have branches.’’ 385 U. S., at 260, quoting from 77 Cong. Rec. 5896 (1933). (Emphasis supplied.)
The policy of competitive equality is therefore firmly embedded in the statutes governing the national banking system. The mechanism of referring to state law is simply one designed to implement that congressional intent and build into the federal statute a self-executing provision to accommodate to changes in state regulation.
We reject the contention made by amicus curiae National Association of Supervisors of State Banks to the effect that state law definitions of what constitutes “branch banking” must control the content of the federal definition of § 36 (f). Admittedly, state law comes into play in deciding how, where, and when branch banks may be operated, Walker Bank, supra, for in § 36 (c) Congress entrusted to the States the regulation of branching as Congress then conceived it. But to allow the States to define the content of the term “branch” would make them the sole judges of their own powers. Congress did not intend such an improbable result, as appears from the inclusion in § 36 of a general definition of “branch.” On this point the language of the Court of Appeals perhaps overstated the relation of state law to the problem, since the threshold question is to be determined as a matter of federal law, having in mind the congressional intent that so far as branch banking is concerned “the two ideas shall compete on equal terms and only where the States [allow] their own institutions [to] have branches.” In short, the definition of “branch” in § 36 (f) must not be given a restrictive meaning which would frustrate the congressional intent this Court found to be plain in Walker Bank, supra
Federal Definition of Branch Bank
Against this background, we turn to the question whether the off-premises business activities conducted by First National amounted to “branch” banking within the meaning of the McFadden Act. Since national banks are “necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States,” First National Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U. S. 640, 656 (1924), we consult that part of the McFadden Act that defines the term “branch.” 12 U. S. C. § 36 (f) provides:
“(f) The term ‘branch’ as used in this section shall be held to include any branch bank, branch office, branch agency, additional office, or any branch place of business ... at which deposits are received, or checks paid, or money lent.”
Although the definition may not be a model of precision, in part due to its circular aspect, it defines the minimum content of the term “branch”; by use of the word “include” the definition suggests a calculated indefiniteness with respect to the outer limits of the term. However, the term “branch bank” at the very least includes any place for receiving deposits or paying checks or lending money apart from the chartered premises; it may include more. It should be emphasized that, since § 36 (f) is phrased in the disjunctive, the offering of any one of the three services mentioned in that definition will provide the basis for finding that “branch” banking is taking place. Thus not only the taking of deposits but also the paying of checks or the lending of money could equally well provide the basis for such a finding. Although the District Court briefly discussed the possibility that checks were being paid, we confine ourselves to the question of whether deposits were received. Specifically, we must resolve the question whether the mobile armored car service and stationary deposit receptacle singly or together fall within the ambit of that section. As to the receiving of deposits, the functions of the two facilities are essentially the same, hence they may be considered together.
First National and the Comptroller of the Currency urge that the challenged activity does not amount to branch banking under § 36 (f). First National relies heavily, if indeed not entirely, upon carefully drawn contracts with its customers who use armored car or deposit receptacle services. The bank urges that, “deposit” being a word of art, the determination of when a deposit is made is not a casual one inasmuch as that determination fixes important legal relationships of the parties.
The bank also urges that creation of a deposit being purely a matter of intent, the issue is governed exclusively by the private contract. Since these contracts must be interpreted under state law, the argument runs, no “deposit” is actually received as such until monies delivered to the armored car or the receptacle are physically delivered into the hands of a bank teller at the chartered premises. Until such time the bank may not, under the contracts, be held to account for the customer’s funds.
We have no difficulty accepting the bank’s argument that the debtor-creditor relationship is a creature of contract and that the parties can agree that until monies are physically delivered to the bank no deposit will be credited to the customer’s account. We are satisfied, however, that the contracts have no significant purpose other than to remove the possibility that the monies received will become “deposits” in the technical and legal sense until actually delivered to the chartered premises of the bank.
We do not challenge the right of the contracting parties to fix rights and risks as between themselves; nothing in the law precludes the parties from agreeing, for example, that the bank does not assume the status of bailee, with liability for loss of money in transit. But while the contracting parties are free to arrange their private rights and liabilities as they see fit, it does not follow that private contractual arrangements, binding on the parties under state law, determine the meaning of the language or the reach of § 36 (f).
Because the purpose of the statute is to maintain competitive equality, it is relevant in construing “branch” to consider, not merely the contractual rights and liabilities created by the transaction, but all those aspects of the transaction that might give the bank an advantage in its competition for customers. Unquestionably, a competitive advantage accrues to a bank that provides the service of receiving money for deposit at a place away from its main office; the convenience to the customer is unrelated to whether the relationship of debtor and creditor is established at the moment of receipt or somewhat later.
We need not characterize the contracts as a sham or subterfuge in order to conclude that the conduct of the parties and the nature of their relations bring First National’s challenged activities within the federal definition ,of branch banking. Here, penetrating the form of the contracts to the underlying substance of the transaction, we are satisfied that at the time a customer delivers a sum of money either to the armored truck or the stationary receptacle, the bank has, for all purposes contemplated by Congress in § 36 (f), received a deposit. The money is given and received for deposit even though the parties have agreed that its technical status as a “deposit” which may be drawn on is to remain inchoate for the brief period of time it is in transit to the chartered bank premises. The intended deposits are delivered and received as part of a large-scale continuing mode of conducting the banking business designed to bring basic bank services to the customers.
Since the putative deposits are in fact “received” by a bank facility apart from its chartered place of business, we are compelled, in construing § 36 (f), to view the place of delivery of the customer’s cash and checks accompanied by a deposit slip as an “additional office, or . . . branch place of business ... at which deposits are received.”
Here we are confronted by a systematic attempt to secure for national banks branching privileges which Florida denies to competing state banks. The utility of the armored car service and deposit receptacle are obvious; many States permit state chartered banks to use this eminently sensible mode of operations, but Florida’s policy is not open to judicial review any more than is the congressional policy of “competitive equality.” Nor is the congressional policy of competitive equality with its deference to state standards open to modification by the Comptroller of the Currency.
Affirmed.
Florida Stat. § 659.06 (1) (a) (1965) provides:
“659.06 Place of transacting business; school savings; drive-in facilities.—
“(1) (a) Any bank or trust company shall have only one place of doing business, which shall be located in the community specified in its original articles of incorporation, and the business of the bank or trust company shall be transacted at its banking house so located in said community specified, and not elsewhere. . . .
“(2) With the prior written approval of the commissioner a bank may operate a drive-in facility or walk-up facility providing one or more tellers to serve patrons in vehicles and on foot. It shall not be necessary that such facility be a part of or physically connected to the main banking room or building of the bank if the facility is located on the property on which the main banking house is situated or on property contiguous thereto. Property which is separated from the property on which the main banking house is situated only by a street, walkway or alleyway shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be deemed contiguous to the property on which the main banking house is situated.
“The operation of any drive-in or walk-up facility which is not located on the property on which the main banking house is situated or on property contiguous thereto shall constitute a violation of subsection (1); provided, however, subsection (2) shall not apply to any facilities existing on or prior to January 1, 1965.”
Comptroller’s Manual for National Banks ¶ 7490.
“Messenger Service
“To meet the requirements of its customers, a national bank may provide messenger service by means of an armored car or otherwise, pursuant to an agreement wherein it is specified that the messenger is the agent of the customer rather than of the bank. Deposits collected under this arrangement are not considered as having been received by the bank until they are actually delivered to the teller at the bank’s premises. Similarly, a check is considered as having been paid at the bank when the money is handed to the messenger as agent for the customer.”
“Comprehensive Dual Control Contract
“As agent for the undersigned depositor, The First National Bank Messenger will transport monies of the depositor to and from the banking house.
“Under the Comprehensive Dual Control Contract, all monies, transported solely in padlocked money bags furnished by bank, shall be opened only under the dual control of two bank’s tellers. For this purpose, bank will retain a pass key for depositor’s bag(s); a key for each bag will be furnished depositor. The depositor expressly authorizes the service described and agrees to accept the bank’s count of monies as final.
“The First National Bank in Plant City maintains hazard insurance covering holdup, employee fidelity, etc., for the benefit of the depositor for all amounts delivered to bank’s messenger for delivery to bank and for all amounts requisitioned by depositor for delivery from bank to depositor. Unless otherwise authorized in writing, only the undersigned shall be permitted to receipt the bank’s messenger for monies delivered to depositor. . . .”
“Contract
“First National Bank, Plant City, Fla., as messenger and agent for Principal named on front side hereof, agrees to transmit the currency, coin and checks detailed on the front side hereof to the bank’s offices at 302 West Haines Street, Plant City, Fla. for deposit to Principal’s account. It is agreed and understood by Principal and the bank that in transmitting said currency, coin and checks, the bank is acting solely as agent for said Principal and that the transmittal of said currency, coin and checks, shall not be deemed to be a deposit until delivered into the hands of the bank’s tellers at the said banking house.
“The bank maintains hazard insurance covering holdup, employee fidelity, etc. for the protection of the Principal for all amounts and items delivered to the bank’s messenger by said Principal.”
The National Bank Act, 44 Stat. 1228, 12 U. S. C. §§ 36 (c) (1) and (2) provides:
“(e) A national banking association may, with the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency, establish and operate new branches: (1) Within the limits of the city, town or village in which said association is situated, if such establishment and operation are at the time expressly authorized to State banks by the law of the State in question; and (2) at any point within the State in which said association is situated, if such establishment and operation are at the time authorized to State banks by the statute law of the State in question by language specifically granting such authority affirmatively and not merely by implication or recognition, and subject to the restrictions as to location imposed by the law of the State on State banks.”
See n. 1, supra.
In their briefs before this Court, the litigants are all in agreement that federal law alone applies to resolve the threshold question whether the challenged activity falls within the definition of “branch.” Reply Brief for the Comptroller of the Currency 2; Respondents’ Brief 41, 44.
Representative McFadden described the definitional section of the Act as providing that:
“Any place outside of or away from the main office where the bank carries on its business of receiving deposits, paying checks, lending money, or transacting any business carried on at the main office, is a branch.” 68 Cong. Rec. 5816 (1927).
5A A. Michie on Banks and Banking §§ 4a, 5, 14, 15 and 17 (1950); 10 Am. Jur. 2d Banks § 358 (1963); 9 C. J. S. Banks and Banking §269 (1938).
We need not here try to draw fine distinctions around relatively isolated, sporadic, and inconsequential transactions where a bank employee carries cash to a customer to cash a check, or secures a signature on a note in exchange for a check delivered off premises.
In 1963 Comptroller Saxon, author of ¶ 7490 in the Comptroller’s Manual for National Banks, supra, n. 2, declared that “[t]he branching powers of National Banks should, in my judgment, not be limited according to those policies which the individual States find appropriate to meet their local needs through State-chartered banks.” Saxon, Branching Powers and the Dual Banking System, 101 Comp. Currency Ann. Rep. 316, 318 (1963).
During the course of the congressional debates over what became the McFadden Act, Representative Stevenson remarked:
“[Y]ou have branches in the Federal reserve system established by the dictum of the Comptroller of the Currency, who has assumed to say that he can allow a national bank to establish as many agencies for receiving deposits and paying checks as he sees fit. . . . I will show presently that we cut that out, root and branch.” 66 Cong. Rec. 1627.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal question here is whether, in the District of Columbia, the Constitution of the United States precludes a street railway company from receiving and amplifying radio programs through loudspeakers in its passenger vehicles under the circumstances of this case. The service and equipment of the company are subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia. The Commission, after an investigation and public hearings disclosing substantial grounds for doing so, has concluded that the radio service is not inconsistent with public convenience, comfort and safety and “tends to improve the conditions under which the public ride.” The Commission, accordingly, has permitted the radio service to continue despite vigorous protests from some passengers that to do so violates their constitutional rights. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that neither the operation of the service nor the action of the Commission permitting its operation is precluded by the Constitution.
The Capital Transit Company, here called Capital Transit, is a privately owned public utility corporation, owning an extensive street railway and bus system which it operates in the District of Columbia under a franchise from Congress. Washington Transit Radio, Inc., here called Radio, also is a privately owned corporation doing business in the District of Columbia. Both are petitioners in No. 224.
In March, 1948, Capital Transit experimented with “music as you ride” radio programs received and amplified through loudspeakers in a streetcar and in a bus. Those vehicles were operated on various lines at various hours. A poll of passengers who heard the programs showed that 92% favored their continuance. Experience in other cities was studied. Capital Transit granted Radio the exclusive right to install, maintain, repair and use radio reception equipment in Capital Transit’s streetcars,-busses, terminal facilities, waiting rooms and division headquarters. Radio, in return, agreed to contract with a broadcasting station for programs to be received during a minimum of eight hours every day, except Sundays. To that end Radio secured the services of Station WWDC-FM. Its programs were to meet the specifications stated in Capital Transit’s contract. Radio agreed to pay Capital Transit, after a 90-day trial, $6 per month per radio installation, plus additional compensation dependent upon the station’s receipts from sources such as commercial advertising on the programs. In February, 1949, when more than 20 installations had been made, the service went into regular operation. At the time of the Commission’s hearings, October 27-November 1, 1949, there were 212. On that basis the minimum annual payment to Capital Transit came to $15,264. The potential minimum would be $108,000, based upon 1,500 installations. The contract covered five years, with an automatic five-year renewal in the absence of notice to the contrary from either party.
This proceeding began in July, 1949, when the Commission, on its own motion, ordered an investigation. 37 Stat. 983, D. C. Code (1940) §§ 43-408 through 43-410. The Commission stated that Capital Transit had embarked upon a program of installing radio receivers in its streetcars and busses and that a number of protests against the program had been received. Accordingly, the Commission was ordering an investigation to determine whether the installation and use of such receivers was “consistent with public convenience, comfort and safety.” Radio was permitted to intervene. Poliak and Martin, as protesting Capital Transit passengers, also intervened and they are the respondents in No. 224.
The Commission concluded “that the installation and use of radios in streetcars and busses of the Capital Transit Company is not inconsistent with public convenience, comfort, and safety” and dismissed its investigation. 81 P. U. R. (N. S.) 122, 126. It denied reconsideration. 49 Stat. 882, D. C. Code (1940) § 43-704. Pollak and Martin appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 49 Stat. 882-884, D. C. Code (1940) §§43-705 through 43-710. John O’Dea, as People’s Counsel, Capital Transit Company and Washington Transit Radio, Inc., were granted leave to intervene. That appeal was dismissed but Poliak and Martin took the case to the Court of Appeals. 49 Stat. 883, D. C. Code (1940) § 43-705. That court partially reversed the judgment of the District Court and gave instructions to vacate the Commission’s order. It remanded the case for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion which included the following statement:
“In our opinion Transit’s broadcasts deprive objecting passengers of liberty without due process of law. Service that violates constitutional rights is not reasonable service. It follows that the Commission erred as a matter of law in finding that Transit’s broadcasts are not inconsistent with public convenience, in failing to find that they are unreasonable, and in failing to stop them.
“This decision applies to ‘commercials’ and to ‘announcements.’ We are not now called upon to decide whether occasional broadcasts of music alone would infringe constitutional rights.” 89 U. S. App. D. C. 94, 102, 191 F. 2d 450, 458.
The Court of Appeals, en banc, denied a rehearing. The Commission, Capital Transit and Radio petitioned this Court for certiorari in No. 224. Contingent upon the granting of certiorari in that case, Poliak and Martin, by cross-petition in No. 295, sought to prohibit Capital Transit from receiving and amplifying in its vehicles not only “commercials” and “announcements,” but also the balance of the radio programs. We granted certi-orari in both cases because of the novelty and practical importance to the public of the questions involved. 342 U. S. 848. We have treated the petitions as though they were cross-petitions in a single case.
1. Further facts. — In this proceeding the courts are expressly restricted to the facts found by the Commission, insofar as those findings do not appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
After reciting that it had given careful consideration to the testimony bearing on public convenience, comfort and safety, the Commission said that—
“Erom the testimony of record, the conclusion is inescapable that radio reception in streetcars and busses is not an obstacle to safety of operation.
“Further, it is evident that public comfort and convenience is not impaired and that, in fact, through the creation of better will among passengers, it tends to improve the conditions under which the public ride.” 81 P. U. R. (N. S.), at 126.
Bearing upon its conclusion as to the public comfort and convenience resulting from the radio programs, the Commission cited the opinions of car and bus operators to the effect that the “music on the vehicles had a tendency to keep the passengers in a better mood, and that it simplified transit operations.” Id., at 125. The Commission also said that its analysis of accidents “reflects the fact that the radio does not in any way interfere with efficient operation and .has not been the cause of any accidents, according to the testimony of ... a safety supervisor.” Ibid. Likewise, the Commission set forth the following as one premise for its conclusions:
“A public opinion survey was conducted by Edward G. Doody & Company, from October 11, 1949, to October 17, 1949, in order to determine the attitude of Capital Transit Company customers toward transit radio. This survey employed the rules of random selection and was confined to interviews aboard radio-equipped vehicles. The principal results obtained through the survey, as presented in this record, were as follows:
“Of those interviewed, 93.4 per cent were not opposed; that is, 76.3 were in favor, 13.9 said they didn’t care, and 3.2 said they didn’t know; 6.6 per cent were not in favor, but when asked the question 'Well, even though you don’t care for such programs personally, would you object if the majority of passengers wanted busses and streetcars equipped with radio receivers,’ 3.6 said they would not object or oppose the majority will. Thus, a balance of 3 per cent of those interviewed were firmly opposed to the use of radios in transit vehicles.” Ibid.
2. Statutory authority. — Apart from the constitutional issues, the order of the Commission dismissing its investigation was in accord with its prescribed statutory procedure and within the discretion properly vested in the Commission by Congress.
Transit radio service is a new income-producing incident of the operation of railway properties. The profit arises from the rental of facilities for commercial advertising purposes. This aspect of the enterprise bears some relation to the long-established practice of renting space for visual advertising on the inside and outside of streetcars and busses.
Through these programs Capital Transit seeks to improve its public relations. To minimize objection to the advertising features of the programs, it requires that at least 90% of the radio time be used for purposes other than commercials and announcements. This results in programs generally consisting of 90% music, 5% news, weather reports and matters of civic interest, and 5% commercial advertising. The advertising is confined to statements of 15 to 30 seconds each. It occupies a total of about three minutes in each hour.
In view of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, there can be little doubt that, apart from the constitutional questions here raised, there is no basis for setting aside the Commission’s decision. It is within the statutory authority of the Commission to prohibit or to permit and regulate the receipt and amplification of radio programs under such conditions that the total utility service shall not be unsafe, uncomfortable or inconvenient.
3. Applicability of the First and Fifth Amendments.— It was held by the court below that the action of Capital Transit in installing and operating the radio receivers, coupled with the action of the Public Utilities Commission in dismissing its own investigation of the practice, sufficiently involved the Federal Government in responsibility for the radio programs to make the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States applicable to this radio service. These Amendments concededly apply to and restrict only the Federal Government and not private persons. See Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U. S. 323, 330; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376, 382, 384; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 89-91; Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; see also, Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318.
We find in the reasoning of the court below a sufficiently close relation between the Federal Government and the radio service to make it necessary for us to consider those Amendments. In finding this relation we do not rely on the mere fact that Capital Transit operates a public utility on the streets of the District of Columbia under authority of Congress. Nor do we rely upon the fact that, by reason of such federal authorization, Capital Transit now enjoys a substantial monopoly of street railway and bus transportation in the District of Columbia. We do, however, recognize that Capital Transit operates its service under the regulatory supervision of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia which is an agency authorized by Congress. We rely particularly upon the fact that that agency, pursuant to protests against the radio program, ordered an investigation of it and, after formal public hearings, ordered its investigation dismissed on the ground that the public safety, comfort and convenience were not impaired thereby. 81 P. U. R. (N. S.), at 126.
We, therefore, find it appropriate to examine into what restriction, if any, the First and Fifth Amendments place upon the Federal Government under the facts of this case, assuming that the action of Capital Transit in operating the radio service, together with the action of the Commission in permitting such operation, amounts to sufficient Federal Government action to make the First and Fifth Amendments applicable thereto.
4. No violation of the First Amendment. — Poliak and Martin contend that the radio programs interfere with their freedom of conversation and that of other passengers by making it necessary for them to compete against the programs in order to be heard. The Commission, however, did not find, and the testimony does not compel a finding, that the programs interfered substantially with the conversation of passengers or with rights of communication constitutionally protected in public places. It is suggested also that the First Amendment guarantees a freedom to listen only to such points of view as the listener wishes to hear. There is no substantial claim that the programs have been used for objectionable propaganda. There is no issue of that kind before us. The inclusion in the programs of a few announcements explanatory and commendatory of Capital Transit’s own services does not sustain such an objection.
5. No violation of the Fifth Amendment. — The court below has emphasized the claim that the radio programs are an invasion of constitutional rights of privacy of the passengers. This claim is that no matter how much Capital Transit may wish to use radio in its vehicles as part of its service to its passengers and as a source of income, no matter how much the great majority of its passengers may desire radio in those vehicles, and however positively the Commission, on substantial evidence, may conclude that such use of radio does not interfere with the convenience, comfort and safety of the service but tends to improve it, yet if one passenger objects to the programs as an invasion of his constitutional right of privacy, the use of radio on the vehicles must be discontinued. This position wrongly assumes that the Fifth Amendment secures to each passenger on a public vehicle regulated by the Federal Government a right of privacy substantially equal to the privacy to which he is entitled in his own home. However complete his right of privacy may be at home, it is substantially limited by the rights of others when its possessor travels on a public thoroughfare or rides in a public conveyance. Streetcars and busses are subject to the immediate control of their owner and operator and, by virtue of their dedication to public service, they are for the common use of all of their passengers. The Federal Government in its regulation of them is not only entitled, but is required, to take into consideration the interests of all concerned.
In a public vehicle there are mutual limitations upon the conduct of everyone, including the vehicle owner. These conflicting demands limit policies on such matters as operating schedules and the location of car or bus stops, as well as policies relating to the desirability or nature of radio programs in the vehicles. Legislation prohibiting the making of artifically amplified raucous sounds in public places has been upheld. Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77. Conversely, where a regulatory body has jurisdiction, it will be sustained in its protection of activities in public places when those activities do not interfere with the general public convenience, comfort and safety. The supervision of such practices by the Public Utilities Commission in the manner prescribed in the District of Columbia meets the requirements both of substantive and procedural due process when it is not arbitrarily and capriciously exercised.
The contention of Poliak and Martin would permit an objector, with a status no different from that of other passengers, to override not only the preference of the majority of the passengers but also the considered judgment of the federally authorized Public Utilities Commission, after notice, investigation and public hearings, and upon a record reasonably justifying its conclusion that the policy of the owner and operator did not interfere with public convenience, comfort and safety but tended, in general, to improve the utility service.
We do not agree with that contention. The protection afforded to the liberty of the individual by the Fifth Amendment against the action of the Federal Government does not go that far. The liberty of each individual in a public vehicle or public place is subject to reasonable limitations in relation to the rights of others.
This Court expresses no opinion as to the desirability of radio programs in public vehicles. In this case that is a matter for decision between Capital Transit, the public and the Public Utilities Commission. The situation is not unlike that which arises when a utility makes a change in its running schedules or in the locations of its stops in the interests of the majority of the passengers but against the vigorous protests of the few who are inconvenienced by the change.
The court below expressly refrained from passing on the constitutionality of the receipt and amplification in public vehicles of occasional broadcasts of music alone. Poliak and Martin, in No. 295, contend that broadcasts even so limited are unconstitutional. However, in view of our holding that the programs before us, containing music, commercial advertising and other announcements are constitutionally permissible, it is clear that programs limited to a like type of music alone would not be less so.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, for reasons stated by him, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Capital Transit Company originates from the Act of Congress of March 4, 1925, authorizing the merger of street railway corporations operating in the District of Columbia. 43 Stat. 1265, D. C. Code (1940) §43-503. The merger was approved by Joint Resolution, January 14, 1933. 47 Stat. 752, 819, D. C. Code (1940) note following § 43-503. That Resolution required the new company to be incorporated under the District Code and its corporate articles to be approved by the Public Utilities Commission of the District. 47 Stat. 753, 819, D. C. Code (1940) note following § 43-503; see 31 Stat. 1284 et seq., D. C. Code (1940) §29-201 et seq.
The same Resolution prohibited the establishment of any competitive street railway or bus line without the issuance of a certificate by the Commission to the effect that such line is necessary for the convenience of the public. 47 Stat. 760, D. C. Code (1940) § 44-201. The only competing line in the District is a relatively small interurban line.
Typically, the equipment includes a receiving set and six loudspeakers in each vehicle. The set is tuned to a single broadcasting station. The loudspeakers are so located that the radio programs can be heard substantially uniformly throughout the vehicle. The volume of sound is adjusted so as not to interfere with the signals or announcements incident to vehicle operations or generally with conversations between passengers.
Uncontradicted testimony listed approximately the following numbers of vehicles equipped with transit radio in the areas named in October, 1949: St. Louis, Missouri, 1,000; Cincinnati, Ohio, 475; Houston, Texas, 270; Washington, D. C., 220; Worcester, Massachusetts, 220; Tacoma, Washington, 135; Evansville, Indiana, 110; Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, 100; suburban Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 75; Allentown, Pennsylvania, 75; Huntington, West Virginia, 55; Des Moines, Iowa, 50; Topeka, Kansas, 50; suburban Washington, D. C., 30. Baltimore, Maryland, was listed but the number of vehicles was not stated.
“(a) Program content shall be of good quality and consonant with a high standard of public acceptance and responsibility, it being understood that all programs shall be carefully planned, edited and produced in accordance with accepted practices employed by qualified broadcasting stations.
“(b) Commercial announcements shall not exceed sixty (60) seconds in duration, and cumulatively shall not exceed six (6) minutes in any sixty (60) minute period.
“(c) Broadcast Station shall agree to cancel or suitably to modify any commercial continuity upon notice from Capital that said continuity, or the sponsor thereof, is objectionable. Broadcast Station shall further agree that it shall give notice to Capital within twenty-four (24) hours after the acceptance of each new sponsor.
“(d) Capital is to receive without charge fifty per cent (50%) of the unsold time available for commercial continuity as provided in sub-section (b) hereof, (said free time not to exceed three (3) minutes in any sixty (60) minute period), for institutional and promotional announcements.”
“PaR. 66. In the determination of any appeal from an order or decision of the Commission the review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, including constitutional questions; and the findings of fact by the Commission shall be conclusive unless it shall appear that such findings of the Commission are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.” 49 Stat. 883, D. C. Code (1940) § 43-706.
On appeal to the District Court—
“the Commission shall file with the clerk of the said court the record, including a transcript of all proceedings had and testimony taken before the Commission, duly certified, upon which the said order or decision of the Commission was based, together with a statement of its findings of fact and conclusions upon the said record, and a copy of the application for reconsideration and the orders entered thereon: . . . .” 49 Stat. 883, D. C. Code (1940) § 43-705.
We treat the Commission’s certification of its findings and conclusions, expressed in its statement of December 19, 1949, as meeting the above requirement. 81 P. U. R. (N. S.) 122, 124-126.
A comparable survey, made April 1-7, 1949, under the same direction, produced substantially the same result. The weight to be attached to these surveys was a proper matter for determination by the Commission.
The Commission invited views as to the radio service to be given to it freely, either through sworn testimony or otherwise. Many citizens’ associations appeared or filed resolutions favoring or opposing the radio service. A large majority favored the service.
That the Commission gave consideration to the intensity and nature of the individual objections raised appears from the following:
“In general, the objections raised by individuals who attended the hearings to radios in transportation vehicles were based upon the following reasons, among others:
“It interfered with their thinking, reading, or chatting with their companions; it would lead to thought control; the noise was unbearable; the commercials, announcements, and time signals were annoying; the music was of the poorest class; the practice deprived them of their right to listen or not to listen; they were being deprived of their property rights without due process; their health was being impaired; the safety of operation was threatened because of the effect of radios upon the operators of the vehicles.” 81 P. U. R. (N. S.), at 124.
“AMENDMENT [I.]
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech ....
“Amendment [V.]
“No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
“[W]hen authority derives in part from Government’s thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private persons becomes closely akin, in some respects, to its exercise by Government itself.” American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 401. Cf. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649; and see Olcott v. The Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, 695-696.
See generally, Shipley, Some Constitutional Aspects of Transit Radio, 11 F. C. Bar J. 150.
The Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064 et seq., as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., has been interpreted by the Federal Communications Commission as imposing upon each licensee the duty of fair presentation of news and controversial issues. F. C. C. Report on Editorializing by Licensees, 1 Pike & Fischer Radio Regulation 91:201 (1949).
The interest of some unwilling listeners was there held to justify some limitation on the freedom of others to amplify their speech. The decision, however, did not indicate that it would violate constitutional rights of privacy or due process for the city to authorize some use of sound trucks and amplifiers in public places.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
I
The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7-2501.01(12), 7-2502.01(a), 7-2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22-4504(a), 22-4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. See § 7-2507.02.
Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense, reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399-401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.
We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. 1035 (2007).
II
We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.
A
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11-12; post, at 636-637 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2-4.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814-821 (1998).
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause. (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268-269 (P. Potter ed. 1871); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42-45 (2d ed. 1874). “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts... for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.'” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation § 51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East 157, 165, 102 Eng. Rep. 557, 560 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights” — the famous preamble (“We the people”), § 2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively— but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.... [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people” — those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
b. “Keep and Bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right — “the people” — to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “[wjeapons of of-fence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, § 6, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (3d ed. 1794) (emphasis added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e. g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e. g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., ch. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist... shall or may have or keep in his House... any Arms... ”); 1 W. Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16-17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment... indicate^]: ‘wear, bear, or carry... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1990)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house” — what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts. These provisions demonstrate — again, in the most analogous linguistic context — that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.
The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 646 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶ 28 used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country....”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18-23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in Muscarello said.
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war — an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context — the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also “carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms” — though no one thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia? 83 Texas L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e. g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349-351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts. Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs (“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms”). And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment? 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 511 (2008) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear arms” from the founding period).
Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 647-648, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “‘bear arms... for the purpose of killing game’” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 647.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the Mad Hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.
Justice Stevens places great weight on James Madison’s inclusion of a conscientious-objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment: “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Creating the Bill of Rights 12 (H. Veit, K. Bowling, & C. Bickford eds. 1991) (hereinafter Veit). He argues that this clause establishes that the drafters of the Second Amendment intended “bear Arms” to refer only to military service. See post, at 660-661. It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process. In any case, what Justice Stevens would conclude from the deleted provision does not follow. It was not meant to exempt from military service those who objected to going to war but had no scruples about personal gunfights. Quakers opposed the use of arms not just for militia service, but for any violent purpose whatsoever — so much so that Quaker frontiersmen were forbidden to use arms to defend their families, even though “[i]n such circumstances the temptation to seize a hunting rifle or knife in self-defense... must sometimes have been almost overwhelming.” P. Brock, Pacifism in the United States 359 (1968); see M. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War 336-339 (1923); 3 T. Clarkson, Portraiture of Quakerism 103-104 (3d ed. 1807). The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of arms” — a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders comm’rs 1898) (emphasis in original). Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison's deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such cárrying would be required.
Finally, Justice Stevens suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”) Justice Stevens believes that the unitary meaning of “keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second Amendment’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural). See post, at 651. There is nothing to this. State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e. g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§ IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083-3084; Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §§ 11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910-2911. And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defence.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467-468.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed....”
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31-53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic Charles II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103-106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the Subjects which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.” 1 W. & M., ch. 2, § 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441. This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian political principles,” not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).
By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122-134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139-140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2-4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17-18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886-887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59-60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (0. Dickerson ed. 1936) (reprinted 1970); see also, e. g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1904) (reprinted 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Anti-federalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145-146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31-32 (1833).
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e. g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285 (2008). Thus, we do not read, the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.
2. Prefatory Clause.
The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State....”
a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e. g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[mjilitias are the state- and congressionallyregulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, § 8, cls. 15-16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and 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: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On December 17,1943, the petitioner, Timoteo Mariano Andres, was indicted in the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii for murder in the first degree. 18 U. S. C. §§ 451, 452. The indictment recited that Andres “on or about the 23rd day of November, 1943, at Civilian Housing Area No. 3, Pearl Harbor, Island of Oahu, said Civilian Housing Area No. 3 being on lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States of America . . . did . . . kill . . . Carmen Garni Saguid . . . .” Andres was tried before a jury which returned this verdict:
“We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above entitled cause, do hereby find the defendant, Timoteo Mariano Andres, guilty of murder in the first degree.”
He was sentenced to death by hanging. He appealed his conviction to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, unanimously. 163 F. 2d 468. A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in this Court and that petition was granted. 332 U. S. 843.
Four questions were presented in the petition for cer-tiorari. Three of these we do not consider of sufficient doubt or importance to justify an extended discussion. We shall dispose of them before we reach what is, for us, the decisive issue of this case.
Andres contends that 18 U. S. C. § 567, as interpreted by Winston v. United States, 172 U. S. 303, requires that the trial court explain to the jury the scope of their discretion in granting mercy to a defendant. In the Winston case, the judge had charged the jury that they could not qualify their verdict except . . in cases that commend themselves to the good judgment of the jury, cases that have palliating circumstances which would seem to justify and require it.” 172 U. S. at 306. This Court held that instruction erroneous. The Court read the statute to place the question whether the accused should or should not be capitally punished entirely within the discretion of the jury; an exercise of that discretion could be based upon any consideration which appealed to the jury. In the case now before us, the trial judge gave the instructions set forth in the margin. It is clear that he left the question of the punishment to be imposed — death or life imprisonment — to the discretion of the jury. We hold that the trial judge’s instructions on this issue satisfied the requirements of the statute.
It is next contended that the trial was unfair because the instructions quoted below indicated to the jury that the indictment against the petitioner reflected a finding by the Grand Jury that he was probably guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree. Perhaps the italicized language in the charge, read out of context, is misleading and it might have been better to omit it completely. However, when the language complained of is read in context, it seems to us that the petitioner had no real ground for complaint. No material error resulted from the words.
The petitioner also argues that the District Court for the Territory of Hawaii did not have the power to sentence him to death by hanging. 18 U. S. C. § 542 provides : “The manner of inflicting the punishment of death shall be the manner prescribed by the laws of the State within which the sentence is imposed. ... If the laws of the State within which sentence is imposed make no provision for the infliction of the penalty of death, then the court shall designate some other State in which such sentence shall be executed in the manner prescribed by the laws thereof.” The petitioner contends that the phrase “laws of the State” limits the statute to the forty-eight states and, consequently, provides for no method of inflicting the death penalty where that sentence is imposed by a district court sitting in a Territory. We reject that contention as being without merit. In many contexts “state” may mean only the several states of the United States. Here, however, we hold that its meaning includes the Territory of Hawaii.
The last and most difficult issue raised by Andres is the question of the propriety of those instructions by which the trial judge attempted to explain to the jury the requirements of unanimity in their verdict. This issue is a composite of two problems: (1) The proper construction of 18 U. S. C. § 567; and (2) the consideration of whether the instruction given clearly conveyed to the jury the correct statutory meaning.
Section 567 of 18 U. S. C. reads as follows: “In all cases where the accused is found guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree . . . the jury may qualify their'verdict by adding thereto 'without capital punishment’; and whenever the jury shall return a verdict qualified as aforesaid, the person convicted shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.” If a qualified verdict is not returned, the death penalty is mandatory. The Government argues that § 567 properly construed requires that the jury first unanimously decide the guilt of the accused and, then, with the same unanimity decide whether a qualified verdict shall be returned. As the statute requires the death penalty on a verdict of guilty, the contention is that the jury acts unanimously in finding guilt and the law exacts the penalty. It follows, that if all twelve of the jurors cannot agree to add the words “without capital punishment,” the original verdict of guilt stands and the punishment of death must be imposed. The petitioner contends that § 567 must be construed to require unanimity in respect to both guilt and punishment before a verdict can be returned. It follows that one juror can prevent a verdict which requires the death penalty, although there is unanimity in finding the accused guilty of murder in the first degree. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that unanimity of the jury was required both as to guilt and the refusal to qualify the verdict by the words “without capital punishment.” It interpreted the instructions, however, as requiring this unanimity.
The First Congress of the United States provided in an Act of April 30, 1790: “That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereof convicted shall suffer death.” This was the federal law, in the respects here relevant, until 1897. In that year Congress passed and the President signed the Act of January 15, 1897. That statute provided:
“That in all cases where the accused is found guilty of the crime of murder or of rape under sections fifty-three hundred and thirty-nine or fifty-three hundred and forty-five, Revised Statutes, the jury may qualify their verdict by adding thereto ‘without capital punishment;’ and whenever the jury shall return a verdict qualified as aforesaid the person convicted shall be sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for life.”
It is this language, substantially unchanged, which we must construe in this case.
The reports of the Congressional Committees and the debates on the floor of Congress do not discuss the particular problem with which we are now concerned. There are, however, many expressions which indicate that the general purpose of the statute was to limit the severity of the old law.
Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues — character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment — which are left to the jury. A verdict embodies in a single finding the conclusions by the jury upon all the questions submitted to it. We do not think that the grant of authority to the jury by § 567 to qualify their verdict permits a procedure whereby a unanimous jury must first find guilt and then a unanimous jury alleviate its rigor. Therefore, although the interpretation of § 567 urged by the Government cannot be proven erroneous with certainty, since the statute contains no language specifically requiring unanimity on both guilt and punishment before a verdict can be brought in, we conclude that the construction placed upon the statute by the lower court is correct— that the jury’s decision upon both guilt and whether the punishment of death should be imposed must be unanimous. This construction is more consonant with the general humanitarian purpose of the statute and the history of the Anglo-American jury system than that presented by the Government.
The only question remaining for decision is whether the instructions given by the trial judge clearly conveyed to the jury a correct understanding of the statute. There was a general charge that “the unanimous agreement of the jury is necessary to a verdict.” Later, and the instructions on the specific issue under consideration can best be understood by the colloquy, the following took place:
“(At 3:45 o’clock, p. m., the jury returned to the courtroom, and the following occurred:)
“The Court: Note the presence of the jury and the defendant together with his attorney. I am advised by the bailiff that the jury wishes to ask the Court a question. Which gentlemen [sic] is the foreman- — • you, Mr. Ham? You are Mr. Ham?
“The Foreman: . . . The members of the jury would like to know if a verdict of guilty in the first degree was brought in, whether it would be mandatory on the part of the Judge to sentence the man to death, or hanging, or use his own discretion.
“The Court: Just a minute. I want to be right in my answer. You may sit down. Will the counsel come to the bench, please? (Discussion off the record.)
“The Court: Gentlemen of the Jury, the statute, as I recall, answers that question, but I wanted to look at it once again before I gave you a positive answer. The answer to the question is that, in the absence of a qualified verdict, if the verdict is guilty of murder in the first degree, the Court has no discretion, for the statute provides in such event that the person so convicted of such an offense — murder in the first degree — shall suffer the punishment of death. As I told you in your instructions, there is another Federal statute which enables you gentlemen to qualify your verdict and to add, in the event you should find the person guilty of murder in the first degree, to add to that verdict, I repeat, the phrase ‘without capital punishment.’ In that event the man, of course, under the statute so convicted would not suffer the punishment of death but it would life imprisonment, as I recall it under the statute.
“Does that answer your question?
“TheForeman: Yes.
“The Court: Don’t discuss your problems here, but if it is an answer to your question, you gentlemen can retire to your jury room if there are no other questions.
“The Foreman: No other.
“The Court: Counsel have asked me to reread the instructions to you on that particular point as an amplification of my answer to your question. Will you bear with me just a moment until I find that instruction? I will reread one or two instructions to you which bear on the question which you have asked:
“ ‘You may return a qualified verdict in this case by adding the words “without capital punishment” to your verdict. This power is conferred solely upon you and in this connection the Court can not extend or prescribe to you any definite rule defining the exercise of this power, but commits the entire matter of its exercise to your judgment.’
“ ‘Even if you should unanimously agree from the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged, you may, as I have said, qualify your verdict by adding thereto “without capital punishment,” in which case the defendant shall not suffer the death penalty.’
“ ‘In this connection, I further instruct you that you are authorized to add to your verdict the words “without capital punishment,” and this you may do no matter what the evidence may be and without regard to the existence of mitigating circumstances.’
“And, finally, you will recall I said that you are instructed that before you may return a qualified verdict of murder in the first degree without capital punishment, that your decision to do so must, like your regular verdict, be unanimous.”
The Government concedes that, if the petitioner’s interpretation of § 567 is accepted, these instructions were inadequate; and we find ourselves in agreement with this concession. The court below concluded that the instructions were proper and that they did not mislead the jury. It based its conclusion upon two factors: (1) the common understanding of jurors that “they are under no legal compulsion to join in a verdict with which they are in disagreement, either in whole or in part . . .”; and (2) the general admonition of the trial judge that “the unanimous agreement of the jury is necessary to a verdict.”
It seems to us, however, that where a jury is told first that their verdict must be unanimous, and later, in response to a question directed to the particular problem of qualified verdicts, that if their verdict is first-degree murder and they desire to qualify it, they must be unanimous in so doing, the jury might reasonably conclude that, if they cannot all agree to grant mercy, the verdict of guilt must stand unqualified. That reasonable men might derive a meaning from the instructions given other than the proper meaning of § 567 is probable. In death cases doubts such as those presented here should be resolved in favor of the accused. The context of § 567 does not defy accurate and precise expression. For example: An instruction that a juror should not join a verdict of guilty, without qualification, if he is convinced that capital punishment should not be inflicted, would have satisfied the statute and protected the defendant. Or the jury might have been instructed that its conclusion on both guilt and punishment must be unanimous before any verdict could be found.
As we are of the opinion that the instructions given on this issue did not fully protect the petitioner, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed.
“In all cases where the accused is found guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree, or rape, the jury may qualify their verdict by adding thereto ‘without capital punishment’; and whenever the jury shall return a verdict qualified as aforesaid, the person convicted shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.”
In Winston v. United States, supra, the question presented was the proper construction of § 1 of the Act of January 15, 1897. 29 Stat. 487. 18 U. S. C. § 567, in its relevant part, has language identical to that of the earlier statute.
172 U. S. at 312-13:
“The right to qualify a verdict of guilty, by adding the words ‘without capital punishment,’ is thus conferred upon the jury in all cases of murder. The act does not itself prescribe, nor authorize the court to prescribe, any rule defining or circumscribing the exercise of this right; but commits the whole matter of its exercise to the judgment and the -consciences of the jury. The authority of the jury to decide that the accused shall not be punished capitally is not limited to cases in which the court, or the jury, is of opinion that there are palliating or mitigating circumstances. But it extends to every case in which, upon a view of the whole evidence, the jury is of opinion that it would not be just or wise to impose capital punishment. How far considerations of age, sex, ignorance, illness or intoxication, of human passion or weakness, of sympathy or clemency, or the irrevocableness of an executed sentence of death, or an apprehension that explanatory facts may exist which have not been brought to light, or any other consideration whatever, should be allowed weight in deciding the question whether the accused should or should not be capitally punished, is committed by the act of Congress to the sound discretion of the jury, and of the jury alone.”
“I instruct you that you may return a qualified verdict in this case by adding the words ‘without capital punishment’ to your verdict. This power is conferred solely upon you and in this connection the Court can not extend or prescribe to you any definite rule defining the exercise of this power, but commits the entire matter of its exercise to your judgment.
“I instruct you, gentlemen of the jury that even if you should unanimously agree from the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged, you may qualify your verdict by adding thereto ‘without capital punishment’ in which case the defendant shall not suffer the death penalty.
“In this connection, I further instruct you that you are authorized to add to your verdict the words ‘without capital punishment,’ and this you may do no matter what the evidence may be and without regard to the existence of mitigating circumstances.”
“To the indictment which the grand jury returned against this defendant, this defendant entered a plea of not guilty. That is to say, he denied the charge stated in the indictment and placed himself upon his Country for the purpose of trial. The burden is upon the Government to show to your satisfaction, gentlemen, that this defendant is guilty beyond every reasonable doubt. This burden does not change at any time during the course of the trial. The defendant is presumed innocent of the charge stated in the indictment until he is proven guilty by the degree of proof to which I have previously referred. The presumption of innocence in favor of the defendant is not a mere formality to be disregarded by the jury at its pleasure. It is a substantive part of our criminal law. The presumption of innocence continues with the defendant throughout the trial until you are convinced by the evidence that he is guilty beyond every reasonable doubt.
“When the indictment was returned by the grand jury against this defendant, the defendant had had no opportunity to present his side of the case. The indictment was found by the grand jury upon evidence presented to it by the Government alone, and created in the minds of the grand jury a belief that it was probable that a crime had been committed and that this defendant probably committed that crime.
“Upon the evidence [which'] it heard, the grand jury indicted this defendant, thereby indicating that it was probable that a crime had been committed, which should be disposed of in this court where both sides could be heard, and this is the stage which we have now reached.
“I advise you, gentlemen, that it is the indictment in this case which frames the issues of the case.”
Petitioner complains of the italicized language.
Section 542, before its amendment in 1937, read: “The manner of inflicting the punishment of death shall be by hanging.” 35 Stat. 1151. The changes in the statute from that language to the present language were prompted by the fact that “Many States . . . use[d] more humane methods of execution, such as electrocution, or gas. . . . [Therefore,] it appear [ed] desirable for the Federal Government likewise to change its law in this respect . . . .” H. R. Rep. No. 164, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1. Since Congress was well aware that federal courts had jurisdiction in territories and possessions, it would be incongruous to hold that they did not use the word “state” to cover such areas. The purpose of this legislation was remedial: the adoption of the local mode of execution. The intent of Congress would be frustrated by construing the statute to create that hiatus for which the petitioner contends.
18 U. S. C. §454: “Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall suffer death. . . ."
1 Stat. 113.
29 Stat. 487.
The Act of January 15, 1897, was incorporated into the Criminal Code of 1909 as § 330 with changes that are here unimportant. 35 Stat. 1152. Section 330 of the Criminal Code is now 18 U. S. C. § 567.
Dissatisfaction over the harshness and antiquity of the federal criminal laws led in 1894 to the introduction by N. M. Curtis of New York of a bill to reduce the number of crimes for which the penalty of death could be imposed and to give the jury the right to “qualify their verdict [in death cases] by adding thereto 'without capital punishment.’ ” See H. R. Rep. No. 545, 53d Cong., 2d Sess. The bill as introduced divided murder into degrees, §§ 1, 2 of H. R. 5836, 53d Cong., 2d Sess.; it was passed by the House without any substantial changes. 27 Cong. Rec. 823. After severe amendment it was favorably reported to the Senate by the Committee on the Judiciary. See S. Rep. No. 846, 53d Cong., 3d Sess. These amendments, however, did not affect § 5 of the original bill, the section which provided for qualified verdicts; that section was retained and became § 1 of the new bill. Id. at p. 2. The committee, however, “thought it inadvisable to make degrees in the crime of murder, or attempt new definitions.” Ibid. Consequently, it struck out the sections of the original bill which concerned themselves with these matters. The Committee Report stated that “The leading object of this bill is to diminish the infliction of the death penalty by limiting the offenses upon which it is denounced, and by providing in all cases a latitude in the tribunal which shall try them to withhold the extremest punishment when deemed too severe.” Id. at p. 1. The bill as amended was passed by the Senate and later by the House.
See note 11, supra; 28 Cong. Rec. 2649-2650, 3098-3111, 3651.
See American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, 166 U. S. 464.
This conclusion is supported by Smith v. United, States, 47 F. 2d 518, which, with the exception of the present case, appears to be the only federal decision on this question.
Andres v. United States, 163 F. 2d 468, 471.
Id. atp. 471.
Ibid.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
A long line of this Court’s precedents acknowledges that, generally, a judge is immune from a suit for money damages. See, e. g., Forrester v. White, 484 U. S. 219 (1988); Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U. S. 193 (1985); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U. S. 24 (1980); Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U. S. 719 (1980); Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967). Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, “it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1872).
In this case, respondent Howard Waco, a Los Angeles County public defender, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against petitioner, Raymond Míreles, a judge of the California Superior Court, and two police officers, for damages arising from an incident in November 1989 at the Superior Court building in Van Nuys, Cal. Waco alleged that after he failed to appear for the initial call of Judge Míreles’ morning calendar, the judge, “angered by the absence of attorneys from his courtroom,” ordered the police officer defendants “to forcibly and with excessive force seize and bring plaintiff into his courtroom.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B-3, ¶ 7(a). The officers allegedly “by means of unreasonable force and violence seize[d] plaintiff and remove[d] him backwards” from another courtroom where he was waiting to appear, cursed him, and called him “vulgar and offensive names,” then “without necessity slammed” him through the doors and swinging gates into Judge Míreles’ courtroom. Id., at B-4, ¶ 7(c). Judge Míreles, it was alleged, “knowingly and deliberately approved and ratified each of the aforedescribed acts” of the police officers. Ibid. Waco demanded general and punitive damages. Id., at B-5 and B-6.
Judge Míreles moved to dismiss the complaint as to him, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The District Court dismissed the claim against the judge and entered final judgment as to him, pursuant to Rule 54(b), on grounds of “complete judicial immunity.” App. to Pet. for Cert. D-2. On Waco’s appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that judgment. Waco v. Baltad, 934 F. 2d 214 (1991). The court determined that Judge Míreles was not immune from suit because his alleged actions were not taken in his judicial capacity. It opined that Judge Míreles would have been acting in his judicial capacity if he had “merely directed the officers to bring Waco to his courtroom without directing them to use excessive force.” Id., at 216. But “[i]f Judge Míreles requested and authorized the use of excessive force, then he would not be acting in his judicial capacity.” Ibid.
Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, as we do upon a motion to dismiss, we grant the petition for certiorari and summarily reverse.
Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 526 (1985). Accordingly, judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice, the existence of which ordinarily cannot be resolved without engaging in discovery and eventual trial. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S., at 554 (“[Ijmmunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”). See also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 815-819 (1982) (allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity).
Rather, our cases make clear that the immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances. First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i. e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U. S., at 227-229; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S., at 360. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Id., at 356-357; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 351.
We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Míreles’ alleged actions were not taken in his judicial capacity. This Court in Stump made clear that “whether an act by a judge is a 'judicial' one relate[s] to the nature of the act itself, i. e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i. e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” 435 U. S., at 362. See also Forrester v. White, 484 U. S., at 227-229. A judge’s direction to court officers to bring a person who is in the courthouse before him is a function normally performed by a judge. See generally Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §§ 128, 177, 187 (West 1982 and Supp. 1991) (setting forth broad powers of state judges in the conduct of proceedings). Waco, who was called into the courtroom for purposes of a pending case, was dealing with Judge Míreles in the judge’s judicial capacity.
Of course, a judge’s direction to police officers to carry out a judicial order with excessive force is not a “function normally performed by a judge.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S., at 362. But if only the particular act in question were to be scrutinized, then any mistake of a judge in excess of his authority would become a “nonjudicial” act, because an improper or erroneous act cannot be said to be normally performed by a judge. If judicial immunity means anything, it means that a judge “will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error ... or was in excess of his authority.” Id., at 356. See also Forrester v. White, 484 U. S., at 227 (a judicial act “does not become less judicial by virtue of an allegation of malice or corruption of motive”). Accordingly, as the language in Stump indicates, the relevant inquiry is the “nature” and “function” of the act, not the “act itself.” 435 U. S., at 362. In other words, we look to the particular act’s relation to a general function normally performed by a judge, in this case the function of directing police officers to bring counsel in a pending case before the court.
Nor does the fact that Judge Míreles’ order was carried out by police officers somehow transform his action from “judicial” to “executive” in character. As Forrester instructs, it is “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that inform[s] our immunity analysis.” 484 U. S., at 229. A judge’s direction to an executive officer to bring counsel before the court is no more executive in character than a judge’s issuance of a warrant for an executive officer to search a home. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U. S. 478, 492 (1991) (“[T]he issuance of a search warrant is unquestionably a judicial act”).
Because the Court of Appeals concluded that Judge Mí-reles did not act in his judicial capacity, the court did not reach the second part of the immunity inquiry: whether Judge Míreles’ actions were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. We have little trouble concluding that they were not. If Judge Míreles authorized and ratified the police officers’ use of excessive force, he acted in excess of his authority. But such an action — taken in the very aid of the judge’s jurisdiction over a matter before him — cannot be said to have been taken in the absence of jurisdiction.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The Court, however, has recognized that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability, Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 348-349 (1880), or from a suit for prospective injunctive relief, Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522, 536-543 (1984), or from a suit for attorney’s fees authorized by statute, id., at 543-544.
California Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §128 (West Supp. 1991) provides in pertinent part: “Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: ... (5) To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.” See Ligda v. Superior Court of Solano County, 5 Cal. App. 3d 811, 826, 85 Cal. Rptr. 744, 753 (1970) (public defender is “ ‘ministerial officer’ ” and one of “ ‘all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding’ ” within the meaning of §128, and may be ordered to appear to assist criminal defendant).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises important questions concerning the interrelationship of the antimerger and private damages action provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
I
Petitioner is one of the two largest manufacturers of bowling equipment in the United States. Respondents are three of the 10 bowling centers owned by Treadway Companies, Inc. Since 1965, petitioner has acquired and operated a large number of bowling centers, including six in the markets in which respondents operate. Respondents instituted this action contending that these acquisitions violated various provisions of the antitrust laws.
In the late 1950’s, the bowling industry expanded rapidly, and petitioner’s sales of lanes, automatic pinsetters, and ancillary equipment rose accordingly. Since this equipment requires a major capital expenditure — $12,600 for each lane and pinsetter, App. A1576 — most of petitioner’s sales were for secured credit.
In the early 1960’s, the bowling industry went into a sharp decline. Petitioner’s sales quickly dropped to preboom levels. Moreover, petitioner experienced great difficulty in collecting money owed it; by the end of 1964 over $100,000,000, or more than 25%, of petitioner’s accounts were more than 90 days delinquent. Id., at A1884. Repossessions rose dramatically, but attempts to sell or lease the repossessed equipment met with only limited success. Because petitioner had borrowed close to $250,000,000 to finance its credit sales, id., at A1900, it was, as the Court of Appeals concluded, “in serious financial difficulty.” NBO Industries Treadway Cos., Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 523 F. 2d 262, 267 (CA3 1975).
To meet this difficulty, petitioner began acquiring and operating defaulting bowling centers when their equipment could not be resold and a positive cash flow could be expected from operating the centers. During the seven years preceding the trial in this case, petitioner acquired 222 centers, 54 of which it either disposed of or closed. Ibid. These acquisitions made petitioner by far the largest operator of bowling centers, with over five times as many centers as its next largest competitor. Ibid. Petitioner’s net worth in 1965 was more than eight times greater, and its gross revenue more than seven times greater, than the total for the 11 next largest bowling chains. App. A1675. Nevertheless, petitioner controlled only 2% of the bowling centers in the United States. Id., at A1096.
At issue here are acquisitions by petitioner in the three markets in which respondents are located: Pueblo, Colo., Poughkeepsie, N. Y., and Paramus, N. J. In 1965, petitioner acquired one defaulting center in Pueblo, one in Poughkeepsie, and two in the Paramus area. In 1969, petitioner acquired a third defaulting center in the Paramus market, and in 1970 petitioner acquired a 'fourth. Petitioner closed its Poughkeepsie center in 1969 after three years of unsuccessful operation; the Paramus center acquired in 1970 also proved unsuccessful, and in March 1973 petitioner gave notice that it would cease operating the center when its lease expired. The other four centers were operational at the time of trial.
Respondents initiated this action in June 1966, alleging, inter alia, that these acquisitions might substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 18. Respondents sought damages, pursuant to § 4 of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 15, for three times “the reasonably expectable profits to be made [by respondents] from the operation of their bowling centers.” App. A24. Respondents also sought a divestiture order, an injunction against future acquisitions, and such “other further and different relief” as might be appropriate under § 16 of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 26. App. A27.
Trial was held in the spring of 1973, following an initial mistrial due to a hung jury. To establish a § 7 violation, respondents sought to prove that because of its size, petitioner had the capacity to lessen competition in the markets it had entered by driving smaller competitors out of business. To establish damages, respondents attempted to show that had petitioner allowed the defaulting centers to close, respondents’ profits would have increased. At respondents’ request, the jury was instructed in accord with respondents’ theory as to the nature of the violation and the basis for damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of respondents in the amount of $2,358,030, which represented the minimum estimate by respondents of the additional income they would have realized had the acquired centers been closed. Id., at A1737. As required by law, the District Court trebled the damages. It also awarded respondents costs and attorneys’ fees totaling $446,977.32, and, sitting as a court of equity, it ordered petitioner to divest itself of the centers involved here, Treadway Cos. v. Brunswick Corp., 389 F. Supp. 996 (NJ 1974). Petitioner appealed.
The Court of Appeals, while endorsing the legal theories upon which respondents’ claim was based, reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. NBO Industries Treadway Cos. v. Brunswick Corp., supra. The court found that a properly instructed jury could have concluded that petitioner was a “giant” whose entry into a “market of pygmies” might lessen horizontal retail competition, because such a “giant”
“has greater ease of entry into the market, can accomplish cost-savings by investing in new equipment, can resort to low or below cost sales to sustain itself against competition for a longer period, and can obtain more favorable credit terms.” 523 F. 2d, at 268.
The court also found that there was sufficient evidence to permit a jury to conclude that but for petitioner’s actions, the acquired centers would have gone out of business. Id., at 273, 275-277. And the court held that if a jury were to make such findings, respondents would be entitled to damages for threefold the income they would have earned. After reviewing the instructions on these issues, however, the court decided that the jury had not been properly charged and that therefore a new trial was required. Id., at 275-277. It also decided that since “an essential predicate” for the District Court’s grant of equitable relief was the jury verdict on the § 7 claim, the equitable decree should be vacated as well. Id., at 277-278. And it concluded that in any event equitable relief “should be restricted to preventing those practices by which a deep pocket market entrant harms competition .... [D]ivestiture was simply inappropriate.” Id., at 279.
Both sides petitioned this Court for writs of certiorari. Brunswick’s petition challenged the theory the Court of Appeals had approved for awarding damages; the plaintiffs’ petition challenged the Court of Appeals’ conclusions with respect to the jury instructions and the appropriateness of a divestiture order. We granted Brunswick’s petition. 424 U. S. 908 (1976).
II
The issue for decision is a narrow one. Petitioner does not presently contest the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that a properly instructed jury could have found the acquisitions unlawful. Nor does petitioner challenge the Court of Appeals’ determination that the evidence would support a finding that had petitioner not acquired these centers, they would have gone out of business and respondents’ income would have increased. Petitioner questions only whether antitrust damages are available where the sole injury alleged is that competitors were continued in business, thereby denying respondents an anticipated increase in market shares.
To answer that question it is necessary to examine the anti-merger and treble-damages provisions of the Clayton Act. Section 7 of the Act proscribes mergers whose effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” (Emphasis added.) It is, as we have observed many times, a prophylactic measure, intended “primarily to arrest apprehended consequences of intercorporate relationships before those relationships could work their evil . . . .” United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 597 (1957). See also Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 317-318 (1962); United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 362-363 (1963); United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co., 378 U. S. 158, 170-171 (1964); United States v. Von’s Grocery Co., 384 U. S. 270, 277 (1966); FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U. S. 568, 577-578 (1967); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 201 (1974).
Section 4, in contrast, is in essence a remedial provision. It provides treble damages to “[a]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws . . . .” Of course, treble damages also play an important role in penalizing wrongdoers and deterring wrongdoing, as we also have frequently observed. Perma Life Mufflers v. International Parts Corp., 392 U. S. 134, 139 (1968); Fortner Enterprises v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 502 (1969); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 395 U. S. 100, 130 (1969); Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 262 (1972). It nevertheless is true that the treble-damages provision, which makes awards available only to injured parties, and measures the awards by a multiple of the injury actually proved, is designed primarily as a remedy.
Intermeshing a statutory prohibition against acts that have a potential to cause certain harms with a damages action intended to remedy those harms is not without difficulty. Plainly, to recover damages respondents must prove more than that petitioner violated § 7, since such proof establishes only that injury may result. Respondents contend that the only additional element they need demonstrate is that they are in a worse position than they would have been had petitioner not committed those acts. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding compensable any loss “causally linked” to “the mere presence of the violator in the market.” 523 F. 2d, at 272-273. Because this holding divorces antitrust recovery from the purposes of the antitrust laws without a clear statutory command to do so, we cannot agree with it.
Every merger of two existing entities into one, whether lawful or unlawful, has the potential for producing economic readjustments that adversely affect some persons. But Congress has not condemned .mergers _on UAatme,count,i t has condemned them only when they may produce anticompetitive effects. Yet under the Court of Appeals’ holding, once a merger is found to violate § 7, all dislocations caused by the merger are actionable, regardless of whether those dislocations have anything to do with the reason the merger was condemned. This holding would make § 4 recovery entirely fortuitous, and would authorize damages for losses which are of no concern to the antitrust laws.
Both of these consequences are well illustrated by the facts of this case. If the acquisitions here were unlawful, it is because they brought a “deep pocket” parent into a market of “pygmies.” Yet respondents’ injury — the loss of income that would have accrued had the acquired centers gone bankrupt — bears no relationship to the size of either the acquiring company or its competitors. Respondents would have suffered the identical “loss” — but no compensable injury — had the acquired centers instead obtained refinancing or been purchased by “shallow pocket” parents, as the Court of Appeals itself acknowledged, 523 F. 2d, at 279. Thus, respondents’ injury was not of “the type that the statute was intended to forestall,” Wyandotte Co. v. United States, 389 U. S. 191, 202 (1967).
But the antitrust laws are not merely indifferent to the injury claimed here. At base, respondents complain that by acquiring the failing centers petitioner preserved competition, thereby depriving respondents of the benefits of increased concentration. The damages respondents obtained are designed to provide them with the profits they would have realized had competition been reduced. The antitrust laws, however, were enacted for “the protection of competition, not competitors,” Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S., at 320. It is inimical to the purposes of these laws to award damages for the type of injury claimed here.
Of course, Congress is free, if it desires, to mandate damages awards for all dislocations caused by unlawful mergers despite the peculiar consequences of so doing. But because of these consequences, “we should insist upon a clear expression of a congressional purpose,” Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S., at 264, before attributing such an intent to Congress. We can find no such expression in either the language or the legislative history of § 4. To the contrary, it is far from clear that the loss of windfall profits that would have accrued had the acquired centers failed even constitutes “injury” within the meaning of § 4. And it is quite clear that if respondents were injured, it was not “by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws”: while respondents’ loss occurred “by reason of” the unlawful acquisitions, it did not occur “by reason of” that which made the acquisitions unlawful.
We therefore hold that for plaintiffs to recover treble damages on account of § 7 violations, they must prove more than injury causally linked to an illegal presence in the market. Plaintiffs must prove antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants’ acts unlawful. The injury should reflect the anticompetitive effect either of the violation or of anticompetitive acts made possible by the violation. It should, in short, be “the type of loss that the claimed violations . . . would be likely to cause.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 395 U. S., at 125.
Ill
We come, then, to the question of appropriate disposition of this case. At the very least, petitioner is entitled to a new trial, not only because of the instructional errors noted by the Court of Appeals that are not at issue here, see n. 6, supra, but also because the District Court’s instruction as to the basis for damages was inconsistent with our holding as outlined above., Our review of the record, however, persuades us that a new trial on the damages claim is unwarranted. Respondents based their case solely on their novel damages theory which we have rejected. While they produced some conclusory testimony suggesting that in operating the acquired centers petitioner had abused its deep pocket by engaging in anticompetitive conduct, they made no attempt to prove that they had lost any income as a result of such predation. Rather, their entire proof of damages was based on their claim to profits that would have been earned had the acquired centers closed. Since respondents did not prove any cognizable damages and have not offered any justification for allowing respondents, after two trials and over 10 years of litigation, yet a third opportunity to do so, it follows that, petitioner is entitled, in accord with its motion made pursuant to Rule 50 (b), to judgment on the damages claim notwithstanding the verdict. Neely v. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U. S. 317, 326-330 (1967); United States v. Generes, 405 U.S. 93, 106-107 (1972).
Respondents’ complaint also prayed for equitable relief, and the Court of Appeals held that if respondents established a § 7 violation, they might be entitled to an injunction against “those practices by which a deep pocket market entrant harms competition.” 523 F. 2d, at 279. Because petitioner has not contested this holding, respondents remain free, on remand, to seek such a decree.
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.
Sales of automatic pinsetters, for example, went from 1,890 in 1956 to 16,288 in 1961. App. A1866.
Repossessions of pinsetters increased from 300 in 1961 to 5,996 in 1965. Ibid. In 1963, petitioner resold over two-thirds of the pinsetters repossessed; more typically, only one-third were resold, and in 1965, less than one-quarter were resold. Id., at A1879.
The complaint contained two additional counts. Count one alleged that petitioner had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1, by-fixing resale prices for bowling supplies sold by petitioner to respondents. This count was abandoned prior to trial. Count two alleged that by virtue of the acquisitions and other acts, petitioner was guilty of monopolization or an attempt to monopolize in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 2. The jury found for petitioner on this count, and respondents did not appeal.
The complaint also named as plaintiffs National Bowl-O-Mat, the predecessor to Treadway Companies, and the seven other bowling center subsidiaries of Treadway. These plaintiffs were unsuccessful on all counts, however, and they did not appeal the judgments entered against them.
Judgment ultimately was entered for $6,575,040, which is $499,050 less than three times the jury’s damages award, after respondent Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat consented to a remittitur which the District Court proposed as an alternative to a retrial on damages. Treadway Cos. v. Brunswick Corp., 364 F. Supp. 316, 324-326 (NJ 1973). The remittitur was deemed necessary because the jury apparently awarded damages to that respondent in accord with its minimum claim dating back to 1963, when the alleged § 2 violation began, rather than back to 1965, when the alleged § 7 violation began. The District Court thought that the jury might have been confused by the instruction to use the same" methods for calculating damages under the two sections. Ibid.
Petitioner’s appeal and respondents’ cross-appeal with respect to the amount of the attorneys’ fee award initially were dismissed by the Court of Appeals for want of jurisdiction because the District Court had neither disposed of respondents’ equitable claim nor certified the judgment entered on the legal claims pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b). Treadway Cos. v. Brunswick Corp., 500 F. 2d 1400 (CA3 1974) (order reported) ; App. A1563-A1566 {per curiam opinion reprinted). The District Court then certified the previously entered judgment, and the parties reappealed. While the appeals were pending, the District Court granted equitable relief, and the appeal from that judgment was consolidated with the pending appeals.
With respect to the instruction on the issue of liability, the court concluded that since petitioner’s acquisitions “did not increase concentration,” the District Court had erred by focusing on the size of the market shares acquired by petitioner rather than on “indicators of qualitative substantiality” such as the “relative financial strength of Brunswick, Treadway, and other competitors,” or “any retail market advantage” enjoyed by petitioner because of its status as financier and manufacturer. NBO Industries Treadway Cos. v. Brunswick Corp., 523 F. 2d, at 274-275 (CA3 1975). With respect to the instruction on damages, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court had failed to direct the jury to decide whether petitioner’s actions were responsible for keeping the acquired centers in business before considering how much additional income respondents would have earned if the acquired centers had been closed. Id., at 276-277.
The Court of Appeals also held, id., at 275, that in instructing the jury on the statutory requirement that the acquired company be “engaged ... in commerce,” the District Court had not anticipated this Court’s decision in United States v. American Bldg. Maint. Industries, 422 U. S. 271 (1975), which read the “in commerce” requirement more restrictively than had the leading decision of the Third Circuit, Transamerica Corp. v. Board of Governors, 206 F. 2d 163, cert. denied, 346 U. S. 901 (1953). Indeed, the court indicated that there might not be sufficient evidence in the record to satisfy the “in commerce” test. 523 F. 2d, at 271. The court concluded, however, that given the change in the law, it would be “unjust” to find the evidence insufficient and thereby deny plaintiffs an opportunity to meet the new test on retrial.
Both petitions also questioned the Court of Appeals’ decision to require relitigation of the “in commerce” issue, see n. 6, supra. Brunswick maintained it was entitled to a directed verdict on this issue; plaintiffs argued that they had satisfied the new test and that therefore no new trial was required.
The grant of certiorari excluded the question Brunswick sought to present concerning the suificiency of the evidence that the acquired companies were engaged “in commerce,” see nn. 6, 7, supra.
No action has been taken with respect to respondents’ petition.
Petitioner raises this issue directly through the first question presented, and indirectly through the second, which asks:
“Does not the ‘failing company’ principle require dismissal of a treble-damage action based on alleged violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act where the plaintiffs’ entire damage theory is based on the premise that the ‘acquired’ businesses would have failed and disappeared from the market had the defendant not kept them alive by making the challenged ‘acquisitions?’ ” Pet. for Cert. 3.
In light of our holding, we have no occasion to consider the applicability of the failing-company defense to the conglomerate-like acquisitions involved here.
Treble-damages antitrust actions were first authorized by § 7 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 210 (1890). The discussions of this section on the floor of the Senate indicate that it was conceived of primarily as a remedy for "[t]he people of the United States as individuals,” especially consumers. 21 Cong. Rec. 1767-1768 (1890) (remarks of Sen. George); see id., at 2612 (Sens. Teller and Reagan), 2615 (Sen. Coke), 3146-3149. Treble damages were provided in part for punitive purposes, id., at 3147 (Sen. George), but also to make the remedy meaningful by counterbalancing “the difficulty of maintaining a private suit against a combination such as is described” in the Act. Id., at 2456 (Sen. Sherman).
When Congress enacted the Clayton Act in 1914, it “extend[ed] the remedy under section 7 of the Sherman Act” to persons injured by virtue of any antitrust violation. H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1914). The initial House debates concerning provisions related to private damages actions reveal that these actions were conceived primarily as “open[ing] the door of justice to every man, whenever he may be injured by those who violate the antitrust laws, and giv[ing] the injured party ample damages for the wrong suffered.” 51 Cong. Rec. 9073 (1914) (remarks of Rep. Webb); see, e. g., id., at 9079 (Rep. Volstead), 9270 (Rep. Carlin), 9414-9417, 9466-9467, 9487-9495. The House debates following the conference committee report, however, indicate that the sponsors of the bill also saw treble-damages suits as an important means of enforcing the law. Id., at 16274H6275 (Rep. Webb), 16317-16319 (Rep. Floyd). In the Senate there was virtually no discussion of the enforcement value of private actions, even though the bill was attacked as lacking meaningful sanctions, e. g., id., at 15818-15821 (Sen. Reed), 16042-16046 (Sen. Norris).
See Areeda, Antitrust Violations Without Damage Recoveries, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 1127, 1130-1136 (1976); Symposium, Private Enforcement of the Antimerger Laws, 31 Record of N. Y. C. B. A., 239, 260-261 (1976).
Conversely, had petitioner acquired thriving centers — acquisitions at least as violative of § 7 as the instant acquisitions — respondents would not have lost any income that they otherwise would have received.
For instances in which plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought damages for injuries unrelated to the reason the merger was prohibited, see Reibert v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 471 F. 2d 727 (CA10), cert. denied, 411 U. S. 938 (1973); Peterson v. Borden Co., 50 F. 2d 644 (CA7 1931); Kirihara v. Bendix Corp., 306 F. Supp. 72 (Haw. 1969); Goldsmith v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 201 F. Supp. 867 (WDNC 1962).
See generally GAF Corp. v. Circle Floor Co., 463 F. 2d 752 (CA2 1972), cert. dismissed, 413 U. S. 901 (1973); Comment, Section 7 of the Clayton Act: The Private Plaintiff’s Remedies, 7 B. C. Ind. & Comm. L. Rev. 333 (1966); Comment, Treble Damage Actions for Violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 404 (1971).
This does not necessarily mean, as the Court of Appeals feared, 523 F. 2d, at 272, that § 4 plaintiffs must prove an actual lessening of competition in order to recover. The short-term effect of certain anticompetitive behavior — predatory below-cost pricing, for example — may be to stimulate price competition. But competitors may be able to prove antitrust injury before they actually are driven from the market and competition is thereby lessened. Of course, the case for relief will be strongest where competition has been diminished. See, e. g., Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 532 F. 2d 674 (CA9 1976); Metric Hosiery Co. v. Spartans Industries, Inc., 50 F. R. D. 50 (SDNY 1970); Klingsberg, Bull’s Eyes and Carom Shots: Complications and Conflicts on Standing to Sue and Causation Under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 16 Antitrust Bull. 351, 364 (1971).
Respondents’ testimony concerned price reductions at three centers, App. A170, A420, A431; unjustified capital expenses at three centers, id., at A503-A506, A829-A830; and extravagant “give-aways,” id., at A169-A170, A222-A223, A413-A414, A569. This testimony is rather unimpressive when viewed against both petitioner’s contemporaneous business records which reveal that it did not lower prices when it took over the centers, Defendant’s Exhibits D-32, D-33, D-36, D-38, and respondents’ own exhibits, which demonstrate that petitioner made a profit at two centers, App. A1700, generated a positive cash flow at three others, id., at A1717, A1720, and closed the two centers that were unsuccessful, id., at A1725, A1733.
One of respondents’ witnesses did testify that he knew of one bowling league in Pueblo that had shifted from a respondent to petitioner after petitioner installed faster automatic pinsetters. Id., at 508. Assuming, arguendo, that such installations were not cost justified and constituted a form of predation, respondents still made no attempt to quantify the loss.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ch. 404, 48 Stat. 881, the Securities and Exchange Commission has the authority “summarily to suspend trading in any security... for a period not exceeding ten days” if “in its opinion the public interest and the protection of investors so require.” Acting pursuant to this authority the Commission issued a series of consecutive orders suspending trading in the common stock of Canadian Javelin, Ltd. (CJL), for over a year. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that such a series of suspensions was beyond the scope of the Commission's statutory authority. 547 F. 2d 152, 157-158 (1976). We granted certiorari to consider this important question, 434 U. S. 901 (1977), and, finding ourselves in basic agreement with the Court of Appeals, we affirm. We hold that even though there be a periodic redetermination of whether such action is required by “the public interest” and for “the protection of investors,” the Commission is not empowered to issue, based upon a single set of circumstances, a series of summary orders which would suspend trading beyond the initial 10-day period.
I
On November 29, 1973, apparently because CJL had disseminated allegedly false and misleading press releases concerning certain of its business activities, the Commission issued the first of what was to become a series of summary 10-day suspension orders continuously suspending trading in CJL common stock from that date until January 26, 1975. App. 109. During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan, who owned 13 shares of CJL stock and had engaged in substantial purchases and short sales of shares of that stock, filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975, the court dismissed as frivolous all respondent’s claims, except his allegation that the “tacking” of 10-day summary suspension orders for an indefinite period was an abuse of the agency’s authority and a deprivation of due process. It further concluded, however, that in light of two events which had occurred prior to argument, it could not address this question at that time. The first event of significance was the resumption of trading on January 26, 1975. The second was the commencement of a second series of summary 10-day suspension orders, which was still in effect on October 15. This series had begun on April 29, 1975, when the Commission issued a 10-day order based on the fact that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had launched an extensive investigation into alleged manipulation of CJL common stock on the American Stock Exchange and several Canadian stock exchanges. App. 11-12. This time 37 separate orders were issued, suspending trading continuously from April 29, 1975, to May 2, 1976. The court thought the record before it on October 15 inadequate in light of these events and dismissed respondent’s appeal “without prejudice to his repleading after an administrative hearing before the SEC...,” which hearing, though apparently not required by statute or regulation, had been offered by the Commission at oral argument. 527 F. 2d 11, 12 (1975), cert. denied, 426 U. S. 935 (1976).
Thereafter respondent immediately petitioned the Commission for the promised hearing. The hearing was not forthcoming, however, so on April 23, 1976, during the period when the second series of orders was still in effect, respondent brought the present action pursuant to § 25 (a) (1) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78y (a)(1) (1976 ed.), challenging the second series of suspension orders. He argued, among other things, that there was no rational basis for the suspension orders, that they were not supported by substantial evidence in any event, and that the “tacking” of 10-day summary suspension orders was beyond the Commission’s authority because the statute specifically authorized suspension “for a period not exceeding ten days.” The court held in respondent’s favor on this latter point. It first concluded that despite the fact that there had been no 10-day suspension order in effect since May 2, 1976, and the Commission had asserted that it had no plans to consider or issue an order against CJL in the foreseeable future, the case was not moot because it was “ 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” 547 F. 2d, at 158, quoting from Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).
The court then decided that the statutes which authorized summary suspensions — § 12 (k) and its predecessors — did not empower the Commission to issue successive orders to curtail trading in a security for a period beyond the initial 10-day period. 547 F. 2d, at 157-158. We granted certiorari, specifically directing the attention of the parties to the question of mootness, 434 U. S. 901 (1977), to which we now turn.
II
Respondent argues that this case is not moot because, as the Court of Appeals observed, it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” The Commission, on the other hand, does not urge that the case is demonstrably moot, but rather that there simply are not enough facts on the record to allow a proper determination of mootness. It argues that there is no “reasonable expectation” that respondent will be harmed by further suspensions because, “ ‘the investing public now ha[ving] been apprised of the relevant facts, the concealment of which had threatened to disrupt the market in CJL stock, there is no reason to believe that it will be necessary to suspend trading again.’ ” Brief for Petitioner 15, quoting from Pet. for Cert. 12 n. 7. Cf. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147, 149 (1975). The Commission concedes, however, that respondent, in his capacity as a diversified investor, might be harmed in the future by the suspension of some other security which he owns. But it further contends that respondent has not provided enough data about the number or type of securities in his portfolio to enable the Court to determine whether there is a “reasonable” likelihood that any of those securities will be subjected to consecutive summary suspension orders.
Contrary to the Commission’s contention, we think even on the record presently before us this case falls squarely within the general principle first enunciated in Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, supra, and further clarified in Weinstein v. Bradford, supra, that even in the absence of a class action a case is not moot when “(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Weinstein v. Bradford, supra, at 147 (emphasis added). That the first prong of this test is satisfied is not in dispute. A series of consecutive suspension orders may last no more than 20 days, making effective judicial review impossible during the life of the orders. We likewise have no doubt that the second part of the test also has been met here. CJL has, to put it mildly, a history of sailing close to the wind. Thus, the Commission’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, there is a reasonable expectation, within the meaning of Weinstein v. Bradford, supra, that CJL stock will again be subjected to consecutive summary suspension orders and that respondent, who apparently still owns CJL stock, will suffer the same type of injury he suffered before. This is.sufficient in and of itself to satisfy this part of the test. But in addition, respondent owns other securities, the trading of which may also be summarily suspended. As even the Commission admits, this fact can only increase the probability that respondent will again suffer the type of harm of which he is presently complaining. It thus can only buttress our conclusion that there is a reasonable expectation of recurring injury to the same complaining party.
Ill
A
Turning to the merits, we note that this is not a case where the Commission, discovering the existence of a manipulative scheme affecting CJL stock, suspended trading for 10 days and then, upon the discovery of a second manipulative scheme or other improper activity unrelated to the first scheme, ordered a second 10-day suspension. Instead it is a case in which the Commission issued a series of summary suspension orders lasting over a year on the basis of evidence revealing a single, though likely sizable, manipulative scheme. Thus, the only question confronting us is whether, even upon a periodic redetermination of “necessity,” the Commission is statutorily authorized to issue a series of summary suspension orders based upon a single set of events or circumstances which threaten an orderly market. This question must, in our opinion, be answered in the negative.
The first and most salient point leading us to this conclusion is the language of the statute. Section 12 (k) authorizes the Commission “summarily to suspend trading in any security... for a period not exceeding ten days... 15 U. S. C. § 78l(k) (1976 ed.) (emphasis added). The Commission would have us read the underscored phrase as a limitation only upon the duration of a single suspension order. So read, the Commission could indefinitely suspend trading in a security without any hearing or other procedural safeguards as long as it redetermined every 10 days that suspension was required by the public interest and for the protection of investors. While perhaps not an impossible reading of the statute, we are persuaded it is not the most natural or logical one. The duration limitation rather appears on its face to be just that — a maximum time period for which trading can be suspended for any single set of circumstances.
Apart from the language of the statute, which we find persuasive in and of itself, there are other reasons to adopt this construction of the statute. In the first place, the power to summarily suspend trading in a security even for 10 days, without any notice, opportunity to be heard, or findings based upon a record, is an awesome power with a potentially devastating impact on the issuer, its shareholders, and other investors. A clear mandate from Congress, such as that found in § 12 (k), is necessary to confer this power. No less clear a mandate can be expected from Congress to authorize the Commission to extend, virtually without limit, these periods of suspension. But we find no such unmistakable mandate in § 12 (k). Indeed, if anything, that section points in the opposite direction.
Other sections of the statute reinforce the conclusion that in this area Congress considered summary restrictions to be somewhat drastic and properly used only for very brief periods of time. When explicitly longer term, though perhaps temporary, measures are to be taken against some person, company, or security, Congress invariably requires the Commission to give some sort of notice and opportunity to be heard. For example, § 12 (j) of the Act authorizes the Commission, as it deems necessary for the protection of investors, to suspend the registration of a security for a period not exceeding 12 months if it makes certain findings “on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing... 15 U. S. C. § 78l (j) (1976 ed.) (emphasis added). Another section of the Act empowers the Commission to suspend broker-dealer registration for a period not exceeding 12 months upon certain findings made only “on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing.” § 78o (b)(4) (1976 ed.) (emphasis added). Still another section allows the Commission, pending final determination whether a broker-dealer’s registration should be revoked, to temporarily suspend that registration, but only “after notice and opportunity for hearing.” § 78o (b)(5) (1976 ed.) (emphasis added). Former §15 (b)(6), which dealt with the registration of broker-dealers, also lends support to the notion that as a general matter Congress meant to allow the Commission to take summary action only for the period specified in the statute when that action is based upon any single set of circumstances. That section allowed the Commission to summarily postpone the effective date of registration for 15 days, and then, after appropriate notice and opportunity for hearing, to continue that postponement pending final resolution of the matter. The section which replaced § 15 (b)(6) even further underscores this general pattern. It requires the Commission to take some action — either granting the registration or instituting proceedings to determine whether registration should be denied — within 45 days. 15 U. S. C. § 78o (b) (1) (1976 ed.). In light of the explicit congressional recognition in other sections of the Act, both past and present, that any long-term sanctions or any continuation of summary restrictions must be accompanied by notice and an opportunity for a hearing, it is difficult to read the silence in § 12 (k) as an authorization for an extension of summary restrictions without such a hearing, as the Commission contends. The more plausible interpretation is that Congress did not intend the Commission to have the power to extend the length of suspensions under § 12 (k) at all, much less to repeatedly extend such suspensions without any hearing.
B
The Commission advances four arguments in support of its position, none of which we find persuasive. It first argues that only its interpretation makes sense out of the statute. That is, if the Commission discovers a manipulative scheme and suspends trading for 10 days, surely it can suspend trading 30 days later upon the discovery of a second manipulative scheme. But if trading may be suspended a second time 30 days later upon the discovery of another manipulative scheme, it surely could be suspended only 10 days later if the discovery of the second scheme were made on the eve of the expiration of the first order. And, continues the Commission, since nothing on the face of the statute requires it to consider only evidence of new manipulative schemes when evaluating the public interest and the needs of investors, it must have the power to issue consecutive suspension orders even in the absence of a new or different manipulative scheme, as long as the public interest requires it.
This argument is unpersuasive, however, because the conclusion simply does not follow from the various premises. Even assuming the Commission can again suspend trading upon learning of another event which threatens the stability of the market, it simply does not follow that the Commission therefore must necessarily have the power to do so even in the absence of such a discovery. On its face and in the context of this statutory pattern, § 12 (k) is more properly viewed as a device to allow the Commission to take emergency action for 10 days while it prepares to deploy its other remedies, such as a temporary restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction, or a suspension or revocation of the registration of a security. The Commission's argument would render unnecessary to a greater or lesser extent all of these other admittedly more cumbersome remedies which Congress has given to it.
Closely related to the Commission's first argument is its second — its construction furthers the statute's remedial purposes. Here the Commission merely asserts that it “has found that the remedial purposes of the statute require successive suspension of trading in particular securities, in order to maintain orderly and fair capital markets.” Brief for Petitioner 37. Other powers granted the Commission are, in its opinion, simply insufficient to accomplish its purposes.
We likewise reject this argument. In the first place, the Commission has not made a very persuasive showing that other remedies are ineffective. It argues that injunctions and temporary restraining orders are insufficient because they take time and evidence to obtain and because they can be obtained only against wrongdoers and not necessarily as a stopgap measure in order to suspend trading simply until more information can be disseminated into the marketplace. The first of these alleged insufficiencies is no more than a reiteration of the familiar claim of many Government agencies that any semblance of an adversary proceeding will delay the imposition of the result which they believe desirable. It seems to us that Congress, in weighing the public interest against the burden imposed upon private parties, has concluded that 10 days is sufficient for gathering necessary evidence.
This very case belies the Commission's argument that injunctions cannot be sought in appropriate cases. At exactly the same time the Commission commenced the first series of suspension orders it also sought a civil injunction against CJL and certain of its principals, alleging violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, violations of the antifraud and reporting provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and various other improper practices, including the filing of false reports with the Commission and the dissemination of a series of press releases containing false and misleading information. App. 109. And during the second series of suspension orders, the Commission approved the filing of an action seeking an injunction against those in the management of CJL to prohibit them from engaging in further violations of the Acts. Id., at 101.
The second of these alleged insufficiencies is likewise less than overwhelming. Even assuming that it is proper to suspend trading simply in order to enhance the information in the marketplace, there is nothing to indicate that the Commission cannot simply reveal to the investing public at the end of 10 days the reasons which it thought justified the initial summary suspension and then let the investors make their own judgments.
Even assuming, however, that a totally satisfactory remedy-— at least from the Commission’s viewpoint — is not available in every instance in which the Commission would like such a remedy, we would not be inclined to read § 12 (k) more broadly than its language and the statutory scheme reasonably permit. Indeed, the Commission’s argument amounts to little more than the notion that § 12 (k) ought to be a panacea for every type of problem which may beset the marketplace. This does not appear to be the first time the Commission has adopted this construction of the statute. As early as 1961 a recognized authority in this area of the law called attention to the fact that the Commission was gradually carrying over the summary suspension power granted in the predecessors of § 12 (k) into other areas of its statutory authority and using it as a pendente lite power to keep in effect a suspension of trading pending final disposition of delisting proceedings. 2 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 854-855 (2d ed. 1961).
The author then questioned the propriety of extending the summary suspension power in that manner, id., at 854, and we think those same questions arise when the Commission argues that the summary suspension power should be available not only for the purposes clearly contemplated by § 12 (k), but also as a solution to virtually any other problem which might occur in the marketplace. We do not think § 12 (k) was meant to be such a cure-all. It provides the Commission with a powerful weapon for dealing with certain problems. But its time limit is clearly and precisely defined. It cannot be judicially or administratively extended simply by doubtful arguments as to the need for a greater duration of suspension orders than it allows. If extension of the summary suspension power is desirable, the proper source of that power is Congress. Cf. FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U. S. 726, 744-745 (1973).
The Commission next argues that its interpretation of the statute — that the statute authorizes successive suspension orders — has been both consistent and longstanding, dating from 1944. It is thus entitled to great deference. See United States v. National Assn. of Securities Dealers, 422 U. S. 694, 719 (1975); Saxbe v. Bustos, 419 U. S. 65, 74 (1974).
While this undoubtedly is true as a general principle of law, it is not an argument of sufficient force in this case to overcome the clear contrary indications of the statute itself. In the first place it is not apparent from the record that on any of the occasions when a series of consecutive summary suspension orders was issued the Commission actually addressed in any detail the statutory authorization under which it took that action. As we said just this Term in Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U. S. 275, 287 n. 5 (1978):
“This lack of specific attention to the statutory authorization is especially important in light of this Court’s pronouncement in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944), that one factor to be considered in giving weight to an administrative ruling is 'the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.’ ”
To further paraphrase that opinion, since this Court can only speculate as to the Commission’s reasons for reaching the conclusion that it did, the mere issuance of consecutive summary suspension orders, without a concomitant exegesis of the statutory authority for doing so, obviously lacks “power to persuade” as to the existence of such authority. Ibid. Nor does the existence of a prior administrative practice, even a well-explained one, relieve us of our responsibility to determine whether that practice is consistent with the agency’s statutory authority.
“The construction put on a statute by the agency charged with administering it is entitled to deference by the courts, and ordinarily that construction will be affirmed if it has a'reasonable basis in law.’ NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 131; Unemployment Commission v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 153-154. But the courts are the final authorities on issues of statutory construction, FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U. S. 374, 385, and 'are not obliged to stand aside and rubber-stamp their affirmance of administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.’ NLRB v. Brown, 380 U. S. 278, 291.” Volkswagenwerk v. FMC, 390 U. S. 261, 272 (1968).
And this is just such a case — the construction placed on the statute by the Commission, though of long standing, is, for the reasons given in Part III-A of this opinion, inconsistent with the statutory mandate. We explicitly contemplated just this situation in FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., supra, at 745, where we said:
“But the Commission contends that since it is charged with administration of the statutory scheme, its construction of the statute over an extended period should be given great weight.... This proposition may, as a general matter, be conceded, although it must be tempered with the caveat that an agency may not bootstrap itself into an area in which it has no jurisdiction by repeatedly violating its statutory mandate.”
And our clear duty in such a situation is to reject the administrative interpretation of the statute.
Finally, the Commission argues that for a variety of reasons Congress should be considered to have approved the Commission’s construction of the statute as correct. Not only has Congress re-enacted the summary suspension power without disapproving the Commission’s construction, but the Commission participated in the drafting of much of this legislation and on at least one occasion made its views known to Congress in Committee hearings. Furthermore, at least one Committee indicated on one occasion that it understood and approved of the Commission's practice. See Zuber v. Allen, 396 U. S. 168, 192 (1969); United States v. Correll, 389 U. S. 299, 305-306 (1967); Fribourg Navigation Co. v. Commissioner, 383 U. S. 272, 283 (1966).
While we of course recognize the validity of the general principle illustrated by the cases upon which the Commission relies, we do not believe it to be applicable here. In Zuber v. Allen, supra, at 192, the Court stated that a contemporaneous administrative construction of an agency’s own enabling legislation “is only one input in the interpretational equation. Its impact carries most weight when the administrators participated in drafting and directly made known their views to Congress in committee hearings.” Here the administrators, so far as we are advised, made no reference at all to their present construction of § 12 (k) to the Congress which drafted the “enabling legislation” here in question — the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. They made known to at least one Committee their subsequent construction of that section 29 years later, at a time when the attention of the Committee and of the Congress was focused on issues not directly related to the one presently before the Court. Although the section in question was re-enacted in 1964, and while it appears that the Committee Report did recognize and approve of the Commission’s practice, this is scarcely the sort of congressional approval referred to in Zuber, supra.
We are extremely hesitant to presume general congressional awareness of the Commission’s construction based only upon a few isolated statements in the thousands of pages of legislative documents. That language in a Committee Report, without additional indication of more widespread congressional awareness, is simply not sufficient to invoke the presumption in a case such as this. For here its invocation would result in a construction of the statute which not only is at odds with the language of the section in question and the pattern of the statute taken as a whole, but also is extremely far reaching in terms of the virtually untrammeled and unreviewable power it would vest in a regulatory agency.
Even if we were willing to presume such general awareness on the part of Congress, we are not at all sure that such awareness at the time of re-enactment would be tantamount to amendment of what we conceive to be the rather plain meaning of the language of § 12 (k). On this point the present case differs significantly from United States v. Correll, supra, at 304, where the Court took pains to point out in relying on a construction of a tax statute by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that “to the extent that the words chosen by Congress cut in either direction, they tend to support rather than defeat the Commissioner’s position....”
Subsequent congressional pronouncements also cast doubt on whether the prior statements called to our attention can be taken at face value. When consolidating the former §§15 (c) (5) and 19 (a) (4) in 1975, see n. 1, supra, Congress also enacted § 12 (j), which allows the Commission “to suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to revoke the registration of a security, if the Commission finds, on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing, that the issuer of such security has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter or the rules and regulations thereunder.” 15 U. S. C. § 781 (j) (1976 ed.). While this particular power is not new, see 15 U. S. C. § 78s (a)(2), the effect of its exercise was expanded to include a suspension of trading. “With this change,” stated the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, “the Commission is expected to use this section rather than its ten-day suspension power, in cases of extended duration.” S. Rep. No. 94-75, p. 106 (1975) (emphasis added). Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the 1963 statements have more force than we are willing to attribute to them, and that, as,the Commission argues, § 12 (j) does not cover quite as broad a range of situations as § 12 (k), the 1975 congressional statements would still have to be read as seriously undermining the continued validity of the 1963 statements as a basis upon which to adopt the Commission’s construction of the statute.
In sum, had Congress intended the Commission to have the power to summarily suspend trading virtually indefinitely we expect that it could and would have authorized it more clearly than it did in § 12 (k). The sweeping nature of that power supports this expectation. The absence of any truly persuasive legislative history to support the Commission’s view, and the entire statutory scheme suggesting that in fact the Commission is not so empowered, reinforce our conclusion that the Court of Appeals was correct in concluding no such power exists. Accordingly, its judgment is
Affirmed.
This authority is presently found in § 12 (k) of the Act, which was added by amendment in 1975 by Pub. L. 94-29 § 9, 89 Stat. 118. It provides in pertinent part:
“If in its opinion the public interest and the protection of investors so require, the Commission is authorized summarily to suspend trading in any security (other than an exempted security) for a period not exceeding ten days.... No member of a national securities exchange, broker, or dealer shall make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transaction in, or to induce the purchase or sale of, any security in which trading is so suspended.” 15 U. S. C. § 781 (k) (1976 ed.).
This power was previously found in §§ 15 (c) (5) and 19 (a) (4) of the Act, which for all purposes relevant to this case were substantially identical to the current statute, § 12 (k), except that § 15 (c)(5) authorized summary suspension of trading in securities which were traded in the over-the-counter market, while § 19 (a) (4) permitted summary suspension of trading in securities which were traded on the national exchanges. 15 U. S. C. §§ 78o (c) (5) and 78s (a) (4). Congress consolidated those powers in § 12 (k).
Respondent also argued that the orders violated his due process rights because he was never given notice and an opportunity for a hearing and that § 12 (k) was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The court found it unnecessary to address these issues.
Respondent also contends that he has suffered collateral legal consequences from the series of suspension orders, and thus the case is not moot. Cf. Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 57 (1968). We find it unnecessary to address this further contention.
The Commission contends that to determine the mathematical probability that at least one of the securities held by respondent will be subjected to consecutive suspension orders it is necessary to know, in addition to other information admittedly available in the Commission’s own records, the number of publicly traded corporations of which respondent is a shareholder. This datum cannot be ascertained with any accuracy on this record, however, claims the Commission, because respondent has made various representations regarding that number at various stages of the litigation. Compare App. 153 with Brief in Response 18. The Commission adds that the probability could be determined with even greater accuracy if respondent revealed the nature of his portfolio because certain securities— those listed on the New York Stock Exchange, for example — are seldom summarily suspended.
Within the last five years the Commission has twice issued a series of orders, each of which suspended trading in CJL stock for over a year. In the various staff reports given to the Commission in connection with and attached to the second series of orders, the Division of Enforcement indicates in no less than six separate reports that either the Commission or the various stock exchanges view CJL as a “chronic violator.” App. 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31. And reference is made to “the continuous [CJL] problems.” Id., at 61. Furthermore, counsel for the Commission represented at oral argument that there were in fact three separate bases for the second series of suspensions — alleged market manipulation, a change in management of the company, and a failure to file current reports. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17-18.
Neither does the first series of orders appear to be of this type. Rather, like the second series, it appears to be predicated mainly on one major impropriety on the part of CJL and its personnel, which impropriety required the Commission, in its opinion, to issue a year-long series of summary suspension orders to protect investors and for the public interest.
As previously indicated, see n. 5, swpra, the Commission advances three separate reasons for the suspensions, thus implicitly suggesting that perhaps this is a case where the Commission discovered independent reasons to suspend trading after the initial suspension. We note first that there are doubts whether these “reasons” independently would have justified suspension. For example, we doubt the Commission regularly suspends trading because of a “change in management.” A suspension might be justified if management steps down under suspicious circumstances, but the suspicious circumstance here is the initial reason advanced for suspension — the manipulative scheme — and thus the change in management can hardly be considered an independent justification for suspension. More importantly, however, even assuming the existence of three independent reasons for suspension, that leaves 34 suspension orders that were not based on independent reasons and thus the question still remains-. Does the statute empower the Commission to continue to “roll over” suspension orders for the same allegedly improper activity simply upon a redetermination that the continued suspension is “required” by the public interest and for the protection of investors?
The former § 15 (b) (6) provided in pertinent part:
“Pending final determination whether any registration under this subsection shall be denied, the Commission may by order postpone the effective date of such registration for a period not to exceed fifteen days, but if, after appropriate notice and opportunity for hearing (which may consist solely of affidavits and oral arguments), it shall appear to the Commission to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors to postpone the effective date of such registration until final determination, the Commission shall so order. Pending final determination whether any such registration shall be revoked, the Commission shall by order suspend such registration if, after appropriate notice and opportunity for hearing, such suspension shall appear to the Commission to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors....” 15 U. S. C. § 78o (b) (6).
In 1963, when Congress was considering the former § 15 (c) (5), which extended the Commission’s summary suspension power to securities traded in the over-the-counter market, the Commission informed a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of its current administrative practice. One paragraph in the Commission’s 30-page report to the Subcommittee reads as follows:
“Under section 19 (a)(4), the Commission has issued more than one suspension when, upon reexamination at the end of the 10-day period, it has determined that another suspension is necessary. At the same time the Commission has recognized that suspension of trading in a security is a serious step, and therefore has exercised the power with restraint and has proceeded with diligence to develop the necessary facts in order that any suspension can be terminated as soon as possible. The Commission would follow that policy in administering the proposed new section 15 (c) (5).” Hearings on H. It. 6789, H. E. 6793, S. 1642 before a Subcommmittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 219 (1963).
The Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, when it reported on the proposed 1964 amendments to the Act, indicated that it understood and did not disapprove of the Commission’s practice. It stated:
“The Commission has consistently construed section 19 (a) (4) as permitting it to issue more than one suspension if, upon reexamination at the end of the 10-day period, it determines that another suspension is necessary. The committee accepts this interpretation. At the same time the committee recognizes that suspension of trading in a security is a drastic step and that prolonged suspension of trading may impose considerable hardship on stockholders. The committee therefore expects that the Commission will exercise this power with restraint and will proceed with all diligence to develop the necessary facts in order that any suspension can be terminated as soon as possible.” S.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Respondent, while serving as an enlisted soldier in the United States Army in Germany, was convicted by a general court-martial of committing murder on December 25, 1946, in violation of the 92d Article of War, 41 Stat. 805, 10 U. S. C. § 1564. The sentence imposed was dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and life imprisonment, which was reduced to twenty years upon recommendation of the Judge Advocate General. On petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered respondent discharged from the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, 81 F. Supp. 647 (1948), and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. 175 F. 2d 273 (1949). Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that the military tribunal which convicted respondent was improperly constituted and lacked jurisdiction of the offense. The Court of Appeals held further that the record was “replete with highly prejudicial errors and irregularities” which deprived respondent of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment and afforded an independent ground for sustaining the writ. We brought the case here, on petition of the warden having custody of respondent, in view of the importance of the decision below in the administration of military justice. 338 U. S. 890 (1949). Our jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals is under 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (l).
Respondent was tried in Germany on January 9 and 14, 1947, before a general court-martial which had been appointed by order of the commanding general of the Continental Base Section, European Theatre, on December 7, 1946. The detail appointed was comprised of a trial judge advocate and two assistant trial judge advocates, defense counsel and two assistant defense counsel, the law member and twelve other officers. The ranking officer of the detail, a colonel of the Field Artillery with twenty-five years of commissioned service, was appointed law member. The only member of the detail appointed from the Judge Advocate General’s Department was a captain who was designated an assistant trial judge advocate. He was absent from respondent’s trial on verbal orders of the commanding general.
The Court of Appeals determined that , under these circumstances the court-martial had been appointed in disregard of the 8th Article of War, 41 Stat. 788, 10 U. S. C. § 1479. The relevant provision of this article as in force at the time of respondent’s trial is set forth in the margin. The article was interpreted by the Court of Appeals as requiring, “certainly in times of peace, that the presence of a duly qualified law member from the Judge Advocate General’s Department be made a jurisdictional prerequisite to the validity of such court-martial proceeding, except in the single instance where such officer is actually, and in fact, ‘not available.’ ” 175 F. 2d at 276. The Court of Appeals held that the availability of a law member from the Judge Advocate General’s Department was conclusively indicated by the order detailing an officer from that department in another capacity without any explanation. Thus the court concluded that the proceeding was void.
We are unable to agree with the Court of Appeals that this record discloses any disregard of the 8th Article of War in the appointment of the tribunal which convicted respondent.
Under the interpretation placed on the 8th Article by the court below, an officer from the Judge Advocate General’s Department was “available” for appointment as law member if he was appointed on the detail in another capacity and nothing otherwise appeared to negative his availability as law member. The article has been construed differently by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Henry v. Hodges, 171 F. 2d 401 (1948). In that case, in which the interpretative issue was similarly-raised on petition for habeas corpus, one officer from the Judge Advocate General’s Department had been appointed trial judge advocate and a second designated counsel for another accused. The court through Judge Learned Hand declared:
“There remains the . . . question . . . whether any member of the Judge Advocate General’s Department was ‘available’ at the time. We cannot say that it was not more in the interest of justice to detail Beatty to defend Feltman than to put him on the court; or that it was not better judgment to make Swan a prosecutor than a judge .... The whole question is especially one of discretion; and, if it is ever reviewable, certainly the record at bar is without evidence which would justify a review. The commanding officer who convenes the court must decide what membership will be least to the ‘injury of the service,’ and what officers are ‘available.’ ‘Available’ means more than presently ‘accessible’; it demands a balance between the conflicting demands upon the service, and it must be determined on the spot.” 171 F. 2d at 403.
We agree with the latter interpretation that the availability of an officer as law member was intended by Congress to be a matter within the sound discretion of the appointing authority. Ordinarily the “availability” of military personnel who are subject to assignment by an appointing authority is understood to depend upon a discretionary determination by the superior. Cf. Kahn v. Anderson, 255 U. S. 1 (1921); Swaim v. United States, 165 U. S. 553 (1897); Mullan v. United States, 140 U. S. 240 (1891); Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19 (1827). Moreover, the phrase adopted in the 8th Article, “available for the purpose,” expresses a clear intent that the concept of availability should include the exercise of discretion by the appointing authority.
The 8th Article has also been consistently interpreted and applied by the Army as vesting a discretion in the appointing authority, which when exercised is conclusive in determining not only the accessibility of personnel but also the suitability of the officer detailed as the law member of a general court-martial. CM 231963, Hatteberg, 18 B. R. 349, 366-369 (1943); CM ETO 804, Ogletree, 2 B. R. (ETO) 337, 346 (1943); CM 209988, Cromwell, 9 B. R. 169, 196 (1938) ; Digest of Opinions of The Judge Advocate General (1912-1940) § 365 (9). This established interpretation is entitled to great weight in our determination of the meaning of the article. Cf. United States ex rel. Hirshberg v. Cooke, 336 U. S. 210, 216 (1949).
The exercise of the discretion thus conferred on the appointing authority may be reviewed by the courts only if a gross abuse of that discretion would have given rise to a defect in the jurisdiction of the court-martial. However, we need not determine at this time whether the provision of the 8th Article relied upon below imposed a requirement going to the jurisdiction of the court-martial, for nothing in the record here involved indicates that the discretion of the appointing authority was improperly exercised. Clearly no abuse is disclosed by the appointment of an officer from the Judge Advocate General’s Department to a capacity other than law member on the detail, or by reassignment of that officer to other duty at the time of trial, or by the standard of competence in legal matters shown by the law member at the trial.
The Court of Appeals also concluded that certain errors committed by the military tribunal and reviewing authorities had deprived respondent of due process. We think the court was in error in extending its review, for the purpose of determining compliance with the due process clause, to such matters as the propositions of law set forth in the staff judge advocate’s report, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain respondent’s conviction, the adequacy of the pretrial investigation, and the competence of the law member and defense counsel. Cf. Humphrey v. Smith, 336 U. S. 695 (1949). It is well settled that “by habeas corpus the civil courts exercise no supervisory or correcting power over the proceedings of a court-martial .... The single inquiry, the test, is jurisdiction.” In re Grimley, 137 U. S. 147, 150 (1890). In this case the court-martial had jurisdiction of the person accused and the offense charged, and acted within its lawful powers. The correction of any errors it may have committed is for the military authorities which are alone authorized to review its decision. In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1946); Swaim v. United States, supra, 165 U. S. at 562.
It results that the judgment is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Respondent contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review a court of appeals’ judgment ordering discharge of a prisoner or affirming such an order, in view of the omission from revised Title 28 of any provision comparable to former § 463c which expressly authorized review of such judgments on certiorari. We think this contention is without merit in view of the broad provision of § 1254 that “Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court ... (1) By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case . . . .”
The Court of Appeals stated in its opinion that two officers of the Judge Advocate General’s Department were appointed to the detail. However, the record indicates that only one of those mentioned below was appointed from that department.
“The authority appointing a general court-martial shall detail as one of the members thereof a law member, who shall be an officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Department, except that when an officer of that department is not available for the purpose the appointing authority shall detail instead an officer of some other branch of the service selected by the appointing authority as specially qualified to perform the duties of law member. . . .” 41 Stat. 788, 10 U. S. C. § 1479. The 8th Article was amended substantially in 1948, 62 Stat. 628-629. See note 5, infra.
The relevant legislative history of the provision of the 8th Article relating to the law member supports this interpretation. Prior to the adoption of the 8th Article of War in 1920, military law did not provide for the service of a law member on a court-martial. Under the impetus for reform following World War I, the original draft of what became the 8th Article provided that every general court-martial should have a judge advocate whose duties were to be similar to those of the “law member,” as finally provided for. The proposed Article would have provided further that such judge advocate of the court be a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Department or an officer whose qualifications were approved by the Judge Advocate General. Hearings on S. 64, Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 5. The proposed Article was, however, abandoned for the provisions of the 8th Article. See 18 B. R. 349, 366-367 (1943).
The 8th Article of War, as in force since February 1, 1949, expressly imposes as a jurisdictional requirement that the law member be an officer from the Judge Advocate General’s Department or an officer whose qualification for such detail has been certified by the Judge Advocate General. 62 Stat. 628-629.
The following instances of error in the military proceedings were cited by the Court of Appeals:
“(1) Accused was convicted on the theory that although he was on duty as a sentry at the time of the offense, it was incumbent upon him to retreat from his post of duty.
“(2) Accused has been convicted of murder on evidence that does not measure to malice, premeditation, or deliberation.
“(3) The record reveals that the law member appointed was grossly incompetent.
“(4) There was no pre-trial investigation whatever upon the charge of murder.
“(5) The record shows that counsel appointed to defend the accused was incompetent, gave no preparation to the case, and submitted only a token defense.
“(6) The appellate reviews by the Army reviewing authorities reveal a total misconception of the applicable law.” 175 F. 2d at 277.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondent Charles Edward Moore, Jr., was convicted of first-degree murder in a California state court, and sentenced to death. The District Court granted habeas relief, concluding that the state court had denied Moore his right to self-representation under Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975). The District Court thus vacated the judgment of conviction and ordered the warden, petitioner here, to “release Moore from custody after the expiration of 60 days unless, within 60 days hereof, the State of California grants Moore the right to a new trial.” App. A to Brief in Opposition A65.
The State filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay of the District Court’s order pending appeal, but its various stay applications were respectively denied by the District Court, the Ninth Circuit, 56 F. 3d 39 (1995), and by Justice O’Con-nor, in her capacity as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit. The State accordingly set Moore for retrial, and simultaneously pursued its appeal of the District Court’s order on the merits to the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, observing that the “State of California has granted petitioner Charles Edward Moore, Jr., a new trial,” dismissed the State’s appeal as moot. App. A to Pet. for Cert.
It is true, of course, that mootness can arise at any stage of litigation, Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459, n. 10 (1974); that federal courts may not “give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions,” Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653 (1895); and that an appeal should therefore be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant “any effectual relief whatever” in favor of the appellant, ibid. The available remedy, however, does not need to be “fully satisfactory” to avoid mootness. Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 13 (1992). To the contrary, even the availability of a “partial remedy” is “sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot.” Ibid.
In this case, to say the least, a “partial remedy” necessary to avoid mootness will be available to the State of California (represented here by petitioner). While the administrative machinery necessary for a new trial has been set in motion, that trial has not yet even begun, let alone reached a point where the court could no longer award any relief in the State’s favor. Because a decision in the State’s favor would release it from the burden of the new trial itself, the Court of Appeals is not prevented from granting “any effectual relief whatever” in the State’s favor, Mills, supra, at 653, and the case is clearly not moot. We therefore grant respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, grant petition for a writ of certiorari, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
In 1963 the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, consolidated with adjoining Princess Anne County, which was both rural and urban; and a borough form of government was adopted. There are seven boroughs, one corresponding to the boundaries of the former city and six corresponding to the boundaries of the six magisterial districts. The consolidation plan was effected pursuant to Virginia law and the charter embodied in the plan was approved by the legislature.
Three boroughs — Bayside, Kempsville, and Lynn-haven — are primarily urban. Three — Blackwater, Princess Anne, and Pungo — are primarily rural. The borough of Virginia Beach, centering around its famous ocean beach and bay, is primarily tourist.
Electors of five boroughs, having exhausted attempts to obtain relief in the state courts, instituted this suit against local and state officials claiming that the consolidation plan in its distribution of voting rights violated the principle of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, and asking for the convening of a three-judge court. The three-judge court held that its jurisdiction had not been established because the issue was local in character and transferred the cause to the District Court.
The District Court held the original allocation invalid as denying voter equality and stayed further proceedings to allow the city an opportunity to seek a charter amendment at the 1966 session of the State Legislature. The charter was amended to provide for the Seven-Four Plan now being challenged. Under the amended charter, the council is composed of 11 members. Four members are elected at large without regard to residence. Seven are elected by the voters of the entire city, one being required to reside in each of the seven boroughs. Pursuant to leave of the District Court, appellees filed an amended complaint challenging the validity of the Seven-Four Plan. The District Court approved this plan. The Court of Appeals reversed, 361 F. 2d 495. The case is here on appeal (28 U. S. C. § 1254 (2)) and we postponed the question of jurisdiction to the merits. 385 U. S. 999.
For the reasons stated in Moody v. Flowers, ante, p. 97, the case is not one for a three-judge court, the charter being local only and not of statewide application.
In Sailors v. Board of Education, ante, p. 105, we reserved the question whether the apportionment of municipal or county legislative agencies is governed by Reynolds v. Sims. But though we assume arguendo that it is, we reverse the Court of Appeals. It felt that Reynolds v. Sims required “that each legislator, State or municipal, represent a reasonably like number in population,” 361 F. 2d, at 497, pointing out that Blackwater, where 733 people live, will have the same representation as Lynnhaven with 23,731 and Bayside with 29,048 and Kempsville with 13,900. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed what it had decided in Ellis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 352 F. 2d 123, 128, that “the fundamental principle of representative government in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people, without regard to race, sex, economic status, or place of residence within a State.” And the court held that the provision for four city-wide members “does not remedy or in any way affect the disproportion of representation of the 7 borough members.” 361 F. 2d, at 497.
The Seven-Four Plan makes no distinction on the basis of race, creed, or economic status or location. Each of the 11 councilmen is elected by a vote of all the electors in the city. The fact that each of the seven councilmen must be a resident of the borough from which he is elected, is not fatal. In upholding a residence requirement for the election of state senators from a multi-district county we said in Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U. S. 433, 438:
“It is not accurate to treat a senator from a multi-district county as the representative of only that district within the county wherein he resides. The statute uses districts in multi-district counties merely as the basis of residence for candidates, not for voting or representation. Each district’s senator must be a resident of that district, but since his tenure depends upon the county-wide electorate he must be vigilant to serve the interests of all the people in the county, and not merely those of people in his home district; thus in fact he is the county’s and not merely the district’s senator.”
By analogy the present consolidation plan uses boroughs in the city “merely as the basis of residence for candidates, not for voting or representation.” He is nonetheless the city’s, not the borough’s, councilman. In Fortson there was substantial equality of population in the senatorial districts, while here the population of the boroughs varies widely. If a borough’s resident on the council represented in fact only the borough, residence being only a front, different conclusions might follow. But on the assumption that Reynolds v. Sims controls, the constitutional test under the Equal Protection Clause is whether there is an “invidious” discrimination. 377 U. S., at 561. As stated by the District Court:
“The principal and adequate reason for providing for the election of one councilman from each borough is to assure that there will be members of the City Council with some general knowledge of rural problems to the end that this heterogeneous city will be able to give due consideration to questions presented throughout the entire area.
“ [T]he history — past and present — of the area and population now comprising the City of Virginia Beach demonstrates the compelling need, at least during an appreciable transition period, for knowledge of rural problems in handling the affairs of one of the largest area-wide cities in the United States. Bluntly speaking, there is a vast area of the present City of Virginia Beach which should never be referred to as a city. District representation from the old County of Princess Anne with elected members of the Board of Supervisors selected only by the voters of the particular district has now been changed to permit city-wide voting. The ‘Seven-Four Plan’ is not an evasive scheme to avoid the consequences of reapportionment or to perpetuate certain persons in office. The plan does not preserve any controlling influence of the smaller boroughs, but does indicate a desire for intelligent expression of views on subjects relating to agriculture which remains a great economic factor in the welfare of the entire population. As the plan becomes effective, if it then operates to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population, it will be time enough to consider whether the system still passes constitutional muster.”
The Seven-Four Plan seems to reflect a detente between urban and rural communities that may be important in resolving the complex problems of the modern megalopolis in relation to the city, the suburbia, and the rural countryside. Finding no invidious discrimination we conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be and is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Hartan and Mr. Justice Stewart concur in the result.
Va. Code 1950, Tit. 15, Art. 4, c. 9 (1956 Repl. Vol.).
Va. Acts 1962, c. 147. The consolidation plan was an interim one, the idea being that another system would be initiated not sooner than 1968 and not later than 1971.
Davis v. Dusch, 205 Va. 676, 139 S. E. 2d 25.
Va. Acts 1966, c. 39.
The populations of the seven boroughs are:
Blaekwater . 733
Pungo . 2,504
Princess Anne. 7,211
Kempsville . 13,900
Lynnhaven . 23,731
Bayside . 29,048
Virginia Beach. 8,091
It is obvious that, if the percentage of qualified voters is in accord with the population, Lynnhaven and Bayside, if united in their efforts, could elect all 11 councilmen even though the election were at large.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease involves important questions concerning the right of a defendant forced to comply with a “notice-of-alibi” rule to reciprocal discovery.
In Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970), we upheld the constitutionality of Florida's notice-of-alibi rule which required criminal defendants intending to rely on an alibi defense to notify the prosecution of the place at which they claimed to be at the time in question, and of the names and addresses of witnesses they intended to call in support of the alibi. In so holding, however, we emphasized that the constitutionality of such rules might depend on “whether the defendant enjoys reciprocal discovery against the State.” Id., at 82 n. II.
In the case presently before us, Oregon prevented a criminal defendant from introducing any evidence to support his alibi defense as a sanction for his failure to comply with a notice-of-alibi rule which, on its face, made no provision for reciprocal discovery. The case thus squarely presents the question left open in Williams, and we granted certiorari so that this question could be resolved. 406 U. S. 957 (1972).
We hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids enforcement of alibi rules unless reciprocal discovery rights are given to criminal defendants. Since the Oregon statute did not provide for reciprocal discovery, it was error for the court below to enforce it against petitioner, and his conviction must be reversed.
I
On May 22, 1970, petitioner was indicted under Ore. Rev. Stat. § 474.020 for unlawful sale of narcotics. The sale allegedly occurred the previous day. At trial, after the State had concluded its case, petitioner called one Colleen McFadden who testified that on the night in question, she had been with petitioner at a drive-in movie. The prosecutor thereupon brought to the judge’s attention petitioner’s failure to file a notice of alibi, and after hearing argument the trial judge granted the State’s motion to strike McFadden’s testimony because of this failure. Petitioner himself then took the stand and attempted to testify that he was at the drive-in with McFadden at the time when the State alleged the sale occurred. Once again, however, the State objected and the trial judge again refused to permit the evidence.
Petitioner was convicted as charged and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s contentions that the Oregon statute was unconstitutional in the absence of reciprocal discovery rights and that the exclusion sanction abridged his right to testify in his own behalf and his right to compulsory process. 6 Ore. App. 391, 487 P. 2d 1380 (1971). In an unreported order, the Oregon Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition to review. See App. 21.
II
Notice-of-alibi rules, now in use in a large and growing number of States, are based on the proposition that the ends of justice will best be served by a system of liberal discovery which gives both parties the maximum possible amount of information with which to prepare their cases and thereby reduces the possibility of surprise at trial. See, e. g., Brennan, The Criminal Prosecution: Sporting Event or Quest for Truth?, 1963 Wash. U. L. Q. 279; American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial 23-43 (Approved Draft 1970); Goldstein, The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure, 69 Yale L. J. 1149 (1960). The growth of such discovery devices is a salutary development which, by increasing the evidence available to both parties, enhances the fairness of the adversary system. As we recognized in Williams, nothing in the Due Process Clause precludes States from experimenting with systems of broad discovery designed to achieve these goals. “The adversary system of trial is hardly an end in itself; it is not yet a poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played. We find ample room in that system, at least as far as ‘due process’ is concerned, for [a rule] which is designed to enhance the search for truth in the criminal trial by insuring both the defendant and the State ample opportunity to investigate certain facts crucial to the determination of guilt or innocence.” 399 U. S., at 82 (footnote omitted).
Although the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded, but cf. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), it does speak to the balance of forces between the accused and his accuser. Cf. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 361-364 (1970). The Williams Court was therefore careful to note that “Florida law provides for liberal discovery by the defendant against the State, and the notice-of-alibi rule is itself carefully hedged with reciprocal duties requiring state disclosure to the defendant.” 399 U. S., at 81 (footnote omitted). The same cannot be said of Oregon law. As the State conceded at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 19, Oregon grants no discovery rights to criminal defendants, and, indeed, does not even provide defendants with bills of particulars. More significantly, Oregon, unlike Florida, has no provision which requires the State to reveal the names and addresses of witnesses it plans to use to refute an alibi defense.
We do not suggest that the Due Process Clause of its own force requires Oregon to adopt such provisions. Cf. United States v. Augenblick, 393 U. S. 348 (1969); Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U. S. 504 (1958). But we do hold that in the absence of a strong showing of state interests to the contrary, discovery must be a two-way street. The State may not insist that trials be run as a “search for truth” so far as defense witnesses are concerned, while maintaining “poker game” secrecy for its own witnesses. It is fundamentally unfair to require a defendant to divulge the details of his own case while at the same time subjecting him to the hazard of surprise concerning refutation of the very pieces of evidence which he disclosed to the State.
Indeed, neither the respondent nor the Oregon Court of Appeals contests these principles. Nor does the State suggest any significant governmental interests which might support the lack of reciprocity. Instead, respondent has chosen to rest its case on a procedural point. While conceding that Oregon law fails to provide for reciprocal discovery on its face, the State contends that if petitioner had given notice of his alibi defense, the state courts might have read the Oregon statute as requiring the State to give the petitioner the names and addresses of state witnesses used to refute the alibi defense. Since petitioner failed to give notice, his alibi defense was not permitted and there were, therefore, no state rebuttal witnesses whose testimony tended to disprove the alibi. Since no such testimony was introduced, respondent argues that Oregon's willingness to permit reciprocal discovery remains untested. The State says, in effect, that petitioner should not be permitted to litigate the reciprocity issue in the abstract in federal court after bypassing an opportunity to contest the issue concretely before the state judiciary.
It is, of course, true that the Oregon courts are the final arbiters of the State’s own law, and we cannot predict what the state court might have done had it been faced with a defendant who had given the required notice of alibi and then sought reciprocal discovery rights. But it is this very lack of predictability which ultimately defeats the State’s argument. At the time petitioner was forced to decide whether or not to reveal his alibi defense to the prosecution, he had to deal with the statute as written with no way of knowing how it might subsequently be interpreted. Nor could he retract the information once provided should it turn out later that the hoped-for reciprocal discovery rights were not granted.
For this reason, had petitioner challenged the lack of reciprocity by giving notice and then demanding discovery, he would have done so at considerable risk. To be sure, the state court might have construed the Oregon statutes so as to save the constitutionality of the notice requirement and granted reciprocal discovery rights. But the state court would also have had the option of reading state law as precluding reciprocal discovery. If the court adopted this latter alternative, it would have had to strike down the notice-of-alibi requirement. But petitioner would have had only a Pyrrhic victory, since once having given the State his alibi information, he could not have retracted it. Thus, under this scenario, even though the notice-of-alibi rule would have been invalidated, the State would still have had the benefit of nonreciprocal discovery rights in petitioner’s case — the very result which petitioner wishes to avoid by challenging the rule.
The statute as written did not provide for reciprocal discovery, and petitioner cannot be faulted for taking the legislature at its word. Indeed, even at this stage of the proceedings, the respondent has made no representation that the State would in fact provide reciprocal discovery rights to a defendant who complied with the notice-of-alibi scheme. Respondent says only that the State might have granted such rights. But the State cannot constitutionally force compliance with its scheme on the basis of a totally unsubstantiated possibility that the statute might be read in a manner contrary to its plain language. Thus, in the absence of fair notice that he would have an opportunity to discover the State's rebuttal witnesses, petitioner cannot be compelled to reveal his alibi defense.
Since the trial court erred and since there is a substantial possibility that its error may have infected the verdict, the conviction must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The Chief Justice concurs in the result.
The requirement was attacked as a violation of the defendant's due process right to a fair trial and an invasion of his privilege against self-incriminaton. But the Court found that “[g]iven the ease with which an alibi can be fabricated, the State’s interest in protecting itself against an eleventh-hour defense is both obvious and legitimate.” 399 U. S., at 81. Moreover, we held that “the privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a requirement that the defendant give notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses.” Id., at 83.
The Florida rule provided:
“ ‘Not less than five days after receipt of defendant's witness list, or such other times as the court may direct, the prosecuting attorney shall file and serve upon the defendant the names and addresses (as particularly as are known to the prosecuting attorney) of the witnesses the State proposes to offer in rebuttal to discredit the defendant’s alibi at the trial of the cause.’ ” See 399 U. S., at 104.
Ore. Rev. Stat. § 135.875 provides:
"(1) If the defendant in a criminal action proposes to rely in any way on alibi evidence, he shall, not less than five days before the trial of the cause, file and serve upon the district attorney a written notice of his purpose to offer such evidence, which notice shall state specifically the place or places where the defendant claims to have been at the time or times of the alleged offense together with the name and residence or business address of each witness upon whom the defendant intends to rely for alibi evidence. If the defendant fails to file and serve such notice, he shall not be permitted to introduce alibi evidence at the trial of the cause unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.
"(2) As used in this section, 'alibi evidence’ means evidence that the defendant in a criminal action was, at the time of commission of the alleged offense, at a place other than the place where such offense was committed.”
Petitioner also argues that even if Oregon’s notice-of-alibi rule were valid, it could not be enforced by excluding either his own testimony or the testimony of supporting witnesses at trial. But in light of our holding that Oregon’s rule is facially invalid, we express no view as to whether a valid rule could be so enforced. Cf. Williams v. Florida, supra, at 83 n. 14.
See Id,., at 82 n. 11; Note, The Preclusion Sanction — A Violation of the Constitutional Right to Present a Defense, 81 Yale L. J. 1342 n. 4 (1972).
This Court has therefore been particularly suspicious of state trial rules which provide nonreciprocal benefits to the State when the lack of reciprocity interferes with the defendant’s ability to secure a fair trial. See, e. g., Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 22 (1967); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 344 (1963). Cf. Goldstein, The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure, 69 Yale L. J. 1149, 1180-1192 (1960).
As the Oregon Court of Appeals has recently pointed out, “Oregon’s criminal code is almost completely lacking in pretrial discovery procedures.” State v. Kelsaw, 289 Ore. App. 295, 502 P. 2d 278, 280-281 (1972), pet. for cert, pending, No. 72-6012.
The only discovery rights Oregon appears to permit are the rights to view written statements made by state witnesses and by the defendant, in the hands of the police. See State v. Foster, 242 Ore. 101, 407 P. 2d 901 (1965); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 133.750, 133.755. Cf. State v. Kelsaw, supra.
Indeed, the State’s inherent information-gathering advantages suggest that if there is to be any imbalance in discovery rights, it should work in the defendant’s favor. As one commentator has noted:
“Besides greater financial and staff resources with which to investigate and scientifically analyze evidence, the prosecutor has a number of tactical advantages. First, he begins his investigation shortly after the crime has been committed when physical evidence is more likely to be found and when witnesses are more apt to remember events. Only after the prosecutor has gathered sufficient evidence is the defendant informed of the charges against him; by the time the defendant or his attorney begins any investigation into the facts of the case, the trail is not only cold, but a diligent prosecutor will have removed much of the evidence from the field. In addition to the advantage of timing, the prosecutor may compel people, including the defendant, to cooperate. The defendant may be questioned within limits, and if arrested his person may be searched. He may also be compelled to participate in various non-testimonial identification procedures. The prosecutor may force third persons to cooperate through the use of grand juries and may issue subpoenas requiring appearance before prosecutorial investigatory boards. With probable cause the police may search private areas and seize evidence and may tap telephone conversations. They may use undercover agents and have access to vast amounts of information in government files. Finally, respect for government authority will cause many people to cooperate with the police or prosecutor voluntarily when they might not cooperate with the defendant.” Note, Prosecutorial Discovery under Proposed Rule 16, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 994, 1018-1019 (1972) (footnotes omitted).
Before this Court, respondent presses the related argument that petitioner failed to object to the exclusion of his alibi testimony at trial and that his conviction therefore rests on an independent state procedural ground. See Brief for Respondent 5 n. 2. But, as the transcript makes clear, the issue arose when the trial court sustained the State’s objection to introduction of the alibi testimony. Petitioner then proceeded to make an “offer of proof” in order to protect the record on appeal. Respondent cites us to no Oregon cases which would require petitioner to object to the sustaining of an objection in this context, and the state appellate court’s willingness to reach the merits of petitioner’s federal claims provides convincing proof that the judgment does not rest on adequate state grounds. See Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 297 n. 3 (1967).
Nor did petitioner’s attorney rest entirely on his own reading of Oregon’s discovery provisions. As the attorney argued at trial,
“Several weeks ago this came up again — this came up in the Circuit Court here with Judge Perry, and Judge Perry allowed the alibi testimony in based upon [Williams v. Florida] and said that he at that time, based on our statute and based on this opinion, that he didn’t feel that our criminal code and our statute should allow a substantive evidence [sic] that the defendant might have to be kept out due to this, and that is the reason that notice was not given. I relied somewhat upon that and my own interpretation of this case also.” App. 6.
The State cites us to State v. Kelsaw, supra, a recent Oregon Court of Appeals decision holding that a defendant must be given reciprocal information as to the time and place of the alleged offense before he can be required to comply with the notice-of-alibi rule. But merely informing the defendant of the time and place of the crime does not approach the sort of reciprocity which due process demands. Moreover, in view of the fact that Kelsaw was decided after petitioner's trial, it cannot be suggested that the decision gave him notice that even this limited reciprocity would be 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: | 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.
This case is the first contested licensing proceeding to be decided by the Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 919, 42 U. S. C. § 2011 et seq. It presents the question whether the Commission erred in continuing in effect a provisional construction permit which authorizes the petitioner Power Reactor Development Company to construct, but not to operate, a fast-neutron breeder reactor for the generation of electric power. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set that order aside. 108 U. S. App. D. C. 97, 280 F. 2d 645 (1960). We granted certiorari, 364 U. S. 889 (1960), on petitions of the United States and of Power Reactor Development Company (hereafter PRDC), to decide an important question of the scope of the Commission’s power under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Stated more precisely, the question before us is whether the Commission, in issuing a permit for the construction of a facility which will utilize nuclear materials, such as the power reactor presently involved, must make the same definitive finding of safety of operation as it admittedly will have to make before it licenses actual operation of the facility. The Court of Appeals said: “It is undisputed that the Commission must make such a finding when it authorizes operation. The question is whether it must make such a finding when it authorizes construction. In our opinion it must.” 108 U. S. App. D. C., at 100, 280 F. 2d, at 648. Petitioners agree that some finding directed to safety of operation must be made at the construction-permit stage of the proceeding, but argue that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Commission must have the same degree of certitude at this preliminary point as when it licenses operation. In order to understand how the controversy arises and what is involved in its resolution, it will be necessary to state the proceedings in the case at some length, and then describe in detail the governing statute and administrative regulations. For the decision of this case ultimately turns on a comparison of what the Commission found with what the statute and regulations require.
The case began on January 7, 1956, when PRDC filed with the Commission (hereafter sometimes referred to as the AEC) an application to construct and operate a developmental power reactor of a relatively new type. This device has two characteristics which distinguish it from other nuclear reactors. First, the neutrons which fly about inside the reactor (to use crude but graphic layman’s terminology) and split atoms of fissionable Uranium-235 — thus releasing new neutrons and energy in the form of heat — are “fast” neutrons. That is, they travel at a velocity of about 10,000 miles per second, much faster than neutrons in ordinary reactors. Second, this réactor is a “breeder”: it has the property of being able to produce about 1.2 times as much fissionable material as it consumes. This result comes about through a sort of modern alchemy; when the neutrons fly outside the inner core of the reactor, which is composed of fissionable U-235, they enter a blanket of nonfissionable U-238. Atoms in this blanket are changed, when struck by a neutron, into Plutonium, itself a fissionable fuel which can be removed from the reactor and be put to possible use in other installations. Thus, the reactor “breeds” Plutonium faster than it uses up U-235. It not only generates energy to produce electric power, it also creates new reactor fuel. This “breeder” effect is attainable because of the use of fast neutrons. Two boron control rods inserted into the reactor are a means designed to reduce its power level at any time. And in addition to these rods, eight more boron rods are suspended by an electromagnet over the reactor; in case the reactivity rises to a dangerously high level, these safety rods are intended to drop into the reactor automatically and shut it down immediately. The whole machine is housed in a series of thick concrete, graphite, and steel layers, all underground. Over this entire complex is placed a football-shaped building, enclosed in a two-inch steel shield capable of containing an explosion equal in force to 1,000 pounds of TNT, which is greater than any explosion which any of the experts who testified in this case believes is at all likely to result from an accident in the operation of the reactor. The application, after describing the reactor in much greater detail than this rudimentary summary, went on to provide that the reactor would be located at Lagoona Beach, Mich., on the shores of Lake Erie, about 35 miles from the center of Detroit, Mich., and about 30 miles from the center of Toledo, Ohio.
The Commission took the case under advisement and, on August 4, 1956, despite a report of its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards which was at best noncommittal about the probable safety of the proposed reactor in operation, issued a provisional construction permit without having held public hearings, as the law at that time permitted it to do. This permit was subject to the following condition:
“The conversion of this permit to a license is subject to submittal by PRDC to the Commission (by amendment of the application) of the complete, final Hazards Summary Report (portions of which may be submitted and evaluated from time to time). The final Hazards Summary Report must show that the final design provides Reasonable assurance . . . that the health and safety''of the public will not be endangered by operation of the reactor
On August 31, 1956, in accordance with the Commission’s then existing rules of practice, the respondents in this Court, International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and United Papermakers and Paperworkers, petitioned the Commission for permission to intervene and oppose continuation in effect of PRDC’s provisional construction permit. The AEC granted permission to intervene on October 8, 1956, and set the case down for a hearing before one of its hearing examiners. Extensive hearings were held between January 8, 1957, and August 7, 1957, and on November 22, 1957, in accordance with the AEC’s order setting the case for hearing before him, the examiner, instead of issuing an initial decision and opinion of his own, transferred and certified the record of the hearings to the full Commission for its consideration. Oral argument was had before the Commission on May 29, 1958. On December 10, 1958, the Commission rendered its “Opinion and Initial Decision” continuing PRDC’s permit in effect, subject to the same condition recited above. To its opinion were appended extensive findings of fact, including Finding 22, which is of central importance to the decision of this case. That finding reads as follows:
“22. The Commission finds reasonable assurance in the record that a utilization facility of the general type proposed in the PRDC application and amendments thereto can be constructed and will be able to be operated at the location proposed without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.”
Commissioners Vance and Floberg joined in the opinion. Commissioner Graham filed a short concurring opinion agreeing with the Commission’s basic safety findings, just quoted, but doing so in much shorter compass than the majority. Commissioners Libby and McCone (the chairman) took no part in the decision. The result of this initial opinion was an order continuing PRDC’s provisional construction permit in effect, but containing the same condition which the original permit, issued on August 4, 1956, had contained.
The intervening unions, as was their right, filed detailed exceptions to this initial decision. The Commission fully reconsidered all the contentions and reviewed the evidence presented at the lengthy hearings, with particular attention to the testimony of the scientific experts, several of them members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, who had testified. On May 26,1959, the Commission issued its “Opinion and Final Decision,” dealing with all questions presented in even greater detail and reaffirming its initial decision. The Commission emphasized that “public safety is the first, last, and a permanent consideration in any decision on the issuance of a construction permit or a license to operate a nuclear facility.” Even after operation of the reactor is licensed — if it ever is — the Commission, it said, will retain jurisdiction over PRDC’s activities to ensure that the highest safety standards are maintained. The opinion went on to examine the suitability of the proposed site, noted that it was near a great population center, and nevertheless concluded that at the present stage there was reasonable assurance that the general type of reactor proposed by PRDC would be safe enough at that location. The Commission pointed out, however, that its action in allowing PRDC to proceed with construction was by its nature tentative and preliminary, and that it was by no means committed to the issuance of an operating license. “PRDC has been on notice since before the first shovel of dirt was moved,” it said, “that its construction permit is provisional upon further demonstration of many technological and financial facts, including the complete safety of the reactor.” A more severe safety test would have to be passed when the reactor was completed, the opinion said, since “[t]he degree of ‘reasonable assurance’. . . that satisfies us . . . for purposes of the provisional construction permit would not be the same as we would require in considering the issuance of the operating license.” The Commission then made new findings of fact, including the following counterpart of its initial Finding 22:
“22. The Commission finds reasonable assurance in the record, for the purposes of this provisional construction permit, that a utilization facility of the general type proposed in the PRDC Application and amendments thereto can be constructed and operated at the location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.”
All three of the Commissioners who took part in the case joined in this final decision, and the Commission entered its final order continuing in effect the PRDC provisional construction permit, but again subject to the condition that a more extensive safety investigation, and a definitive safety finding, would have to be made before operation was permitted.
The intervening unions, respondents in this Court, then petitioned the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review and set aside this order of the Commission. Only the final order continuing the permit in effect was drawn in question. No complaint was made of the original ex parte grant of the permit in 1956. PRDC intervened in the Court of Appeals in support of the AEC. On June 10, 1960, by a divided vote, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals set aside the AEC’s order and remanded the case to the Commission. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, two judges dissenting, and we brought the case here.
We turn now to an examination of the statutes and regulations pursuant to which the Commission purported to continue in effect PRDC’s construction permit. The basic provision is § 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U. S. C. § 2134 (b), which authorizes the AEC to “issue licenses to persons applying therefor for utilization and production facilities involved in the conduct of research and development activities .... In issuing licenses under this subsection, the Commission shall impose the minimum amount of such regulations and terms of license as will permit the Commission to fulfill its obligations under this chapter to promote the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public . . . .” Two things about this section should be emphasized. First, there is no doubt that the term “licenses” as used therein includes the provisional construction permit which PRDC has received. The last sentence of § 185, 42 U. S. C. § 2235, expressly so provides, as we shall soon see. And second, there is also no doubt that construction permits, like all other licenses, can be issued only consistently with the health and safety of the public. But the responsibility for safeguarding that health and safety belongs under the statute to the Commission. And § 104b, especially when read in connection with the general rule-making power conferred by § 161i (3), 42 U. S. C. § 2201 (i) (3), clearly contemplates that the Commission shall by regulation set forth what the public safety requires as a prerequisite to the issuance of any license or permit under the Act.
The issuance of construction permits is subject to § 185, 42 U. S. C. § 2235. That section provides that
“All applicants for licenses to construct or modify production or utilization facilities shall, if the application is otherwise acceptable to the Commission, be initially granted a construction permit. The construction permit shall state the earliest and latest dates for the completion of the construction or modification. Unless the construction or modification of the facility is completed by the completion date, the construction permit shall expire, and all rights thereunder be forfeited, unless upon good cause shown, the Commission extends the completion date. Upon the completion of the construction or modification of the facility, upon the filing of any additional information needed to bring the original application up to date, and upon finding that the facility authorized has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the application as amended and in conformity with the provisions of this chapter and of the rules and regulations of the Commisson, and in the absence of any good cause being shown to the Commission why the granting of a license would not be in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the Commission shall thereupon issue a license to the applicant. For all other purposes of this chapter, a construction permit is deemed to be a ‘license.’ ”
It is clear from the face of this statute — and all parties agree — that Congress contemplated a step-by-step procedure. First an applicant would have to get a construction permit, then he would have to construct his facility, and then he would have to ask the Commission to grant him a license to operate the facility. This procedure is described in its general outlines in Marks and Trowbridge, Framework for Atomic Industry, 76-77 (1955). See also Green, The Law of Reactor Safety, 12 Yand. L. Rev. 112, 121-127 (1958). The second step of the procedure, the application for and granting of an operating license, is governed by § 182a, 42 U. S. C. § 2232 (a). That provision reads, in pertinent part:
“In connection with applications for licenses to operate production or utilization facilities, the applicant shall state such technical specifications . . . and such other information as the Commission may, by rule or regulation, deem necessary in order to enable it to find that the utilization or production of special nuclear material will be in accord with the common defense and security and will provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.”
It is clear from this provision that before licensing the operation of PRDC’s reactor, the AEC will have to make a positive finding that operation of the facility will “provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.” What is not clear, and what is at the center of the controversy in this case, is whether the Commission must also have made such a finding when it issued PRDC’s construction permit. There is nothing on the face of either § 182 or f 185 which tells us what safety findings must be made before this preliminary step is taken. We know, however, from § 104b that some such finding must be made. For enlightenment on the nature of this finding, both parties urge us to examine the Commission’s regulations, and accordingly we proceed to do so.
The crucial regulation for our purposes is the Commission’s regulation 50.35, 10 CFR § 50.35:
“§ 50.35. Extended time for providing technical information. Where, because of the nature of a proposed project, an applicant is not in a position to supply initially all of the technical information otherwise required to complete the application, he shall indicate the reason, the items or kinds of information omitted, and the approximate times when such data will be produced. If the Commission is satisfied that it has information sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that a facility of the general type proposed can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public and that the omitted information will be supplied, it may process the application and issue a construction permit on a provisional basis without the omitted information subject to its later production and an evaluation by the Commission that the final design provides reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered.”
This regulation, obviously, elaborates upon and describes in fuller detail the step-by-step licensing procedure contemplated by §§ 182 and 185. It states, pursuant to the authority conferred by §§ 104b and 161i (3), what safety findings shall be required at each stage of the proceeding. There is general agreement that the second safety finding referred to, “that the final design provides reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered,” comports with the requirements of § 182 concerning the issuance of a license to operate. There is also agreement that the regulation’s first required safety finding, “that [the AEC] has information sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that a facility of the general type proposed can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public,” is a valid exercise of the rule-making power conferred upon the AEC by statute, and requires that some finding as to safety of operation be made even before a provisional construction permit is granted. The question is whether that first finding must be backed up with as much conviction as to the safety of the final design of the specific reactor in operation as the second, final finding must be.
We think the great weight of the argument supports the position taken by PRDC and by the Commission, that Reg. 50.35 permits the Commission to defer a definitive safety finding until operation is actually licensed. The words of the regulation themselves certainly lean strongly in that direction. The first finding is to be made, by definition, on the basis of incomplete information, and concerns only the “general type” of reactor proposed. The second finding is phrased unequivocally in terms of “reasonable assurance,” while the first speaks more tentatively of “information sufficient to provide reasonable assurance.” The Commission, furthermore, had good reason to make this distinction. For nuclear reactors are fast-developing and fast-changing. What is up to date now may not, probably will not, be as acceptable tomorrow. Problems which seem insuperable now may be solved tomorrow, perhaps in the very process of construction itself. We see no reason why we should not accord to the Commission's interpretation of its own regulation and governing statute that respect which is customarily given to a practical administrative construction of a disputed provision. Particularly is this respect due when the administrative practice at stake “involves a contemporaneous construction of a statute by the men charged with the responsibility of setting its machinery in motion, of making the parts work efficiently and smoothly while they are yet untried and new.” Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 315 (1933). And finally, and perhaps demanding particular weight, this constructtion has time and again been brought to the attention of the Joint Committee of Congress on Atomic Energy, which under § 202 of the Act, 42 TJ. S. C. § 2252, has a special duty during each session of Congress to “conduct hearings in either open or executive session for the purpose of receiving information concerning the development, growth, and state of the atomic energy industry,” and to oversee the operations of the AEC. See, e. g., Hearings on Development, Growth, and State of the Atomic Energy Industry, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 106 (1956); Hearings on Development, etc., 85th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 119-121 (1958) ; Hearings on Development, etc., 86th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 103-109, 677-678 (1960); Hearings on Development, etc., 87th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 29-32 (1961); Hearings on Governmental Indemnity for Private Licensees and AEC Contractors Against Reactor Hazards, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 62-65 (1956); A Study of AEC Procedures and Organization in the Licensing of Reactor Facilities, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 11-14, 100-108 (Joint Comm. Print 1957). No change in this procedure has ever been suggested by the Committee, although it has on occasion been critical of other aspects of the PRDC proceedings not before us. It may often be shaky business to attribute significance to the inaction of Congress, but under these circumstances, and considering especially the peculiar responsibility and place of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in the statutory scheme, we think it fair to read this history as a de jacto acquiescence in and ratification of the Commission’s licensing procedure by Congress. Cf., e. g., Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275, 292-294 (1958); Brooks v. Dewar, 313 U. S. 354, 360-361 (1941). This same procedure has been used in each of the nine instances in which The Commission has granted a provisional construction permit for a developmental nuclear power reactor, e. g., Yankee Atomic Elec. Co., CPPR-5 (AEC 1957), and we hold that it was properly used in this case.
It is plain that the statute and regulations, as so construed and applied, were complied with fully. The Commission did not, as respondents’ argument seems at times to suggest, find merely that the construction of the reactor would present no safety problem. The Commission’s opinion and findings clearly were deeply concerned about the prospective safety of operation of the proposed reactor. Admitting that on the basis of the facts before it it was unable to make a definitive finding of safety, the Commission nevertheless found — and respondents do not deny that the finding was supported by substantial evidence — that it had information sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the general type of reactor proposed could be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Its Finding 22, which we have quoted, was in the very words of Reg. 50.35, except for the insertion of the phrase, “for the purposes of this provisional construction permit.” This phrase was merely declaratory of the nature of the proceeding before the Commission, and in no way denigrated the finding as to safety of operation.
Respondents contend nevertheless that their construction of the statute is compelled by the legislative history. Since the Court of Appeals relied heavily on this history, we have studied it carefully. Two incidents are cited in particular. First, the Joint Committee stated in its report on the bill which became the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and which when reported contained §§ 182 and 185 in substantially their present shape, that “[s]ection 185 . . . requires the issuance of a license if the construction is carried out in accordance with the terms of the construction permit.” S. Rep. No. 1699, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 28 (1954); H. R. Rep. No. 2181, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 28 (1954). The best we can say about this statement, with all deference, is that it must have been inadvertent. Witnesses who appeared before the Joint Committee at the hearings on the bill had made the very complaint that under the words of the bill as proposed a company might invest large sums in construction of a reactor, and then be denied the right to operate it. This situation, they claimed, was unfair, and would substan-. tially discourage the private investment in the field of atomic power which it was one of thp bill’s major purposes to stimulate. See Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on the Bill to Amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., Pt. I., pp. 113, 119 (statement of Paul W. McQuillen, representing the Dow Chemical-Detroit Edison and Associates atomic power development project, predecessors of PRDC); pp. 226-227 (statement of E. H. Dixon, chairman of the Committee on Atomic Power of the Edison Electric Institute and president of Middle-South Utilities, Inc.); p. 417 (statement of the Special Committee on Atomic Energy of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York). In spite of these pleas, however, the bill was unchanged. Industry spokesmen renewed the argument the next year when they sought unsuccessfully to have § 185 amended. Hearings on Development, etc., 84th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 258, 261 (1955). Even a glance at § 185 suffices to show that issuance of a construction permit does not make automatic the later issuance of a license to operate. For that section sets forth three conditions, in addition to the completion of the construction, which must be met before an operating license is granted: (1) filing of any additional information necessary to bring the application up to date — information which will necessarily in this case include detailed safety data concerning the final design of petitioner’s reactor; (2) a finding that the reactor will operate in accordance with the act and regulations — i. e., that the safety and health of the public will be adequately protected — and with the construction permit itself, which is expressly conditioned upon a full investigation and finding of safety before operation is permitted; and (3) the absence of any good cause why the granting of a license to operate would not be in accordance with the Act — e. g., a showing by respondent unions, who will have full rights to appear and contest the issuance of an operating license, that the reactor may not be reasonably safe.
Respondents rely more heavily on another event during the debates on this bill on the floor of the Senate. Senator Humphrey, an opponent of the bill, expressed a desire that it be made clear that “the construction permit is equivalent to a license,” and that “the revised section 182 on license application . . . appl[ies] directly to construction permits.” 100 Cong. Rec. 12014 (July 26,1954). Senator Hickenlooper, floor manager of the bill and the ranking Senate member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, indicated that he agreed with this construction of §§ 182 and 185. Senator Humphrey wanted these matters made clear because he feared that otherwise a construction permit could be easily obtained and substantial investment made in construction, and then the Commission would feel obliged, perhaps under pressure, to issue an operating license in order that this investment should not go to waste. The language used in the exchange between Senators Humphrey and Hickenlooper is susceptible, if read broadly and out of context, of the construction which respondents attribute to it, namely, that no § 185 construction permit may be issued unless the Commission has made the same safety-of-operation finding which it must make under § 182a before allowing actual operation. But the context of the exchange makes it clear that no such implication was intended by the participants. Senator'Humphrey’s statements were made during the consideration of an amendment which he had himself proposed on July 16. This amendment would have ádded the following clause to the end of § 185:
“and no construction permit shall be issued by the Commission until after the completion of the procedures established by section 182 for the consideration of applications for licenses under this act.”
Upon being assured by Senator Hickenlooper that an earlier amendment which Senator Hickenlooper himself had offered to § 189 took care of the problem, Senator Humphrey withdrew his proposal. This amendment to § 189, which was adopted, was concerned solely with hearings and judicial review. Plainly Senator Humphrey’s concern was not with the substantive safety findings necessary to the issuance of a construction permit, but rather with the procedural safeguards with which that issuance should, in his opinion, be surrounded. The reference to the application of § 182 to construction permits was made not with § 182a in mind — that subsection sets out the substantive safety standard for the issuance of an operating license — but rather with a view to the application of § 182b, about which Senator Humphrey particularly asked Senator Hickenlooper during the exchange on the floor referred to, and which merely provides that notice of a license application must be published and given to any appropriate regulatory agencies, a procedural requirement which was fully satisfied in this case. This interpretation of the meaning of Senator Humphrey’s remarks is borne out by a statement of Representative Holifield, who, together with Representative Price, had dissented from the favorable report of the Joint Committee, precisely because, inter alia, under the bill as reported a construction permit did not have to be preceded by the same procedures as an operating license. See S. Rep. No. 1699, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 123 (1954); H. R. Rep. No. 2181, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 123 (1954). Representative Price wanted the same amendment added to § 185 which Senator Humphrey proposed, and he characterized this amendment as necessary to ensure “that the same procedural safeguards in the case of licenses be applied to construction permits.” 100 Cong. Rec. 10959 (July 19,1954). We think, therefore, that Senator Humphrey’s statement referred only to procedural prerequisites of construction permits, and had nothing to do with the substantive safety considerations which this case involves. If there were any doubt about this matter, the consistent administrative practice, made known to Congress many times and never disturbed by it, would dictate this conclusion.
The Court of Appeals put forward as an alternative basis for its decision the holding that under the law the Commission may not authorize the construction of a reactor near a large population center without “compelling reasons” for doing so, 108 U. S. App. D. C., at 103-104, 280 F. 2d, at 651-652, and that no such reasons had been found by the AEC in this case. It is not clear whether respondents have abandoned that contention in this Court, and it is likewise uncertain whether they ever presented it to the Commission, a step which would ordinarily be a prerequisite to its consideration by the Court of Appeals. In any event, the position is without merit. The statute and regulations say nothing about “compelling reasons.” Of course Congress (and the Commission, too, for that matter) had the problem of safety uppermost in mind, and of course that problem is most acute when a reactor, potentially dangerous, is located near a large city. But the Commission found reasonable assurance, for present purposes, that the reactor could be safely operated at the proposed location, and that is enough to. satisfy the requirements of law. The Commission recognized that the site and all its properties are among the most important ingredients of a finding of safety vel non. It considered the site along with all the other relevant data. There is no warrant in the statute for setting aside the Commission's conclusion.
We hold, therefore, that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the order of the AEC continuing PRDC's provisional construction permit in effect. We deem it appropriate to add a few words concerning the fears of nuclear disaster which respondents so urgently place before us. The respondents’ argument is tantamount to an insistence that the Commission cannot be counted on, when the time comes to make a definitive safety finding, wholly to exclude the consideration that PRDC will have made an enormous investment. The petitioners concede that the Commission is absolutely denied any authority to consider this investment when acting upon an application for a license for operation. PRDC has been on notice long since that it proceeds with construction at its own risk, and that all its funds may go for naught. With its eyes open, PRDC has willingly accepted that risk, however great. No license to operate may be issued to PRDC until a full hazards report has been filed, until the AEC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards makes a full investigation and public report on safety to the Commission, until the Commission itself, after notice and hearings at which respondents, if they desire, may be heard, has made the safety-of-operation finding required by § 182a and Reg. 50.35, and until the other requirements of § 185 have been met. It may be that an operating license will never be issued. If one is, that will not be the end of the matter. The respondents may have judicial review. Moreover, the Commission’s responsibility for supervision of PRDC continues. For, under Reg. 50.57, 10 CFR § 50.57, operation at full power (100,000 electric kilowatts) will not be permitted until several steps of gradually increasing operation have been successfully mastered, with a full public hearing at each step, and no further advance permitted without the AEC’s being fully satisfied that a step-up will meet the high safety standards imposed by law. This is the multi-step scheme which Congress and the Commission have devised to protect the public health and safety. We hold that the actions of the Commission up to now have been within the Congressional authorization. We cannot assume that the Commission will exceed its powers, or that these many safeguards to protect the public interest will not be fully effective.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the causes are remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion,
in which The CHIEF Justice and Justice Scalia joined.
In this case, we must determine whether the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly applied our decision in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979), in concluding that the evidence against respondent Frank West was insufficient, as a matter of due process, to support his state-court conviction for grand larceny.
I
Between December 13 and December 26, 1978, someone broke into the Westmoreland County, Virginia, home of Angelo Cardova and stole items valued at approximately $3,500. On January 10,1979, police conducted a lawful search of the Gloucester County, Virginia, home of West and his wife. They discovered several of the items stolen from the Car-dova home, including various electronic equipment (two television sets and a record player); articles of clothing (an imitation mink coat with the name “Esther” embroidered in it, a silk jacket emblazoned “Korea 1970,” and a pair of shoes); decorations (several wood earvings and a mounted lobster); and miscellaneous household objects (a mirror framed with seashells, a coffee table, a bar, a sleeping bag, and some silverware). These items were valued at approximately $800, and the police recovered other, unspecified items of Cardo-va’s property with an approximate value of $300.
West was charged with grand larceny. Testifying at trial on his own behalf, he admitted to a prior felony conviction, but denied having taken anything from Cardova’s house. He explained that he had bought and sold “a lot of... merchandise” from “several guys” at “flea bargain places” where, according to West, “a lot of times you buy things... that are stolen” although “you néver know it.” App. 21. On cross-examination, West said that he had bought many of the stolen items from a Ronnie Elkins, whom West claimed to have known for years. West testified that he purchased one of the wood carvings, the jacket, mounted lobster, mirror, and bar from Elkins for about $500. West initially guessed, and then twice positively asserted, that this sale occurred before January 1, 1979. In addition, West claimed to have purchased the coat from Elkins for $5 around January 1, 1979. His testimony did not make clear whether he was describing one transaction or two, whether there were any other transactions between himself and Elkins, where the transactions occurred, and whether the transactions occurred at flea markets. West testified further that he had purchased one of the television sets in an entirely separate transaction in Goochland County, from an individual whose name he had forgotten. Finally, West testified that he did not remember how he had acquired the second television, the coffee table, and the silverware.
Under then-applicable Virginia law, grand larceny was defined as the wrongful and nonconsensual taking of property worth at least $100, with the intent to deprive the owner of it permanently. See Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-95 (1975); Skeeter v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 722, 725, 232 S. E. 2d 756, 758 (1977). Virginia law permits an inference that a person who fails to explain, or falsely explains, his exclusive possession of recently stolen property is the thief. See, e. g., Moehring v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 564, 568, 290 S. E. 2d 891, 893 (1982); Best v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 387, 389, 282 S. E. 2d 16, 17 (1981). The trial court instructed the jurors about this permissive inference, but warned that the inference did not compromise their constitutional obligation to acquit unless they found that the State had established every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970).
The jury returned a guilty verdict, and West received a 10-year prison sentence. West petitioned for an appeal, contending (among other things) that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In May 1980, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused the petition — a disposition indicating that the court found the petition without merit, see Saunders v. Reynolds, 214 Va. 697, 700, 204 S. E. 2d 421, 424 (1974). Seven years later, West filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the same court, supported by an affidavit executed by Ronnie Elkins in April 1987. West renewed his claim that the original trial record contained insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and he argued in the alternative that Elkins’ affidavit, which tended to corroborate West’s trial testimony in certain respects, constituted new evidence entitling him to a new trial. The Supreme Court of Virginia again denied relief. West then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which rejected both claims and denied relief.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. 931 F. 2d 262 (1991). As the court correctly recognized, a claim that evidence is insufficient to support a conviction as a matter of due process depends on "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S., at 319 (emphasis in original). Five considerations led the court to conclude that this standard was not met: first, the items were recovered no sooner than two weeks after they had been stolen; second, only about a third of the items stolen from Cardova (measured by value) were recovered from West; third, the items were found in West’s house in plain view, and not hidden away as contraband; fourth, West’s explanation of his possession was not so “inherently implausible,” even if it were disbelieved, that it could “fairly be treated as positive evidence of guilt”; and fifth, there was no corroborating evidence (such as fingerprints or eyewitness testimony) beyond the fact of mere possession. See 931 F. 2d, at 268-270. The court viewed West’s testimony as “at most, a neutral factor,” id., at 270, despite noting his “confusion” about the details of his alleged purchases, id., at 269, and despite conceding that his testimony “at first blush... may itself seem incredible,” id., at 270, n. 7. In holding that the Jackson standard was not met, the court did not take into consideration the fact that the Supreme Court of Virginia had twice previously concluded otherwise.
After the Fourth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by an equally divided court, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 34-35, the warden and the State Attorney General sought review in this Court on, among other questions, whether the Court of Appeals had applied Jackson correctly in this case. We granted certiorari, 502 U. S. 1012 (1991), and requested additional briefing on the question whether a federal habeas court should afford deference to state-court determinations applying law to the specific facts of a case, 502 U. S. 1021 (1991). We now reverse.
II
The habeas corpus statute permits a federal court to entertain a petition from a state prisoner “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a). The court must “dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” § 2243. For much of our history, we interpreted these bare guidelines and their predecessors to reflect the common-law principle that a prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus could challenge only the jurisdiction of the court that had rendered the judgment under which he was in custody. See, e.g., In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278, 285-287 (1891) (Harlan, J.); Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 202 (1830) (Marshall, C. J.). Gradually, we began to expand the category of claims deemed to be jurisdictional for habeas purposes. See, e. g., Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 377 (1880) (court without jurisdiction to impose sentence under unconstitutional statute); Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 176 (1874) (court without jurisdiction to impose sentence not authorized by statute). Next, we began to recognize federal claims by state prisoners if no state court had provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims. See, e. g., Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86, 91-92 (1923); Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 335-336 (1915). Before 1953, however, the inverse of this rule also remained true: Absent an alleged jurisdictional defect, “habeas corpus would not lie for a [state] prisoner... if he had been given an adequate opportunity to obtain full and fair consideration of his federal claim in the state courts.” Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 459-460 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting). See generally Bator, Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 441, 478-499 (1963). In other words, the state-court judgment was entitled to “absolute respect,” Kuhlmann v. Wil son, 477 U. S. 436, 446 (1986) (opinion of Powell, J.) (emphasis added), and a federal habeas court could not review it even for reasonableness.
We rejected the principle of absolute deference in our landmark decision in Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 (1953). There, we held that a state-court judgment of conviction “is not res judicata” on federal habeas with respect to federal constitutional claims, id., at 458, even if the state court has rejected all such claims after a full and fair hearing. Instead, we held, a district court must determine whether the state-court adjudication “has resulted in a satisfactory conclusion.” Id., at 463. We had no occasion to explore in detail the question whether a “satisfactory” conclusion was one that the habeas court considered correct, as opposed to merely reasonable, because we concluded that the constitutional claims advanced in Brown itself would fail even if the state courts’ rejection of them were reconsidered de novo. See id., at 465-476. Nonetheless, we indicated that the federal courts enjoy at least the discretion to take into consideration the fact that a state court has previously rejected the federal claims asserted on habeas. See id., at 465 (“As the state and federal courts have the same responsibilities to protect persons from violation of their constitutional rights, we conclude that a federal district court may decline, without a rehearing of the facts, to award a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner where the legality of such detention has been determined, on the facts presented, by the highest state court with jurisdiction”).
In an influential separate opinion endorsed by a majority of the Court, Justice Frankfurter also rejected the principle of absolute deference to fairly litigated state-court judgments. He emphasized that a state-court determination of federal constitutional law is not “binding” on federal habeas, id., at 506, regardless of whether the determination involves a pure question of law, ibid., or a “so-called mixed questio[n]” requiring the application of law to fact, id., at 507. Nonetheless, he stated quite explicitly that a “prior State determination may guide [the] discretion [of the district court] in deciding upon the appropriate course to be followed in disposing of the application.” Id., at 500. Discussing mixed questions specifically, he noted further that “there is no need for the federal judge, if he could, to shut his eyes to the State consideration.” Id., at 508.
In subsequent eases, we repeatedly reaffirmed Brown’s teaching that mixed constitutional questions are “open to review on collateral attack,” Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 342 (1980), without ever explicitly considering whether that “review” should be de novo or deferential. In some of these eases, we would have denied habeas relief even under de novo review, see, e. g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 698 (1984) (facts make it “clear” that habeas petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188, 201 (1972) (facts disclose “no substantial likelihood” that habeas petitioner was subjected to unreliable pretrial lineup); in others, we would have awarded habeas relief even under deferential review, see, e. g., Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 405 (1977) (facts provide “no reasonable basis” for finding valid waiver of right to counsel); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 725 (1961) (facts show “clear and convincing” evidence of biased jury); and in yet others, we remanded for application of a proper legal rule without addressing that standard of review question, see, e, g., Cuyler, supra, at 342, 350. Nonetheless, because these cases never qualified our early citation of Brown for the proposition that a federal habeas court must reexamine mixed constitutional questions “independently,” Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 318 (1963) (dictum), we have gradually come to treat as settled the rule that mixed constitutional questions are “subject to plenary federal review” on habeas, Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 112 (1985)..
Jackson itself contributed to this trend. There, we held that a conviction violates due process if supported only by evidence from which “no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 443 U. S., at 317. We stated explicitly that a state-court judgment applying the Jackson rule in a particular case “is of course entitled to deference” on federal habeas. Id., at 323; see also id., at 336, n. 9 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (“State judges are more familiar with the elements of state offenses than are federal judges and should be better able to evaluate sufficiency claims”). Notwithstanding these principles, however, we then indicated that the habeas court itself should apply the Jackson rule, see id., at 324, rather than merely reviewing the state courts’ application of it for reasonableness. Ultimately, though, we hád no occasion to resolve our conflicting statements on the standard of review question, because we concluded that the habeas petitioner was not entitled, to relief even under our own de novo application of Jackson. See id., at 324-326.
Despite our apparent adherence to a standard of de novo habeas review with respect to mixed constitutional questions, we have implicitly questioned that standard, at least with respect to pure legal questions, in our recent retroactivity precedents. In Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 313-314 (1989), a majority of this Court endorsed the retroactivity analysis advanced by Justice O’Connor for a plurality in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). Under Teague, a ha-beas petitioner generally cannot benefit from a new rule of criminal procedure announced after his conviction has become final on direct appeal. See id., at 305-310 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). Teague defined a “new” rule as one that was “not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Id., at 301 (emphasis in origi-, nal). In Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 415 (1990), we explained that the definition includes all rules “susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.” Thus, if a state court has reasonably rejected the legal claim asserted by a habeas petitioner under existing law, then the claim seeks the benefit of a “new” rule under Butler, and is therefore not cognizable on habeas under Teague. In other words, a federal ha-beas court “must defer to the state court’s decision rejecting the claim unless that decision is patently unreasonable.” Butler, supra, at 422 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
Teague was premised on the view that retroactivity questions in habeas corpus proceedings must take account of the nature and function of the writ, which we describéd as “ ‘a collateral remedy... not designed as a substitute for direct review/” 489 U. S., at 306 (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (quoting Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667, 682-683 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part)) (emphasis in Mackey). Justice Stevens reasoned similarly in Jackson, where he stressed that habeas corpus "is not intended as a substitute for appeal, nor as a device for reviewing the merits of guilt determinations at criminal trials,” but only “to guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems.” 443 U. S., at 332, n. 5 (opinion concurring in judgment); see also Greer v. Miller, 483 U. S. 756, 768-769 (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). Indeed, the notion that different standards should apply on direct and collateral review runs throughout our recent habeas jurisprudence. We have said, for example, that new rules always have retroactive application to criminal cases pending on direct review, see Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 320-328 (1987), but that they generally do not have retroactive application to criminal eases pending on habeas, see Teague, supra, at 305-310 (opinion of O’Con-nor, J.)- We have held that the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel on a first direct appeal, see, e. g., Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, 355-358 (1963), but that it guarantees no right to counsel on habeas, see, e. g., Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U. S. 551, 555 (1987). On direct review, we have announced and enforced the rule that state courts must exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 654-660 (1961). We have also held, however, that claims under Mapp are not cognizable on habeas as long as the state courts have provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them at trial or on direct review. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 489-496 (1976).
These differences simply reflect the fact that habeas review “entails significant costs.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 126 (1982). Among other things, “‘[i]t disturbs the State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation, denies society the right to punish some admitted offenders, and intrudes on state sovereignty to a degree matched by few exercises of federal judicial authority.’ ” Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U. S. 195, 210 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (quoting Harris v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255, 282 (1989) (Kennedy, J., dissenting)). In various contexts, we have emphasized that these costs, as well as the countervailing benefits, must be taken into consideration in defining the scope of the writ. See, e. g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 738-739 (1991) (procedural default); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 490-493 (1991) (abuse of the writ); Teague, supra, at 308-310 (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (retroactivity); Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S., at 444-455 (opinion of Powell, J.) (successive petitions); Stone v. Powell, supra, at 491-492, n. 31 (cogniza-bility of particular claims).
In light of these principles, petitioners ask that we reconsider our statement in Miller v. Fenton that mixed constitutional questions are “subject to plenary federal review” on habeas, 474 U. S., at 112. By its terms, Teague itself is not directly controlling, because West sought federal habeas relief under Jackson, which was decided a year before his conviction became final on direct review. Nonetheless, petitioners contend, the logic of Teague makes our statement in Miller untenable. Petitioners argue that if deferential review for reasonableness strikes an appropriate balance with respect to purely legal claims, then it must strike an appropriate balance with respect to mixed questions as well. Moreover, they note that under the habeas statute itself, a state-court determination of a purely factual question must be “presumed correct,” and can be overcome only by “convincing evidence,” unless one of eight statutorily enumerated exceptions is present. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). It makes no sense, petitioners assert, for a habeas court generally to review factual determinations and legal determinations deferentially, but to review applications of law to fact de novo. Finally, petitioners find the prospect of deferential review for mixed questions at least implicit in our recent statement that Teague concerns are fully implicated “by the application of an old rule in a manner that was not dictated by precedent.” Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 228 (1992) (emphasis added). For these reasons, petitioners invite us to reaffirm that a habeas judge need not — and indeed may not — “shut his eyes” entirely to state-court applications of law to fact. Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S., at 508 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). West develops two principal counterarguments: first, that Congress implicitly codified a de novo standard with respect to mixed constitutional questions when it amended the habeas statute in 1966; and second, that de novo federal review is necessary to vindicate federal constitutional rights.
We need not decide such far-reaching issues in this case. As in both Brown and Jackson, the claim advanced by the habeas petitioner must fail even assuming that the state court's rejection of it should be reconsidered de novo. Whatever the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that there was more than enough evidence to support West’s conviction.
The ease against West was strong. Two to four weeks after the Cardova home had been burglarized, over 15 of the items stolen were recovered from West's home. On direct examination at trial, West said nothing more than that he frequently bought and sold items at different flea markets. He failed to offer specific information about how he had come'to acquire any of the stolen items, and he did not even mention Ronnie Elkins. by name. When pressed on cross-examination about the details of his purchases, West contradicted himself repeatedly about where he supposedly had bought the stolen goods, and he gave vague, seemingly evasive answers to various other questions. See n. 1, supra. He said further that he could not remember how he had acquired such major household items as a television set and a coffee table, and -he failed to offer any explanation whatsoever about how he had acquired Cardova’s record player, among other things. Moreover, he testified that he had acquired Cardova’s second television set from a seller other than Elkins (who remained unidentified) in an entirely unrelated (but roughly contemporaneous) transaction. Finally, he failed to produce any other supporting evidence, such as testimony from Elkins, whom he claimed to have known for years and done business with on a regular basis.
As the trier of fact, the jury was entitled to disbelieve West’s uncorroborated and eonfüsed testimony. In evaluating that testimony, moreover, the jury was entitled to discount West’s credibility on account of his prior felony conviction, see Va. Code Ann. §19.2-269 (1990); Sadoski v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1069, 254 S. E. 2d 100 (1979), and to take into account West’s demeanor when testifying, which neither the Court of Appeals nor we may review. And if the jury did disbelieve West, it was further entitled to consider whatever it concluded to be perjured testimony as affirmative evidence of guilt, see, e. g., Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 620-621 (1896); United States v. Zafiro, 945 F. 2d 881, 888 (CA7 1991) (Posner, J.), cert. granted on other grounds, 503 U. S. 935 (1992); Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F. 2d 265, 269 (CA2 1952) (L. Hand, J.).
In Jackson, we emphasized repeatedly the deference owed to the trier of fact and, correspondingly, the sharply limited nature of constitutional sufficiency review. We said that “all of the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” 443 U. S., at 319 (emphasis in original); that the prosecution need not affirmatively “rule out every hypothesis except that of guilt,” id., at 326; and that a reviewing court “faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume — even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record — that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution,” ibid. Under these standards, we think it clear that the trial record contained sufficient evidence to support West’s conviction.
Having granted relief on West’s Jackson claim, the Court of Appeals declined to address West’s additional claim that he was entitled to a new trial, as a matter of due process, on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See 931 F. 2d, at 271, n. 9. As that claim is not properly before us, we decline to address it here. 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.
The quality of West’s testimony on these matters can best be appreciated by example:
“Q Axe those items that you bought at a flea market?
“A Well, I didn’t buy these items at a flea market, no sir.
“Q Whose items are they?
“A They are some items that I got from a Ronnie Elkins.
“Q All of the items you bought from him?
“A I can’t say all.
"Q Which ones did you buy from him?
“A I can’t say, because I don't have an inventory.
“Q Can you tell me the ones you bought from Ronnie Elkins?
“A Yes, I am sure I can.
“Q Which ones?
“A I would say the platter.
“Q How about the sea shell mirror?
“A Yes, sir, I think so.
“Q Where did you buy that?
“A In Newport News at a flea market.” App. 21-22.
“Q I want to know about your business transactions with Ronnie Elkins..
“A I buy and sell different items from different individuals at flea markets.
“Q Tell us where that market is.
“A In Richmond. You have them in Gloucester.
“Q Where is Ronnie Elkins’ flea market?
“A He does not have one.
“Q Didn’t you say you bought some items from Ronnie Elkins?
“A At a flea market.
“Q Tell the jury where that is at [sic].
"A In Gloucester.
“Q Tell the jury about this flea market and Ronnie Elkins, some time around January 1, and these items, not the other items.
"A Ronnie Elkins does not own a flea market.
“Q Tell the jury, if you will, where Ronnie Elkins was on the day that you bought the items?
"A I don’t remember. It was before January 1.
“Q Where was it?
“A I bought stuff from him in Richmond, Gloucester, and Newport News.” Id., at 26-27.
The instruction on the permissive inference read:
“If you belie[ve] from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that property of a value of $100.00 or more was stolen from Angelo F. C[a]rdova, and that it was recently thereafter found in the exclusive and personal possession of the defendant, and that such possession has been unexplained or falsely denied by the defendant, then such possession is sufficient to raise an inference that the defendant was the thief; and if such inference, taking into consideration the whole evidence, leads you to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the theft, then you shall find the defendant guilty.” App. 34.
Several other instructions emphasized that despite the permissive inference, “[t]he burden is upon the Commonwealth to prove by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt every material and necessary element of the offense charged against the defendant.” Ibid.
Justice O’Connor offers three criticisms of our summary of the history of habeas corpus before 1963, none of which we find convincing. First, she contends that the full-and-fair litigation standard in Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309 (1915), and Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1923), served no purpose other than to define the scope of the underlying alleged constitutional violation. See post, at 297-299. Frank and Moore involved claims, rejected by the state appellate courts, that a trial had been so dominated by a mob as to violate due process. In Frank, we denied relief not because the state appellate court had decided the federal claim correctly (the relevant question on direct review), and not even because the state appellate court had decided the federal claim reasonably, but only “because Frank’s federal claims had been considered by a competent and unbiased state tribunal,” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 476 (1976). In Moore, which reaffirmed Frank expressly, see 261 U. S., at 90-91, we ordered the District Court to consider the mob domination claim on the merits because the state appellate court's “perfunctory treatment” of it “was not in fact acceptable corrective process.” Noia, 372 U. S., at 458 (Harlan, J., dissenting); see also Bator, 76 Harv. L. Rev., at 488-489. In both cases, a claim that the habeas petitioner had been denied due process at trial was not cognizable on habeas unless the petitioner also had been denied a full and fair opportunity to raise that claim on appeal.
Second, Justice O’Connor states that we mischaracterize the views of Justice Powell about the history of habeas law between 1915 and 1953. See post, at 299. In fact, however, Justice Powell has often recounted exactly the same familiar history that we summarize above. In Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U. S. 545 (1979), for example, he described Frank as having “modestly expanded” the “scope of the writ” in order to “encompass those cases where the defendant’s federal constitutional claims had not been considered in the state-court proceeding.” 443 U. S., at 580 (opinion concurring in judgment). Similarly, in Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U. S. 218 (1973), he described Frank as having extended “[t]he scope of federal ha-beas corpus” to permit consideration of “whether the applicant had been given an adequate opportunity in state court to raise his constitutional claims.” 412 U. S., at 255-256 (concurring opinion). In neither case, nor in Kuhlmann, did Justice Powell even suggest that federal habeas was available before 1963 to a prisoner who had received a full and fair opportunity to litigate his federal claim in state court.
Third, Justice O’Connor criticizes our failure to acknowledge Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224 (1924), which she describes as the first case explicitly to hold that “res judicata is not strictly followed on federal ha-beas.” Post, at 299. Salinger, however, involved the degree of preclu-sive effect of a habeas judgment upon subsequent habeas petitions filed by a federal prisoner. This case, of course, involves the degree of preclusive effect of a criminal conviction upon an initial habeas petition filed by a state prisoner. We cannot fault ourselves for limiting our focus to the latter context. But even assuming its relevance, Salinger hardly advances the position advocated by Justice O’Connor that a habeas court must exercise de novo review with respect to mixed questions of law and fact. Despite acknowledging that a prior habeas judgment is not entitled to absolute preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata, Salinger also indicated that the prior habeas judgment “may be considered, and even given controlling weight.” 265 U. S., at 231 (emphasis added).
Justice O'Connor contends that the inclusion of this passage in a section of our opinion entitled “Right to a Plenary Hearing” makes clear that we were discussing only the resolution of factual questions. See post, at 300-301. In our introduction to that section, however, we indicated that both factual and legal questions were at issue. See 344 U. S., at 460 (noting contentions “that the District Court committed error when it took no evidence and heard no argument on the federal constitutional issues” (emphasis added)). Indeed, if only factual questions were at issue, we would have authorized a denial of the writ not whenever the state-court proceeding “has resulted in a satisfactory conclusion” (as we did), id., at 463 (emphasis added), but only whenever the state-court proceeding has resulted in satisfactory factfinding.
Justice O’Connor quotes Justice Frankfurter for the proposition that a district judge on habeas “ ‘must exercise his ownjudgment’ ” with respect to mixed questions. Post, at 300 (quoting 344 U. S., at 507). Although we agree with Justice O’Connor that this passage by itself suggests a de novo standard, it is not easily reconciled with Justice Frankfurter’s later statement that “there is no need for the federal judge, if he could, to shut his eyes to the State consideration” of the mixed question, id., at 508. These statements can be reconciled, of course, on the assumption that the habeas judge must review the state-court determination for reasonableness. But we need not attempt to defend that conclusion in detail, for we conclude not that Brown v. Allen establishes deferential review for reasonableness, but only that Brown does not squarely foreclose it.
We have no disagreement -
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 (Part I), together with an opinion (Parts II and III), in which Mr. Justice Marshall, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Stevens joined.
Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), held that the federal antitrust laws do not prohibit a State “as sovereign” from imposing certain anticompetitive restraints “as an act of government.” The question in this case is the extent to which the antitrust laws prohibit a State’s cities from imposing such anticompetitive restraints.
Petitioner cities are organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, which grant them power to own and operate electric utility systems both within and beyond their city limits. Petitioners brought this action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that, among others, Louisiana Power & Light Co. (LP&L), an investor-owned electric service utility with which petitioners compete in the areas beyond their city limits, committed various antitrust offenses which injured petitioners in the operation of their electric utility systems. LP&L counterclaimed, seeking damages and injunctive relief for various antitrust offenses which petitioners had allegedly committed and which injured it in its business and property.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that, as cities and subdivisions of the State of Louisiana, the “state action” doctrine of Parker v. Brown, rendered federal antitrust laws inapplicable to them. The District Court granted the motion, holding that the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Saenz v. University Interscholastic League, 487 F. 2d 1026 (1973), required dismissal, notwithstanding that “[t]hese plaintiff cities are engaging in what is clearly a business activity... in which a profit is realized,” and “for this reason... this court is reluctant to hold that the antitrust laws do not apply to any state activity.” App. 47 (emphasis in original). The District Court in this case read Saenz to interpret the “state action” exemption as requiring the “holding that purely state government activities are not subject to the requirements of the antitrust laws of the United States,” App. 48, thereby making petitioners’ status as cities determinative against maintenance of antitrust suits against them. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 532 F. 2d 431 (1976). The Court of Appeals noted that the District Court had acted before this Court’s decision in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773 (1975), and held that “taken together” Parker v. Brown and Goldfarb “require the following analysis”:
“A subordinate state governmental body is not ipso facto exempt from the operation of the antitrust laws. Rather, a district court must ask whether the state legislature contemplated a certain type of anticompetitive restraint. In our opinion, though, it is not necessary to point to an express statutory mandate for each act which is alleged to violate the antitrust laws. It will suffice if the challenged activity was clearly within the legislative intent. Thus, a trial judge may ascertain, from the authority given a governmental entity to operate in a particular area, that the legislature contemplated the kind of action complained of. On the other hand, as in Goldfarb, the connection between a legislative grant of power and the subordinate entity’s asserted use of that power may be too tenuous to permit the conclusion that the entity’s intended scope of activity encompassed such conduct. Whether a governmental body’s actions are comprehended within the powers granted to it by the legislature is, of course, a determination which can be made only under the specific facts in each case. A district judge’s inquiry on this point should be broad enough to include all evidence which might show the scope of legislative intent.” 532 F. 2d, at 434-435 (footnotes omitted).
We granted certiorari, 430 U. S. 944 (1977). We affirm.
I
Petitioners’ principal argument is that “since a city is merely a subdivision of a state and only exercises power delegated to it by the state, Parker’s- findings regarding the congressionally intended scope of the Sherman Act apply with equal force to such political subdivisions.” Brief for Petitioners 5. Before addressing this question, however, we shall address the contention implicit in petitioners’ arguments in their brief that, apart from the question of their exemption as agents of the State under the Parker doctrine, Congress never intended to subject local governments to the antitrust laws.
A
The antitrust laws impose liability on and create a cause of action for damages for a “person” or “persons” as defined in the Acts. Since the Court has held that the definition of “person” or “persons” embraces both cities and States, it is understandable that the cities do not argue that they are not “persons” within the meaning of the antitrust laws.
Section 8 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 210, 15 U. S. C. § 7 (1976 ed.), and § 1 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, 15 U. S. C. § 12 (1976 ed.), are general definitional sections which define “person” or “persons,” “wherever used in this [Act]... to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.” Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15 (1976 ed.), provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court..., and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained____”
Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390 (1906), held that a municipality is a “person” within the meaning of § 8 of the Sherman Act, the general definitional section, and that the city of Atlanta therefore could maintain a treble-damages action under § 7, the predecessor of § 4 of the Clayton Act, against a supplier from whom the city purchased water pipe which it used to furnish water as a municipal utility service. Some 36 years later, Georgia v. Evans, 316 U. S. 159 (1942), held that the words “any person” in § 7 of the Sherman Act included States. Under that decision, the State of Georgia was permitted to bring an action in its own name charging injury from a combination to fix prices and suppress competition in the market for asphalt which the State purchased annually for use in the construction of public roads. The Court reasoned that “[njothing in the Act, its history, or its policy, could justify so restrictive a construction of the word 'person' in § 7 as to exclude a State.” 316 U. S., at 162.
Although both Chattanooga Foundry and Georgia v. Evans involved the public bodies as plaintiffs, whereas petitioners in the instant case are defendants to a counterclaim, the basis of those decisions plainly precludes a reading of “person” or “persons” to include municipal utility operators that sue as plaintiffs but not to include such municipal operators when sued as defendants. Thus, the conclusion that the antitrust laws are not to be construed as meant by Congress to subject cities to liability under the antitrust laws must rest on the impact of some overriding public policy which negates the construction of coverage, and not upon a reading of “person” or “persons” as not including them.
B
Petitioners suggest several reasons why, in addition to their arguments for exemption as agents of the State under the Parker doctrine, a congressional purpose not to subject cities to the antitrust laws should be inferred. Those arguments, like the Parker exemption itself, necessarily must be considered in light of the presumption against implied exclusions from coverage under the antitrust laws.
(1)
The purposes and intended scope of the Sherman Act have been developed in prior cases and require only brief mention here. Commenting upon the language of the Act in rejecting a claim that the insurance business was excluded from coverage, the Court stated: “Language more comprehensive is difficult to conceive. On its face it shows a carefully studied attempt to bring within the Act every person engaged in business whose activities might restrain or monopolize commercial intercourse among the states.” United States v. SouthEastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, 553 (1944). That and subsequent cases reviewing the legislative history of the Sherman Act have concluded that Congress, exercising the full extent of its constitutional power, sought to establish a regime of competition as the fundamental principle governing commerce in this country.
For this reason, our cases have held that even when Congress by subsequent legislation establishes a regulatory regime over an area of commercial activity, the antitrust laws will not be displaced unless it appears that the antitrust and regulatory provisions are plainly repugnant. E. g., United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350-351, and n. 28 (1963) (collecting cases). The presumption against repeal by implication reflects the understanding that the antitrust laws establish overarching and fundamental policies, a principle which argues with equal force against implied exclusions. See Goldfarb, 421 U. S., at 786-788.
Two policies have been held sufficiently weighty to override the presumption against implied exclusions from coverage of the antitrust laws. In Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127 (1961), the Court held that, regardless of anticompetitive purpose or intent, a concerted effort by persons to influence lawmakers to enact legislation beneficial to themselves or detrimental to competitors was not within the scope of the antitrust laws. Although there is nothing in the language of the statute or its history which would indicate that Congress considered such an exclusion, the impact of two correlative principles was held to require the conclusion that the presumption should not support a finding of coverage. The first is that a contrary construction would impede the open communication between the polity and its lawmakers which is vital to the functioning of a representative democracy. Second, “and of at least equal significance,” is the threat to the constitutionally protected right of petition which a contrary construction would entail. Id., at 137-138. Parker v. Brown identified a second overriding policy, namely that “[i]n a dual system of government in which, under the Constitution, the states are sovereign, save only as Congress may constitutionally subtract from their authority, an unexpressed purpose to nullify a state’s control over its officers and agents is not lightly to be attributed to Congress.” 317 U. S., at 351.
Common to the two implied exclusions was potential conflict with policies of signal importance in our national traditions and governmental structure of federalism. Even then, however, the recognized exclusions have been unavailing to prevent antitrust enforcement which, though implicating those fundamental policies, was not thought severely to impinge upon them. See, e. g., Goldfarb, supra; California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508 (1972).
Petitioners’ arguments therefore cannot prevail unless they demonstrate that there are countervailing policies which are sufficiently weighty to overcome the presumption. We now turn to a consideration of whether, apart from the question of their exemption as agents of the State under the Parker doctrine, petitioners have made that showing.
(2)
Petitioners argue that their exclusion must be inferred because it would be anomalous to subject municipalities to the criminal and civil liabilities imposed upon violators of the antitrust laws. The short answer is that it has not been regarded as anomalous to require compliance by municipalities with the substantive standards of other federal laws which impose such sanctions upon “persons.” See Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 450 (1941). See generally Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360, 370 (1934); California v. United States, 320 U. S. 577 (1944). But those cases do not necessarily require the conclusion that remedies appropriate to redress violations by private corporations would be equally appropriate for municipalities; nor need we decide any question of remedy in this case.
Petitioners next argue that the antitrust laws are intended to protect the public only from abuses of private power and not from actions of municipalities that exist to serve the public weal.
Petitioners’ contention that their goal is not private profit but public service is only partly correct. Every business enterprise, public or private, operates its business in furtherance of its own goals. In the case of a municipally owned utility, that goal is likely to be, broadly speaking, the benefit of its citizens. But the economic choices made by public corporations in the conduct of their business affairs, designed as they are to assure maximum benefits for the community constituency, are not inherently more likely to comport with the broader interests of national economic well-being than are those of private corporations acting in furtherance of the interests of the organization and its shareholders. The allegations of the counterclaim, which for present purposes we accept as true, aptly illustrate the impact which local governments, acting as providers of services, may have on other individuals and business enterprises with which they interrelate as purchasers, suppliers, and sometimes, as here, as competitors.
LP&L alleged that the city of Plaquemine contracted to provide LP&L’s electric customers outside its city limits gas and water service only on condition that the customers purchase electricity from the city and not from LP&L. The effect of such a tie-in is twofold. First, the tying contract might injure former LP&L customers in two ways. The net effect of the tying contract might be to increase the cost of electric service to these customers. Moreover, a municipality conceivably might charge discriminatorily higher rates to such captive customers outside its jurisdiction without a cost-justified basis. Both of these practices would provide maximum benefits for its constituents, while disserving the interests of the affected customers. Second, the practice would necessarily have an impact on the regulated public utility whose service is displaced. The elimination of customers in an established service area would likely reduce revenues, and possibly require abandonment or loss of existing equipment the effect of which would be to reduce its rate base and possibly affect its capital structure. The surviving customers and the investor-owners would bear the brunt of these consequences. The decision to displace existing service, rather than being made on the basis of efficiency in the distribution of services, may be made by the municipality in the interest of realizing maximum benefits to itself without regard to extraterritorial impact and regional efficiency.
The second allegation of LP&L’s counterclaim, is that petitioners conspired with others to engage in sham and frivolous litigation against LP&L before various federal agencies and federal courts for the purpose, and with the effect, of delaying approval and construction of LP&L’s proposed nuclear electric generating plant. It is alleged that this course of conduct was designed to deprive LP&L of needed financing and to impose delay costs, amounting to $180 million, which would effectively block construction of the proposed project. Such activity may benefit the citizens of Plaquemine and Lafayette by eliminating a competitive threat to expansion of the municipal utilities in still undeveloped areas beyond the cities’ territorial limits. But that kind of activity, if truly anticompetitive, may impose enormous unnecessary costs on the potential customers of the nuclear generating facility both within and beyond the cities’ proposed area of expansion. In addition, it may cause significant injury to LP&L, interfering with its ability to provide expanded service.
Another aspect of the public-service argument is that because government is subject to political control, the welfare of its citizens is assured through the political process and that federal antitrust regulation is therefore unnecessary. The argument that consumers dissatisfied with the service provided by the municipal utilities may seek redress through the political process is without merit. While petitioners recognize, as they must, that those consumers living outside the municipality who are forced to take municipal service have no political recourse at the municipal level, they argue nevertheless that the customers may take their complaints to the state legislature. It fairly may be questioned whether the consumers in question or the Florida corporation of which LP&L is a subsidiary have a meaningful chance of influencing the state legislature to outlaw on an ad hoc basis whatever anticompetitive practices petitioners may direct against them from time to time. More fundamentally, however, that argument cuts far too broadly; the same argument may be made regarding anticompetitive activity in which any corporation engages. Mulcted consumers and unfairly displaced competitors may always seek redress through the political process. In enacting the Sherman Act, however, Congress mandated competition as the polestar by which all must be guided in ordering their business affairs. It did not leave this fundamental national policy to the vagaries of the political process, but established a broad policy, to be administered by neutral courts, which would guarantee every enterprise the right to exercise “whatever economic muscle it can muster,” United States v. Topco Associates, 405 U. S. 596, 610 (1972), without regard to the amount of influence it might have with local or state legislatures.
In 1972, there were 62,437 different units of local government in this country. Of this number 23,885 were special districts which had a defined goal or goals for the provision of one or several services, while the remaining 38,552 represented the number of counties, municipalities, and townships, most of which have broad authority for general governance subject to limitations in one way or another imposed by the State. These units may, and do, participate in and affect the economic life of this Nation in a great number and variety of ways. When these bodies act as owners and providers of services, they are fully capable of aggrandizing other economic units with which they interrelate, with the potential of serious distortion of the rational and efficient allocation of resources, and the efficiency of free markets which the regime of competition embodied in the antitrust laws is thought to engender. If municipalities were free to make economic choices counseled solely by their own parochial interests and without regard to their anticompetitive effects, a serious chink in the armor of antitrust protection would be introduced at odds with the comprehensive national policy Congress established.
We conclude that these additional arguments for implying an exclusion for local governments from the antitrust laws must be rejected. We therefore turn to petitioners’ principal argument, that “Parker’s findings regarding the congressionally intended scope of the Sherman Act apply with equal force to such political subdivisions.” Brief for Petitioners 5.
II
Plainly petitioners are in error in arguing that Parker held that all governmental entities, whether state agencies or subdivisions of a State, are, simply by reason of their status as such, exempt from the antitrust laws.
Parker v. Brown involved the California Agricultural Prorate Act enacted by the California Legislature as a program to be enforced “through action of state officials... to restrict competition among the growers '[of raisins] and maintain prices in the distribution of their commodities to packers.” 317 U. S., at 346. The Court held that the program was not prohibited by the federal antitrust laws since “nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history... suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature,” id., at 350-351, and “[t]he state... as sovereign, imposed the restraint as an act of government which the Sherman Act did not undertake to prohibit.” Id., at 352.
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773 (1975), underscored the significance of Parker’s holding that the determinant of the exemption was whether the challenged action was “an act of government” by the State as “sovereign.” Parker repeatedly emphasized that the anticompetitive effects of California’s prorate program derived from “the state[’s] command”; the State adopted, organized, and enforced the program “in the execution of a governmental policy.” 317 U. S., at 352. Goldfarb, on the other hand, presented the question “whether a minimum-fee schedule for lawyers published by the Fairfax County Bar Association and enforced by the Virginia State Bar,” 421 U. S., at 775, violated the Sherman Act. Exemption was claimed on the ground that the Virginia State Bar was “a state agency by law.” Id., at 790. The Virginia Legislature had empowered the Supreme Court of Virginia to regulate the practice of law and had assigned the State Bar a role in that regulation as an administrative agency of the Virginia Supreme Court. But no Virginia statute referred to lawyers’ fees and the Supreme Court of Virginia had taken no action requiring the use of and adherence to minimum-fee schedules. Goldfarb therefore held that it could not be said that the anticompetitive effects of minimum-fee schedules were directed by the State acting as sovereign. Id., at 791. The State Bar, though acting within its broad powers, had “voluntarily joined in what is essentially a private anti-competitive activity,” id., at 792, and was not executing the mandate of the State. Thus, the actions of the State Bar had failed to meet “[t]he threshold inquiry in determining if an anticompetitive activity is state action of the type the Sherman Act was not meant to proscribe....” Id., at 790. Goldfarb therefore made it clear that, for purposes of the Parker doctrine, not every act of a state agency is that of the State as sovereign.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977), involved the actions of a state agency to which the Parker exemption applied. Bates considered the applicability of the antitrust laws to a ban on attorney advertising directly imposed by the Arizona Supreme Court. In holding the antitrust laws inapplicable, Bates noted that “[tjhat court is the ultimate body wielding the State’s power over the practice of law, see Ariz. Const., Art. 3; In re Bailey, 30 Ariz. 407, 248 P. 29 (1926), and, thus, the restraint is 'compelled by direction of the State acting as a sovereign.’ ” Id., at 360, quoting Goldfarb, supra, at 791. We emphasized, moreover, the significance to our conclusion of the fact that the state policy requiring the anticompetitive restraint as part of a comprehensive regulatory system, was one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy, and that the State’s policy was actively supervised by the State Supreme Court as the policymaker.
These decisions require rejection of petitioners’ proposition that their status as such automatically affords governmental entities the “state action” exemption. Parker’s limitation of the exemption, as applied by Goldfarb and Bates, to “official action directed by [the] state,” arises from the basis for the “state action” doctrine — that given our “dual system of government in which, under the Constitution, the states are sovereign, save only as Congress may constitutionally subtract from their authority,” 317 U. S., at 351, a congressional purpose to subject to antitrust control the States’ acts of government will not lightly be inferred. To extend that doctrine to municipalities would be inconsistent with that limitation. Cities are not themselves sovereign; they do not receive all the federal deference of the States that create them. See, e. g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 667 n. 12 (1974); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529 (1890) (political subdivisions not protected by Eleventh Amendment from immunity from suit in federal court). Parker’s limitation of the exemption to “official action directed by a state,” 317 U. S., at 351, is consistent with the fact that the States’ subdivisions generally have not been treated as equivalents of the States themselves. In light of the serious economic dislocation which could result if cities were free to place their own parochial interests above the Nation’s economic goals reflected in the antitrust laws, see supra, at 403-408, we are especially unwilling to presume that Congress intended to exclude anticompetitive municipal action from their reach.
On the other hand, the fact that municipalities, simply by their status as such, are not within the Parker doctrine, does not necessarily mean that all of their anticompetitive activities are subject to antitrust restraints. Since “[mjunicipal corporations are instrumentalities of the State for the convenient administration of government within their limits.” Louisiana ex rel. Folsom v. Mayor of New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285, 287 (1883), the actions of municipalities may reflect state policy. We therefore conclude that the Parker doctrine exempts only anticompetitive conduct engaged in as an act of government by the State as sovereign, or, by its subdivisions, pursuant to state policy to displace competition with regulation or monopoly public service. There remains the question whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that further inquiry should be made to determine whether petitioners’ actions were directed by the State.
Ill
The petitioners and our Brother Stewart’s dissent focus their arguments upon the fact that municipalities may exercise the sovereign power of the State, concluding from this that any actions which municipalities take necessarily reflect state policy and must therefore fall within the Parker doctrine. But, the fact that the governmental bodies sued are cities, with substantially less than statewide jurisdiction, has significance. When cities, each of the same status under state law, are equally free to approach a policy decision in their own way, the anticompetitive restraints adopted as policy by any one of them, may express its own preference, rather than that of the State. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the State authorized or directed a given municipality to act as it did, the actions of a particular city hardly can be found to be pursuant to “the state [’s] command,” or to be restraints that “the state... as sovereign” imposed. 317 U. S., at 352. The most that could be said is that state policy may be neutral. To permit municipalities to be shielded from the antitrust laws in such circumstances would impair the goals Congress sought to achieve by those laws, see supra, at 403-408, without furthering the policy underlying the Parker “exemption.” This does not mean, however, that a political subdivision necessarily must be able to point to a specific, detailed legislative authorization before it properly may assert a Parker defense to an antitrust suit. While a subordinate governmental unit’s claim to Parker immunity is not as readily established as the same claim by a state government sued as such, we agree with the Court of Appeals that an adequate state mandate for anticompetitive activities of cities and other subordinate governmental units exists when it is found “from the authority given a governmental entity to operate in a particular area, that the legislature contemplated the kind of action complained of.” 532 F. 2d, at 434.
The Parker doctrine, so understood, preserves to the States their freedom under our dual system of federalism to use their municipalities to administer state regulatory policies free of the inhibitions of the federal antitrust laws without at the same time permitting purely parochial interests to disrupt the Nation’s free-market goals.
Our Brother Stewart’s dissent argues that the result we reach will “greatly... impair the ability of a State to delegate governmental power broadly to its municipalities.” Post, at 438 (footnote omitted). That, with respect, is simply hyperbole. Our decision will render a State no less able to allocate governmental power between itself and its political subdivisions. It means only that when the State itself has not directed or authorized an anticompetitive practice, the State’s subdivisions in exercising their delegated power must obey the antitrust laws. The dissent notwithstanding, it is far too late to argue that a State’s desire to insulate anticompetitive practices not imposed by it as an act of government falls within the Parker doctrine. Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384 (1951). Moreover, by characterizing the Parker exemption as fully applicable to local governmental units simply by virtue of their status as such, the approach taken by the dissent would hold anticompetitive municipal action free from federal antitrust enforcement even when state statutes specifically provide that municipalities shall be subject to the antitrust laws of the United States. See generally La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33:1334 (G) (West Supp. 1977), quoted in n. 44, supra. That result would be a perversion of federalism.
Today’s decision does not threaten the legitimate exercise of governmental power, nor does it preclude municipal government from providing services on a monopoly basis. Parker and its progeny make clear that a State properly may, as States did in Parker and Bates, direct or authorize its instrumentalities to act in a way which, if it did not reflect state policy, would be inconsistent with the antitrust laws. Compare Bates with Goldfarb. True, even a lawful monopolist may be subject to antitrust restraints when it seeks to extend or exploit its monopoly in a manner not contemplated by its authorization. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U. S. 366, 377-382 (1973). But assuming that the municipality is authorized to provide a service on a monopoly basis, these limitations on municipal action will not hobble the execution of legitimate governmental programs.
Affirmed.
See La. Const., Art. 6, §§ 2, 7 (A) (effective Jan. 1, 1975); La. Const., Art. XIV, §40 (d) (1921) (effective prior to Jan. 1, 1975); see generally La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33:621, 33:361, 33:506 (West 1951).
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33:1326 (West 1951); §§ 33:4162, 33:4163 (West 1966).
The complaint named as parties defendant Middle-South Utilities, Inc., a Florida corporation of which LP&L is a subsidiary, Central Louisiana Electric Co-., Inc., and Gulf States Utilities, Louisiana and Texas corporations respectively, engaged in the generation, transmission, and sale of electric power at wholesale and retail in Louisiana.
LP&L does not allege that it directly competes with the city of Lafayette, but does allege that the city of Plaquemine imposed tying arrangements which injured it. See Respondent’s Second Amended Counterclaim, App. 33-34; Affidavit of J. M. Wyatt, Senior Vice President of LP&L, id., at 37.
Petitioners’ complaint charged that the defendants conspired to restrain trade and attempted to monopolize and have monopolized the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric power by preventing the construction and operation of competing utility systems, by improperly refusing to wheel power, by foreclosing supplies from markets served by defendants, by engaging in boycotts against petitioners, and by utilizing sham litigation and other improper means to prevent the financing of construction of electric generation facilities beneficial to petitioners.
The counterclaim, as amended, alleged that the petitioners, together with a nonparty electric cooperative, had conspired to engage in sham litigation against LP&L to prevent the financing with the purpose and effect of delaying or preventing the construction of a nuclear electric-generating plant, to eliminate competition within the municipal boundaries by use of covenants in their respective debentures, to exclude competition in certain markets by using long-term supply agreements, and to displace LP&L in certain areas by requiring customers of LP&L to purchase electricity from petitioners as a condition of continued water and gas service.
Saenz was a treble-damages action by a slide-rule manufacturer who alleged a conspiracy between a state agency, the University Interscholastic League (UIL), its director, and a private competitor of Saenz to effect the rejection of Saenz products for use in interscholastic competition among Texas public schools. In Saenz the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the action against the UIL and its director on the ground that as a state agency and a state official, they were not answerable under the Sherman Act.
The word “exemption” is commonly used by courts as a shorthand expression for Parker’s holding that the Sherman Act was not intended by Congress to prohibit the anticompetitive restraints imposed by California in that case.
In entering its order dismissing the counterclaim, the District Court made an express determination that there was no just reason for delay and expressly directed the entry of judgment for plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b). This action designated the dismissal as a final appealable order. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U. S. 737, 742-743 (1976).
The word “person” or “persons” is used repeatedly in the antitrust statutes. For examples, see 15 U. S. C. § 1 (1976 ed.) (“Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony...”); 15 U. S. C. § 2 (1976 ed.) (“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony...”); 15 U. S. C. § 3 (1976 ed.) (“Every person [making a contract or engaging in a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in any Territory or the District of Columbia] shall be deemed guilty of a felony...”); 15 U. S. C. § 7 (1976 ed.) (defining the word “person” or “persons”); 15 U. S. C. § 8 (1976 ed.) (declaring illegal every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade by persons or corporations engaged in importing articles into the United States, and providing that any person so engaged shall be guilty of a misdemeanor).
Section 8 of the Sherman Act provides in full:
“That the word ‘person/ or ‘persons/ wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.”
Section 8 has remained unchanged since its enactment in 1890.
Section 1 of the Clayton Act defines the word “person” or “persons” in language identical to that of § 8 of the Sherman Act, and it also has remained unchanged since its enactment in 1914.
Section 4 is quoted in full in n. 13, infra.
Section 7 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 210 (1890) (repealed in 1955), provided in full:
“Any person who shah be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover three fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
Section 4 of the Clayton Act provides in full:
“Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether a district court may depart upward from the sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guidelines without first notifying the parties that it intends to depart. We hold that it may not.
I
Petitioner William Burns was employed by the United States Agency for International Development (AID) from 1967 until 1988. Between 1982 and 1988, petitioner used his position as a supervisor in the agency’s Financial Management Section to authorize payment of AID funds into a bank account controlled by him in the name of a fictitious person. During this period, 53 fraudulent payments totaling over $1.2 ■million were paid into the account.
Following the Government’s detection of this scheme, petitioner agreed to plead guilty to a three-count information charging him with theft of Government funds, 18 U. S. C. § 641, making false claims against the Government, 18 U. S. C. § 287, and attempted tax evasion, 26 U. S. C. § 7201. The plea agreement stated the parties’ expectation that petitioner would be sentenced within the Guidelines range corresponding to an offense level of 19 and a criminal history category of I.
The probation officer confirmed this expectation in his presentence report and found the applicable sentencing range to be 30 to 37 months. The report also concluded: “There are no factors that would warrant departure from the guideline sentence.” App. 21. Both petitioner and the Government reviewed the presentence report, and neither party filed any objections to it.
Nonetheless, at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the District Court announced that it was departing upward from the Guidelines sentencing range. The District Court set forth three reasons for the departure: (1) the extensive duration of petitioner’s criminal conduct; (2) the disruption to governmental functions caused by petitioner’s criminal conduct; and (3) petitioner’s use of his tax evasion offense to conceal his theft and false claims offenses. Based upon these considerations, the District Court sentenced petitioner to 60 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, petitioner argued Rules of Criminal Procedure obliged the District Court to furnish advance notice of its intent to depart from the Guidelines. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected petitioner’s contention and affirmed his sentence. The court observed that, although subdivision (a)(1) of Rule 32 requires the district court to afford the parties “an opportunity to comment upon . . . matters relating to the appropriate sentence” at the sentencing hearing, the Rule contains no express language requiring a district court to notify the parties of its intent to make sua sponte departures from the Guidelines. The court determined that it would be inappropriate to impose such a requirement on district courts in the absence of such express statutory language. See 282 U. S. App. D. C. 194, 199, 893 F. 2d 1343, 1348 (1990).
By contrast, several other Rule 32 does require a district court to provide notice of its intent sua sponte to depart upward from an applicable Guidelines sentencing range. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 497 U. S. 1023 (1990). We now reverse.
b — ( l-H
. A
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 revolutionized the manner in which district courts sentence persons convicted of federal crimes. See generally Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 363-367 (1989). Before the Act, Congress was generally content to define broad sentencing ranges, leaving the imposition of sentences within those ranges to the discretion of individual judges, to be exercised on a case-by-case basis. Now, under the “guidelines” system initiated by the Act, district court judges determine sentences based on the various offense-related and offender-related factors identified by the Guidelines of the United States Sentencing Commission. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 8553(a)(4), (b). The purpose of this reform was to eliminate the “unwarranted disparities] and . . . uncertainty” associated with indeterminate sentencing. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 49 (1983). The only circumstance in which the district court can disregard the mechanical dictates of the Guidelines is when it finds “that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission . . . .” 18 U. S. C. § 3553(b).
Procedural reforms, too, were necessary to achieve Congress’ goal of assuring “certainty and fairness” in sentencing. See 28 U. S. C. § 991(b)(1)(B). As the Commission has explained:
“In pre-guidelines practice, factors relevant to sentencing were often determined in an informal fashion. The informality was to some extent explained by the fact that particular offense and offender characteristics rarely had a highly specific or required sentencing consequence. This situation will no longer exist under sentencing guidelines. The court’s resolution of disputed sentencing factors will usually have a measurable effect on the applicable punishment. More formality is therefore unavoidable if the sentencing process is to be accurate and fair. . . . When a reasonable dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination, the court must ensure that the parties have an adequate opportunity to present relevant information.” U. S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual § 6A1.3, official commentary (1990) (emphasis added).
As amended by the Sentencing Reform Act, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 provides for focused, adversarial development of the factual and legal issues relevant to determining the appropriate Guidelines sentence. Rule 32 frames these issues by directing the probation officer to prepare a presentence report addressing all matters germane to the defendant’s sentence. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32(c)(2). At least 10 days before the sentencing, the report must be disclosed to the parties, see Rules 32(c)(3)(A), (C), whom the Guidelines contemplate will then be afforded an opportunity to file responses or objections with the district court, see Guidelines §6A1.2, and official commentary. Finally, Rule 32(a)(1) provides that “[a]t the sentencing hearing, the court [must] afford the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government an opportunity to comment upon the probation officer’s determination and on other matters relating to the appropriate sentence.”
This case involves one aspect of the procedures surrounding Guidelines sentencing: whether the defendant is entitled to notice before the district court departs sua sponte from the Guidelines sentencing range. In the ordinary case, the presentence report or the Government’s own recommendation will notify the defendant that an upward departure will be at issue and of the facts that allegedly support such a departure. Here we deal with the extraordinary case in which the district court, on its own initiative and contrary to the expectations of both the defendant and the Government, decides that the factual and legal predicates for a departure are satisfied. The question before us is whether Congress, in enacting the Sentencing Reform Act, intended that the district court be free to make such a determination without notifying the parties. We believe that the answer to this question is clearly no.
B
As we have set forth, Rule 32 contemplates full adversary testing of the issues relevant to a Guidelines sentence and mandates that the parties be given “an opportunity to comment upon the probation officer’s determination and on other matters relating to the appropriate sentence.” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32(a)(1). Obviously, whether a sua sponte departure from the Guidelines would be legally and factually warranted is a “matte[r] relating to the appropriate sentence.” In our view, it makes no sense to impute to Congress an intent that a defendant have the right to comment on the appropriateness of a sua sponte departure but not the right to be notified that the court is contemplating such a ruling.
In arguing that Rule 32 does not contemplate notice in such a situation, the Government derives decisive meaning from congressional silence. Rule 32(c)(3)(A), the Government observes, expressly obliges the district court to give the parties’ 10 days’ notice of the contents of the presentence report. Because Rule 32 does not contain a like provision expressly obliging the district court to announce that it is contemplating to depart sua sponte, the Government concludes that Congress must have intended to deny the parties any right to notice in this setting.
We find the Government’s analysis unconvincing. As one court has aptly put it, “[n]ot every silence is pregnant.” State of Illinois Dept. of Public Aid v. Schweiker, 707 F. 2d 273, 277 (CA7 1983). In some cases, Congress intends silence to rule out a particular statutory application, while in others Congress’ silence signifies merely an expectation that nothing more need be said in order to effectuate the relevant legislative objective. An inference drawn from congressional silence certainly cannot be credited when it is contrary to all other textual and contextual evidence of congressional intent.
Here the textual and contextual evidence of legislative intent indicates that Congress did not intend district courts to depart from the Guidelines sua sponte without first affording notice to the parties. Such a reading is contrary to the text of Rule 32(a)(1) because it renders meaningless the parties’ express right “to comment upon . . . matters relating to the appropriate sentence. ” “Th[e] right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed” that a decision is contemplated. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950). This is especially true when the decision in question is a sua sponte departure under the Guidelines. Because the Guidelines place essentially no limit on the number of potential factors that may warrant a departure, see, e. g., Guidelines ch. 1, pt. A4(b), no one is in a position to guess when or on what grounds a district court might depart, much less to “comment” on such a possibility in a coherent way. The Government’s construction of congressional “silence” would thus render what Congress has expressly said absurd. Cf. Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S. 504, 527 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (when “confronted . . . with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional result[,] [o]ur task is to give some alternative meaning [to the statute] . . . that avoids this consequence”).
The inference that the Government asks us to draw from silence also is inconsistent with Rule 32’s purpose of promoting focused, adversarial resolution of the legal and factual issues relevant to fixing Guidelines sentences. At best, under the Government’s rendering of Rule 32, parties will address possible sua sponte departures in a random and wasteful way by trying to anticipate and negate every conceivable ground on which the district court might choose to depart on its own initiative. At worst, and more likely, the parties will not even try to anticipate such a development; where neither the presentence report nor the attorney for the Government has suggested a ground for upward departure, defense counsel might be reluctant to suggest such a possibility to the district court, even for the purpose of rebutting it. In every case in which the parties fail to anticipate an unannounced and uninvited departure by the district court, a critical sentencing determination will go untested by the adversarial process contemplated by Rule 32 and the Guidelines.
Lastly, the meaning that the Government attaches to Congress’ silence in Rule 32 is completely opposite to the meaning that this Court has attached to silence in a variety of analogous settings. Notwithstanding the absence of express statutory language, this Court has readily construed statutes that authorize deprivations of liberty or property to require that the Government give affected individuals both notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U. S. 90, 107-108 (1946) (statute permitting Securities and Exchange Commission to order corporate dissolution); The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 99-101 (1903) (statute permitting exclusion of aliens seeking to enter United States). The Court has likewise inferred other statutory protections essential to assuring procedural fairness. See Kent v. United States, 383 U. S. 541, 557 (1966) (right to full, adversary-style representation in juvenile transfer proceedings); Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 495-508 (1959) (right to confront adverse witnesses and evidence in security-clearance revocation proceedings); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 48-51 (1950) (right to formal hearing in deportation proceedings).
In this case, were we to read tice, we would then have to confront the serious question whether notice in this setting is mandated by the Due Process Clause. Because Rule 32 does not clearly state that a district court sua sponte may depart upward from an applicable Guidelines sentencing range without providing notice to the defendant we decline to impute such an intention to Congress. See, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988) (“[W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress”).
Ill
We hold that before a district court can depart upward on a ground not identified as a ground for upward departure either in the presentence report or in a prehearing submission by the Government, Rule 32 requires that the district court give the parties reasonable notice that it is contemplating such a ruling. This notice must specifically identify the ground on which the district court is contemplating an upward departure.
Petitioner did not receive the notice to which he was entitled under Rule 32. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
See, e. g., United States v. Palta, 880 F. 2d 636, 640 (CA2 1989); United States v. Nuno-Para, 877 F. 2d 1409, 1415 (CA9 1989); United States v. Otero, 868 F. 2d 1412, 1415 (CA5 1989).
Pursuant to Rule 32(c)(2), the presentenee report is to contain (a) information about the history and characteristics of the defendant, including his prior criminal record; (b) the classification of the offense and the defendant under the Sentencing Guidelines, possible sentencing ranges, and any factors that might warrant departure from the Guidelines; (c) any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (d) the impact of the defendant’s offense upon any victims; (e) information relating to possible sentences not requiring incarceration, unless the court orders otherwise; and (f) any other information requested by the court.
District courts have generally implemented this directive through local rules that allow the parties to file objections to the presentence report in advance of the sentencing hearing and that require the probation officer to respond to those objections. See, e. g., U. S. Dist. Ct. for the MD Ala. Rules 33(a)—(c); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the D DC Rules 311(a)-(c); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the ND Fla. Gen. Rules 23(b)—(d); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the ND Ill. Crim. Rules 2.06(g)—(i); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the ED-MD-WD La. Rules 16M(a)-(c); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the D. Minn. Rules 83.10(c)-(d); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the EDNC Rules 50.03-50.05; U. S. Dist. Ct. for the ND Ohio Crim. Rules 10.05(2)(b)-(d); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the WD Okla. Rules 42(E)(1)—(3); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the ED Tenn. Rules 27.3-27.5; U. S. Dist. Ct. for the ND Tex. Rules 10.9(b)—(e); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the WD Va. Rules 14(1)—(3); U. S. Dist. Ct. for the D. Wyo. Rules 219(c)—(f).
It is equally appropriate to frame the issue as whether the parties are entitled to notice before the district court departs upward or downward from the Guidelines range. Under Rule 32, it is clear that the defendant and the Government enjoy equal procedural entitlements.
If the Government makes the recommendation in writing, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(a) requires that it be served upon the defendant.
Because the question of the timing of the reasonable notice required by Rule 32 is not before us, we express no opinion on that issue. Rather, we leave it to the lower courts, which, of course, remain free to adopt appropriate procedures by local rule. See Guidelines § 6A1.2, and official commentary (“Courts should adopt procedures to provide for . . . the narrowing and resolution, where feasible, of issues in dispute in advance of the sentencing hearing”). See also n. 3, supm (listing local rules established to govern resolution of objections to findings in presentenee report).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut under two indictments which charged violations of the federal wagering tax statutes. The first indictment averred that petitioner and others conspired to evade payment of the annual occupational tax imposed by 26 U. S. C. § 4411. The second indictment included two counts: the first alleged a willful failure to pay the occupational tax, and the second a willful failure to register, as required by 26 U. S. C. § 4412, before engaging in the business of accepting wagers.
After verdict, petitioner unsuccessfully sought to arrest judgment, in part on the basis that the statutory obligations to register and to pay the occupational tax violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, 352 F. 2d 848, on the authority of United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, and Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419.
We granted certiorari to re-examine the constitutionality under the Fifth Amendment of the pertinent provisions of the wagering tax statutes, and more particularly to consider whether Kahriger and Lewis still have vitality. 383 U. S. 942. For reasons which follow, we have concluded that these provisions may not be employed to punish criminally those persons who have defended a failure to comply with their requirements with a proper assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. The judgment below is accordingly reversed.
I.
The provisions in issue here are part of an interrelated statutory system for taxing wagers. The system is broadly as follows. Section 4401 of Title 26 imposes upon those engaged in the business of accepting wagers an excise tax of 10% on the gross amount of all wagers they accept, including the value of chances purchased in lotteries conducted for profit. Parimutuel wagering enterprises, coin-operated devices, and state-conducted sweepstakes are expressly excluded from taxation. 26 U. S. C. §4402 (1964 ed., Supp. II). Section 4411 imposes in addition an occupational tax of $50 annually, both upon those subject to taxation under § 4401 and upon those who receive wagers on their behalf.
The taxes are supplemented by ancillary provisions calculated to assure their collection. In particular, § 4412 requires those liable for the occupational tax to register each year with the director of their local internal revenue district. The registrants must submit Internal Revenue Service Form 11-C, and upon it must provide their residence and business addresses, must indicate whether they are engaged in the business of accepting wagers, and must list the names and addresses of their agents and employees. The statutory obligations to register and to pay the occupational tax áre essentially inseparable elements of a single registration procedure; Form 11-C thus constitutes both the application for registration and the return for the occupational tax.
In addition, registrants are obliged to post the revenue stamps which denote payment of the occupational tax “conspicuously” in their principal places of business, or, if they lack such places, to keep the stamps on their persons, and to exhibit them upon demand to any Treasury officer. 26 U. S'. C. § 6806 (c). They are required to preserve daily records indicating the gross amount of the wagers as to which they are liable for taxation, and to permit inspection of their books of account. 26 U. S. C. §§ 4403, 4423. Moreover, each principal internal revenue office is instructed to maintain for public inspection a listing of all who have paid the occupational tax, and to provide certified copies of the listing upon request to any state or local prosecuting officer. 26 U. S. C. § 6107. Finally, payment of the wagering taxes is declared not to “exempt any person from any penalty provided by a law of the United States or of any State for engaging” in any taxable activity. 26 U. S. C. § 4422.
II.
The issue before us is not whether the United States may tax activities which a State or Congress has declared unlawful. The Court has repeatedly indicated that the unlawfulness of an activity does not prevent its taxation, and nothing that follows is intended to limit or diminish the vitality of those cases. See, e. g., License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462. The issue is instead whether the methods employed by Congress in the federal wagering tax statutes are, in this situation, consistent with the limitations created by the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. We must for this purpose first examine the implications of these statutory provisions.
Wagering and its ancillary activities are very widely prohibited under both federal and state law. Federal statutes impose criminal penalties upon the interstate transmission of wagering information, 18 U. S. C. § 1084; upon interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises, defined to include gambling, 18 U. S. C. § 1952; upon lotteries conducted through use of the mails or broadcasting, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1301-1304; and upon the interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia, 18 U. S. C. § 1953.
State and local enactments are more comprehensive. The laws of every State, except Nevada, include broad prohibitions against gambling, wagering, and associated activities. Every State forbids, with essentially minor and carefully circumscribed exceptions, lotteries. Even Nevada, which permits many forms of gambling, retains criminal penalties upon lotteries and certain other wagering activities taxable under these statutes. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.603, 462.010-462.080, 465.010 (1957).
Connecticut, in which petitioner allegedly conducted his activities, has adopted a variety of measures for the punishment of gambling and wagering. It punishes “[a]ny person, whether as principal, agent or servant, who owns, possesses, keeps, manages, maintains or occupies” premises employed for purposes of wagering or pool selling. Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 53-295 (1958). It imposes criminal penalties upon any person who possesses, keeps, or maintains premises in which policy playing occurs, or lotteries are conducted, and upon any person who becomes the custodian of books, property, appliances, or apparatus employed for wagering. Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 53-298 (1958). See also §§ 53-273, 53-290, 53-293. It provides additional penalties for those who conspire to organize or conduct unlawful wagering activities. Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 54 — 197 (1958). Every aspect of petitioner’s wagering activities thus subjected him to possible state or federal prosecution. By any standard, in Connecticut and throughout the United States, wagering is “an area permeated with criminal statutes,” and those engaged in wagering are a group “inherently suspect of criminal activities.” Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 79.
Information obtained as a consequence of the federal wagering tax laws is readily available to assist the efforts of state and federal authorities to enforce these penalties. Section 6107 of Title 26 requires the principal internal revenue offices to provide to prosecuting officers a listing of those who have paid the occupational tax. Section 6806 (c) obliges taxpayers either to post the revenue stamp “conspicuously” in their principal places of business, or to keep it on their persons, and to produce it on the demand of Treasury officers. Evidence of the possession of a federal wagering tax stamp, or of payment of the wagering taxes, has often been admitted at trial in state and federal prosecutions for gambling offenses; such evidence has doubtless proved useful even more frequently to lead prosecuting authorities to other evidence upon which convictions have subsequently been obtained. Finally, we are obliged to notice that a former Commissioner of Internal Revenue has acknowledged that the Service “makes available” to law enforcement agencies the names and addresses of those who have paid the wagering taxes, and that it is in “full cooperation” with the efforts of the Attorney General of the United States to suppress organized gambling. Caplin, The Gambling Business and Federal Taxes, 8 Crime & Delin. 371, 372, 377.
In these circumstances, it can scarcely be denied that the obligations to register and to pay the occupational tax created for petitioner “real and appreciable,” and not merely “imaginary and unsubstantial,” hazards of self-incrimination. Reg. v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 330; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 599-600; Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 374. Petitioner was confronted by a comprehensive system of federal and state prohibitions against wagering activities; he was required, on pain of criminal prosecution, to provide information which he might reasonably suppose would be available to prosecuting authorities, and which would surely prove a significant “link in a chain” of evidence tending to establish his guilt. Unlike the income tax return in question in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259, every portion of these requirements had the direct and unmistakable consequence of incriminating petitioner; the application of the constitutional privilege to the entire registration procedure was in this instance neither “extreme” nor “extravagant.” See id., at 263. It would appear to follow that petitioner’s assertion of the privilege as a defense to this prosecution was entirely proper, and accordingly should have sufficed to prevent his conviction.
Nonetheless, this Court has twice concluded that the privilege against self-incrimination may not appropriately be asserted by those in petitioner’s circumstances. United States v. Kahriger, supra; Lewis v. United States, supra. We must therefore consider whether those cases have continuing force in light of our more recent decisions. Moreover, we must also consider the relevance of certain collateral lines of authority; in particular, we must determine whether either the “required records” doctrine, Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, or restrictions placed upon the use by prosecuting authorities of information obtained as a consequence of the wagering taxes, cf. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52, should be utilized to preclude assertion of the constitutional privilege in this situation. To these questions we turn.
III.
The Court's opinion in Kahriger suggested that a defendant under indictment for willful failure to register under § 4412 cannot properly challenge the constitutionality under the Fifth Amendment of the registration requirement. For this point, the Court relied entirely upon Mr. Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court in United States v. Sullivan, supra. The taxpayer in Sullivan was convicted of willful failure to file an income tax return, despite his contention that the return would have obliged him to admit violations of the National Prohibition Act. The Court affirmed the conviction, and rejected the taxpayer’s claim of the privilege. It concluded that most of the return’s questions would not have compelled the taxpayer to make incriminating disclosures, and that it would have been “an extreme if not an extravagant application” of the privilege to permit him to draw within it the entire return. 274 U. S., at 263.
The Court in Sullivan was evidently concerned, first, that the claim before it was an unwarranted extension of the scope of the privilege, and, second, that to accept a claim of privilege not asserted at the time the return was due would “make the taxpayer rather than a tribunal the final arbiter of the merits of the claim.” Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 79. Neither reason suffices to prevent this petitioner’s assertion of the privilege. The first is, as we have indicated, inapplicable, and we find the second unpersuasive in this situation. Every element of these requirements would have served to incriminate petitioner; to have required him to present his claim to Treasury officers would have obliged him “to prove guilt to avoid admitting it.” United States v. Kahriger, supra, at 34 (concurring opinion). In these circumstances, we cannot conclude that his failure to assert the privilege to Treasury officials at the moment the tax payments were due irretrievably abandoned his constitutional protection. Petitioner is under sentence for violation of statutory requirements which he consistently asserted at and after trial to be unconstitutional; no more can here be required.
The Court held in Lewis that the registration and occupational tax requirements do not infringe the constitutional privilege because they do not compel self-incrimination, but merely impose on the gambler the initial choice of whether he wishes, at the cost of his constitutional privilege, to commence wagering activities. The Court reasoned that even if the required disclosures might prove incriminating, the gambler need not register or pay the occupational tax if only he elects to cease, or never to begin, gambling. There is, the Court said, “no constitutional right to gamble.” 348 U. S., at 423.
We find this reasoning no longer persuasive. The question is not whether petitioner holds a “right” to violate state law, but whether, having done so, he may be compelled to give evidence against himself. The constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent as well as the innocent and foresigh ted; if such an inference of antecedent choice were alone enough to abrogate the privilege’s protection, it would be excluded from the situations in which it has historically been guaranteed, and withheld from those who most require it. Such inferences, bottomed on what must ordinarily be a fiction, have precisely the infirmities which the Court has found in other circumstances in which implied or uninformed waivers of the privilege have been said to have occurred. See, e. g., Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506. Compare Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458; and Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60. To give credence to such “waivers” without the most deliberate examination of the circumstances surrounding them would ultimately license widespread erosion of the privilege through “ingeniously drawn legislation/’ Morgan, The Privilege against Self-Incrimination, 34 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 37. We cannot agree that the constitutional privilege is meaningfully waived merely because those “inherently suspect of criminal activities” have been commanded either to cease wagering or to provide information incriminating to themselves, and have ultimately elected to do neither.
The Court held in both Kahriger and Lewis that the registration and occupational tax requirements are entirely prospective in their application, and that the constitutional privilege, since it offers protection only as to past and present acts, is accordingly unavailable. This reasoning appears to us twice deficient: first, it overlooks the hazards here of incrimination as to past or present acts; and second, it is hinged upon an excessively narrow view of the scope of the constitutional privilege.
Substantial hazards of incrimination as to past or present acts plainly may stem from the requirements to register and to pay the occupational tax. See generally McKee, The Fifth Amendment and the Federal Gambling Tax, 5 Duke B. J. 86. In the first place, satisfaction of those requirements increases the likelihood that any past or present gambling offenses will be discovered and successfully prosecuted. It both centers attention upon the registrant as a gambler, and compels “injurious disclosure [s]” which may provide or assist in the collection of evidence admissible in a prosecution for past or present offenses. These offenses need not include actual gambling; they might involve only the custody or transportation of gambling paraphernalia, or other preparations for future gambling. Further, the acquisition of a federal gambling tax stamp, requiring as it does the declaration of a present intent to commence gambling activities, obliges even a prospective gambler to accuse himself of conspiracy to violate either state gambling prohibitions, or federal laws forbidding the use of interstate facilities for gambling purposes. See, e. g., Acklen v. State, 196 Tenn. 314, 267 S. W. 2d 101.
There is a second, and more fundamental, deficiency in the reasoning of Kahriger and Lewis. Its linchpin is plainly the premise that the privilege is entirely inapplicable to prospective acts; for this the Court in Kahriger could vouch as authority only a generalization at 8 Wig-more, Evidence § 2259c (3d ed. 1940). We see no warrant for so rigorous a constraint upon the constitutional privilege. History, to be sure, offers no ready illustrations of the privilege’s application to prospective acts, but the occasions on which such claims might appropriately have been made must necessarily have been very infrequent. We are, in any event, bid to view the constitutional commands as “organic living institutions,” whose significance is “vital not formal.” Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, 610.
The central standard for the privilege’s application has been whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and “real,” and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination. Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 374; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 600. This principle does not permit the rigid chronological distinction adopted in Kahriger and 'Lewis. We see no reason to suppose that the force of the constitutional prohibition is diminished merely because confession of a guilty purpose precedes the act which it is subsequently employed to evidence. Yet, if the factual situations in which the privilege may be claimed were inflexibly defined by a chronological formula, the policies which the constitutional privilege is intended to serve could easily be evaded. Moreover, although prospective acts will doubtless ordinarily involve only speculative and insubstantial risks of incrimination, this will scarcely always prove true. As we shall show, it is not true here. We conclude that it is not mere time to which the law must look, but the substantiality of the risks of incrimination.
The hazards of incrimination created by §§4411 and 4412 as to future acts are not trifling or imaginary. Prospective registrants can reasonably expect that registration and payment of the occupational tax will significantly enhance the likelihood of their prosecution for future acts, and that it will readily provide evidence which will facilitate their convictions. Indeed, they can reasonably fear that registration, and acquisition of a wagering tax stamp, may serve as decisive evidence that they have in fact subsequently violated state gambling prohibitions. Compare Ala. Code, Tit. 14, §§ 302 (8)-(10) (1958); Ga. Code Ann. § 26-6413 (Supp. 1967). Insubstantial claims of the privilege as to entirely prospective acts may certainly be asserted, but such claims are not here, and they need only be considered when a litigant has the temerity to pursue them.
We conclude that nothing in the Court’s opinions in Kahriger and Lewis now suffices to preclude petitioner’s assertion of the constitutional privilege as a defense to the indictments under which he was convicted. To this extent Kahriger and Lewis are overruled.
IY.
We must next consider the relevance in this situation of the “required records” doctrine, Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1. It is necessary first to summarize briefly the circumstances in Shapiro. Petitioner, a wholesaler of fruit and produce, was obliged by a regulation issued under the authority of the Emergency Price Control Act to keep and “preserve for examination” various records “of the same kind as he has customarily kept....” Maximum Price Regulation 426, § 14, 8 Fed. Reg. 9546, 9548-9549 (1943). He was subsequently directed by an administrative subpoena to produce certain of these records before attorneys of the Office of Price Administration. Petitioner complied, but asserted his constitutional privilege. In a prosecution for violations of the Price Control Act, petitioner urged that the records had facilitated the collection of evidence against him, and claimed immunity from prosecution under § 202 (g) of the Act, 56 Stat. 30. Petitioner was nonetheless convicted, and his conviction was affirmed. 159 E. 2d 890.
On certiorari, this Court held both that § 202 (g) did not confer immunity upon petitioner, and that he could not properly claim the protection of the privilege as to records which he was required by administrative regulation to preserve. On the second question, the Court relied upon the cases which have held that a custodian of public records may not assert the privilege as to those records, and reiterated a dictum in Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361, 380, suggesting that “the privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be maintained in relation to ‘records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation and the enforcement of restrictions validly estab-lushed.’ ” 335 U. S., at 33. The Court considered that “it cannot be doubted” that the records in question had “public aspects,” and thus held that petitioner, as their custodian, could not properly assert the privilege as to them. Id., at 34.
We think that neither Shapiro nor the cases upon which it relied are applicable here. Compare generally Note, Required Information and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination, 65 Col. L. Rev. 681; and McKay, Self-Incrimination and the New Privacy, 1967 Sup. Ct. Rev. 193, 214r-217. Moreover, we find it unnecessary for present purposes to pursue in detail the question, left unanswered in Shapiro, of what “limits... the Government cannot constitutionally exceed in requiring the keeping of records....” 335 U. S., at 32. It is enough that there are significant points of difference between the situations here and in Shapiro which in this instance preclude, under any formulation, an appropriate application of the “required records” doctrine.
Each of the three principal elements of the doctrine, as it is described in Shapiro, is absent from this situation. First, petitioner Marchetti was not, by the provisions now at issue, obliged to keep and preserve records “of the same kind as he has customarily kept”; he was required simply to provide information, unrelated to any records which he may have maintained, about his wagering activities. This requirement is not significantly different from a demand that he provide oral testimony. Compare McKay, supra, at 221. Second, whatever “public aspects” there were to the records at issue in Shapiro, there are none to the information demanded from Marchetti. The Government’s anxiety to obtain information known to a private individual does not without more render that information public; if it did, no room would remain for the application of the constitutional privilege. Nor does it stamp information with a public character that the Government has formalized its demands in the attire of a statute; if this alone were sufficient, the constitutional privilege could be entirely abrogated by any Act of Congress. Third, the requirements at issue in Shapiro were imposed in “an essentially non-criminal and regulatory area of inquiry” while those here are directed to a “selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities.” Cf. Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 79. The United States’ principal interest is evidently the collection of revenue, and not the punishment of gamblers, see United States v. Calamaro, 354 U. S. 351, 358; but the characteristics of the activities about which information is sought, and the composition of the groups to which inquiries are made, readily distinguish this situation from that in Shapiro. There is no need to explore further the elements and limitations of Shapiro and the cases involving public papers; these points of difference in combination preclude any appropriate application of those cases to the present one.'
y.
Finally, we have been urged by the United States to permit continued enforcement of the registration and occupational tax provisions, despite the demands of the constitutional privilege, by shielding the privilege’s claimants through the imposition of restrictions upon the use by federal and state authorities of information obtained as a consequence of compliance with the wagering tax requirements. It is suggested that these restrictions might be similar to those imposed by the Court in Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52.
The Constitution of course obliges this Court to give full recognition to the taxing powers and to measures reasonably incidental to. their exercise. But we are equally obliged to give full effect to the constitutional restrictions which attend the exercise of those powers. We do not, as we have said, doubt Congress’ power to tax activities which are, wholly or in part, unlawful. Nor can it be doubted that the privilege against self-incrimination may not properly be asserted if other protection is granted which “is so broad as to have the same extent in scope and effect” as the privilege itself. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 585. The Government’s suggestion is thus in principle an attractive and apparently practical resolution of the difficult problem before us. Compare Mansfield, The Albertson Case: Conflict Between the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and the Government’s Need for Information, 1966 Sup. Ct. Rev. 103, 159; and McKay, supra, at 232. Nonetheless, we think that it would be entirely inappropriate in the circumstances here for the Court to impose such restrictions.
The terms of the wagering tax system make quite plain that Congress intended information obtained as a consequence of registration and payment of the occupational tax to be provided to interested prosecuting authorities. See 26 U. S. C. § 6107. This has evidently been the consistent practice of the Revenue Service. We must therefore assume that the imposition of use-restrictions would directly preclude effectuation of a significant element of Congress’ purposes in adopting the wagering taxes. Moreover, the imposition of such restrictions would necessarily oblige state prosecuting authorities to establish in each case that their evidence was untainted by any connection with information obtained as a consequence of the wagering taxes; the federal requirements would thus be protected only at the cost of hampering, perhaps seriously, enforcement of state prohibitions against gambling. We cannot know how Congress would assess the competing demands of the federal treasury and of state gambling prohibitions; we are, however, entirely certain that the Constitution has entrusted to Congress, and not to this Court, the task of striking an appropriate balance among such values. We therefore must decide that it would be improper for the Court to impose restrictions of the kind urged by the United States.
VI.
We are fully cognizant of the importance for the United States’ various fiscal and regulatory functions of timely and accurate information, compare Mansfield, supra, and Meltzer, Required Records, the McCarran Act, and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination, 18 U. Chi. L. Rev. 687; but other methods, entirely consistent with constitutional limitations, exist by which Congress may obtain such information. See generally Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra, at 585; compare Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, supra. Accordingly, nothing we do today will prevent either the taxation or the regulation by Congress of activities otherwise made unlawful by state or federal statutes.
Nonetheless, we can only conclude, under the wagering tax system as presently written, that petitioner properly asserted the privilege against self-incrimination, and that his assertion should have provided a complete defense to this prosecution. This defense should have reached both the substantive counts for failure to register and to pay the occupational tax, and the count for conspiracy to evade payment of the tax. We emphasize that we do not hold that these wagering tax provisions are as such constitutionally impermissible; we hold only that those who properly assert the constitutional privilege as to these provisions may not be criminally punished for failure to comply with their requirements. If, in different circumstances, a taxpayer is not confronted by substantial hazards of self-incrimination, or if he is otherwise outside the privilege’s protection, nothing we decide today would shield him from the various penalties prescribed by the wagering tax statutes.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, see post, p. 72.]
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, see post, p. 76.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Warren, see post, p. 77.]
Certiorari was originally granted in Costello v. United States, 383 U. S. 942, to consider these issues. Upon Costello’s death, certiorari was granted in the present ease. 385 U. S. 1000. Mar-chetti and Costello, with others, were convicted at the same trial of identical offenses, arising from the same series of transactions. Certiorari both here and in Costello was limited to the following questions: “Do not the federal wagering tax statutes here involved violate the petitioner’s privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment? Should not this Court, especially in view of its recent decision in Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U. S. 70 (1965), overrule United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22 (1953), and Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419 (1955)?” After argument, the case was restored to the calendar, and set for reargument at the 1967 Term. 388 U. S. 903. Counsel were asked to argue, in addition to the original questions, the following: “(1) What relevance, if any, has the required records doctrine, Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, to the validity under the Fifth Amendment of the registration and special occupational tax requirements of 26 U. S. C. §§4411, 4412? (2) Can an obligation to pay the special occupational tax required by 26 U. S. C. § 4411 be satisfied without filing the registration statement provided for by 26 U. S. C. §4412?”
A July 1963 revision of Form 11-C modified the form of certain of its questions. The record does not indicate which version of the return was available to petitioner at the time of the omissions for which he was convicted. The minor verbal variations between the two do not affect the result which we reach today.
The Treasury Regulations provide that a stamp, evidencing payment of the occupational tax, may not be issued unless the taxpayer both submits Form 11-C and tenders the full amount of the tax. 26 CFR §44.4901-1 (c). Accordingly, the Revenue Service has refused to accept the $50 tax unless it is accompanied by the completed registration form; and it has consistently been upheld in that practice. See United States v. Whiting, 311 F. 2d 191; United States v. Mungiole, 233 F. 2d 204; Combs v. Snyder, 101 F. Supp. 531, aff’d, 342 U. S. 939. The United States has in this case acknowledged that the registration and occupational tax provisions are not realistically severable. Brief on Reargument 37-41.
In his trial testimony in Grosso v. United States, decided herewith, post, p. 62, W. Dean Struble, technical advisor to the District Director of Internal Revenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, described Form 11-C as follows: “A Form 11-C serves two purposes. The first is an application for registry for a wagering tax stamp. After the application is properly filed and the tax paid, at that time the Form 11-C becomes a special tax return.” Transcript of Record 90.
The following illustrate the state gambling and wagering statutes under which one engaged in activities taxable under the federal provisions at issue here might incur criminal penalties. Ala. Code, Tit. 14, c. 46 (1958); Alaska Laws, Tit. 65, e. 13 (1949); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-438 (1956); Ark. Stat. Ann., Tit. 41, e. 20 (1947); Cal. Pen. Code §§ 330-337a (1956); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann., c. 40, Art. 10 (1963); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 665-669 (1953); D. C. Code Ann. §§ 22-1504 to 22-1511 (1967); Fla. Stat., c. 849 (1965); Ga. Code Ann., c. 26-64 (1953); Hawaii Rev. Laws, e. 288 (1955); Idaho Code Ann., Tit. 18, c. 38 (1948); Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, Art. 28 (1965); Ind. Ann. Stat., Tit. 10, e. 23 (1956); Iowa Code, e. 726 (1966); Kan. Stat. Ann., c. 21, Art. 15 (1964); Ky. Rev. Stat. §436.200 (1962); La. Rev. Stat. § 14:90 (1950); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17, c. 61 (1964); Md. Ann. Code, Art, 27, §§237-242 (1957); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., c. 271 (1959); Mich. Stat. Ann. §28.533 (1954); Minn. Stat. §609.755 (1965); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 2190-2202 (1942); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.350 (1959); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann., Tit. 94, c. 24 (1947); Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-941 (1943); Nev. Rev. Stat. §§293.603, 465.010 (1957); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann., e. 577 (1955); N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 2A, c. 112 (1953); N. M. Stat. Ann., c. 40A, Art. 19 (1953); N. Y. Pen. Law, Art. 225 (1967); N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14 — 292 to 14-295 (1953); N. D. Cent. Code Ann., c. 12-23 (1959); Ohio Rev. Code Ann., c. 2915 (1953); Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21, c. 38 (1958); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 167.505 (1965); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §§ 4603-4607 (1963); R. I. Gen. Laws Ann., Tit. 11, c. 19 (1956); S. C. Code Ann., Tit. 16, c. 8, Art. 1 (1962); S. D. Code, Tit. 24, c. 24.01 (1939); Tenn. Code Ann., Tit. 39, c. 20 (1955); Tex. Pen. Code Ann., c. 6 (1952); Utah Code Ann., Tit. 76, c. 27 (1953); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, c. 43, subch. 2 (1959); Va. Code Ann., Tit. 18.1, c. 7,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
We here consider the scope of a prosecutor’s absolute immunity from claims asserted under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976). We ask whether that immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material, see Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to all these claims.
I
In 1998, respondent Thomas Goldstein (then a prisoner) filed a habeas corpus action in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. He claimed that in 1980 he was convicted of murder; that his conviction depended in critical part upon the testimony of Edward Floyd Fink, a jailhouse informant; that Fink’s testimony was unreliable, indeed false; that Fink had previously received reduced sentences for providing prosecutors with favorable testimony in other cases; that at least some prosecutors in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office knew about the favorable treatment; that the office had not provided Gold-stein’s attorney with that information; and that, among other things, the prosecution’s failure to provide Goldstein’s attorney with this potential impeachment information had led to his erroneous conviction. Goldstein v. Long Beach, 481 F. 3d 1170, 1171-1172 (CA9 2007).
After an evidentiary hearing the District Court agreed with Goldstein that Fink had not been truthful and that if the prosecution had told Goldstein’s lawyer that Fink had received prior rewards in return for favorable testimony it might have made a difference. The court ordered the State either to grant Goldstein a new trial or to release him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s determination. And the State decided that, rather than retry Gold-stein (who had already served 24 years of his sentence), it would release him. App. 54-55, 59-60.
Upon his release Goldstein filed this § 1983 action against petitioners, the former Los Angeles County district attorney and chief deputy district attorney. Goldstein’s complaint (which for present purposes we take as accurate) asserts in relevant part that the prosecution’s failure to communicate to his attorney the facts about Fink’s earlier testimony-related rewards violated the prosecution’s constitutional duty to “insure communication of all relevant information on each case [including agreements made with informants] to every lawyer who deals with it.” Giglio, supra, at 154. Moreover, it alleges that this failure resulted from the failure of petitioners (the office’s chief supervisory attorneys) adequately to train and to supervise the prosecutors who worked for them as well as their failure to establish an information system about informants. And it asks for damages based upon these training, supervision, and information-system related failings.
Petitioners, claiming absolute immunity from such a § 1983 action, asked the District Court to dismiss the complaint. See Imbler, supra. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the conduct asserted amounted to “administrative,” not “prosecutorial,” conduct; hence it fell outside the scope of the prosecutor’s absolute immunity to §1983 claims. The Ninth Circuit, considering petitioners’ claim on an interlocutory appeal, affirmed the District Court’s “no immunity” determination. We now review the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and we reverse its determination.
II
Over a half century ago Chief Judge Learned Hand explained that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity reflects “a balance” of “evils.” Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949). “[I]t has been thought in the end better,” he said, “to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation.” Ibid. In Imbler, supra, this Court considered prosecutorial actions that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Id., at 430. And, referring to Chief Judge Hand’s views, it held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability in §1983 lawsuits brought under such circumstances. Id., at 428.
The § 1983 action at issue was that of a prisoner freed on a writ of habeas corpus who subsequently sought damages from his former prosecutor. His action, like the action now before us, tracked the claims that a federal court had found valid when granting his habeas corpus petition. In particular, the prisoner claimed that the trial prosecutor had permitted a fingerprint expert to give false testimony, that the prosecutor was responsible for the expert’s having suppressed important evidence, and that the prosecutor had introduced a misleading artist’s sketch into evidence. Id., at 416.
In concluding that the prosecutor was absolutely immune, the Court pointed out that legislators have long “enjoyed absolute immunity for their official actions,” id., at 417; that the common law granted immunity to “judges and ... jurors acting within the scope of their duties,” id., at 423; and that the law had also granted prosecutors absolute immunity from common-law tort actions, say, those underlying a “decision to initiate a prosecution,” id., at 421. The Court then held that the “same considerations of public policy that underlie” a prosecutor’s common-law immunity “countenance absolute immunity under § 1983.” Id., at 424. Those considerations, the Court said, arise out of the general common-law “concern that harassment by unfounded litigation” could both “cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies from his public duties” and also lead the prosecutor to “shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust.” Id., at 423.
Where § 1983 actions are at issue, the Court said, both sets of concerns are present and serious. The “public trust of the prosecutor’s office would suffer” were the prosecutor to have in mind his “own potential” damages “liability” when making prosecutorial decisions — as he might well were he subject to § 1983 liability. Id., at 424. This is no small concern, given the frequency with which criminal defendants bring such suits, id., at 425 (“[A] defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State’s advocate”), and the “substantial danger of liability even to the honest prosecutor” that such suits pose when they survive pretrial dismissal, ibid.; see also ibid, (complex, close, fair-trial questions “often would require a virtual retrial of the criminal offense in a new forum, and the resolution of some technical issues by the lay jury”). A “prosecutor,” the Court noted, “inevitably makes many decisions that could engender color-able claims of constitutional deprivation. Defending these decisions, often years after they were made, could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials.” Id., at 425-426. The Court thus rejected the idea of applying the less-than-absolute “qualified immunity” that the law accords to other “executive or administrative officials,” noting that the “honest prosecutor would face greater difficulty” than would those officials “in meeting the standards of qualified immunity.” Id., at 425. Accordingly, the immunity that the law grants prosecutors is “absolute.” Id., at 424.
The Court made clear that absolute immunity may not apply when a prosecutor is not acting as “an officer of the court,” but is instead engaged in other tasks, say, investigative or administrative tasks. Id., at 431, n. 33. To decide whether absolute immunity attaches to a particular kind of prosecutorial activity, one must take account of the “functional” considerations discussed above. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U. S. 478,486 (1991) (collecting cases applying “functional approach” to immunity); Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U. S. 118, 127, 130 (1997). In Imbler, the Court concluded that the “reasons for absolute immunity applied] with full force” to the conduct at issue because it was “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” 424 U. S., at 430. The fact that one constitutional duty at issue was a positive duty (the duty to supply “information relevant to the defense”) rather than a negative duty (the duty not to “use . . . perjured testimony”) made no difference. Id., at 431, n. 34. After all, a plaintiff can often transform a positive into a negative duty simply by reframing the pleadings; in either case, a constitutional violation is at issue. Ibid.
Finally, the Court specifically reserved the question whether or when “similar reasons require immunity for those aspects of the prosecutor’s responsibility that cast him in the role of an administrator . . . rather than that of advocate.” Id., at 430-431. It said that “[djrawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions, but this case does not require us to anticipate them.” Id., at 431, n. 33.
In the years since Imbler, we have held that absolute immunity applies when a prosecutor prepares to initiate a judicial proceeding, Burns, supra, at 492, or appears in court to present evidence in support of a search warrant application, Kalina, supra, at 126. We have held that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, see Burns, supra, at 496, when the prosecutor makes statements to the press, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U. S. 259, 277 (1993), or when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in support of a warrant application, Kalina, supra, at 132 (Scalia, J., concurring). This case, unlike these earlier cases, requires us to consider how immunity applies where a prosecutor is engaged in certain administrative activities.
Ill
Goldstein claims that the district attorney and his chief assistant violated their constitutional obligation to provide his attorney with impeachment-related information, see Giglio, 405 U. S. 150, because, as the Court of Appeals wrote, they failed “to adequately train and supervise deputy district attorneys on that subject,” 481 F. 3d, at 1176, and because, as Goldstein’s complaint adds, they “failed to create any system for the Deputy District Attorneys handling criminal cases to access information pertaining to the benefits provided to jailhouse informants and other impeachment information,” App. 45. We agree with Goldstein that, in making these claims, he attacks the office’s administrative procedures. We are also willing to assume with Goldstein, but purely for argument’s sake, that Giglio imposes certain obligations as to training, supervision, or information-system management.
Even so, we conclude that prosecutors involved in such supervision or training or information-system management enjoy absolute immunity from the kind of legal claims at issue here. Those claims focus upon a certain kind of administrative obligation — a kind that itself is directly connected with the conduct of a trial. Here, unlike with other claims related to administrative decisions, an individual prosecutor’s error in the plaintiff’s specific criminal trial constitutes an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim. The administrative obligations at issue here are thus unlike administrative duties concerning, for example, workplace hiring, payroll administration, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the like. Moreover, the types of activities on which Goldstein’s claims focus necessarily require legal knowledge and the exercise of related discretion, e.g., in determining what information should be included in the training or the supervision or the information-system management. And in that sense also Goldstein’s claims are unlike claims of, say, unlawful discrimination in hiring employees. Given these features of the case before us, we believe absolute immunity must follow.
A
We reach this conclusion by initially considering a hypothetical case that involves supervisory or other office prosecutors but does not involve administration. Suppose that Goldstein had brought such a case, seeking damages not only from the trial prosecutor but also from a supervisory prosecutor or from the trial prosecutor’s colleagues — all on the ground that they should have found and turned over the impeachment material about Fink. Imbler makes clear that all these prosecutors would enjoy absolute immunity from such a suit. The prosecutors’ behavior, taken individually or separately, would involve “[preparation ... for ... trial,” 424 U. S., at 431, n. 33, and would be “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” because it concerned the evidence presented at trial, id., at 430. And all of the considerations that this Court found to militate in favor of absolute immunity in Imbler would militate in favor of immunity in such a case.
The only difference we can find between Imbler and our hypothetical case lies in the fact that, in our hypothetical case, a prosecutorial supervisor or colleague might himself be liable for damages instead of the trial prosecutor. But we cannot find that difference (in the pattern of liability among prosecutors within a single office) to be critical. Decisions about indictment or trial prosecution will often involve more than one prosecutor within an office. We do not see how such differences in the pattern of liability among a group of prosecutors in a single office could alleviate Imbler]s basic fear, namely, that the threat of damages liability would affect the way in which prosecutors carried out their basic court-related tasks. Moreover, this Court has pointed out that “it is the interest in protecting the proper functioning of the office, rather than the interest in protecting its occupant, that is of primary importance.” Kalina, 522 U. S., at 125. Thus, we must assume that the prosecutors in our hypothetical suit would enjoy absolute immunity.
B
Once we determine that supervisory prosecutors are immune in a suit directly attacking their actions related to an individual trial, we must find they are similarly immune in the case before us. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the office’s general methods of supervision and training are at issue here, but we do not agree that that difference is critical for present purposes. That difference does not preclude an intimate connection between prosecutorial activity and the trial process. The management tasks at issue, insofar as they are relevant, concern how and when to make impeachment information available at a trial. They are thereby directly connected with the prosecutor’s basic trial advocacy duties. And, in terms of Imbler’s, functional concerns, a suit charging that a supervisor made a mistake directly related to a particular trial, on the one hand, and a suit charging that a supervisor trained and supervised inadequately, on the other, would seem very much alike.
That is true, in part, for the practical reason that it will often prove difficult to draw a line between general office supervision or office training (say, related to Giglio) and specific supervision or training related to a particular case. To permit claims based upon the former is almost inevitably to permit the bringing of claims that include the latter. It is also true because one cannot easily distinguish, for immunity purposes, between claims based upon training or supervisory failures related to Giglio and similar claims related to other constitutional matters (obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), for example). And that being so, every consideration that Irnbler mentions militates in favor of immunity.
As we have said, the type of “faulty training” claim at issue here rests in necessary part upon a consequent error by an individual prosecutor in the midst of trial, namely, the plaintiff’s trial. If, as Irnbler says, the threat of damages liability for such an error could lead a trial prosecutor to take account of that risk when making trial-related decisions, so, too, could the threat of more widespread liability throughout the office (ultimately traceable to that trial error) lead both that prosecutor and other office prosecutors as well to take account of such a risk. Indeed, members of a large prosecutorial office, when making prosecutorial decisions, could have in mind the “consequences in terms of” damages liability whether they are making general decisions about supervising or training or whether they are making individual trial-related decisions. Imbler, 424 U. S., at 424.
Moreover, because better training or supervision might prevent most, if not all, prosecutorial errors at trial, permission to bring such a suit here would grant permission to criminal defendants to bring claims in other similar instances, in effect claiming damages for (trial-related) training or supervisory failings. Cf. Imbler, supra. Further, given the complexity of the constitutional issues, inadequate training and supervision suits could, as in Imbler, “pose substantial danger of liability even to the honest prosecutor.” Id., at 425. Finally, as Imbler pointed out, defending prosecutorial decisions, often years after they were made, could impose “unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials.” Id., at 425-426.
At the same time, to permit this suit to go forward would create practical anomalies. A trial prosecutor would remain immune, even for intentionally failing to turn over, say Giglio material; but her supervisor might be liable for negligent training or supervision. Small prosecution offices where supervisors can personally participate in all of the cases would likewise remain immune from prosecution; but large offices, making use of more general officewide supervision and training, would not. Most important, the ease with which a plaintiff could restyle a complaint charging a trial failure so that it becomes a complaint charging a failure of training or supervision would eviscerate Imbler.
We conclude that the very reasons that led this Court in Imbler to find absolute immunity require a similar finding in this case. We recognize, as Chief Judge Hand pointed out, that sometimes such immunity deprives a plaintiff of compensation that he undoubtedly merits; but the impediments to the fair, efficient functioning of a prosecutorial office that liability could create lead us to find that Imbler must apply here.
C
We treat separately Goldstein’s claim that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office should have established a system that would have permitted prosecutors “handling criminal cases to access information pertaining to the benefits provided to jailhouse informants and other impeachment information.” App. 45. We do so because Goldstein argues that the creation of an information management system is a more purely administrative task, less closely related to the “judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler, supra, at 430, than are supervisory or training tasks. He adds that technically qualified individuals other than prosecutors could create such a system and that they could do so prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings.
In our view, however, these differences do not require a different outcome. The critical element of any information system is the information it contains. Deciding what to include and what not to include in an information system is little different from making similar decisions in respect to training. Again, determining the criteria for inclusion or exclusion requires knowledge of the law.
Moreover, the absence of an information system is relevant here if, and only if, a proper system would have included information about the informant Fink. Thus, were this claim allowed, a court would have to review the office’s legal judgments, not simply about whether to have an information system but also about what kind of system is appropriate, and whether an appropriate system would have included Giglio-related information about one particular kind of trial informant. Such decisions — whether made prior to or during a particular trial — are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler, supra, at 430; see Burns, 500 U. S., at 486. And, for the reasons set out above, all Imbler’s functional considerations (and the anomalies we mentioned earlier, supra, at 346-347) apply here as well.
We recognize that sometimes it would be easy for a court to determine that an office’s decision about an information system was inadequate. Suppose, for example, the office had no system at all. But the same could be said of a prosecutor’s trial error. Immunity does not exist to help prosecutors in the easy case; it exists because the easy cases bring difficult cases in their wake. And, as Imbler pointed out, the likely presence of too many difficult cases threatens, not prosecutors, but the public, for the reason that it threatens to undermine the necessary independence and integrity of the prosecutorial decisionmaking process. Such is true of the kinds of claims before us, to all of which Imbler’s functional considerations apply. Consequently, where a §1983 plaintiff claims that a prosecutor’s management of a trial-related information system is responsible for a constitutional error at his or her particular trial, the prosecutor responsible for the system enjoys absolute immunity just as would the prosecutor who handled the particular trial itself.
* * *
For these reasons we conclude that petitioners are entitled to absolute immunity in respect to Goldstein’s claims that their supervision, training, or information-system management was constitutionally inadequate. 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.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of. the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether a minimum-fee schedule for lawyers published by the Fairfax County Bar Association and enforced by the Virginia State Bar violates § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1. The Court of Appeals held that, although the fee schedule and enforcement mechanism substantially restrained competition among lawyers, publication of the schedule by the County Bar was outside the scope of the Act because the practice of law is not “trade or commerce,” and enforcement of the schedule by the State Bar was exempt from the Sherman Act as state action as defined in Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943).
I
In 1971 petitioners, husband and wife, contracted to buy a home in Fairfax County, Va. The financing agency required them to secure title insurance; this required a title examination, and only a member of the Virginia State Bar could legally perform that service. Petitioners therefore contacted a lawyer who quoted them the precise fee suggested in a minimum-fee schedule published by respondent Fairfax County Bar Association; the lawyer told them that it was his policy to keep his charges in line with the minimum-fee schedule which provided for a fee of 1% of the value of the property involved. Petitioners then tried to find a lawyer who would examine the title for less than the fee fixed by the schedule. They sent letters to 36 other Fairfax County lawyers requesting their fees. Nineteen replied, and none indicated that he would charge less than the rate fixed by the schedule; several stated that they knew of no attorney who would do so.
The fee schedule the lawyers referred to is a list of recommended minimum prices for common legal services. Respondent Fairfax County Bar Association published the fee schedule although, as a purely voluntary association of attorneys, the County Bar has no formal power to enforce it. Enforcement has been provided by respondent Virginia State Bar which is the administrative agency through which the Virginia Supreme Court regulates the practice of law in that State; membership in the State Bar is required in order to practice in Virginia. Although the State Bar has never taken formal disciplinary action to compel adherence to any fee schedule, it has published reports condoning fee schedules, and has issued two ethical opinions indicating that fee schedules cannot be ignored. The most recent opinion states that “evidence that an attorney habitually charges less than the suggested minimum fee schedule adopted by his local bar Association, raises a presumption that such lawyer is guilty of misconduct.
Because petitioners could not find a lawyer willing to charge a fee lower than the schedule dictated, they had their title examined by the lawyer they had first contacted. They then brought this class action against the State Bar and the County Bar alleging that the operation of the minimum-fee schedule, as applied to fees for legal services relating to residential real estate transactions, constitutes price fixing in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Petitioners sought both injunctive relief and damages.
After a trial solely on the issue of liability the District Court held that the minimum-fee schedule violated the Sherman Act. 355 F. Supp. 491 (ED Va. 1973). The court viewed the fee-schedule system as a significant reason for petitioners’ failure to obtain legal services for less than the minimum fee,, and it rejected the County Bar’s contention that as a “learned profession” the practice of law is exempt from the Sherman Act.
Both respondents argued that their actions were also exempt from the Sherman Act as state action. Parker v. Brown, supra. The District Court agreed that the Virginia State Bar was exempt under that doctrine because it is an administrative agency of the Virginia Supreme Court, and more important, because its “minor role in this matter . . . derived from the judicial and ‘legislative command of the State and was not intended to operate or become effective without that command.’ ” The County Bar, on the other hand, is a private organization and was under no compulsion to adopt the fee schedule recommended by the State Bar. Since the County Bar chose its own course of conduct the District Court held that the antitrust laws “remain in full force and effect as to it.” The court enjoined the fee schedule, 15 TJ. S. C. i 26, and set the case down for trial to ascertain damages. 15 U. S. C. § 15.
The Court of Appeals reversed as to liability. 497 F. 2d 1 (CA4 1974). Despite its conclusion that it “is abundantly clear from the record before us that the fee schedule and the enforcement mechanism supporting it act as a substantial restraint upon competition among attorneys practicing in Fairfax County,” id., at 13, the Court of Appeals held the State Bar immune under Parker v. Brown, supra, and held the County Bar immune because the practice of law is not “trade or commerce” under the Sherman Act. There has long been judicial recognition of a limited exclusion of “learned professions” from the scope of the antitrust laws, the court said; that exclusion is based upon the special form of regulation imposed upon the professions by the States, and the incompatibility of certain competitive practices with such professional regulation. It concluded that the promulgation of a minimum-fee schedule is one of “those matters with respect to which an accord must be reached between the necessities of professional regulation and the dictates of the antitrust laws.” The accord reached by that court was to hold the practice of law exempt from the antitrust laws.
Alternatively, the Court of Appeals held that respondents’ activities did not have sufficient effect on interstate commerce to support Sherman Act jurisdiction. Petitioners had argued that the fee schedule restrained the business of financing and insuring home mortgages by inflating a component part of the total cost of housing, but the court concluded that a title examination is generally a local service, and even where it is part of a transaction which crosses state lines its effect on commerce is only “incidental,” and does not justify federal regulation.
We granted certiorari, 419 U. S. 963 (1974), and are thus confronted for the first time with the question of whether the Sherman Act applies to services performed by attorneys in examining titles in connection with financing the purchase of real estate.
II
Our inquiry can be divided into four steps: did respondents engage in price fixing? If so, are their activities in interstate commerce or do they affect interstate commerce? If so, are the activities exempt from the Sherman Act because they involve a “learned profession?” If not, are the activities “state action” within the meaning of Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), and therefore exempt from the Sherman Act?
A
The County Bar argues that because the fee schedule is merely advisory, the schedule and its enforcement mechanism do not constitute price fixing. Its purpose, the argument continues, is only to provide legitimate information to aid member lawyers in complying with Virginia professional regulations. Moreover, the County Bar contends that in practice the schedule has not had the effect of producing fixed fees. The facts found by the trier belie these contentions, and nothing in the record suggests these findings lack support.
A purely advisory fee schedule issued to provide guidelines, or an exchange of price information without a showing of an actual restraint on trade, would present us with a different question, e. g., American Column Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 377 (1921); Maple Flooring Assn. v. United States, 268 U. S. 563, 580 (1925). But see United States v. National Assn. of Real Estate Boards, 339 U. S. 485, 488-489, 495 (1950). The record here, however, reveals a situation quite different from what would occur under a purely advisory fee schedule. Here a fixed, rigid price floor arose from respondents’ activities: every lawyer who responded to petitioners’ inquiries adhered to the fee schedule, and no lawyer asked for additional information in order to set an individualized fee. The price information disseminated did not concern past standards, cf. Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn. v. United States, 268 U. S. 588 (1925), but rather minimum fees to be . charged in future transactions, and those minimum rates were increased over time. The fee schedule was enforced through the prospect of professional discipline from the State Bar, and the desire of attorneys to comply with announced professional norms, see generally American Column Co., supra, at 411; the motivation to conform was reinforced by the assurance that other lawyers would not compete by underbidding. This is not merely a case of an agreement that may be inferred from an exchange of price information, United States v. Container Corp., 393 U. S. 333, 337 (1969), for here a naked agreement was clearly shown, and the effect on prices is plain. Id., at 339 (Fortas, J., concurring).
Moreover, in terms of restraining competition and harming consumers, like petitioners the price-fixing activities found here are unusually damaging. A title examination is indispensable in the process of financing a real estate purchase, and since only an attorney licensed to practice in Virginia may legally examine a title, see n. 1, supra, consumers could not turn to alternative sources for the necessary service. All attorneys, of course, were practicing under the constraint of the fee schedule. See generally United States v. Container Corp., supra, at 337. The County Bar makes much of the fact that it is a voluntary organization; however, the ethical opinions issued by the State Bar provide that any lawyer, whether or not a member of his county bar association, may be disciplined for “habitually charging] less than the suggested minimum fee schedule adopted by his local bar Association . . . See supra, at 777-778, and n. 4. These factors coalesced to create a pricing system that consumers could not realistically escape. On this record respondents’ activities constitute a classic illustration of price fixing.
B
The County Bar argues, as the Court of Appeals held, that any effect on interstate commerce caused by the fee schedule’s restraint on legal services was incidental and remote. In its view the legal services, which are performed wholly intrastate, are essentially local in náture and therefore a restraint with respect to them can never substantially affect interstate commerce. Further, the County Bar maintains, there was no showing here that the fee schedule and its enforcement mechanism increased fees, and that even if they did there was no showing that such an increase deterred any prospective homeowner from buying in Fairfax County.
These arguments misconceive the nature of the transactions at issue and the place legal services play in those transactions. As the District Court found, “a significant portion of funds furnished for the purchasing of homes in Fairfax County comes from without the State of Virginia,” and “significant amounts of loans on Fairfax County real estate are guaranteed by the United States Veterans Administration and Department of Housing and Urban Development, both headquartered in the District of Columbia.” Thus in this class action the transactions which create the need for the particular legal services in question frequently are interstate transactions. The necessary connection between the interstate transactions and the restraint of trade provided by the minimum-fee schedule is present because, in a practical sense, title examinations are necessary in real estate transactions to assure a lien on a valid title of the borrower. In financing realty purchases lenders require, “as a condition of making the loan, that the title to the property involved be examined . . . Thus a title examination is an integral part of an interstate transaction and this Court has long held that
“there is an obvious distinction to be drawn between a course of conduct wholly within a state and conduct which is an inseparable element of a larger program dependent for its success upon activity which affects commerce between the states.” United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, 324 U. S. 293, 297 (1945).
See United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U. S. 218, 228-229 (1947).
Given the substantial volume of commerce involved, and the inseparability of this particular legal service from the interstate aspects of real estate transactions, we conclude that interstate commerce has been sufficiently affected. See Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 45-46 (1904); United States v. Women’s Sportswear Assn., 336 U. S. 460, 464-465 (1949).
The fact that there was no showing that home buyers were discouraged by the challenged activities does not mean that interstate commerce was not affected. Otherwise, the magnitude of the effect would control, and our cases have shown that, once an effect is shown, no specific magnitude need be proved. E. g., United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 351 U. S. 305, 310 (1956). Nor was it necessary for petitioners to prove that the fee schedule raised fees. Petitioners clearly proved that the fee schedule fixed fees and thus “deprive [d] purchasers or consumers of the advantages which they derive from free competition.” Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U. S. 469, 501 (1940). See United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150 (1940).
Where, as a matter of law or practical necessity, legal services are an integral part of an interstate transaction, a restraint on those services may substantially affect commerce for Sherman Act purposes. Of course, there may be legal services that involve interstate commerce in other fashions, just as there may be legal services that have no nexus with interstate commerce and thus are beyond the reach of the Sherman Act.
C
The County Bar argues that Congress never intended to include the learned professions within the terms “trade or commerce” in § 1 of the Sherman Act, and therefore the sale of professional services is exempt from the Act. No explicit exemption or legislative.history is provided to support this contention; rather, the existence of state regulation seems to be its primary basis. Also, the County Bar maintains that competition is inconsistent with the practice of a profession because enhancing profit is not the goal of professional activities; the goal is to provide services necessary to the community. That, indeed, is the classic basis traditionally advanced to distinguish professions from trades, businesses, and other occupations, but it loses some of its force when used to support the fee control activities involved here.
In arguing that learned professions are not “trade or commerce” the County Bar seeks a total exclusion from antitrust regulation. Whether state regulation is active or dormant, real or theoretical, lawyers would be able to adopt anticompetitive practices with impunity. We cannot find support for the proposition that Congress intended any such sweeping exclusion. The nature of an occupation, standing alone, does not provide sanctuary from the Sherman Act, Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 7 (1945), nor is the public-service aspect of professional practice controlling in determining whether § 1 includes professions. United States v. National Assn, of Real Estate Boards, 339 U. S., at 489. Congress intended to strike as broadly as it could in § 1 of the Sherman Act, and to read into it so wide an exemption as that urged on us would be at odds with that purpose.
The language of § 1 of the Sherman Act, of course, contains no exception. “Language more comprehensive is difficult to conceive.” United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, 553 (1944). And our cases have repeatedly established that there is a heavy presumption against implicit exemptions, United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350-351 (1963); California v. FPC, 369 U. S. 482, 485 (1962). Indeed, our cases have specifically included the sale of services within § 1. E. g., American Medical Assn. v. United States, 317 U. S. 519 (1943); Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U. S. 445 (1957). Whatever else it may be, the examination of a land title is a service; the exchange of such a service for money is “commerce” in the most common usage of that word. It is no disparagement of the practice of law as a profession to acknowledge that it has this business aspect, and § 1 of the Sherman Act
“[o]n its face . . . shows a carefully studied attempt to bring within the Act every person engaged in business whose activities might restrain or monopolize commercial intercourse among the states.” United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., supra, at 553.
In the modern world it cannot be denied that the activities of lawyers play an important part in commercial intercourse, and that anticompetitive activities by lawyers may exert a restraint on commerce.
D
In Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), the Court held that an anticompetitive marketing program which “derived its authority and its efficacy from the legislative command of the state” was not a violation of the Sherman Act because the Act was intended to regulate private practices and not to prohibit a State from imposing a restraint as an act of government. Id., at 350-352; Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332, 344-345 (1904): Respondent State Bar and respondent County Bar both seek to avail themselves of this so-called state-action exemption.
Through its legislature Virginia has authorized its highest court to regulate the practice of law. That court has adopted ethical codes which deal in part with fees, and far from exercising state power to authorize binding price fixing, explicitly directed lawyers not “to be controlled” by fee schedules. The State Bar, a state agency by law, argues that in issuing fee schedule reports and ethical opinions dealing with fee schedules it was merely implementing the fee provisions of the ethical codes. The County Bar, although it is a voluntary association and not a state agency, claims that the ethical codes and the activities of the State Bar “prompted” it to issue fee schedules and thus its actions, too, are state action for Sherman Act purposes.
The threshold inquiry in determining if an anticompetitive activity is state action of the type the Sherman Act was not meant to proscribe is whether the activity is required by the State acting as sovereign. Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S., at 350-352; Continental Co. v. Union Carbide, 370 U. S. 690, 706-707 (1962). Here we need not inquire further into the state-action question because it cannot fairly be said that the State- of Virginia through its Supreme Court Rules required the anticompetitive activities of either respondent. Respondents have pointed to no Virginia statute requiring their activities; state law simply does not refer to fees, leaving regulation of the profession to the Virginia Supreme Court; although the Supreme Court’s ethical codes mention advisory fee schedules they do not direct either respondent to supply them, or require the type of price floor which arose from respondents’ activities. Although the State Bar apparently has been granted the power to issue ethical opinions, there is no indication in this record that the Virginia Supreme Court approves the opinions. Respondents’ arguments, at most, constitute the contention that their activities complemented the objective of the ethical codes. In our view that is not state action for Sherman Act purposes. It is not enough that, as the County Bar puts it, anticompetitive conduct is “prompted” by state action; rather, anti-competitive activities must be compelled by direction of the State acting as a sovereign.
The fact that the State Bar is a state agency for some limited purposes does not create an antitrust shield that allows it to foster anticompetitive practices for the benefit of its members. Cf. Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 578-579 (1973). The State Bar, by providing that deviation from County Bar minimum fees may lead to disciplinary action, has voluntarily joined in what is essentially a private anticompetitive activity, and in that posture cannot claim it is beyond the reach of the Sherman Act. Parker v. Brown, supra, at 351-352. Its activities resulted in a rigid price floor from which petitioners, as consumers, could not escape if they wished to borrow money to buy a home.
Ill
We recognize that the States have a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries, and that as part of their power to protect the public health, safety, and other valid interests they have broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions. We also recognize that in some instances the State may decide that “forms of competition usual in the business world may be demoralizing to the ethical standards of a profession.” United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326, 336 (1952). See also Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U. S. 608, 611-613 (1935). The interest of the States in regulating lawyers is especially great since lawyers are essential to the primary governmental function of administering justice, and have historically been “officers of the courts.” See Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U. S. 379, 383 (1963); Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117, 123-124 (1961); Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, 157 (1971). In holding that certain anticompetitive conduct by lawyers is within the reach of the Sherman Act we intend no diminution of the authority of the State to regulate its professions.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with orders to remand to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Unauthorized Practice of Law, Opinion No. 17, Aug. 5, 1942, Virginia State Bar — Opinions 239 (1965).
Virginia Code Ann. § 54-49 (1972) provides:
“The Supreme Court of Appeals may, from time to time, prescribe, adopt, promulgate and amend rules and regulations organizing and governing the association known as the Virginia State Bar, composed of the attorneys at law of this State, to act as an administrative agency of the Court for the purpose of investigating and reporting the violation of such rules and regulations as are adopted by the Court under this article to a court of competent jurisdiction for such proceedings as may be necessary, and requiring all persons practicing law in this State to be members thereof in good standing.”
Ibid.
In 1962 the State Bar published a minimum-fee-schedule report that listed a series of fees and stated that they “represent the considered judgment of the Committee [on Economics of Law Practice] as to [a] fair minimum fee in each instance.” The report stated, however, that the fees were not mandatory, and it recommended only that the State Bar consider adopting such a schedule. Nevertheless, shortly thereafter the County Bar adopted its own minimum-fee schedule that purported to be “a conscientious effort to show lawyers in their true perspective of dignity, training and integrity.” The suggested fees for title examination were virtually identical to those in the State Bar report. In accord with Opinion 98 of the State Bar Committee on Legal Ethics the schedule stated that, although there is an ethical duty to charge a lower fee in a deserving case, if a lawyer
“ ‘purely for his own advancement, intentionally and regularly bills less than the customary charges of the bar for similar services . . . [in order to] increase his business with resulting personal gain, it becomes a form of solicitation contrary to Canon 27 and also a violation of Canon 7, which forbids the efforts of one lawyer to encroach upon the employment of another.’ ” App. 30.
In 1969 the State Bar published a second fee-schedule report that, as it candidly stated, “reflect[ed] a general scaling up of fees for legal services.” The report again stated that no local bar association was bound by its recommendations; however, respondent County Bar again quickly moved to publish an updated minimum-fee schedule, and generally to raise fees. The new schedule stated that the fees were not mandatory, but tempered that by referring again to Opinion 98. This time the schedule also stated that lawyers should feel free to charge more than the recommended fees; and to avoid condemnation of higher fees charged by some lawyers, it cautioned County Bar members that “to . . . publicly criticize lawyers who charge more than the suggested fees herein might in itself be evidence of solicitation . . . .”
Virginia State Bar Committee on Legal Ethics, Opinion No. 98, June 1, 1960; Virginia State Bar Committee on Legal Ethics, Opinion No. 170, May 28,1971.
Ibid. The parties stipulated that these opinions are a substantial influencing factor in lawyers’ adherence to the fee schedules. One reason for this may be because the State Bar is required by statute to “investigat [e] and report . . . the violation of . . . rules and regulations as are adopted by the [Virginia Supreme Court] to a court of competent jurisdiction for such proceedings as may be necessary . . . .” Va. Code Ann. §54-49 (1972). Therefore any lawyer who contemplated ignoring the fee schedule must have been aware that professional sanctions were possible, and that an enforcement mechanism existed to administer them.
Two additional county bar associations were originally named as defendants but they agreed to a consent judgment under which they were directed to cancel their existing fee schedules, and were enjoined from adopting, publishing, or distributing any future schedules of minimum or suggested fees. Damage claims against these associations were then dismissed with prejudice.
The court was satisfied that interstate commerce was sufficiently affected to sustain jurisdiction under the Sherman Act because a significant portion of the funds and insurance involved in the purchase of homes in Fairfax County comes from outside the State of Virginia. 355 F. Supp 491, 497 (ED Va. 1973).
The Court of Appeals accurately depicted the situation:
“[I]t is clear from the record that ah or nearly all of the [County Bar] members charged fees equal to or exceeding the fees set forth in the schedule for title examinations and other services involving real estate.” 497 F. 2d 1,12 (CA4 1974).
“ ‘A significant reason for the inability of [petitioners] to obtain legal services ... for less than the fee set forth in the Minimum Fee Schedule . . . was the operation of the minimum fee schedule system.’ ” Id., at 4.
“It is abundantly clear from the record before us that the fee schedule and the enforcement mechanism supporting it act as a substantial restraint upon competition among attorneys practicing in Fairfax County.” Id., at 13.
The Court of Appeals did not disturb the District Court’s findings of fact. It simply disagreed on the conclusions of law drawn therefrom.
It is in a practical sense that we must view an effect on interstate commerce, Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 376, 398 (1905); Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 233 (1948).
355 F. Supp., at 494.
The County Bar relies on United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U. S. 218 (1947), to support its argument that the “essentially local” legal services at issue here are beyond the Sherman Act. There we held, inter alia, that intrastate taxi trips that occurred at the start and finish of interstate rail travel were “too unrelated to interstate commerce to constitute a part thereof within the mean-' ing of the Sherman Act.” Id., at 230. The ride to the railway station, we said, “[f]rom the standpoints of time and continuity . . . may be quite distinct and separate from the interstate journey.” Id., at 232. Here, on the contrary, the legal services are coincidental with interstate real estate transactions in terms of time, and, more important, in terms of continuity they are essential. Indeed, it would be more apt to compare the legal services here with a taxi trip between stations to change trains in the midst of an interstate journey. In Yellow Cab we held that such a trip was a part of the stream of commerce. Id., at 228-229.
355 F. Supp., at 497.
The County Bar cites phrases in several cases that implied the practice of a learned profession is not “trade or commerce” under the antitrust laws. E. g., Federal Club v. National League, 259 U. S. 200, 209 (1922) (“a firm of lawyers sending out a member to argue a case . . . does not engage in . . . commerce because the lawyer . . . goes to another State”); FTC v. Raladam Co., 283 U. S. 643, 653 (1931) (“medical practitioners . . . follow a profession and not a trade . . .”); Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 436 (1932); United States v. National Assn. of Real Estate Boards, 339 U. S. 485, 490 (1950). These citations are to passing references in cases concerned with other issues; and, more important, until the present case it is clear that we have not attempted to decide whether the practice of a learned profession falls within § 1 of the Sherman Act. In National Assn. of Real Estate Boards, we specifically stated that the question was still open, 339 U. S., at 492, as we had done earlier in American Medical Assn. v. United States, 317 U. S. 519, 528 (1943).
The reason for adopting the fee schedule does not appear to have been wholly altruistic. The first sentence in Tospondent State Bar’s 1962 Minimum Fee Schedule Report states:
“ ‘The lawyers have slowly, but surely, been committing economic suicide as a profession.’ ” Virginia State Bar, Minimum Fee Schedule Report 1962, p. 3, App. 20.
The fact that a restraint operates upon a profession as distinguished from a business is, of course, relevant in determining whether that particular restraint violates the Sherman Act. It would be unrealistic to view the practice of professions as interchangeable with other business activities, and automatically to apply to the professions antitrust concepts which originated in other areas. The public service aspect, and other features of the professions, may require that a particular practice, which could properly be viewed as a violation of the Sherman Act in another context, be treated differently. We intimate no view on any other situation than the one with which we are confronted today.
Virginia Code Ann. § 54-48 (1972) provides:
“Rules and regulations defining practice of law and prescribing codes of ethics and disciplinary procedure. — The Supreme Court of Appeals may, from time to time, prescribe, adopt, promulgate and amend rules and regulations:
“(a) Defining the practice of law.
“(b) Prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys at law and a code of judicial ethics.
“(c) Prescribing procedure for disciplining, suspending, and disbarring attorneys at law.”
In addition, the Supreme Court of Virginia, has inherent power to regulate the practice of law in that State. Button v. Day, 204 Va. 547, 132 S. E. 2d 292 (1963). See Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U. S. 820 (1961).
In 1938 the Supreme Court of Virginia adopted Rules for the Integration of the Virginia State Bar, and Rule II, § 12, dealt with the procedure for setting fees. Among six factors that court directed to be considered in setting a fee were “the customary charges of the Bar for similar services.” The court also directed that
"[i]n determining the customary charges of the Bar for similar services, it is proper for a law}-er to consider a schedule of minimum fees adopted by a Bar Association, but no lawyer should permit himself to be controlled thereby or to follow it as his sole guide in determining the amount of his fee.” Rules for Integration of the Virginia State Bar, 171 Va. xvii, xxiii. (Emphasis supplied.)
In 1970 the Virginia Supreme Court amended the 1938 rules in part, and adopted the Code of Professional Responsibility, effective January 1, 1971. 211 Va. 295 (1970). Certain of its provisions also dealt with the fee-setting procedure. In EC 2-18 lawyers were told again that fees vary according to many factors, but that “[s]uggested fee schedules and economic reports of state and local bar associations provide some guidance on the subject of reasonable fees.” 211 Va., at 302. In DR 2-106 (B), which detailed eight factors that should be considered in avoiding an excessive fee, one of the factors was “[t]he fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.” DR 2-106 (B)(3). 211 Va., at 313.
See supra, at 776 n. 2.
The District Court stated that the State Bar acted in only a “minor role” as far as the price fixing was concerned, 355 F. Supp., at 496, and one member of the Court of Appeals panel was prepared to exonerate the State Bar because its participation was so minimal as to be insufficient to impose Sherman Act liability. 497 F. 2d, at 21 (Craven, J., concurring and dissenting). Of course, an alleged participant in a restraint of trade may have so insubstantial a connection with the restraint that liability under the Sherman Act would not be found, see United States v. National Assn. of Real Estate Boards, 339 U. S., at 495; however, that is not the case here. The State Bar’s fee schedule reports provided the impetus for the County Bar, on two occasions, to adopt minimum-fee schedules. More important, the State Bar’s ethical opinions provided substantial reason for lawyers to comply with the minimum-fee schedules. Those opinions threatened professional discipline for habitual disregard of fee schedules, and thus attorneys knew their livelihood was in jeopardy if they did so. Even without that threat the opinions would have constituted substantial reason to adhere to the schedules because attorneys could be expected to comply in order to assure that they did not discredit themselves by departing from professional norms, and perhaps betraying their professional oaths.
The State Bar also contends that it is protected by the Eleventh Amendment. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974). Petitioners dispute this contention, and the District Court had no occasion to reach it in view of its holding. Given the record before us we intimate no view on the issue, leaving it for the District Court on remand.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner, a nonprofit trade association that represents concessioners doing business in the national parks, challenges a National Park Service (NPS) regulation that purports to render the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 92 Stat. 2383, 41 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., inapplicable to concession contracts. We conclude that the controversy is not yet ripe for judicial resolution.
I
The CDA establishes rules governing disputes arising out of certain Government contracts. The statute provides that these disputes first be submitted to an agency’s contracting officer. §605. A Government contractor dissatisfied with the contracting officer’s decision may seek review either from the United States Court of Federal Claims or from an administrative board in the agency. See §§606, 607(d), 609(a). Either decision may then be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 28 U. S. C. § 1295; 41 U. S. C. § 607(g).
Since 1916 Congress has charged NPS to “promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks,” “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein,” and “provide for [their] enjoyment [in a way that] will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” An Act To establish a National Park Service, 39 Stat. 535, 16 U. S. C. § 1. To make visits to national parks more enjoyable for the public, Congress authorized NPS to “grant privileges, leases, and permits for the use of land for the accommodation of visitors.” § 3, 39 Stat. 535. Such “privileges, leases, and permits” have become embodied in national parks concession contracts.
The specific rules governing national parks concession contracts have changed over time. In 1998, however, Congress enacted the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (1998 Act or Act), Pub. L. 105-391, 112 Stat. 3497 (codified with certain exceptions in 16 U. S. C. §§5951-5966), establishing a new and comprehensive concession management program for national parks. The 1998 Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enact regulations implementing the Act’s provisions, § 5965.
NPS, to which the Secretary has delegated her authority under the 1998 Act, promptly began a rulemaking proceeding to implement the Act. After notice and comment, final regulations were issued in April 2000. 65 Fed. Reg. 20630 (2000) (codified in 36 CFR pt. 51). The regulations define the term “concession contract” as follows:
“A concession contract (or contract) means a binding written agreement between the Director and a conces-sioner .... Concession contracts are not contracts within the meaning of 41 U. S. C. 601 et seq. (the Contract Disputes Act) and are not service or procurement contracts within the meaning of statutes, regulations or policies that apply only to federal service contracts or other types of federal procurement actions.” 36 CFR §51.3 (2002).
Through this provision NPS took a position with respect to a longstanding controversy with the Department of Interi- or’s Board of Contract Appeals (IBCA). Beginning in 1989, the IBCA ruled that NPS concession contracts were subject to the CDA, see R & R Enterprises, 89-2 B. C. A., ¶ 21708, pp. 109145-109147 (1989), and subsequent attempts by NPS to convince the IBCA otherwise proved unavailing, National Park Concessions, Inc., 94-3 B. C. A., ¶ 27104, pp. 135096-135098 (1994).
II
Petitioner challenged the validity of § 51.3 in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Amfac Resorts, L. L. C. v. United States Dept. of Interior, 142 F. Supp. 2d 54, 80-82 (2001). The District Court upheld the regulation, applying the deference principle of Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). The court concluded that the CDA is ambiguous on whether it applies to concession contracts and found NPS’ interpretation of the CDA reasonable. 142 F. Supp. 2d, at 80-82.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, albeit on different grounds. Amfac Resorts, L. L. C. v. United States Dept. of Interior, 282 F. 3d 818, 834-835 (2002). Recognizing that NPS “does not administer the [CDA], and thus may not have interpretative authority over its provisions,” the court placed no reliance on Chevron but simply “agree[d]” with NPS’ reading of the CDA, finding that reading consistent with both the CDA and the 1998 Act. 282 F. 3d, at 835. We granted certiorari to consider whether the CDA applies to contracts between NPS and concession-ers in the national parks. 537 U. S. 1018 (2002). Because petitioner has brought a facial challenge to the regulation and is not litigating any concrete dispute with NPS, we asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing on whether the case is ripe for judicial action. Tr. of Oral Arg. 62.
III
Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine designed “to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 148-149 (1967); accord, Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U. S. 726, 732-733 (1998). The ripeness doctrine is “drawn both from Article III limitations on judicial power and from prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction,” Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U. S. 43, 57, n. 18 (1993) (citations omitted), but, even in a case raising only prudential concerns, the question of ripeness may be considered on a court’s own motion. Ibid, (citing Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 138 (1974)).
Determining whether administrative action is ripe for judicial review requires us to evaluate (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. Abbott Laboratories, supra, at 149. “Absent [a statutory provision providing for immediate judicial review], a regulation is not ordinarily considered the type of agency action ‘ripe’ for judicial review under the [Administrative Procedure Act (APA)] until the scope of the controversy has been reduced to more manageable proportions, and its factual components fleshed out, by some concrete action applying the regulation to the claimant's situation in a fashion that harms or threatens to harm him. (The major exception, of course, is a substantive rule which as a practical matter requires the plaintiff to adjust his conduct immediately. . . .)” Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U. S. 871, 891 (1990). Under the facts now before us, we conclude this case is not ripe.
We turn first to the hardship inquiry. The federal respondents concede that, because NPS has no delegated rule-making authority under the CDA, the challenged portion of §51.3 cannot be a legislative regulation with the force of law. See Brief for Federal Respondents 15, n. 6; Supplemental Brief for Federal Respondents 6. They note, though, that “agencies may issue interpretive rules ‘to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administersBrief for Federal Respondents 15, n. 6 (quoting Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99 (1995) (emphasis added)), and seek to characterize § 51.3 as such an interpretive rule.
We disagree. Unlike in Guernsey Memorial Hospital, where the agency issuing the interpretative guideline was responsible for administering the relevant statutes and regulations, NPS is not empowered to administer the CDA. Rather, the task of applying the CDA rests with agency contracting officers and boards of contract appeals, as well as the Federal Court of Claims, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and, ultimately, this Court. Moreover, under the CDA, any authority regarding the proper arrangement of agency boards belongs to the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy. See 41 U. S. C. § 607(h) (“Pursuant to the authority conferred under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act [41 U. S. C. §401 et seq.], the Administrator is authorized and directed, as may be necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions of this chapter, to issue guidelines with respect to criteria for the establishment, functions, and procedures of the agency boards .. .”)• Consequently, we consider § 51.3 to be nothing more than a “general statement] of policy” designed to inform the public of NPS’ views on the proper application of the CDA. 5 U. S. C. § 553(b)(3)(A).
Viewed in this light, § 51.3 does not create “adverse effects of a strictly legal kind,” which we have previously required for a showing of hardship. Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc., 523 U. S., at 733. Just like the Forest Service plan at issue in Ohio Forestry, § 51.3 “do[es] not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing anything; [it] do[es] not grant, withhold, or modify any formal legal license, power, or authority; [it] do[es] not subject anyone to any civil or criminal liability; [and it] create[s] no legal rights or obligations.” Ibid.
Moreover, §51.3 does not affect a concessioner’s primary conduct. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 158, 164 (1967); Ohio Forestry Assn., supra, at 733-734. Unlike the regulation at issue in Abbott Laboratories, which required drug manufacturers to change the labels, advertisements, and promotional materials they used in marketing prescription drugs on pain of criminal and civil penalties, see 387 U. S., at 152-153, the regulation here leaves a con-cessioner free to conduct its business as it sees fit. See also Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc., 387 U. S. 167, 171 (1967) (regulations governing conditions for use of color additives in foods, drugs, and cosmetics were “self-executing” and had “an immediate and substantial impact upon the respondents”).
We have previously found that challenges to regulations similar to § 51.3 were not ripe for lack of a showing of hardship. In Toilet Goods Assn., for example, the Pood and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation requiring producers of color additives to provide FDA employees with access to all manufacturing facilities, processes, and formu-lae. 387 U. S., at 161-162. We concluded the case was not ripe for judicial review because the impact of the regulation could not “be said to be felt immediately by those subject to it in conducting their day-to-day affairs” and “no irremedia-bl[y] adverse consequences flow[ed] from requiring a later challenge.” Id., at 164. Indeed, the FDA regulation was more onerous than §51.3 because failure to comply with it resulted in the suspension of the producer’s certification and, consequently, could affect production. See id., at 165, and n. 2. Here, by contrast, concessioners suffer no practical harm as a result of §51.3. All the regulation does is announce the position NPS will take with respect to disputes arising out of concession contracts. While it informs the public of NPS’ view that concessioners are not entitled to take advantage of the provisions of the CDA, nothing in the regulation prevents concessioners from following the procedures set forth in the CDA once a dispute over a concession contract actually arises. And it appears that, notwithstanding § 51.3, the IBCA has been quite willing to apply the CDA to certain concession contracts. Watch Hill Concessions, Inc., 01-1 B. C. A., ¶ 31298, pp. 154520-154521 (IBCA 2001) (concluding that concession contract was subject to the CDA despite the contrary language in § 51.3).
Petitioner contends that delaying judicial resolution of this issue will result in real harm because the applicability vel non of the CDA is one of the factors a concessioner takes into account when preparing its bid for NPS concession contracts. See Supplemental Brief for Petitioner 4-6. Petitioner’s argument appears to be that mere uncertainty as to the validity of a legal rule constitutes a hardship for purposes of the ripeness analysis. We are not persuaded. If we were to follow petitioner’s logic, courts would soon be overwhelmed with requests for what essentially would be advisory opinions because most business transactions could be priced more accurately if even a small portion of existing legal uncertainties were resolved. In short, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that deferring judicial review will result in real hardship.
We consider next whether the issue in this case is fit for review. Although the question presented here is “a purely legal one” and § 51.8 constitutes “final agency action” within the meaning of § 10 of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 704, Abbott Laboratories, supra, at 149, we nevertheless believe that further factual development would “significantly advance our ability to deal with the legal issues presented,” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 82 (1978); accord, Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc., 523 U. S., at 736-737; Toilet Goods Assn., supra, at 163. While the federal respondents generally argue that NPS was correct to conclude that the CDA does not cover concession contracts, they acknowledge that certain types of concession contracts might come under the broad language of the CDA. Brief for Federal Respondents 33-34. Similarly, while petitioner and respondent Xanterra Parks & Resorts, LLC, present a facial challenge to § 51.3, both rely on specific characteristics of certain types of concession contracts to support their positions. See Brief for Petitioner 21-23, 36; Brief for Respondent Xanterra Parks & Resorts, LLC, 20, 22. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that judicial resolution of the question presented here should await a concrete dispute about a particular concession contract.
* * *
For the reasons stated above, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it addressed the validity of § 51.3 and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the case with respect to this issue.
It is so ordered.
Title 41 U. S. C. § 602(a) provides:
“Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, this chapter applies to any express or implied contract (including those of the nonappropriated fund activities described in sections 1346 and 1491 of title 28) entered into by an executive agency for—
“(1) the procurement of property, other than real property in being;
“(2) the procurement of services;
“(3) the procurement of construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real property; or,
“(4) the disposal of personal property.”
The CDA also provides that a prevailing contractor is entitled to prejudgment interest. § 611.
For ease of reference, throughout this opinion we will refer to the second sentence quoted in the text as § 51.3.
Petitioner notes that its complaint challenged not only the regulation but also two specific prospectuses issued by NPS in late 2000. Thus, petitioner argues, even if the first challenge is not ripe, the latter two are reviewable under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491(b)(1). See Supplemental Brief for Petitioner 6-8. Petitioner did not seek certiorari review on these issues; accordingly, we decline to consider them. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a); Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 535-536 (1992).
Similarly, Justice Breyer’s reliance on the Tucker Act to show that the hardship requirement of Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136 (1967), has been satisfied, see post, at 820-821 (dissenting opinion), is misplaced. The fact that one “congressional statute” authorizes “immediate judicial relief from [certain types of] agency determinations,” post, at 820, says nothing about whether “immediate judicial review” is advisable for challenges brought against other types of agency actions based on a different statute.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented here is whether a state court can validly enjoin a person from prosecuting an action in personam in a district or appellate court of the United States which has jurisdiction both of the parties and of the subject matter.
The City of Dallas, Texas, owns Love Field, a municipal airport. In 1961, 46 Dallas citizens who owned or had interests in property near the airport filed a class suit in a Texas court to restrain the city from building an additional runway and from issuing and selling municipal bonds for that purpose. The complaint alleged many damages that would occur to the plaintiffs if the runway should be built and charged that issuance of the bonds would be illegal for many reasons. The case was tried, summary judgment was given for. the city, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court of Texas denied review, and we denied certio-rari. Later 120 Dallas citizens, including 27 of the plaintiffs in the earlier action, filed another action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking similar relief. A number of new defendants were named in addition to the City of Dallas, all the defendants being charged with taking part in plans to construct the runway and to issue and sell bonds in violation of state and federal laws. The complaint sought an injunction against construction of the runway, issuance of bonds, payment on bonds already issued, and circulation of false information about the bond issue, as well as a declaration that all the bonds were illegal and void. None of the bonds would be approved, and therefore under Texas law none could be issued, so long as there was pending litigation challenging their validity. The city filed a motion to dismiss and an answer to the complaint in the federal court. But at the same time the city applied to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of prohibition to bar all the plaintiffs in the case in the United States District Court from prosecuting their case there. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals denied relief, holding that it was without power to enjoin litigants from prosecuting an action in a federal court and that the defense of res judicata on which the city relied could be raised and adjudicated in the United States District Court. On petition for mandamus the Supreme Court of Texas took a different view, however, held it the duty of the Court of Civil Appeals to prohibit the litigants from further prosecuting the United States District Court case, and stated that a writ of mandamus would issue should the Court of Civil Appeals fail to perform this duty. The Court of Civil Appeals promptly issued a writ prohibiting all the plaintiffs in the United States District Court case from any further prosecution of that case and enjoined them “individually and as a class . . . from filing or instituting . . . any further litigation, lawsuits or actions in any court, the purpose of which is to contest the validity of the airport revenue bonds ... or from in any,manner interfering with . . . the proposed bonds . . . The United States District Court in an unreported opinion dismissed the case pending there. Counsel Donovan, who is one of the petitioners here, excepted to the dismissal and then filed an appeal from that dismissal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals thereupon cited Donovan and the other United States District Court claimants for contempt and convicted 87 of them on a finding that they had violated its “valid order.” Donovan was sentenced to serve 20 days in jail, and the other 86 were fined $200 each, an aggregate of $17,200. These penalties were imposed upon each contemner for having either (1) joined as a party plaintiff in the United States District Court case; (2) failed to request and contested the dismissal of that case; (3) taken exceptions to the dismissal preparatory to appealing to the Court of Appeals; or (4) filed a separate action in the Federal District Court seeking to enjoin the Supreme Court of Texas from interfering with the original federal-court suit. After the fines had been paid and he had served his jail sentence, counsel Donovan appeared in the District Court on behalf of himself and all those who had been fined and moved to dismiss the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. His motion stated that it was made under duress and that unless the motion was made “the Attorney for Defendant City of Dallas and the Chief Judge of the Court of Civil Appeals have threatened these Appellants and their Attorney with further prosecution for contempt resulting in additional fines and imprisonment.” The United States District Court then dismissed the appeal.
We declined to grant certiorari to review the United States District Court’s dismissal of the case before it or its dismissal of the appeal brought on by the state court’s coercive contempt judgment, but we did grant certiorari to review the State Supreme Court’s judgment directing the Civil Court of Appeals to enjoin petitioners from prosecuting their action in the federal courts and also granted certiorari to review the Civil Court of Appeals’ judgment of conviction for contempt. 375 U. S. 878. We think the Texas Court of Civil Appeals was right in its first holding that it was without power to enjoin these litigants from prosecuting their federal-court action, and we therefore reverse the State Supreme Court’s judgment upsetting that of the Court of Appeals. We vacate the later contempt judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, which rested on the mistaken belief that the writ prohibiting litigation by the federal plaintiffs was “valid.”
Early in the history of our country a general rule was established that state and federal courts would not interfere with or try to restrain each other’s proceedings. That rule has continued substantially unchanged to this time. An exception has been made in cases where a court has custody of property, that is, proceedings in rem or quasi in rem. In such cases this Court has said that the state or federal court having custody of such property has exclusive jurisdiction to proceed. Princess Lida v. Thompson, 305 U. S. 456, 465-468. In Princess Lida this Court said “where the judgment sought is strictly in personam, both the state court and the federal court, having concurrent jurisdiction, may proceed with the litigation at least until judgment is obtained in one of them which may be set up as res judicata in the other.” Id., at 466. See also Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226. It may be that a full hearing in an appropriate court would justify a finding that the state-court judgment in favor of Dallas in the first suit barred the issues raised in the second suit, a question as to which we express no opinion. But plaintiffs in the second suit chose to file that case in the federal court. They had a right to do this, a right which is theirs by reason of congressional enactments passed pursuant to congressional policy. And whether or not a plea of res judicata in the second suit would be good is a question for the federal court to decide. While Congress has seen fit to authorize courts of the United States to restrain state-court proceedings in some special circumstances, it has in no way relaxed the old and well-established judicially declared rule that state courts are completely without power to restrain federal-court proceedings in in personam actions like the one here. And it does not matter that the prohibition here was addressed to the parties rather than to the federal court itself. For the heart of the rule as declared by this Court is that:
“. . . where the jurisdiction of a court, and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit in it, have once attached, that right cannot be arrested or taken away by proceedings in another court. . . . The fact, therefore, that an injunction issues only to the parties before the court, and not to the court, is no evasion of the difficulties that are the necessary result of an attempt to exercise that power over a party who is a litigant in another and independent forum.”
Petitioners being properly in the federal court had a right granted by Congress to have the court decide the issues they presented, and to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the District Court’s dismissal. They have been punished both for prosecuting their federal-court case and for appealing it. They dismissed their appeal because of threats to punish them more if they did not do so. The legal effect of such a coerced dismissal on their appeal is not now before us, but the propriety of a state court’s punishment of a federal-court litigant for pursuing his right to federal-court remedies is. That right was granted by Congress and cannot be taken away by the State. The Texas courts were without power to take away this federal right by contempt proceedings or otherwise.
It is argued here, however, that the Court of Civil Appeals’ judgment of contempt should nevertheless be upheld on the premise that it was petitioners’ duty to obey the restraining order whether that order was valid or invalid. The Court of Civil Appeals did not consider or pass upon this question, but acted on the assumption that petitioners were guilty of “wilfull disobedience of a valid order.” 368 S. W. 2d, at 244. (Emphasis supplied.) Since we hold the order restraining petitioners from prosecuting their case in the federal courts was not valid, but was invalid, petitioners have been punished for disobeying an invalid order. Whether the Texas court would have punished petitioners for contempt had it known that the restraining order petitioners violated was invalid, we do not know. However, since that question was neither considered nor decided by the Texas court, we leave it for consideration by that court on remand. We express no opinion on that question at this time.
The judgment of the Texas Supreme Court is reversed, the judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Atkinson v. City of Dallas, 353 S. W. 2d 275 (Tex. Civ. App.).
370 U. S. 939.
Vernon’s Tex. Ann. Civ. Stat. Art. 1269j-5, § 3. See City of Dallas v. Dixon, 365 S. W. 2d 919, 925.
City of Dallas v. Brown, 362 S. W. 2d 372 (Tex. Civ. App.).
City of Dallas v. Dixon, 365 S. W. 2d 919.
City of Dallas v. Brown, 368 S. W. 2d 240 (Tex. Civ. App.).
While in jail counsel Donovan sought habeas corpus from both the Supreme Court of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Both courts denied relief without opinion.
The District Court a week later dismissed as moot the action petitioners had brought in that court against the Supreme Court of Texas to enjoin the Texas court from interfering with the prosecution of the federal-court suit. Donovan v. Supreme Court of Texas, unreported. We denied certiorari sought to review that judgment. 375 U. S. 878.
See, e. g., M‘Kim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch 279; Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch 179.
See 28 IT. S. C. § 2283; see also 28 U. S. C. § 1651.
See, e. g., United States v. Council of Keokuk, 6 Wall. 514, 517; Weber v. Lee County, 6 Wall. 210; Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166, 194-196; M‘Kim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch 279.
Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625. See also Central National Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 432; cf. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U. S. 44, 54, n. 23.
In Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U. S. 44, the Court did not reach the question before us, since the decision there was rested on the special venue provisions of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. See 36 Stat. 291, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 56.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
In 2015, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that petitioner, Bobby James Moore, did not have intellectual disability and consequently was eligible for the death penalty. Ex parte Moore , 470 S.W.3d 481, 527-528 ( Ex parte Moore I ). We previously considered the lawfulness of that determination, vacated the appeals court's decision, and remanded the case for further consideration of the issue. Moore v. Texas , 581 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 1053, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017). The appeals court subsequently reconsidered the matter but reached the same conclusion. Ex parte Moore , 548 S.W.3d 552, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) ( Ex parte Moore II ). We again review its decision, and we reverse its determination.
I
When we first heard this case, in Moore , we noted that the state trial court (a state habeas court) "received affidavits and heard testimony from Moore's family members, former counsel, and a number of court-appointed mental-health experts." 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1045. We described the evidence as "reveal[ing]" the following:
"Moore had significant mental and social difficulties beginning at an early age. At 13, Moore lacked basic understanding of the days of the week, the months of the year, and the seasons; he could scarcely tell time or comprehend the standards of measure or the basic principle that subtraction is the reverse of addition. At school, because of his limited ability to read and write, Moore could not keep up with lessons. Often, he was separated from the rest of the class and told to draw pictures. Moore's father, teachers, and peers called him 'stupid' for his slow reading and speech. After failing every subject in the ninth grade, Moore dropped out of high school. Cast out of his home, he survived on the streets, eating from trash cans, even after two bouts of food poisoning." Ibid . (citations omitted).
On the basis of this and other evidence, the trial court found that Moore had intellectual disability and thus was ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). App. to Pet. for Cert. 310a-311a. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that determination, Ex parte Moore I , 470 S.W.3d 481, and we reviewed its decision, Moore , 581 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 197 L.Ed.2d 416.
At the outset of our opinion, we recognized as valid the three underlying legal criteria that both the trial court and appeals court had applied. Id ., at ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1045-1046 (citing American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports (11th ed. 2010) (AAIDD-11); American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. 2013) (DSM-5)). To make a finding of intellectual disability, a court must see: (1) deficits in intellectual functioning-primarily a test-related criterion, see DSM-5, at 37; (2) adaptive deficits, "assessed using both clinical evaluation and individualized ... measures," ibid .; and (3) the onset of these deficits while the defendant was still a minor, id ., at 38. With respect to the first criterion, we wrote that Moore's intellectual testing indicated his was a borderline case, but that he had demonstrated sufficient intellectual-functioning deficits to require consideration of the second criterion-adaptive functioning. Moore , 581 U.S., at ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1048-1050. With respect to the third criterion, we found general agreement that any onset took place when Moore was a minor. Id ., at ----, n. 3, 137 S.Ct., at 1045, n. 3.
But there was significant disagreement between the state courts about whether Moore had the adaptive deficits needed for intellectual disability. "In determining the significance of adaptive deficits, clinicians look to whether an individual's adaptive performance falls two or more standard deviations below the mean in any of the three adaptive skill sets (conceptual, social, and practical)." Id ., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1046 (citing AAIDD-11, at 43). Based on the evidence before it, the trial court found that "Moore's performance fell roughly two standard deviations below the mean in all three skill categories." 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1046 ; see App. to Pet. for Cert. 309a. Reversing that decision, the appeals court held that Moore had "not proven by a preponderance of the evidence" that he possessed the requisite adaptive deficits, and thus was eligible for the death penalty. Ex parte Moore I , 470 S.W.3d at 520. We disagreed with the appeals court's adaptive-functioning analysis, however, and identified at least five errors.
First, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals "overemphasized Moore's perceived adaptive strengths." Moore , 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1050. "But the medical community," we said, "focuses the adaptive-functioning inquiry on adaptive deficits ." Ibid .
Second, the appeals court "stressed Moore's improved behavior in prison." Id ., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1050. But "[c]linicians ... caution against reliance on adaptive strengths developed 'in a controlled setting,' as a prison surely is." Ibid . (quoting DSM-5, at 38).
Third, the appeals court "concluded that Moore's record of academic failure, ... childhood abuse[,] and suffering ... detracted from a determination that his intellectual and adaptive deficits were related." 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1051. But "in the medical community," those "traumatic experiences" are considered " 'risk factors ' for intellectual disability." Ibid . (quoting AAIDD-11, at 59-60).
Fourth, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals required "Moore to show that his adaptive deficits were not related to 'a personality disorder.' " 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1051 (quoting Ex parte Moore I , 470 S.W.3d at 488 ). But clinicians recognize that the "existence of a personality disorder or mental-health issue ... is 'not evidence that a person does not also have intellectual disability.' " 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1051 (quoting Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae in Moore v. Texas , O.T. 2016, No. 15797, p. 19.
Fifth, the appeals court directed state courts, when examining adaptive deficits, to rely upon certain factors set forth in a Texas case called Ex parte Briseno , 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Ex parte Moore I , 470 S.W.3d at 486, 489. The Briseno factors were: whether "those who knew the person best during the developmental stage" thought of him as "mentally retarded"; whether he could "formulat[e] plans" and "car[ry] them through"; whether his conduct showed "leadership"; whether he showed a "rational and appropriate" "response to external stimuli"; whether he could answer questions "coherently" and "rationally"; whether he could "hide facts or lie effectively"; and whether the commission of his offense required "forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose." 135 S.W.3d at 8-9.
We criticized the use of these factors both because they had no grounding in prevailing medical practice, and because they invited "lay perceptions of intellectual disability" and "lay stereotypes" to guide assessment of intellectual disability. Moore , 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1051. Emphasizing the Briseno factors over clinical factors, we said, " 'creat[es] an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.' " 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1051 (quoting Hall v. Florida , 572 U.S. 701, 704, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014) ). While our decisions in " Atkins and Hall left to the States 'the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce' the restriction on executing the intellectually disabled," 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1048 (quoting Hall , 572 U.S. at 719, 134 S.Ct. 1986 ), a court's intellectual disability determination "must be 'informed by the medical community's diagnostic framework,' " 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1048 (quoting Hall , 572 U.S. at 721, 134 S.Ct. 1986 ).
Three Members of this Court dissented from the majority's treatment of Moore's intellectual functioning and with aspects of its adaptive-functioning analysis, but all agreed about the impropriety of the Briseno factors. As THE CHIEF JUSTICE wrote in his dissenting opinion, the Briseno factors were "an unacceptable method of enforcing the guarantee of Atkins " and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals "therefore erred in using them to analyze adaptive deficits."
Moore , 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1053 (opinion of ROBERTS, C.J.)
For the reasons we have described, the Court set aside the judgment of the appeals court and remanded the case "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Id ., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1053.
II
On remand the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reconsidered the appeal and reached the same basic conclusion, namely, that Moore had not demonstrated intellectual disability. Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 555. The court again noted the three basic criteria: intellectual-functioning deficits, adaptive deficits, and early onset. Id ., at 560-562. But this time it focused almost exclusively on the second criterion, adaptive deficits. The court said that, in doing so, it would "abandon reliance on the Briseno evidentiary factors." Id ., at 560. It would instead use " 'current medical diagnostic standards' " set forth in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5. Id ., at 559-560. In applying those standards to the trial court record, it found the State's expert witness, Dr. Kristi Compton, " 'far more credible and reliable' " than the other experts considered by the trial court. Id ., at 562. (As in our last opinion, we neither second nor second-guess that judgment.) And, as we have said, it reached the same conclusion it had before.
Moore has now filed a petition for certiorari in which he argues that the trial court record demonstrates his intellectual disability. He asks us to reverse the appeals court's contrary holding. Pet. for Cert. 2. The prosecutor, the district attorney of Harris County, "agrees with the petitioner that he is intellectually disabled and cannot be executed." Brief in Opposition 9. The American Psychological Association (APA), American Bar Association (ABA), and various individuals have also filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the position of Moore and the prosecutor. Brief for APA et al. as Amici Curiae ; Brief for ABA as Amicus Curiae ; Brief for Donald B. Ayer et al. as Amici Curiae . The Attorney General of Texas, however, has filed a motion for leave to intervene, and asks us to deny Moore's petition. Motion for Leave to Intervene as a Respondent.
III
After reviewing the trial court record and the court of appeals' opinion, we agree with Moore that the appeals court's determination is inconsistent with our opinion in Moore . We have found in its opinion too many instances in which, with small variations, it repeats the analysis we previously found wanting, and these same parts are critical to its ultimate conclusion.
For one thing, the court of appeals again relied less upon the adaptive deficits to which the trial court had referred than upon Moore's apparent adaptive strengths . See Moore , 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1050 (criticizing the appeals court's "overemphas[is]" upon Moore's "perceived adaptive strengths"); supra , at 668 - 669. The appeals court's discussion of Moore's "[c]ommunication [s]kills" does not discuss the evidence relied upon by the trial court. Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 563-565. That evidence includes the young Moore's inability to understand and answer family members, even a failure on occasion to respond to his own name. App. to Pet. for Cert. 289a-290a. Its review of Moore's "[r]eading and [w]riting" refers to deficits only in observing that "in prison, [Moore] progressed from being illiterate to being able to write at a seventh-grade level." Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 565. But the trial court heard, among other things, evidence that in school Moore was made to draw pictures when other children were reading, and that by sixth grade Moore struggled to read at a second-grade level. App. to Pet. for Cert. 290a, 295a.
Instead, the appeals court emphasized Moore's capacity to communicate, read, and write based in part on pro se papers Moore filed in court. Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 565-566. That evidence is relevant, but it lacks convincing strength without a determination about whether Moore wrote the papers on his own, a finding that the court of appeals declined to make. Rather, the court dismissed the possibility of outside help: Even if other inmates "composed" these papers, it said, Moore's "ability to copy such documents by hand" was "within the realm of only a few intellectually disabled people." Id ., at 565. Similarly, the court of appeals stressed Moore's "coherent" testimony in various proceedings, but acknowledged that Moore had "a lawyer to coach him" in all but one. Id ., at 564, and n. 95. As for that pro se hearing, the court observed that Moore read letters into the record "without any apparent difficulty." Ibid .
For another thing, the court of appeals relied heavily upon adaptive improvements made in prison. See Moore , 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1050 ("caution[ing] against reliance on adaptive strengths developed" in "prison"); supra , at 668. It concluded that Moore has command of elementary math, but its examples concern trips to the prison commissary, commissary purchases, and the like. Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 566-569. It determined that Moore had shown leadership ability in prison by refusing, on occasion, "to mop up some spilled oatmeal," shave, get a haircut, or sit down. Id ., at 570-571, and n. 149. And as we have said, it stressed correspondence written in prison. Id ., at 565. The length and detail of the court's discussion on these points is difficult to square with our caution against relying on prison-based development.
Further, the court of appeals concluded that Moore failed to show that the "cause of [his] deficient social behavior was related to any deficits in general mental abilities" rather than "emotional problems." Id ., at 570. But in our last review, we said that the court of appeals had "departed from clinical practice" when it required Moore to prove that his "problems in kindergarten" stemmed from his intellectual disability, rather than " 'emotional problems.' " Moore , 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1051 (quoting Ex parte Moore I , 470 S.W.3d at 488, 526 ). And we pointed to an amicus brief in which the APA explained that a personality disorder or mental-health issue is "not evidence that a person does not also have intellectual disability." 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1051 (quoting Brief for APA et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 15-797, at 19).
Finally, despite the court of appeals' statement that it would "abandon reliance on the Briseno evidentiary factors," Ex parte MooreII , 548 S.W.3d at 560, it seems to have used many of those factors in reaching its conclusion. See supra , at 669 - 670 (detailing those factors). Thus, Briseno asked whether the "offense require[d] forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose." 135 S.W.3d at 9. The court of appeals wrote that Moore's crime required "a level of planning and forethought." Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 572, 603 (observing that Moore "w[ore] a wig, conceal[ed] the weapon, and fle[d]" after the crime).
Briseno asked whether the defendant could "respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral and written questions." 135 S.W.3d at 8. The court of appeals found that Moore "responded rationally and coherently to questions." Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 564.
And Briseno asked whether the defendant's "conduct show[s] leadership or ... that he is led around by others." 135 S.W.3d at 8. The court of appeals wrote that Moore's "refus[al] to mop up some spilled oatmeal" (and other such behavior) showed that he "influences others and stands up to authority." Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 570-571.
Of course, clinicians also ask questions to which the court of appeals' statements might be relevant. See AAIDD-11, at 44 (noting that how a person "follows rules" and "obeys laws" can bear on assessment of her social skills). But the similarity of language and content between Briseno 's factors and the court of appeals' statements suggests that Briseno continues to "pervasively infec[t] the [the appeals courts'] analysis." Moore , 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1053.
To be sure, the court of appeals opinion is not identical to the opinion we considered in Moore . There are sentences here and there suggesting other modes of analysis consistent with what we said. But there are also sentences here and there suggesting reliance upon what we earlier called "lay stereotypes of the intellectually disabled." Id ., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1052. Compare Ex parte Moore II , 548 S.W.3d at 570-571 (finding evidence that Moore "had a girlfriend" and a job as tending to show he lacks intellectual disability), with AAIDD-11, at 151 (criticizing the "incorrect stereotypes" that persons with intellectual disability "never have friends, jobs, spouses, or children"), and Brief for APA et al. as Amici Curiae 8 ("[I]t is estimated that between nine and forty percent of persons with intellectual disability have some form of paid employment").
We conclude that the appeals court's opinion, when taken as a whole and when read in the light both of our prior opinion and the trial court record, rests upon analysis too much of which too closely resembles what we previously found improper. And extricating that analysis from the opinion leaves too little that might warrant reaching a different conclusion than did the trial court. We consequently agree with Moore and the prosecutor that, on the basis of the trial court record, Moore has shown he is a person with intellectual disability.
* * *
The petition for certiorari is granted. The Attorney General of Texas' motion to intervene is denied; we have considered that filing as an amicus brief. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is a companion case to United States v. Olympic Radio & Television, Inc., ante, p. 232. The main point in the two cases is the same — whether a taxpayer on the accrual basis can, in computing its net operating loss for one year, deduct the amount of excess profits taxes which were paid in that year but had accrued in an earlier year.
The years 1944 and 1945 were years of profit for the taxpayer. For the years 1946 and 1947, the taxpayer incurred net operating losses which were allowed by the Commissioner as carry-back deductions to the years 1944 and 1945. The taxpayer sought to augment its net operating loss for 1946 by the amount of excess profits taxes which it paid in 1946 on account of its 1945 excess profits tax liability. The Commissioner disallowed the deduction and the Tax Court sustained the Commissioner. 18 T. C. 1245. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 215 F. 2d 518. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted (348 U. S. 895) to resolve the conflict with the Olympic Radip case. Our views, as expressed in the latter case, coincide with those of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, we affirm that part of the judgment.
There is present in this case a point not involved in the Olympic Radio case. The question is whether the excess profits tax that may be offset against 1944 net income is the amount of excess profits tax reported for the year in question or the amount ultimately found to be due. The taxpayer claims it is the former; the Commissioner, the latter.
The question centers on § 122 (b)(1) and § 122 (d) (6). As we have.seen in the Olympic Radio case, § 122 (b)(1) directs that the net operating loss for a given year be carried back to the two preceding taxable years. And § 122 (d) (6) allows as a deduction “the amount of tax imposed by Subchapter E of Chapter 2 [i. e., the excess profits tax] paid or accrued within the taxable year . . ..” (Italics added.)
The taxpayer’s net income for 1944, as shown by its return, was $827,852.99; and, as finally determined, was $584,866.81. The excess profits tax due according to its 1944 return was $625,561.59. The Commissioner, after allowing as a deduction a net operating loss carry-back of $164,326.38 arising in 1946, and making other adjustments, ultimately determined the taxpayer’s excess profits tax liability for 1944 to be $280,540.33. The Commissioner computed the net income for 1944 at $304,326.48, that is, $584,866.81 minus $280,540.33. Since the net operating loss of $164,326.38 was less than $304,326.48, there was no loss to be carried back to 1945, as § 122 (b)(1) provides “. . . that the carry-back in the case of the first preceding taxable year shall be the excess, if any, of the amount of such net operating loss over the net income for the second preceding taxable year . . . .”
The taxpayer, however, contends that the excess profits 'tax “accrued” in 1944 is the tax shown on its return for that year, viz., $625,561.59. If this larger amount is the correct figure, then the deduction allowed against 1944 income will be so great as to leave a carry-back which can be deducted against 1945 income.
The controversy turns on the meaning of the clause in §122 (d)(6) which reads, “the amount of tax imposed by Subchapter E of Chapter 2 . . . accrued within the taxable year . . . .” The Commissioner contends that the tax “imposed” is the tax ultimately determined to be due. The argument is that the taxpayer having once got back, through credit or refund, the difference between the amount of the tax “accrued” in 1944 and the amount finally determined to be due, no double benefit should be inferred. The double benefit, it is argued, should certainly be denied when the figure upon which it is based has no economic reality.
But the rule that general equitable considerations do not control the measure of deductions or tax benefits cuts both ways. It is as applicable to the Government as to the taxpayer. Congress may be strict or lavish in its allowance of deductions or tax benefits. The formula it writes may be arbitrary and harsh in its applications. But where the benefit claimed by the taxpayer is fairly within the statutory language and the construction sought is in harmony with the statute as an organic whole, the benefits will not be withheld from the taxpayer though they represent an unexpected windfall. See Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U. S. 625, 630.
When Congress wrote the word “imposed” into § 122 (d)(6), it might have used it in one of two different senses — either to identify the tax or to define the amount of the tax that is to be levied and collected. We think that Congress used “imposed” in the former sense.
In the first place, the deduction allowed by § 122 (d) (6) is not the tax “imposed” by Subchapter E of Chapter 2. It is “the amount of tax imposed by Subchapter E of Chapter 2 . . . accrued within the taxable year.” The word “imposed” when used in conjunction with “accrued” makes tolerably clear that “imposed” merely identifies or describes the tax that “accrued.” That is to say, the sentence as a whole indicates that “imposed” is used merely by way of reference. It seems clear that Congress had that understanding. The Senate Finance Committee reported:
“Section 122 of the Code, relating to computation of the net operating loss deduction allowed by section 23 (s) of the Code, is amended so as to allow the excess profits tax paid or accrued within taxable years (subject to certain rules) as a deduction in computing net operating loss for, and net operating loss carry-over and carry-back from, such taxable years.” S. Rep. No. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 67. And see H. R. Rep. No. 2333, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 65.
That indicates that the test of deductibility under § 122 (d) (6) is whether the tax “accrued” within the taxable year.
Secondly, the general section dealing with deductions, § 23, allows deductions for taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year, with certain specified exceptions. § 23 (c). Some of the excepted taxes are identified by well-known names, e. g., federal income taxes, estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, and gift taxes. See § 23 (c) (1) (A), (D). Other taxes excepted are identified by reference to the taxes “imposed” by certain provisions of the law. Thus § 23 (c) (1) (B) excepts “war-profits and excess-profits taxes imposed by . . . Subchapter E of Chapter 2.” The applicable Treasury Regulation indicates that the word “imposed” identifies the tax. It provides: “Subject to the exception stated in this section . . . taxes imposed by the United States . . . are deductible from gross income for the year in which paid or accrued.” 26 CFR § 39.23 (c)-1.
Section 23 is especially relevant here, since the language of § 122 (d) (6) was taken almost verbatim from § 23. That section as amended by the Revenue Act of 1941 had provided that, in computing net income, a deduction for taxes “paid or accrued within the taxable year” should be allowed.
As respects the excess profits tax, § 23 (c) (2) provided:
“For the purposes of this subsection, in the case of the excess-profits tax imposed by Subchapter E of Chapter 2—
“(A) The deduction shall be limited to the .tax imposed for the taxable year . . . .” (Italics added.)
It would seem that (A) would have limited the § 122 (d)(6) adjustment to the tax finally paid. But (A) was omitted from §122 (d)(6). The word “imposed” as used in the quantitative sense was dropped, while the word “imposed” as used to identify the tax was retained.
Finally, the tax that “accrued” within a given year is not the tax finally determined to be due but the tax before ultimate adjustments are made. That is elementary in tax law. See Security Flour Mills Co. v. Commissioner, 321 U. S. 281, 284. It would seem therefore that the concept “accrued” embodies the annual accounting principle. If, in case of a taxpayer on the accrual basis, events after the taxable year are taken into account, the word “accrued” would be effectively read out of § 122 (d) (6) or given a varied meaning, contrary to our ruling in the Olympic Radio case.
It is true that the computations under § 122 are designed to spread losses over a five-year period. But we are concerned with a technical concept that is being used as the basis of the formula for that reallocation. We find no justification for taking “accrued” as used in § 122 (d) (6) to mean one thing in the setting of the Olympic Radio case and another in this situation.
Our conclusion is in accord with a line of related decisions. The whole tax scheme has been posited on the basis that the duty to pay is without regard to the deduction made available by the carry-back. See Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co., 338 U. S. 561, 567. Only recently we applied that principle to the excess profits tax. In United States v. Koppers Co., 348 U. S. 254, we held that these taxes were payable in full the year when they were due and that interest was payable on the amounts so due, even though ultimately portions of the taxes were abated.
In short, the amount of tax accrued within the taxable year under § 122 (d)(6) is to be determined in accord with the normal accounting concepts relevant to the accrual basis. That amount is not, of course, to be ascertained solely by reference to the figure set forth in the taxpayer’s return, for that figure may be erroneously computed on the accrual basis. But when an amount is arrived at by proper application of recognized accounting principles on the accrual basis, the test of § 122 (d) (6) has been met. Events and transactions of later years, irrelevant to a determination of income on the accrual basis, do not warrant alteration of the figure computed under § 122 (d) (6) for the year in question.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 122 (b)(1) provides:
“If for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1941, the taxpayer has a net operating loss, such net operating loss shall be a net operating loss carry-back for each of the two preceding taxable years, except that the carry-back in the case of the first preceding taxable year shall be the excess, if any, of the amount of such net operating loss over the net income for the second preceding taxable year computed (A) with the exceptions, additions, and limitations provided in subsection (d)(1), (2), (4), and (6), and (B) by determining the net operating loss deduction for such sécond preceding taxable year without regard to such net operating loss.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this litigation, we granted certiorari before judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in order to consider the constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission. The Commission is a body created under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Act), as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 3551 et seq. (1982 ed., Supp. IV), and 28 U. S. C. §§ 991-998 (1982 ed., Supp. IV). The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled that the Guidelines were constitutional. United States v. Johnson, 682 F. Supp. 1033 (1988).
I
A
Background
For almost a century, the Federal Government employed in criminal cases a system of indeterminate sentencing. Statutes specified the penalties for crimes but nearly always gave the sentencing judge wide discretion to decide whether the offender should be incarcerated and for how long, whether restraint, such as probation, should be imposed instead of imprisonment or fine. This indeterminate-sentencing system was supplemented by the utilization of parole, by which an offender was returned to society under the “guidance and control” of a parole officer. See Zerbst v. Kidwell, 304 U. S. 359, 363 (1938).
Both indeterminate sentencing and parole were based on concepts of the offender’s possible, indeed probable, rehabilitation, a view that it was realistic to attempt to rehabilitate the inmate and thereby to minimize the risk that he would resume criminal activity upon his return to society. It obviously required the judge and the parole officer to make their respective sentencing and release decisions upon their own assessments of the offender’s amenability to rehabilitation. As a result, the court and the officer were in positions to exercise, and usually did exercise, very broad discretion. See Kadish, The Advocate and the Expert —Counsel in the PenoCorrectional Process, 45 Minn. L. Rev. 803, 812-813 (1961).. This led almost inevitably to the conclusion on the part of a reviewing court that the sentencing judge “sees more and senses more” than the appellate court; thus, the judge enjoyed the “superiority of his nether position,” for that court’s determination as to what sentence was appropriate met with virtually unconditional deference on appeal. See Rosenberg, Judicial Discretion of the Trial Court, Viewed From Above, 22 Syracuse L. Rev. 635, 663 (1971). See Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U. S. 424, 431 (1974). The decision whether to parole was also “predictive and discretionary.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 480 (1972). The correction official possessed almost absolute discretion over the parole decision. See, e. g., Brest v. Ciccone, 371 F. 2d 981, 982-983 (CA8 1967); Rifai v. United States Parole Comm’n, 586 F. 2d 695 (CA9 1978).
Historically, federal sentencing — the function of determining the scope and extent of punishment — never has been thought to be assigned by the Constitution to the exclusive jurisdiction of any one of the three Branches of Government. Congress, of course, has the power to fix the sentence for a federal crime, United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76 (1820), and the scope of judicial discretion with respect to a sentence is subject to congressional control. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27 (1916). Congress early abandoned fixed-sentence rigidity, however, and put in place a system of ranges within which the sentencer could choose the precise punishment. See United States v. Grayson, 438 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1978). Congress delegated almost unfettered discretion to the sentencing judge to determine what the sentence should be within the customarily wide range so selected. This broad discretion was further enhanced by the power later granted the judge to suspend the sentence and by the resulting growth of an elaborate probation system. Also, with the advent of parole, Congress moved toward a “three-way sharing” of sentencing responsibility by granting corrections personnel in the Executive Branch the discretion to release a prisoner before the expiration of the sentence imposed by the judge. Thus, under the indeterminate-sentence system, Congress defined the maximum, the judge imposed a sentence within the statutory range (which he usually could replace with probation), and the Executive Branch’s parole official eventually determined the actual duration of imprisonment. See Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 248 (1949). See also Geraghty v. United States Parole Comm’n, 719 F. 2d 1199, 1211 (CA3 1983), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1103 (1984); United States v. Addonizio, 442 U. S. 178, 190 (1979); United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437, 443 (1965) (“[I]f a given policy can be implemented only by a combination of legislative enactment, judicial application, and executive implementation, no man or group of men will be able to impose its unchecked will”).
Serious disparities in sentences, however, were common. Rehabilitation as a sound penological theory came to be questioned and, in any event, was regarded by some as an unattainable goal for most cases. See N. Morris, The Future of Imprisonment 24-43 (1974); F. Allen, The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal (1981). In 1958, Congress authorized the creation of judicial sentencing institutes and joint councils, see 28 U. S. C. § 334, to formulate standards and criteria for sentencing. In 1973, the United States Parole Board adopted guidelines that established a “customary range” of confinement. See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U. S. 388, 391 (1980). Congress in 1976 endorsed this initiative through the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, 18 U. S. C. §§4201-4218, an attempt to envision for the Parole Commission a role, at least in part, “to moderate the disparities in the sentencing practices of individual judges.” United States v. Addonizio, 442 U. S., at 189. That Act, however, did not disturb the division of sentencing responsibility among the three Branches. The judge continued to exercise discretion and to set the sentence within the statutory range fixed by Congress, while the prisoner’s actual release date generally was set by the Parole Commission.
This proved to be no more than a way station. Fundamental and widespread dissatisfaction with the uncertainties and the disparities continued to be expressed. Congress had wrestled with the problem for more than a decade when, in 1984, it enacted the sweeping reforms that are at issue here.
Helpful in our consideration and analysis of the statute is the Senate Report on the 1984 legislation, S. Rep. No. 98-225 (1983) (Report). The Report referred to the “outmoded rehabilitation model” for federal criminal sentencing, and recognized that the efforts of the criminal justice system to achieve rehabilitation of offenders had failed. Id., at 38. It observed that the indeterminate-sentencing system had two “unjustified]” and “shameful” consequences. Id., at 38, 65. The first was the great variation among sentences imposed by different judges upon similarly situated offenders. The second was the uncertainty as to the time the offender would spend in prison. Each was a serious impediment to an evenhanded and effective operation of the criminal justice system. The Report went on to note that parole was an inadequate device for overcoming these undesirable consequences. This was due to the division of authority between the sentencing judge and the parole officer who often worked at cross purposes; to the fact that the Parole Commission’s own guidelines did not take into account factors Congress regarded as important in sentencing, such as the sophistication of the offender and the role the offender played in an offense committed with others, id., at 48; and to the fact that the Parole Commission had only limited power to adjust a sentence imposed by the court. Id., at 47.
Before settling on a mandatory-guideline system, Congress considered other competing proposals for sentencing reform. It rejected strict determinate sentencing because it concluded that a guideline system would be successful in reducing sentence disparities while retaining the flexibility needed to adjust for unanticipated factors arising in a particular case. Id., at 78-79, 62. The Judiciary Committee rejected a proposal that would have made the sentencing guidelines only advisory. Id., at 79.
B
The Act
The Act, as adopted, revises the old sentencing process in several ways:
1. It rejects imprisonment as a means of promoting rehabilitation, 28 U. S. C. §994(k), and it states that punishment should serve retributive, educational, deterrent, and incapacitative goals, 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a)(2).
2. It consolidates the power that had been exercised by the sentencing judge and the Parole Commission to decide what punishment an offender should suffer. This is done by creating the United States Sentencing Commission, directing that Commission to devise guidelines to be used for sentencing, and prospectively abolishing the Parole Commission. 28 U. S. C. §§991, 994, and 995(a)(1).
3. It makes all sentences basically determinate. A prisoner is to be released at the completion of his sentence reduced only by any credit earned by good behavior while in custody. 18 U. S. C. §§ 3624(a) and (b).
4. It makes the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines binding on the courts, although it preserves for the judge the discretion to depart from the guideline applicable to a particular case if the judge finds an aggravating or mitigating factor present that the Commission did not adequately consider when formulating guidelines. §§ 3553(a) and (b). The Act also requires the court to state its reasons for the sentence imposed and to give “the specific reason” for imposing a sentence different from that described in the guideline. § 3553(c).
5. It authorizes limited appellate review of the sentence. It permits a defendant to appeal a sentence that is above the defined range, and it permits the Government to appeal a sentence that is below that range. It also permits either side to appeal an incorrect application of the guideline. §§ 3742(a) and (b).
Thus, guidelines were meant to establish a range of determinate sentences for categories of offenses and defendants according to various specified factors, “among others.” 28 U. S. C. §§ 994(b), (c), and (d). The maximum of the range ordinarily may not exceed the minimum by more than the greater of 25% or six months, and each sentence is to be within the limit provided by existing law. §§ 994(a) and (b)(2).
C
The Sentencing Commission
The Commission is established “as an independent commission in the judicial branch of the United States.” §991(a). It has seven voting members (one of whom is the Chairman) appointed by the President “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” “At least three of the members shall be Federal judges selected after considering a list of six judges recommended to the President by the Judicial Conference of the United States.” Ibid. No more than four members of the Commission shall be members of the same political party. The Attorney General, or his designee, is an ex officio nonvoting member. The Chairman and other members of the Commission are subject to removal by the President “only for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office or for other good cause shown.” Ibid. Except for initial staggering of terms, a voting member serves for six years and may not serve more than two full terms. §§ 992(a) and (b).
D
The Responsibilities of the Commission
In addition to the duty the Commission has to promulgate determinative-sentence guidelines, it is under an obligation periodically to “review and revise” the guidelines. § 994(o). It is to “consult with authorities on, and individual and institutional representatives of, various aspects of the Federal criminal justice system.” Ibid. It must report to Congress “any amendments of the guidelines.” §994(p). It is to make recommendations to Congress whether the grades or maximum penalties should be modified. § 994(r). It must submit to Congress at least annually an analysis of the operation of the guidelines. § 994(w). It is to issue “general policy statements” regarding their application. § 994(a)(2). And it has the power to “establish general policies... as are necessary to carry out the purposes” of the legislation, § 995(a)(1); to “monitor the performance of probation officers” with respect to the guidelines, § 995(a)(9); to “devise and conduct periodic training programs of instruction in sentencing techniques for judicial and probation personnel” and others, § 995(a)(18); and to “perform such other functions as are required to permit Federal courts to meet their responsibilities” as to sentencing, § 995(a)(22).
We note, in passing, that the monitoring function is not without its burden. Every year, with respect to each of more than 40,000 sentences, the federal courts must forward, and the Commission must review, the presentence report, the guideline worksheets, the tribunal’s sentencing statement, and any written plea agreement.
II
This Litigation
On December 10, 1987, John M. Mistretta (petitioner) and another were indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on three counts centering in a cocaine sale. See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 87-1904, p. 16a. Mistretta moved to have the promulgated Guidelines ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that the Sentencing Commission was constituted in violation of the established doctrine of separation of powers, and that Congress delegated excessive authority to the Commission to structure the Guidelines. As has been noted, the District Court was not persuaded by these contentions.
The District Court rejected petitioner’s delegation argument on the ground that, despite the language of the statute, the Sentencing Commission “should be judicially characterized as having Executive Branch status,” 682 F. Supp., at 1035, and that the Guidelines are similar to substantive rules promulgated by other agencies. Id., at 1034-1035. The court also rejected petitioner’s claim that the Act is unconstitutional because it requires Article III federal judges to serve on the Commission. Id.; at 1035. The court stated, however, that its opinion “does not imply that I have no serious doubts about some parts of the Sentencing Guidelines and the legality of their anticipated operation.” Ibid.
Petitioner had pleaded guilty to the first count of his indictment (conspiracy and agreement to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§846 and 841(b)(1)(B)). The Government thereupon moved to dismiss the remaining counts. That motion was granted. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 87-1904, p. 33a. Petitioner was sentenced under the Guidelines to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. Id., at 30a, 35a, 37a. The court also imposed a $1,000 fine and a $50 special assessment. Id., at 31a, 40a.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit, but both petitioner and the United States, pursuant to this Court’s Rule 18, petitioned for certiorari before judgment. Because of the “imperative public importance” of the issue, as prescribed by the Rule, and because of the disarray among the Federal District Courts, we granted those petitions. 486 U. S. 1054 (1988).
Ill
Delegation of Power
Petitioner argues that in delegating the power to promulgate sentencing guidelines for every federal criminal offense to an independent Sentencing Commission, Congress has granted the Commission excessive legislative discretion in violation of the constitutionally based nondelegation doctrine. We do not agree.
The nondelegation doctrine is rooted in the principle of separation of powers that underlies our tripartite system of Government. The Constitution provides that “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §1, and we long have insisted that “the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution” mandate that Congress generally cannot delegate its legislative power to another Branch. Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892). We also have recognized, however, that the separation-of-powers principle, and the nondelegation doctrine in particular, do not prevent Congress from obtaining the assistance of its coordinate Branches. In a passage now enshrined in our jurisprudence, Chief Justice Taft, writing for the Court, explained our approach to such cooperative ventures: “In determining what [Congress] may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.” J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 406 (1928). So long as Congress “shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.” Id., at 409.
Applying this “intelligible principle” test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. See Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator, Wage and Hour Div. of Dept. of Labor, 312 U. S. 126, 145 (1941) (“In an increasingly complex society Congress obviously could not perform its functions if it were obliged to find all the facts subsidiary to the basic conclusions which support the defined legislative policy”); see also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 274 (1967) (opinion concurring in result). “The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality, which will enable it to perform its function.” Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388, 421 (1935). Accordingly, this Court has deemed it “constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.” American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U. S. 90, 105 (1946).
Until 1935, this Court never struck down a challenged statute on delegation grounds. See Synar v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 1374, 1383 (DC) (three-judge court), aff’d sub nom. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714 (1986). After invalidating in 1935 two statutes as excessive delegations, see A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, supra, we have upheld, again without deviation, Congress’ ability to delegate power under broad standards. See, e. g., Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742, 785-786 (1948) (upholding delegation of authority to determine excessive profits); American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U. S., at 105 (upholding delegation of authority to Securities and Exchange Commission to prevent unfair or inequitable distribution of voting power among security holders); Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 426 (1944) (upholding delegation to Price Administrator to fix commodity prices that would be fair and equitable, and would effectuate purposes of Emergency Price Control Act of 1942); FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 600 (1944) (upholding delegation to Federal Power Commission to determine just and reasonable rates); National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190, 225-226 (1943) (upholding delegation to Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadcast licensing “as public interest, convenience, or necessity” require).
In light of our approval of these broad delegations, we harbor no doubt that Congress’ delegation of authority to the Sentencing Commission is sufficiently specific and detailed to meet constitutional requirements. Congress charged the Commission with three goals: to “assure the meeting of the purposes of sentencing as set forth” in the Act; to “provide certainty and fairness in meeting the purposes of sentencing, avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records... while maintaining sufficient flexibility to permit individualized sentences,” where appropriate; and to “reflect, to the extent practicable, advancement in knowledge of human behavior as it relates to the criminal justice process.” 28 U. S. C. §991(b)(1). Congress further specified four “purposes” of sentencing that the Commission must pursue in carrying out its mandate: “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense”; “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct”; “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant”; and “to provide the defendant with needed... correctional treatment.” 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a)(2).
In addition, Congress prescribed the specific tool — the guidelines system — for the Commission to use in regulating sentencing. More particularly, Congress directed the Commission to develop a system of “sentencing ranges” applicable “for each category of offense involving each category of defendant.” 28 U. S. C. § 994(b). Congress instructed the Commission that these sentencing ranges must be consistent with pertinent provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code and could not include sentences in excess of the statutory maxima. Congress also required that for sentences of imprisonment, “the maximum of the range established for such a term shall not exceed the minimum of that range by more than the greater of 25 percent or 6 months, except that, if the minimum term of the range is 30 years or more, the maximum may be life imprisonment.” § 994(b)(2). Moreover, Congress directed the Commission to use current average sentences “as a starting point” for its structuring of the sentencing ranges. § 994(m).
To guide the Commission in its formulation of offense categories, Congress directed it to consider seven factors: the grade of the offense; the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime; the nature and degree of the harm caused by the crime; the community view of the gravity of the offense; the public concern generated by the crime; the deterrent effect that a particular sentence may have on others; and the current incidence of the offense. §§ 994(c)(1)— (7). Congress set forth 11 factors for the Commission to consider in establishing categories of defendants. These include the offender’s age, education, vocational skills, mental and emotional condition, physical condition (including drug dependence), previous employment record, family ties and responsibilities, community ties, role in the offense, criminal history, and degree of dependence upon crime for a livelihood. § 994(d)(1) — (11). Congress also prohibited the Commission from considering the “race, sex, national origin, creed, and socioeconomic status of offenders,” § 994(d), and instructed that the guidelines should reflect the “general inappropriateness” of considering certain other factors, such as current unemployment, that might serve as proxies for forbidden factors, § 994(e).
In addition to these overarching constraints, Congress provided even more detailed guidance to the Commission about categories of offenses and offender characteristics. Congress directed that guidelines require a term of confinement at or near the statutory maximum for certain crimes of violence and for drug offenses, particularly when committed by recidivists. § 994(h). Congress further directed that the Commission assure a substantial term of imprisonment for an offense constituting a third felony conviction, for a career felon, for one convicted of a managerial role in a racketeering enterprise, for a crime of violence by an offender on release from a prior felony conviction, and for an offense involving a substantial quantity of narcotics. §994(i). Congress also instructed “that the guidelines reflect... the general appropriateness of imposing a term of imprisonment” for a crime of violence that resulted in serious bodily injury. On the other hand, Congress directed that guidelines reflect the general inappropriateness of imposing a sentence of imprisonment “in cases in which the defendant is a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense.” §994(j). Congress also enumerated various aggravating and mitigating circumstances, such as, respectively, multiple offenses or substantial assistance to the Government, to be reflected in the guidelines. §§ 994(l) and (n). In other words, although Congress granted the Commission substantial discretion in formulating guidelines, in actuality it legislated a full hierarchy of punishment — from near maximum imprisonment, to substantial imprisonment, to some imprisonment, to alternatives — and stipulated the most important offense and offender characteristics to place defendants within these categories.
We cannot dispute petitioner’s contention that the Commission enjoys significant discretion in formulating guidelines. The Commission does have discretionary authority to determine the relative severity of federal crimes and to assess the relative weight of the offender characteristics that Congress listed for the Commission to consider. See §§ 994(c) and (d) (Commission instructed to consider enumerated factors as it deems them to be relevant). The Commission also has significant discretion to determine which crimes have been punished too leniently, and which too severely. § 994(m). Congress has called upon the Commission to exercise its judgment about which types of crimes and which types of criminals are to be considered similar for the purposes of sentencing.
But our cases do not at all suggest that delegations of this type may not carry with them the need to exercise judgment on matters of policy. In Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 (1944), the Court upheld a delegation to the Price Administrator to fix commodity prices that “in his judgment will be generally fair and equitable and will effectuate the purposes of this Act” to stabilize prices and avert speculation. See id., at 420. In National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190 (1943), we upheld a delegation to the Federal Communications Commission granting it the authority to promulgate regulations in accordance with its view of the “public interest.” In Yakus, the Court laid down the applicable principle:
“It is no objection that the determination of facts and the inferences to be drawn from them in the light of the statutory standards and declaration of policy call for the ex-ereise of judgment, and for the formulation of subsidiary administrative policy within the prescribed statutory framework....
“... Only if we could say that there is an absence of standards for the guidance of the Administrator’s action, so that it would be impossible in a proper proceeding to ascertain whether the will of Congress has been obeyed, would we be justified in overriding its choice of means for effecting its declared purpose....” 321 U. S., at 425-426.
Congress has met that standard here. The Act sets forth more than merely an “intelligible principle” or minimal standards. One court has aptly put it: “The statute outlines the policies which prompted establishment of the Commission, explains what the Commission should do and how it should do it, and sets out specific directives to govern particular situations.” United States v. Chambless, 680 F. Supp. 793, 796 (ED La. 1988).
Developing proportionate penalties for hundreds of different crimes by a virtually limitless array of offenders is precisely the sort of intricate, labor-intensive task for which delegation to an expert body is especially appropriate. Although Congress has delegated significant discretion to the Commission to draw judgments from its analysis of existing sentencing practice and alternative sentencing models, “Congress is not confined to that method of executing its policy which involves the least possible delegation of discretion to administrative officers.” Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S., at 425-426. We have no doubt that in the hands of the Commission “the criteria which Congress has supplied are wholly adequate for carrying out the general policy and purpose” of the Act. Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381, 398 (1940).
IV
Separation of Powers
Having determined that Congress has set forth sufficient standards for the exercise of the Commission’s delegated authority, we turn to Mistretta’s claim that the Act violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
This Court consistently has given voice to, and has reaffirmed, the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty. See, e. g., Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 685-696 (1988); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S., at 725. Madison, in writing about the principle of separated powers, said: “No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).
In applying the principle of separated powers in our jurisprudence, we have sought to give life to Madison’s view of the appropriate relationship among the three coequal Branches. Accordingly, we have recognized, as Madison admonished at the founding, that while our Constitution mandates that “each of the three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others,” Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 629 (1935), the Framers did not require — and indeed rejected — the notion that the three Branches must be entirely separate and distinct. See, e. g., Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 443 (1977) (rejecting as archaic complete division of authority among the three Branches); United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974) (affirming Madison’s flexible approach to separation of powers). Madison, defending the Constitution against charges that it established insufficiently separate Branches, addressed the point directly. Separation of powers, he wrote, “d[oes] not mean that these [three] departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no controul over the acts of each other,” but rather “that where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution, are subverted.” The Federalist No. 47, pp. 325-326 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (emphasis in original). See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S., at 442, n. 5. Madison recognized that our constitutional system imposes upon the Branches a degrée of overlapping responsibility, a duty of interdependence as well as independence the absence of which “would preclude the establishment of a Nation capable of governing itself effectively.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 121 (1976). In a passage now commonplace in our cases, Justice Jackson summarized the pragmatic, flexible view of differentiated governmental power to which we are heir:
“While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 635 (1952) (concurring opinion).
In adopting this flexible understanding of separation of powers, we simply have recognized Madison’s teaching that the greatest security against tyranny — the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch — lies not in a hermetic division among the Branches, but in a carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power within each Branch. “[T]he greatest security,” wrote Madison, “against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.” The Federalist No. 51, p. 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Accordingly, as we have noted many times, the Framers “built into the tripartite Federal Government... a self-executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 122. See also INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 951 (1983).
It is this concern of encroachment and aggrandizement that has animated our separation-of-powers jurisprudence and aroused our vigilance against the “hydraulic pressure inherent within each of the separate Branches to exceed the outer limits of its power.” Ibid. - Accordingly, we have not hesitated to strike down provisions of law that either accrete to a single Branch powers more appropriately diffused among separate Branches or that undermine the authority and independence of one or another coordinate Branch. For example, just as the Framers recognized the- particular danger of the Legislative Branch’s accreting to itself judicial or executive power, so too have we invalidated attempts by Congress to exercise the responsibilities of other Branches or to reassign powers vested by the Constitution in either the Judicial Branch or the Executive Branch. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714 (1986) (Congress may not exercise removal power over officer performing executive functions); INS v. Chadha, supra (Congress may not control execution of laws except through Art. I procedures); Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50 (1982) (Congress may not confer Art. Ill power on Art. I judge). By the same token, we have upheld statutory provisions that to some degree commingle the functions of the Branches, but that pose no danger of either aggrandizement or encroachment. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654 (1988) (upholding judicial appointment of independent counsel); Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833 (1986) (upholding agency’s assumption of jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims).
In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, supra, upholding, against a separation-of-powers challenge, legislation providing for the General Services Administration to control Presidential papers after resignation, we described our separation-of-powers inquiry as focusing “on the extent to which [a provision of law] prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.” 433 U. S., at 443 (citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 711-712. In cases specifically involving the Judicial Branch, we have expressed our vigilance against two dangers: first, that the Judicial Branch neither be assigned nor allowed “tasks that are more properly accomplished by [other] branches,” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S.,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | M | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
On June 16, 1970, appellant was arrested on a charge of armed robbery and, immediately thereafter, the State of Illinois instituted forfeiture proceedings against appellant’s automobile pursuant to the Illinois vehicle forfeiture statute, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 36-1 et seq. (1969). Appellant was held in custody in the Cook County jail from June 16, 1970, to October 7,1970, awaiting trial. Nevertheless, the State mailed notice of the pending forfeiture proceedings, not to the jail facility, but to appellant’s home address as listed in the records of the Secretary of State. It is undisputed that appellant, who remained in custody throughout the forfeiture proceedings, did not receive such notice until his release. After an ex parte hearing on August 19, 1970, the circuit court of Cook County ordered the forfeiture and sale of appellant’s vehicle.
Upon learning of the forfeiture after his release, appellant filed a motion for rehearing, requesting that the order of forfeiture be set aside because the manner of notice did not comport with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The circuit court of Cook County denied the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Illinois, three justices dissenting, held that, in light of the in rem nature of the proceedings, substituted service as utilized by the State did not deny appellant due process of law. People ex rel. Hanrahan v. One 1965 Oldsmobile, 52 Ill. 2d 37, 284 N. E. 2d 646 (1972). We cannot agree.
In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306 (1950), after commenting on the vagueness of the classifications "in rem, or more indefinitely quasi in rem, or more vaguely still, ‘in the nature of a proceeding in rem,’ ” this Court held that “the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution do not depend upon a classification for which the standards are so elusive and confused generally and which, being primarily for state courts to define, may and do vary from state to state.” Id., at 312. “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Id., at 314. More specifically, Múlleme held that notice by publication is not sufficient with respect to an individual whose name and address are known or easily ascertainable. Similarly, in Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U. S. 141 (1956), we held that, in the context of a foreclosure action by the town, notice by mailing, posting, and publication was inadequate where the individual involved was known by the town to be an incompetent without the protection of a guardian. See also Schroeder v. New York, 371 U. S. 208 (1962); Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U. S. 112 (1956); New York v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S. 293 (1953).
In the instant case, the State knew that appellant was not at the address to which the notice was mailed and, moreover, knew also that appellant could not get to that address since he was at that very time confined in the Cook County jail. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the State made any effort to provide notice which was "reasonably calculated” to apprise appellant of the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings. Accordingly, we grant the motion for leave, to proceed in forma pauperis, reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Under Illinois law, the address of a vehicle owner must be registered in the office of the Secretary of State. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 95%, §3-405 (1971). The Illinois vehicle forfeiture statute authorizes service of notice by certified mail to the address as listed in the records of the Secretary of State. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 36-1 (1969).
Appellant was tried on October 7, 1970, for the offense of armed robbery. The court, sitting without a jury, found appellant guilty only of plain robbery and sentenced him to probation for three years, the first four months of which to be served in the Cook County jail. In light of appellant’s pretrial detention, the four-month requirement was “considered served” and appellant was released immediately on his own recognizance.
Since we dispose of this case on the notice question, we do not reach the additional issues raised by appellant.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
In Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), this Court held that "the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence" that does not "relate directly to the circumstances of the crime." Id., at 501-502, 507, n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 2529. Four years later, in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), the Court granted certiorari to reconsider that ban on " 'victim impact' evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crimes on the victim's family." Id., at 817, 111 S.Ct. 2597. The Court held that Booth was wrong to conclude that the Eighth Amendment required such a ban. Payne, 501 U.S. at 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597. That holding was expressly "limited to" this particular type of victim impact testimony. Id., at 830, n. 2, 111 S.Ct. 2597. "Booth also held that the admission of a victim's family members' characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence violates the Eighth Amendment," but no such evidence was presented in Payne, so the Court had no occasion to reconsider that aspect of the decision. Ibid.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Payne "implicitly overruled that portion of Booth regarding characterizations of the defendant and opinions of the sentence." Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904, 920 (1997) (emphasis added); see also Ledbetter v. State, 933 P.2d 880, 890-891 (Okla.Crim.App.1997). The decision below presents a straightforward application of that interpretation of Payne . A jury convicted petitioner Shaun Michael Bosse of three counts of first-degree murder for the 2010 killing of Katrina Griffin and her two children. The State of Oklahoma sought the death penalty. Over Bosse's objection, the State asked three of the victims' relatives to recommend a sentence to the jury. All three recommended death, and the jury agreed. Bosse appealed, arguing that this testimony about the appropriate sentence violated the Eighth Amendment under Booth . The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his sentence, concluding that there was "no error." 2015 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 57-58, 360 P.3d 1203, 1226-1227. We grant certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and now vacate the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
"[I]t is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents." United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 567, 121 S.Ct. 1782, 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001) (quoting State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) ; internal quotation marks omitted); see Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized that Payne "specifically acknowledged its holding did not affect" Booth 's prohibition on opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate punishment. Ledbetter, 933 P.2d at 890-891. That should have ended its inquiry into whether the Eighth Amendment bars such testimony; the court was wrong to go further and conclude that Payne implicitly overruled Booth in its entirety. "Our decisions remain binding precedent until we see fit to reconsider them, regardless of whether subsequent cases have raised doubts about their continuing vitality." Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 252-253, 118 S.Ct. 1969, 141 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998).
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals remains bound by Booth 's prohibition on characterizations and opinions from a victim's family members about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence unless this Court reconsiders that ban. The state court erred in concluding otherwise.
The State argued in opposing certiorari that, even if the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was wrong in its victim impact ruling, that error did not affect the jury's sentencing determination, and the defendant's rights were in any event protected by the mandatory sentencing review in capital cases required under Oklahoma law. See Brief in Opposition 14-15. Those contentions may be addressed on remand to the extent the court below deems appropriate.
The judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice ALITO joins, concurring.
We held in Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a court from admitting the opinions of the victim's family members about the appropriate sentence in a capital case. The Court today correctly observes that our decision in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), did not expressly overrule this aspect of Booth . Because "it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents," State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that Payne invalidated Booth in its entirety. In vacating the decision below, this Court says nothing about whether Booth was correctly decided or whether Payne swept away its analytical foundations. I join the Court's opinion with this understanding.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are asked to relieve the United States from six awards by the Court of Claims as just compensation for deprivation of riparian rights along the San Joaquin River in California caused by construction of Friant Dam, and its dependent irrigation system, as part of the Central Valley Project.
This is a gigantic undertaking to redistribute the principal fresh-water resources of California. Central Valley is a vast basin, stretching over 400 miles on its polar axis and a hundred in width, in the heart of California. Bounded by the Sierra Nevada on the east and by coastal ranges on the west, it consists actually of two separate river valleys which merge in a single pass to the sea at the Golden Gate. Its rich acres, counted in the millions, are deficient in rainfall and must remain generally arid and unfruitful unless artificially watered.
Water resources there are, if they can be captured and distributed over the land. From the highland barricade at the north the Sacramento River flows southerly, while from the Yosemite region at the southeast the San Joaquin River winds northeasterly until the two meet and consort in outlet to the sea through estuaries that connect with San Francisco Bay. These dominating rivers collect tribute from many mountain currents, carry their hoardings past parched plains and thriftlessly dissipate them in the Pacific tides. When it is sought to make these streams yield their wasting treasures to the lands they traverse, men are confronted with a paradox of nature; for the Sacramento, with almost twice the water, is accessible to the least land, whereas about three-fifths of the valley lies in the domain of the less affluent San Joaquin.
To harness these wasting waters, overcome this perversity of nature and make water available where it would be of greatest service, the State of California proposed to re-engineer its natural water distribution. This project was taken over by the United States in 1935 and has since been a federal enterprise. The plan, in broad outline, is to capture and store waters of both rivers and many of their tributaries in their highland basins, in some cases taking advantage of the resulting head for generation of electric energy. Shasta Dam in the north will produce power for use throughout much of the State and will provide a great reservoir to equalize seasonal flows of the Sacramento. A more dramatic feature of the plan is the water storage and irrigation system at the other end of the valley. There the waters of the San Joaquin will be arrested at Friant, where they would take leave of the mountains, and will be diverted north and south through a system of canals and sold to irrigate more than a million acres of land, some as far as 160 miles away. A cost of refreshing this great expanse of semiarid land is that, except for occasional spills, only a dry river bed will cross the plain below the dam. Here, however, surplus waters from the north are utilized, for through a 150-mile canal Sacramento water is to be pumped to the cultivated lands formerly dependent on the San Joaquin.
Both rivers afford navigation — the Sacramento for a considerable distance inland, the San Joaquin practically only at tidewater levels. The plan will have navigation consequences, principally on the Sacramento; but the effects on navigation are economically insignificant as compared with the values realized from redistribution of water benefits.
Such a project inevitably unsettles many advantages long enjoyed in reliance upon the natural order, and it is with deprivation of such benefits that we are here concerned.
Claimants own land parcels riparian to the San Joaquin. These are called “uncontrolled grass lands,” to distinguish them from either crop lands or “controlled grass lands,” both of which have long been irrigated through controlled systems supplied from the stream. Neither of these latter will be injured by the diversion, for they are to be provided with the replacement water from the Sacramento.
Uncontrolled grass lands involved in the claims are parts of a large riparian area which benefits from the natural seasonal overflow of the stream. Each year, with predictable regularity, the stream swells and submerges and saturates these low-lying lands. They are moistened and enriched by these inundations so that forage and pasturage thrive, as otherwise they can not. The high stage of the river, while fluctuating in height and variable in arrival, is not a flood in the sense of an abnormal and sudden deluge. The river rises and falls in rhythm with the cycle of seasons, expansion being normal for its time as curtailment is for others, and both are repeated with considerable constancy over the years. It should be noted, however, that claimants’ benefit comes only from the very crest of this seasonal stage, which crest must be elevated and borne to their lands on the base of a full river, none of which can be utilized for irrigation above and little of it below them. Their claim of right is, in other words, to enjoy natural, seasonal fluctuation unhindered, which presupposes a peak flow largely unutilized.
The project puts an end to all this. Except at rare intervals, there will be no spill over Friant Dam, the bed of the San Joaquin along claimants’ lands will be parched, and their grass lands will be barren. Unlike the supply utilized for nearby crop and “controlled” lands, the vanishing San Joaquin inundation cannot be replaced with Sacramento water. Claimants have been severally awarded compensation for this taking of their annual inundations, on the theory that, as part of the natural flow, its continuance is a right annexed to their riparian property. 111 Ct. Cl. 1, 89, 76 F. Supp. 87, 99. The principal issues are common to the six cases in which we granted certiorari. 335 U. S. 883.
I. Navigation or Reclamation Project?
The Solicitor General contends that this overall project, and each part of it, has been authorized by Congress, under the commerce power, as a measure for control of navigation. Claimants on the other hand urge that although improvement of navigation was one objective of the Central Valley undertaking as a whole, nevertheless construction of the Friant Dam and the consequent taking of San Joaquin water rights had no purpose or effect except for irrigation and reclamation. This, it is claimed, was not only the actual, but the avowed purpose of Congress. On these conflicting assumptions the parties predicate contrary conclusions as to the right to compensation.
In the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 26, 1937, § 2, 50 Stat. 844, 850, and again in the Rivers and Harbors Act of October 17, 1940, 54 Stat. 1198, 1199-1200, Congress said that “the entire Central Valley project... is... declared to be for the purposes of improving navigation, regulating the flow of the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento River, controlling floods, providing for storage and for the delivery of the stored waters thereof... The 1937 Act also provided that “the said dam and reservoirs shall be used, first, for river regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control....”
But it also is true, as pointed out by claimants, that in these Acts Congress expressly “reauthorized” a project already initiated by President Roosevelt, who, on September 10, 1935, made allotment of funds for construction of Friant Dam and canals under the Federal Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, 49 Stat. 115, § 4, and provided that they “shall be reimbursable in accordance with the reclamation laws.” A finding of feasibility, as required by law, was made by the Secretary of the Interior on November 26, 1935, making no reference to navigation, and his recommendation of “the Central Valley development as a Federal reclamation project” was approved by the President on December 2, 1935.
When it “reauthorized” the Central Valley undertaking, Congress in the same Act provided that “the provisions of the reclamation law, as amended, shall govern the repayment of expenditures and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the dams, canals, power plants, pumping plants, transmission lines, and incidental works deemed necessary to said entire project, and the Secretary of the Interior may enter into repayment contracts, and other necessary contracts, with State agencies, authorities, associations, persons, and corporations, either public or private, including all agencies with which contracts are authorized under the reclamation law, and may acquire by proceedings in eminent domain, or otherwise, all lands, rights-of-way, water rights, and other property necessary for said purposes:...
The Central Valley basin development envisions, in one sense, an integrated undertaking, but also an aggregate of many subsidiary projects, each of which is of first magnitude. It consists of thirty-eight major dams and reservoirs bordering the valley floor and scores of smaller ones in headwaters. It contemplates twenty-eight hydro-power generating stations. It includes hundreds of miles of main canals, thousands of miles of laterals and drains, electric transmission and feeder lines and substations, and a vast network of structures for the control and use of water on two million acres of land already irrigated, three million acres of land to be newly irrigated, 360,000 acres in the delta needing protection from intrusions of salt water, and for municipal and miscellaneous purposes including cities, towns, duck clubs and game refuges. These projects are not only widely separated geographically, many of them physically independent in operation, but they are authorized in separate acts from year to year and are to be constructed at different times over a considerable span of years. A formula has been approved by the President by which multiple purpose dams are the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation, and dams and other works only for flood control are exclusively the responsibility of the Army Engineers. The entire Friant and San Joaquin projects at all times have been administered by the Bureau of Reclamation.
We cannot disagree with claimants’ contention that in undertaking these Friant projects and implementing the work as carried forward by the Reclamation Bureau, Congress proceeded on the basis of full recognition of water rights having valid existence under state law. By its command that the provisions of the reclamation law should govern the construction, operation, and maintenance of the several construction projects, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to proceed in conformity with state laws, giving full recognition to every right vested under those laws. Cf. Nebraska v. Wyoming, 295 U. S. 40, 43; Power Co. v. Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142, 164; Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 614; Mason Co. v. Tax Comm’n, 302 U. S. 186. In this respect, Congress’ action parallels that in Ford & Son v. Little Falls Fibre Co., 280 U. S. 369. The original plan called for purchase of water rights and included an estimate of their cost. We are advised by the Government that at least throughout administration of California reclamation projects it has been the consistent practice of the Bureau of Reclamation to respect such property rights. Such has specifically been the Bureau’s practice in connection with the Friant project, and this has been reported to Congress, which has responded some nine times in the past twelve years to requests for appropriations to meet such expenses. We think this amounts, not to authorizations and declarations creating causes of action against the United States, but to awareness and approval of administrative construction. We think it clear that throughout the conception, enactment and subsequent administration of the plan, Congress has recognized the property status of water rights vested under California law.
It is not to be doubted that the totality of a plan so comprehensive has some legitimate relation to control of inland navigation or that particular components may be described without pretense as navigation and flood control projects. This made it appropriate that Congress should justify making this undertaking a national burden by general reference to its power over commerce and navigation.
The Government contends that the overall declaration of purpose is applicable to Friant Dam and related irrigation facilities as an integral part of “what Congress quite properly treated as a unit.” Adverting to United States v. Willow River Co., 324 U. S. 499; United States v. Commodore Park, 324 U. S. 386; United States v. Appalachian Power Co., 311 U. S. 377; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53, the Government relies on the rule that it does not have to compensate for destruction of riparian interests over which at the point of conflict it has a superior navigation easement the exercise of which occasions the damage. And irrespective of divisibility of the entire Central Valley undertaking, the Government contends that Friant Dam involves a measure of flood control, an end which is sensibly related to control of navigation. Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508.
Claimants, on the other hand, urge that at least the Friant Dam project was wholly unrelated to navigation ends and could not be controlled by the general Congressional declaration of purpose. They point out that, although definitions of navigation have been expanded, United States v. Appalachian Power Co., supra, in every instance in which this Court has denied compensation for deprivation of riparian rights it has specifically noted that the federal undertaking bore some positive relation to control of navigation. United States v. Willow River Co., supra, 510; United States v. Commodore Park, supra, 391; United States v. Appalachian Power Co., supra, 423; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., supra, 62; and cases cited. And, referring to International Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 399; United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U. S. 411, and cases cited, they observe that this Court has never permitted the Government to pervert its navigation servitude into a right to destroy riparian interests without reimbursement where no navigation purpose existed.
Since we do not agree that Congress intended to invoke its navigation servitude as to each and every one of this group of coordinated projects, we do not reach the constitutional or other issues thus posed. Accordingly, we need not decide whether a general declaration of purpose is controlling where interference with navigation is neither the means, South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 4, nor the consequence, United States v. Commodore Park, supra, of its advancement elsewhere. Similarly, we need not ponder whether, by virtue of a highly fictional navigation purpose, the Government could destroy the flow of a navigable stream and carry away its waters for sale to private interests without compensation to those deprived of them. We have never held that or anything like it, and we need not here pass on any question of constitutional power; for we do not find that Congress has attempted to take or authorized the taking, without compensation, of any rights valid under state law.
On the contrary, Congress’ general direction of purpose we think was intended to help meet any objection to its constitutional power to undertake this big bundle of big projects. The custom of invoking the navigation power in authorizing improvements appears to have had its origin when the power of the Central Government to make internal improvements was contested and in doubt. It was not until 1936 that this Court in United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, declared for the first time, and without dissent on this point, that, in conferring power upon Congress to tax “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” the Constitution delegates a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, and one not restricted by them, and that Congress has a substantive power to tax and appropriate for the general welfare, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. If any doubt of this power remained, it was laid to rest the following year in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 640. Thus the power of Congress to promote the general welfare through large-scale projects for reclamation, irrigation, or other internal improvement, is now as clear and ample as its power to accomplish the same results indirectly through resort to strained interpretation of the power over navigation. But in view of this background we think that reference to the navigation power was in justification of federal action on the whole, not for effect on private rights at every location along each component project.
Even if we assume, with the Government, that Friant Dam in fact bears some relation to control of navigation, we think nevertheless that Congress realistically elected to treat it as a reclamation project. It was so conceived and authorized by the President and it was so represented to Congress. Whether Congress could have chosen to take claimants’ rights by the exercise of its dominant navigation servitude is immaterial. By directing the Secretary to proceed under the Reclamation Act of 1902, Congress elected not “to in any way interfere with the laws of any State... relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder.” 32 Stat. 388, 390.
We cannot twist these words into an election on the part of Congress under its navigation power to take such water rights without compensation. In the language of Mr. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court in International Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 399, 407, Congress “proceeded on the footing of a full recognition of [riparians’] rights and of the Government’s duty to pay for the taking that [it] purported to accomplish.” We conclude that, whether required to do so or not, Congress elected to recognize any state-created rights and to take them under its power of eminent domain.
We are guided to this conclusion by the interpretation placed on Congress’ Acts by the Reclamation Bureau, which, in administering the project, has at all times pursued a course impossible to reconcile with present contentions of the Government. From the beginning, it has acted on the assumption that its Friant undertaking was a reclamation project. Even a casual inspection of its committee hearings and reports leaves no doubt that Congress was familiar with and approved this interpretation. Although the Solicitor General contends that, because of the navigation purpose remotely involved, deprivation of water rights along the San Joaquin is not compensable, we have observed that the plan as originally adopted and as carried out by the Bureau included replacement at great expense of all water formerly used for crops and “controlled grass lands” and purchase of that used on marginal pasture lands. It has consistently advised the Congress that it was purchasing San Joaquin water rights and appropriations have been made accordingly. Moreover, Congress and the water users have been advised that, in prosecution of the work, existing water rights would be respected.
This administrative practice has been extended even to the lands in question. Pursuant to its plan, the Bureau offered to purchase the rights of claimants in Nos. 7, 8 and 9, but the parties could not agree on the price. In addition, it entered into a written contract with Miller & Lux, Inc., purchasing for $2,450,000 riparian rights which included some identical with those the Government now denies to exist. In fact it includes the very rights now asserted by claimants Gerlach, Erreca and Potter, who obtained title to their riparian properties from Miller & Lux. Because of certain reservations in their grants, it was possible that Miller & Lux retained the rights riparian to these properties. The Government therefore agreed with Miller & Lux that the sum of $511,350 should be deposited with an escrow agent. If final judgments obligate the United States to make compensation to Miller & Lux grantees for such riparian grass lands, the United States shall be reimbursed from the escrow fund in an amount not exceeding $9 per acre. However, if final judgments dismiss the claims, the es-crowed funds go to Miller & Lux. The substance of this strange transaction is that the Government, which now asks us to hold that there are no such riparian rights, has already bought and paid for them at the price which the Court of Claims has allowed. The results of the Government’s bargain are that, if we hold there are no rights, Miller & Lux will be paid for them; and, if we hold there are such rights, they will be paid from what otherwise goes to Miller & Lux. As to these three cases, the Government is defending against the claims, not as the real party in interest, but because it undertook to do so on behalf of Miller & Lux.
Of course, this Court is not bound by administrative mistakes. If the Government had contracted to pay for rights which are nonexistent, it would not preclude us from upholding later and better advised contentions. But when a project has been regarded by the highest Executive authorities as a reclamation project, and has been carried as such from its initiation to final payment for these rights, and Congress, knowing its history, has given the approvals that it has, we think there is no ground for asking us to hold that the provisions of the Reclamation Act do not apply. We hold that they do apply and we therefore turn, as that Act bids us, to the laws of the State to determine the rights and liabilities of landowner and appropriator.
II. Claimants’ Riparian Rights Under California Law.
The adversaries in this case invoke rival doctrines of water law which have been in competition throughout California legal history. The claims are expressly based on common-law riparian-rights doctrines as declared by California courts. The United States, on the other hand, by virtue of the Reclamation Act, stands in the position of an upstream appropriator for a beneficial use.
The governing water law of California must now be derived from a 1928 Amendment to its Constitution which compresses into a single paragraph a reconciliation and modification of doctrines evolved in litigations that have vexed its judiciary for a century. Its text leaves many questions to be answered, and neither it nor any legislation or judicial decision provides a direct and explicit determination of the present state law on issues before us. But since the federal law adopts that of the State as the test of federal liability, we must venture a conclusion as to peculiarly local law. We can do so only in the light of a long history of strife and doctrinal conflict, which California says must be known by every judge of these matters, Conger v. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548, and in continuity with which both the cryptic text of the Amendment and the policy of federal statutes become more intelligible.
Upon acquiring statehood in 1850, California adopted the common law of England as the rule of decision in its courts when not inconsistent with the Federal or State Constitutions or State legislation. In the middle of the Eighteenth Century, English common law included a body of water doctrine known as riparian rights. That also was the general Mexican law, if it had any lingering authority there, but see Boquillas Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U. S. 339, 343; Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land Co., 188 U. S. 545, 556, except for a peculiar concession to “pueblos.” Indeed, riparian-rights doctrines prevailed throughout Western civilization.
As long ago as the Institutes of Justinian, running waters, like the air and the sea, were res communes — things common to all and property of none. Such was the doctrine spread by civil-law commentators and embodied in the Napoleonic Code and in Spanish law. This conception passed into the common law. From these sources, but largely from civil-law sources, the inquisitive and powerful minds of Chancellor Kent and Mr. Justice Story drew in generating the basic doctrines of American water law.
Riparian rights developed where lands were amply watered by rainfall. The primary natural asset was land, and the run-off in streams or rivers was incidental. Since access to flowing waters was possible only over private lands, access became a right annexed to the shore. The law followed the principle of equality which requires that the corpus of flowing water become no one’s property and that, aside from rather limited use for domestic and agricultural purposes by those above, each riparian owner has the right to have the water flow down to him in its natural volume and channels unimpaired in quality. The riparian system does not permit water to be reduced to possession so as to become property which may be carried away from the stream for commercial or nonriparian purposes. In working out details of this egalitarian concept, the several states made many variations, each seeking to provide incentives for development of its natural advantages. These are set forth in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1. But it may be said that when California adopted it the general philosophy of the riparian-rights system had become common law throughout what was then the United States.
Then in the mountains of California there developed a combination of circumstances unprecedented in the long and litigious history of running water. Its effects on water laws were also unprecedented. Almost at the time when Mexico ceded California, with other territories, to the United States, gold was discovered there and a rush of hardy, aggressive and venturesome pioneers began. If the high lands were to yield their treasure to prospectors, water was essential to separate the precious from the dross. The miner’s need was more than a convenience — it was a necessity; and necessity knows no law. But conditions were favorable for necessity to make law, and it did — law unlike any that had been known in any part of the Western world.
The adventurers were in a little-inhabited, unsurveyed, unowned and almost ungoverned country, theretofore thought to have little value. It had become public domain of the United States and miners regarded waters as well as lands subject to preemption. To be first in possession was to be best in title. Priority — of discovery, location and appropriation — was the primary source of rights. Fortuitously, along lower reaches of the streams there were no riparian owners to be injured and none to challenge customs of the miners.
In September, 1850, California was admitted to the Union as a State. In 1851, its first Legislature enacted a Civil Practice Act which contained a provision that “in actions respecting ‘Mining Claims,’... customs, usages, or regulations, when not in conflict with the Constitution and Laws of this State, shall govern the decision of the action.” The custom of appropriating water thus acquired some authority, notwithstanding its contradiction of the common law. A practice that was law in the mountains was contrary to the law on the books. Here were provocations to controversy that soon came to the newly established state courts.
In California, as everywhere, the law of flowing streams has been the product of contentions between upper and lower levels. Thus when Matthew Irwin built a dam and canal on the upper San Joaquin for appropriating water to supply miners, downstream settler Robert Phillips tore it down and asserted his own riparian right to have the water descend to him in its natural volume. Faced with this issue between custom and doctrine, the California Supreme Court escaped by observing that both claims were located on public domain, and that neither party could show proprietorship. Accordingly, as between two mere squatters, priority of appropriation established the better right. But the court gave warning that this appropriative right might not prevail against a downstream riparian who claimed by virtue of proprietorship. Irwin v. Phillips, 5 Cal. 140 (1855).
The United States, as owner of the whole public domain, was such a proprietor, and the decision made appropriations vulnerable to its challenge. It also left the pioneers in position of trespassers. They were taught that the tenure of their preemptions and appropriations was precarious when, in 1858, the Attorney General of the United States intervened in private litigation to contend in federal court that the land in dispute was public, and asserted generally a right to restrain all mining operations upon public land. His intervention was successful, an injunction forbade working the mine in question, and a writ issued under the hand of President Lincoln directing military authorities to remove the miners. United States v. Parrott, 1 McAll. (C. C.) 271.
Demands of mining and water interests that the Federal Government relieve their uncertain status were loud, but went unheeded amidst the problems that came with civil war. But after the war closed, the issue was again precipitated by a bill introduced at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury to have the United States withdraw all mines from the miners, appraise and sell them, reserving a royalty after sale. This the Secretary believed would yield a large revenue and the public lands would help pay the public war debt. However, the private interests prevailed. The Act of July 26, 1866, 14 Stat. 251, R. S. § 2339, declared the mining lands free and open to preemption and included the following:
“That whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes aforesaid is hereby acknowledged and confirmed: Provided, however, That whenever, after the passage of this act, any person or persons shall, in the construction of any ditch or canal, injure or damage the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party committing such injury or damage shall be liable to the party injured for such injury or damage.” 14 Stat. 251, 253, 43 U. S. C. § 661.
This section was expounded by Mr. Justice Field in Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, as foreclosing further proprietary objection by the United States to appropriations which rested upon local custom. This Court regarded the Act as “an unequivocal grant” for existing diversions of water on the public lands. Broder v. Water Co., 101 U. S. 274. Thus Congress made good appropriations in being as against a later patent to riparian parcels of the public domain, and removed the cloud cast by adverse federal claims.
While this was being accomplished, changed conditions brought new adversaries to contend against the appropriators. The Homestead Act of 1862 had opened agricultural lands to preemption and set up a method of acquiring formal title. 12 Stat. 392. Farms and ranches appeared along the streams and wanted the protection that the common law would give to their natural flow. The Act of 1866, as we have noted, made appropriators liable for damage to settlers with whose possession they interfered. The Supreme Court of California decided that a riparian owner came into certain rights which he could assert against a subsequent appropriator of the waters of the stream, even though he could not as against a prior appropriation. Crandall v. Woods, 8 Cal. 136.
In 1886 came the decisive battle of Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 P. 674. Haggin organized an irrigation company and claimed the right to appropriate the entire flow of the Kern River for irrigation and to destroy any benefits for riparian owners downstream. The court held that the doctrine of riparian rights still prevailed in California, that such right attached to riparian land as soon as it became private property and, while subject to appropriations made prior to that time, it is free from all hostile appropriations thereafter. Thus California set itself apart by its effort to reconcile the system of riparian rights with the system of appropriation, whereas other arid states rejected the doctrine of riparian rights forthrightly and completely.
The Twentieth Century inducted new parties into the old struggle. Gigantic electric power and irrigation projects succeeded smaller operations, and municipalities sought to by-pass intervening agricultural lands and go into the mountains to appropriate the streams for city supply. Increasing dependence of all branches of the State’s economy, both rural and urban, upon water centered attention upon its conservation and maximum utilization.
This objective seemed frustrated by the riparian-rights doctrine when, in 1926, the California Supreme Court decided Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 252 P. 607, and this Court, after argument, dismissed certiorari for want of a federal question, 275 U. S. 486 (1927). That case involved just such questions as we have here. Southern California Edison projected a large storage of San Joaquin waters in the mountains primarily for power generation. Plaintiffs’ ranch, like lands of claimants, had always been naturally irrigated by overflow and thus naturally was productive property. Appropriation by the power company threatened to impair this overflow and destroy the value of the ranch. The company was unwilling to compensate the damage. The court held that common law of riparian rights must prevail against the proposed utilization and, notwithstanding the economic waste involved in plaintiffs’ benefit, enjoined the power project.
This ruling precipitated a movement for amendment of the State Constitution and thus brought to a focus a contest that had grown in bitterness and intensity throughout the arid regions as both populations and property values mounted. The doctrine of riparian rights was characterized as socialistic. Wiel, Theories of Water Law, 27 Harv. L. Rev. 530 (1914). The State Supreme Court said the law of appropriation would result in monopoly. Lux v. Haggin, supra, at 309, 10 P. at 703. If the uneconomic consequences of unlimited riparianism were revealed by court decisions, so the effects of unrestrained appropriation became apparent where the flow of rivers became completely appropriated, leaving no water for newcomers or new industry.
A Joint Committee of the California Legislature gave extended study to the water problems of that State and careful consideration of many remedies. Among other proposals, one relevant to our question was to revoke or nullify all common-law protection to riparian rights and do it retroactively as of the year 1850. The Committee rejected all dispossession proposals as confiscatory. It reported an amendment to the Constitution which attempted to serve the general welfare of the State by preserving and limiting both riparian and appropriative rights while curbing either from being exercised unreasonably or wastefully. The Amendment was submitted to and adopted by the electors in November 1928 and now constitutes California’s basic water law, to which the Federal Reclamation Act defers.
We cannot assume that this Amendment was without impact upon claims to water rights such as we have here, for, as we have seen, it was provoked by their assertion. Neither can we assume that its effect is to deprive riparian owners of benefits it declares to continue or unintentionally to strike down values there was a studied purpose to preserve. We are only concerned with whether it continued in claimants-such a right as to be compensable if taken. But what it took away is some measure of what it left.
Riparianism, pressed to the limits of its logic, enabled one to play dog-in-the-manger. The shore proprietor could enforce by injunction his bare technical right to have the natural flow of the stream, even if he was getting no substantial benefit from it. This canine element in the doctrine is abolished. “The right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this State is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served,, This limitation is not transgressed by the awards in question which only compensate for the loss of actual beneficial use. Any hazard to claimants’ rights lurks in the following clause: “and such right does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water.” Since riparian rights attach to, and only to, so much of the flow of the San Joaquin as may be put to beneficial use consistently with this clause, claimants can enforce no use of wasteful or unreasonable character.
We assume for purposes of this decision that the prodigal use, inseparable from claimants’ benefits, is such that the rights here asserted might not be enforced by injunction. But withholding equitable remedies, such as specific performance, mandatory orders or injunctions, does not mean that
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 3 (a) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act provides that compensation shall be paid only for injuries occurring on navigable waters “and if recovery . . . through workmen’s compensation proceedings may not validly be provided by State law.” In each of these cases the petitioner is a Deputy Commissioner who based an award of compensation under the Act on findings that the employee was engaged at the time of his injury in the work of completing the construction of a vessel afloat on navigable waters. Before the Longshoremen’s Act was passed, this Court had sustained the validity of a state workmen’s compensation statute as applied to injuries suffered by an employee engaged in the completion of a launched vessel under construction on navigable waters, Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469, but had made clear that state compensation statutes could not, constitutionally, be applied to injuries to employees engaged in repair work on completed vessels on navigable waters. The court below interpreted § 3 (a) as adopting this distinction and so set aside both awards, thus holding that a shipyard worker’s right to compensation under the Act, if his injury is incurred on a vessel, depends not only on whether the vessel is on navigable waters, but also on whether the vessel was under repair rather than under construction. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., v. Donovan, 293 F. 2d 51; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Calbeck, 293 F. 2d 52. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the interpretation of § 3 (a) in the administration of the Act. 368 U. S. 946. We reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgments of the District Courts sustaining the awards.
The Court of Appeals’ interpretation of § 3 (a) would, if correct, have the effect of excepting from the Act’s coverage not only the injuries suffered by employees while engaged in ship construction but also any other injuries— even though incurred on navigable waters and so within the reach of Congress — for which a state law could, constitutionally, provide compensation. But the Court of Appeals’ interpretation is incorrect. The history of the Act, and of § 3 (a) in particular, contravenes it; and our decisions construing § 3 (a) have rejected it. Our conclusion is that Congress invoked its constitutional power so as to provide compensation for all injuries sustained by employees on navigable waters whether or not a particular injury might also have been within the constitutional reach of a state workmen’s compensation law7.
The Longshoremen’s Act was passed in 1927. The Congress which enacted it would have preferred to leave to state compensation laws the matter of injuries sustained by employees on navigable waters within state boundaries. However, in 1917 this Court had decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, that the New York Compensation Act could not, constitutionally, be applied to an injury sustained on a gangplank between a vessel and a wharf. It was held that the matter was outside state cognizance and exclusively within federal maritime jurisdiction, since to hold otherwise would impair the harmony and uniformity which the constitutional grant to the Federal Government of the admiralty power was meant to assure. While the Court acknowledged that "it would be difficult, if not impossible, to define with exactness just how far the general maritime law maybe changed, modified, or affected by state legislation,” 244 U. S., at 216, the opinion appeared to foreclose the application of a state compensation remedy to any maritime injury.
The Jensen decision deprived many thousands of employees of the benefits of workmen’s compensation. Congress twice attempted to deal with the situation by legislation expressly allowing state compensation statutes to operate. Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. 395; Act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 634. But this Court struck down both statutes as unconstitutional delegations to the States of the legislative power of Congress, and as tending to defeat the purpose of the Constitution to achieve harmony and uniformity in the maritime law. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149; Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U. S. 219.
Meanwhile the Court handed down a number of decisions which appeared to modify Jensen by permitting States to apply their statutes to some maritime injuries. But we must- candidly acknowledge that the decisions between 1917 and 1926 produced no reliable determinant of valid state law coverage. In Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233, decided in 1921, the Court upheld the jurisdiction of a United States District Court to entertain a libel in admiralty for damages for the death of a longshoreman under a state wrongful death statute. The Court reasoned that while the subject was maritime it was “local in character” and that application of the state statute “will not work material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law, nor interfere with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations.” 257 U. S., at 242.
Just a month later the Court decided Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, supra, where, as in the cases before us, a shipbuilder’s employee was injured while at work on new construction afloat on navigable waters. He recovered a judgment under a libel in admiralty, although Oregon had a state workmen’s compensation law which made the remedy thereunder exclusive of all other claims against the employer on account of the injury. This Court reversed that judgment, holding that the accident was among those “certain local matters regulation of which [by the States] would work no material prejudice to the general maritime law.” 257 U. S., at 477.
No dependable definition of the area — described as “maritime but local,” or “of local concern” — where state laws could apply ever emerged from the many cases which dealt with the matter in this and the lower courts. The surest that could be said was that any particular injury might be within the area of “local concern,” depending upon its peculiar facts. In numerous situations state acts were considered inapplicable because they were thought to work material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law, particularly in cases of employees engaged in repair work. On the other hand, awards under state compensation acts were sustained in situations wherein the effect on uniformity was often difficult to distinguish from those found to be outside the purview of state laws.
Thus, the problem which confronted Congress in 1927 had two facets. One was that the failure of Congress’ attempts to shelter the employees under state compensation laws rendered it certain that for many maritime injuries no compensation remedy was available. The other w^as that the course of judicial decision had created substantial working uncertainty in the administration of compensation. Congress turned to a uniform federal compensation law as an instrument for dealing with both facets. Indeed, the Court in Dawson had invited such consideration, saying: “Without doubt Congress has power to alter, amend or revise the maritime law by statutes of general application embodying its will and judgment. This power, we think, would permit enactment of a general employers’ liability law or general provisions for compensating injured employees; but it may not be delegated to the several States.” 264 U. S., at 227.
The proposal of a uniform federal compensation act had the unqualified support of both employers and employee representatives. Workmen’s compensation had gained wide acceptance throughout the country and State after State was enacting it. But hard battles were fought in committee and on the floor in both Houses of Congress over the form of the law. The bill introduced in the Senate, S. 3170, became the basis of the law.
There emerges from the complete legislative history a congressional desire for a statute which would provide federal compensation for all injuries to employees on navigable waters; in every case, that is, where Jensen might have seemed to preclude state compensation. The statute’s framers adopted this scheme in the Act because they meant to assure the existence of a compensation remedy for every such injury, without leaving employees at the mercy of the uncertainty, expense, and delay of fighting out in litigation whether their particular cases fell within or without state acts under the “local concern” doctrine.
The gravity of the problem of uncertainty was emphasized when § 3 of S. 3170 in its original form was under discussion at the Senate Hearings. That version of § 3 provided: “This act shall apply to any employment performed on a place within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, except employment of local concern and of no direct relation to navigation and commerce; but shall not apply to employment as master or member of the crew of a vessel.”- (Emphasis supplied.) The Chairman of the Senate Committee perceived that to create an exemption for “employment of local concern” threatened to perpetuate the very uncertainties of coverage that Congress wished to avoid. The danger was underlined by objections on behalf of two large employer groups. They not only expressed concern about the practical problems created by the line between new construction and repair, Senate Hearings, at 92-93, but also about the broader implications of the wording: “This provision is indefinite. The exception of 'employment of local concern and of no direct relation to navigation and commerce’ is vague and will be the subject of continual litigation. Innumerable claims will become legal questions requiring determination by the courts.” Senate Hearings, at 95.
We are not privy to the Committee deliberations at which it was decided to drop the “local concern” language from § 3 and substitute the language now in the statute. We think it a reasonable inference that the Committee concluded that the exemption for “employment of local concern” would defeat the objective of avoiding the uncertainty created by Jensen and its progeny.
The action of the House Committee, when S. 3170 as revised in the Senate came before it, discloses similar preoccupations. The House Committee rewrote § 3 to omit both the original “local concern” language and the Senate substitute. A parliamentary obstacle on an unrelated issue led to the House Committee’s finally accepting the Senate version.
In sum, it appears that the Longshoremen’s Act was designed to ensure that a compensation remedy existed for all injuries sustained by employees on navigable waters, and to avoid uncertainty as to the source, state or federal, of that remedy. Section 3 (a) should, then, be construed to achieve these purposes. Plainly, the Court of Appeals’ interpretation, fixing the boundaries of federal coverage where the outer limits of state competence had been left by the pre-1927 constitutional decisions, does not achieve them.
In the first place, the contours of the “local concern” concept were and have remained necessarily vague and uncertain. There has never been any method of staking them out except litigation in particular cases.
In the second place, to conclude that federal coverage extends to the limits of navigable waters, except in those cases where a state compensation remedy “may” constitutionally be provided, would mean that, contrary to the congressional purpose, some injuries to employees on navigable waters might not be compensable under any statute. A vacuum w’ould exist as to any injury which, although occurring within the constitutional domain of “local concern,” was in fact not covered by any state statute. A restriction of federal coverage short of the limits of the maritime jurisdiction could have avoided defeating the objective of assuring a compensation remedy for every injury on navigable waters only if Congress had provided that federal compensation would reach any case not actually covered by a state statute. But in order to have accomplished this result, the statute would have had to withdraw' federal coverage, not wherever a state compensation remedy “may be” validly provided, but only wherever a state compensation remedy “is” validly provided. Even if a court could properly read “may be” as meaning “'is,” such a reading would make federal coverage in the “local concern” area depend on whether or not a state legislature had taken certain action — an intention plainly not to be imputed to a Congress whose recent efforts to leave the matter entirely to the States had twice been struck down as unconstitutional delegations of congressional powrer.
Finally, there would have been no imaginable purpose in carving the area of “local concern” out of the federal coverage except to leave the greatest possible number of cases exclusively to the States. The price of such an objective would have included the adoption of whatever seemingly anomalous distinctions the courts might have developed in articulating the contours of “local concern,” as well as the risk of a total failure of compensation in cases within the "local concern” realm for which no state compensation had been provided. And in any event, a congressional purpose to leave the maximum possible business exclusively to the States would negate the Court of Appeals’ reading of the line of demarcation as a static one fixed at pre-1927 constitutional decisions. Such a purpose would require, rather, that federal coverage expand and recede in harness with developments in constitutional interpretation as to the scope of state power to compensate injuries on navigable waters. But that would mean that every litigation raising an issue of federal coverage would raise an issue of constitutional dimension, with all that that implies; and that each and every award of federal compensation would equally be a constitutionally premised denial of state competence in a like situation. We cannot conclude that Congress imposed such a burden on the administration of compensation by thus perpetuating the confusion generated by Jensen. To dispel that confusion was one of the chief purposes of the Longshoremen’s Act.
We conclude that Congress used the phrase “if recovery . . . may not validly be provided by State law” in a sense consistent with the delineation of coverage as reaching injuries occurring on navigable waters. By that language Congress reiterated that the Act reached all those cases of injury to employees on navigable waters as to which Jensen, Knickerbocker and Dawson had rendered questionable the availability of a state compensation remedy. Congress brought under the coverage of the Act all such injuries whether or not a particular one was also within the constitutional reach of a state workmen’s compensation law.
Our previous decisions under the Act are entirely consistent with our. conclusion. In Parker v. Motor Boat Sales, Inc., 314 U. S. 244, an employee of a seller of small boats, maritime supplies and outboard motors, hired primarily as a janitor and porter, was drowned when a boat in which he was riding capsized on the James River off Richmond, Virginia. The boat belonged to a customer of his employer and he and a fellow employee were testing one of the employer’s outboard motors for which the boatowner was a prospective purchaser. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had held that the employee’s work was “so local in character” that Virginia could validly have included it under a■ state workmen’s compensation act, and so had set aside an award to the employee’s dependents under the Longshoremen’s Act. This Court reversed. We noted that “it is not doubted that Congress could constitutionally have provided for recovery under a federal statute in this kind of situation. The question is whether Congress has so provided in this statute” in the light of § 3 (a). 314 U. S., at 248. The Court held that § 3 (a) did not exclude coverage under the Act, saying: “There can be no doubt that the purpose of the Act was to provide for federal compensation in the area which the specific decisions referred to [in the Senate Report — Jensen, Knickerbocker, and Dawson — ] placed beyond the reach of the states. The proviso permitting recovery only where compensation ‘may not validly be provided by State law’ cannot be read in a manner that would defeat this purpose.” 314 U. S., at 249-250. We thus held that whatever may be § 3 (a)’s “subtraction from the scope of the Act,” id:, at 249, the Act’s adoption of the Jensen line between admiralty and state jurisdiction as the limit of federal coverage included no exception for matters of “local concern.”
In Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U. S. 249, a structural steel worker engaged in dismantling a bridge across a navigable river was cutting and stowing dismantled steel in a barge 'when he fell into the river from the barge and was drowned. His dependents sought compensation under the state act and this Court held that it could be applied. The result was not predicated on the ground that the employment was “maritime but local,” and so outside the coverage of the Longshoremen’s Act. Rather the Court viewed the case as in a “twilight zone” where the applicability of state law was “extremely difficult” to determine, and resolved the doubt, of course, in favor of the constitutionality of the application of state law. At the same time, the Court indicated that compensation might also have been sought under the Longshoremen’s Act and that an award under that Act in the very same circumstances would have been supportable, pointing out that the Act adopts “the Jensen line of demarcation.” 317 U. S., at 256. The conclusion that the Longshoremen’s Act might have applied without regard to whether the situation might be “maritime but local” plainly implies a rejection of any reading of § 3 (a) to exclude coverage in such situation.
The issue in Avondale Marine Ways, Inc., v. Henderson, 346 U. S. 366, was whether compensation was available under the Longshoremen’s Act for the death of an employee killed while engaged in the repair of a vessel which was then physically located on land, but on a marine railway. Since a marine railway was considered to be a “dry dock,” the injury satisfied §3 (a)’s requirement that it occur “upon . . . navigable waters,” defined in § 3 as “including any dry dock.” At the same time, since the injury did, in a physical sense, occur on land, there is little doubt that a state compensation act could validly have been applied to it. See State Commission v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U. S. 263. Nevertheless, this Court affirmed an award of compensation under the Federal Act in a per curiam opinion.
The legislative history and our decisions had been read consistently with the views expressed herein by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit before the decisions in the present cases. Judge Hutcheson said for the court in De Bardeleben Coal Corp. v. Henderson, 142 F. 2d 481, 483-484:
“Before the Parker case was decided . . . this court, in Continental Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 5 Cir., 64 F. 2d 802, 804, announced the view that the federal compensation laws should be liberally construed to cover1 every case where the injury occurred on navigable waters and where within the rule of [Jensen] . . . the action would have been in- admiralty. In that case we said:
“ 'The question whether jurisdiction over a maritime tort could be asserted under the compensation laws of the states, or existed exclusively in admiralty, was an important one when the decisions were rendered in the Rohde . . . and other similar cases . . . but since the passage of this act (the Federal Workmen’s Compensation Act) the importance of that question has largely disappeared. . . . The elaborate provisions of the Act, viewed in the light of prior Congressional legislation as interpreted by the Supreme Court, leaves no room for doubt, as it appears to us, that Congress intended to exercise to the fullest extent all the power and jurisdiction it had over the subject-matter. . . .’
“The Parker case, supra, substantially adopts this view .... As the Parker case pointed out, it is not at all necessary now to redetermine the correctness vel non of the Jensen case or of any of [its] brood .... It is sufficient to say that Congress intended the compensation act to have a coverage co-extensive with the limits of its authority and that the provision ‘if recovery . . . may not validly be provided by State law’ was placed in the act not as a relinquishment of any part of the field which Congress could validly occupy but only to save the act from judicial condemnation, by making it clear that it did not intend to legislate beyond its constitutional powers. ... In the application of the act, therefore, the broadest ground it permits of should be taken. No ground should be yielded to state jurisdiction in cases falling within the principle of the Jensen case merely because the Supreme Court, before the Federal Compensation Law went into effect, did here a little, there a little, chip and whittle Jensen down in the mass of conflicting and contradictory decisions in which it advanced and applied the ‘local concern’ doctrine to save to employees injured on navigable waters, and otherwise remediless, the remedies state compensation laws afforded them. . . . This is what we held in the Lawson case, what the Supreme Court held in the Parker case, supra. . .
We turn finally to a question raised only in Donovan v. Avondale Shipyards. The employer contends that the employee accepted benefits under the Louisiana State Compensation Act and that this constitutes an election of remedies which bars prosecution of his claim under the Longshoremen’s Act. Compensation payments may be made under the Louisiana Compensation Act without a prior administrative proceeding. Before the federal claim was filed Avondale made payments to the employee for some two years and three months at the maximum rate provided by the Louisiana statute. The employee accepted the checks which bore a notation on their face that they were payments of compensation under the state act. In addition Avondale advanced a substantial sum to the employee to be credited against future compensation payments. Avondale also paid medical expenses for the employee’s account in excess of the maximum liability imposed by the Louisiana statute. In .the compensation order entered by Deputy Commissioner Donovan under the Longshoremen’s Act the full amount of all payments made by the employer was credited against the award, and no impermissible double recovery is possible. We hold that the acceptance of the payments does not constitute an election of the remedy under state law precluding recovery under the Longshoremen’s Act. Nothing in the statute requires a contrary result. And we agree that the circumstances do not support a finding of a binding election to look solely to the state law for recovery. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Lawson, 149 F. 2d 853; Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. O’Hearne, 192 F. 2d 968; Western Boat Building Co. v. O’Leary, 198 F. 2d 409.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals are reversed and the judgments of the District Courts are affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, is comprised in 33 U. S. C. §§ 901-950. Section 3 (a), 33 U. S. C. § 903 (a), reads:
“(a) Compensation shall be payable under this chapter in respect of disability or death of an employee, but only if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock) and if recovery for the disability or death through workmen’s compensation proceedings may not validly be provided by State law. No compensation shall be payable in respect of the disability or death of—
“(1) A master or member of a crew of any vessel, nor any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net; or
“(2) An officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof or of any State or foreign government, or of any political subdivision thereof.”
In the Calbeck case the employee, Roger McGuyer, was a welder in the employ of the Levingston Shipbuilding Company which owns and operates a shipyard on the navigable Sabine River, between Orange, Texas, and Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. McGuyer worked both on the repair of completed vessels and on vessels under construction. He was injured while working on an uncompleted drilling barge which had been launched and was floating on the Sabine River while its superstructure was under construction.
In the Donovan case the employee, Minus Aizen, was also a welder. His employer was Avondale Marine Ways, Inc., which operated two shipyards near New Orleans. Aizen had worked only on new construction although fellow employees worked both on new construetion and on repair work. He was injured while welding on an oil drilling barge which had been launched and was floating on the navigable waters of the Mississippi River while her construction was being completed.
See Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479; Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 266 U. S. 171; Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Dahl, 266 U. S. 449. See also Baizley Iron Works v. Span, 281 U. S. 222, 230-232.
Our use of the term "employees” throughout this opinion excludes those special categories described in subsections (1) and (2) of § 3 (a), see note 1, supra; and assumes that they are employed by an “employer” as defined in §2 (4), 33 U. S. C. § 902 (4), i. e., "an employer any of whose employees are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part, upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock).”
The constitutionality of the New York statute in other respects was sustained at the same Term. New York Central R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188. The validity of the Washington and Iowa statutes was also upheld. Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219; Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U. S. 210.
See, e. g., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479; Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 266 U. S. 171; Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Dahl, 266 U. S. 449.
See, e. g., State Commission v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U. S. 263; Millers’ Indemnity Underwriters v. Braud, 270 U. S. 59.
See 1 Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, §§ 4.10-5.30.
Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 3170, 69th Cong., 1st Sess.; Hearings before the House Judiciary Committee on S. 3170, 69th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 973, 69th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1767, 69th Cong., 2d Sess. See also H. R. Rep. No. 1190, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (accompanying H. R. 12063); Hearings before the House Judiciary Committee on H. R. 9498, 69th Cong., 1st Sess.
See S. Rep. No. 973, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., at 16:
“The purpose of this bill is to provide for compensation, in the stead of liability, for a class of employees commonly known as ‘longshoremen.’ These men are mainly employed in loading, unloading, refitting, and repairing ships; but it should be remarked that injuries occurring in loading or unloading are not covered unless they occur on the ship or between the wharf and the ship so as to bring them within the maritime jurisdiction of the United States. There are in the neighborhood of 300,000 men so employed in the entire country.
“The committee deems it unnecessary to comment upon the modern change in the relation between employers and employees establishing systems of compensation as distinguished from liability. Nearly every State in the Union has a compensation law through which employees are compensated for injuries occurring in the course of their employment without regard to negligence on the part of the employer or contributory negligence on the part of the employee. If longshoremen could avail themselves of the benefits of State compensation laws, there would be no occasion for this legislation: but, unfortunately, they are excluded from these laws by reason of the character of their employment; and they are not only excluded but the Supreme Court has more than once held that Federal legislation can not, constitutionally, be enacted that will apply State laws to this occupation. (Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149; Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U. S. 219.)
“It thus appears that there is no way of giving to these hardworking men, engaged in a somewhat hazardous employment, the justice involved in the modern principle of compensation without enacting a uniform compensation statute.”
To like effect is H. R. Rep. No. 1190, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1, 3:
“This bill provides compensation for employees injured ... in certain maritime employments .... The principal wage earners provided for are longshoremen .... Next in importance are the ship repairmen — carpenters, painters, boiler makers, etc. Congressional action is necessary if these wage earners are to be given the benefits of workmen’s compensation owing to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the decisions of the Supreme Court thereunder. . . . The committee . . . recommends that this humanitarian legislation be speedily enacted into law so that this class of workers, practically the only class without the benefit of workmen’s compensation, may be afforded this protection, which has come to be almost universally recognized as necessary in the interest of social justice between employer and employee.”
H. R. Rep. No. 1767, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., at 20, makes clear that the House was desirous of legislation whereby Congress could
“discharge its obligation to the maritime workers placed under their jurisdiction by the Constitution of the United States by providing for them a law whereby they may receive the benefits of workmen’s compensation and thus afford them the same remedies that have been provided by legislation for those killed or injured in the course of their employment in nearly every State in the Union.”
The following colloquy occurred between the Chairman, Senator Cummins, and an employer spokesman who was testifying:
“The Chairman. That term [employment of local concern] was used in one of the decisions of the Supreme Court, probably, but, in its application, just what does it mean?
“Mr. Brown. Unless there is something in connection with admiralty law which qualifies it, I should say it is a very vague thing, and we can not understand what it means. The phrase 'of no direct relation to navigation and commerce’ is another questionable proposition, whether the coverage of this bill might not apply to a man on the docks. Some of my friends seem to think that it would not apply to the man on the docks, that the State laws now apply, and it was said in the same decision [the witness referred to Rohde, supra, but the quoted language is found in Nordenholt, supra, note 7, at 276]:
“There is no pertinent Federal statute and application of a local law will not work material prejudice to any characteristic feature of the maritime law.
“The Chairman. We certainly can find some language that will describe these people that we intend to protect, but I am not sure whether this is the most accurate language that can be found.
“Mr. Brown. I think that is true. I think that you could not only find language that would prescribe the coverage accurately, but I think that language could be devised that would be eminently satisfactory to everybody in [an] act that would incorporate the purposes which are, perhaps, behind this.” Senate Hearings, at 57.
Section 3 as redrafted by the House Committee, H. R. Rep. No. 1767, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., at 2, was as follows:
"Sec. 3. This act shall apply to any maritime employment performed—
“(a) Upon the navigable waters of the United States, including any dry dock; or
“ (b) As master or member of a crew of a barge, lighter, tug, dredge, vessel, or other ocean, lake, river, canal, harbor, or floating craft owned by a citizen of the United States.”
The House Committee could not obtain a rule from the House Rules Committee until it amended the bill to exclude seamen from coverage. 68 Cong. Rec. 5410, 5412. Rather than rewrite § 3 again the Committee adopted the Senate version. See id., 5403-5404, 5410, 5412, explaining that the effect was to exclude seamen from coverage.
The Committee reports, note 10, supra, make no reference to the “local concern” doctrine or the cases applying it. They explain the problem in terms of the limitations on the availability of state remedies imposed by the Court’s decisions in Jensen, Knickerbocker, and Dawson.
We attach no significance to Opinion No. 7, September 2, 1927, of the Employees’ Compensation Commission (now the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation) stating that the Commission “will take no action under the longshoremen’s act against an employer engaged only in the construction of vessels who does not comply with the act, nor against any employer engaged in the construction and repair of vessels who secures payment of compensation to employees while employed on repair work on a vessel in a dry dock or on marine ways.” The Department was not foreclosed in the instant cases from changing an interpretation of the statute which was clear error. Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180.
Section 5 of the Longshoremen’s Act, 33 U. S. C. § 905, which makes liability under the Act “exclusive ... of all other liability . . . to the employee, his legal representative . . . and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages ... at law or in admiralty . . .” is not involved in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Wheaton-Haven Recreation Association, Inc., a nonprofit Maryland corporation, was organized in 1958 for the purpose of operating a swimming pool. After a membership drive to raise funds, the Association obtained zoning as a “community pool” and constructed its facility near Silver Spring, Maryland. The Association is essentially a single-function recreational club, furnishing only swimming and related amenities.
Membership is by family units, rather than individuals, and is limited to 325 families. This limit has been reached on at least one occasion. Membership is largely keyed to the geographical area within a three-quarter-mile radius of the pool. A resident (whether or not a homeowner) of that area requires no recommendation before he may apply for membership; the resident receives a preferential place on the waiting list if he applies when the membership is full; and the resident-member who is a homeowner and who sells his home and turns in his membership, confers on the purchaser of his property a first option on the vacancy created by his removal and resignation. A person residing outside the three-quarter-mile area may apply for membership only upon the recommendation of a member; he receives no preferential place on the waiting list if the membership is full; and if he becomes a member, he has no way of conferring an option upon the purchaser of his property. Beyond-the-area members may not exceed 30%■ of the total. Majority approval of those present at a meeting of the board of directors or of the general membership is required before an applicant is admitted as a member.
Only members and their guests are admitted to the pool. No one else may gain admission merely by payment of an entrance fee.
In the spring of 1968 petitioner, Harry C. Press, a Negro who had purchased from a nonmember a home within the geographical preference area, inquired about membership in Wheaton-Haven. At that time the Association had no Negro member. In November 1968 the general membership rejected a resolution that would have opened the way for Negro members. Dr. Press was never given an application form, and respondents concede that he was discouraged from applying because of his race.
In July 1968 petitioners Murray and Rosalind N. Tillman, who were husband and wife and members in good standing, brought petitioner Grace Rosner, a Negro, to the pool as their guest. Although Mrs. Rosner was admitted on that occasion, the guest policy was changed by the board of directors, at a special meeting the following day, to limit guests to relatives of members. Respondents concede that one reason for the adoption of this policy was to prevent members from having Negroes as guests at the pool. Under this new policy Mrs. Rosner thereafter was refused admission when the Tillmans sought to have her as their guest. In the fall of 1968 the membership, by resolution, reaffirmed the policy.
In October 1969 petitioners (Mr. and Mrs. Tillman, Dr. and Mrs. Press, and Mrs. Rosner) instituted this civil action against the Association and individuals who were its officers or directors, seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, particularly under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, now 42 U. S. C. § 1982, the Civil Rights Act of 1870, now 42 U. S. C. § 1981, and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a, et seq. The District Court, in an unreported opinion, held that Wheaton-Haven was a private club and exempt from the nondiscrimination provisions of the statutes. It granted summary judgment for defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. 451 F.2d 1211 (CA4 1971). It later denied rehearing en banc over two dissents, id., at 1225. We granted certiorari, 406 U. S. 916 (1972), to review the case in the light of Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229 (1969).
I
In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 (1968), this Court, after a detailed review of the legislative history of 42 U. S. C. § 1982, id., at 422-437, held that the statute reaches beyond state action and is not confined to officially sanctioned segregation. The Court subsequently applied § 1982 in Sullivan to private racial discrimination practiced by a nonstock corporation organized to operate a community park and playground facilities, including a swimming pool, for residents of a designated area. The Presses contend that their § 1982 claim is controlled by Sullivan. We agree.
A. The Court of Appeals held that § 1982 would not apply to the Presses because membership rights in Wheaton-Haven could neither be leased nor transferred incident to the acquisition of property. 451 F. 2d, at 1216-1217. In Sullivan, the Court concluded that the right to enjoy a membership share in the corporation, assigned by a property owner as part of a leasehold he was granting, constituted a right “to . . . lease . . . property” protected by § 1982. 396 U. S., at 236-237. The Court of Appeals distinguished property-linked membership shares in Sullivan from property-linked membership preferences in Wheaton-Haven by emphasizing the speculative nature of the benefits available to residents of the area around Wheaton-Haven. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erroneously characterized the property-linked preferences conferred by Wheaton-Haven’s bylaws.
Under the bylaws, a resident of the area within three-quarters of a mile from the pool receives the three preferences noted above: he is allowed to apply for membership without seeking a recommendation from a current member; he receives preference over others, except those with first options, when applying for a membership vacancy; and, if he is an owner-member, he is able to pass to his successor-in-title a first option to acquire the membership Wheaton-Haven purchases from him. If the membership is full, the preference-area resident is placed on the waiting list; other applicants, however, are required to reapply after those on the waiting list obtain memberships.
The Court of Appeals concluded, incorrectly it later appeared, that the membership had never been full, and that the option possibility, therefore, was “far too tenuous a thread to support a conclusion that there is a transfer of membership incident to the purchase of property.” 451 F. 2d, at 1217. Since the Presses had not purchased their area home from a member, the court found no transaction by which the Presses could have acquired a membership preference. 451 F. 2d, at 1217-1218, n. 14.
We differ from the Court of Appeals in our evaluation of the three rights obtained. The record indicates that the membership was full in the spring of 1968 but dropped, perhaps not unexpectedly in view of the season, in the fall of that year. We cannot be certain, either, that the membership would not have remained full in the absence of racial discrimination, or that the membership will never be full in the future. As was observed in dissent in the Court of Appeals:
“Several years from now it may well be that a white neighbor can sell his home at a considerably higher price than Dr. and Mrs. Press because the white owner will be able to assure his purchaser of an option for membership in Wheaton-Haven. Dr. and Mrs. Press, however, are denied this advantage.” 451 F. 2d, at 1223.
Similarly, the automatic waiting-list preference given to residents of the favored area may have affected the price paid by the Presses when they bought their home. Thus, the purchase price to them, like the rental paid by Freeman in Sullivan, may well reflect benefits dependent on residency in the preference area. For them, however, the right to acquire a home in the area is abridged and diluted.
When an organization links membership benefits to residency in a narrow geographical area, that decision infuses those benefits into the bundle of rights for which an individual pays when buying or leasing within the area. The mandate of 42 U. S. C. § 1982 then operates to guarantee a nonwhite resident, who purchases, leases, or holds this property, the same rights as are enjoyed by a white resident.
B. Respondents contend that even if 42 U. S. C. § 1982 applies, Wheaton-Haven nevertheless is exempt as a private club under § 201 (e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a (e), with a consequent implied narrowing effect upon the range and application of the older § 1982. In Sullivan we found it unnecessary to consider limits on § 1982 as applied to a truly private association because we found “no plan or purpose of exclusiveness” in Little Hunting Park. 396 U. S., at 236. But here, as there, membership “is open to every white person within the geographic area, there being no selective element other than race.” Ibid. The only restrictions are the stated maximum number of memberships and, as in Sullivan, id.., at 234, the requirement of formal board or membership approval. The structure and practices of Wheaton-Haven thus are indistinguishable from those of Little Hunting Park. We hold, as a consequence, that Wheaton-Haven is not a private club and that it is not necessary in this case to consider the issue of any implied limitation on the sweep of § 1982 when its application to a truly private club, within the meaning of § 2000a (e), is under consideration. Cf. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 (1972); Daniel v. Paul, 395 U. S. 298 (1969).
II
Mrs. Rosner and the Tillmans, relying on 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 2000a et seq., contend that Wheaton-Haven could not adopt a racially discriminatory policy toward guests. The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondents on these claims also, holding that Wheaton-Haven was a private club and exempt from all three statutes.
The operative language of both § 1981 and § 1982 is traceable to the Act of April 9, 1866, c. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27. Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24, 30-31 n. 7 (1948). In light of the historical interrelationship between § 1981 and § 1982, we see no reason to construe these sections differently when applied, on these facts, to the claim of Wheaton-Haven that it is a private club. Consequently, our discussion and rejection of Wheaton-Haven’s claim that it is exempt from § 1982 disposes of the argument that Wheaton-Haven is exempt from § 1981. On remand the District Court will develop any necessary facts concerning the adoption of the guest policy and will evaluate the claims of the parties free of the misconception that Wheaton-Haven is exempt from §§ 1981, 1982, and 2000a.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Candy, ice cream, and soft drinks have been sold on the premises, but these were merely incidentals for the convenience of swimmers during the season. Aside from meetings of the board of directors and of the general membership, the premises apparently have been utilized only for pool-related activities.
Wheaton-Haven presently charges an initiation fee of $375 and annual dues ranging from $50 to $60, depending on the number of persons in the family unit.
The Association’s bylaws provide that “[m]embership shall be open to bona fide residents (whether or not home owners) of the area within a three-quarter mile radius of the pool,” and “may be extended” to others “who shall have been recommended ... by a member.”
“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.” 42 U. S. C. § 1982.
Under the Wheaton-Haven system, a within-the-area member selling his home may either retain his membership or seek to sell it back to the Association. If Wheaton-Haven is willing to purchase, it pays 80% of the initial cost if the membership is not full, and 90% if the membership is full. The purchaser of the member’s home then has a first option on the membership so released by the seller. The practical effect of this system is to prefer applicants who purchase from members over other applicants, particularly at a time when the membership is full.
In the court’s per curiam statement responsive to the petition for rehearing, it described its earlier observation that the membership list had never been full as an “inadvertent misstatement . . . now corrected to reflect a full membership list in the spring of 1968.” 451 F. 2d 1211, 1225.
The record reveals that a number of members withdrew when the present suit was filed. Tr. of Oral Arg. in District Court 15.
“The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000a (e).
Apparently one applicant was formally rejected during the preceding 12 years of Little Hunting Park’s operation. App. 127 and Brief for Petitioner 7, Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229 (1969). At Wheaton-Haven one applicant was formally rejected in the preceding 11 years.
The Court of Appeals found it “inferable from Little Hunting Park’s organization and membership provisions that it was built by the same real estate developers who built the four subdivisions from which members were drawn, as an aid to the sale of homes.” 451 F. 2d, at 1215 n. 8. This inference may be erroneous. App. 24-36 and Tr. of Oral Arg. 24, 31-34, Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, supra. In any event, Sullivan did not rest on any relationship between the club and real estate developers.
“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 ptirties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
The Act of Apr. 9, 1866, § 1, read in part:
“That all persons born in the United States ... of every race and color . . . shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” 14 Stat. 27.
The present codification of § 1981 is derived from Revised Statutes § 1977 (1874), which codified the Act of May 31, 1870, § 16, 16 Stat. 144. Although the 1866 Act rested only on the Thirteenth Amendment, United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 640 (1883); Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 22 (1883); United States v. Morris, 125 F. 322, 323 (ED Ark. 1903), and, indeed, was enacted before the Fourteenth Amendment was formally proposed, United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 804 (1966); Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24, 32 n. 11 (1948); Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 640 (1948); Civil Rights Cases, supra, 109 U. S., at 22, the 1870 Act was passed pursuant to the Fourteenth, and changes in wording may have reflected the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 695-696 (1898). The 1866 Act was re-enacted in 1870, and the predecessor of the present § 1981 was to be “enforced according to the provisions” of the 1866 Act. Act of May 31, 1870, § 18, 16 Stat. 144.
Respondent McIntyre urges that the judgment in his favor should be affirmed as to him because he was merely a director of Wheaton-Haven and was later defeated in his bid for re-election to its board, and because, in his deposition, he stated that he opposed the Association’s exclusionary practices. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals discussed Mr. McIntyre’s individual liability, and we find it inappropriate to attempt resolution of this issue on the present record.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
We vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Mexico and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion in Lee v. Illinois, 476 U. S. 530 (1986).
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the issue whether, under § 167 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 167, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may treat as nondepreciable an intangible asset proved to have an ascertainable value and a limited useful life, the duration of which can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy, solely because the IRS considers the asset to be goodwill as a matter of law.
I
Petitioner Newark Morning Ledger Co., a New Jersey corporation, is a newspaper publisher. It is the successor to The Herald Company with which it merged in 1987. Eleven years earlier, in 1976, Herald had purchased substantially all the outstanding shares of Booth Newspapers, Inc., the publisher of daily and Sunday newspapers in eight Michigan communities. Herald and Booth merged on May 31, 1977, and Herald continued to publish the eight papers under their old names. Tax code provisions in effect in 1977 required that Herald allocate its adjusted income tax basis in the Booth shares among the assets acquired in proportion to their respective fair market values at the time of the merger. See 26 U. S. C. §§332 and 334(b)(2) (1976 ed.).
Prior to the merger, Herald’s adjusted basis in the Booth shares was approximately $328 million. Herald allocated $234 million of this to various financial assets (cash, securities, accounts and notes receivable, the shares of its wholly owned subsidiary that published Parade Magazine, etc.) and tangible assets (land, buildings, inventories, production equipment, computer hardware, etc.). Herald also allocated $67.8 million to an intangible asset denominated “paid subscribers.” This consisted of 460,000 identified subscribers to the eight Booth newspapers as of May 31, 1977, the date of merger. These subscribers were customers each of whom had requested that the paper be delivered regularly to a specified address in return for payment of the subscription price. The $67.8 million figure was petitioner’s estimate of future profits to be derived from these at-will subscribers, all or most of whom were expected to continue to subscribe after the Herald acquisition. The number of “paid subscribers” was apparently an important factor in Herald’s decision to purchase Booth and in its determination of the appropriate purchase price for the Booth shares. See Brief for Petitioner 4-5. After these allocations, the approximately $26.2 million remaining was allocated to going-concern value and goodwill.
On its federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1977-1980, inclusive, Herald claimed depreciation deductions on a straight-line basis for the $67.8 million allocated to “paid subscribers.” The IRS disallowed these deductions on the ground that the concept of “paid subscribers” was indistinguishable from goodwill and, therefore, was nondepreciable under the applicable regulations. Herald paid the resulting additional taxes. After the 1987 merger, petitioner filed timely claims for refund. The IRS took no action on the claims, and, upon the expiration of the prescribed 6-month period, see 26 U. S. C. § 6532(a)(1), petitioner brought suit in the District of New Jersey to recover taxes and interest that it claimed had been assessed and collected erroneously.
The case was tried to the court. Petitioner presented financial and statistical experts who testified that, using generally accepted statistical techniques, they were able to estimate how long the average at-will subscriber of each Booth newspaper as of May 31, 1977, would continue to subscribe. The estimates ranged from 14.7 years for a daily subscriber to The Ann Arbor News to 23.4 years for a subscriber to the Sunday edition of The Bay City Times. This was so despite the fact that the total number of subscribers remained almost constant during the tax years in question. The experts based their estimates on actuarial factors such as death, relocation, changing tastes, and competition from other media. The experts also testified that the value of “paid subscribers” was appropriately calculated using the “income approach.” Under this, petitioner’s experts first calculated the present value of the gross-revenue stream that would be generated by these subscriptions over their estimated useful lives. From that amount they subtracted projected costs of collecting the subscription revenue. Petitioner contended that the resulting estimated net-revenue stream — calculated as $67,773,000 by one of its experts — was a reasonable estimate of the value of “paid subscribers.”
The Government did not contest petitioner’s expert evidence at all. In fact, it stipulated to the estimates of the useful life of “paid subscribers” for each newspaper. Also, on valuation, the Government presented little or no evidence challenging petitioner’s calculations. Instead, it argued that the only value attributable to the asset in question was the cost of generating 460,000 new subscribers through a subscription drive. Under this “cost approach,” the Government estimated the value of the asset to be approximately $3 million.
The Government’s principal argument throughout the litigation has been that “paid subscribers” represents an asset indistinguishable from the goodwill of the Booth newspapers. According to the Government, the future stream of revenue expected to be generated by the 460,000 “paid subscribers” represented the very essence of the goodwill value of the newspapers. It argued that because goodwill is nondepre-ciable, the value of “paid subscribers” cannot be depreciated but must be added to basis so that, when the business is disposed of, the cost of the asset will be deducted from the proceeds in computing capital gain or loss.
The District Court (Judge H. Lee Sarokin) ruled in petitioner’s favor. 734 F. Supp. 176 (NJ 1990). It found as a fact that the “paid subscribers” asset was not self-regenerating — it had a limited useful life the duration of which could be calculated with reasonable accuracy. Id., at 180. The court further found that the value of “paid subscribers” was properly calculated using the “income approach” and that the asset itself was separate and distinct from goodwill. “[0]ne must distinguish between a galaxy of customers who may or may not return, whose frequency is unknown, and whose quantity and future purchases cannot be predicted, against subscribers who can be predicted to purchase the same item, for the same price on a daily basis.” Id., at 176-177.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. 945 F. 2d 555 (1991). It concluded that the District Court had erred in defining goodwill as that which remains after all assets with determinable useful lives and ascertainable values have been accounted for. Id., at 568. The court concluded that goodwill has a substantive meaning — the expectancy that “‘old customers will resort to the old place’ of business,” id., at 567 — and that “paid subscribers” is the essence of goodwill. Even though the “paid subscribers” asset may have a limited useful life that can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy, the court held that its value is not separate and distinct from goodwill. Id., at 568.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s suggestion for rehearing in banc, with two judges dissenting. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a. In order to resolve an issue of substantial importance under the Internal Revenue Code and to settle a perceived conflict, we granted certiorari, 503 U. S. 970 (1992).
II
Section 167(a) of the Code allows as a deduction for depreciation a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion and wear and tear, including obsolescence, of property used in a trade or business or of property held for the production of income. See n. 1, supra. This Court has held that “the primary purpose” of an annual depreciation deduction is “to further the integrity of periodic income statements by making a meaningful allocation of the cost entailed in the use (excluding maintenance expense) of the asset to the periods to which it contributes.” Massey Motors, Inc. v. United States, 364 U. S. 92, 104 (1960). The depreciation deduction has been a part of the federal tax system at least since 1909, when Congress recognized that a corporation should calculate its annual net income by deducting from gross income “all losses actually sustained within the year and not compensated by insurance or otherwise, including a reasonable allowance for depreciation of property, if any.” Tariff of 1909, § 38 Second, 36 Stat. 113. Nothing in the text of the 1909 statute or in the implementing Treasury Decision precluded a depreciation allowance for intangible property. This changed in 1914 with the promulgation of Treas. Regs. 33 (1914) issued under the 1913 Income Tax Law.
The Revenue Act of 1918, § 234(a)(7), authorized a “reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used in the trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence.” 40 Stat. 1078 (1919). Treasury Regs. 45 (1919), promulgated under the 1918 Act, explicitly recognized that intangible assets “may be the subject of a depreciation allowance.” Art. 163. Thereafter, the regulations governing the depreciation of intangible assets have remained essentially unchanged. The current version is set forth in n. 1, swpra.
Since 1927, the IRS consistently has taken the position that “goodwill” is nondepreciable. One court has said specifically: “Indeed, this proposition is so well settled that the only question litigated in recent years regarding this area of the law is whether a particular asset is ‘goodwill.’” Hous ton Chronicle Publishing Co. v. United States, 481 F. 2d 1240, 1247 (CA5 1973), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1129 (1974).
III
<ri ^
Goodwill is not defined in the Code or in any Treasury Department Regulations. There have been attempts, however, to devise workable definitions of the term. In Metropolitan Bank v. St. Louis Dispatch Co., 149 U. S. 436 (1893), for example, this Court considered whether a newspaper’s goodwill survived after it was purchased and ceased publishing under its old name. It ruled that the goodwill did not survive, relying on Justice Story’s notable description of “goodwill” as
“ ‘the advantage or benefit, which is acquired by an establishment, beyond the mere value of the capital, stock, funds, or property employed therein, in consequence of the general public patronage and encouragement which it receives from constant or habitual customers, on account of its local position, or common celebrity, or reputation for skill or affluence, or punctuality, or from other accidental circumstances or necessity, or even from ancient partialities or prejudices.’ ” Id., at 446, quoting J. Story, Partnerships § 99 (1841).
In Des Moines Gas Co. v. Des Moines, 238 U. S. 153 (1915), the Court described goodwill as “that element of value which inheres in the fixed and favorable consideration of customers, arising from an established and well-known and well-conducted business.” Id., at 165. See also Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 289 U. S. 287, 313 (1933) (distinguishing “going concern” from “good will” when fixing rates for public utilities).
Although the definition of goodwill has taken different forms over the years, the shorthand description of goodwill as “the expectancy of continued patronage,” Boe v. Commis sioner, 307 F. 2d 339, 343 (CA9 1962), provides a useful label with which to identify the total of all the imponderable qualities that attract customers to the business. See Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. United States, 481 F. 2d, at 1248, n. 5. This definition, however, is of little assistance to a taxpayer trying to evaluate which of its intangible assets is subject to a depreciation allowance. The value of every intangible asset is related, to a greater or lesser degree, to the expectation that customers will continue their patronage. But since 1918, at least some intangible assets have been depreciable. Because intangible assets do not exhaust or waste away in the same manner as tangible assets, taxpayers must establish that public taste or other socioeconomic forces will cause the intangible asset to be retired from service, and they must estimate a reasonable date by which this event will occur. See B. Bittker & M. McMahon, Federal Income Taxation of Individuals ¶12.4, p. 12-10 (1988). Intangibles such as patents and copyrights are de-preciable over their “legal lives,” which are specified by statute. Covenants not to compete, leaseholds, and life estates, for example, are depreciable over their useful lives that are expressly limited by contract.
The category of intangibles that has given the IRS and the courts difficulty is that group of assets sometimes denominated “customer-based intangibles.” This group includes customer lists, insurance expirations, subscriber lists, bank deposits, cleaning-service accounts, drugstore-prescription files, and any other identifiable asset the value of which obviously depends on the continued and voluntary patronage of customers. The question has been whether these intangibles can be depreciated notwithstanding their relationship to “the expectancy of continued patronage.”
B
When considering whether a particular customer-based intangible asset may be depreciated, courts often have turned to a “mass asset” or “indivisible asset” rule. The rule provides that certain kinds of intangible assets are properly grouped and considered as a single entity; even though the individual components of the asset may expire or terminate over time, they are replaced by new components, thereby causing only minimal fluctuations and no measurable loss in the value of the whole. The following is the usually accepted description of a mass asset:
“[A] purchased terminable-at-will type of customer list is - an indivisible business property with an indefinite, nondepreciable life, indistinguishable from — and the principal element of — goodwill, whose ultimate value lies in the expectancy of continued patronage through public acceptance. It is subject to temporary attrition as well as expansion through departure of some customers, acquisition of others, and increase or decrease in the requirements of individual customers. A normal turnover of customers represents merely the ebb and flow of a continuing property status in this species, and does not within ordinary limits give rise to the right to deduct for tax purposes the loss of individual customers. The whole is equal to the sum of its fluctuating parts at any given time, but each individual part enjoys no separate capital standing independent of the whole, for its disappearance affects but does not interrupt or destroy the continued existence of the whole.” Golden State Towel & Linen Service, Ltd. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 300, 310, 373 F. 2d 938, 944 (1967).
The mass-asset rule prohibits the depreciation of certain customer-based intangibles because they constitute self-regenerating assets that may change but never waste. Although there may have been some doubt prior to 1973 as to whether the mass-asset rule required that any asset related to the expectancy of continued patronage always be treated as nondepreciable goodwill as a matter of law, that doubt was put to rest by the Fifth Circuit in the Houston Chronicle case. The court there considered whether subscription lists, acquired as part of the taxpayer’s purchase of The Houston Press, were depreciable. The taxpayer had no intention of continuing publication of the purchased paper, so there was no question of the lists’ being self-regenerating; they had value only to the extent that they furnished names and addresses of prospective subscribers to the taxpayer’s newspaper. After reviewing the history of the mass-asset rule, the court concluded that there was no per se rule that an intangible asset is nondepreciable whenever it is related to goodwill. On the contrary, the rule does not prevent taking a depreciation allowance “if the taxpayer properly carries his dual burden of proving that the intangible asset involved (1) has an ascertainable value separate and distinct from goodwill, and (2) has a limited useful life, the duration of which can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy.” Houston Chronicle, 481 F. 2d, at 1250.
Following the decision in Houston Chronicle, the IRS issued a new ruling, modifying prior rulings “to remove any implication that customer and subscription lists, location contracts, insurance expirations, etc., are, as a matter of law, indistinguishable from goodwill possessing no determinable useful life.” Rev. Rul. 74-456, 1974-2 Cum. Bull. 65, 66. The IRS continued to claim that customer-based intangibles generally are in the nature of goodwill, representing “the customer structure of a business, their value lasting until an indeterminate time in the future.” Nonetheless, it acknowledged that, “in an unusual case,” the taxpayer may prove that the “asset or a portion thereof does not possess the characteristics of goodwill, is susceptible of valuation, and is of use to the taxpayer in its trade or business for only a limited period of time.” Ibid. Under these circumstances, the IRS recognized the possibility that the customer-based intangible asset could be depreciated over its useful life.
Despite the suggestion by the Court of Appeals in this case that the mass-asset rule is “now outdated,” 945 F. 2d, at 561, it continues to guide the decisions of the Tax Court with respect to certain intangible assets. In Ithaca Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T. C. 253 (1991), for example, the Tax Court recently considered whether a taxpayer could depreciate the value allocated to the trained work force of a purchased going concern over the length of time each employee remained with the purchasing company. The court acknowledged that “whether the assembled work force is an intangible asset with an ascertainable value and a limited useful life separate from goodwill or going-concern value is a question of fact.” Id., at 263-264. After reviewing the record, it concluded that the mass-asset rule applied to prohibit the depreciation of the cost of acquiring the assembled work force:
“Although the assembled work force is used to produce income, this record fails to show that its value diminishes as a result of the passing of time or through use. As an employee terminated his or her employment, another would be hired and trained to take his or her place. While the assembled work force might be subject to temporary attrition as well as expansion through departure of some employees and the hiring of others, it would not be depleted due to the passage of time or as a result of use. The turnover rate of employees represents merely the ebb and flow of a continuing work force. An employee’s leaving does not interrupt or destroy the continued existence of the whole.” Id., at 267.
As a factual matter, the Tax Court found that the taxpayer hired a new worker only so it could replace a worker “who resigned, retired, or was fired.” Id., at 268. The court found that the “assembled work force” was a nondiminishing asset; new employees were trained in order to keep the “assembled work force” unchanged, and the cost of the training was a deductible expense. Id., at 271.
> I — Í
Since 1973, when Houston Chronicle clarified that the availability of the depreciation allowance was primarily a question of fact, taxpayers have sought to depreciate a wide variety of customer-based intangibles. The courts that have found these assets depreciable have based their conclusions on carefully developed factual records. In Richard S. Miller & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 431, 537 F. 2d 446 (1976), for example, the court considered whether a taxpayer was entitled to a depreciation deduction for 1,383 insurance expirations that it had purchased from another insurer. The court concluded that the taxpayer had carried its heavy burden of proving that the expirations had an ascertainable value separate and distinct from goodwill and had a limited useful life, the duration of which could be ascertained with reasonable accuracy. The court acknowledged that the insurance expirations constituted a “mass asset” the useful life of which had to be “determined from facts relative to the whole, and not from experience with any particular policy or account involved.” Id., at 443, 537 F. 2d, at 454. The court also noted, however, that the mass-asset rule does not prevent a depreciation deduction “where the expirations as a single asset can be valued separately and the requisite showing made that the useful life of the information contained in the intangible asset as a whole is of limited duration.” Id., at 439, 537 F. 2d, at 452. All the policies were scheduled to expire within three years, but their continuing value lay in their being renewable. Based on statistics gathered over a 5-year period, the taxpayer was able to estimate that the mass asset had a useful life of not more than 10 years from the date of purchase. Any renewals after that time would be attributable to the skill, integrity, and reputation of the taxpayer rather than to the value of the original expirations. “The package of expirations demonstrably was a wasting asset.” Id., at 444, 537 F. 2d, at 455. The court ruled that the taxpayer could depreciate the cost of the collection of insurance expirations over the useful life of the mass asset.
In Citizens & Southern Corp. v. Commissioner, 91 T. C. 463 (1988), aff’d, 919 F. 2d 1492 (CA11 1990), the taxpayer argued that it was entitled to depreciate the bank-deposit base acquired in the purchase of nine separate banks. The taxpayer sought to depreciate the present value of the income it expected to derive from the use of the balances of deposit accounts existing at the time of the bank purchases. The Commissioner argued that the value of the core deposits was inextricably related to the value of the overall customer relationship, that is, to goodwill. The Commissioner also argued that the deposit base consisted of purchased, terminable-at-will customer relationships that are equivalent to goodwill as a matter of law. The Tax Court rejected the Commissioner’s position, concluding that the taxpayer had demonstrated with sufficient evidence that the economic value attributable to the opportunity to invest the core deposits could be (and, indeed, was) valued and that the fact that new accounts were opened as old accounts closed did not make the original purchased deposit base self-regenerating. 91 T. C., at 499.
The court also concluded that, based on “lifing studies” estimating the percentage of accounts that would close over a given period of time, the taxpayer established that the deposit base had a limited useful life, the duration of which could be ascertained with reasonable accuracy. The taxpayer had established the value of the intangible asset using the cost-savings method, entitling it to depreciate that portion of the purchase price attributable to the present value of the difference between the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the core deposits and the cost of the market alternative for funding its loans and other investments. Id., at 510.
The Tax Court reached the same result in Colorado National Bankshares, Inc. v. Commissioner, 60 TCM 771 (1990), ¶90,495 P-H Memo TC, aff’d, 984 F. 2d 383 (CA10 1993). The Tax Court concluded that
“the value of the deposit base does not depend upon a vague hope that customers will patronize the bank for some unspecified length of time in the future. The value of the deposit base rests upon the ascertainable probability that inertia will cause depositors to leave their funds on deposit for predictable periods of time.” Colorado National Bankshares, 60 TCM, at 789, ¶ 90,495 P-H Memo TC, at 2,396.
The court specifically found that the deposit accounts could be identified; that they had limited lives that could be estimated with reasonable accuracy; and that they could be valued with a fair degree of accuracy. They were also not self-regenerating. “It is these characteristics which separate them from general goodwill and permits separate valuation.” Ibid. See also IT&S of Iowa, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T. C. 496, 509 (1991); Northern Natural Gas Co. v. O’Malley, 277 F. 2d 128, 139 (CA8 1960) (concurring opinion).
The Eighth Circuit has considered a factual situation nearly identical to the case now before us. In Donrey, Inc. v. United States, 809 F. 2d 534 (1987), the taxpayer sought to depreciate the subscription list of a newspaper it had purchased as a going concern. The taxpayer asserted that the subscription list was not simply a list of customers but “a machine to generate advertising revenue.” Id., at 536. There was expert testimony that the value of the subscription list was “the present value of the difference in advertising revenues generated by the subscription list as compared to the revenues of an equivalent paper without a subscription list.” Ibid. A jury found that the list had a limited useful life, the duration of which could be ascertained with reasonable accuracy; that the useful life was 23 years; and that it had an ascertainable value of $559,406 separate and distinct from goodwill. The District Court denied a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after concluding that, although reasonable minds could have differed as to the correct result, there was evidence from which the jury could properly find for the taxpayer. The Court of Appeals implicitly rejected the Government’s argument that the subscription list was necessarily inseparable from the value of goodwill when it deferred to the jury’s finding that the subscription list was depreciable because it had a determinable useful life and an ascertainable value.
V
A
Although acknowledging the “analytic force” of eases such as those discussed above, the Court of Appeals in the present case characterized them as “no more than a minority strand amid the phalanx of cases” that have adopted the Government’s position on the meaning of goodwill. 945 F. 2d, at 565. “In any case, consistent with the prevailing case law, we believe that the [IRS] is correct in asserting that, for tax purposes, there are some intangible assets which, notwithstanding that they have wasting lives that can be estimated with reasonable accuracy and ascertainable values, are nonetheless goodwill and nondepreciable.” Id., at 568. The Court of Appeals concluded further that in “the context of the sale of a going concern, it is simply often too difficult for the taxpayer and the court to separate the value of the list qua list from the goodwill value of the customer relationships/structure.” Ibid. We agree with that general observation. It is often too difficult for taxpayers to separate depreciable intangible assets from goodwill. But sometimes they manage to do it. And whether or not they have been successful in any particular case is a question of fact.
The Government concedes: “The premise of the regulatory prohibition against the depreciation of goodwill is that, like stock in a corporation, a work of art, or raw land, goodwill has no determinate useful life of specific duration.” Brief for United States 13. See also Richard S. Miller & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl., at 437, 537 F. 2d, at 450 (“Goodwill is a concept that embraces many intangible elements and is presumed to have a useful life of indefinite duration”). The entire justification for refusing to permit the depreciation of goodwill evaporates, however, when the taxpayer demonstrates that the asset in question wastes over an ascertainable period of time. It is more faithful to the purposes of the Code to allow the depreciation deduction under these circumstances, for “the Code endeavors to match expenses with the revenues of the taxable period to which they are properly attributable, thereby resulting in a more accurate calculation of net income for tax purposes,” INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U. S. 79, 84 (1992).
In the case that first established the principle that goodwill was not depreciable, the Eighth Circuit recognized that the reason for treating goodwill differently was simple and direct: “ ‘As good will does not suffer wear and tear, does not become obsolescent, is not used up in the operation of the business, depreciation, as such, cannot be charged against it.’ ” Red Wing Malting Co. v. Willcuts, 15 F. 2d 626, 633 (1926). cert. denied, 273 U. S. 763 (1927). See also 5 J. Mer-tens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 23A.01, p. 7 (1990) (“Goodwill is not amortizable intangible property because its useful life cannot be ascertained with reasonable accuracy” (emphasis added)). It must follow that if a taxpayer can prove with reasonable accuracy that an asset used in the trade or business or held for the production of income has a value that wastes over an ascertainable period of time, that asset is depreciable under § 167, regardless of the fact that its value is related to the expectancy of continued patronage. The significant question for purposes of depreciation is not whether the asset falls “within the core of the concept of goodwill,” Brief for United States 19, but whether the asset is capable of being valued and whether that value diminishes over time. In a different context, the IRS itself succinctly articulated the relevant principle: “Whether or not an intangible asset, or a tangible asset, is depreciable for Federal income tax purposes depends upon the determination that the asset is actually exhausting, and that such exhaustion is susceptible of measurement.” Rev. Rul. 68-483, 1968-2 Cum. Bull. 91-92.
B
Although we now hold that a taxpayer able to prove that a particular asset can be valued and that it has a limited useful life may depreciate its value over its useful life regardless of how much the asset appears to reflect the expectancy of continued patronage, we do not mean to imply that the taxpayer’s burden of proof is insignificant. On the contrary, that burden often will prove too great to bear. See, e. g., Brief for Coopers & Lybrand as Amicus Curiae 11 (“For example, customer relationships arising from newsstand sales cannot be specifically identified. In [our] experience, customers were identified but their purchases were too sporadic and unpredictable to reasonably ascertain either the duration of the relationships or the value of the relationships (based on their net income stream)” (emphasis in original)).
Petitioner’s burden in this case was made significantly lighter by virtue of the Government’s litigation strategy:
“[BJecause of the stipulation reached by the parties, Morning Ledger need not prove either the specific useful lives of the paid subscribers of the Booth newspapers as of May 31, 1977, or that Dr. Glasser [its statistical expert] has correctly estimated those lives. In light of the stipulation, [the Government’s] argument with regard to Dr. Glasser’s estimation of the specific useful lives of the Booth subscribers is wholly irrelevant. Instead, Dr. Glasser’s testimony establishes that qualified experts could estimate with reasonable accuracy the remaining useful lives of the paid subscribers of the Booth newspapers as of May 31, 1977.” 734 F. Supp., at 181.
Petitioner also proved to the satisfaction of the District Court that the “paid subscribers” asset was not self-regenerating, thereby distinguishing it for purposes of applying the mass-asset rule:
“[T]here is no automatic replacement for a subscriber who terminates his or her subscription. Although the total number of subscribers may have or has remained relatively constant, the individual subscribers will not and have not remained the same, and those that may or have discontinued their subscriptions can be or have been replaced only through the substantial efforts of the Booth newspapers.” Id., at 180.
The 460,000 “paid subscribers” constituted a finite set of subscriptions, existing on a particular date — May 31,1977. The asset was not composed of constantly fluctuating components; rather, it consisted of identifiable subscriptions each of which had a limited useful life that could be estimated with reasonable accuracy according to generally accepted statistical principles. Petitioner proved as a matter of fact that the value of the “paid subscribers” diminished over an ascertainable period of time.
C
Petitioner estimated the fair market value of the “paid subscribers” at approximately $67.8 million. This figure was found by computing the present value of the after-tax subscription revenues to be derived from the “paid subscribers,” less the cost of collecting those revenues, and adding the present value of the tax savings resulting from the depreciation of the “paid subscribers.” As the District Court explained, the taxpayer’s experts “utilized this method because they each independently concluded that this method best determined the additional value of the Booth newspapers attributable to the existence of the paid subscribers as of May 31, 1977, and, thus, the fair market value of those subscribers.” Id., at 183. The Government presented no evidence challenging the accuracy of this methodology. It took the view that the only value attributable to the “paid subscribers” was equivalent to the cost of generating a similar list of new subscribers, and it estimated that cost to be approximately $3 million. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Government that this “cost approach” was the only appropriate method for valuing the list of subscribers. “The fact is that, when employed in the context of the sale of an ongoing concern, the income approach to valuing a list of customers inherently includes much or all of the value of the expectancy that those customers will continue their patronage — i. e., the goodwill of the acquired concern.” 945 F. 2d, at 568.
Both the Government and the Court of Appeals mischarac-terized the asset at issue as a mere list of names and addresses. The uncontroverted evidence presented at trial revealed that the “paid subscribers” had substantial value over and above that of a mere list of customers. App. 67 (Price Waterhouse’s Fair Market Value Study of Paid Newspaper Subscribers to Booth Newspapers as of May 31,1977); id., at 108-111 (testimony of Roger J. Grabowski, Principal and National Director, Price Waterhouse Valuation Services). These subscribers were “seasoned”; they had subscribed to the paper for lengthy periods of time and represented a reliable and measurable source of revenue. In contrast to new subscribers, who have no subscription history and who might not last beyond the expiration of some promotional incentive, the “paid subscribers” at issue here provided a regular and predictable source of income over an estimable period of time. The cost of generating a list of new subscribers is irrelevant, for it represents the value of an entirely different asset. We agree with the District Court when it concluded:
“Although it was possible to estimate the direct cost of soliciting additional subscribers to the Booth newspapers, those subscribers if obtained were not and would not have been comparable, in terms of life characteristics or value, to the paid subscribers of the Booth newspapers as of May 31, 1977.... The cost of generating such marginal subscribers would not reflect the fair market value of the existing subscribers of the Booth newspapers as of May 31, 1977.” 734 F. Supp., at 181.
Because it continued to insist that petitioner had used the wrong valuation methodology, the Government failed to offer any evidence to challenge the accuracy of petitioner’s application of the “income approach.” The District Court found that the aggregate fair market value of the “paid subscribers” of the Booth newspapers as of May 31, 1977 — i. e., “the price at which the asset would change hands between a hypothetical willing buyer and willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell, both parties having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts,” id., at 185 — was $67,773,000, with a corresponding adjusted income tax basis of $71,201,395. Petitioner
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1941 the California Legislature amended the Charter of the City of Los Angeles to provide in part as follows:
“. . . no person shall hold or retain or be eligible for any public office or employment in the service of the City of Los Angeles, in any office or department thereof, either elective or appointive, who has within five (5) years prior to the effective date of this section advised, advocated or taught, or who may, after this section becomes effective [April 28, 1941], advise, advocate or teach, or who is now or has been within five (5) years prior to the effective date of this section, or who may, after this section becomes effective, become a member of or affiliated with any group, society, association, organization or party which advises, advocates or teaches, or has, within said period of five (5) years, advised, advocated or taught the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States of America or of the State of California.
“In so far as this section may be held by any court of competent jurisdiction not to be self-executing, the City Council is hereby given power and authority to adopt appropriate legislation for the purpose of effectuating the objects hereof.” Cal. Stat. 1941, c. 67.
Pursuant to the authority thus conferred, the City of Los Angeles in 1948 passed Ordinance No. 94,004, requiring every person who held an office or position in the service of the city to take an oath prior to January 6, 1949. In relevant part the oath was as follows:
“I further swear (or affirm) that I do not advise, advocate or teach, and have not within the period beginning five (5) years prior to the effective date of the ordinance requiring the making of this oath or affirmation, advised, advocated or taught, the overthrow by force, violence or other unlawful means, of the Government of the United States of America or of the State of California and that I am not now and have not, within said period, been or become a member of or affiliated with any group, society, association, organization or party which advises, advocates or teaches, or has, within said period, advised, advocated or taught, the overthrow by force, violence or other unlawful means of the Government of the United States of America, or of the State of California. I further swear (or affirm) that I will not, while I am in the service of the City of Los Angeles, advise, advocate or teach, or be or become a member of or affiliated with any group, association, society, organization or party which advises, advocates or teaches, or has within said period, advised, advocated or taught, the overthrow by force, violence or other unlawful means, of the Government of the United States of America or of the State of California . . . .”
The ordinance also required every employee to execute an affidavit “stating whether or not he is or ever was a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America or of the Communist Political Association, and if he is or was such a member, stating the dates when he became, and the periods during which he was, such a member . . . .”
On the final date for filing of the oath and affidavit petitioners were civil service employees of the City of Los Angeles. Petitioners Pacifico and Schwartz took the oath but refused to execute the affidavit. The remaining fifteen petitioners refused to do either. All were discharged for such cause, after administrative hearing, as of January 6,1949. In this action they sue for reinstatement and unpaid salaries. The District Court of Appeal denied relief. 98 Cal. App. 2d 493, 220 P. 2d 958 (1950). We granted certiorari, 340 U. S. 941 (1951).
Petitioners attack the ordinance as violative of the provision of Art. I, § 10 of the Federal Constitution that “No State shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder, [or] ex post facto Law . . . .” They also contend that the ordinance deprives them of freedom of speech and assembly and of the right to petition for redress of grievances.
Petitioners have assumed that the oath and affidavit provisions of the ordinance present similar constitutional considerations and stand or fall together. We think, however, that separate disposition is indicated.
1. The affidavit raises the issue whether the City of Los Angeles is constitutionally forbidden to require that its employees disclose their past or present membership in the Communist Party or the Communist Political Association. Not before us is the question whether the city may determine that an employee’s disclosure of such political affiliation justifies his discharge.
We think that a municipal employer is not disabled because it is an agency of the State from inquiring of its employees as to matters that may prove relevant to their fitness and suitability for the public service. Past conduct may well relate to present fitness; past loyalty may have a reasonable relationship to present and future trust. Both are commonly inquired into in determining fitness for both high and low positions in private industry and are not less relevant in public employment. The affidavit requirement is valid.
2. In our view the validity of the oath turns upon the nature of the Charter amendment (1941) and the relation of the ordinance (1948) to this amendment. Immaterial here is any opinion we might have as to the Charter provision insofar as it purported to apply retrospectively for a five-year period prior to its effective date. We assume that under the Federal Constitution the Charter amendment is valid to the extent that it bars from the city’s public service persons who, subsequent to its adoption in 1941, advise, advocate, or teach the violent overthrow of the Government or who are or become affiliated with any group doing so. The provisions operating thus prospectively were a reasonable regulation to protect the municipal service by establishing an employment qualification of loyalty to the State and the United States. Cf. Gerende v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 341 U. S. 56 (1951). Likewise, as a regulation of political activity of municipal employees, the amendment was reasonably designed to protect the integrity and competency of the service. This Court has held that Congress may reasonably restrict the political activity of federal civil service employees for such a purpose, United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 102-103 (1947), and a State is not without power to do as much.
The Charter amendment defined standards of eligibility for employees and specifically denied city employment to those persons who thereafter should not comply with these standards. While the amendment deprived no one of employment with or without trial, yet from its effective date it terminated any privilege to work for the city in the case of persons who thereafter engaged in the activity proscribed.
The ordinance provided for administrative implementation of the provisions of the Charter amendment. The oath imposed by the ordinance proscribed to employees activity which had been denied them in identical terms and with identical sanctions in the Charter provision effective in 1941. The five-year period provided by the oath extended back only to 1943.
The ordinance would be ex post facto if it imposed punishment for past conduct lawful at the time it was engaged in. Passing for the moment the question whether separation of petitioners from their employment must be considered as punishment, the ordinance clearly is not ex post facto. The activity covered by the oath had been proscribed by the Charter in the same terms, for the same purpose, and to the same effect over seven years before, and two years prior to the period embraced in the oath. Not the law but the fact was posterior.
Bills of attainder are “legislative acts . . . that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial . . . .” United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, 315 (1946). Punishment is a prerequisite. See concurring opinion in Lovett, supra, at 318, 324. Whether legislative action curtailing a privilege previously enjoyed amounts to punishment depends upon “the circumstances attending and the causes of the deprivation.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 320 (1867). We are unable to conclude that punishment is imposed by a general regulation which merely provides standards of qualification and eligibility for employment.
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 (1867), and Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (1867), the leading cases in this Court applying the federal constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder, recognized that the guarantees against such legislation were not intended to preclude legislative definition of standards of qualification for public or professional employment. Carefully distinguishing an instance of legislative “infliction of punishment” from the exercise of “the power of Congress to prescribe qualifications,” the Court said in Garland’s case: “The legislature may undoubtedly prescribe qualifications for the office, to which he must conform, as it may, where it has exclusive jurisdiction, prescribe qualifications for the pursuit of any of the ordinary avocations of life.” 4 Wall, at 379-380. See also, Cummings v. Missouri, supra, at 318-319. This doctrine was reaffirmed in Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 (1889), in which Mr. Justice Field, who had written the Cummings and Garland opinions, wrote for a unanimous Court upholding a statute elevating standards of qualification to practice medicine. And in Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189 (1898), the Court upheld a statute forbidding the practice of medicine by any person who had been convicted of a felony. Both Dent and Hawker distinguished the Cummings and Garland cases as inapplicable when the legislature establishes reasonable qualifications for a vocational pursuit with the necessary effect of disqualifying some persons presently engaged in it.
Petitioners rely heavily upon United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303 (1946), in which a legislative act effectively separating certain public servants from their positions was held to be a bill of attainder. Unlike the provisions of the Charter and ordinance under which petitioners were removed, the statute in the Lovett case did not declare general and prospectively operative standards of qualification and eligibility for public employment. Rather, by its terms it prohibited any further payment of compensation to named individual employees. Under these circumstances, viewed against the legislative background, the statute was held to have imposed penalties without judicial trial.
Nor are we impressed by the contention that the oath denies due process because its negation is not limited to affiliations with organizations known to the employee to be in the proscribed class. We have no reason to suppose that the oath is or will be construed by the City of Los Angeles or by California courts as affecting adversely those persons who during their affiliation with a proscribed organization were innocent of its purpose, or those who severed their relations with any such organization when its character became apparent, or those who were affiliated with organizations which at one time or another during the period covered by the ordinance were engaged in proscribed activity but not at the time of affiant’s affiliation. We assume that scienter is implicit in each clause of the oath. As the city has done nothing to negative this interpretation, we take for granted that the ordinance will be so read to avoid raising difficult constitutional problems which any other application would present. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277 (1915). It appears from correspondence of record between the city and petitioners that although the city welcomed inquiry as to its construction of the oath, the interpretation upon which we have proceeded may not have been explicitly called to the attention of petitioners before their refusal. We assume that, if our interpretation of the oath is correct, the City of Los Angeles will give those petitioners who heretofore refused to take the oath an opportunity to take it as interpreted and resume their employment.
The judgment as to Pacifico and Schwartz is affirmed. The judgment as to the remaining petitioners is affirmed on the basis of the interpretation of the ordinance which we have felt justified in assuming.
Affirmed.
In interpreting local legislation proscribing affiliation with defective organizations, the Supreme Court of California has gone beyond the literal text of a statute so as to require knowledge of the character of the organization, as of the time of affiliation, by the person whose affiliation is in question. In People v. Steelik, 187 Cal. 361, 203 P. 78 (1921), the Court upheld a conviction under the Criminal Syndicalism Act of 1919 which made one guilty of a felony who “is” a member of any one of a certain class of proscribed organizations. The indictment in relevant part alleged that defendants “are and each of them is” a member of a proscribed organization. The court interpreted the statute as defining and the indictment as charging “the offense of criminal syndicalism in that he knowingly belonged” to a proscribed organization. (Emphasis added.) 187 Cal. at 376, 203 P. at 84.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1946, Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act, which as we have noted elsewhere was not only “a new, basic and comprehensive regulation of procedures in many agencies,” Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33 (1950), but was also a legislative enactment which settled “long-continued and hard-fought contentions, and enacts a formula upon which opposing social and political forces have come to rest.” Id., at 40. Section 4 of the Act, 5 U. S. C. § 553 (1976 ed.), dealing with rulemaking, requires in subsection (b) that “notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register... describes the contents of that notice, and goes on to require in subsection (c) that after the notice the agency “shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.” Interpreting this provision of the Act in United States v. AlleghenyLudlum Steel Corp., 406 U. S. 742 (1972), and United States v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 410 U. S. 224 (1973), we held that generally speaking this section of the Act established the maximum procedural requirements which Congress was willing to have the courts impose upon agencies in conducting rulemaking procedures. Agencies are free to grant additional procedural rights in the exercise of their discretion, but reviewing courts are generally not free to impose them if the agencies have not chosen to grant them. This is not to say necessarily that there are no circumstances- which would ever justify a court in overturning agency action because of a failure to employ procedures beyond those required by the statute. But such circumstances, if they exist, are extremely rare.
Even apart from the Administrative Procedure Act this Court has for more than four decades emphasized that the formulation of procedures was basically to be left within the discretion of the agencies to which Congress had confided the responsibility for substantive judgments. In FCC v. Schreiber, 381 U. S. 279, 290 (1965), the Court explicated this principle, describing it as “an outgrowth of the congressional determination that administrative agencies and administrators will be familiar with the industries which they regulate and will be in a better position than federal courts or Congress itself to design procedural rules adapted to the peculiarities of the industry and the tasks of the agency involved.” The Court there relied on its earlier ease of FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 138 (1940), where it had stated that a provision dealing with the conduct of business by the Federal Communications Commission delegated to the Commission the power to resolve “subordinate questions of procedure... [such as] the scope of the inquiry, whether applications should be heard contemporaneously or successively, whether parties should be allowed to intervene in one another’s proceedings, and similar questions.”
It is in the light of this background of statutory and decisional law that we granted certiorari to review two judgments of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because of our concern that they had seriously misread or misapplied this statutory and decisional law cautioning reviewing courts against engrafting their own notions of proper procedures upon agencies entrusted with substantive functions by Congress. 429 U. S. 1090 (1977). We conclude that the Court of Appeals has done just that in these cases, and we therefore remand them to it for further proceedings. We also find it necessary to examine the Court of Appeals’ decision with respect to agency action taken after full adjudicatory hearings. We again conclude that the court improperly intruded into the agency’s decisionmaking process, making it necessary for us to reverse and remand with respect to- this part of the cases also.
I
A
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2011 et seq., the Atomic Energy Commission was given broad regulatory authority over the development of nuclear energy. Under the terms of the Act, a utility seeking to construct and operate a nuclear power plant must obtain a separate permit or license at both the construction and the operation stage of the project. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 2133, 2232, 2235, 2239. In order to obtain the construction permit, the utility must file a preliminary safety analysis report, an environmental report, and certain information regarding the antitrust implications of the proposed project. See 10 CFR §§2.101, 50.30 (f), 50.33a, 50.34 (a) (1977). This application then undergoes exhaustive review by the Commission’s staff and by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), a group of distinguished experts in the field of atomic energy. Both groups submit to the Commission their own evaluations, which then become part of the record of the utility’s application. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 2039, 2232 (b). The Commission staff also undertakes the review required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. §4321 et seq., and prepares a draft environmental impact statement, which, after being circulated for comment, 10 CFR §§ 51.22-51.25 (1977), is revised and becomes a final environmental impact statement. § 51.26. Thereupon a three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducts a public adjudicatory hearing, 42 U. S. C. § 2241, and reaches a decision which can be appealed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, and currently, in the Commission’s discretion, to the Commission itself. 10 CFR §§ 2.714, 2.721, 2.786, 2.787 (1977). The final agency decision may be appealed to the courts of appeals. 42 U. S. C. § 2239; 28 U. S. C. § 2342. The same sort of process occurs when the utility applies for a license to operate the plant, 10 CFR § 50.34 (b) (1977), except that a hearing need only be held in contested cases and may be limited to the matters in controversy. See 42 U. S. C. § 2239 (a); 10 CFR §2.105 (1977); 10 CFR pt. 2, App. A, V (f) (1977).
These cases arise from two separate decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the first, the court remanded a decision of the Commission to grant a license to petitioner Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. to operate a nuclear power plant. Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC, 178 U. S. App. D. C. 336, 547 F. 2d 633 (1976). In the second, the court remanded a decision of that same agency to grant a permit to petitioner Consumers Power Co. to construct two pressurized water nuclear reactors to generate electricity and steam. Aeschliman v. NRC, 178 U. S. App. D. C. 325, 547 F. 2d 622 (1976).
B
In December 1967, after the mandatory adjudicatory hearing and necessary review, the Commission granted petitioner Vermont Yankee a permit to build a nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vt. See 4 A. E. C. 36 (1967). Thereafter, Vermont Yankee applied for an operating license. Respondent Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) objected to the granting of a license, however, and therefore a hearing on the application commenced on August 10, 1971. Excluded from consideration at the hearings, over NRDC’s objection, was the issue of the environmental effects of operations to reprocess fuel or dispose of wastes resulting from the reprocessing operations. This ruling was affirmed by the Appeal Board in June 1972.
In November 1972, however, the Commission, making specific reference to the Appeal Board’s decision with respect to the Vermont Yankee license, instituted rulemaking proceed-' ings “that would specifically deal with the question of consideration of environmental effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle in the individual cost-benefit analyses for light water cooled nuclear power reactors.” App. 352.' The notice of proposed rulemaking offered two alternatives, both predicated on a report prepared by the Commission’s staff entitled Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Euel Cycle. The first would have required no quantitative evaluation of the environmental hazards of fuel reprocessing or disposal because the Environmental Survey had found them to be slight. The second would have specified numerical values for the environmental impact of this part of the fuel cycle, which values would then be incorporated into a table, along with the other relevant factors, to determine the overall cost-benefit balance for each operating license. See id., at 356-357.
Much of the controversy in this case revolves around the procedures used in the rulemaking hearing which commenced in February 1973. In a supplemental notice of hearing the Commission indicated that while discovery or cross-examination would not be utilized, the Environmental Survey would be available to the public before the hearing along with the extensive background documents cited therein. All participants would be given a reasonable opportunity to present their position and could be represented by counsel if they so desired. Written and, time permitting, oral statements would be received and incorporated into the record. All persons giving oral statements would be subject to questioning by the Commission. At the conclusion of the hearing, a transcript would be made available to the public and the record would remain open for 30 days to allow the filing of supplemental written statements. See generally id., at 361-363. More than 40 individuals and organizations representing a wide variety of interests submitted written comments. On January 17, 1973, the Licensing Board held a planning session to schedule the appearance of witnesses and to discuss methods for compiling a record. The hearing was held on February 1 and 2, with participation by a number of groups, including the Commission’s staff, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a manufacturer of reactor equipment, a trade association from the nuclear industry, a group of electric utility companies, and a group called Consolidated National Intervenors which represented 79 groups and individuals including respondent NRDC.
After the hearing, the Commission’s staff filed a supplemental document for the purpose of clarifying and revising the Environmental Survey. Then the Licensing Board forwarded its report to the Commission without rendering any decision. The Licensing Board identified as the principal procedural question the propriety of declining to use full formal adjudicatory procedures. The major substantive issue was the technical adequacy of the Environmental Survey.
In April 1974, the Commission issued a rule which adopted the second of the two proposed alternatives described above. The Commission also approved the procedures used at the hearing, and indicated that the record, including the Environmental Survey, provided an “adequate data base for the regulation adopted.” Id., at 392. Finally, the Commission ruled that to the extent the rule differed from the Appeal Board decisions in Vermont Yankee “those decisions have no further precedential significance,” id., at 386, but that since “the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle have been shown to be relatively insignificant,... it is unnecessary to apply the amendment to applicant’s environmental reports submitted prior to its effective date or to Final Environmental Statements for which Draft Environmental Statements have been circulated for comment prior to the effective date,” id., at 395.
Respondents appealed from both the Commission’s adoption of the rule and its decision to grant Vermont Yankee’s license to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
C
In January 1969, petitioner Consumers Power Co. applied for a permit to construct two nuclear reactors in Midland, Mich. Consumers Power’s application was examined by the Commission’s staff and the ACRS. The ACRS issued reports which discussed specific problems and recommended solutions. It also made reference to “other problems” of a more generic nature and suggested that efforts should be made to resolve them with respect to these as well as all other projects. Two groups, one called Saginaw and another called Mapleton, intervened and opposed the application. Saginaw filed with the Board a number of environmental contentions, directed over 300 interrogatories to the ACRS, attempted to depose the chairman of the ACRS, and requested discovery of various ACRS documents. The Licensing Board denied the various discovery requests directed to the ACRS. Hearings were then held on numerous radiological health and safety issues. Thereafter, the Commission’s staff issued a draft environmental impact statement. Saginaw submitted 119 environmental contentions which were both comments on the proposed draft statement and a statement of Saginaw’s position in the upcoming hearings. The staff revised the statement and issued a final environmental statement in March 1972. Further hearings were then conducted during May and June 1972. Saginaw, however, choosing not to appear at or participate in these latter hearings, indicated that it had “no conventional findings of fact to set forth” and had not “chosen to search the record and respond to this proceeding by submitting citations of matters which we believe were proved or disproved.” See App. 190 n. 9. But the Licensing Board, recognizing its obligations to “independently consider the final balance among conflicting environmental factors in the record,” nevertheless treated as contested those issues “as to which intervenors introduced affirmative evidence or engaged in substantial cross examination.” Id., at 205, 191.
At issue now are 17 of those 119 contentions which are claimed to raise questions of “energy conservation.”', The Licensing Board indicated that as far as appeared from the record, the demand for the plant was made up, of normal industrial and residential use. Id., at 207. It went on to state that it was “beyond our province to inquire into whether the customary uses being made of electricity in our society are ‘proper’ or ‘improper.’ ” Ibid. With respect to claims that Consumers Power stimulated demand by its advertising the Licensing Board indicated that “[n]o evidence was offered on this point and absent some evidence that Applicant is creating abnormal demand, the Board did not consider the question.” Id., at 207-208. The Licensing Board also' failed to consider the environmental effects of fuel reprocessing or disposal of radioactive wastes. The Appeal Board ultimately-affirmed the Licensing Board’s grant of a construction permit and the Commission declined to further review the matter.
At just about the same time, the Council on Environmental Quality revised its regulations governing the preparation of environmental impact statements. 38 Fed. Reg. 20550 (1973). The regulations mentioned for the first time the necessity of considering in impact statements energy conservation as one of the alternatives to a proposed project. The new guidelines were to apply only to final impact statements filed after January 28, 1974. Id., at 20557. Thereafter, on November 6, 1973, more than a year after the record had been closed in the Consumers Power case and while that case was pending before the Court of Appeals, the Commission ruled in another case that while its statutory power to compel conservation was not clear, it did not follow that all evidence of energy conservation issues should therefore be barred at the threshold. In re Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 6 A. E. C. 995 (1973). Saginaw then moved the Commission to clarify its ruling and reopen the Consumers Power proceedings.
In a lengthy opinion, the Commission declined to reopen the proceedings. The Commission first ruled it was required to consider only energy conservation alternatives which 'were “ ‘reasonably available,’ ” would in their aggregate effect curtail demand for electricity to a level at which the proposed facility would not be needed, and were susceptible of a reasonable degree of proof. App. 332. It then determined, after a thorough examination of the record, that not all of Saginaw’s contentions met these threshold tests. Id., at 334-340. It further determined that the Board had been willing at all times to take evidence on the other contentions. Saginaw had simply failed to present any such evidence. The Commission further criticized Saginaw for its total disregard of even those minimal procedural formalities necessary to give the Board some idea of exactly what was at issue. The Commission emphasized that “[particularly in these circumstances, Saginaw’s complaint that it was not granted a hearing on alleged energy conservation issues comes with ill grace.” Id., at 342. And in response to Saginaw’s contention that regardless of whether it properly raised the issues, the Licensing Board must consider all environmental issues, the Commission basically agreed, as did the Board itself, but further reasoned that the Board must have some workable procedural rules and these rules
“in this setting must take into account that energy conservation is a novel and evolving concept. NEPA 'does not require a “crystal ball” inquiry.’ Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, [148 U. S. App. D. C. 5, 15, 458 F. 2d 827, 837 (1972) ]. This consideration has led us to hold that we will not apply Niagara retroactively. As we gain experience on a case-by-case basis and hopefully, feasible energy conservation techniques emerge, the applicant, staff, and licensing boards will have obligations to develop an adequate record on these issues in appropriate cases, whether or not they are raised by intervenors.
“However, at this emergent stage of energy conservation principles, intervenors also have their responsibilities. They must state clear and reasonably specific energy conservation contentions in a timely fashion. Beyond that, they have a burden of coming forward with some affirmative showing if they wish to have these novel contentions explored further.” Id., at 344 (footnotes omitted).
Respondents then challenged the granting of the construction permit in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
D
With respect to the challenge of Vermont Yankee’s license, the court first ruled that in the absence of effective rulemaking proceedings, the Commission must deal with the environmental impact of fuel reprocessing and disposal in individual licensing proceedings. 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 344, 547 P. 2d, at 641. The court then examined the rulemaking proceedings and, despite the fact that it appeared that the agency employed all the procedures required by 5 U. S. C. § 553 (1976 ed.) and more, the court determined the proceedings to be inadequate and overturned the rule. Accordingly, the Commission’s determination with respect to Vermont Yankee’s license was also remanded for further proceedings. 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 358, 547 P. 2d, at 6.55.
With respect to the permit to Consumers Power, the court first held that the environmental impact statement for construction of the Midland reactors was fatally defective for failure to examine energy conservation as an alternative to a plant of this size. 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 331,547F. 2d, at 628. The uourt also thought the report by ACRS was inadequate, although it did not agree that discovery from individual ACRS members was the proper way to obtain further explication of the report. Instead, the court held that the Commission should have sua sponte sent the report back to the ACRS for further elucidation of the “other problems” and their resolution. Id., at 335, 547 F. 2d, at 632. Finally, the court ruled that the fuel cycle issues in this case were controlled by NRDC v. NRC, discussed above, and remanded for appropriate consideration of waste disposal and other unaddressed fuel cycle issues as described in that opinion. 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 335, 547 F. 2d, at 632.
II
A
Petitioner Vermont Yankee first argues that the Commission may grant a license to operate a nuclear reactor without any consideration of waste disposal and fuel reprocessing. We find, however, that this issue is no longer presented by the record in this case. The Commission does not contend that it is not required to consider the environmental impact of the spent fuel processes when licensing nuclear power plants. Indeed, the Commission has publicly stated subsequent to the Court of Appeals’ decision in the instant case that consideration of the environmental impact of the back end of the fuel cycle in “the environmental impact statements for individual LWR’s [light-water power reactors] would represent a full and candid assessment of costs and benefits consistent with the legal requirements and spirit of NEPA.” 41 Fed. Reg. 45849 (1976). Even prior to the Court of Appeals’ decision the Commission implicitly agreed that it would consider the back end of the fuel cycle in all licensing proceedings: It indicated that it was not necessary to reopen prior licensing proceedings because “the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle have been shown to be relatively insignificant,” and thus incorporation of those effects into the cost-benefit analysis would not change the results of such licensing proceedings. App. 395. Thus, at this stage of the proceedings the only question presented for review in this regard is whether the Commission may consider the environmental impact of the fuel processes when licensing nuclear reactors. In addition to the weight which normally attaches to the agency’s determination of such a question, other reasons support the Commission’s conclusion.
Vermont Yankee will produce annually well over 100 pounds of radioactive wastes, some of which will be highly toxic. The Commission itself, in a pamphlet published by its information office, clearly recognizes that these wastes “pose the most severe potential health hazard... U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Radioactive Wastes 12 (1965). Many of these substances must be isolated for anywhere from 600 to hundreds of thousands of years. It is hard to argue that these wastes do not constitute “adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,” or that by operating nuclear power plants we are not making “irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.” 42 U. S. C. §§ 4332 (2) (C) (ii), (v). As the Court of Appeals recognized, the environmental impact of the radioactive wastes produced by a nuclear power plant is analytically indistinguishable from the environmental effects of “the stack gases produced by a coal-burning power plant.” 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 341, 547 F. 2d, at 638. For these reasons we hold that the Commission acted well within its statutory authority when it considered the back end of the fuel cycle in individual licensing proceedings.
B
We next turn to the invalidation of the fuel cycle rule. But before determining whether the Court of Appeals reached a permissible result, we must determine exactly what result it did reach, and in this case that is no mean feat. Vermont Yankee argues that the court invalidated the rule because of the inadequacy of the procedures employed in the proceedings. Brief for Petitioner in No. 76-419, pp. 30-38. Respondents, on the other hand, labeling petitioner’s view of the decision a “straw man,” argue to this Court that the court merely held that the record was inadequate to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the agency had fulfilled its statutory obligation. Brief for Respondents in No. 76 — A19, pp. 28-30, 40. But we unfortunately have not found the parties’ characterization of the opinion to be entirely reliable; it appears here, as in Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83, 87 (1953), that “in this Court the parties changed positions as nimbly as if dancing a quadrille.”
After a thorough examination of the opinion itself, we con-elude that while the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the majority of the Court of Appeals struck down the rule because of the perceived inadequacies of the procedures employed in the rulemaking proceedings. The court first determined the intervenors’ primary argument to be “that the decision to preclude 'discovery or cross-examination’ denied them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings as guaranteed by due process.” 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 346, 547 F. 2d, at 643. The court then went on to frame the issue for decision thus:
“Thus, we are called upon to decide whether the procedures provided by the agency were sufficient to ventilate the issues.” Ibid., 547 F. 2d, at 643.
The court conceded that absent extraordinary circumstances it is improper for a reviewing court to prescribe the procedural format an agency must follow, but it likewise clearly thought it entirely appropriate to “scrutinize the record as a whole to insure that genuine opportunities to participate in a meaningful way were provided....” Id., at 347, 547 F. 2d, at 644. The court also refrained from actually ordering the agency to follow any specific procedures, id., at 356-357, 547 F. 2d, at 653-654, but there is little doubt in our minds that the ineluctable mandate of the court’s decision is that the procedures afforded during the hearings were inadequate. This conclusion is particularly buttressed by the fact that after the court examined the record, particularly the testimony of Dr. Pittman, and declared it insufficient, the court proceeded to discuss at some length the necessity for further procedural devices or a more “sensitive” application of those devices employed during the proceedings. Ibid. The exploration of the record and the statement regarding its insufficiency might initially lead one to conclude that the court was only examining the sufficiency of the evidence, but the remaining portions of the opinion dispel any doubt that this was certainly not the sole or even the principal basis of the decision. Accordingly, we feel compelled to address the opinion on its own terms, and we conclude that it was wrong.
In prior opinions we have intimated that even in a rule-making proceeding when an agency is making a “ 'quasi-judicial’ ” determination by which a very small number of persons are “ 'exceptionally affected, in each case upon individual grounds,’ ” in some circumstances additional procedures may be required in order to afford the aggrieved individuals due process. United States v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 410 U. S., at 242, 245, quoting from Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U. S. 441, 446 (1915). It might also be true, although we do not think the issue is presented in this case and accordingly do not decide it, that a totally unjustified departure from well-settled agency procedures of long standing might require judicial correction.
But this much is absolutely clear. Absent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances the “administrative agencies ‘should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties.’ ” FCC v. Schreiber, 381 U. S., at 290, quoting from FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S., at 143. Indeed, our cases could hardly be more explicit in this regard. The Court has, as we noted in FCC v. Schreiber, supra, at 290, and n. 17, upheld this principle in a variety of applications, including that case where the District Court, instead of inquiring into the validity of the Federal Communications Commission’s exercise of its rulemaking authority, devised procedures to be followed by the agency on the basis of its conception of how the public and private interest involved could best be served. Examining §4 (j) of the Communications Act of 1934, the Court unanimously held that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding that action. And the basic reason for this decision was the Court of Appeals’ serious departure from the very basic tenet of administrative law that agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure.
We have continually repeated this theme through the years, most recently in FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 423 U. S. 326 (1976), decided just two Terms ago. In that case, in determining the proper scope of judicial review of agency action under the Natural Gas Act, we held that while a court may have occasion to remand an agency decision because of the inadequacy of the record, the agency should normally be allowed to “exercise its administrative discretion in deciding how, in light of internal organization considerations, it may best proceed to develop the needed evidence and how its prior decision should be modified in light of such evidence as develops.” Id., at 333. We went on to emphasize:
“At least in the absence of substantial justification for doing otherwise, a reviewing court may not, after determining that additional evidence is requisite for adequate review, proceed by dictating to the agency the methods, procedures, and time dimension of the needed inquiry and ordering the results to be reported to the court without opportunity for further consideration on the basis of the new evidence by the agency. Such a procedure clearly runs the risk of ‘propel [ling] the court into the domain which Congress has set aside exclusively for the administrative agency.’ SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 196 (1947).” Ibid.
Respondent NRDC argues that § 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 553 (1976 ed.), merely establishes lower procedural bounds and that a court may routinely require more than the minimum when an agency’s proposed rule addresses complex or technical factual issues or “Issues of Great Public Import.” Brief for Respondents in No. 76-419, p. 49. We have, however, previously shown that our decisions reject this view. Supra, at 542 to this page. We also think the legislative history, even the part which it cites, does not bear out its contention. The Senate Report explains what eventually became § 4 thus:
“This subsection states... the minimum requirements of public rule making procedure short of statutory hearing. Under it agencies might in addition confer with industry advisory committees, consult organizations, hold informal ‘hearings,’ and the like. Considerations of practicality, necessity, and public interest... will naturally govern the agency’s determination of the extent to which public proceedings should go. Matters of great import, or those where the public submission of facts will be either useful to the agency or a protection to the public, should naturally be accorded more elaborate public procedures.” S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 14-15 (1945).
The House Report is in complete accord:
“ ‘[U]niformity has been found possible and desirable for all classes of both equity and law actions in the courts.... It would seem to require no argument to demonstrate that the administrative agencies, exercising but a fraction of the judicial power may likewise operate under uniform rules of practice and procedure and that they may be required to remain within the terms of the law as to the exercise of both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial power/
“The bill is an outline of minimum essential rights and procedures.... It affords private parties a means of knowing what their rights are and how they may protect them....
"... [The bill contains] the essentials of the different forms of administrative proceedings... H. R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 9,16-17 (1946).
And the Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 31, 35 (1947), a contemporaneous interpretation previously given, some deference by this Court because of the role played by the Department of Justice in drafting the legislation, further confirms that view. In short, all of this leaves little doubt that Congress intended that the discretion of the agencies and not that of the courts be exercised in determining when extra procedural devices should be employed.
There are compelling reasons for construing § 4 in this manner. In the first place, if courts continually review agency proceedings to determine whether the agency employed procedures which were, in the court’s opinion, perfectly tailored to reach what the court perceives to be the “best” or “correct” result, judicial review would be totally unpredictable. And the agencies, operating under this vague injunction to employ the “best” procedures and facing the threat of reversal if they did not, would undoubtedly adopt full adjudicatory procedures in every instance. Not only would this totally disrupt the statutory scheme, through which Congress enacted “a formula upon which opposing social and political forces have come to rest,” Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S., at 40, but all the inherent advantages of informal rulemaking would be totally lost.
Secondly, it is obvious that the court in these cases reviewed the agency’s choice of procedures on the basis of the record actually produced at the hearing, 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 347, 547 F. 2d, at 644, and not on the basis of the information available to the agency when it made the decision to structure the proceedings in a certain way. This sort of Monday morning quarterbacking not only encourages but almost compels the agency to conduct all rulemaking proceedings with the full panoply of procedural devices normally associated only with adjudicatory hearings.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this sort of review fundamentally misconceives the nature of the standard for judicial review of an agency rule. The court below uncritically assumed that additional procedures will automatically result in a more adequate record because it will give interested parties more of an opportunity to participate in and contribute to the proceedings. But informal rulemaking need not be based solely on the transcript of a hearing held before an agency. Indeed, the agency need not even hold a formal hearing. See 5 U. S. C. § 553 (c) (1976 ed.). Thus, the adequacy of the “record” in this type of proceeding is not correlated directly to the type of procedural devices employed, but.rather turns on whether the agency has followed the statutory mandate of the Administrative Procedure Act or other relevant statutes. If the agency is compelled to support the rule which it ultimately adopts with the type of record produced only after a full adjudicatory hearing, it simply will have no choice but to conduct a full adjudicatory hearing prior to promulgating every rule. In sum, this sort of unwarranted judicial examination of perceived procedural shortcomings of a rulemaking proceeding can do nothing but seriously interfere with that process prescribed by Congress.
Respondent NRDC also argues that the fact that the Commission's inquiry was undertaken in the context of NEPA somehow permits a court to require procedures beyond those specified in § 4 of the APA when investigating factual issues through rulemaking. The Court of Appeals was apparently also of this view, indicating that agencies may be required to “develop new procedures to accomplish the innovative task of implementing NEPA through rulemaking. 178 U. S. App. D. C., at 356, 547 F. 2d, at 653. But we search in vain for something in NEPA which would mandate such a result. We have before observed that “NEPA does not repeal by implication any other statute.” Aberdeen & Bockfish B. Co. v. SCRAP, 422 U. S. 289, 319 (1975). See also United States v. SCBAP, 412 U. S. 669, 694 (1973). In fact, just two Terms ago, we emphasized that the only procedural requirements imposed by NEPA are those stated in the plain language of the Act. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U. S. 390, 405-406 (1976). Thus, it is clear NEPA cannot serve as the basis for a substantial revision of the carefully constructed procedural specifications of the APA.
In short, nothing in the APA, NEPA, the circumstances of this case, the nature of the issues being considered, past agency practice, or the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
As Detroit police officers were about to execute a warrant to search a house for narcotics, they encountered respondent descending the front steps. They requested his assistance in gaining entry and detained him while they searched the premises. After finding narcotics in the basement and ascertaining that respondent owned the house, the police arrested him, searched his person, and found in his coat pocket an envelope containing 8.5 grams of heroin.
Respondent was charged with possession of the heroin found on his person. He moved to suppress the heroin as the product of an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the trial judge granted the motion and quashed the information. That order was affirmed by a divided panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals, 68 Mich. App. 571, 243 N. W. 2d 689, and by the Michigan Supreme Court over the dissent of three of its justices. 407 Mich. 432, 286 N. W. 2d 226. We granted the State’s petition for certiorari, 449 U. S. 898, and now reverse.
I
The dispositive question in this case is whether the initial detention of respondent violated his constitutional right to be secure against an unreasonable seizure of his person. The State attempts to justify the eventual search of respondent’s person by arguing that the authority to search premises granted by the warrant implicitly included the authority to search persons on those premises, just as that authority included an authorization to search furniture and containers in which the particular things described might be concealed. But as the Michigan Court of Appeals correctly noted, even if otherwise acceptable, this argument could not justify the initial detention of respondent outside the premises described in the warrant. See 68 Mich. App., at 578-580, 243 N. W. 2d, at 692-693. If that detention was permissible, there is no need to reach the question whether a search warrant for premises includes the right to search persons found there, because when the police searched respondent, they had probable cause to arrest him and had done so. Our appraisal of the validity of the search of respondent’s person therefore depends upon a determination whether the officers had the authority to require him to re-enter the house and to remain there while they conducted their search.
II
In assessing the validity of respondent’s initial detention, we note first that it constituted a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The State does not contend otherwise, and the record demonstrates that respondent was not free to leave the premises while the officers were searching his home. It is also clear that respondent was not formally arrested until after the search was completed. The dispute therefore involves only the constitutionality of a pre-arrest “seizure” which we assume was unsupported by probable cause.
In Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, the Court reaffirmed the general rule that an official seizure of the person must be supported by probable cause, even if no formal arrest is made. In that case police officers located a murder suspect at a neighbor’s house, took him into custody, and transported him to the police station, where interrogation ultimately produced a confession. Because the suspect was not arrested until after he had confessed, and because he presumably would have been set free if probable cause had not been established during his questioning, the State argued that the pre-arrest detention should not be equated with an arrest and should be upheld as “reasonable” in view of the serious character of the crime and the fact that the police had an articulable basis for suspecting that Dunaway was involved. Id., at 207. The Court firmly rejected the State’s argument, noting that “the detention of petitioner was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest.” Id., at 212. We stated:
“Indeed, any ‘exception’ that could cover a seizure as intrusive as that in this case would threaten to swallow the general rule that Fourth Amendment seizures are ‘reasonable’ only if based on probable cause.
“The central importance of the probable-cause requirement to the protection of a citizen’s privacy afforded by the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees cannot be compromised in this fashion. ‘The requirement of probable cause has roots that are deep in our history.’ Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 100 (1959). Hostility to seizures based on mere suspicion was a prime motivation for the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, and decisions immediately after its adoption affirmed that ‘common rumor or report, suspicion, or even “strong reason to suspect” was not adequate to support a warrant for arrest.’ Id., at 101 (footnotes omitted). The familiar threshold standard of probable cause for Fourth Amendment seizures reflects the benefit of extensive experience accommodating the factors relevant to the ‘reasonableness’ requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and provides the relative simplicity and clarity necessary to the implementation of a workable rule. See Brinegar v. United States, [338 U. S., at 175-176].” Id., at 213.
Although we refused in Dunaway to find an exception that would swallow the general rule, our opinion recognized that some seizures significantly less intrusive than an arrest have withstood scrutiny under the reasonableness standard embodied in the Fourth Amendment. In these cases the intrusion on the citizen’s privacy “was so much less severe” than that involved in a traditional arrest that “the opposing interests in crime prevention and detection and in the police officer’s safety” could support the seizure as reasonable. Id., at 209.
In the first such case, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court recognized the narrow authority of police officers who suspect criminal activity to make limited intrusions on an individual’s personal security based on less than probable cause. The Court approved a “frisk” for weapons as a justifiable response to an officer’s reasonable belief that he was dealing with a possibly armed and dangerous suspect. In the second such case, Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, the Court relied on Terry to hold that an officer could forcibly stop a suspect to investigate an informant’s tip that the suspect was armed and carrying narcotics. And in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, the Court held that the special enforcement problems confronted by roving Border Patrol agents, though not sufficient to justify random stops of vehicles near the Mexican border to question their occupants about their citizenship, id., at 882-884, were adequate to support vehicle stops based on the agents’ awareness of specific articulable facts indicating that the vehicle contained illegal aliens. The Court reasoned that the difficulty in patrolling the long Mexican border and the interest in controlling the influx of illegal aliens justified the limited intrusion, usually lasting no more than a minute, involved in the stop. Id., at 878-880. See also United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411.
These cases recognize that some seizures admittedly covered by the Fourth Amendment constitute such limited intrusions on the personal security of those detained and are justified by such substantial law enforcement interests that they may be made on less than probable cause, so long as police have an articulable basis for suspecting criminal activity. In these cases, as in Dunaway, the Court was applying the ultimate standard of reasonableness embodied in the Fourth Amendment. They are consistent with the general rule that every arrest, and every seizure having the essential attributes of a formal arrest, is unreasonable unless it is supported by probable cause. But they demonstrate that the exception for limited intrusions that may be justified by special law enforcement interests is not confined to the momentary, on-the-street detention accompanied by a frisk for weapons involved in Terry and Adams. Therefore, in order to decide whether this case is controlled by the general rule, it is necessary to examine both the character of the official intrusion and its justification.
Ill
Of prime importance in assessing the intrusion is the fact that the police had obtained a warrant to search respondent’s house for contraband. A neutral and detached magistrate had found probable cause to believe that the law was being violated in that house and had authorized a substantial invasion of the privacy of the persons who resided there. The detention of one of the residents while the premises were searched, although admittedly a significant restraint on his liberty, was surely less intrusive than the search itself. Indeed, we may safely assume that most citizens- — unless they intend flight to avoid arrest — -would elect to remain in order to observe the search of their possessions. Furthermore, the type of detention imposed here is not likely to be exploited by the officer or unduly prolonged in order to gain more information, because the information the officers seek normally will be obtained through the search and not through the detention. Moreover, because the detention in this case was in respondent’s own residence, it could add only minimally to the public stigma associated with the search itself and would involve neither the inconvenience nor the indignity associated with a compelled visit to the police station. In sharp contrast to the custodial interrogation in Dunaway, the detention of this respondent was “substantially less intrusive” than an arrest. 442 U. S., at 210.
In assessing the justification for the detention of an occupant of premises being searched for contraband pursuant to a valid warrant, both the law enforcement interest and the nature of the “articulable facts” supporting the detention are relevant. Most obvious is the legitimate law enforcement interest in preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found. Less obvious, but sometimes of greater importance, is the interest in minimizing the risk of harm to the officers. Although no special danger to the police is suggested by the evidence in this record, the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics is the kind of transaction that may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence. The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation. Cf. 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §4.9, pp. 150-151 (1978). Finally, the orderly completion of the search may be facilitated if the occupants of the premises are present. Their self-interest may induce them to open locked doors or locked containers to avoid the use of force that is not only damaging to property but may also delay the completion of the task at hand.
It is also appropriate to consider the nature of the articu-lable and individualized suspicion on which the police base the detention of the occupant of a home subject to a search warrant. We have already noted that the detention represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of a home has been authorized by a valid warrant. The existence of a search warrant, however, also provides an objective justification for the detention. A judicial officer has determined that police have probable cause to believe that someone in the home is committing a crime. Thus a neutral magistrate rather than an officer in the field has made the critical determination that the police should be given a special authorization to thrust themselves into the privacy of a home. The connection of an occupant to that home gives the police officer an easily identifiable and certain basis for determining that suspicion of criminal activity justifies a detention of that occupant.
In Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, we held that police officers may not enter a private residence to make a routine felony arrest without first obtaining a warrant. In that case we rejected the suggestion that only a search warrant could adequately protect the privacy interests at stake, noting that the distinction between a search warrant and an arrest warrant was far less significant than the interposition of the magistrate’s determination of probable cause between the zealous officer and the citizen:
“It is true that an arrest warrant requirement may afford less protection than a search warrant requirement, but it will suffice to interpose the magistrate’s determination of probable cause between the zealous officer and the citizen. If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen’s participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reasonable to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law. Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.” Id., at 602-603.
That holding is relevant today. If the evidence that a citizen’s residence is harboring contraband is sufficient to persuade a judicial officer that an invasion of the citizen’s privacy is justified, it is constitutionally reasonable to require that citizen to remain while officers of the law execute a valid warrant to search his home. Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, we hold that a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.
Because it was lawful to require respondent to re-enter and to remain in the house until evidence establishing probable cause to arrest him was found, his arrest and the search incident thereto were constitutionally permissible. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan must therefore be reversed.
It is so ordered.
The execution of the warrant is described in greater detail in Justice Moody’s opinion for the Michigan Supreme Court:
“Upon arriving at the named address, Oflieer Roger Lehman saw the defendant go out the front door of the house and proceed across the porch and down the steps. When defendant was asked to open the door he replied that he could not because he left his keys inside, but he could ring someone over the intercom. Dwight Calhoun came to the door, but did not admit the police officers. As a result, the officers obtained entrance to the premises by forcing open the front door. Once admittance had been gained Officer Lehman instructed Officer Conant, previously stationed along the side of the house, to bring the defendant, still on the porch, into the house.
“After the eight occupants of the house were detained, a search of the premises revealed two plastic bags of suspected narcotics under the bar in the basement. After finding the suspected narcotics in the basement and upon determining that the defendant was the owner of the house, Officer Conant formally arrested the defendant for violation of the Controlled Substances Act of 1971. MCL 336.341 (4) (a); MSA 18.1070 (41) (4) (a). A custodial search conducted by Officer Conant revealed a plastic bag containing suspected heroin in the defendant’s jacket pocket. It is this heroin, discovered on the person of the defendant, that forms the basis of the instant possession charge.” 407 Mich. 432, 441, 286 N. W. 2d 226, 226-227.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Fourteenth Amendment requires the several States to secure these rights. See Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 576; Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 207.
Because there were several other occupants of the house, under Michigan law the evidence that narcotics had been found in the basement of respondent’s house would apparently be insufficient to support a conviction. See People v. Davenport, 39 Mich. App. 252, 197 N. W. 2d 521 (1972). The Michigan Court of Appeals relied on Davenport to conclude that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest or search respondent even though he was the owner of a house in which contraband was found. 68 Mich. App., at 580-582, 243 N. W. 2d, at 692-693. Judge Bashara, dissenting in the Court of Appeals, id., at 585, 243 N. W. 2d, at 695, and the three dissenting justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, 407 Mich., at 450, 463-464, 286 N. W. 2d, at 231, 237, pointed out that Davenport, which concerns the proof necessary to support a conviction, is not dispositive of the question whether the police had probable cause to arrest. See Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174-176. Regardless of whether the police had probable cause to arrest respondent under Michigan law, probable cause within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment is not at issue here. Respondent does not challenge the conclusion that the evidence found in his home established probable cause to arrest him. See Brief for Respondent 17.
The “seizure” issue in this case should not be confused with the “search” issue presented in Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85. In Ybarra the police executing a search warrant for a public tavern detained and searched all of the customers who happened to be present. No question concerning the legitimacy of the detention was raised. Rather, the Court concluded that the search of Ybarra was invalid because the police had no reason to believe he had any special connection with the premises, and the police had no other basis for suspecting that he was armed or in possession of contraband. See id., at 90-93. In this case, only the detention is at issue. The police knew respondent lived in the house, and they did not search him until after they had probable cause to arrest and had done so.
“It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs ‘seizures’ of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime — ‘arrests’ in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 16.
The Court noted that Dunaway was “taken from a neighbor’s home fo a police car, transported to a police station, and placed in an interrogation room.” He was not informed that he was free to leave; he would not have been free to leave and would have been physically restrained had he attempted to do so. 442 U. S., at 212.
In upholding the “frisk” employed by the officer in that case, the Court assumed, without explicitly stating, that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit forcible stops when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed. See 392 U. S., at 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34 (White, J., concurring). In Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S., at 146, the Court made explicit what was implicit in Terry.
“A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.”
See also United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873; United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411.
The Court noted that the informant’s tip was insufficient to justify an arrest or search based on probable cause under Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410, and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, but the information “carried enough indicia of reliability to justify the officer’s forcible stop of Williams.” 407 U. S., at 147.
In several cases, the Court has concluded that the absence of any articulable facts available to the officer rendered a detention unreasonable. In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 663, the Court held that police could not make random stops of vehicles in order to check drivers’ licenses and vehicle registrations in the absence of “articulable and reasonable suspicion” that the motorist was unlicensed or the ear unregistered. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, we held that a statute requiring individuals to identify themselves was unconstitutional as applied because the police did not have any reasonable suspicion that the petitioner had committed or was committing a crime. Finally, in Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85, we held that police executing a search warrant at a tavern could not invoke Terry to frisk a patron unless the officers had individualized suspicion that the patron might be armed or dangerous.
The detention approved in Brignoni-Ponce did not encompass a search of the vehicle. The Court had held in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266, that such a search must be supported by probable cause. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, the Court held that stops at permanent checkpoints involved even less intrusion to a motorist than the detention by the roving patrol, and thus a stop at such a checkpoint need not even be based on any individualized suspicion.
In his opinion for the Court in Terry, Chief Justice Warren identified “the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment” as “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” 392 U. S., at 19. Before analyzing the specific stop and frisk involved in that case, he stated:
“The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 96-97 (1964).” Id., at 21-22 (footnotes omitted).
Justice White, concurring in Dunaway, noted that Terry is not “an almost unique exception to a hard-and-fast standard of probable cause.” Rather, “the key principle of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness — the balancing of competing interests.” 442 U. S., at 219. If the purpose underlying a Terry stop — investigating possible criminal activity — is to be served, the police must under certain' circumstances be able to detain the individual for longer than the brief time period involved in Terry and Adams. As one commentator observed:
“It is clear that there are several investigative techniques which may be utilized effectively in the course of a Terry-type stop. The most common is interrogation, which may include both a request for identification and inquiry concerning the suspicious conduct of the person detained. Sometimes the officer will communicate with others, either police or private citizens, in an effort to verify the explanation tendered or to confirm the identification or determine whether a person of that identity is otherwise wanted. Or, the suspect may be detained while it is determined if in fact an offense has occurred in the area, a process which might involve checking certain premises, locating and examining objects abandoned by the suspect, or talking with other people. If it is known that an offense has occurred in the area, the suspect may be viewed by witnesses to the crime. There is no reason to conclude that any investigative methods of the type just listed are inherently objectionable; they might cast doubt upon the reasonableness of the detention, however, if their use makes the period of detention unduly long or involves moving the suspect to another locale.” 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.2, pp. 36-37 (1978).
“As the Court reiterated just a few years ago, the 'physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.’ United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 313. And we have long adhered to the view that the warrant procedure minimizes the danger of needless intrusions of that sort.” Payton v. New York, 445 U. S., at 585-586.
Professor LaFave has noted that the reasonableness of a detention may be determined in part by “whether the police are diligently pursuing a means of investigation which is likely to resolve the matter one way or another very soon 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.2, p. 40 (1978).
Moreover, unlike the seizure in Dunaway, which was designed to provide an opportunity for interrogation and did lead to Dunaway’s confession, the seizure in this case is not likely to have coercive aspects likely to induce self-incrimination.
We do not view the fact that respondent was leaving his house when the officers arrived to be of constitutional significance. The seizure of respondent on the sidewalk outside was no more intrusive than the detention of those residents of the house whom the police found inside.
The fact that our holding today deals with a case in which the police had a warrant does not, of course, preclude the possibility that comparable police conduct may be justified by exigent circumstances in the absence of a warrant. No such question, however, is presented by this case.
Justice Jackson recognized the significance of this determination in Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 13-14:
“The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate’s disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people’s homes secure only in the discretion of police officers. Crime, even in the privacy of one’s own quarters, is, of course, of grave concern to society, and the law allows such crime to be reached on proper showing. The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent.” (Footnotes omitted.)
In refusing to approve seizures based on less than probable cause, the Dunaway Court declined to adopt a “multifactor balancing test of 'reasonable police conduct under the circumstances’ to cover all seizures that do not amount to technical arrests.” The Court noted:
“[T]he protections intended by the Framers could all too easily disappear in the consideration and balancing of the multifarious circumstances presented by different cases, especially when that balancing may be done in the first instance by police officers engaged in the 'often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ ” 442 U. S., at 213.
As Justice White noted in his concurrence in Dunaway, if police are to have workable rules, the balancing of the competing interests inherent in the Terry principle “must in large part be done on a categorical basis— not in an ad hoc, case-by-case fashion by individual police officers.” 442 U. S., at 219-220. The rule we adopt today does not depend upon such an ad hoc determination, because the officer is not required to evaluate either the quantum of proofo justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.
We do not decide whether the same result would be justified if the search warrant merely authorized a search for evidence. Cf. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U. S. 547, 560. See also id., at 581 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
Although special circumstances, or possibly a prolonged detention, might lead to a different conclusion in an unusual case, we are persuaded that this routine detention of residents of a house while it was being searched for contraband pursuant to a valid warrant is not such a 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.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This class action was brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) challenging an internal policy of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that had the effect of denying disability benefits to numerous claimants who may have been entitled to them. The issues presented are whether the District Court correctly included within the class (i) claimants who had received a final decision on their individual claims for benefits more than 60 days prior to the filing of this action, and (ii) other claimants who had not exhausted their administrative remedies.
I
The Federal Government provides benefits to disabled persons under two distinct programs administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Social Security Disability Insurance Program (SSD) established by Title II of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 622, as amended, 42 Ú. S. C. §401 et seq., pays benefits to disabled persons who have contributed to the program and who suffer from a mental or physical disability. The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI) established by.Title XVI of the Act, 86 Stat. 1465, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1381, provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. Both statutes define “disability” as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity....” §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). An individual is found to be under a disability only if “his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
Pursuant to statutory authority, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) has adopted complex regulations governing eligibility for SSD and SSI payments. 20 CFR pt. 404, subpart P (1985) (SSD); 20 CFR pt. 404, pt. 416, subpart I (1985) (SSI). The regulations for both programs are essentially the same and establish a five-step “sequential evaluation” process. The first step determines whether the claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” If he is, benefits are denied. 20 CFR § § 404. - 1520(a),(b), 416.920(a),(b) (1985). If he is not engaged in such activity, the process moves to the second step, which decides whether the claimant’s condition or impairment is “severe” —! e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the impairment is not severe, benefits are denied. §§404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the impairment is severe, the third step determines whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal those set forth in the “Listing of Impairments” (listings) contained in subpart P, appendix 1, of the regulations, 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). The listings consist of specified impairments acknowledged by the Secretary to be of sufficient severity to preclude gainful employment. If a claimant’s condition meets or equals the listed impairments, he is conclusively presumed to be disabled and entitled to benefits. If the claimant’s impairments are not listed, the process moves to the fourth step, which assesses the individual’s “residual functional capacity” (RFC); this assessment measures the claimant’s capacity to engage in basic work activities. If the claimant’s RFC permits him to perform his prior work, benefits are denied. §§404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant is not capable of doing his past work, a decision is made under the fifth and final step whether, in light of his RFC, age, education, and work experience, he has the capacity to perform other work. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If he does not, benefits are awarded.
The determination whether an individual is disabled is made initially by a state agency acting under the authority and control of the Secretary. 42 U. S. C. §§ 421(a), 1383b(a); 20 CFR §§404.1503, 416.903 (1985); see Heckler v. Day, 467 U. S. 104, 106, and n. 4 (1984). All decisions by the state agency are subject to Quality Assurance Reviews by the Regional Office and by the Central Baltimore Offices of SSA. If the responsible SSA officials determine during either review that a state agency erred, the case is “returned” to the State for correction.
The disappointed claimant is afforded a three-stage administrative review process beginning with de novo reconsideration by the State of the initial determination. 20 CFR §§ 404.909(a)(1), 416.1409(a) (1985). If a claimant is dissatisfied with the state agency’s decision on reconsideration, he is entitled to a hearing by an administrative law judge (ALJ) within SSA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. 42 U. S. C. § 405(b)(1) (1982 ed., Supp. II), 42 U. S. C. § 1383(c)(1); 20 CFR §§404.929, 416.1429, 422.201 et seq. (1985).
If the AL J’s decision is adverse to the claimant, the claimant may then seek review by the Appeals Council. 20 CFR §§404.967-404.983, 416.1467-416.1483 (1985). Proceeding through these three stages exhausts the claimant’s administrative remedies. Following the determination at each stage, a disappointed claimant is notified that he must proceed to the next stage within 60 days of notice of the action taken or the decision will be considered binding. E. g., 20 CFR §§404.905, 404.909(a)(1), 416.1405, 416.1409(a), 404.-955(a), 404.968(a)(1), 416.1455(a), 416.1468(a) (1985). Thereafter, he may seek judicial review in federal district court, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 405(g). See 42 U. S. C. §§ 421(d), 1383(c)(3); 20 CFR §§404.900(a)(5), 404.981, 416.1400(a)(5), 416.1481, 422.210 (1985).
II
On February 8, 1983, respondents the City of New York, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and two state officials, suing on their own behalf and as parens patriae, together with eight named individuals, brought this class action against the Secretary and the Commissioner of SSA. They sought relief on behalf of all individuals residing in the State who had applied for or received SSD or SSI benefits on or after April 1, 1980, who had been found by petitioners to have a severe mental impairment, and whose applications for benefits either had been or were to be denied, or whose benefits had been or were to be terminated, based on petitioners’ determination that the claimants were capable of substantial gainful employment.
The gravamen of respondents’ complaint was that petitioners had adopted an unlawful, unpublished policy under which countless deserving claimants were denied benefits. They contended that the policy mandated a presumption — applicable at the level of the initial state psychiatric assessment— that a failure to meet or equal the listings was tantamount to a finding of ability to do at least unskilled work; that the presumption led to routine denials of benefits to eligible claimants; and that such a presumption was arbitrary, capricious, and violative of the Constitution, the Social Security Act, and the applicable regulations. Respondents claimed that this internal policy had the effect of eliminating steps four and five from the sequential evaluation process, and thus ignored the requirement for an individualized RFC assessment to determine whether a claimant with a severe condition is nonetheless able to work. They alleged that the policy was never published in the Federal Register as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, but was nonetheless implemerited through various internal memoranda and the “returns” process by which SSA sends cases back to the States for correction. Respondents contended that failure to make the policy known to claimants denied the individual plaintiffs and class members due process of law.
A
Following a 7-day trial, the District Court held that from 1978 until at least the early months of 1983, SSA followed the covert policy alleged by respondents and that the policy was illegal. City of New York v. Heckler, 578 F. Supp. 1109, 1115 (EDNY 1984). The court noted that the “Act and its regulations require the Secretary to make a realistic, individual assessment of each claimant’s ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. See Heckler v. Campbell, [461 U. S. 458] (1983). The class plaintiffs did not receive that assessment.” Id., at 1124. Rather, as respondents alleged, SSA had consistently “followed a policy which presumes that mentally disabled claimants who do not meet or equal the listings necessarily retain sufficient residual functional capacity to do at least ‘unskilled work.’” Id., at 1115. The District Court further found that these tainted RFC assessments by state review physicians were subsequently given “great weight” by ALJ’s in the administrative appeal process. Id., at 1125. Moreover, “[t]he means of enforcement of the policy, through internal memoranda, returns, and reviews, has meant that the affected SSD or SSI applicant as well as counsel, social workers and advisers for a long time were unaware of its existence.” Id., at 1115. The court stated that evidence of the “fixed clandestine policy against those with mental illness” was overwhelming. Ibid.
The District Court certified a class, and decided that the class properly included claimants who had not exhausted administrative remedies. Relying on Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976), the court concluded that this was an appropriate case in which to waive the statutory exhaustion requirement. In the court’s view, both parts of the Eldridge test were satisfied here: the claims were collateral to any claim for benefits, and the harm imposed by exhaustion would be irreparable.
Similarly, the District Court decided that the class properly included those who had not complied with the requirement that a claimant seek judicial review within 60 days of the Secretary’s final decision or “within such further time as the Secretary may allow.” 42 U. S. C. § 405(g). The court noted that the 60-day requirement is not jurisdictional, but rather is a statute of limitations waivable by the parties. Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 328, n. 9; Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 763-764 (1975). Observing that petitioners had made no argument concerning this requirement until their post-trial brief, the court found that “the same reasons which justify implying waiver of the exhaustion requirement are stronger for the sixty day requirement because the statute of limitations is not, as is the exhaustion requirement, ‘central to the requisite grant of subject-matter jurisdiction.’ Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 764... (1975).” 578 F. Supp., at 1124.
As a remedy, the District Court ordered the Secretary to reopen the decisions denying or terminating benefits, and to redetermine eligibility. As interim relief, the court directed the Secretary to reinstate benefits of all class members who had previously been entitled to benefits but who were subsequently terminated, until the claimant’s eligibility was properly determined.
B
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. City of New York v. Heckler, 742 F. 2d 729 (1984). On appeal petitioners did not challenge the District Court’s findings of fact or ruling on the merits, but only raised contentions respecting the District Court’s definition of the appropriate class, and the interim relief awarded. With respect to the composition of the class, petitioners asserted that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under § 405(g) over most class members, including (i) claimants who failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and (ii) claimants whose right to pursue administrative or judicial review had lapsed by the time this action was commenced. Id., at 734.
The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the claims of class members who had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. It upheld the District Court’s finding that the harm caused by the wrongful denials was irreparable. While the court did not believe that the claims were “wholly” collateral to claims for benefits, it was satisfied that the class was complaining “fundamentally of a procedural irregularity and not of the Secretary’s substantive standards of eligibility.” Id., at 737. Moreover, the Court of Appeals believed it was significant that the District Court was not asked to and did not rule on the merits of the underlying benefit claims.
The court then rejected petitioners’ contention that the District Court should not have included within the class those claimants who failed to seek judicial review within 60 days of an adverse decision by the Secretary. The court agreed with the District Court that the 60-day limitation is not a jurisdictional requirement, but rather is a statute of limitations. Id., at 738, citing Eldridge, supra, at 328, n. 9; Salfi, supra, at 763-764. The Secretary’s secretive conduct justifled tolling the period “during the time that SSA’s policy of applying the challenged presumption concerning residual functional capacity remained operative but undisclosed.” 742 F. 2d, at 738.
On petition for rehearing, the same panel of the Court of Appeals, per Judge Newman, denied rehearing and in so doing rejected petitioners’ argument that passage of the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, required the court to alter its holding with respect to the effect of class members’ failure to comply with § 405(g). City of New York v. Heckler, 755 F. 2d 31 (1985). The Secretary sought a writ of certiorari from this Court. We granted certiorari, 474 U. S. 815 (1985), and now affirm.
Ill
Petitioners renew here arguments rejected by the Court of Appeals. They challenge on jurisdictional grounds inclusion in the class of two groups of claimants: those who failed to bring a court action within 60 days of a final decision of the Secretary, and those who failed to exhaust administrative remedies. We first consider the requirement embodied in § 405(g) that claims must be presented in the District Court within 60 days of a final decision of the Secretary. Petitioners contend that the provision sets the bounds of the District Court’s jurisdiction. This argument is foreclosed by two of our prior decisions that have declared that the 60-day requirement is not jurisdictional, but rather constitutes a period of limitations. Eldridge, supra, at 328, n. 9; Salfi, supra, at 764.
Petitioners next contend that if the 60-day limit is a statute of limitations, it is a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity and thus must be strictly construed. We have no difficulty agreeing with that statement. See Block v. North Dakota, 461 U. S. 273, 287 (1983). Accepting this proposition, however, does not answer the question whether equitable tolling can be applied to this statute of limitations, for in construing the statute we must be careful not to “assume the authority to narrow the waiver that Congress intended,” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U. S. 111, 118 (1979), or construe the waiver “unduly restrictively.” Block, supra, at 287. In Honda v. Clark, 386 U. S. 484 (1967), the Court held that where consistent with congressional intent, and called for by the facts of the case, it would “apply a traditional equitable tolling principle....” Id., at 501. Petitioners argue that Honda stands for the proposition that equitable tolling is permissible only in cases in which the public treasury is not directly affected. We decline to hold that the doctrine of equitable tolling is so limited. When application of the doctrine is consistent with Congress’ intent in enacting a particular statutory scheme, there is no justification for limiting the doctrine to cases that do not involve monetary relief.
We must determine, therefore, whether equitable tolling is consistent with Congress’ intent in enacting § 405(g), and whether tolling is appropriate on these facts. The statute of limitations we construe in this case is contained in a statute that Congress designed to be “unusually protective” of claimants. Heckler v. Day, 467 U. S., at 106. Moreover, Congress has authorized the Secretary to toll the 60-day limit, thus expressing its clear intention to allow tolling in some cases. While in most cases the Secretary will make the determination whether it is proper to extend the period within which review must be sought, cases may arise where the equities in favor of tolling the limitations period are “so great that deference to the agency’s judgment is inappropriate.” Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 330. As in Honda v. Clark, we conclude that application of a “traditional equitable tolling principle” to the 60-day requirement of § 405(g) is fully “consistent with the overall congressional purpose” and is “nowhere eschewed by Congress.” 386 U. S., at 501.
We conclude, moreover, that on these facts the equities in favor of tolling are compelling. As the Court of Appeals' explained:
“All of the class members who permitted their administrative or judicial remedies to expire were entitled to believe that their Government’s determination of ineligibility was the considered judgment of an agency faithfully executing the laws of the United States. Though they knew of the denial or loss of benefits, they did not and could not know that those adverse decisions had been made on the basis of a systematic procedural irregularity that rendered them subject to court challenge. Where the Government’s secretive conduct prevents plaintiffs from knowing of a violation of rights, statutes of limitations have been tolled until such time as plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to learn the facts concerning the cause of action. Since in this case the full extent of the Government’s clandestine policy was uncovered only in the course of this litigation, all class members may pursue this action notwithstanding the 60-day requirement.” 742 F. 2d, at 738 (citations omitted).
In addition to serving its customary purpose, the statute of limitations embodied in § 405(g) is a mechanism by which Congress was able to move cases to speedy resolution in a bureaucracy that processes millions of claims annually. Thus, the limitation serves both the interest of the claimant and the interest of the Government. Tolling, in the rare case such as this, does not undermine the purpose of the 60-day limitations period when viewed in connection with the underlying statute. Rather, it serves the purpose of the Act where, as the Court of Appeals stated, “the Government’s secretive conduct prevents plaintiffs from knowing of a violation of rights....” Ibid. See also Heckler v. Day, supra, at 106. Tolling of the 60-day limitations period was appropriate in this case, and the District Court properly included in the class claimants who had received a final decision from the Secretary, but who did not seek judicial review within the statutory 60-day time period.
IV
Petitioners also contend that the District Court erred in including in the class those members who failed to obtain a “final decision” from the Secretary as required by § 405(g). To obtain a final decision from the Secretary a claimant is required to exhaust his administrative remedies by proceeding through all three stages of the administrative appeals process. Only a claimant who proceeds through all three stages receives a final decision from the Secretary. At the outset, we note that by the time this lawsuit was filed, it was too late for a large number of class members to exhaust their claims, since expiration of the 60-day time limits for administrative appeals barred further access to the administrative appeals process. See 20 CFR §§404.905, 404.909(a)(1), 416.1405, 416.1409(a), 404.955(a), 404.968(a)(1), 416.1455(a), 416.1468(a) (1985). For these claimants, we conclude that exhaustion is excused for the same reasons requiring tolling of the statute of limitations. Since “[m]embers of the class could not attack a policy they could not be aware existed,” 578 F. Supp., at 1118; see Part III, supra, it would be unfair to penalize these claimants for not exhausting under these circumstances.
At the time the suit was filed, however, some claimants may still have had time to exhaust their administrative remedies. The question remains whether it was permissible to include these claimants in the class. Resolution of this question is aided by cases in which we have been called upon to consider issues of exhaustion under § 405(g). See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749 (1975); Mathews v. Eldridge, supra; Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602 (1984). Our decisions teach that the “final decision” requirement embodied in that section
“consists of two elements, only one of which is purely ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it cannot be waived by the Secretary in a particular case. The waivable element is the requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary be exhausted. The nonwaivable element is the requirement that a claim for benefits shall have been presented to the Secretary.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 328.
Ordinarily, the Secretary has discretion to decide when to waive the exhaustion requirement. But as we held in Eldridge, “cases may arise where a claimant’s interest in having a particular issue resolved promptly is so great that deference to the agency’s judgment is inappropriate.” 424 U. S., at 330.
Two factors influenced the Court’s judgment that Eldridge was a case in which deference to the agency’s determination of finality was not necessary. First, the constitutional challenge brought there was “entirely collateral to [a] substantive claim of entitlement.” Ibid. Second, the claim rested “on the proposition that full relief cannot be obtained at a postdeprivation hearing.” Id., at 331. The petitioner had raised “at least a colorable claim that because of his physical condition and dependency upon the disability benefits, an erroneous termination would damage him in a way not recompensable through retroactive payments.” Ibid.
The claims in this lawsuit are collateral to the claims for benefits that class members had presented administratively. The class members neither sought nor were awarded benefits in the District Court, but rather challenged the Secretary’s failure to follow the applicable regulations.
Moreover, as in Eldridge, the claimants in this case would be irreparably injured were the exhaustion requirement now enforced against them. The District Court found that class members not only were denied the benefits they were seeking, but “[t]he ordeal of having to go through the administrative appeal process may trigger a severe medical setback. Many persons have been hospitalized due to the trauma of having disability benefits cut off. Interim benefits will not adequately protect plaintiffs from this harm. Nor will ultimate success if they manage to pursue their appeals.” 578 F. Supp., at 1118. Petitioners do not challenge this finding here, and therefore, like the Court of Appeals, “[w]e have no reason to disturb Chief Judge Weinstein’s conclusion that the harm caused by wrongful denials was irreparable.” 742 F. 2d, at 736. We should be especially sensitive to this kind of harm where the Government seeks to require claimants to exhaust administrative remedies merely to enable them to receive the procedure they should have been afforded in the first place.
Finally, application of the exhaustion doctrine is “intensely practical.” Eldridge, supra, at 331, n. 11. In Salfi, we explained:
“Exhaustion is generally required as a matter of preventing premature interference with agency processes, so that the agency may function efficiently and so that it may have an opportunity to correct its own errors, to afford the parties and the courts the benefit of its experience and expertise, and to compile a record which is adequate for judicial review.” 422 U. S., at 765.
The ultimate decision of whether to waive exhaustion should not be made solely by mechanical application of the Eldridge factors, but should also be guided by the policies underlying the exhaustion requirement. The purposes of exhaustion would not be served by requiring these class members to exhaust administrative remedies. This case is materially distinguishable from one in which a claimant sues in district court, alleging mere deviation from the applicable regulations in his particular administrative proceeding. In the normal course, such individual errors are fully correctable upon subsequent administrative review since the claimant on appeal will alert the agency to the alleged deviation. Because of the agency’s expertise in administering its own regulations, the agency ordinarily should be given the opportunity to review application of those regulations to a particular factual context. Thus, our holding today does not suggest that exhaustion is to be excused whenever a claimant alleges an irregularity in the agency proceedings.
These claimants stand on a different footing from one arguing merely that an agency incorrectly applied its regulation. Rather, the District Court found a systemwide, unrevealed policy that was inconsistent in critically important ways with established regulations. Nor did this policy depend on the particular facts of the case before it; rather, the policy was illegal precisely because it ignored those facts. The District Court found that the policy was being adhered to by state agencies due to pressure from SSA, and that therefore exhaustion would have been futile. Under these unique circumstances, there was nothing to be gained from permitting the compilation of a detailed factual record, or from agency expertise. Cf. McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 200 (1969).
In addition, the relief afforded by the District Court is fully consistent with the policies underlying exhaustion. The court did not order that class members be paid benefits. Nor does its decision in any way interfere with the agency’s role as the ultimate determiner of eligibility under the relevant statutes and regulations. Indeed, by ordering simply that the claims be reopened at the administrative level, the District Court showed proper respect for the administrative process. It did no more than the agency would have been called upon to do had it, instead of the District Court, been alerted to the charge that an undisclosed procedure was illegal and had improperly resolved innumerable claims.
Petitioners correctly assert that, had class members exhausted administrative remedies, some might have received benefits despite the illegal policy. It also is likely that many may have been disqualified for reasons having nothing to do with the illegal policy. Such observations, however, merely serve to remind us why exhaustion is the rule in the vast majority of cases; they do not aid the Court in deciding when exhaustion should be excused. We hold that the District Court did not err in waiving exhaustion in this case either with respect to those claimants whose time to pursue further administrative appeals had lapsed, or with respect to those claimants who still had time to pursue administrative remedies.
V
Government agencies administering complex programs that bridge both state and federal bureaucracies necessarily will take certain actions pursuant to policies unknown to the public. We do not suggest that every internal policy that is found to be inconsistent with legal requirements, and arguably touches upon the outcome of a class of cases, will justify tolling the statute of limitations or excusing exhaustion. But, whatever the outer bounds of our holding today, this case falls well within them. While “hard” cases may arise, this is not one of them.
Moreover, we are aware that administrative inconvenience may result from our decision today. But the Secretary had the capability and the duty to prevent the illegal policy found to exist by the District Court. The claimants here were denied the fair and neutral procedure required by the statute and regulations, and they are now entitled to pursue that procedure. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The RFC assessment is made by a review physician employed by the state agency under contract with SSA. His written conclusion becomes part of the administrative record of the claim. See, e. g., Plaintiffs’ Ex. 50, p. 10; App. 148, 158; Record Doc. No. 73; Tr. 27. The District Court found that this assessment is generally given great weight by the administrative law judge on later review. City of New York v. Heckler, 578 F. Supp. 1109, 1125 (EDNY 1984).
The Secretary has not provided for a separate reconsideration stage in disability cessation cases under Title XVI. An SSI recipient whose benefits are terminated, therefore, is entitled to proceed directly to an ALJ hearing if he requests one within 60 days of the initial determination. 20 CFR §§416.1407, 416.1415 (1985).
Title 42 U. S. C. § 405(g), provides in part:
“Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business, or, if he does not reside or have his principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As part of his answer the Secretary shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based. The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive...
The District Court noted that in 1983 SSA “yielded to pressure to allow medical vocational allowances for those with mental disabilities. The change was precipitated only after the filing of this lawsuit and after a preliminary injunction was issued on December 22, 1982, in the case of Mental Health Association of Minnesota v. Schweiker, 554 F. Supp. 157 (D. Minn. 1982), aff’d, 720 F. 2d 965 (8th Cir. 1983).” 578 F. Supp., at 1115.
The District Court added:
“On the contrary, SSA relied on bureaucratic instructions rather than individual assessments and overruled the medical opinions of its own consulting physicians that many of those whose claims they were instructed to deny could not, in fact, work. Physicians were pressured to reach ‘conclusions’ contrary to their own professional beliefs in cases where they felt, at the very least, that additional evidence needed to be gathered in the form of a realistic work assessment. The resulting supremacy of bureaucracy over professional medical judgments and the flaunting of published, objective standards is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Social Security Act.
“The Secretary’s practices have violated the requirements of her own regulations. Defendants have ignored the five step sequential evaluation process by presuming that the failure to meet listings at step three or four of the process automatically translates into a residual functional capacity to do unskilled work at steps four and five. The bureaucratic assessment of residual functional capacity if it was done at all was reduced to a paper charade where the SSA physician completed a cursory report or checked off a form knowing the conclusion had to be that the claimant had the capacity for unskilled work. Medical experts demonstrated to the court that the symptoms and restrictions of the listings of impairments do not measure an individual’s capacity for work or his or her ability to withstand the stress of even the least demanding work.” Id,., at 1124.
The class was ultimately defined by the District Court after trial as consisting of:
“All individuals residing in the State of New York who have applied for or received Title II and/or Title XVI benefits and who, between April 1, 1980 and May 15, 1983, were found by the New York Office of Disability Determinations to have a functional psychotic or functional nonpsychotic mental impairment which is severe (i. e., determined under 20 CFR § 404.1520(c) or § 416.930(c) to require evaluation under Appendix I of that Regulation), and whose applications for benefits have been denied or whose benefits have been or will be terminated, on the basis of defendants’ determination that such persons are capable of substantial gainful activity.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a.
The class is estimated to include more than 50,000 New York residents. City of New York v. Heckler, 742 F. 2d 729, 731 (CA2 1984).
The District Court also ordered SSA to notify class members that their claims had been reopened, and to inform class members with an appeal pending before an ALJ that such claimants had the option of proceeding with their appeals upon the existing record rather than with the administrative reopening of their case. App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a-66a.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s award of interim relief, and petitioners have raised in this Court no issue respecting that portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
As an alternative basis for jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals relied on 28 U. S. C. § 1361 “in the event that, upon further review, it is determined that section 405(g) jurisdiction is unavailable to some of the class members.” 742 F. 2d, at 739. Because we conclude that jurisdiction under § 405(g) is available, we do not reach the issue whether mandamus jurisdiction would have been proper in this context.
We reject petitioners’ contention that Salfi and Eldridge do not stand for the proposition that the 60-day requirement is not jurisdictional. In both cases, jurisdiction was premised on § 405(g), and we noted that we did not have to consider whether the 60-day requirement had been satisfied because the issue had not been timely raised below. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 328, n. 9; Salfi, 422 U. S., at 764. Were the requirement jurisdictional, of course, the Court could not have declined to consider whether it had been satisfied in those cases.
In Honda v. Clark, United States citizens or residents of Japanese descent sought to recover funds vested under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1 et seq. Under that Act the United States seized the American assets of businesses owned by Japanese nationals. After the war a mechanism was established to return the assets to their rightful owners or the owners’ creditors. The central problem in that case revolved around the fact that the petitioners failed to file a lawsuit challenging a schedule of payments within the applicable 60-day time period. This Court allowed the limitations period to be tolled during the pendency of related litigation because it was consistent with the statutory scheme and equitable principles to do so
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Navarette, an inmate of Soledad Prison in California when the events revealed here occurred, filed his second amended complaint on January 19, 1974, charging six prison officials with various types of conduct allegedly violative of his constitutional rights and of 42 U.. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Three of the defendants were subordinate officials at Soledad; three were supervisory officials: the director of the State Department of Corrections and the warden and assistant warden of Soledad. The first three of nine claims for relief alleged wrongful interference with Navarette's outgoing mail. The first claim charged that the three subordinate officers, who were in charge of mail handling, had failed to mail various items of correspondence during the 15 months that respondent was incarcerated at Soledad, from September 1, 1971, to December 11, 1972. These items, described in 13 numbered paragraphs, included letters to legal assistance groups, law students, the news media, and inmates in other state prisons, as well as personal friends. Some of these items had been returned to Navarette, some the defendants had refused to send by registered mail as Navarette had requested, and, it was alleged, none of the items had ever reached the intended recipient. This “interference” or “confiscation” was asserted to have been in “knowing disregard” of the applicable statewide prisoner mail regulations and of Navarette's “constitutional rights,” including his rights to free speech and due process as guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The three supervisory officers were alleged to have knowingly condoned this conduct and to have conspired with their subordinates for forbidden ends.
The second claim for relief alleged wrongful failure to mail the same items of correspondence and asserted that the “interference or confiscation” had been conducted with “bad faith disregard” for Navarette’s rights. The third claim posed the same failures to mail but claimed that the “interference” or “confiscation” had occurred because the three subordinate officers had “negligently and inadvertently” misapplied the prison mail regulations and because the supervisory officers had “negligently]” failed to provide sufficient training and direction to their subordinates, all assertedly in violation of Navarette’s constitutional rights.
Petitioners moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted or alternatively for summary judgment. Affidavits in support of the motion and counter-affidavits opposing it were also before the District Court. By order and without opinion, the court then granted summary judgment for petitioners on the first three claims and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a federal claim.
The Court of Appeals reversed as to the first three claims. Navarette v. Enomoto, 536 F. 2d 277 (CA9 1976). It held, first, that prisoners themselves are entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection for their outgoing mail and that Navarette’s allegations were sufficient to encompass proof that would entitle him to relief in damages. Second, the court ruled that summary judgment on the first two claims was improper because there were issues of fact to be tried, particularly with respect to the claim that “a reasonable and good faith belief of a state official that his or her conduct is lawful, even where in fact it is not, constitutes a complete defense to a § 1983 claim for damages.” Id., at 280. Third, the Court of Appeals held that Navarette’s “allegations that state officers negligently deprived him of [his constitutional] rights state a § 1983 cause of action” and that summary judgment on the third purported claim was “improper because, as in the case of counts one and two, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Navarette, we are unable to say appellees are entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id., at 282, and n. 6.
We granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 1060, and the question before us is whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the District Court’s judgment with respect to Navarette’s third claim for relief alleging negligent interference with a claimed constitutional right.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, petitioners argued that on the record before the court they were immune from liability for damages under § 1983 and hence were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The claim was not that they shared the absolute immunity accorded judges and prosecutors but that they were entitled to the qualified immunity accorded those officials involved in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 (1974), and Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975). The Court of Appeals appeared to agree that petitioners were entitled to the claimed degree of immunity but held that they were nevertheless not entitled to summary judgment because in the court’s view there were issues of fact to be resolved and because when the facts were viewed most favorably to respondent, it could not be held that petitioners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Without disagreeing that petitioners enjoyed a qualified immunity from damages liability under § 1983, respondent defends the judgment of the Court of Appeals as a proper application of § 1983 and of the Court’s cases construing it.
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. Legislators, judges, and prosecutors have been held absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976). Only a qualified immunity from damages is available to a state Governor, a president of a state university, and officers and members of a state National Guard., Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra. The same is true of local school board members, Wood v. Strickland, supra; of the superintendent of a state hospital, O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563 (1975); and of policemen, Pierson v. Ray, supra; see Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, at 418-419.
We agree with petitioners that as prison officials and officers, they were not absolutely immune from liability in this § 1983 damages suit and could rely only on the qualified immunity described in Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, and Wood v. Strickland, supra. Scheuer declared:
“[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the office and all the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time of the action on which liability is sought to be based. It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good-faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts performed in the course of official conduct.” 416 U. S., at 247-248.
We further held in Wood v. Strickland, that “if the work of the schools is to go forward,” there must be a degree of immunity so that “public school officials understand that action taken in the good-faith fulfillment of their responsibilities and within the bounds of reason under all the circumstances will not be punished and that they need not exercise their discretion with undue timidity.” 420 U. S., at 321. This degree of immunity would be unavailable, however, if the official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student.” Id., at 322. The official cannot be expected to predict the future course of constitutional law, ibid.; Pierson v. Ray, supra, at 557, but he will not be shielded from liability if he acts “with such disregard of the [plaintiff's] clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith.” 420 U. S., at 322.
Under the first part of the Wood v. Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right, and if they knew or should have known that their conduct violated the constitutional norm. Petitioners claim that in 1971 and 1972 when the conduct involved in this case took place there was no established First Amendment right protecting the mailing privileges of state prisoners and that hence there was no such federal right about which they should have known. We are in essential agreement with petitioners in this respect and also agree that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In ruling that petitioners’ conduct had encroached on Navarette’s First Amendment rights, the Court of Appeals relied on two of its own decisions, one in 1973 and the other in 1974, as well as upon Martinez v. Procunier, 354 F. Supp. 1092 (ND Cal.), a 1973 three-judge court opinion with which the Court of Appeals said it was in essential agreement. The court relied on no earlier opinions, and this Court, in affirming the judgment in Martinez v. Procunier, did so on the ground that the constitutional rights of the addressees of a prisoner’s correspondence were involved when prison officials interfered with a prisoner’s outgoing mail. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396 (1974). The question of the rights of the prisoner himself was left open. The Court referred to the “tension between the traditional policy of judicial restraint regarding prisoner complaints and the need to protect constitutional rights” which has “led the federal courts to adopt a variety of widely inconsistent approaches to the problem” of constitutional challenges to censorship of prisoner mail and to the “absence of any generally accepted standard for testing the constitutionality of prison mail censorship regulations . . . .” Id., at 406, 407. Some Courts of Appeals were said to have maintained a “hands off posture”; others to have extended various degrees of protection to prisoners’ mail. The Court referred to no relevant pronouncements by courts in the Ninth Circuit other than the one then under review; and it is apparent that Procunier, the defendant in the Martinez suit and in this one, was then maintaining that there was no established constitutional right protecting prison mail under which his mail regulations could be challenged.
Respondent relies on Hyland v. Procunier, 311 F. Supp. 749 (ND Cal. 1970); Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105 (ND Cal. 1970), aff’d sub nom. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U. S. 15 (1971); Northern v. Nelson, 315 F. Supp. 687 (ND Cal. 1970); Payne v. Whitmore, 325 F. Supp. 1191 (ND Cal. 1971); and Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 F. Supp. 128 (ND Cal. 1972). But none of these cases deals with the rights of convicted prisoners in their mail and none furnishes an adequate basis for claiming that in 1971 and 1972 there was a “clearly established” constitutional right protecting Navarette’s correspondence involved in this case.
Whether the state of the law is evaluated by reference to the opinions of this Court, of the Courts of Appeals, or of the local District Court, there was no “clearly established” First and Fourteenth Amendment right with respect to the correspondence of convicted prisoners in 1971-1972. As a matter of law, therefore, there was no basis for rejecting the immunity defense on the ground that petitioners knew or should have known that their alleged conduct violated a constitutional right. Because they could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of a constitutional right that had not yet been declared, petitioners did not act with such disregard for the established law that their conduct “cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith.” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S., at 322.
Neither should petitioners’ immunity defense be overruled under the second branch of the Wood v. Strickland standard, which would authorize liability where the official has acted with “malicious intention” to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right or to cause him “other injury.” This part of the rule speaks of “intentional injury,” contemplating that the actor intends the consequences of his conduct. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (1965). The third claim for relief with which we are concerned here, however, charges negligent conduct, which normally implies that although the actor has subjected the plaintiff to unreasonable risk, he did not intend the harm or injury that in fact resulted. See id., at § 282 and Comment d. Claims 1 and 2 of the complaint alleged intentional and bad-faith conduct in disregard of Navarette’s constitutional rights; but claim 3, as the court below understood it and as the parties have treated it, was limited to negligence. The prison officers were charged with negligent and inadvertent interference with the mail and the supervisory personnel with negligent failure to provide proper training. To the extent that a malicious intent to harm is a ground for denying immunity, that consideration is clearly not implicated by the negligence claim now before us.
We accordingly conclude that the District Court was correct in entering summary judgment for petitioners on the third claim of relief and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Section 1983 provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
Section 1985 proscribes certain conspiracies interfering with civil rights.
The named subordinate officials were two correctional counselors at Soledad and a member of the prison staff in charge of handling incoming and outgoing prisoner mail. The complaint also referred to unnamed defendants Does I through IV.
Regulations promulgated January 5, 1970, permitted each inmate to send letters to 10 persons on an approved correspondence list plus other special-purpose letters as authorized. Director’s Rule (“D.”) 2403. Except with permission of the institutional head, correspondence with other inmates was prohibited. D.2402 (13). The inmate was also advised:
“You may not send or receive letters that pertain to criminal activity; are lewd, obscene, or defamatory; contain prison gossip or discussion of other inmates; or are otherwise inappropriate.” D. 2402 (8).
The regulations assured confidentiality for correspondence with state and federal officials and also stated:
“Nothing in these rules shall deprive you of correspondence with your attorney, or with the courts having jurisdiction over matters of legitimate concern to you.” D.2402 (10).
These regulations controlled prisoner correspondence until August 10, 1972, and were in effect at the time that all but one of respondent’s letters were posted. Subsequent regulations expanded inmate correspondence rights.
Claims 4, 5, and 6 concerned the termination of a law student visitation program in which respondent had participated and the removal of respondent from the post of prison librarian. Claims 7, 8, and 9 realleged the substance of claims 1 through 6 and sought to hold the supervisory officials hable upon a theory of vicarious rather than personal liability. All nine claims also claimed a conspiracy in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1985.
The Court of Appeals also reversed the ruling of the District Court with respect to the 4th, 5th, and 6th claims on the theory that “[t]he termination or denial of prison privileges because of a prisoner’s legal activities on his own behalf or those of other inmates is an impermissible interference with his or her constitutional right of access to the courts.” 536 F. 2d, at 280. Since this issue is not related to the question on which we granted certiorari, we express no view on the resolution of these claims by the court below.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the claims based on vicarious liability (claims 7, 8, and 9) and also affirmed its dismissal of all claims predicated on 42 U. S. C. § 1985. 536 F. 2d, at 282. Neither of these issues is raised here.
The questions presented in the petition for certiorari were:
“1. Whether negligent failure to mail certain of a prisoner’s outgoing letters states a cause of action under section 1983 ?
“2. Whether removal of a prisoner as a prison law librarian and termination of a law student-inmate visitation program in which he participated states a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act for either knowingly or negligently interfering with the prisoner’s right of access to the courts?
“3. Whether deliberate refusal to mail certain of a prisoner’s correspondence in 1971-1972 prior to Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396 (1974), and refusal to send certain correspondence by registered mail states a cause of action for violation of his First Amendment right to free expression?”
Our order granting the petition was limited to Question No. 1. In their submissions on the merits, the parties deal with this issue as subsuming the questions whether at the time of the occurrence of the relevant events the Federal Constitution had been construed to protect Navarette’s mailing privileges and whether petitioners knew or should have known that their alleged conduct violated Navarette’s constitutional rights. Since consideration of these issues is essential to analysis of the Court of Appeals’ reversal of summary judgment on claim 3 of the complaint, we shall also treat these questions as subsidiary issues “fairly comprised” by the question presented. This Court’s Rule 23.1 (c). In any event, our power to decide is not limited by the precise terms of the question presented. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 320 n. 6 (1971).
The Courts of Appeals have generally accorded prison and jail administrators performing discretionary functions a qualified immunity from monetary liability under § 1983. E. g., Knell v. Bensinger, 522 F. 2d 720 (CA7 1975); Hoitt v. Vitek, 497 F. 2d 598, 601 (CA1 1974); Dewell v. Lawson, 489 F. 2d 877 (CA10 1974); Anderson v. Nosser, 438 F. 2d 183 (CA5 1971), modified on rehearing, 456 F. 2d 835 (1972); see Bryan v. Jones, 530 F. 2d 1210 (CA5), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 865 (1976).
416 U. S., at 406, citing McCloskey v. Maryland, 337 F. 2d 72 (CA4 1964); Lee v. Tahash, 352 F. 2d 970 (CA8 1965); Knupnick v. Crouse, 366 F. 2d 851 (CA10 1966); Pope v. Daggett, 350 F. 2d 296 (CA10 1965).
416 U. S., at 406-407, citing, inter alia, Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F. 2d 178, 199 (CA2 1971) (censorship of personal correspondence must have support “in any rational and constitutionally acceptable concept of a prison system”); Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F. 2d 529 (CA5 1968) (censorship of prisoner mail must be supported by a compelling state interest); Wilkinson v. Skinner, 462 F. 2d 670, 672-673 (CA2 1972) (requiring a “clear and present danger”).
The jurisdictional statement filed by Procunier stated that “the vast majority of reported cases held that restrictions on the extent and character of prisoners’ correspondence and examination and censorship thereof are inherent incidents in the conduct of penal institutions,” but noted that in the federal courts there were “widely diverging views regarding the scope and propriety of federal intervention in matters of internal prison regulation,” particularly with respect to inmate mail. Jurisdictional Statement filed in Procunier v. Martinez, O. T. 1973, No. 72-1465, p. 9.
In Hyland v. Procunier, the District Court enjoined correctional officials from requiring a parolee to obtain advance permission for speeches to public gatherings. The opinion did not discuss the rights of prisoners. Gilmore v. Lynch concerned regulations limiting prisoner access to. legal materials and mutual legal assistance. The decision rested on the prisoners’ right to reasonable access to the courts. Northern v. Nelson upheld an inmate’s right to receive a newspaper which was “necessary for effective exercise of plaintiff’s right to practice the Muslim religion.” 315 F. Supp., at 688. Payne v. Whitmore affirmed the inmates’ First Amendment right to receive newspapers and magazines. The theory of the decision was that “prison rules must bear a reasonable relationship to valid prison goals, and rules which infringe upon particularly important rights will require a proportionately stronger justification.” 325 F. Supp., at 1193. It contained no discussion concerning either the importance of prisoner correspondence rights or the type of correspondence rules which would be reasonable. Toward the end of the relevant period, in May 1972, Brenneman v. Madigan held that pretrial detainees had a First Amendment right in their correspondence. The court recognized, however, that “[p] re-trial detainees do not stand on the same footing as convicted inmates.” 343 F. Supp., at 142.
Although some of the items of correspondence with which respondent claims interference concerned legal matters or were addressed to lawyers, respondent is foreclosed from asserting any claim with respect to mail interference based on infringement of his right of access to the courts because such a claim was dismissed with prejudice in an earlier phase of this case. Order of Feb. 9, 1973, No. C-72-1954 SW (ND Cal.). In his Points and Authorities Against Motion to Dismiss filed in connection with the present complaint on April 17, 1974, respondent stated that “[t]he claim against mail interference does not purport to allege denial of access to the courts,” and explained that “[i]n ruling on defendants’ previous Motion to Dismiss, in February, 1973, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim against mail interference insofar as it alleged denial of access to the courts.” Record 171.
There is thus no occasion to address this case on the assumption that Navarette’s mailing privileges were protected by a constitutional rule of which petitioners could reasonably have been expected to be aware in 1971 and 1972 and to inquire whether petitioners knew or should have known that their conduct was in violation of that constitutional proscription.
Because of the disposition of this case on immunity grounds, we do not address petitioners’ other submissions: that § 1983 does not afford a remedy for negligent deprivation of constitutional rights and that state prisoners have no First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in their outgoing mail.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Frankfurter
delivéred the opinion of the Court.
• Petitioner was convicted of knowingly and willfully evading the payment of income taxes for the years 1950,' 1951 and 1952. A substantial part of the alleged evasion was failure to report income from dividends. Among the Government’s exhibits at trial was a record, presum-' ably contemporaneous and in the petitioner’s handwriting, of dividends received during 1951 and 1952. This record reflected an amount of dividend income for 1951 substantially larger than that reported on the 1951 return. Petitioner contended that this record had-been turned over to the accounting firm which regularly prepared his return, Arthur R. Sanfilippo & Co., in early 1952 for use in preparing his 1951 return, but that the figures had not been accurately entered on the return by the accountants. The Government’s contention was that the record had not been given to the accounting firm until, early 1953, subsequent to the initiation of the investigation of petitioner’s tax affairs and long after the filing of the 1951 return. The time at which the record had been given to the accountants thus became directly relevant to the issue of. criminal intent in the charge against the petitioner. Arthur R. Sanfilippo, an important government witness and the principal partner in the accounting firm, testified that his firm had not received the handwritten record of dividend income until early 1953.
Prior to the trial, on July 16, 1956, during the course of an interrogation by agents of the Internal Revenue Service, Sanfilippo had been unable to recall when the dividend record had been received. More than a month later, August 23, 1956, Sanfilippo had met with revenue agents to verify and sign the transcript of his earlier testimony. At this meeting he executed a supplementary affidavit reciting that he wished to clarify his original answers and that he remembered that his firm had not received the dividend record until after revenue agents had begun their investigation of petitioner’s tax returns. A memorandum of the conference at which this affidavit was executed was made by one of the agents present. On cross-examination of Sanfilippo the defense demanded and received various documents including the transcript of the July 16 interrogation and the August 23 affidavit. The defense also requested .production of any memoranda, or of any part thereof summarizing what Sanfilippo had said, which had been made of the August 23 conference. The trial judge denied this request on the ground that the Act of September 2, 1957, 71 Stat. 595, 18 U. S. C. § 3500 — the so-called “Jencks” Act — governing the' production of statements made to government agents-by government witnesses, precluded production of the requested memorandum since it was not within the definition of “statement” in (e) of the Act. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 258 F. 2d 397. Together with several other cases raising Jencks Act problems, we granted certiorari, 358 U. S. 905, to determine the scope and meaning of this new statute.
Accurate analysis of these problems as a basis of their appropriate solution requires due appreciation of the background against which the statutory terms must be projected.
Exercising our power, in the absence of statutory provision!, to prescribe procedures for the administration of justice in the federal courts, this Court, on June 3, 1957, in Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657, decided that the defense in a federal criminal prosecution was entitled, under certain circumstances, to obtain, for impeachment purposes, statements which had been made to government agents by government witnesses. . These statements were therefore to be turned over to the defense at the time of cross-examinátion if their contents related to the subject -matter of the witness’ direct testimony, and if a demand had been made for specific statements which had been written by the witness or, if orally made, as recorded by agents of the Government. We also held that the trial judge was not to examine the statéments. to determine if they contained material inconsistent with the testimony of the witness before deciding whether he woiild turn them over to the defense. Once the statements had been shown to contain related material only the defense was adequately equipped to decide whether they had. value for impeachment.. This decision only concerned production and therefore did not, purport to modify the laws of evidence governing the admissibility of prior statements of a witness.
The decision promptly gave rise to sharp controversy and concern. The day following our opinion the House of Representatives was told that the decision in Jencks posed a serious problem of national security and that legislation would be introduced: 103 Cong. Rec. 8290. The same day H. R. 7915, the first of eleven House bills dealing with what became the Jencks problem, was introduced in the House. Defendants’ counsel began to invoke the Jencks decision to justify demands for production far more sweeping than that involved in Jencks, And under circumstances' far removed from those of that case, and some federal trial judges acceded to those excessive demands. The Department of Justice, concerned over these rapid intrusions of Jencks■ into often totally unrelated areas, drafted legislation to clarify and delimit the reach ■ of Jencks. See 103 Cong. Rec. 15781. On June 24, 1957, this legislation was introduced into the Senate by Senator O’Mahoney acting for himself and several othér Senators. 103. Cong. Rec. 10057. After study by a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee the bill was reported out, Í03 Cong. Rec. 10601, then withdrawn and a .completely new measure substituted. 103 Cong. Rec. 14913. When the bill reached the floor for debate Senator O’Mahoney proposed an amendment in the nature of a substitute which was adopted,. 103 Cong. Rec. 15938, and the bill passed the Senate on August 26. Ibid. In the House the original H. R. 7915, after, being amended in Committee, see 103 Cong. Rec. 10925, was passed on August 27, 103 Cong. Rec. 16130, and then substituted for. the text of the Senate bill. 103 Cong. Rec. 16131. The two versions went to Conference. The Conference Report was agreed to by the Senate, on . August 29/103 Cong. Rec. 16490, and by the House, the next day. 103 Cong. Rec. 16742. The Act was approved on September 2/ and became law as §3500 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. Congress had determined to exercise its power to define the rules that should govern in this particular area in the'trial of criminal cases instead of leaving the matter to the lawmaking of the courts.
In almost every enactment there are gaps to be filled and ambiguities to be resolved by judicial construction. This statute is not "free from them. Here, however, the detailed particularity with which Congress has spoken has narrowed the scope for needful judicial interpretation to an unusual'degree. The statute clearly defines procedures and plainly indicates the circumstances for their application. Since thisCase is the first calling for authoritative exposition of an Act that frequently conies into use in federal criminal prosecutions we deem it appropriate to explicate the construction of the statute required by the circumstances of this case.
1. Subsection (a) requires that no statement of a government witness made to an agent of the Government'and in the Government’s possession shall be turned over to the defense until the witness has testified on direct examination. This section manifests the general statutory aim to restrict the use of such statements to impeachment. Subsections (b), (c) and (d) provide procedures for the production of “statements,” and for the consequences to the, Govérnment of failure to produce. Subsection (e) restrictively defines with particularity. the term “statement” as used in the three preceding sections. The suggestion that the' detailed statutory procedures restrict only the production of the type of statement described in subsection- (e), leaving all other statements, e. g., non-verbatim, ■ non-contemporaneoqs records of oral statements, to be produced under pre-existing rules of procedure as if the statute had not been passed at all, flouts the whole history and purpose of the enactment. It would-mock Congress to attribute to it an intention to surround the production of the carefully restricted and most trustworthy class of statements with detailed procedural safeguards, while allowing more dubious' and less reliable documents a more favored legal status, free from safeguards in the tournament of trials. To state such a construction demonstrates its irrationality;.the authoritative legislative history precludes its acceptance.
To be sure, the statute does not, in so many words, state that it is the exclusive, limiting means of compelling for cross-examination purposes the production of statements of a government witness to an agent of the Government. But some things too clearly evince a legislative enactment to call for a redundancy of utterance. One of the most important motive forces behind the enactment of this legislation was the fear that an expansive reading of Jencks would compel the undiscriminating production of agent’s summaries of interviews regardless of their character or completeness. Not only was it strongly feared that disclosure of memoranda containing the investigative agent’s interpretations, and impressions might reveal the inner workings of the investigative process and thereby injure the national interest, but it was felt to be grossly unfair to allow the defense to use statements to impeach a witness which could not fairly be said to be the witness’ own rather than the product of the investigátor’s selections, interpretations and interpolations. The committee reports of both Houses and the floor debates clearly manifest the intention to avoid these, dangers by restricting production to those statements •specifically defined in the bill. Indeed both the House and Senate bills as they went to Conference explicitly so stated. See 103 Cong. Rec. 16130; 103 Cong. Rec. 16125. Nothing in the Conference Reports or the limited debate following Conference intimated the slightest intention to change the exclusive nature of the measure. Indeed the reports and debate proceeded on the explicit assumption that the bill retained as a major purpose the barring of all statements not specifically defined. The purpose of the Act, its fair reading and its overwhelming legislative history compel us to hold that statements of a government witness made to an agent' of. the Government which cannot be produced under the terms of 18 U. S. C. § 3500 cannot be produced at all.
2. Since the statutory, procedures are exclusive they constitute the rule of law governing the production of the statement at issue in this case and it becomes necessary to determine the scope and meaning of the statutory definition of “statement” contained in (e). Clause (1) of (e) permits the production of “a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him . . . .” Although some situations may arise, creating peripheral problems of construction, its import is clear. Clause (2) widens the definition of “statement” to include “a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness to an agent of the Government and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement.” Clearly this provision allows the production of mechanical or stenographic recordings of oral statements, even' though later transcribed. A preliminary-problem for determining that the statement now before us may be produced is whether the statutory phrase “other recording” allows an even wider scope for production. We find the legislative history persuasive that the statute .was meant to encompass more than mere automatic reproductions of oral statements.
However, such a finding is only the beginning of the task of construction. It is clear that Congress was con- • cerned that only those statements which could properly be called the witness’ own words should be made available to the defense for purposes of impeachment. It was important that the statement could fairly be deemed to reflect fully and without distortion what had been said to the government agent. Distortion can be a product of selectivity as well as' the conscious or inadvertent infusion of the. recorder’s opinions or impressions. It is' clear from the continuous congressional emphasis on “substan-' tially verbatim recital,” arid “continuous, narrative statements made by the witness recorded verbatim, or nearly so . . . ,” see Appendix B, post, p. 358, that the legislation, was designed to eliminate the danger of distortion and misrepresentation inherent in a report which merely selects portions, albeit accurately, from a, lengthy oral recital. Quoting out of context is one of the most frequent and powerful-modes of misquotation. We think it consistent with this legislative history, and with the generally restrictive terms of the statutory provision, to require that summaries of an oral statement which evidence substantial selection of material, or which were prepared after the interview without the aid of complete notes, and hence rest on the memory of the agent, are not to be produced. Neither, of course, are statements which contain the agent’s interpretations or impressions. . In expounding this standard we do not wish to create the impression of a “delusive exactness^” The possible permutations of fact and circumstance are myriad.' Trial courts will be guided by the indicated standard, informed by fidelity to the congressional purposes we have' outlined.There iá nothing impalpable about these provisions. Sihce vie feel the statutory standard has' guiding definiteness, it would be idle to attempt a minute enumeration of particular situations to which it is to be applied. Such a vain attempt at forecasting myriad diversities with, minor variance is as futile and uncalled for in this as in so many other areas of the law. That is what the judicial, process is for — to follow a generally clear direction in dealing with a new diversity as it may occasionally arise. Final decision as to production must rest, as it does so. very often in procedural and evidentiary matters, within the good sense and experience of the district judge- guided by the standards we have outlined, and subject to the appropriately limited review of appellate courts.
3. The statute itself provides no procedure ior making a determination whether a particular statement comes within the terms of (e) and thus may be produced if related to the Subject matter of the witness’ testimony. Ordinarily . the defense demand will be only for those statements which satisfy the statutory limitations. Thus the Government will not produce documents clearly beyond the reach of the statute for to do so would not be responsive to the order of the court. However, when it is doubtful whether the production of a particular statement is compelled by the statute, we approve the practice of having the Government submit the statement to the trial judge for an in camera determination. Indeed, any other procedure would be destructive of the statutory purpose. The statute governs the production of documents; it does not purport to affect or modify the rules of evidencé regarding admissibility and uSe of statements once produced. The Act’s major concern is with limiting and regulating defense access to government papers, and it is-designed to deny such access to those statements which do not satisfy the requirements of (e), or do not relate to the subject matter of the witness’ testimony. It would indeed defeat this design to hold that the defense may see statements in order to argue whether it should be allowed to see them.
It is also the function of the trial judge to decide, in light of the circumstances of each case,, what, if any, evidence extrinsic to the statement itself may or must be offered to prove the nature of the statement. In most cases the answer will be plain from the statement itself. In others further information might be déemed relevant to assist the court’s determination. This is a problem of the sound and fair administration of a criminal prosecution and its solution must be guided by thé need, reflected in so much of our law of evidence, to avoid needless trial of collateral and confusing issues while assuring the utmost fairness to a criminal defendant. See, e. g., Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 342.
In light of these principles the case before us is clear. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals correctly held that the sole standard - governing production of the agent’s memorandum of his conference with Sanfilippo was 18 U. S. C. § 3500. The district judge and a unanimous Court of Appeals held that the statement was not within the definition of statement in (ej as properly understood by them. We have examined the statement and the record and find that the determination of the two courts below was justified and therefore must be sustained. It would bespeak a serious reflection on the conscience and capacity of the federal judiciary if both a trial judge and a Court of Appeals were found to have disregarded the command of Congress, duly interpreted, for making available a prior statement of -a government witness in a case. Against - such a contingency there is always the safeguard of this Court’s reviewing power.
Affirmed.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by The Chief - Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas, see post, p. 360.]
APPENDIX A TO OPINIÓN OF THE COURT.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DEMONSTRATING THE INTENT OF THE CONFERENCE MEASURE TO RETAIN AS A PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE ACT A PROHIBITION OF PRODUCTION OF ALL STATEMENTS NOT DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (E). (SEE PP. 350-351, ANTE.)
The bills as they went to Congress contained explicit provisions making them exclusive. For example, the Senate. bill provided in subsection (a): v.-
“In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States, no statement or report of a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) made to an agent of the Government which is in the possession of the United States shall be the subject of subpena,- or inspection, except, if provided in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or as provided in paragraph (b) of this section (Emphasis added.) 103 Cong. Rec. 16130.
The House bill contained a similar provision.
Although the last phrase of this section was dropped out when the section was rewritten to eliminate reference to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, see 103 Cong. Rec. 16488; H. R. Rep. No. 1271, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., there is no indication that its omission was intended to work a silent and radical change in the entire concept and purpose of the Act. Both the Conference Report of the House Managers and the floor remarks of the Senate Conferees enumerate the particular changes which had been made to meet earlier specific differences and objections. No mention is made, nor can an intimation be found, of any intention to change the exclusive nature of the measure. The House Conference Report enumerates the specific changes and then states that “To remove any doubt as to the kinds of statements affected by the bill as agreed to by the conferees, a new paragraph V •was added . . . expressly defining the' term ‘statement.’ ” H. R. Rep. No. 1271, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 3. In the Senate, Senator O’Mahoney, in response to a question, gave the specific changes which had been made in the bill by the Conference, and he did not give the slightest indication that it had lost its exclusive nature. 103 Cong. Rec. 16487.
What small debate there was following the Conference Report supports the conclusion that no change in the exclusiveness of the bill was intended. For example, Senator O’Mahoney, introducing the conference measure, stated that, “[t]here was some fear upon the part of the Department of Justice that the. Senate bill would create a greater latitude for the examination of irrelevant reports of agents. The language which was devised by the conferees has cleared up the doubts . . . .” 103 Cong. Rec. 16487. See also 103 Cong. Rec. 16488-16489. In the House, Representative Keating, one of the Conferees, explained that “The conferees provided that the only statements a defendant could see, and then only in the courtroom were those actually signed or formally approved by the witness or a stenographic verbatim recital of a statement made by a witness which is recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement. In othfei words, only those statements need be produced in court by the Government, which could be shown in ccrart. to. impeach the credibility of the witness.” 103 Cong. Rec. 16739. See also 103 Cong. Rec. 16742.
APPENDIX BvTO OPINION OF THE COURT.
PARTIAL SUMMARY.OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BEARING "ON THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF ^SUBSECTION .(E).
(SEE PP. 351 AND 352, ANTE.)
The original Senate bill,' as passed by' the. Senate, allowed the production of “any transcriptions or records of oral statements made by the witness to an agent of the Government . . . .” See 103 Cong. Rec. 16130. During the course of the Senate debate an amendment had "been offered to limit this provision to mechanical transcriptions or recordings. See 103 Cong. Rec. 15930-15931. This amendment was. rejected after Senator O’Mahoney, sponsor of the legislation, had argued that it would leave the bill too “limited.” “All we are asking,” he stated, “is that the records which are . relevant and competent,"-' which deal with.the oral statements made by Government witnesses whom the Government puts on the stand, with respect to the matters concerning which., they testify, be made available.” 103 Cong. Rec. 15932. Thus thé bill as it. left the Senate was clearly not confined to, automatic reproductions of oral statements/although its . further reach was not explicitly demarcated.
The House bill, as passed, allowed only the production of written statements signed by the witness or otherwise adopted ’ or approved. 103 Cong. Rec. 16125. The present language ¿merged from the Conference.
Senator O’Mahoney, sponsor of the original Senate bill and one of the Senate Conferees; in submitting the conference bill,'made it clear that (e) “would include a memorandum made by an agent of the Government of an oral statement made to him by a Government witness . . . .’’ 103 Cong. Rec. 16488. Senator Javits then asked:
“. . . what has been done with the so-called records provision is to tie it down, to those cases in which the agent actually purports to .make a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement that the witness has made to him — not the agent’s own comments or a recording of his own ideas, but a substantially verbatim recital ,of an oral statement; which the witness has made to him, and as transcribed by him; is that correct?” Ibid.
Senator O’Mahoney replied, “Precisely.” Thus although the Senate history indicates that the bill was restricted to. a “substantially verbatim recital,” it is apparent that the Act was not designed to be restricted to mere mechanical transcription
The proceedings in the House are less clear. It is true that Representative Keating, one of the House Conferees, did say that only stenographic verbatim recitals need be produced. 103 Cong. Rec. 16739. But this was said in reply to Representative Celler’s statement that the conference measure was as liberal as the original Senate bill. Representative Geller was also a House Conferee. The. report of the:House Managers, signed by all the House Conferees, after pointing out that the term “statement” had been defined in the bill,'stated:
“It is believed that the provisions of the bill as agreed to by the conferees are in line with the standard enunciated by Judge George H. Moore of the. eastern district of Missouri in . . . U. S. v. Anderson . . . which is set forth at page 14552 [sic] of the daily Congressional Record of August 26, 1957.” H. R. Rep. No. 1271, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 3.
In the opinion referred to, Judge' Moore had explicitly-limited the type of oral statement which could be produced under the Jencks. decision to
“. . . only continuous, narrative statements made by the witness recorded verbatim, or nearly so, and does not include notes made'during the course of an investigation (or reports compiled therefrom) which contain the subjective impressions, opinions/ or conclusions of the person or persons making such notes.” 103 Cong. Rec. 15940.
This standard, explicitly incorporated into the House Report, has a dual significance. It not only goes beyond mechanical or stenographic statements, in defining the statements which must be made available to the defense, but indicates that once beyond that point a very restrictive standard is to be applied.
We reject the Government’s contention that, at trial, petitioner asserted only that the statute did not cover his. request for production, and failed to assert that, if the statute was applicable, the memorandum could be produced under its terms. We find that objection to the interpretation of the statute was adequately made.
103 Cong. Rec. 8327. The other House bills were H. R. 8225, 103 Cong. Rec. 9572; H. R. 8243, 103 Cong. Rec. 9746; H. R. 8335, 103 Cong. Rec. 10181; H. R. No. 8341, 103 Cong. Rec. 10181; H. R. 8388, 103 Cong. Rec. 10403; H. R. 8393, 103 Cong. Rec. 10403; H. R. 8414, 103 Cong. Rec. 10547; H. R. 8416, 103 Cong. Rec. 10547; H. R. 8423, 103 Cong. Rec. 10547; H. R. 8438, 103 Cong. Rec. 10589.
Many of the cases in .the lower federal courts after Jencks and prior to the enactment of. the statute are collected in the statement of the Attorney General contained in H. R. Rep. No. 700, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., and in S. Rep. No. 569, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. See also S. Rep. No. 981, 85th Cong.; 1st Sess.; 103 Cong. Rec. 15939-15941.
The statute provides:
“(a) In any criminal prosecution brought, by the United States, no statement or report in the possession of the United States which wás made by a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) to an agent of the ■ Government' shall be the subject of subpena, discovery, ór inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case.
“(b) After á witness called by the Ui " ed States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of the United • States which relates to- the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. If the entire' contents of any such statement relate to- the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall Order it to be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.
“(c) If the United States claims that any statement ordered to be produced under this section contains matter which does not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order the United States to deliver such statement for the inspection of the court in camera. Upon such delivery the court shall excise the portions of such statement which do not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness. With such material excised, the court shall then direct delivery of such statement to the defendant for his use. If, pursuant to such procedure, any portion of such statement is withheld from- the defendant and the defendant objects to such withholding, and the trial is continued'to an adjudication •of the guilt of the defendant, the entire text of such statement shall be preserved by the United States and, in. the event the defendant appeals, shall be made available to the appellate court for the purpose of determining-the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge. Whenever any statement is delivered to a defendant pursuant to this' section, the court in its discretion, upon application of said defendant, may recess proceedings in the trial for such time as it may determine ■to be reasonably required for the examination of such statement by said defendant and his preparation for its use in the trial..
“(d) If the United States elects not to comply with an order of the court under paragraph (b) or (c) hereof to deliver .to the defendant any such statement, or such portion thereof as the court may direct, the court shall strike from the record the testimony of the witness, and the trial shall proceed unless the court in its discretion shall determine that the interests of justice require that a mistrial be declared.
“(e) The term ‘statement,’ as used in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section in relation to.any witness called by the United States, means—
“(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted .or approved by him; or
“(2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness to an agent of the Government and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement.”
See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 700, 85th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 569, 85th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 981, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. The statements in the reports are frequent and clear. There are many like expressions on the floor of both chambers. For example, there was a lengthy debate in the Senate over an amendment which would have restricted the type of statement which could be produced beyond the limitations already incorporated in the Senate bill. The ■entire debate proceeded on the explicit assumption that only those statements which were enumerated in the bill could be produced at all. 103 Cong. Rec. 15930-15935. See also 103 Cong. Rec. 16116. There are many similar expressions during the debates.
See legislative history summarized in Appendix A, post, p. 356:
See legislative history summarized in Appendix B, post, p. 358.
See, e. g., 103 Cong. Rec. 16739. See also many statements to the same effect in the House and Senate Reports.
See legislative material' cited and quoted in Appendix B, post, p. 358.
Of course the statute does not provide that inconsistency between the statement and the witness’ testimony is to be'a relevant consideration. Neither is it significant whether or not the statement is admissible as evidence.
The statute as interpreted does not reach any constitutional barrier. Congress has the power to prescribe rules of procedure for the federal courts, and has from the earliest days exercised that power. See 37 Harv. L. Rev., at 1086 and 1093-1094, for a collection of such' legislation. The power of this Court to prescribe rules of procedure and evidence for the federal courts exists only in the absence of a relevant Act of Congress. See Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 382; Gordon v. United States; 344 U. S. 414, 418. Much of the law of evidence and of discovery is concerned with limitations on a party’s right to have access to', and to admit in evidence, material which has probative force. It is obviously a reasonable exercise of-power over the rules of procedure and evidence for Congress to determine that only statements of the sort described in (e)- are sufficiently reliable or important for purposes.of impeachment to justify a requirement that the Government; turn .them over to the defense.
The statement- consists of a brief agent’s summary, of approximately 600 words, of a conference lasting 3% hours. It was made up after the conference and consists of several brief statements of information given by Sanfilippo in response to questions of the agent. The typed agent’s memorandum is clearly not a' virtually verbatim narrative of' the conference but represents the agent’s selection of those items of information deemed appropriate for inclusion in the-memorandum. Thus by applying the governing standard set forth at pp. 352 and 353, supra, it is clear that the lower courts did not err in refusing to hand the statement over to the defense.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States District Courts have Jurisdiction over civil actions claiming a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States or by Acts of Congress providing for equal rights or for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote. The question presented by these cases is whether that jurisdiction encompasses a claim that a state welfare regulation is invalid because it conflicts with the Social Security Act. We conclude that it does not.
In the Social Security Amendments of 1967, Congress authorized partial federal funding of approved state programs providing emergency assistance for certain needy persons. In February 1976, Julia Gonzalez, the petitioner in No. 77-5324, requested the Hudson County, N. J., Welfare Board to pay her $163 in emergency assistance funds to cover her rent and utility bills. The Board denied her request because petitioner and her children were not “in a state of homelessness” as required by the relevant New Jersey regulations.
Petitioner brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the emergency payment was “necessary to avoid destitution” within the meaning of § 406 (e)(1) of the federal Social Security Act, and she was therefore entitled to the payment notwithstanding the more stringent New Jersey regulation. In her federal complaint she sought damages of $163 and an injunction commanding the New Jersey Welfare Director to conform his administration of the State’s emergency assistance program to federal statutory standards. In essence, petitioner claimed that the New Jersey officials had deprived her of a right to emergency assistance protected by §406 (e)(1) of the Social Security Act.
The District Court held that the complaint stated a claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Without deciding whether the “secured by the Constitution” language in § 1343 (3) should be construed to include Supremacy Clause claims, the District Court concluded that it had jurisdiction under both subparagraphs (3) and (4) of § 1343. But in doing so, the court did not explain whether it was § 1983 or § 406 (e) (1) of the Social Security Act that it viewed as the Act of Congress securing “equal rights” or “civil rights.” On the merits, the District Court found no conflict between the state regulation and the federal statute and entered summary judgment for respondents.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did not address the merits because it concluded that the District Court should have dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals first noted that § 1983 “is not a jurisdictional statute; it only fashions a remedy.” 560 F. 2d 160, 164 (1977). Nor could jurisdiction be founded on 28 U. S. C. § 1331, the general federal-question jurisdictional statute, since the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000. The court recognized that when a constitutional claim is of sufficient substance to support federal jurisdiction, a district court has power to consider other claims which might not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. But it concluded that the constitutional claim must involve more than a contention that the Supremacy Clause requires that a federal statute be given effect over conflicting state law. It then went on to hold that the Social Security Act is not an Act of Congress securing either “equal rights” or “civil rights” as those terms are used in § 1343. And those terms, the court concluded, limit the grant of federal jurisdiction conferred by § 1343 even if § 1983 creates a remedy for a broader category of statutory claims.
The petitioners in No. 77-719 are Commissioners of the Texas Department of Human Resources, which administers the State’s program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Respondents represent a class of AFDC recipients who share living quarters with a nondependent relative. Under the Texas regulations, the presence in the household of a nondependent person results in a reduction in the level of payments to the beneficiaries even if their level of actual need is unchanged. In a suit brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, respondents claimed that the Texas regulations violate § 402 (a)(7) of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a)(7), and the federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
The District Court upheld the Texas regulations. While respondents’ appeal was pending, this Court decided Van Lare v. Hurley, 421 U. S. 338. On the-authority of that case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. Following earlier Fifth Circuit cases, the Court of Appeals concluded that federal jurisdiction was conferred by the language in 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (4) describing actions seeking relief “under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights....” The court reasoned that statutory rights concerning food and shelter are “ ‘rights of an essentially personal nature,’ ” Houston Welfare Rights Org. v. Vowell, 555 F. 2d 1219, 1221 n. 1 (1977); that 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides a remedy which may be invoked to protect such rights; and that § 1983 is an Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights within the meaning of that jurisdictional grant.
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between that conclusion and the holding of the Third Circuit in No. 77-5324. 434 U. S. 1061. We have previously reserved the jurisdictional question we decide today, see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 533-534, n. 5. We preface our decision with a review of the history of the governing statutes.
I
Our decision turns on the construction of the two jurisdictional provisions, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4), and their interrelationship with 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and the Social Security Act. As in all cases of statutory construction, our task is to interpret the words of these statutes in light of the purposes Congress sought to serve.
Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is the source of both the jurisdictional grant now codified in 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) and the remedy now authorized by 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Section 1 authorized individual suits in federal court to vindicate the deprivation, under color of state law, “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States.” No authorization was given for suits based on any federal statute.
In 1874, Congress enacted the Revised Statutes of the United States. At that time, the remedial and jurisdictional provisions of § 1 were modified and placed in separate sections. The words “and laws,” as now found in § 1983, were included in the remedial provision of Rev. Stat. § 1979, and two quite different formulations of the jurisdictional grant were included in Rev. Stat. §§ 563 and 629. The former granted the district courts jurisdiction of all actions to redress a deprivation under color of state law of any right secured by the Constitution or “by any law of the United States.” The latter defined the jurisdiction of the circuit courts and included the limiting phrase — “by any law providing for equal rights” — which is now found in § 1343 (3).
In the Judicial Code of 1911, Congress abolished circuit courts and transferred their authority to the district courts. The Code’s definition of the jurisdiction of the district courts to redress the deprivation of civil rights omitted the broad language referring to “any law of the United States” which had defined district court jurisdiction under § 563, and provided instead for jurisdiction over claims arising under federal laws “providing for equal rights” — the language which had been used to describe circuit court jurisdiction under § 629, and which is now a part of § 1343 (3). No significant change in either the remedial or jurisdictional language has been made since 1911.
Subsection 4 of § 1343, providing jurisdiction for claims “under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote,” is of more recent origin. Part III of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, as proposed, authorized the Attorney General to institute suits for injunc-tive relief against conspiracies to deprive citizens of the civil rights specified in 42 U. S. C. § 1985, which includes voting rights. Part III conferred jurisdiction on the United States district courts to entertain proceedings instituted pursuant to this section of the Act. While the substantive authorization of suits by the Attorney General was defeated, the amendment of § 1343, which had been termed a technical amendment to comply with the authority conferred by Part III, was enacted into law.
With the exception of this most recent enactment, the legislative history of the provisions at issue in these cases ultimately provides us with little guidance as to the' proper resolution of the question presented here. Section 1 of the 1871 Act was the least controversial provision of that Act; and what little debate did take place as to § 1 centered largely on the question of what protections the Constitution in fact afforded. The relevant changes in the Revised Statutes were adopted virtually without comment, as was the definition of civil rights jurisdiction in the 1911 Code. The latter provision was described as simply merging the existing jurisdiction of the district and circuit courts, a statement which may be read either as reflecting a view that the broader “and laws” language was intended to be preserved in the more limited “equal rights” language or as suggesting that “and laws” was itself originally enacted with reference to laws providing for equal rights, and was never thought to be any broader.
Similar ambiguity is found in discussions of the basic policy of the legislation. While there is weight to the claim that Congress, from 1874 onward, intended to create a broad right of action in federal court for deprivations by a State of any federally secured right, it is also clear that the prime focus of Congress in all of the relevant legislation was ensuring a right of action to enforce the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and the federal laws enacted pursuant thereto.
We cannot say that any of these arguments is ultimately right or wrong, or that one policy is more persuasive than others in reflecting the intent of Congress. It may well be that, at least as to § 1343 (3), the Congresses that enacted the 1871 Act and its subsequent amendments never considered the question of federal jurisdiction of claims arising under the broad scope of federal substantive authority that emerged many years later. This does not mean that jurisdiction cannot be found to encompass claims nonexistent in 1871 or 1874, but it cautions us to be hesitant in finding jurisdiction for new claims which do not clearly fit within the terms of the statute.
II
The statutory language suggests three different approaches to the jurisdictional issue. The first involves a consideration of the words “secured by the Constitution of the United States” as used in § 1343. The second focuses on the remedy authorized by § 1983 and raises the question whether that section is a statute that secures “equal rights” or “civil rights” within the meaning of § 1343. The third approach makes the jurisdictional issue turn on whether the Social Security Act is a statute that secures “equal rights” or “civil rights.” We consider these approaches in turn.
1. The Supremacy Clause
Under § 1343 (3), Congress has created federal jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to redress the deprivation under color of state law “of any right, privilege or immunity secured [1] by the Constitution of the United States or [2] by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.” Claimants correctly point out that the first prepositional phrase can be fairly read to describe rights secured by the Supremacy Clause. For even though that Clause is not a source of any federal rights, it does “secure” federal rights by according them priority whenever they come in conflict with state law. In that sense all federal rights, whether created by treaty, by statute, or by regulation, are “secured” by the Supremacy Clause.
In Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, the Court was confronted with an analogous choice between two interpretations of the statute defining the jurisdiction of three-judge district courts. The comprehensive language of that statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.), could have been broadly read to encompass statutory claims secured by the Supremacy Clause or narrowly read to exclude claims that involve no federal constitutional provision except that Clause. After acknowledging that the broader reading was consistent not only with the statutory language but also with the policy of the statute, the Court accepted the more restrictive reading. Its reasoning is persuasive and applicable to the problems confronting us in this case.
“This restrictive view of the application of § 2281 is more consistent with a discriminating reading of the statute itself than is the first and more embracing interpretation. The statute requires a three-judge court in order to restrain the enforcement of a state statute 'upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute.’ Since all federal actions to enjoin a state enactment rest ultimately on the Supremacy Clause, the words 'upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute’ would appear to be superfluous unless they are read to exclude some types of such injunctive suits. For a simple provision prohibiting the restraint of the enforcement of any state statute except by a three-judge court would manifestly have sufficed to embrace every such suit whatever its particular constitutional ground. It is thus quite permissible to read the phrase in question as one of limitation, signifying a congressional purpose to confine the three-judge court requirement to injunction suits depending directly upon a substantive provision of the Constitution, leaving cases of conflict with a federal statute (or treaty) to follow their normal course in a single-judge court.” Swift & Co. v. Wickham, supra, at 126-127 (footnotes omitted).
Just as the phrase in § 2281 — “upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute” — would have been superfluous unless read as a limitation on three-judge-court jurisdiction, so is it equally clear that the entire reference in § 1343 (3) to rights secured by an Act of Congress would be unnecessary if the earlier reference to constitutional claims embraced those resting solely on the Supremacy Clause. More importantly, the additional language which describes a limited category of Acts of Congress — -those “providing for equal rights of citizens” — plainly negates the notion that jurisdiction over all statutory claims had already been conferred by the preceding reference to constitutional claims.
Thus, while we recognize that there is force to claimants’ argument that the remedial purpose of the civil rights legislation supports an expansive interpretation of the phrase “secured by the Constitution,” it would make little sense for Congress to have drafted the statute as it did if it had intended to confer jurisdiction over every conceivable federal claim against a state agent. In order to give meaning to the entire statute as written by Congress, we must conclude that an allegation of incompatibility between federal and state statutes and regulations does not, in itself, give rise to a claim “secured by the Constitution” within the meaning of § 1343 (3).
2. Section 1983
Claimants next argue that the “equal rights” language of § 1343 (3) should not be read literally or, if it is, that § 1983, the source of their asserted cause of action, should be considered an Act of Congress “providing for equal rights” within the meaning of § 1343 (3) or “providing for the protection of civil rights” within § 1343 (4). In support of this position, they point to the common origin of §§ 1983 and 1343 (3) in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and this Court’s recognition that the latter is the jurisdictional counterpart of the former. Since broad language describing statutory claims was used in both provisions during the period between 1874 and 1911 and has been retained in § 1983, and since Congress in the Judicial Code of 1911 purported to be making no changes in the existing law as to jurisdiction in this area, the “equal rights” language of § 1343 (3) must be construed to encompass all statutory claims arising under the broader language of § 1983. Moreover, in view of its origin in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and its function in modern litigation, § 1983 does “provid [e] for the protection of civil rights” within the meaning of § 1343 (4).
In practical effect, this argument leads to the same result as claimants’ Supremacy Clause argument: jurisdiction over all challenges to state action based on any federal ground. Although the legislative history does not forbid this result, the words and structure of the statute, as well as portions of the legislative history, support a more limited construction.
The common origin of §§ 1983 and 1343 (3) unquestionably implies that their coverage is, or at least originally was, coextensive. It is not, however, necessary in this case to decide whether the two provisions have the same scope. For even if they do, there would still be the question whether the “and laws” language in § 1983 should be narrowly read to conform with the “equal rights” language in § 1343 (3), or, conversely, the latter phrase should be broadly read to parallel the former. And, in all events, whether or not we assume that there is a difference between “any law of the United States” on the one hand and “any Act of Congress providing for equal rights” on the other, the fact is that the more limited language was used when Congress last amended the jurisdictional provision. In order to construe the broad language of § 1983 to cover any statutory claim, and at the same time to construe the language of § 1343 (3) as coextensive with such a cause of action, it would be necessary to ignore entirely Congress’ most recent limiting amendment and the words of the provision as currently in force.
We cannot accept claimants’ argument that we should reach this result by holding that § 1983 is an Act of Congress “providing for equal rights” within the meaning of § 1343 (3). Unlike the 1866 and 1870 Acts, § 1 of the Civil Eights Act of 1871 did not provide for any substantive rights — equal or otherwise. As introduced and enacted, it served only to ensure that an individual had a cause of action for violations of the Constitution, which in the Fourteenth Amendment embodied and extended to all individuals as against state action the substantive protections afforded by § 1 of the 1866 Act. No matter how broad the § 1 cause of action may be, the breadth of its coverage does not alter its procedural character. Even if claimants are correct in asserting that § 1983 provides a cause of action for all federal statutory claims, it remains true that one cannot go into court and claim a “violation of § 1983” — -for § 1983 by itself does not protect anyone against anything. As Senator Edmunds recognized in the 1871 debate: “All civil suits, as every lawyer understands, which this act authorizes, are not based upon it; they are based upon the right of the citizen. The act only gives a remedy.”
Under § 1343 (3), a civil action must be both “authorized by law” and brought to redress the deprivation of rights “secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights.” Section 1983, when properly invoked, satisfies the first requirement: It ensures that the suit will not be dismissed because not “authorized by law.” But it cannot satisfy the second, since by its terms, as well as its history, it does not provide any rights at all.
We reach a similar conclusion with respect to the argument that § 1983 is a statute “providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.” Standing alone, § 1983 clearly provides no protection for civil rights since, as we have just concluded, § 1983 does not provide any substantive rights at all. To be sure, it may be argued that § 1983 does in some sense “provid[e] for the protection of civil rights” when it authorizes a cause of action based on the deprivation of civil rights guaranteed by other Acts of Congress. But in such cases, there is no question as to jurisdiction, and no need to invoke § 1983 to meet the “civil rights” requirement of § 1343 (4); the Act of Congress which is the actual substantive basis of the suit clearly suffices to meet the requisite test. It is only when the underlying statute is no t a civil rights Act that § 1983 need be invoked by those in claimants’ position to support jurisdiction. And in such cases, by hypothesis, § 1983 does not “provid[e] for the protection of civil rights.”
To construe § 1343 (4), moreover, as encompassing all federal statutory suits, as claimants here propose, would seem plainly inconsistent with the congressional intent in passing that statute. As noted earlier, the provision’s primary purpose was to ensure federal-court jurisdiction oyer suits which the bill authorized the Attorney General to bring against conspiracies to deprive individuals of the civil rights enumerated in 42 U. S. C. § 1985. The statute, of course, is broader than that: It encompasses suits brought by private individuals as well, and thus retained some significance even after the provisions authorizing suit by the Attorney General were defeated. But to the extent that § 1343 (4) was thought to expand existing federal jurisdiction, it was only because it does not require that the claimed deprivation be “under color of any State law.” One would expect that if Congress sought not only to eliminate any state-action requirement but also to allow jurisdiction without respect to the amount in controversy for claims which in fact have nothing to do with “civil rights/’ there would be some indication of such an intent. But there is none, either in the legislative history or in the words of the statute itself.
3. The Social Security Act
It follows from what we have said thus far that § 1343 does not confer federal jurisdiction over the claims based on the Social Security Act unless that Act may fairly be characterized as a statute securing “equal rights” within § 1343 (3) or “civil rights” within § 1343 (4). The Social Security Act provisions at issue here authorize federal assistance to participating States in the provision of a wide range of monetary benefits to needy individuals, including emergency assistance and payments necessary to provide food and shelter. Arguably, a statute that is intended to provide at least a minimum level of subsistence for all individuals could be regarded as securing either “equal rights” or “civil rights.” We are persuaded, however, that both of these terms have a more restrictive meaning as used in the jurisdictional statute.
The Social Security Act does not deal with the concept of “equality” or with the guarantee of “civil rights,” as those terms are commonly understood. The Congress that enacted § 1343 (3) was primarily concerned with providing jurisdiction for cases dealing with racial equality; the Congress that enacted § 1343 (4) was primarily concerned with providing jurisdiction for actions dealing with the civil rights enumerated in 42 U. S. C. § 1985, and most notably the right to vote. While the words of these statutes are not limited to the precise claims which motivated their passage, it is inappropriate to read the jurisdictional provisions to encompass new claims which fall well outside the common understanding of their terms.
Our conclusion that the Social Security Act does not fall within the terms of either § 1343 (3) or (4) is supported by this Court’s construction of similar phrases in the removal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1443. The removal statute makes reference to “any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens” and “any law providing for equal rights.” In construing these phrases in Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U. S. 780, this Court concluded:
“The present language ‘any law providing for... equal civil rights’ first appeared in § 641 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. When the Revised Statutes were compiled, the substantive and removal provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were carried forward in separate sections. Hence, Congress could no longer identify the rights for which removal was available by using the language of the original Civil Rights Act — ‘rights secured to them by the first section of this act.’ The new language it chose, however, does not suggest that it intended to limit the scope of removal to rights recognized in statutes existing in 1874. On the contrary, Congress’ choice of the open-ended phrase ‘any law providing for... equal civil rights’ was clearly appropriate to permit removal in cases involving ‘a right under’ both existing and future statutes that provided for equal civil rights.
“There is no substantial indication, however, that the general language of § 641 of the Revised Statutes was intended to expand the kinds of ‘law’ to which the removal section referred. In spite of the potential breadth of the phrase ‘any law providing for... equal civil rights,’ it seems clear that in enacting § 641, Congress intended in that phrase only to include laws comparable in nature to the Civil Rights Act of 1866....
“... As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has concluded, § 1443 ‘applies only to rights that are granted in terms of equality and not to the whole gamut of constitutional rights....’ ‘When the removal statute speaks of “any law providing for equal rights,” it refers to those laws that are couched in terms of equality, such as the historic and the recent equal rights statutes, as distinguished from laws, of which the due process clause and 42 U. S. C. § 1983 are sufficient examples, that confer equal rights in the sense, vital to our way of life, of bestowing them upon all.’ New York v. Galamison, 342 F. 2d 255, 269, 271. See also Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565, 585-586; Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1, 39-40; City of Greenwood v. Peacock, [384 U. S. 808,] 825.” Id., at 789-790, 792 (footnotes omitted).
In accord with Georgia v. Rachel, the Courts of Appeals have consistently held that the Social Security Act is not a statute providing for “equal rights.” See Andrews v. Maher, 525 F. 2d 113 (CA2 1975); Aguayo v. Richardson, 473 F. 2d 1090, 1101 (CA2 1973), cert. denied sub nom. Aguayo v. Weinberger, 414 U. S. 1146 (1974). We endorse those holdings, and find that a similar conclusion is warranted with respect to § 1343 (4) as well. See McCall v. Shapiro, 416 F. 2d 246, 249 (CA2 1969).
We therefore hold that the District Court did not have jurisdiction in either of these cases. Accordingly, the judgment in No. 77-5324 is affirmed, and the judgment in No. 77-719 is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
“(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
“(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.” 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4).
Jurisdiction under § 1343 (4), it should be noted, is not limited to actions against state officials or individuals acting under color of state law.
§ 206, 81 Stat. 893; see 42 U. S. C. § 606 (e) (1). The program is fully described in Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725.
“[Petitioner] resides with her two children in Jersey City, New Jersey. Each month, she receives $235.00 under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., as well as $157.00 under the Social Security Administration’s disability program for her one retarded son. On February 2, 1976, Gonzalez received and cashed both checks at a neighborhood food market. Upon leaving the store, she was accosted by a robber who stole the cash. The following day she explained her situation to the Hudson County Welfare Board, requesting $163.00 in emergency assistance funds to cover her rent and utility bills.” 560 F. 2d 160, 163 (CA3 1977).
“When because of an emergent situation over which they have had no control or opportunity to plan in advance, the eligible unit is in a state of homelessness; and the County Welfare Board determines that the providing of shelter and/or food and/or emergency clothing, and/or minimum essential house furnishings are necessary for health and safety, such needs may be recognized in accordance with the regulations and limitations in the following sections.” N. J. Admin. Code § 10:82-5.12 (1976).
Section 406 (e)(1), as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 606 (e)(1), provides:
“The term 'emergency assistance to needy families with children' means any of the following, furnished for a period not in excess of 30 days in any 12-month period, in the ease of a needy child under the age of 21 who is (or, within such period as may be specified by the Secretary, has been) living with any of the relatives specified in subsection (a) (1) of this section in a place of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives as his or their own home, but only where such child is without available resources, the payments, care, or services involved are necessary to avoid destitution of such child or to provide living arrangements in a home for such child, and such destitution or need for living arrangements did not arise because such child or relative refused without good cause to accept employment or training for employment—
“(A) money payments, payments in kind, or such other payments as the State agency may specify with respect to, or medical care or any other type of remedial care recognized under State law on behalf of, such child or any other member of the household in which he is living, and “(B) such services as may be specified by the Secretary;
“but only with respect to a State whose State plan approved under section 602 of this title includes provision for such assistance.”
418 F. Supp. 566, 569 (1976).
Section 1983 provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
Article VI, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution provides:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
560 F. 2d, at 169.
Section 1331 (a) provides:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, except that no such sum or value shall be required in any such action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.”
See, e. g., King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309; Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282.
45 CFR, §§ 233.20 (a) (3) (ii) (C), 233.90 (a) (1974).
Houston Welfare Rights Org. v. Vowell, 391 F. Supp. 223 (1975).
Houston Welfare Rights Org. v. Vowell, 555 F. 2d 1219 (1977).
It will be noted that the Court of Appeals did not hold that the Social Security Act was itself an Act of Congress of the kind described in the jurisdictional statute.
The first section of “An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes” reads as follows:
“That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law* statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress; such proceeding to be prosecuted in the several district or circuit courts of the United States, with and subject to the same -rights of appeal, review upon error, and other remedies provided in like cases in such courts, under the provisions of the act of the ninth of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, entitled ‘An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means of their vindication’; and the other remedial laws of the United States which are in their nature applicable in such cases.” 17 Stat. 13.
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Rev. Stat. § 1979.
Subparagraph “Twelfth” of § 563 authorized district court jurisdiction “[o]f all suits at law or in equity authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law of the United States to persons within the jurisdiction thereof.”
Subparagraph “Sixteenth” of § 629 granted the circuit courts original jurisdiction “[o]f all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent Demko, a federal prisoner, was seriously injured in 1962 in the performance of an assigned prison task in a federal penitentiary. Shortly afterward he filed a claim for compensation benefits under 18 U. S. C. § 4126. That law, first enacted by Congress in 1934, authorized the Federal Prison Industries, Inc., a federal corporation, to use its funds “in paying, under rules and regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, compensation ... to inmates or their dependents for injuries suffered in any industry.” Under that law and regulations promulgated under it, respondent was awarded $180 per month which was to start on discharge from prison and continue so long as disability continued. After winning this compensation award, respondent brought this action against the United States in the Federal District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that his injury was due to the Government’s negligence for which he was entitled to recover additional damages under that Act. The United States defended on the single ground that respondent’s right to recover compensation under 18 U. S. C. § 4126 was his exclusive remedy against the Government barring him from any suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The District Court, holding that compensation under 18 U. S. C. § 4126 was not his exclusive remedy, rejected this defense and accordingly entered a judgment for the respondent against the United States for tort claim damages based on stipulated facts. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. 350 F. 2d 698. Subsequently the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Granade v. United States, 356 F. 2d 837, reached precisely the opposite result, holding that a prison inmate, injured in prison employment and eligible for compensation under 18 U. S. C. § 4126, is precluded from suing under the Federal Tort Claims Act. To resolve this conflict we granted certiorari. 383 U. S. 966.
Historically, workmen’s compensation statutes were the offspring of a desire to give injured workers a quicker and more certain recovery than can be obtained from tort suits based on negligence and subject to common-law defenses to such suits. Thus compensation laws are practically always thought of as substitutes for, not supplements to, common-law tort actions. A series of comparatively recent cases in this Court has recognized this historic truth and ruled accordingly. Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427, and Patterson v. United States, 359 U. S. 495, for instance, are typical of the recognition by this Court that the right of recovery granted groups of workers covered by such compensation laws is exclusive. Such rulings of this Court have established as a general rule the exclusivity of remedy under such compensation laws. In Johansen v. United States, supra, at 441, this Court stated that where “the Government has created a comprehensive system to award payments for injuries, it should not be held to. have made exceptions to that system without specific legislation to that effect.” Later in Patterson v. United States, supra, at 496, this Court emphatically refused to abandon the Johansen ruling, calling attention to the fact that Congress by specific statute could change the Johansen “policy at any time.” Consequently we decide this case on the Johansen principle that, where there is a compensation statute that reasonably and fairly covers a particular group of workers, it presumably is the exclusive remedy to protect that group.
There is no indication of any congressional purpose to make the compensation statute in 18 U. S. C. § 4126 nonexclusive. It was enacted in 1934, and provided for injured federal prisoners the only chance they had to recover damages of any kind. Its enactment was 12 years prior to the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act. There is nothing in the legislative history of this latter Act which pointed to any purpose to add tort claim recovery for federal prisoners after they had already been protected by 18 U. S. C. § 4126. Indeed to hold that the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act was designed to have such a supplemental effect would be to hold that injured prisoners are given greater protection than all other government employees who are protected exclusively by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, a congressional purpose not easy to infer.
The court below refused to accept the prison compensation law as an exclusive remedy because it was deemed not comprehensive enough. We disagree. That law, as shown by its regulations, its coverage and the amount of its payments to the injured and their dependents, compares favorably with compensation laws all over the country. While there are differences in the way it protects its beneficiaries, these are due in the main to the differing circumstances of prisoners and nonprisoners. That law, as the Solicitor General points out, offers far more liberal payments than many of the state compensation laws, and its standard of payments for prisoners rests on the schedules of payment of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act which Congress has provided to take care of practically all government employees. This particular federal compensation law, created to meet, in the accepted fashion of such laws, the special need of a class of prisoners, has now for more than 30 years functioned to the satisfaction of Congress, except as Congress broadened its coverage in 1961. Until Congress decides differently we accept the prison compensation law as an adequate substitute for a system of recovery by common-law torts.
The court below was of the opinion that its holding was required by United States v. Muniz, 374 U. S. 150. We think not. Whether a prisoner covered by the prison compensation law could also recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act was neither an issue in nor decided by Muniz. As our opinion in Muniz noted, neither of the two prisoners there was covered by the prison compensation law. What we decided in Muniz was that the two prisoners there involved, who were not protected by the prison compensation law, were not barred from seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, that is not this case. The decision in Muniz could not possibly control our decision here because respondent is protected by the prison compensation law. All other arguments of respondent have been considered but we find none sufficient to justify recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The judgments of the courts. below are reversed with direction to sustain the Government’s defense that respondent’s recovery under the prison compensation law is exclusive.
Reversed.
Act of June 23, 1934, c. 736, §4, 48 Stat. 1211. The Federal Prison Industries was established as a District of Columbia corporation and a “governmental body” to expand an industrial training and rehabilitation program for prisoners initiated by the Act of May 27, 1930, c. 340, 46 Stat. 391.
On August 1, 1966, Federal Prison Industries, Inc., raised respondent’s award to $245.31 per month under authority of the Act of July 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 252, amending the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 39 Stat. 742, as amended, 5 U. S. C. § 751 et seq.
28 U. S. C. §§.1346 (b), 2671 et seq.
The lower federal courts have held, uniformly, that persons for whom the Government has supplied an administrative compensation remedy are precluded from seeking recovery against the United States for injuries received in the course of their work under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Jones Act, the Suits in Admiralty Act, or the Public Vessels Act. Jarvis v. United States, 342 F. 2d 799, cert. denied, 382 U. S. 831; Rizzuto v. United States, 298 F. 2d 748; Lowe v. United States, 292 F. 2d 501; Somma v. United States, 283 F. 2d 149; Mills v. Panama Canal Co., 272 F. 2d 37, cert. denied, 362 U. S. 961; United States v. Forfari, 268 F. 2d 29, cert. denied, 361 U. S. 902; Balancio v. United States, 267 F. 2d 135, cert. denied, 361 U. S. 875; Aubrey v. United States, 103 U. S. App. D. C. 65, 254 F. 2d 768; United States v. Firth, 207 F. 2d 665; Lewis v. United States, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 21, 190 F. 2d 22, cert. denied, 342 U. S. 869. See also Gradall v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 714, 329 F. 2d 960, 963; Denenberg v. United States, 158 Ct. Cl. 401, 305 F. 2d 378, 379-380.
39 Stat. 742, as amended, 5 U. S. C. § 751 et seq.
The regulations governing awards of workmen’s compensation to federal prisoners appear at 28 CFR §§301.1-301.10 (1965 rev.).
In 1961 Congress expanded the coverage of 18 U. S. C. § 4126 to include not only prisoners’ injuries suffered in “any industry” but also in “any work activity in connection with the maintenance or operation of the institution where confined.” Act of September 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 681, 18 ü. S. C. § 4126.
In this case, the Government stipulated that respondent’s “right to compensation pursuant to 18 U. S. C. [§]4126 is not affected by this suit. Regardless of the outcome of this suit [respondent] will have the same right to compensation as if suit had not been instituted.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Brennan, and Justice O’Connor join.
The question in this case is whether the California Public Utilities Commission may require a privately owned utility company to include in its billing envelopes speech of a third party with which the utility disagrees.
I — I
For the past 62 years, appellant Pacific Gas and Electric Company has distributed a newsletter in its monthly billing envelope. Appellant’s newsletter, called Progress, reaches over three million customers. It has included political editorials, feature stories on matters of public interest, tips on energy conservation, and straightforward information about utility services and bills. App. to Juris. Statement A-66, A-183 to A-190.
In 1980, appellee Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN), an intervenor in a ratemaking proceeding before California’s Public Utilities Commission, another appellee, urged the Commission to forbid appellant to use the billing envelopes to distribute political editorials, on the ground that appellant’s customers should not bear the expense of appellant’s own political speech. Id., at A-2. The Commission decided that the envelope space that appellant had used to disseminate Progress is the property of the ratepayers. Id., at A-2 to A-3. This “extra space” was defined as “the space remaining in the billing envelope, after inclusion of the monthly bill and any required legal notices, for inclusion of other materials up to such total envelope weight as would not result in any additional postage cost.” Ibid.
In an effort to apportion this “extra space” between appellant and its customers, the Commission permitted TURN to use the “extra space” four times a year for the next two years. During these months, appellant may use any space not used by TURN, and it may include additional materials if it pays any extra postage. The Commission found that TURN has represented the interests of “a significant group” of appellant’s residential customers, id., at A-15, and has aided the Commission in performing its regulatory function, id., at A-49 to A-50. Consequently, the Commission determined that ratepayers would benefit from permitting TURN to use the extra space in the billing envelopes to raise funds and to communicate with ratepayers: “Our goal ... is to change the present system to one which uses the extra space more efficiently for the ratepayers’ benefit. It is reasonable to assume that the ratepayers will benefit more from exposure to a variety of views than they will from only that of PG&E.” Id., at A-17. The Commission concluded that appellant could have no interest in excluding TURN’S message from the billing envelope since appellant does not own the space that message would fill. Id., at A-23. The Commission placed no limitations on what TURN or appellant could say in the envelope, except that TURN is required to state that its messages are not those of appellant. Id., at A-17 to A-18. The Commission reserved the right to grant other groups access to the envelopes in the future. Ibid.
Appellant appealed the Commission’s order to the California Supreme Court, arguing that it has a First Amendment right not to help spread a message with which it disagrees, see Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 (1977), and that the Commission’s order infringes that right. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. We noted probable jurisdiction, 470 U. S. 1083 (1985), and now reverse.
II
The constitutional guarantee of free speech “serves significant societal interests” wholly apart from the speaker’s interest in self-expression. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776 (1978). By protecting those who wish, to enter the marketplace of ideas from government attack, the First Amendment protects the public’s interest in receiving information. See Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 102 (1940); Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843, 863-864 (1974) (Powell, J., dissenting). The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the “discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas” that the First Amendment seeks to foster. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, at 783 (citations omitted). Thus, in Bellotti, we invalidated a state prohibition aimed at speech by corporations that sought to influence the outcome of a state referendum. 435 U. S., at 795. Similarly, in Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530, 544 (1980), we invalidated a state order prohibiting a privately owned utility company from discussing controversial political issues in its billing envelopes. In both cases, the critical considerations were that the State sought to abridge speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect, and that such prohibitions limited the range of information and ideas to which the public is exposed. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, at 776-778, 781-783; Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., supra, at 533-535.
There is no doubt that under these principles appellant’s newsletter Progress receives the full protection of the First Amendment. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 452 (1938). In appearance no different from a small newspaper, Progress’ contents range from energy-saving tips to stories about wildlife conservation, and from billing information to recipes. App. to Juris. Statement A-183 to A-190 extends well beyond speech that proposes a business transaction, see Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U. S. 626, 637 (1985); Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 561-563 (1980), and includes the kind of discussion of “matters of public concern” that the First Amendment both fully protects and implicitly encourages. Thornhill v. Alabama, supra, at 101.
The Commission recognized as much, but concluded that requiring appellant to disseminate TURN’S views did not infringe upon First Amendment rights. It reasoned that appellant remains free to mail its own newsletter except for the four months in which TURN is given access. The Commission’s conclusion necessarily rests on one of two premises: (i) compelling appellant to grant TURN access to a hitherto private forum does not infringe appellant’s right to speak; or (n) appellant has no property interest in the relevant forum and therefore has no constitutionally protected right in restricting access to it. We now examine those propositions.
HH I — I I — I
Compelled access like that ordered in this case both penalizes the expression of particular points of view and forces speakers to alter their speech to conform with an agenda they do not set. These impermissible effects are not remedied by the Commission’s definition of the relevant property rights.
A
This Court has previously considered the question whether compelling a private corporation to provide a forum for views other than its own may infringe the corporation’s freedom of speech. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); see also PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74, 85-88 (1980); id., at 98-100 (Powell, J., joined by White, J., concurring in part and in judgment). Tornillo involved a challenge to Florida’s right-of-reply statute. The Florida law provided that, if a newspaper assailed a candidate’s character or record, the candidate could demand that the newspaper print a reply of equal prominence and space. 418 U. S., at 244-245, and n. 2.
We found that the right-of-reply statute directly interfered with the newspaper’s right to speak in two ways. Id., at 256. First, the newspaper’s expression of a particular viewpoint triggered an obligation to permit other speakers, with whom the newspaper disagreed, to use the newspaper’s facilities to spread their own message. The statute purported to advance free discussion, but its effect was to deter newspapers from speaking out in the first instance: by forcing the newspaper to disseminate opponents’ views, the statute penalized the newspaper’s own expression. We therefore concluded that a “[g]overnment-enforced right of access inescapably ‘dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.’” Id., at 257 (emphasis added) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 279 (1963).
Second, we noted that the newspaper’s “treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute[s] the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” 418 U. S., at 258. Florida’s statute interfered with this “editorial control and judgment” by forcing the newspaper to tailor its speech to an opponent’s agenda, and to respond to candidates’ arguments where the newspaper might prefer to be silent. Cf. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S., at 714; West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633-634 (1943). Since all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid, this effect was impermissible. As we stated last Term: “‘The essential thrust of the First Amendment is to prohibit improper restraints on the voluntary public expression of ideas. . . . There is necessarily .. . a concomitant freedom not to speak publicly, one which serves the same ultimate end as freedom of speech in its affirmative aspect.’” Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 524, 559 (1985) (quoting Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, 23 N. Y. 2d 341, 348, 244 N. E. 2d 250, 255 (1968)) (emphasis in original). See PruneYard, supra, at 99-100 (opinion of Powell, J.).
The concerns that caused us to invalidate the compelled access rule in Tomillo apply to appellant as well as to the institutional press. See First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 782-784. Cf. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S., at 452. Just as the State is not free to “tell a newspaper in advance what it can print and what it cannot,” Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. 376, 400 (1973) (Stewart, J., dissenting); see also PruneYard, supra, at 88, the State is not free either to restrict appellant’s speech to certain topics or views or to force appellant to respond to views that others may hold. Consolidated Edi son Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S., at 533-535. See PruneYard, 447 U. S., at 100 (opinion of Powell, J.); Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209, 241 (1977). Under Tomillo a forced access rule that would accomplish these purposes indirectly is similarly forbidden.
The Court’s decision in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, supra, is not to the contrary. In PruneYard, a shopping center owner sought to deny access to a group of students who wished to hand out pamphlets in the shopping center’s common area. The California Supreme Court held that the students’ access was protected by the State Constitution; the shopping center owner argued that this ruling violated his First Amendment rights. This Court held that the shopping center did not have a constitutionally protected right to exclude the pamphleteers from the area open to the public at large. Id., at 88. Notably absent from PruneYard was any concern that access to this area might affect the shopping center owner’s exercise of his own right to speak: the owner did not even allege that he objected to the content of the pamphlets; nor was the access right content based. PruneYard thus does not undercut the proposition that forced associations that burden protected speech are impermissible.
B
The Commission’s order is inconsistent with these principles. The order does not simply award access to the public at large; rather, it discriminates on the basis of the viewpoints of the selected speakers. Two of the acknowledged purposes of the access order are to offer the public a greater variety of views in appellant’s billing envelope, and to assist groups (such as TURN) that challenge appellant in the Commission’s ratemaking proceedings in raising funds. App. to Juris. Statement A-16 to A-17. Access to the envelopes thus is not content neutral. The variety of views that the Commission seeks to foster cannot be obtained by including speakers whose speech agrees with appellant’s. Similarly, the perceived need to raise funds to finance participation in ratemaking proceedings exists only where the relevant groups represent interests that diverge from appellant’s interests. Access is limited to persons or groups— such as TURN — who disagree with appellant’s views as expressed in Progress and who oppose appellant in Commission proceedings.
Such one-sidedness impermissibly burdens appellant’s own expression. Tornillo illustrates the point. Access to the newspaper in that case was content based in two senses: (i) it was triggered by a particular category of newspaper speech, and (ii) it was awarded only to those who disagreed with the newspaper’s views. The Commission’s order is not, in Tor-nillo’s words, a “content-based penalty” in the first sense, because TURN’S access to appellant’s envelopes is not conditioned on any particular expression by appellant. Cf. Tornillo, 418 U. S., at 256. But because access is awarded only to those who disagree with appellant’s views and who are hostile to appellant’s interests, appellant must contend with the fact that whenever it speaks out on a given issue, it may be forced — at TURN’S discretion — to help disseminate hostile views. Appellant “might well conclude” that, under these circumstances, “the safe course is to avoid controversy,” thereby reducing the free flow of information and ideas that the First Amendment seeks to promote. Id., at 257.
Appellant does not, of course, have the right to be free from vigorous debate. But it does have the right to be free from government restrictions that abridge its own rights in order to “enhance the relative voice” of its opponents. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 49, and n. 55 (1976). The Commission’s order requires appellant to assist in disseminating TURN’S views; it does not equally constrain both sides of the debate about utility regulation. This kind of favoritism goes well beyond the fundamentally content-neutral subsidies that we sustained in Buckley and in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U. S. 540 (1988). See Buckley, supra at 97-105 (sustaining funding of general election campaign expenses of major party candidates); Regan, supra, at 546-550 (sustaining tax deduction for contributors to veterans’ organizations). Unlike these permissible government subsidies of speech, the Commission’s order identifies a favored speaker “based on the identity of the interests that [the speaker] may represent,” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 784, and forces the speaker’s opponent — not the taxpaying public — to assist in disseminating the speaker’s message. Such a requirement necessarily burdens the expression of the disfavored speaker.
The Commission’s access order also impermissibly requires appellant to associate with speech with which appellant may disagree. The order on its face leaves TURN free to use the billing envelopes to discuss any issues it chooses. Should TURN choose, for example, to urge appellant’s customers to vote for a particular slate of legislative candidates, or to argue in favor of legislation that could seriously affect the utility business, appellant may be forced either to appear to agree with TURN’S views or to respond. PruneYard, 447 U. S., at 98-100 (opinion of Powell, J.). This pressure to respond “is particularly apparent when the owner has taken a position opposed to the view being expressed on his property.” Id., at 100. Especially since TURN has been given access in part to create a multiplicity of views in the envelopes, there can be little doubt that appellant will feel compelled to respond to arguments and allegations made by TURN in its messages to appellant’s customers.
That kind of forced response is antithetical to the free discussion that the First Amendment seeks to foster. Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 559. See also Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S., at 714. For corporations as for individuals, the choice to speak includes within it the choice of what not to say. Tornillo, supra, at 258. And we have held that speech does not lose its protection because of the corporate identity of the speaker. Bellotti, supra, at 777; Consolidated Edison, 447 U. S., at 533. Were the government freely able to compel corporate speakers to propound political messages with which they disagree, this protection would be empty, for the government could require speakers to affirm in one breath that which they deny in the next. It is therefore incorrect to say, as do appellees, that our decisions do not limit the government’s authority to compel speech by corporations. The danger that appellant will be required to alter its own message as a consequence of the government’s coercive action is a proper object of First Amendment solicitude, because the message itself is protected under our decisions in Bellotti and Consolidated Edison. Where, as in this case, the danger is one that arises from a content-based grant of access to private property, it is a danger that the government may not impose absent a compelling interest.
C
The Commission has emphasized that appellant’s customers own the “extra space” in the billing envelopes. App. to Juris. Statement A-64 to A-66. According to appellees, it follows that appellant cannot have a constitutionally protected interest in restricting.access to the envelopes. This argument misperceives both the relevant property rights and the nature of the State’s First Amendment violation.
The Commission expressly declined to hold that under California law appellant’s customers own the entire billing envelopes and everything contained therein. Id., at A-2 to A-3. It decided only that the ratepayers own the “extra space” in the envelope, defined as that space left over after including the bill and required notices, up to a weight of one ounce. Ibid. The envelopes themselves, the bills, and Progress all remain appellant’s property. The Commission’s access order thus clearly requires appellant to use its property as a vehicle for spreading a message with which it disagrees. In Wooley v. Maynard, we held that New Hampshire could not require two citizens to display a slogan on their license plates and thereby “use their private property as a ‘mobile billboard’ for the State’s ideological message.” 430 U. S., at 715. The “private property” that was used to spread the unwelcome message was the automobile, not the license plates. Similarly, the Commission’s order requires appellant to use its property — the billing envelopes — to distribute the message of another. This is so whoever is deemed to own the “extra space.”
A different conclusion would necessarily imply that our decision in Tornillo rested on the Miami Herald’s ownership of the space that would have been used to print candidate replies. Nothing in Tornillo suggests that the result would have been different had the Florida Supreme Court decided that the newspaper space needed to print candidates’ replies was the property of the newspaper’s readers, or had the court ordered the Miami Herald to distribute inserts owned and prepared by the candidates together with its newspapers. The constitutional difficulty with the right-of-reply statute was that it required the newspaper to disseminate a message with which the newspaper disagreed. This difficulty did not depend on whether the particular paper on which the replies were printed belonged to the newspaper or to the candidate.
Appellees’ argument suffers from the same constitutional defect. The Commission’s order forces appellant to disseminate TURN’S speech in envelopes that appellant owns and that bear appellant’s return address. Such forced association with potentially hostile views burdens the expression of views different from TURN’S and risks forcing appellant to speak where it would prefer to remain silent. Those effects do not depend on who “owns” the “extra space.”
H <
Notwithstanding that it burdens protected speech, the Commission’s order could be valid if it were a narrowly tailored means of serving a compelling state interest. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S., at 535; First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 786. Appellees argue that the access order does in fact further compelling state interests. In the alternative, appellees argue that the order is a permissible time, place, or manner restriction. We consider these arguments in turn.
A
Appellees identify two assertedly compelling state interests that the access order is said to advance. First, appel-lees argue that the order furthers the State’s interest in effective ratemaking proceedings. TURN has been a regular participant in those proceedings, and the Commission found that TURN has aided the Commission in performing its regulatory task. Appellees argue that the access order permits TURN to continue to help the Commission by assisting TURN in raising funds from the ratepayers whose interest TURN seeks to serve.
The State’s interest in fair and effective utility regulation may be compelling. The difficulty with appellees’ argument is that the State can serve that interest through means that would not violate appellant’s First Amendment rights, such as awarding costs and fees. The State’s interest may justify imposing on appellant the reasonable expenses of responsible groups that represent the public interest at ratemaking proceedings. But “we find ‘no substantially relevant correlation between the governmental interest asserted and the State’s effort’” to compel appellant to distribute TURN’S speech in appellant’s envelopes. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, at 795 (quoting Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 485 (1960)).
Second, appellees argue that the order furthers the State’s interest in promoting speech by making a variety of views available to appellant’s customers. Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 92-93, and n. 127. We have noted above that this interest is not furthered by an order that is not content neutral. Moreover, the means chosen to advance variety tend to inhibit expression of appellant’s views in order to promote TURN’S. Our cases establish that the State cannot advance some points of view by burdening the expression of others. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, at 785-786; Buckley v. Valeo, supra, at 48-49. It follows that the Commission’s order is not a narrowly tailored means of furthering this interest.
B
Appellees argue, finally, that the Commission’s order is a permissible time, place, or manner regulation, since it “serve[s] a significant governmental interest and leave[s] ample alternative channels for communication.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., supra, at 535; see also Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976). For a time, place, or manner regulation to be valid, it must be neutral as to the content of the speech to be regulated. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984); see also Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 210-212 (1975). As we have shown, the State’s asserted interest in exposing appellant’s customers to a variety of viewpoints is not — and does not purport to be— content neutral.
V
We conclude that the Commission’s order impermissibly burdens appellant’s First Amendment rights because it forces appellant to associate with the views of other speakers, and because it selects the other speakers on the basis of their viewpoints. The order is not a narrowly tailored means of farthering a compelling state interest, and it is not a valid time, place, or manner regulation.
For these reasons, the decision of the California Public Utilities Commission must be vacated. The case is remanded to the California Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
For example, the December 1984 issue of Progress included a story on appellant’s “automatic payment” and “balanced payment” plans, an article instructing ratepayers on how to weatherstrip their homes, recipes for holiday dishes, and a feature on appellant’s efforts to help bald eagles in the Pit River area of California. App. to Juris. Statement A-183 to A-190. When the Commission first addressed the question whether appellant could continue to have exclusive access to its billing envelopes, it noted that Progress has previously discussed the merits of recently passed and pending legislation in Congress. Id,., at A-66.
In addition to TURN and the Commission, there are five other ap-pellees: Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of California, Common Cause of California, California Public Interest Research Group, and California Association of Utility Shareholders. Only TURN claims a direct interest in the outcome of this ease; the other appellees appear to be inter-venors concerned only with this case’s precedential effects.
The Commission summarized its reasoning as follows:
“[E]nvelope and postage costs and any other costs of mailing bills are a necessary part of providing utility service to the customer .... However, due to the nature of postal rates . . . extra space exists in these billing envelopes. . . . Mindful that the extra space is an artifact generated with ratepayer funds, and is not an intended or necessary item of rate base, and that the only alternative treatment would unjustly enrich PG&E and simultaneously deprive the ratepayers of the value of that space, we concluded that the extra space in the billing envelope ‘is properly considered as ratepayer property.’ ” Id., at A-3.
Commissioners Bagley and Calvo dissented from the Commission’s decision to grant TURN access to the billing envelopes. Commissioner Bagley argued that the Commission’s order had potentially sweeping consequences for various kinds of property interests:
“The face of every utility-owned dam, the side of every building, the surface of every gas holder rising above our cities, and the bumpers of every utility vehicle — to name just a few relevant examples — have ‘excess space’ and ‘economic advertising value.’ Some utility corporations place bumper-strip messages on their vehicles. Buses and trucks regularly carry advertising messages. In the words of the majority at page 23 of the decision, ‘It is reasonable to assume that the ratepayers will benefit from exposure to a variety of views. . . .’ Is it the postulate of this Commission, flowing from the decision’s stated premise . . . that ratepayers would benefit from exposure to some particular socially desirable message from some ratepayer group making use of any or all such areas of excess valuable space?” Id., at A-40.
Commissioner Bagley also argued that the Commission’s decision would require the Commission to make forbidden content-based distinctions in order to allocate the extra space among competing speakers. Id., at A-41. Commissioner Calvo contended, first, that the order infringed appellant’s First Amendment rights, and, second, that it was unnecessary because “TURN has other opportunities to reach its natural audience.” Id., at A-56. Commissioner Calvo noted that the Commission often awarded TURN and similar groups fees for their participation in ratemaking proceedings, funds that presumably could finance separate mailings. Ibid.
The Commission has already denied access to at least one group based on the content of its speech. The Commission denied the application of a taxpayer group — the Committee of More than One Million Taxpayers to Save Proposition 13— on the ground that that group neither wished to participate in Commission proceedings nor alleged that its use of the billing envelope space would improve consumer participation in those proceedings. Id., at A-157 to A-164. The record does not reveal whether any other groups have sought access to the billing envelopes.
This Court has sustained a limited government-enforced right of access to broadcast media. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969). Cf. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94 (1973). Appellant’s billing envelopes do not, however, present the same constraints that justify the result in Red Lion: “[A] broadcaster communicates through use of a scarce, publicly owned resource. No person can broadcast without a license, whereas all persons are free to send correspondence to private homes through the mails.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530, 543 (1980).
Unlike the right-of-reply statute at issue in Tomillo, the Commission’s order does not require appellant to place TURN’S message in appellant’s newsletter. Instead, the Commission ordered appellant to place TURN’S message in appellant’s envelope four months out of the year. Like the Miami Herald, however, appellant is still required to carry speech with which it disagreed, and might well feel compelled to reply or limit its own speech in response to TURN’S.
The Court’s opinion in Tomillo emphasizes that the right-of-reply statute impermissibly deterred protected speech. 418 U. S., at 256-257. In the last paragraph of the opinion, the Court concluded that an independent ground for invalidating the statute was its effect on editors’ allocation of scarce newspaper space. Id., at 258. See also id., at 257, n. 22. That discussion in no way suggested that the State was free otherwise to burden the newspaper’s speech as long as the actual paper on which the newspaper was printed was not invaded.
In addition, the relevant forum in PruneYard was the open area of the shopping center into which the general public was invited. This area was, almost by definition, peculiarly public in nature. PruneYard, 447 U. S., at 83, 88. There is no correspondingly public aspect to appellant’s billing envelopes. See post, at 22-23 (MARSHALL, J., concurring in judgment).
This is folly borne out by the order that triggered this appeal. TURN, the only entity to receive access to appellant’s billing envelope, purports to represent the interest of a group of appellant’s customers: residential ratepayers. App. to Juris. Statement A-14. The Commission’s opinion plausibly assumes that the interest of residential ratepayers will often conflict with appellant’s interest. Id., at A-50.
Nor does the fact that TURN will use the envelopes to make fundraising appeals lessen the burden on appellant’s speech. Cf. post, at 36-37 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The Commission has “disavowed any intention of looking at the way that TURN solicits funds,” leaving TURN free to “speak and advocate its own position as best it can” in its billing envelope inserts. Tr. Oral Arg. 31-32, 39. Thus, while TURN’S advocacy may be aimed at convincing ratepayers to make donations, that goal does not alter the open-ended nature of the access awarded in this case, because it does not restrict the scope or content of TURN’S message. Cf. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640, 647 (1981).
Justice Stevens analogizes this aspect of the Commission’s order to Securities and Exchange Commission regulations that require management to transmit proposals of minority shareholders in shareholder mailings. Post, at 39-40. The analogy is inappropriate. The regulations Justice Stevens cites differ from the Commission’s order in two important ways. First, they allocate shareholder property between management and certain groups of shareholders. Management has no interest in corporate property except such interest as derives from the shareholders; therefore, regulations that limit management’s ability to exclude some shareholders’ views from corporate communications do not infringe corporate First Amendment rights. Second, the regulations govern speech by a corporation to itself. Bellotti and Consolidated Edison establish that the Constitution protects corporations’ right to speak to the public based on the informational value of corporate speech. Supra, at 8. Rules that define how corporations govern themselves do not limit the range of information that the corporation may contribute to the public debate. The Commission’s order, by contrast, burdens appellant’s right freely to speak to the public at large.
The presence of a disclaimer on TURN’S messages, see supra, at 7, does not suffice to eliminate the impermissible pressure on appellant to respond to TURN’S speech. The disclaimer serves only to avoid giving readers the mistaken impression that TURN’S words are really those of appellant. PruneYard, 447 U. S., at 99 (opinion of Powell, J.). It does nothing to reduce the risk that appellant will be forced to respond when there is strong disagreement with the substance of TURN’S message. Ibid.
The Commission’s order is thus readily distinguishable from orders requiring appellant to carry various legal notices, such as notices of upcoming Commission proceedings or of changes in the way rates are calculated. The State, of course, has substantial leeway in determining appropriate information disclosure requirements for business corporations. See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U. S. 626, 651 (1985). Nothing in Zauderer suggests, however, that the State is equally free to require corporations to carry the messages of third parties, where the messages themselves are biased against or are expressly contrary to the corporation’s views.
As we stated in Wooley, “[a] system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts.” 430 U. S., at 714.
Appellees also argue that appellant’s status as a regulated utility company lessens its right to be free from state regulation that burdens its speech. We have previously rejected this argument. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S., at 534, n. 1 (“Consolidated Edison’s position as a regulated monopoly does not decrease the informative value of its opinions on critical public matters”). See also Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 566-568 (1980).
As the dissenting Commissioners correctly noted, see n. 4, supra, ap-pellees’ argument logically implies that the State may compel appellant or any other regulated business to use many different kinds of property to advance views with which the business disagrees. “Extra space” exists not only in billing envelopes but also on billboards, bulletin boards, and sides of buildings and motor vehicles. Under the Commission’s reasoning, a State could force business proprietors of such items to use the space for the dissemination of speech the proprietor opposes. At least where access to such fora is granted on the basis of the speakers’ viewpoints, the public’s ownership of the “extra space” does not nullify the First Amendment rights of the owner of the property from which that space derives.
Indeed, the Commission already does this. See n. 4, supra (discussing Commissioner Calvo’s dissent).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An amendment to the Oregon Constitution prohibits judicial review of the amount of punitive damages awarded by a jury “unless the court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support the verdict.” The question presented is whether that prohibition is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that it is not.
I
Petitioner Honda Motor Co., Ltd., manufactured and sold the three-wheeled all-terrain vehicle that overturned while respondent was driving it, causing him severe and permanent injuries. Respondent brought suit alleging that petitioner knew or should have known that the vehicle had an inherently and unreasonably dangerous design. The jury found petitioner liable and awarded respondent $919,390.39 in compensatory damages and punitive damages of $5 million. The compensatory damages, however, were reduced by 20% to $735,512.31, because respondent’s own negligence contributed to the accident. On appeal, relying on our then-recent decision in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1 (1991), petitioner argued that the award of punitive damages violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the punitive damages were excessive and because Oregon courts lacked the power to correct excessive verdicts.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Oregon Supreme Court. The latter court relied heavily on the fact that the Oregon statute governing the award of punitive damages in product liability actions and the jury instructions in this case contain substantive criteria that provide at least as much guidance to the factfinders as the Alabama statute and jury instructions that we upheld in Haslip. The Oregon Supreme Court also noted that Oregon law provides an additional protection by requiring the plaintiff to prove entitlement to punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence rather than a mere preponderance. Recognizing that other state courts had interpreted Haslip as including a “clear... constitutional mandate for meaningful judicial scrutiny of punitive damage awards,” Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal. 3d 105, 118, 813 P. 2d 1348, 1356 (1991); see also Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Assocs., Inc., 88 Md. App. 672, 596 A. 2d 687 (1991), the court nevertheless declined to “interpret Haslip to hold that an award of punitive damages, to comport with the requirements of the Due Process Clause, always must be subject to a form of post-verdict or appellate review that includes the possibility of remittitur.” 316 Ore. 263, 284, 851 P. 2d 1084, 1096 (1993). It also noted that trial and appellate courts were “not entirely powerless” because a judgment may be vacated if “there is no evidence to support the jury’s decision,” and because “appellate review is available to test the sufficiency of the jury instructions.” Id., at 285, 851 P 2d, at 1096-1097.
We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1068 (1994), to consider whether Oregon’s limited judicial review of the. size of punitive damages awards is consistent with our decision in Haslip.
II
Our recent cases have recognized that the Constitution imposes a substantive limit on the size of punitive damages awards. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1 (1991); TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U. S. 443 (1993). Although they fail to “draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable,” id., at 458; Haslip, 499 U. S., at 18, a majority of the Justices agreed that the Due Process Clause imposes a limit on punitive damages awards. A plurality in TXO assented to the proposition that “grossly excessive” punitive damages would violate due process, 509 U. S., at 453-455, while Justice O’Connor, who dissented because she favored more rigorous standards, noted that “[i]t is thus common ground that an award may be so excessive as to violate due process,” id., at 480. In the case before us today we are not directly concerned with the character of the standard that will identify unconstitutionally excessive awards; rather, we are confronted with the question of what procedures are necessary to ensure that punitive damages are not imposed in an arbitrary manner. More specifically, the question is whether the Due Process Clause requires judicial review of the amount of punitive damages awards.
The opinions in both Haslip and TXO strongly emphasized the importance of the procedural component of the Due Process Clause. In Haslip, the Court held that the common-law method of assessing punitive damages did not violate procedural due process. In so holding, the Court stressed the availability of both “meaningful and adequate review by the trial court” and subsequent appellate review. 499 U. S., at 20. Similarly, in TXO, the plurality opinion found that the fact that the “award was reviewed and upheld by the trial judge” and unanimously affirmed on appeal gave rise “to a strong presumption of validity.” 509 U. S., at 457. Concurring in the judgment, Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) considered it sufficient that traditional common-law procedures were followed. In particular, he noted that “ ‘procedural due process’ requires judicial review of punitive damages awards for reasonableness.” Id., at 471.
All of those opinions suggest that our analysis in this case should focus on Oregon’s departure from traditional procedures. We therefore first contrast the relevant common-law practice with Oregon’s procedure, which that State’s Supreme Court once described as “a system of trial by jury in which the judge is reduced to the status of a mere monitor.” Van Lom v. Schneiderman, 187 Ore. 89, 113, 210 P. 2d 461, 471 (1949). We then examine the constitutional implications of Oregon’s deviation from established common-law procedures.
Ill
Judicial review of the size of punitive damages awards has been a safeguard against excessive verdicts for as long as punitive damages have been awarded. One of the earliest reported cases involving exemplary damages, Huckle v. Money, 2 Wils. 205, 95 Eng. Rep. 768 (C. P. 1763), arose out of King George Ill’s attempt to punish the publishers of the allegedly seditious North Briton, No. 45. The King’s agents arrested the plaintiff, a journeyman printer, in his home and detained him for six hours. Although the defendants treated the plaintiff rather well, feeding him “beef steakes and beer, so that he suffered very little or no damages,” 2 Wils., at 205, 95 Eng. Rep., at 768, the jury awarded him £300, an enormous sum almost 300 times the plaintiff’s weekly wage. The defendant’s lawyer requested a new trial, arguing that the jury’s award was excessive. Plaintiff’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that “in cases of tort... the court will never interpose in setting aside verdicts for excessive damages.” Id., at 206, 95 Eng. Rep., at 768. While the court denied the motion for new trial, the Chief Justice explicitly rejected plaintiff’s absolute rule against review of damages amounts. Instead, he noted that when the damages are “outrageous” and “all mankind at first blush must think so,” a court may grant a new trial “for excessive damages.” Id., at 207, 95 Eng. Rep., at 769. In accord with his view that the amount of an award was relevant to the motion for a new trial, the Chief Justice noted that “[u]pon the whole I am of opinion the damages are not excessive.” Ibid.
Subsequent English cases, while generally deferring to the jury’s determination of damages, steadfastly upheld the court’s power to order new trials solely on the basis that the damages were too high. Fabrigas v. Mostyn, 2 Black. W. 929, 96 Eng. Rep. 549 (C. R 1773) (Damages “may be so monstrous and excessive, as to be in themselves an evidence of passion or partiality in the jury”); Sharpe v. Brice, 2 Black. W. 942, 96 Eng. Rep. 557 (C. P. 1774) (“It has never been laid down, that the Court will not grant a new trial for excessive damages in any cases of tort”); Leith v. Pope, 2 Black. W. 1327, 1328, 96 Eng. Rep. 777, 778 (C. P. 1779) (“[I]n cases of tort the Court will not interpose on account of the largeness of damages, unless they are so flagrantly excessive as to afford an internal evidence of the prejudice and partiality of the jury”); Jones v. Sparrow, 5 T. R. 257, 101 Eng. Rep. 144 (K. B. 1793) (new trial granted for excessive damages); Goldsmith v. Lord Sefton, 3 Anst. 808, 145 Eng. Rep. 1046 (Exch. 1796) (same); Hewlett v. Cruchley, 5 Taunt. 277, 281, 128 Eng. Rep. 696, 698 (C. P. 1813) (“[I]t is now well acknowledged in all the Courts of Westminster-hall, that whether in actions for criminal conversation, malicious prosecutions, words, or any other matter, if the damages are clearly too large, the Courts will send the inquiry to another jury”).
Respondent calls to our attention the case of Beardmore v. Carrington, 2 Wils. 244, 95 Eng. Rep. 790 (C. P. 1764), in which the court asserted that “there is not one single case, (that is law), in all the books to be found, where the court has granted a new trial for excessive damages in actions for torts.” Id., at 249, 95 Eng. Rep., at 793. Respondent would infer from that statement that 18th-century common law did not provide for judicial review of damages. Respondent’s argument overlooks several crucial facts. First, the Beardmore case antedates all but one of the cases cited in the previous paragraph. Even if respondent’s interpretation of the case were correct, it would be an interpretation the English courts rejected soon thereafter. Second, Beardmore itself cites at least one case that it concedes granted a new trial for excessive damages, Chambers v. Robinson, 2 Str. 691, 93 Eng. Rep. 787 (K. B. 1726), although it characterizes the case as wrongly decided. Third, to say that “there is not one single case... in all the books” is to say very little, because then, much more so than now, only a small proportion of decided cases was reported. For example, for 1764, the year Beardmore was decided, only 16 Common Pleas cases are recorded in the standard reporter. 2 Wils. 208-257, 95 Eng. Rep. 769-797. Finally, the inference respondent would draw, that 18th-century English common law did not permit a judge to order new trials for excessive damages, is explicitly rejected by Beardmore itself, which cautioned against that very inference: “We desired to be understood that this court does not say, or lay down any rule that there can never happen a case of such excessive damages in tort where the court may not grant a new trial.” 2 Wils., at 250, 95 Eng. Rep., at 793.
Common-law courts in the United States followed their English predecessors in providing judicial review of the size of damages awards. They too emphasized the deference ordinarily afforded jury verdicts, but they recognized that juries sometimes awarded damages so high as to require correction. Thus, in 1822, Justice Story, sitting as Circuit Justice, ordered a new trial unless the plaintiff agreed to a reduction in his damages. In explaining his ruling, he noted:
“As to the question of excessive damages, I agree, that. the court may grant a new trial for excessive damages____ It is indeed an exercise of discretion full of delicacy and difficulty. But if it should clearly appear that the jury have committed a gross error, or have acted from improper motives, or have given damages excessive in relation to the person or the injury, it is as much the duty of the court to interfere, to prevent the wrong, as in any other case.” Blunt v. Little, 3 F. Cas. 760, 761-762 (No. 1, 578) (CC Mass. 1822).
See also Whipple v. Cumberland Mfg. Co., 29 F. Cas. 934, 937-938 (No. 17, 516) (CC Me. 1843).
In the 19th century, both before and after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, many American courts reviewed damages for “partiality” or “passion and prejudice.” Nevertheless, because of the difficulty of probing juror reasoning, passion and prejudice review was, in fact, review of the amount of awards. Judges would infer passion, prejudice, or partiality from the size of the award. Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1,41 (1808) (In cases of personal injury, “a verdict may be set aside for excessive damages” when “from the exorbitancy of them the court must conclude that the jury acted from passion, partiality, or corruption”); Taylor v. Giger, 3 Ky. 586, 587 (1808) (“In actions of tort... a new trial ought not to be granted for excessiveness of damages, unless the damages found are so enormous as to shew that the jury were under some improper influence, or were led astray by the violence of prejudice or passion”); McConnell v. Hampton, 12 Johns. 234, 235 (N. Y. 1815) (granting new trial for excessive damages and noting: “That Courts have a legal right to grant new trials, for excessive damages in actions for torts, is no where denied...”); Belknap v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 49 N. H. 358, 374 (1870) (setting aside both compensatory and punitive damages, because “[w]e think it evident that the jury were affected by some partiality or prejudice”).
Nineteenth-century treatises similarly recognized judges’ authority to award new trials on the basis of the size of damages awards. 1 D. Graham, A Treatise on the Law of New Trials 442 (2d ed. 1855) (“[E]ven in personal torts, where the jury find outrageous damages, clearly evincing partiality, prejudice and passion, the court will interfere for the relief of the defendant, and order a new trial”); T. Sedgwick, A Treatise on the Measure of Damages 707 (5th ed. 1869) (“The court again holds itself at liberty to set aside verdicts and grant new trials... whenever the damages are so excessive as to create the belief that the jury have been misled either by passion, prejudice, or ignorance”); 3 J. Sutherland, A Treatise on the Law of Damages 469 (1883) (When punitive damages are submitted to the jury, “the amount which they may think proper to allow will be accepted by the court, unless so exorbitant as to indicate that they have been influenced by passion, prejudice or a perverted judgment”).
Modern practice is consistent with these earlier authorities. In the federal courts and in every State, except Oregon, judges review the size of damages awards. See Dagnello v. Long Island R. Co., 289 F. 2d 797, 799-800, n. 1, (CA2 1961) (citing cases from all 50 States except Alaska, Maryland, and Oregon); Nome v. Ailak, 570 P. 2d 162, 173-174 (Alaska 1977); Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Assocs., Inc., 88 Md. App., at 716-722, 596 A. 2d, at 709-711, cert. denied, 605 A. 2d 137 (Md. 1992); Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S. W. 2d 768 (Tex. App. 1987); Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348 (1981); Draper, Exeessiveness or Inadequacy of Punitive Damages Awarded in Personal Injury or Death Cases, 12 A. L. R. 5th 195 (1993); Schnapper, Judges Against Juries— Appellate Review of Federal Civil Jury Verdicts, 1989 Wis. L. Rev. 237.
IV
There is a dramatic difference between the judicial review of punitive damages awards under the common law and the scope of review available in Oregon. An Oregon trial judge, or an Oregon appellate court, may order a new trial if the jury was not properly instructed, if error occurred during the trial, or if there is no evidence to support any punitive damages at all. But if the defendant’s only basis for relief is the amount of punitive damages the jury awarded, Oregon provides no procedure for reducing or setting aside that award. This has been the law in Oregon at least since 1949 when the State Supreme Court announced its opinion in Van Lom v. Schneiderman, 187 Ore. 89, 210 P. 2d 461 (1949), definitively construing the 1910 amendment to the Oregon Constitution.
In that case the court held that it had no power to reduce or set aside an award of both compensatory and punitive damages that was admittedly excessive. It recognized that the constitutional amendment placing a limitation on its power was a departure from the traditional common-law approach. That opinion’s characterization of Oregon’s “lonely eminence” in this regard, id., at 113, 210 P. 2d, at 471, is still an accurate portrayal of its unique position. Every other State in the Union affords postverdict judicial review of the amount of a punitive damages award, see supra, at 426, and subsequent decisions have reaffirmed Oregon judges’ lack of authority to order new trials or other relief to remedy excessive damages. Fowler v. Courtemanche, 202 Ore. 413, 448, 274 P. 2d 258, 275 (1954) (“If this court were authorized to exercise its common law powers, we would unhesitatingly hold that the award of $35,000 as punitive damages was excessive...”); Tenold v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 127 Ore. App. 511, 873 P. 2d 413 (1994) (Oregon court cannot examine jury award to ensure compliance with $500,000 statutory limit on noneconomic damages).
Respondent argues that Oregon’s procedures do not deviate from common-law practice, because Oregon judges have the power to examine the size of the award to determine whether the jury was influenced by passion and prejudice. This is simply incorrect. The earliest Oregon cases interpreting the 1910 amendment squarely held that Oregon courts lack precisely that power. Timmins v. Hale, 122 Ore. 24, 43-44, 256 P. 770, 776 (1927); McCulley v. Homestead Bakery, Inc., 141 Ore. 460, 465-466, 18 P. 2d 226, 228 (1933). Although dicta in later cases have suggested that the issue might eventually be revisited, see Van Lorn, 187 Ore., at 106, 210 P. 2d, at 468, the earlier holdings remain Oregon law. No Oregon court for more than half a century has inferred passion and prejudice from the size of a damages award, and no court in more than a decade has even hinted that courts might possess the power to do so. Finally, if Oregon courts could evaluate the excessiveness of punitive damages awards through passion and prejudice review, the Oregon Supreme Court would have mentioned that power in this very case. Petitioners argued that Oregon procedures were unconstitutional precisely because they failed to provide judicial review of the size of punitive damages awards. The Oregon Supreme Court responded by rejecting the idea that judicial review of the size of punitive damages awards was required by Haslip. 316 Ore., at 263, 851 P. 2d, at 1084. As the court noted, two state appellate courts, including the California Supreme Court, had reached the opposite conclusion. Id., at 284, n. 13, 851 P. 2d, at 1096, n. 13. If, as respondent claims, Oregon law provides passion and prejudice review of excessive verdicts, the Oregon Supreme Court would have had a more obvious response to petitioners’ argument.
Respondent also argues that Oregon provides adequate review, because the trial judge can overturn a punitive damages award if there is no substantial evidence to support an award of punitive damages. See Fowler v. Courtemanche, 202 Ore., at 448-449, 274 P. 2d, at 275. This argument is unconvincing, because the review provided by Oregon courts ensures only that there is evidence to support some punitive damages, not that there is evidence to support the amount actually awarded. While Oregon’s judicial review ensures that punitive damages are not awarded against defendants entirely innocent of conduct warranting exemplary damages, Oregon, unlike the common law, provides no assurance that those whose conduct is sanctionable by punitive damages are not subjected to punitive damages of arbitrary amounts. What we are concerned with is the possibility that a culpable defendant may be unjustly punished; evidence of culpability warranting some punishment is not a substitute for evidence providing at least a rational basis for the particular deprivation of property imposed by the State to deter future wrongdoing.
V
Oregon’s abrogation of a well-established common-law protection against arbitrary deprivations of property raises a presumption that its procedures violate the Due Process Clause. As this Court has stated from its first due process cases, traditional practice provides a touchstone for constitutional analysis. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272 (1856); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936); In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 361 (1970); Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U. S. 604 (1990); Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1 (1991). Because the basic procedural protections of the common law have been regarded as so fundamental, very few cases have arisen in which a party has complained of their denial. In fact, most of our due process decisions involve arguments that traditional procedures provide too little protection and that additional safeguards are necessary to ensure compliance with the Constitution. Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94 (1921); Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U. S. 604 (1990); Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1 (1991).
Nevertheless, there are a handful of cases in which a party has been deprived of liberty or property without the safeguards of common-law procedure. Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 (1884); Turney v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936); In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948); In re Winship, 397 U. S„ at 361. When the absent procedures would have provided protection against arbitrary and inaccurate adjudication, this Court has not hesitated to find the proceedings violative of due process. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936); In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948); In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 361. Of course, not all deviations from established procedures result in constitutional infirmity. As the Court noted in Hurtado, to hold all procedural change unconstitutional “would be to deny every quality of the law but its age, and to render it incapable of progress or improvement.” 110 U. S., at 529. A review of the cases, however, suggests that the case before us is unlike those in which abrogations of common-law procedures have been upheld.
In Hurtado, for example, examination by a neutral magistrate provided criminal defendants with nearly the same protection as the abrogated common-law grand jury procedure. Id., at 538. Oregon, by contrast, has provided no similar substitute for the protection provided by judicial review of the amount awarded by the jury in punitive damages. Similarly, in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), this Court upheld the extension of state-court jurisdiction over persons not physically present, in spite of contrary well-established prior practice. That change, however, was necessitated by the growth of a new business entity, the corporation, whose ability to conduct business without physical presence had created new problems not envisioned by rules developed in another era. See Burnham, 495 U. S., at 617. In addition, the dramatic improvements in communication and transportation made litigation in a distant forum less onerous. No similar social changes suggest the need for Oregon’s abrogation of judicial review, nor do improvements in technology render unchecked punitive damages any less onerous. If anything, the rise of large, interstate and multinational corporations has aggravated the problem of arbitrary awards and potentially biased juries.
Punitive damages pose an acute danger of arbitrary deprivation of property. Jury instructions typically leave the jury with wide discretion in choosing amounts, and the presentation of evidence of a defendant’s net worth creates the potential that juries will use their verdicts to express biases against big businesses, particularly those without strong local presences. Judicial review of the amount awarded was one of the few procedural safeguards which the common law provided against that danger. Oregon has removed that safeguard without providing any substitute procedure and without any indication that the danger of arbitrary awards has in any way subsided over time. For these reasons, we hold that Oregon’s denial of judicial review of the size of punitive damages awards violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
VI
Respondent argues that Oregon has provided other safeguards against arbitrary awards and that, in any event, the exercise of this unreviewable power by the jury is consistent with the jury’s historic role in our judicial system.
Respondent points to four safeguards provided in the Oregon courts: the limitation of punitive damages to the amount specified in the complaint, the clear and convincing standard of proof, preverdict determination of maximum allowable punitive damages, and detailed jury instructions. The first, limitation of punitive damages to the amount specified, is hardly a constraint at all, because there is no limit to the amount the plaintiff can request, and it is unclear whether an award exceeding the amount requested could be set aside. See Tenold v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 127 Ore. App. 511, 873 P. 2d 413 (1994) (Oregon Constitution bars court from examining jury award to ensure compliance with $500,000 statutory limit on noneconomic damages). The second safeguard, the clear and convincing standard of proof, is an important check against unwarranted imposition of punitive damages, but, like the “no substantial evidence” review discussed supra, at 429, it provides no assurance that those whose conduct is sanctionable by punitive damages are not subjected to punitive damages of arbitrary amounts. Regarding the third purported constraint, respondent cites no cases to support the idea that Oregon courts do or can set maximum punitive damages awards in advance of the verdict. Nor are we aware of any court which implements that procedure. Respondent’s final safeguard, proper jury instruction, is a well-established and, of course, important check against excessive awards. The problem that concerns us, however, is the possibility that a jury will not follow those instructions and may return a lawless, biased, or arbitrary verdict.
In support of his argument that there is a historic basis for making the jury the final arbiter of the amount of punitive damages, respondent calls our attention to early civil and criminal cases in which the jury was allowed to judge the law as well as the facts. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 374, n. 11 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring). As we have already explained, in civil cases, the jury’s discretion to determine the amount of damages was constrained by judicial review. The criminal cases do establish — as does our practice today — that a jury’s arbitrary decision to acquit a defendant charged with a crime is completely unreviewable. There is, however, a vast difference between arbitrary grants of freedom and arbitrary deprivations of liberty or property. The Due Process Clause has nothing to say about the former, but its whole purpose is to prevent the latter. A decision to punish a tortfeasor by means of an exaction of exemplary damages is an exercise of state power that must comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The common-law practice, the procedures applied by every other State, the strong presumption favoring judicial review that we have applied in other areas of the law, and elementary considerations of justice all support the conclusion that such a decision should not be committed to the unreviewable discretion of a jury.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Oregon Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The jury instructions, in relevant part, read: “ ‘Punitive damages may be awarded to the plaintiff in addition to general damages to punish wrongdoers and to discourage wanton misconduct. In order for plaintiff to recover punitive damages against the defendant[s], the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendants have] shown wanton disregard for the health, safety, and welfare of others.... If you decide this issue against the defendants], you may award punitive damages, although you are not required to do so, because punitive damages are discretionary. In the exercise of that discretion, you shall consider evidence, if any, of the following: First, the likelihood at the time of the sale [of the three-wheeled vehicle] that serious harm would arise from defendants’ misconduct. Number two, the degree of the defendants’ awareness of that likelihood. Number three, the duration of the misconduct. Number four, the attitude and conduct of the defendants] upon notice of the alleged condition of the vehicle. Number five, the financial condition of the defendants]. And the amount of punitive damages may not exceed the sum of $5 million.’ ” 316 Ore. 263, 282, n. 11, 851 P. 2d 1084,1095, n. 11 (1993).
As in many early cases, it is unclear whether this case specifically concerns punitive damages or merely ordinary compensatory damages. Since there is no suggestion that different standards of judicial review were applied for punitive and compensatory damages before the 20th century, no effort has been made to separate out the two classes of cases. See Brief for Legal Historians Daniel R. Coquillette et al. as Amici Curiae 2, 3, 6-7, 15 (discussing together “punitive damages, personal injury, and other cases involving difficult-to-quantify damages”).
While Justice Story’s grant of a new trial was clearly in accord with established common-law procedure, the remittitur — withdrawal of new trial if the plaintiff agreed to a specific reduction of damages — may have been an innovation. See Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 482-485 (1935). On the other hand, remittitur may have a better historical pedigree than previously thought. See King v. Watson, 2 T. R. 199-200, 100 Eng. Rep. 108 (R. B. 1788) (“[0]n a motion in the Common Pleas to set aside the verdict for excessive damages... the Court recommended a compromise, and on Hurry’s agreeing to accept 1500 [pounds] they discharged the rule”).
This aspect of passion and prejudice review has been recognized in many opinions of this Court. Brouining-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257, 272 (1989); Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1, 21, n. 10 (1991); id., at 27 (Scalia, J., concurring); TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U. S. 443, 467 (1993) (Kennedy, J., concurring); id., at 476-478 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).
The amended Article VII, §3, of the Oregon Constitution provides: “In actions at law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of this State, unless the court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support the verdict.”
“The court is of the opinion that the verdict of $10,000.00 is excessive. Some members of the court think that only the award of punitive damages is excessive; others that both the awards of compensatory and punitive damages are excessive. Since a majority are of the opinion that this court has no power to disturb the verdict, it is not deemed necessary to discuss the grounds for these divergent views.” Van Lom v. Schneiderman, 187 Ore., at 93, 210 P. 2d, at 462 (1949).
“The guaranty of the right to jury trial in suits at common law, incorporated in the Bill of Rights as one of the first ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States, was interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to refer to jury trial as it had been theretofore known in England; and so it is that the federal judges, like the English judges, have always exercised the prerogative of granting a new trial when the verdict was clearly against the weight of the evidence, whether it be because excessive damages were awarded or for any other reason. The state courts were conceded similar powers.... [U]p to 1910, when the people adopted Art. VII, §3, of our Constitution, there was no state in the union, so far as we are advised, where this method of control of the jury did not prevail.” Id., at 112-113, 210 P 2d, at 471.
The last reported decision to suggest that a new trial might be ordered because the size of the award suggested passion and prejudice was Trenery v. Score, 45 Ore. App. 611, 615, 609 P. 2d 388, 389 (1980) (noting that “[i]t is doubtful” that passion and prejudice review continues to be available); see also Foley v. Pittenger
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Black,,
announced by Mr. Justice Douglas.
A three-judge District Court has construed certainsprovisións of a Sherman Act Consent decree as compelling the sale of certain moving picture stocks owned by the appellant Hughes. This clise is properly here on appeal from an order entered to compel the sale. 15 U. S. C. (Supp. IV). § 29.
These anti-trust proceedings were originally brought by the United States against Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation and other moving picture producers, distributors, and exhibitors. From the District Court’s judgment in the case both the Government and defendants appealed. We affirmed in part and reversed in part. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131. We remanded jbhe cáse to the District Court leaving it free to consider whether it was necessary to require the production and distribution companies to divest themselves of all ownership and interest in the business of exhibiting pictures. Thereafter a consent decree was. entered containing detailed provisions for complete divorcement of R. K. O's production-distribution assets from its theater assets.: To accomplish this, R. K. O. was to form two hew holding companies: one, the “New Picture Company,” was to take over all R. K. O. subsidiaries engaged in- production and distribution; the other, the “New .'Theater Company,” Was to own.and control R. K. O. sub-. sidiaries. which operated theaters. Upon formation of the new companies,. R. K. O. was to-be dissolved. Former stockholders were to become the owhers of all the capital stock of the two new companies.
A factor considered in connection with this divorcement was that Howard R. Hughes, appellant here, owned 24% of the common stock of R. K. O. No other person or corporation owned as much as 1%. He and government representatives agreed on terms to meet .this situation. Their agreement was embodied in the consent decree, becoming section V. This section of the decree, set out below, is the center of the present controversy. .It provides that Hughes may “either” (A) sell his stock in one or the other of the two newly formed companies, “or” (B) deposit such stock with a court-designated trustee under a voting trust agreement to remain in force until Hughes shall have sold his stock in one of the companies. Hughes chose not to sell any stock, and he and the United States agreed on a trustee and the terms of a voting trust, which agreement was approved by a court order. Later, by motion the United States sought a court order forcing the trustee to sell Hughes’ stock. Without evidence or findings of fact, and over Hughes’ protests, the District Court amended its order appointing a trustee by providing that “if the stock trusteed shall not have been disposed of by Howard R. Hughes by February 20th, 1953, the trustee shall dispose of such stock within two years thereafter.” Appellant Hughes urges that it was error to order his stock sold in so summary a manner.
First. The Government argues that section Y should be read as compelling Hughes to sell his stock within a reasonable time. We hold that the language of the section imposes no such requirement. A reading of the either/or wording would make most persons believe that Hughes was to have a choice of two different alternatives. Hughes would have no choice if the first “alternative” was to sell the stock and the second “alternative” was alsp,to sell the stock. Moreover, section Y provided that, if Hughes did not sell his stock but chose to place it in a voting trust, this trust should remain in force “until Howard R. Hughes shall have sold” his stock. This would ordinarily mean that Hughes, not the* Court, could decide whether his stock should be sold. Nor can a different inference be drawn from the language authorizing the court to provide the trust’s general “terms preconditions, including compensation to the trustee.” This language cannot support an inference that the court was empowered to deprive Hughes of either of his expressly granted alternatives.
Arguing on a broader front than the mere language of section V,. the Government urges : that section V must be interpreted so as to achieve the purposes of the entire R. K. O. consent decree; that the basic purpose of that decree was divorcement of production-distribution companies from theater exhibition companies; and that Hughes cannot consistently with this purpose be left with a' 24% interest in both types of companies. It may be true as the Government now contends that Hughes’ large block of ownership in both types of companies endangers the independence of each.' Evidence might show that a sale by Hughes is indispensable if competition is to be preserved. However, in section Y the parties and the District Court provided their own detailed pian to neutralize the evils from such ownership. Whatever justification there may be now or hereafter for new terms that require a sale of Hughes’ stock, we think there is no fair support for reading that requirement into the' language of section V. The District Court’s order cannot be supported by reliance on such an interpretation. Consequently the court’s command to sell the stock effected a substantial modification of the original decree.
. Second. The Government finds support for the substantial change in the decree by reference to (1) provisions in the decree reserving jurisdiction to amend, and (2) the inherent equity powers of the court. We entertain no doubt concerning the District Court’s power to require sale of Hughes’ stock after a proper hearing. When this case was formerly here on other phases, 334 U. S. 131, we had occasion to point out the District - Gourt’s power to require some companies to divest themselves of ownership of other companies where necessary to preserve competition and to prevent monopoly. The guiding principles there set out would also justify compulsory divestment of stocks by an individual. But there has been nó adequate hearing of this issue as to Hughes. .Neither when the present order was considered nor when the original decree was 'entered were any findings of fact made to support an order of compulsory” sale of Hughes’ stock. As previously pointed out the consent of Hughes did not include consent to make him sell. At every stage Hughes objected to the order forcing sale of his stock without a hearing that included evidence and a judicial determination based on it.
In these circumstances we hold that it was error-to enter an order forcing Hughes to sell his stock.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“V. Howard R. Hughes represeuts that he now owns approximately 24 percent of the common stock of Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation. Within a period of one year from the date hereof, Howard R. Hughes shall either:
“A. Dispose of his holdings of the stock of (1) the New Picture Company, or (2) the New Theater Company, as he may elect, to a purchaser or purchasers who is or are not a defendant herein or owned or controlled by or affiliated with a defendant in this cause; or.
“B. Deposit with a trustee designated by the court all of his shares of the New Picture Company or the New Theater Company, as he may elect, under a voting trust agreement whereby, the trustee shall •possess and be entitled to exercise all the voting rights of such shares, including the right to execute proxies and consents with respect thereto. Such voting trust agreement shall thereafter remain in force until Howard R. Hughes shall have sold his holdings of stock of the New Picture Company or the New Theater.Company to a purchaser or purchasers who is or are not a defendant herein or owned or controlled by or affiliated with a defendant herein, and upon such sale and transfer such voting trust agreement shall automatically terminate. Such .trust shall be upon such other terms or conditions, including compensation to the trustee, as shall be prescribed by the Court. During the period of such voting trust, Howard R. Hughes shall be entitled to receive all dividends and other distributions made on account of the trusteed shares, and proceeds from the sale thereof..
“For the purpose of evidencing his consent to be bound by the-terms of section V of this decree, Howard R. Hughes individually has consented to its entry and it shall be binding upon his agents and employees.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the 6-year statute of limitations in the False Claims Act (FCA or Act), see 31 U. S. C. § 3731(b)(1), governs FCA civil actions for retaliation, see § 3730(h). We hold that it does not and therefore conclude that the most closely analogous state limitations period applies.
I
The FCA prohibits any person from making false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States. § 3729(a). Persons who do so are liable for civil penalties of up to $10,000 per claim and treble damages. Ibid. The Act sets forth two principal enforcement mechanisms for policing this proscription. First, the Attorney General may sue to remedy violations of § 3729. § 3730(a). Second, private individuals may bring qui tam actions in the Government’s name for §3729 violations. § 3730(b)(1); see Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 769-772 (2000). The qui tam relator must give the Government notice of the action, and the Government is entitled to intervene in the suit. § 3730(b)(2). The relator receives up to 30 percent of the proceeds of the action, in addition to attorney’s fees and costs. §§ 3730(d)(1), (2).
The 1986 amendments to the FCA created a third enforcement mechanism: a private cause of action for an individual retaliated against by his employer for assisting an FCA investigation or proceeding. § 3730(h). Section 3730(h) provides in relevant part that
“[a]ny employee who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in furtherance of an action under this section, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed under this section, shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole.”
Remedies for retaliation include reinstatement, two times the amount of backpay plus interest, special damages, litigation costs, and attorney’s fees. Ibid.
The 1986 amendments also revised the language of the 6-year statute of limitations applicable to FCA actions. The previous version of the statute provided that "[a] civil action under section 3730 of this title must be brought within 6 years from the date the violation is committed.” § 3731(b) (1982 ed.). The 1986 amendments revised this provision to read:
“(b) A civil action under section 3730 may not be brought—
“(1) more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed, or
“(2) more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed .. . §3731 (2000 ed.).
In January 2001, relator Karen T. Wilson brought an FCA qui tarn and retaliation action against petitioners. Petitioners Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District and Cherokee County Soil and Water Conservation District are special-purpose local government entities; the other petitioners are various local and federal officials. Graham County District employed Wilson as a secretary. Wilson alleged that petitioners made numerous false claims for payment to the United States in connection with a federal disaster relief program, the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, App. 17-20, and in connection with agricultural programs administered by North Carolina but funded by the Federal Government, id., at 17-24.
Wilson contended, in addition, that Graham County District officials retaliated against her for aiding federal officials in their investigation of these false claims. Id., at 25-30. Wilson alerted federal officials to petitioners’ suspected fraudulent activities in December 1995 and cooperated with the ensuing investigation. Id., at 26-27. Because of her cooperation, the complaint alleged, Graham County District officials repeatedly harassed her from 1996 to 1997, eventually inducing her to resign in March 1997. Id., at 28-30.
Petitioners successfully moved to dismiss Wilson’s retaliation action as untimely. They argued that the 6-year limitations period provided in § 3731(b)(1) did not apply to Wilson’s retaliation action. Absent an applicable federal limitations period, they asked the District Court to borrow North Carolina’s 3-year statute of limitations for retaliatory-discharge actions. The District Court agreed and dismissed the retaliation claim, since Wilson filed it more than three years after her March 1997 discharge. App. to Pet. for Cert. 67a-70a. The court certified that ruling for interlocutory appeal. 224 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1050-1051 (WDNC 2002).
On interlocutory appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. In the majority’s view, the plain language of §3731(b)(1) supplies a limitations period for retaliation actions, making it unnecessary to borrow one from North Carolina law. The court reasoned that § 3731(b)(1) governs § 3730(h) retaliation actions, because it applies its 6-year limitations period to “ '[a] civil action under section 3730.’ ” 367 F. 3d 245, 251 (2004) (brackets in original).
We granted certiorari to resolve a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals regarding whether § 3731(b)(1)’s 6-year statute of limitations applies to § 3730(h) retaliation actions or whether, instead, the most closely analogous state limitations period governs. 543 U. S. 1042 (2005). Compare Neal v. Honeywell Inc., 33 F. 3d 860, 865-866 (CA7 1994) (holding that FCA 6-year period applies), with United States ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 162 F. 3d 1027, 1034-1035 (CA9 1998) (holding that most closely analogous state limitations period governs).
II
To determine the applicable statute of limitations for a cause of action created by a federal statute, we first ask whether the statute expressly supplies a limitations period. If it does not, we generally “borrow” the most closely analogous state limitations period. See North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U. S. 29, 33-34 (1995); Reed v. Transportation Union, 488 U. S. 319, 324 (1989); Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U. S. 143, 157-165 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (tracing history of borrowing state limitations periods). In the rare case, we have even borrowed analogous federal limitations periods in the absence of an expressly applicable one, see, e. g., id., at 150-157, but no party points to a reason why we should do so here, and we can think of none. The only arguably applicable express statute of limitations is the 6-year limit set forth in § 3731(b)(1). The question, then, is whether § 3731(b)(1) applies by its terms to retaliation actions under § 3730(h); if it does not, our cases dictate that the most closely analogous state limitations period applies.
Under § 3731(b)(1), “[a] civil action under section 3730 may not be brought... more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed.” Following ,the Court of Appeals’ lead and supported by the United States appearing as amicus curiae, Wilson argues that this language unambiguously applies to FCA retaliation actions. She points out that § 3731(b)(1) applies a 6-year limitations period to “a civil action under section 3730,” and that § 3730(h) actions arise under §3730; hence, she claims, the 6-year period governs § 3730(h) actions. See Neal, supra, at 865-866 (arguing same). We think the statute is more complex than this argument supposes. Statutory language has meaning only in context, see, e. g., Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 9 (2004), and § 3731(b)(1), read in its proper context, does not govern § 3730(h) actions for retaliation.
Section 3731(b)(1) is ambiguous, rather than clear, about whether a § 3730(h) retaliation action is “a civil action under section 3730.” Another reasonable reading is that it applies only to actions arising under §§ 3730(a) and (b), not to § 3730(h) retaliation actions. That reading is suggested by the language in § 3731(b)(1) tying the start of the time limit to “the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed.” In other words, the time limit begins to run on the date the defendant submitted a false claim for payment. See supra, at 412-413. This language casts doubt on whether § 3731(b)(1) specifies a limitations period for retaliation actions. For even a well-pleaded retaliation complaint need not allege that the defendant submitted a false claim, leaving the limitations period without a starting point if § 3731(b)(1) is applicable. A retaliation plaintiff, instead, need prove only that the defendant retaliated against him for engaging in “lawful acts done ... in furtherance of” an FCA “action filed or to be filed,” § 3730(h), language that protects an employee’s conduct even if the target of an investigation or action to be filed was innocent. Applying § 3731(b)(1) to FCA retaliation actions, then, sits uneasily with § 3731(b)(l)’s language, which assumes that well-pleaded “action[s] under section 3730” to which it is applicable include a “violation of section 3729” certain from which to start the time running. Section 3731(b)(1), by contrast, naturally applies to well-pleaded §§ 3730(a) and (b) actions. They require the plaintiff to plead that the defendant submitted a false claim for payment, and therefore necessarily specify when §3731(b)(1)’s time limit begins. This textual anomaly, at a minimum, shows that § 3731(b)(1) is ambiguous about whether “action under section 3730” means all actions under § 3730, or only §§ 3730(a) and (b) actions.
Wilson and the United States dispute that the statute contains this anomaly, and instead urge that it clearly applies by its terms to all §3730 actions. They point out that every § 3730(h) action requires the plaintiff to prove that he engaged in protected conduct related to at least a suspected violation of §3729, and argue that §3731(b)(l)’s limitations period simply begins to run on the date of the suspected violation. Assuming, without deciding, that § 3730(h) retaliation actions have as an element a suspected violation of § 3729, their interpretation indeed removes the anomaly, but only at the cost of reading into the statute the word “suspected” before the phrase “violation of section 3729.” Section 3731(b)(1) speaks of “violation[s] of section 3729”— actual, not suspected, ones. Wilson and the United States answer that this argument proves too much, because even §§ 3730(a) and (b) actions involve only “suspected” violations of § 3729 at the pleading stage of litigation; but this response misses the point. Every § 3730(a) or (b) plaintiff who states or proves a valid claim for relief must allege or prove an actual violation of §3729; retaliation plaintiffs need only allege or prove a suspected violation of §3729 (or so we are willing to assume). The point is that § 3731(b)(l)’s language applies naturally to all successfully pleaded or proved retaliation actions only if one reads “suspected” into its terms, as the dissent essentially concedes. See post, at 425-426 (opinion of Breyer, J.).
Section 3731(b)(1)’s literal text, then, is ambiguous. Wilson and the Government ask us to read it as if it said “the [suspected or actual] violation of section 3729.” Petitioners ask us to read § 3731(b) as if it said “civil action under section 3730[(a) or (b)].”
Two considerations convince us that the better way to resolve this ambiguity is to read the 6-year period to govern only §§ 3730(a) and (b) actions, and not § 3730(h) retaliation actions. First, the very next subsection of the statute, § 3731(c), also uses the similarly unqualified phrase “action brought under section 3730” to refer only to §§ 3730(a) and (b) actions. Section 3731(c) provides that “[i]n any action brought under section 3730, the United States shall be required to prove all essential elements of the cause of action, including damages, by a preponderance of the evidence.” As Wilson and the United States concede, the context of this provision implies that the phrase “any action brought under section 3730” is limited to § 3730(a) actions brought by the United States and § 3730(b) actions in which the United States intervenes as a party, as those are the types of § 3730 actions in which the United States necessarily participates. Otherwise, the United States would be “required to prove all essential elements of the cause of action,” § 3731(c), in all §3730 actions, regardless of whether it participated in the action (a consequence the dissent implicitly embraces by claiming that “any action brought under section 3730” in § 3731(c) means all § 3730 actions, see post, at 423-424 (opinion of Breyer, J.)). This implicit limitation of the phrase “action under section 3730” shows that Congress used the term “action under section 3730” imprecisely in § 3731 and, in particular, that Congress sometimes used the term to refer only to a subset of § 3730 actions. It is reasonable to read the same language in § 3731(b)(1) to be likewise limited.
Second, reading § 3731(b)(1) to apply only to §§ 3730(a) and (b) actions is in keeping with the default rule that Congress generally drafts statutes of limitations to begin when the cause of action accrues. We have repeatedly recognized that Congress legislates against the “standard rule that the limitations period commences when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.” Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U. S. 192, 201 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Johnson v. United States, 544 U. S. 295, 305 (2005) (calling it “highly doubtful” that Congress intended a time limit on pursuing a claim to expire before the claim arose); Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U. S. 258, 267 (1993) (declining to coun-tenanee the “odd result” that a federal cause of action and statute of limitations arise at different times “absen[t] . . . any such indication in the statute”); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 37 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (“Absent other indication, a statute of limitations begins to run at the time the plaintiff has the right to apply to the court for relief” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, where, as the case is here, there are two plausible constructions of a statute of limitations, we should adopt the construction that starts the time limit running when the cause of action (here retaliation) accrues.
This approach resolves the ambiguity in § 3731(b)(1) in petitioners’ favor. On the one hand, reading § 3731(b)(1) to exclude retaliation actions will generally start the limitations period running when the cause of action accrues. If § 3731(b)(1) excludes retaliation actions, then no express time limit applies to § 3730(h) actions, and we borrow the most closely analogous state time limit absent an expressly applicable one. See supra, at 414-415. The likely analogous state statutes of limitations virtually all start to run when the cause of action accrues — in retaliation actions, when the retaliatory action occurs.
The interpretation favored by Wilson and the Government, on the other hand, is in tension with this rule of construction. Under their reading, the statute of limitations for FCA retaliation actions begins to run, at best, on the date the actual or suspected FCA violation occurred. Because that date will precede the retaliatory conduct, their reading starts the time limit running before the retaliation action accrues. Even more oddly, their reading allows a retaliation action to be time barred before it ever accrues — for example, if the employer discovers more than six years after the suspected violation of §3729 that an employee aided in investigating that fraud, then retaliates. As we have discussed, § 3731(b)(l),s text permits a construction that avoids these counterintuitive results — that “civil action under section 3730” means only those civil actions under §3730 that have as an element a “violation of section 3729,” that is, §§ 3730(a) and (b) actions.
Granted, other textual evidence cuts against this reading of § 3731(b)(1). In particular, Congress used the phrase “brought under subsection (a) or (b) of section 3730” in § 3731(d); this, it is argued, shows that Congress could have been similarly precise in § 3731(b)(1) if it wished. In the context of this statute, however, that argument proves too much, since the same could be said of § 3731(c), which all agree uses the phrase “action under section 3730” in more limited, and less precise, fashion. See supra, at 417-418. We do not doubt that Congress could have drafted § 3731(b)(1) with more precision than it did, but the presence of the same inexact wording in § 3731(c) means that the more precise language in § 3731(d) casts little doubt on our reading of the statute.
* * *
For the reasons we have discussed, the FCA’s express limitations period does not apply to § 3730(h) actions. The most closely analogous state statute of limitations therefore applies. Judge Wilkinson, in his dissenting opinion below, concluded that the most closely analogous state statute of limitations in this case is North Carolina’s 3-year statute of limitations governing wrongful-discharge claims. See 367 F. 3d, at 261-262. The appropriate state statute of limitations to borrow, however, is not within the scope of the question we granted certiorari to decide, and the Court of Appeals did not pass on the point. We therefore leave that issue for remand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter joins all but footnote 2 of this opinion.
See United States ex rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hospital, 360 F. 3d 220,236 (CA1 2004) (holding that protected conduct is “conduct that reasonably could lead to a viable FCA action”); United States ex rel. Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F. 3d 731, 740 (CADC 1998) (same); Childree v. UAP/GAAG CHEM, Inc., 92 F. 3d 1140, 1146 (CA11 1996) (holding that disclosure to employer of possible FCA violation protected conduct where litigation is a “distinct possibility” at the time of the disclosure); Fanslow v. Chicago Mfg. Center, Inc., 384 F 3d 469, 480 (CA7 2004) (protected conduct is where employee had reasonable, good-faith belief that the employer is committing fraud against the United States); Wilkins v. St. Louis Housing Auth., 314 F. 3d 927, 933 (CA8 2002) (same); Moore v. California Inst. of Tech. Jet Propulsion Lab., 275 F. 3d 838, 845-846 (CA9 2002) (same). We endorse none of these formulations; we note only that all of them have properly recognized that proving a violation of §3729 is not an element of a § 3730(h) cause of action.
Justice Stevens, we believe, misapplies this interpretive rule. Post, p. 422 (opinion concurring in judgment). He argues that § 3731(b)(1) does not govern § 3730(h) actions because “it is so unlikely that a legislature would actually intend” to start the statute of limitations running before the cause of action accrues that he “would presume that the anomaly was the product of a drafting error” regardless of whether the text is ambiguous. Dodd v. United States, ante, at 362, n. 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). This is not the proper analysis. Section 3731(b)(1) is ambiguous because its text, literally read, admits of two plausible interpretations. Supra, at 415-417. We apply the rule that Congress generally drafts statutes of limitations to begin when the cause of action accrues to resolve that ambiguity, not to create it in the first instance.
Ala. Code § 6-2-38 (West 1993) (catchall for tort actions not otherwise enumerated); § 36-26A-4(a) (West 2001) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070 (Lexis 2004) (catchall); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-541 (West 2003) (wrongful termination); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-115 (Lexis 1987) (catchall); § 21-1-604 (Lexis 2004) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 335.1 (West Supp. 2005) (personal injuries); § 343 (West 1982) (catchall); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102(1)(g) (Lexis 2004) (catchall); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-577, 31-51m (2005) (catchall for tort actions; retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 10, § 8119 (Lexis 1999) (personal injuries); Tit. 29, § 5115 (Lexis 2003) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); D. C. Code § 12-301(8) (West Supp. 2005) (catchall); Fla. Stat. §§ 112.3187(8)(a), 448.103 (2003) (whistle-blower actions); Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-33 (Lexis 1982) (personal injuries); Haw. Rev. Stat. §378-63(a) (Supp. 2004) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Idaho Code §§ 5-224, 6-2105(2) (Lexis 1998) (catchall; retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann., ch. 735, § 5/13 — 202 (West 2003) (personal injuries); Ind. Code §34-11-2-4 (2004) (personal injuries); Iowa Code § 614.1 (2003) (personal injuries); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§60-513, 75-2973(h) (Supp. 2003) (catchall; retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.120(7) (Lexis Supp. 2004) (catchall); § 61.103(2) (Lexis 2004) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); La. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 3492 (West 1994) (“[djelictual actions”; starts running on day injury or damage sustained, which is when the cause of action generally accrues for retaliatory actions); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 14, § 752 (West 1980) (catchall); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101 (Lexis 2002) (catchall for civil actions at law); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 260, § 2A, ch. 149, § 185(d) (West 2004) (catchall for tort actions for personal injuries; retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.363(1) (West 2004) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (2004) (personal injuries); Miss. Code Ann. § 15—1—49 (Lexis 2003) (catchall); Mo. Rev. Stat. §516.120 (2000) (catchall); Mont. Code Ann. §39-2-911(1) (2003) (wrongful discharge); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§25-207, 25-212 (1995) (catchall); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190.4(e) (2003) (personal injuries); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §508:4 (West 1997) (personal actions other than slander or libel); N. J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:14-1, 34:19-5 (West 2000) (catchall; retaliation action for whistle-blowers); §2 A:14-2(a) (West Supp. 2005) (personal injuries); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-4 (1990) (catchall); N. V. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 215.4 (West 2003) (“action to enforce” a statute “given wholly or partly to any person who will prosecute”); N. Y. Lab. Law Ann. § 740.4(a) (West 2002) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-52, 126-86 (Lexis 2003) (catchall; retaliation action for whistle-blowers); N. D. Cent. Code §28-01-16 (Lexis 1991) (catchall); §34-01-20.3 (Lexis 2004) (retaliation actions for whistle-blowers); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.09 (Lexis Supp. 2003) (catchall for torts); § 4113.52(D) (Lexis 2001) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, § 95 (West Supp. 2005) (catchall); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (2003) (catchall); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7) (2002) (catchall); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 43, § 1424(a) (Purdon 1991) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); R. I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(a) (Lexis 1997) (injuries to the person); § 28-50-4 (Lexis 2003) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); S. C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530 (West 2005) (catchall); § 8-27-30(B) (West Supp. 2004) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); S. D. Codified Laws § 15-2-14(3) (West 2004) (action for personal injury); Term. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(1) (Lexis 2000) (personal injuries); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003 (West 2002) (personal injuries); Tex. Govt. Code Ann. § 554.005 (West 2004) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-12-29(1), (2) (Lexis 2002) (liability created by statute of foreign state; liability created by statute); § 67-21-4(2) (Lexis 2004) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, § 511 (Lexis 2002) (catchall); Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-243(A), 8.01-248 (Lexis 2000) (personal injuries; catchall); Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2) (2004) (catchall for injuries to person); W. Va. Code §55-2-12 (Lexis 2000) (catchall); § 6C-1-4(a) (Lexis 2003) (retaliation action for whistle-blowers); Wis. Stat. § 893.57 (2003-2004) (intentional torts); Wyo. Stat. §§ 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C), 9-11-103(c) (2003) (catchall; retaliation action for whistle-blowers). But see Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, § 512 (Lexis 2002) (personal injury statute of limitations starts on the date of the discovery of the injury); D. C. Code § 1-615.54 (West 2001) (whistle-blower action may be brought within one year of the time the employee learns of the retaliation). We stress that these are only the likely candidates for analogous state statutes of limitations; it may well not be an exhaustive or authoritative list of the possibilities.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The National Labor Relations Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain in good faith with the representative of his employees. The question presented by this case is whether the National Labor Relations Board may find that an employer has not bargained in good faith where the employer claims it cannot afford to pay higher wages but refuses requests to produce information substantiating its claim.
The dispute here arose when a union representing certain of respondent’s employees asked for a wage increase of 10 cents per hour. The company answered that it could not afford to pay such an increase, it was undercapitalized, had never paid dividends, and that an increase of more than 2% cents per hour would put it out of business. The union asked the company to produce some evidence substantiating these statements, requesting permission to have a certified public accountant examine the company’s books, financial data, etc. This request being denied, the union asked that the company submit “full and complete information with respect to its financial standing and profits,” insisting that such information was pertinent and essential for the employees to determine whether or not they should continue to press their demand for a wage increase. A union official testified before the trial examiner that “[W]e were wanting anything relating to the Company’s position, any records or what have you, books, accounting sheets, cost expenditures, what not, anything to back the Company’s position that they were unable to give any more money.” The company refused all the requests, relying solely on the statement that “the information ... is not pertinent to this discussion and the company declines to give you such information; You have no legal right to such.”
On the basis of these facts the National Labor Relations Board found that the company had “failed to bargain in good faith with respect to wages in violation of Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act.” 110 N. L. R. B. 856. The Board ordered the company to supply the union with such information as would “substantiate the Respondent’s position of its economic inability to pay the requested wage increase.” The Court of Appeals refused to enforce the Board’s order, agreeing with respondent that it could not be held guilty of an unfair labor practice because of its refusal to furnish the information requested by the union. 224 F. 2d 869. In Labor Board v. Jacobs Mfg. Co., 196 F. 2d 680, the Second Circuit upheld a Board finding of bad-faith bargaining based on an employer’s refusal to supply financial information under circumstances similar to those here. Because of the conflict and the importance of the question we granted certiorari. 350 U. S. 922.
The company raised no objection to the Board’s order on the ground that the scope of information required was too broad or that disclosure would put an undue burden on the company. Its major argument throughout has been that the information requested was irrelevant to the bargaining process and related to matters exclusively within the province of management. Thus we lay to one side the suggestion by the company here that the Board’s order might be unduly burdensome or injurious to its business. In any event, the Board has heretofore taken the position in cases such as this that “It is sufficient if the information is made available in a manner not so burdensome or time-consuming as to impede the process of bargaining.” And in this case the Board has held substantiation of the company’s position requires no more than “reasonable proof.”
We think that in determining whether the obligation of good-faith bargaining has been met the Board has a right to consider an employer’s refusal to give information about its financial status. While Congress did not compel agreement between employers and bargaining representatives, it did require collective bargaining in the hope that agreements would result. Section 204 (a)(1) of the Act admonishes both employers and employees to “exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions . ...” In their effort to reach an agreement here both the union and the company treated the company’s ability to pay increased wages as highly relevant. The ability of an employer to increase wages without injury to his business is a commonly considered factor in wage negotiations. Claims for increased wages have sometimes been abandoned because of an employer’s unsatisfactory business condition; employees have even voted to accept wage decreases because of such conditions.
Good-faith bargaining necessarily requires that claims made by either bargainer should be honest claims. This is true about an asserted inability to pay an increase in wages. If such an argument is important enough to present in the give and take of bargaining, it is important enough to require some sort of proof of its accuracy. And it would certainly not be farfetched for a trier of fact to reach the conclusion that bargaining lacks good faith when an employer mechanically repeats a claim of inability to pay without making the slightest effort to substantiate the claim. Such has been the holding of the Labor Board since shortly after the passage of the Wagner Act. In Pioneer Pearl Button Co., decided in 1936, where the employer’s representative relied on the company’s asserted “poor financial condition,” the Board said: “He did no more than take refuge in the assertion that the respondent’s financial condition was poor; he refused either to prove his statement, or to permit independent verification. This is not collective bargaining.” 1 N. L. R. B. 837, 842-843. This was the position of the Board when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947 and has been its position ever since. We agree with the Board that a refusal to attempt to substantiate a claim of inability to pay increased wages may support a finding of a failure to bargain in good faith.
The Board concluded that under the facts and circumstances of this case the respondent was guilty of an unfair labor practice in failing to bargain in good faith. We see no reason to disturb the findings of the Board. We do not hold, however, that in every case in which economic inability is raised as an argument against increased wages it automatically follows that the employees are entitled to substantiating evidence. Each case must turn upon its particular facts. The inquiry must always be whether or not under the circumstances of the particular case the statutory obligation to bargain in good faith has been met. Since we conclude that there is support in the record for the conclusion of the Board here that respondent did not bargain in good faith, it was error for the Court of Appeals to set aside the Board’s order and deny enforcement.
Reversed.
“Sec. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
“(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9 (a).
“(d) For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession . . . .” 49 Stat. 452-453, as amended, 61 Stat. 140-142, 29 TJ. S. C. §§ 158 (a)(5), 158 (d).
Old Line Life Ins. Co., 96 N. L. R. B. 499, 503; Cincinnati Steel Castings Co., 86 N. L. R. B. 592, 593.
61 Stat. 154, 29 U. S. C. § 174 (a)(1).
See Sherman, Employer’s Obligation to Produce Data for Collective Bargaining, 35 Minn. L. Rev. 24; Dunlop, The Economics of Wage-Dispute Settlement, 12 Law & Contemp. Prob. 281, 290; What Kind of Information Do Labor Unions Want in Financial Statements?, 87 J. Accountancy 368; How Collective Bargaining Works (Twentieth Century Fund, 1942) 453.
Daily Labor Report, No. 156: A4-A5 (Bureau of National Affairs, Aug. 12, 1954); 35 Lab. Rel. Rep. 106; Union Votes Wage Freeze to Aid Rice-Stix, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Nov. 25, 1954, p. 1, col. 4; Studebaker Men Vote for Pay Cuts, N. Y. Times, Aug. 13, 1954, p. 1, col. 5.
See, e. g., Southern Saddlery Co., 90 N. L. R. B. 1205, 1206-1207; McLean-Arkansas Lumber Co., 109 N. L. R. B. 1022, 1035-1038; Jacobs Manufacturing Co., 94 N. L. R. B. 1214, 1221-1222, enforced, 196 F. 2d 680; and cases therein cited.
See Labor Board v. American Ins. Co., 343 U. S. 395, 409-410.
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: | 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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases stem from proceedings commenced in 1960 by the Federal Power Commission under § 5 (a) of the Natural Gas Act, 52 Stat. 823, 15 TJ. S. C. § 717d (a), to determine maximum just and reasonable rates for sales in interstate commerce of natural gas produced in the Permian Basin. 24 F. P. C. 1121. The Commission conducted extended hearings, and in 1965 issued a decision that both prescribed such rates and provided various ancillary requirements. 34 F. P. C. 159 and 1068. On petitions for review, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sustained in part and set aside in part the Commission's orders. 375 F. 2d 6 and 35. Because these proceedings began a new era in the regulation of natural gas producers, we granted certiorari and consolidated the cases for briefing and extended oral argument. 387 U. S. 902, 388 U. S. 906, 389 U. S. 817. For reasons that follow, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals, and sustain in their entirety the Commission's orders.
I.
The circumstances that led ultimately to these proceedings should first be recalled. The Commission’s authority to regulate interstate sales of natural gas is derived entirely from the Natural Gas Act of 1938. 52 Stat. 821. The Act’s provisions do not specifically extend to producers or to wellhead sales of natural gas, and the Commission declined until 1954 to regulate sales by independent producers to interstate pipelines. Its efforts to regulate such sales began only after this Court held in 1954 that independent producers are “natural-gas compan [ies]” within the meaning of § 2 (6) of the Act. 15 U. S. C. § 717a (6); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672. The Commission has since labored with obvious difficulty to regulate a diverse and growing industry under the terms of an ill-suited statute.
The Commission initially sought to determine whether producers’ rates were just and reasonable within the meaning of §§ 4 (a) and 5 (a) by examination of each producer’s costs of service. Although this method has been widely employed in various rate-making situations, it ultimately proved inappropriate for the regulation of independent producers. Producers of natural gas cannot usefully be classed as public utilities. They enjoy no franchises or guaranteed areas of service. They are intensely competitive vendors of a wasting commodity they have acquired only by costly and often unrewarded search. Their unit costs may rise or decline with the vagaries of fortune. The value to the public of the services they perform is measured by the quantity and character of the natural gas they produce, and not by -the resources they have expended in its search; the Commission and the consumer alike are concerned principally with “what [the producer] gets out of the ground, not... what he puts into it....” FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 649 (separate opinion). The exploration for and the production of natural gas are thus “more erratic and irregular and unpredictable in relation to investment than any phase of any other utility business.” Id., at 647. Moreover, the number both of independent producers and of jurisdictional sales is large, and the administrative burdens placed upon the Commission by an individual company costs-of-service standard were therefore extremely heavy.
In consequence, the Commission’s regulation of producers’ sales became increasingly laborious, until, in 1960, it was described as the “outstanding example in the federal government of the breakdown of the administrative process.” The Commission in 1960 acknowledged the gravity of its difficulties, and announced that it would commence a series of proceedings under § 5 (a) in which it would determine maximum producers’ rates for each of the major producing areas. One member of the Commission has subsequently described these efforts as “admittedly... experimental....” These cases place in question the validity of the first such proceeding.
The perimeter of this proceeding was drawn by the Commission in its second Phillips decision and in its Statement of General Policy No. 61-1. The Commission in Phillips asserted that it possesses statutory authority both to determine and to require the application throughout a producing area of maximum rates for producers’ interstate sales. It averred that the adoption of area maximum rates would appreciably reduce its administrative difficulties, facilitate effective regulation, and ultimately prove better suited to the characteristics of the natural gas industry. Each of these conclusions was reaffirmed in the Commission’s opinion in these proceedings. Its Statement of General Policy tentatively designated various geographical areas as producing units for purposes of rate regulation; in addition, the Commission there provided two series of area guideline prices, which were expected to help to determine “whether proposed initial rates should be certificated without a price condition and whether proposed rate changes should be accepted or suspended.” The Commission consolidated three of the producing areas listed in the Statement of General Policy for purposes of this proceeding.
The rate structure devised by the Commission for the Permian Basin includes two area maximum prices. The Commission provided one area maximum price for natural gas produced from gas wells and dedicated to interstate commerce after January 1, 1961. It created a second, and lower, area maximum price for all other natural gas produced in the Permian Basin. The Commission reasoned that it may employ price functionally, as a tool to encourage discovery and production of appropriate supplies of natural gas. It found that price could serve as a meaningful incentive to exploration and production only for gas-well gas committed to interstate commerce since I960; the supplies of associated and dissolved gas, and of previously committed reserves of gas-well gas, were, in contrast, found to be relatively unresponsive to variations in price. The Commission expected that its adoption of separate maximum prices would both provide a suitable incentive to exploration and prevent excessive producer profits.
The Commission declined to calculate area rates from prevailing field prices. Instead, it derived the maximum just and reasonable rate for new gas-well gas from composite cost data, obtained from published sources and from producers through a series of cost questionnaires. This information was intended in combination to establish the national costs in 1960 of finding and producing gas-well gas; it was understood not to reflect any variations in cost peculiar either to the Permian Basin or to periods prior to 1960. The maximum just and reasonable rate for all other gas was derived chiefly from the historical costs of gas-well gas produced in the Permian Basin in 1960; the emphasis was here entirely local and historical. The Commission believed that the uncertainties of joint cost allocation made it difficult to compute accurately the cost of gas produced in association with oil. It held, however, that the costs of such gas could not be greater, and must surely be smaller, than those incurred in the production of flowing gas-well gas. In addition, the Commission stated that the exigencies of administration demanded the smallest possible number of separate area rates.
Each of the area maximum rates adopted for the Permian Basin includes a return to the producer of 12% on average production investment, calculated from the Commission’s two series of cost computations. The Commission assumed for this purpose that production commences one year after investment, that gas wells deplete uniformly, and that they are totally depleted in 20 years. The rate of return was selected after study of the returns recently permitted to interstate pipelines, but, in addition, was intended to take fully into account the greater financial risks of exploration and production. The Commission recognized that producers are hostages to good fortune; they must expect that their programs of exploration will frequently prove unsuccessful, or that only gas of substandard quality will be found.
The allowances included in the return for the uncertainties of exploration were, however, paralleled by a system of quality and Btu adjustments. The Commission held that gas of less than pipeline quality must be sold at reduced prices, and it provided for this purpose a system of quality standards. The price reduction appropriate in each sale is to be measured by the cost of the processing necessary to raise the gas to pipeline quality; these costs are to be determined by agreement between the parties to the sale, subject to review and approval by the Commission. The Commission ultimately indicated that it would accept any agreement which reflects “a good faith effort to approximate the processing costs involved....” 34 F. P. C. 1068, 1071. In addition, the Commission prescribed that gas with a Btu content of less than 1,000 per cubic foot must be sold at a price proportionately lower than the applicable area maximum, and that gas with a Btu content greater than 1,050 per cubic foot may be sold at a price proportionately higher than the area maximum. The Commission acknowledged that the aggregate revenue consequences of these adjustments could not be precisely calculated, although its opinion denying applications for rehearing provided estimates of the average price reductions that would be necessary. Id., at 1073.
The Commission derived from these calculations the following rates for the Permian Basin. Gas-well gas, including its residue, and gas-cap gas, dedicated to interstate commerce after January 1, 1961, may be sold at 16.5$ per Mcf (including state production taxes) in Texas, and 15.5(4 (excluding state production taxes) in New Mexico. Flowing gas, including oil-well gas and gas-well gas dedicated to interstate commerce before January 1, 1961, may be sold at 14.5(4 per Mcf (including taxes) in Texas, and 13.5(4 per Mcf (excluding taxes) in New Mexico. Further, the Commission created a minimum just and reasonable rate of 9(4 per Mcf for all gas of pipeline quality sold under its jurisdiction within the Permian Basin. It found that existing contracts that included lower rates would “adversely affect the public interest.” FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U. S. 348, 355. The Commission permitted producers to file under § 4 (d), 15 U. S. C. § 717c (d), for the area minimum rate despite existing contractual limitations, and without the consent of the purchaser.
The Commission acknowledged that area maximum rates derived from composite cost data might in individual cases produce hardship, and declared that it would, in such cases, provide special relief. It emphasized that exceptions to the area rates would not be readily or frequently permitted, but declined to indicate in detail in what circumstances relief would be given.
This rate structure is supplemented by a series of ancillary requirements. First, the Commission provided various special exemptions for producers whose annual jurisdictional sales throughout the United States do not exceed 10,000,000 Mcf. The prices in sales by these relatively small producers need not be adjusted for quality and Btu deficiencies. Moreover, the Commission by separate order commenced a rule-making proceeding to reduce the small producers’ reporting and filing obligations under §§ 4 and 7, 15 U. S. C. §§ 717c, f. 34 F. P. C. 434.
Second, the Commission imposed a moratorium until January 1, 1968, upon filings under § 4 (d) for prices in excess of the applicable area maximum rate. The Commission concluded that such a moratorium was imperative if the administrative benefits of an area proceeding were to be preserved. Further, it permanently prohibited the use of indefinite escalation clauses to increase prevailing contract prices above the applicable area maximum rate.
Finally, the Commission announced that, by further order, it would require refunds of the difference between amounts that individual producers had actually collected in periods subject to refund, and the amounts that would have been permissible under the applicable area rate, including any necessary quality adjustments. Small producers, although obliged to make refunds, are not required to take into account price reductions for quality deficiencies, unless they wish to take advantage of upward adjustments in price because of high Btu content. The Commission rejected the examiner’s conclusion that refunds were appropriate only if the aggregate area revenue actually collected exceeds the aggregate area revenue permissible under the applicable area rates. It held that such a formula would prove both inequitable to purchasers and difficult for the Commission to administer effectively.
On petitions for review, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Commission had authority under the Natural Gas Act to impose maximum area rates upon producers’ jurisdictional sales. It sustained, but stayed enforcement of, the Commission’s moratorium upon filings under § 4 (d) in excess of the applicable area maximum rate. It approved both the Commission’s two-price system and its exemptions for small producers. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the Commission failed to satisfy the requirements devised by this Court in FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra. It held that the Commission had not properly calculated the financial consequences of the quality and Btu adjustments, had not made essential findings as to aggregate revenue, and had not indicated with appropriate precision the circumstances in which relief from the area rates may be obtained by individual producers. 375. F. 2d 6. On rehearing, the court also held that the Commission’s treatment of refunds was erroneous; it concluded that refunds were permissible only if aggregate actual area revenues have exceeded aggregate permissible area revenues, and only to the amount of the excess, apportioned on “some equitable contract-by-contract basis.” The Court of Appeals ordered the cases remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with its opinions. 375 F. 2d 35.
II.
The parties before this Court have together elected to place in question virtually every detail of the Commission’s lengthy proceedings. It must be said at the outset that, in assessing these disparate contentions, this Court’s authority is essentially narrow and circumscribed.
Section 19 (b) of the Natural Gas Act provides without qualification that the “finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” More important, we have heretofore emphasized that Congress has entrusted the regulation of the natural gas industry to the informed judgment of the Commission, and not to the preferences of reviewing courts. A presumption of validity therefore attaches to each exercise of the Commission’s expertise, and those who would overturn the Commission’s judgment undertake “the heavy burden of making a convincing showing that it is invalid because it is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences.” FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, at 602. We are not obliged to examine each detail of the Commission’s decision; if the “total effect of the rate order cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable, judicial inquiry under the Act is at an end.” Ibid.
Moreover, this Court has often acknowledged that the Commission is not required by the Constitution or the Natural Gas Act to adopt as just and reasonable any particular rate level; rather, courts are without authority to set aside any rate selected by the Commission which is within a “zone of reasonableness.” FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U. S. 575, 585. No other rule would be consonant with the broad responsibilities given to the Commission by Congress; it must be free, within the limitations imposed by pertinent constitutional and statutory commands, to devise methods of regulation capable of equitably reconciling diverse and conflicting interests. It is on these premises that we proceed to assess the Commission’s orders.
III.
The issues in controversy may conveniently be divided into four categories. In the first are questions of the Commission’s statutory and constitutional authority to employ area regulation and to impose various ancillary requirements. In the second are questions of the validity of the rate structure adopted by the Commission for natural gas produced in the Permian Basin. The third includes questions of the accuracy of the cost and other data from which the Commission derived the two area maximum prices. In the fourth are questions of the validity of the refund obligations imposed by the Commission.
We turn first to questions of the Commission’s constitutional and statutory authority to adopt a system of area regulation and to impose various supplementary requirements. The most fundamental of these is whether the Commission may, consistently with the Constitution and the Natural Gas Act, regulate producers’ interstate sales by the prescription of maximum area rates, rather than by proceedings conducted on an individual producer basis. This question was left unanswered in Wisconsin v. FPC, 373 U. S. 294. Its solution requires consideration of a series of interrelated problems.
It is plain that the Constitution does not forbid the imposition, in appropriate circumstances, of maximum prices upon commercial and other activities. A legislative power to create price ceilings has, in “countries where the common law prevails,” been “customary from time immemorial....” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 133. Its exercise has regularly been approved by this Court. See, e. g., Tagg Bros. v. United States, 280 U. S. 420; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503. No more does the Constitution prohibit the determination of rates through group or class proceedings. This Court has repeatedly recognized that legislatures and administrative agencies may calculate rates for a regulated class without first evaluating the separate financial position of each member of the class; it has been thought to be sufficient if the agency has before it representative evidence, ample in quantity to measure with appropriate precision the financial and other requirements of the pertinent parties. See Tagg Bros. v. United States, supra; Acker v. United States, 298 U. S. 426; United States v. Corrick, 298 U. S. 435. Compare New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184, 196-199; United States v. Abilene & S. R. Co., 265 U. S. 274, 290-291; New York v. United States, 331 U. S. 284; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 326, 341.
No constitutional objection arises from the imposition of maximum prices merely because “high cost operators may be more seriously affected... than others,” Bowles v. Willingham, supra, at 518, or because the value of regulated property is reduced as a consequence of regulation. FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, at 601. Regulation may, consistently with the Constitution, limit stringently the return recovered on investment, for investors’ interests provide only one of the variables in the constitutional calculus of reasonableness. Covington & Lexington Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 596.
It is, however, plain that the “power to regulate is not a power to destroy,” Stone v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S. 307, 331; Covington Lexington Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, supra, at 593; and that maximum rates must be calculated for a regulated class in conformity with the pertinent constitutional limitations. Price control is “unconstitutional... if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt....” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, 539. Nonetheless, the just and reasonable standard of the Natural Gas Act “coincides” with the applicable constitutional standards, FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., supra, at 586, and any rate selected by the Commission from the broad zone of reasonableness permitted by the Act cannot properly be attacked as confiscatory. Accordingly, there can be no constitutional objection if the Commission, in its calculation of rates, takes fully into account the various interests which Congress has required it to reconcile. We do not suggest that maximum rates computed for a group or geographical area can never be confiscatory; we hold only that any such rates, determined in conformity with the Natural Gas Act, and intended to “balanc[e]... the investor and the consumer interests,” are constitutionally permissible. FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, at 603.
One additional constitutional consideration remains. The producers have urged, and certain of this Court’s decisions might be understood to have suggested, that if maximum rates are jointly determined for a group or area, the members of the regulated class must, under the Constitution,- be proffered opportunities either to withdraw from the regulated activity or to seek special relief from the group rates. We need not determine whether this is in every situation constitutionally imperative, for such arrangements have here been provided by the Commission, and we cannot now hold them inadequate.
The Commission declared that a producer should be permitted “appropriate relief” if it establishes that its “out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the operation of a particular well” exceed its revenue from the well under the applicable area price. 34 F. P. C., at 226. It did not indicate which operating expenses would be pertinent for these calculations. The Commission acknowledged that there might be other circumstances in which relief should be given, but declined to enumerate them. It emphasized, however, that a producer’s inability to recover either its unsuccessful exploration costs or the full 12% return on its production investment would not, without more, warrant relief. It announced that in many situations it would authorize abandonment under § 7 (b), 15 U. S. C. § 717f (b), rather than an exception to the area maximum price. Finally, the Commission held that the burden would be upon the producer to establish the propriety of an exception, and that it therefore would not stay enforcement of the area rates pending disposition of individual petitions for special relief.
The Court of Appeals held that these arrangements were inadequate. It found the Commission’s description of its intentions vague. The court would require the Commission to provide “guidelines which if followed by an aggrieved producer will permit it to be heard promptly and to have a stay of the general rate order until its claim for exemption is decided.” 375 F. 2d, at 30. We cannot agree. It would doubtless be desirable if the Commission provided, as quickly as may be prudent, a more precise summary of its conditions for special relief, but it was not obliged to delay area regulation until such guidelines could be properly drawn. The Commission quite reasonably believed that the terms of any exceptional relief should be developed as its experience with area regulation lengthens. Moreover, area regulation of producer prices is avowedly still experimental in its terms and uncertain in its ultimate consequences; it is entirely possible that the Commission may later find that its area rate structure for the Permian Basin requires significant modification. We cannot now hold that, in these circumstances, the Commission’s broad guarantees of special relief were inadequate or excessively imprecise.
Nor is there reason now to suppose that petitions for relief will not be expeditiously evaluated; for the Commission has given assurance that they will be “disposed of as promptly as possible.” If it subsequently appears that the Commission’s provisions for special relief are for any reason impermissibly dilatory, this question may then be reconsidered.
Furthermore, it is pertinent that the Commission may supplement its provisions for special relief by permitting abandonment of unprofitable activities. The producers urge that this source of relief must be disregarded, since it is entirely conditional upon the Commission’s assent. It is enough for present purposes that the Commission has in other circumstances allowed abandonment, and that it has indicated that it will, in appropriate cases, authorize it here. Indeed, the Commission has already acknowledged that only in “exceptional situations” would the abandonment of unprofitable facilities prove detrimental to consumers, and thus impermissible under § 7 (b). 34 F. P. C., at 226.
Finally, we cannot agree that the Commission abused its discretion by its refusal to stay, pro tanto, enforcement of the area rates pending disposition of producers’ petitions for special relief. The Court of Appeals would evidently require the Commission automatically to issue such a stay each time a producer seeks relief. This is plainly inconsistent with the established rule that a party is not ordinarily granted a stay of an administrative order' without an appropriate showing of irreparable injury. See, e. g., Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Assn. v. FPC, 259 F. 2d 921, 925. Moreover, the issuance of a stay of an administrative order pending disposition by the Commission of a motion to “modify or set aside, in whole or in part” the order is a matter committed by the Natural Gas Act to the Commission’s discretion. §§19 (a), (c), 15 U. S. C. §§ 717r (a), (c). We have no reason now to believe that it would in all cases prove an abuse of discretion for the Commission to deny a stay of the area rate order. There might be many situations in which a stay would be inappropriate; at a minimum, the Commission is entitled to give careful consideration to the substantiality of the claim for relief, and to the consequences of any delay in the full administration of the area rate structure. We therefore decline to bind the Commission to any inflexible obligation; we shall assume that it will, in situations in which stays prove appropriate, properly exercise its statutory authority.
For the reasons indicated, we find no constitutional infirmity in the Commission’s adoption of an area maximum rate system for the Permian Basin.
We consider next the claims that the Commission has exceeded the authority given it by the Natural Gas Act. The first and most important of these questions is whether, despite the absence of any constitutional deficiency, area regulation is inconsistent with the terms of the Act. The producers that seek reversal of the judgments below offer three principal contentions on this question. First, they emphasize that the Act uniformly employs the singular to describe those subject to its requirements; § 4 (a), for example, provides that rates received by “any natural-gas company” must be just and reasonable. It is urged that the draftsman’s choice of number indicates that each producer’s rates must be individually computed from evidence of its own financial position. We cannot infer so much from so little; we see no more in the draftsman’s choice of phrase than that the Act’s obligations are imposed severally upon each producer.
Reliance is next placed upon one sentence in the Report of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which in 1937 recommended passage of the Natural Gas Act. The Committee remarked that the “bill provides for regulation along recognized and more or less standardized lines.” H. R. Rep. No. 709, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 3. It added that the bill’s provisions included nothing “novel.” Ibid. We find these statements entirely inconclusive, particularly since, as the Committee doubtless was aware, regulation by group or class was a recognized administrative method even in 1937. Compare Tagg Bros. v. United States, supra; New England Divisions Case, supra. See also H. R. Rep. No. 77, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 10-11; H. R. Rep. No. 456, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., 29-30.
Finally, the producers urge that two opinions of this Court establish the inconsistency of area regulation with the Natural Gas Act. It is asserted that the failure of a majority of the Court to adopt the reasoning of Mr. Justice Jackson’s separate opinion in FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, impliedly rejected the system of regulation now selected by the Commission. We find this without force. The Court in Hope emphasized that we may not impose methods of regulation upon the discretion of the Commission; for purposes of judicial review, the validity of a rate order is determined by "the result reached not the method employed.” 320 U. S., at 602; see also FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., supra, at 586. The Court there did not reject area regulation; it repudiated instead the suggestion that courts may properly require the Commission to employ any particular regulatory formula or combination of formulae.
The producers next rely upon a dictum in the opinion of the Court in Bowles v. Willingham, supra. The Court remarked that “under other price-fixing statutes such as the Natural Gas Act of 1938... Congress has provided for the fixing of rates which are just and reasonable in their application to particular persons or companies.” 321 U. S., at 517. The dictum is imprecise, but even if it were not, we could not agree that it can now be controlling. The construction of the Natural Gas Act was not even obliquely at issue in Bowles, and this Court does not decide important questions of law by cursory dicta inserted in unrelated cases. Whatever the dictum’s meaning, we do not regard it as decisive here. Compare Wisconsin v. FPC, 373 U. S. 294, 310.
There are, moreover, other factors that indicate persuasively that the Natural Gas Act should be understood to permit area regulation. The Act was intended to create, through the exercise of the national power over interstate commerce, “an agency for regulating the wholesale distribution to public service companies of natural gas moving interstate”; Illinois Gas Co. v. Public Service Co., 314 U. S. 498, 506; it was for this purpose expected to “balanc[e]... the investor and the consumer interests.” FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, at 603. This Court has repeatedly held that the width of administrative authority must be measured in part by the purposes for which it was conferred; see, e. g., Piedmont & Northern R. Co. v. Comm’n, 286 U. S. 299; Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 193-194; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190; American Trucking Assns. v. United States, 344 U. S. 298, 311. Surely the Commission’s broad responsibilities therefore demand a generous construction of its statutory authority.
Such a construction is consistent with the view of administrative rate making uniformly taken by this Court. The Court has said that the “legislative discretion implied in the rate making power necessarily extends to the entire legislative process, embracing the method used in reaching the legislative determination as well as that determination itself.” Los Angeles Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 289 U. S. 287, 304. And see San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 446. It follows that rate-making agencies are not bound to the service of any single regulatory formula; they are permitted, unless their statutory authority otherwise plainly indicates, “to make the pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular circumstances.” FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., supra, at 586.
We are unwilling, in the circumstances now presented, to depart from these principles. The Commission has asserted, and the history of producer regulation has confirmed, that the ultimate achievement of the Commission’s regulatory purposes may easily depend upon the contrivance of more expeditious administrative methods. The Commission believes that the elements of such methods may be found in area proceedings. “[Considerations of feasibility and practicality are certainly germane” to the issues before us. Bowles v. Willingham, supra, at 517. We cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that Congress has given authority inadequate to achieve with reasonable effectiveness the purposes for which it has acted.
We must now consider whether the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by the promulgation of various supplementary requirements. The first of these is its imposition of a moratorium until January 1, 1968, upon filings under § 4 (d) for prices in excess of the applicable area maximum rate. Although the period for which the moratorium was to be effective has expired, the order is not without continuing effect. The Court of Appeals stayed enforcement of the moratorium until final disposition of the petitions for review, and a number of rate increases have therefore become effective subject to invalidation and refund if the moratorium order is now upheld. See Brief for the Federal Power Commission 69, n. 44.
The validity of the moratorium order turns principally upon construction of §§4 and 5 of the Act. Section 4 (d) provides that no modification in existing rate schedules may be made by a natural gas company except after 30 days’ notice to the Commission. When the Commission receives such notice, it is permitted by § 4 (e), upon complaint or on its own motion, to suspend the proposed rate schedule for a period not to exceed five months. The Commission is to employ the period of suspension to conduct hearings upon the lawfulness of the proposed rates. If at the end of the suspension period appropriate orders have not been issued, the proposed rate schedule becomes effective, subject only to a refund obligation. In contrast, § 5 (a) permits the Commission, upon complaint from a public agency or a gas distributing company, or on its own motion, to conduct proceedings to determine whether existing rates are just and reasonable, and to prescribe rates “to be thereafter observed and in force... These investigatory powers are not conditional upon the filing by a natural gas company of any proposed change in existing rates.
Certain of the producers urge that §§ 4 and 5 must in combination be understood to preclude moratoria upon filings under § 4 (d). They assert that the period of effectiveness of a rate determination under § 5 (a) is limited by § 4 (e); they reason that § 4 (d) creates an unrestricted right to file rate changes, and that such changes may, under § 4 (e), be suspended for a period no longer than five months. If this construction were accepted, it would follow that area proceedings would terminate in rate limitations that could be disregarded by producers five months after their promulgation. The result, as the Commission observed, would be that “the conclusion of one area proceeding would only signal the beginning of the next, and just and reasonable rates for consumers would always be one area proceeding away.” 34 F. P. C., at 228.
We cannot construe the Commission’s statutory authority so restrictively. Nothing in § 5 (a) imposes limitations of time upon the effectiveness of rate determinations issued under it; rather, the section provides that rates held to be just and reasonable are “to be thereafter observed....” Moreover, this Court has already declined to find in § 4 (d) or § 4 (e) an “invincible right to raise prices subject only to a six-month delay and refund liability.” United Gas v. Callery Properties, 382 U. S. 223, 232 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Section 4(d) merely requires notice to the Commission as a condition of any modification of existing rates; it provides that a “change cannot be made without the proper notice to the Commission; it does not say under what circumstances a change can be made.” United Gas Co. v. Mobile Gas Corp., 350 U. S. 332, 339. (Emphasis in original.) Nor does § 4 (e) restrict the Commission’s authority under § 6 (a); it permits the Commission to preserve an existing situation pending consideration of a proposed change in rates, and thereafter to issue an order retroactively forbidding the change; but the “scope and purpose of the Commission’s review [under § 5 (a)] remain the same....” Id., at 341.
The deficiencies of the producers’ construction of §§ 4 and 5 are illustrated by United Gas v. Callery Properties, supra. The Court held in Cattery that permanent certifications issued under § 7 may be conditioned, even upon remand, by a moratorium upon filings under § 4 (d) for rates in excess of a specified ceiling. At issue were conditions imposed under § 7 (e) prior to the determination of just and reasonable rates; but nothing in the pertinent statutory provisions suggests that the Commission’s authority under § 5 (a) is more narrow. Indeed, if the producers’ construction of §§4 and 5 were adopted, we should be forced to the uncomfortable result that filings under § 4 (d) may be precluded by the Commission’s relatively summary determination of a provisional in-line price, but not by its formal adjudication, after full deliberation,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 106 of Pub. L. 92-129, 85 Stat. 355, note following 5 U. S. C. §7201 (1976 ed., Supp. IV), prohibits employment discrimination against United States citizens on military bases overseas unless permitted by “treaty.” The question in this case is whether “treaty” includes executive agreements concluded by the President with the host country, or whether the term is limited to those international agreements entered into by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate pursuant to Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution. This issue is solely one of statutory interpretation.
I
In 1944, Congress authorized the President, “by such means as he finds appropriate,” to acquire, after negotiation with the President of the Philippines, military bases “he may deem necessary for the mutual protection of the Philippine Islands and of the United States.” 58 Stat. 626, 22 U. S. C. § 1392. Pursuant to this statute, the United States and the Republic of the Philippines in 1947 entered into a 99-year Military Bases Agreement (MBA), Mar. 14, 1947, 61 Stat. 4019, T. I. A. S. No. 1775. The MBA grants the United States the use of various military facilities in the Philippines. It does not, however, contain any provisions regarding the employment of local nationals on the base. In 1968, the two nations negotiated a Base Labor Agreement (BLA), May 27, 1968, [1968] 19 U. S. T. 5892, T. I. A. S. No. 6542, as a supplement to the MBA. The BLA, inter alia, provides for the preferential employment of Filipino citizens at United States military facilities in the Philippines.
In 1971, Congress enacted § 106 of Pub. L. 92-129, the employment discrimination statute at issue in this case. At the time §106 was enacted, 12 agreements in addition to the BLA were in effect providing for preferential hiring of local nationals on United States military bases overseas. Since § 106 was enacted, four more such agreements have been concluded. None of these agreements were submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent pursuant to Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution.
In 1978, respondents, all United States citizens residing in the Philippines, were notified that their jobs at the United States Naval Facility at Subic Bay were being converted into local national positions in accordance with the BLA, and that they would be discharged from their employment with the Navy. After unsuccessfully pursuing an administrative remedy, respondents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the preferential employment provisions of the BLA violated, inter alia, § 106. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, Rossi v. Brown, 467 F. Supp. 960 (1979), but the Court of Appeals reversed. Rossi v. Brown, 206 U. S. App. D. C. 148, 642 F. 2d 553 (1980). We in turn reverse the Court of Appeals.
II
Simply because the question presented is entirely one of statutory construction does not mean that the question necessarily admits of an easy answer. Chief Justice Marshall long ago observed that “[wjhere the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes every thing from which aid can be derived .. . .” United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805). More recently, the Court has stated:
“Generalities about statutory construction help us little. They are not rules of law but merely axioms of experience. They do not solve the special difficulties in construing a particular statute. The variables render every problem of statutory construction unique.” United States v. Universal Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 221 (1952) (citations omitted).
We naturally begin with the language of § 106, which provides in relevant part as follows:
“Unless prohibited by treaty, no person shall be discriminated against by the Department of Defense or by any officer or employee thereof, in the employment of civilian personnel at any facility or installation operated by the Department of Defense in any foreign country because such person is a citizen of the United States or is a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.” 85 Stat. 355, note following 5 U. S. C. § 7201 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added).
The statute is awkwardly worded in the form of a double negative, and we agree with the Court of Appeals that “[r]e-placing the phrase ‘[ujnless prohibited by’ with either the words ‘unless permitted by’ or ‘unless provided by’ would convey more precisely the meaning of the statute, but we do not think that this awkward phrasing bears on congressional intent in selecting the word ‘treaty.’” 206 U. S. App. D. C., at 153, n. 21, 642 F. 2d, at 558, n. 21. Discrimination in employment against United States citizens at military facilities overseas is prohibited by § 106, unless such discrimination is permitted by a “treaty” between the United States and the host country. Our task is to determine the meaning of the word “treaty” as Congress used it in this statute. Congress did not separately define the word, as it has done in other enactments. Infra, at 30. We must therefore ascertain as best we can whether Congress intended the word “treaty” to refer solely to Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, “Treaties” — those international agreements concluded by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate — or whether Congress intended “treaty” to also include executive agreements' such as the BLA.
The word “treaty” has more than one meaning. Under principles of international law, the word ordinarily refers to an international agreement concluded between sovereigns, regardless of the manner in which the agreement is brought into force. 206 U. S. App. D. C., at 151, 642 F. 2d, at 556. Under the United States Constitution, of course, the word “treaty” has a far more restrictive meaning. Article II, § 2, cl. 2, of that instrument provides that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
Congress has not been consistent in distinguishing between Art. II treaties and other forms of international agreements. For example, in the Case Act, 1 U. S. C. § 112b(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), Congress required the Secretary of State to “transmit to the Congress the text of any international agreement, . . . other than a treaty, to which the United States is a party” no later than 60 days after “such agreement has entered into force.” Similarly, Congress has explicitly referred to Art. II treaties in the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U. S. C. § 1801 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), and the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, 22 U. S. C. § 2551 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). On the other hand, Congress has used “treaty” to refer only to international agreements other than Art. II treaties. In 39 U. S. C. § 407(a), for example, Congress authorized the Postal Service, with the consent of the President, to “negotiate and conclude postal treaties or conventions.” A “treaty” which requires only the consent of the President is not an Art. II treaty. Thus it is not dispositive that Congress in § 106 used the term “treaty” without specifically including international agreements that are not Art. II treaties.
The fact that Congress has imparted no precise meaning to the word “treaty” as that term is used in its various legislative Acts was recognized by this Court in B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U. S. 583 (1912). There this Court construed “treaty” in § 5 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891, ch. 517, 26 Stat. 826, to include international agreements concluded by the President under congressional authorization. 224 U. S., at 601. The Court held that the word “treaty” in the jurisdictional statute extended to such an agreement, saying: “If not technically a treaty requiring ratification, nevertheless it was a compact authorized by the Congress of the United States, negotiated and proclaimed under the authority of its President. We think such a compact is a treaty under the Circuit Court of Appeals Act. . . .” Ibid.
The statute involved in the Altman case in no way affected the foreign policy of the United States, since it dealt only with the jurisdiction of this Court. In the case of a statute such as § 106, that does touch upon the United States’ foreign policy, there is even more reason to construe Congress’ use of “treaty” to include international agreements as well as Art. II treaties. At the time §106 was enacted, 13 executive agreements provided for preferential hiring of local nationals. Supra, at 27. Thus, if Congress intended to limit the “treaty exception” in § 106 to Art. II treaties, it must have intended to repudiate these executive agreements that affect the hiring practices of the United States only at its military bases overseas. One would expect that Congress would be aware that executive agreements may represent a quid pro quo: the host country grants the United States base rights in exchange, inter alia, for preferential hiring of local nationals. See n. 17, infra.
It has been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision in Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64, 118 (1804), that “an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains . . . In McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U. S. 10, 20-21 (1963), this principle was applied to avoid construing the National Labor Relations Act in a manner contrary to State Department regulations, for such a construction would have had foreign policy implications. The McCulloch Court also relied on the fact that the proposed construction would have been contrary to a “well-established rule of international law.” Id., at 21. While these considerations apply with less force to a statute which by its terms is designed to affect conditions on United States enclaves outside of the territorial limits of this country than they do to the construction of statutes couched in general language which are sought to be applied in an extraterritorial way, they are nonetheless not without force in either case.
At the time § 106 was enacted, there were in force 12 agreements in addition to the BLA providing for preferential hiring of local nationals on United States military bases overseas. Since the time of the enactment of § 106, four more such agreements have been concluded, and none of these were submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. Supra, at 27. We think that some affirmative expression of congressional intent to abrogate the United States’ international obligations is required in order to construe the word “treaty” in § 106 as meaning only Art. II treaties. We therefore turn to what legislative history is available in order to ascertain whether such an intent may fairly be attributed to Congress.
The legislative history seems to us to indicate that Congress was principally concerned with the financial hardship to American servicemen which resulted from discrimination against American citizens at overseas bases. As the Conference Committee Report explains:
“The purpose of [§ 106] is to correct a situation which exists at some foreign bases, primarily in Europe, where discrimination in favor of local nationals and against American dependents in employment has contributed to conditions of hardship for families of American enlisted men whose dependents are effectively prevented from obtaining employment.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-433, p. 31 (1971).
The Conference Report, however, is entirely silent as to the scope of the “treaty” exception. Similarly, there is no mention of the 13 agreements that provided for preferential hiring of local nationals. Thus, the Conference Report provides no support whatsoever for the conclusion that Congress intended in some way to limit the President’s use of international agreements that may discriminate against American citizens who seek employment at United States military bases overseas.
On the contrary, the brief congressional debates on this provision indicate that Congress was not concerned with limiting the authority of the President to enter into executive agreements with the host country, but with the ad hoc deci-sionmaking of military commanders overseas. In early 1971, Brig. Gen. Charles H. Phipps, Commanding General of the European Exchange System, issued a memorandum encouraging the recruitment and hiring of local nationals instead of United States citizens at the system’s stores. The hiring of local nationals, General Phipps reasoned, would result in lower wage costs and turnover rates. Senator Schweiker, a sponsor of § 106, complained of General Phipps’ policy.
Both the Conference Report and the debates indicate that Congress was concerned primarily about the economic hardships American servicemen endured in Europe, particularly Germany. In this regard, it must be noted that of the 13 executive agreements in existence at the time § 106 was enacted, only one involved an agreement with a European country — Iceland. The Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Regarding the Status of Their Forces, June 19, 1951, [1953] 4 U. S. T. 1792, T. I. A. S. No. 2846, merely provides that local law governs the terms and conditions of the employment of local nationals. It does not provide for preferential treatment for local nationals. Thus, those servicemen whose interests Congress expressly sought to further in § 106 were not subject to the type of agreement at issue in this case.
The Court of Appeals relied heavily on a statement by Senator Hughes, a sponsor of § 106, that dependents of enlisted personnel “are denied the opportunity to work on overseas bases, by agreement with the countries in which they are located, and are forced to live in poverty.” 117 Cong. Rec. 16126 (1971). Taken out of context, this remark is certainly supportive of respondents’ position. In context, however, it is not altogether clear to which “agreements” Senator Hughes was referring. Immediately prior to this remark, Senator Cook explained that dependents of American servicemen were unable to obtain anything but tourist visas, thus precluding them from working in the local economy:
“On my inquiry of the Defense Department, it was my understanding that there was an agreement, through the NATO organization, that those young wives, because they were there on tourists visas, could not get a work permit under any circumstances.” Ibid.
As we indicated above, the NATO agreements do not contain any provision for preferential hiring of local nationals. Supra, at 34. Senator Hughes could well have been referring to agreements that in effect precluded dependents from working in the local economy. Be that as it may, it suffices to say that one isolated remark by a single Senator, ambiguous in meaning when examined in context, is insufficient to establish the kind of affirmative congressional expression necessary to evidence an intent to abrogate provisions in 13 international agreements.
Finally, respondents rely on postenactment legislative history that “firmly reiterate[s] the Congressional policy against preferential hiring of local nationals.” Brief for Respondents 23. In particular, respondents offer two examples of congressional Committees urging the Department of Defense to renegotiate those agreements containing local-national preferential hiring provisions. Such post hoc statements of a congressional Committee are not entitled to much weight. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 118, and n. 13 (1980). If anything, these postenactment statements cut against respondents’ argument that Congress sought in § 106 to eliminate discrimination owing to executive agreements. By urging the Department of Defense to renegotiate these agreements, the Committees assume the validity of those very international agreements respondents contend were abrogated by Congress in § 106.
While the question is not free from doubt, we conclude that the “treaty” exception contained in § 106 extends to executive agreements as well as to Art. II treaties. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
This agreement has been amended periodically, most recently on January 7, 1979. [1978-1979] 30 U. S. T. 863, T. I. A. S. No. 9224.
In relevant part, Article I of the BLA provides:
“1. Preferential Employment. — The United States Armed Forces in the Philippines shall fill the needs for civilian employment by employing Filipino citizens, except when the needed skills are found, in consultation with the Philippine Department of Labor, not to be locally available, or when otherwise necessary for reasons of security or special management needs, in which cases United States nationals may be employed. . . .”
Section 106 provides in pertinent part:
“Unless prohibited by treaty, no person shall be discriminated against by the Department of Defense or by any officer or employee thereof, in the employment of civilian personnel at any facility or installation operated by the Department of Defense in any foreign country because such person is a citizen of the United States or is a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.” 85 Stat. 355, note following 5 U. S. C. § 7201 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added).
Brief for Petitioners 5-6, and nn. 3-4.
See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, Art. 2, ¶ 1(a), reprinted in 63 Am. J. Int’l L. 875, 876 (1969); Restatement of Foreign Relations of the United States, Introductory Note 3, p. 74 (Tent. Draft No. 1, Apr. 1, 1980) (“[I]nternational law does not distinguish between agreements designated as ‘treaties’ and other agreements”).
We have recognized, however, that the President may enter into certain binding agreements with foreign nations without complying with the formalities required by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, even when the agreement compromises commercial claims between United States citizens and a foreign power. See, e. g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654 (1981); United States v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203 (1942); United States v. Belmont, 301 U. S. 324 (1937). Even though such agreements are not treaties under the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, they may in appropriate circumstances have an effect similar to treaties in some areas of domestic law.
In this context, it is entirely logical that Congress should distinguish between Art. II treaties and other international agreements. Submission of Art. II treaties to the Senate for ratification is already required by the Constitution.
Congress defined “treaty” to mean “any international fishery agreement which is a treaty within the meaning of section 2 of article II of the Constitution.” 16 U. S. C. § 1802(23).
“[N]o action shall be taken under this chapter or any other law that will obligate the United States to disarm or to reduce or to limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States, except pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution or unless authorized by further affirmative legislation by the Congress of the United States.” 22 U. S. C. § 2573.
See 117 Cong. Rec. 14395 (1971) (remarks of Sen. Schweiker).
“I have never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life. We actually send our GI’s to Europe at poverty wages. We do not pay to send the wives there. They have to beg or borrow that money. They get over there, and if they do bring their wives at their own expense, the wives cannot even go to the Army Exchange Service and get a job, because a general has sent out a memorandum that says we are going to give those jobs to the nationals of the countries involved.” Ibid.
At another point, Senator Schweiker commented: “Here is an American general saying that when the GI’s go to their canteen or service post exchange and spend their money, they do not even have the right to have their wives working there because we should give those jobs to German nationals.” Id., at 16128.
See, e. g., id., at 14395 (remarks of Sen. Schweiker); id., at 16126 (remarks of Sen. Cook); ibid, (remarks of Sen. Hughes).
Agreement Concerning the Status of United States Personnel and Property (Annex), May 8, 1951, United States-Iceland, [1951] 2 U. S. T. 1533, T. I. A. S. No. 2295.
This NATO agreement is an Art. II treaty.
The contemporaneous remarks of a sponsor of legislation are certainly not controlling in analyzing legislative history. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 118 (1980); Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 311 (1979).
See H. R. Rep. No. 95-68, p. 25 (1977); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-410, p. 54 (1981).
Although we do not ascribe it much weight, we note that a Conference Committee recently deleted a provision that would have prohibited the hiring of foreign nationals at military bases overseas when qualified United States citizens are available. Ibid. In urging this provision’s deletion, Senator Percy explained that the provision would place the United States in violation of its obligations, inter alia, under the BLA with the Philippines. 127 Cong. Rec. S14110 (Nov. 30, 1981). He argued:
“Some host nations might view enactment of 777 as a material breach of our agreements, thus entitling them to open negotiations on terminating, redefining or further restricting U. S. basing and use rights. Nations could, for example, retaliate by suspending or reducing our current rights to engage in routine military operations such as aircraft transits.” Ibid.
In view of its construction of § 106, the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to determine whether the BLA in the instant case violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). Rossi v. Brown, 206 U. S. App. D. C. 148, 156, n. 36, 642 F. 2d 553, 561, n. 36 (1980). Because this question was neither raised in the petition for certiorari nor reached by the Court of Appeals, we do not consider 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: | 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.
Once again we are called upon to review a criminal conviction for refusal to answer questions before a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. See Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155; Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190; Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109; Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S. 399; Braden v. United States, 365 U. S. 431. The petitioner was brought to trial in the District Court for the District of Columbia upon an indictment which charged that he had violated 2 U. S. C. § 192 by refusing to answer five questions “which were pertinent to the question then under inquiry” by the subcommittee. He waived a jury and was convicted upon four of the five counts of the indictment. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 108 U. S. App. D. C. 143, 280 F. 2d 691, and we brought the case here because of doubt as to the validity of the conviction in the light of our pre-
vious decisions. 364 U. S. 812. A careful review of the trial record convinces us that the District Court should have ordered an acquittal.
At the trial the Government’s case consisted largely of documentary evidence. That evidence showed that a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities conducted hearings in Albany, New York, in July of 1953, and again in early April of 1954. The petitioner was not present on either occasion. He was subpoenaed to appear before the subcommittee in Albany on April 9, 1954, but, at the request of his counsel, it was agreed that he should appear instead before the subcommittee three days later in the Old House Office Building in Washington, D. C.
He appeared there on the appointed day, accompanied by counsel, and without further ado his interrogation began. The petitioner freely answered all preliminary questions, revealing that he was then twenty-four years old and a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania. He stated that his early education had been in the public schools of Brooklyn, New York, from where he had gone to Cornell University in 1947 for four years as an undergraduate and two additional years as a graduate student.
The subcommittee’s counsel then ma.de the following statement:
“Mr. Deutch, during hearings at Albany last week, the committee heard testimony regarding the existence of a Communist Party group or cell operating among undergraduates at Cornell University, among certain graduates at Cornell and in the city of Ithaca.
“In connection with that testimony, the committee was informed that you were a member of one or more of those groups. If so, I would like to ask you certain matters relating to your activity there.
“Were you a member of a group of the Communist Party at Cornell ?”
The petitioner answered, “under protest,” that he had indeed been a member of the Communist Party while at Cornell. He then testified freely and without further objection as to his own activities and associations. He stated that “from the age of 13 or 14 I had read many books on Marxism and at that time was very much impressed with trying to solve certain of the injustices we have nowadays.” He said that when he got to college “I felt if I had ideas I shouldn’t be half pregnant about them, so when I came to college I was approached and joined.” He stated that the approach to join the Party had been made by a student.
As to the general nature of his Communist Party activities at Cornell, he said “about all that happened were bull sessions on Marxism, and some activities like giving out a leaflet or two. The people I met didn’t advocate the overthrowing of the Government by force and violence, and if they had, I wouldn’t have allowed it.” He testified that he had known one faculty member at Cornell who was a Communist, but that this person had quit the Party. He stated that he had once received from “a personal friend,” who was not connected with the Cornell faculty, a $100 contribution to give to the Party. He stated that he had been the only graduate student at Cornell who was a Communist, and that, as the “head” (and lone member) of the “graduate group,” he had attended meetings in a private house where a “maximum of 4 or 5” people were present. Many of his answers indicated a lack of awareness of the details of Communist activities at Cornell. The petitioner testified that as of the time of the hearings he was no longer a member of the Communist Party, but he volunteered the information that “[t]o a great extent it is only fair to say I am a Marxist today — I don’t want to deny that.”
While the petitioner’s answers to the many questions put to him about his own activities and conduct were thus fully responsive, he refused to answer five questions he was asked concerning other people. He declined to give the names of the faculty member who had been a Communist, of the friend who had made the $100 contribution, of the student who had originally approached him about joining the Communist Party, and of the owners of the house where the meetings had been held. He also declined to say whether he was acquainted with one Homer Owen. For his refusal to answer these questions he was indicted, tried, and convicted.
The reason which the petitioner gave the subcommittee for his refusal to answer these questions can best be put in his own words:
“Sir, I am perfectly willing to tell about my own activities, but do you feel I should trade my moral scruples by informing on someone else? ... I can only say that whereas I do not want to be in contempt of the committee, I do not believe I can answer questions about other people, but only about myself. ... I happen to have been a graduate student — the only one there, and the organization is completely defunct, and the individual you are interested in wasn’t even a professor. The magnitude of this is really beyond reason.”
The chairman of the subcommittee ruled that it was the petitioner’s duty nevertheless to answer the questions:
“That decision does not rest with you as to whether or not the scope of this inquiry — as to whether or not certain individuals are important now or not. That is the responsibility of we Representatives to determine. That determination cannot rest with you. It may be very true that the individual to whom you have referred is no longer a member of the Communist Party. However, that is a supposition on your part — and a supposition which the committee cannot accept. ... I think that it is only fair to advise the witness — again advise the witness — that any scruples he may have due to a desire to protect friends and acquaintances, is not a legal reason for declining to answer the questions which are now being put to you, and which will be put to you by counsel.”
In an effort to prove the pertinence of the questions which the petitioner had refused to answer, the Government offered at the trial the transcripts of the opening statements of Subcommittee Chairman Kearney at the Albany hearings in 1953 and 1954 and of Subcommittee Chairman Velde at a hearing in Chicago in 1954, as well as an additional portion of the transcript of the 1954 Albany hearing. One witness, the counsel for the Committee on Un-American Activities, testified. A review of this evidence convinces us that the Government failed to prove the charge in the indictment that the questions which the petitioner refused to answer were “pertinent to the question then under inquiry” by the subcommittee before which he appeared.
The Chairman’s opening statement at the Albany hearing in 1953 consisted largely of a paraphrase of the Committee’s authorizing resolution and a general summary of the Committee’s past activities. The only statement of a specific purpose was as follows:
“The committee, in its course of investigation, came into possession of reliable information indicating Communist Party activities within the Albany area. The committee decided that this information was of such a character as to merit an investigation to determine its nature, extent, character, and objects.”
At the opening of the Albany hearings in 1954 the Chairman stated that the subcommittee would “resume this morning the investigation of Communist Party activities within the capital area.” He made clear that the hearings were “a continuation of the open hearings which were conducted in Albany” in 1953. He pointed out that testimony at the 1953 hearings had “related to the efforts of the Communist Party to infiltrate industry and other segments of society in the capital area.” “This committee/’ he said, “. . . is investigating communism within the field of labor where it has substantial evidence that it exists.”
The opening statement of the Chairman of the subcommittee which held hearings in Chicago in 1954 is the same statement that was before this Court in Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 210. As was pointed out in the Watkins opinion, Mr. Yelde “did no more than paraphrase the authorizing resolution and give a very general sketch of the past efforts of the Committee.” Moreover, the statement indicated that that subcommittee hearing was directed primarily towards investigation of activities in the Chicago area: “We are here in Chicago, Ill., realizing that this is the center of the great midwestern area of the United States. It cannot be said that subversive infiltration has had a greater, nor a lesser success in infiltrating this important area. The hearings today are the culmination of an investigation that has been conducted by the committee’s competent staff and is a part of the committee’s intention for holding hearings in various parts of the country.”
The transcripts of part of the testimony of two witnesses at the 1954 Albany hearings, John Marqusee and Emmanuel Richardson, were also introduced at the petitioner’s trial. These transcripts showed that Marqusee’s testimony had related primarily to Communist infiltration of a labor union in Schenectady for which he had worked during a summer vacation in 1948. At that time he had been a student in the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, which, he had testified, was a part of Cornell University. He had told the subcommittee that he had never had any contact with the Communist Party before taking the labor union job. The transcripts showed that he had explained that he had taken the job in accordance with the school’s requirement “that every student should put forth his efforts in securing a job during the summer, during the intervening summers of his 4-year program, 1 summer with a labor union, 1 with a management group, if possible, and 1 summer with a neutral agency, such as a mediation agency or arbitration service.” There was no mention of the Cornell Graduate School, nor of the petitioner, in the transcript of Marqu-see’s testimony.
The transcript of Richardson’s testimony showed that he had testified that as a student at the Cornell Law School in 1950 he had joined the Communist Party at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He had named several people he had known as Communists on the Cornell campus, including the petitioner and Homer Owen. He had stated that the petitioner had known a member of the Cornell faculty who was a Communist Party member, and that he had once received through the petitioner a contribution to the Party from someone else of “one hundred and some dollars.” The transcript showed that Richardson had also testified at length concerning Communist infiltration into a labor union in a plant in Syracuse where he had worked during the summers of 1951 and 1952.
After these transcripts had been introduced at the petitioner’s trial, the Government called its only witness, Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., who had been the “interrogating attorney” at the Albany hearings and at the petitioner’s hearing before the subcommittee in Washington. Mr. Tavenner emphasized that the hearing in Washington was a continuation of the Albany hearings, which he characterized as “a general investigation of Communist Party activities in what was referred to as the 'Capital Area.’ ” Under interrogation of government counsel, the witness expressly disclaimed that the purpose of the Washington hearing had been to investigate Communist activities in educational institutions. He was asked what “connection was there between [the subject of the petitioner’s testimony] and the investigations entitled 'Albany, New York’?” This question was never answered.
On this record the District Court found the subject under inquiry to be “the infiltration of Communism into educational and labor fields.” .147 F. Supp., at 91. The Court of Appeals never stated what it thought the subject under inquiry by the subcommittee was.
As our cases make clear, two quite different issues regarding pertinency may be involved in a prosecution under 2 U. S. C. § 192. One issue reflects the requirement of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment that the pertinency of the interrogation to the topic under the congressional committee’s inquiry must be brought home to the witness at the time the questions are put to him. “Unless the subject matter has been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on grounds of perti-nency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S., at 214-215. See Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S., at 123-124. The other and different pertinency issue stems from the prosecution’s duty at the trial to prove that the questions propounded by the congressional committee were in fact “pertinent to the question under inquiry” by the committee. “Undeniably a conviction for contempt under 2 U. S. C. § 192 cannot stand unless the questions asked are pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation.” Barenblatt, supra, at 123. “[T]he statute defines the crime as refusal to answer ‘any question pertinent to the question under inquiry.’ Part of the standard of criminality, therefore, is the pertinency of the questions propounded to the witness.” Watkins, supra, at 208. See Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S., at 407-409, 413; Braden v. United States, 365 U. S., at 433, 435-436; Sacher v. United States, 356 U. S. 576, 577; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 296-297. These two basically different issues must not be blurred by treating them as a single question of “pertinency.”
With regard to the first issue, it is evident that the petitioner was not made aware at the time he was questioned of the question then under inquiry nor of how the questions which were asked related to such a subject. The chairman made no opening statement, and the petitioner heard no other witnesses testify. The resolution creating the subcommittee revealed nothing. It was merely a general resolution authorizing the creation of a subcommittee to act for the Committee. Committee counsel simply advised the petitioner that the committee had previously heard evidence regarding Communist activity at Cornell, and that he proposed to ask the petitioner “certain matters relating to your activity there.” As to his own activity there the petitioner freely testified. When the petitioner declined to give the names of other people, no clear explanation of the topic under inquiry was forthcoming.
It is also evident, however, that the thoughts which the petitioner voiced in refusing to answer the questions about other people can hardly be considered as the equivalent of an objection upon the grounds of pertinency. Although he did indicate doubt as to the importance of the questions, the petitioner’s main concern was clearly his own conscientious unwillingness to act as an informer. It can hardly be considered, therefore, that the objections which the petitioner made at the time were “adequate, within the meaning of what was said in Watkins, supra, at 214-215, to trigger what would have been the Subcommittee’s reciprocal obligation had it been faced with a pertinency objection.” Barenblatt, supra, at 124.
We need not pursue the matter, however, because, in any event, it is clear that the Government at the trial failed to carry its burden of proving the pertinence of the questions. See Bowers v. United States, 92 U. S. App. D. C. 79, 202 F. 2d 447, 452. The first step in proving that component of the offense was to show the subject of the subcommittee’s inquiry. Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S., at 407. As related above, the Government offered documentary evidence of statements made by the chairman of the subcommittees at two hearings in Albany which tended to show that those subcommittees were investigating Communist infiltration in the Albany or “capital” area, particularly in the field of labor. The Government presented one witness who testified that the petitioner’s hearing was a continuation of the Albany hearings, and that the subject of those hearings was Communist infiltration in the Albany area. He disavowed any implication that the topic under inquiry was Communism either at Cornell or in educational institutions generally.
Yet the questions which the petitioner was convicted of refusing to answer obviously had nothing to do with the Albany area or with Communist infiltration into labor unions. It can hardly be seriously contended that Cornell University is in the Albany area. Indeed, we may take judicial notice of the fact that Ithaca is more than one hundred and sixty-five miles from Albany, and in an entirely different economic and geographic area of New York. The petitioner was asked nothing about Albany or the Albany area. So far as the record shows, he knew nothing about that subject. He was asked nothing about labor or labor unions. So far as the record shows, he knew nothing about them. He was asked nothing about any possible connection between Cornell or its graduate school and Communist infiltration in Albany. Yet the petitioner was basically a cooperative witness, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that, except for giving the names of others, he would not have freely answered any inquiry the subcommittee wished to pursue with respect to these subjects. It is true that the transcript of the testimony of two witnesses at the Albany hearings established that, in addition to testifying about Communist infiltration into labor unions in the Albany area, they had been willingly led into some testimony about Communist activities by the petitioner and others at Cornell. But that excursion can hardly justify a disregard of the Government’s careful proof at the petitioner’s trial of what the subject under inquiry actually was. The pertinence of the interrogation of those two witnesses is not before us. The pertinence of the petitioner’s interrogation is.
In enacting 2 U. S. C. § 192, the Congress invoked the aid of the federal judicial system to protect itself from contumacious conduct. Watkins, supra, at 207. “In fulfillment of their obligation under this statute, the courts must accord to the defendants every right which is guaranteed to defendants in all other criminal cases.” Id., at 208. “One of the rightful boasts of Western civilization is that the [prosecution] has the burden of establishing guilt solely on the basis of evidence produced in court and under circumstances assuring an accused all the safeguards of a fair procedure.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 729 (concurring opinion). Among these is the presumption of the defendant’s innocence. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S., at 296-297; Flaxer v. United States, 358 U. S., at 151. It was incumbent upon the prosecution in this case to prove that the petitioner had committed the offense for which he was indicted. One element of that offense was the pertinence to the subject matter under inquiry of the questions the petitioner refused to answer. We hold, as a matter of law, that there was a failure of such proof in this case. Sacher v. United States, 356 U. S. 576; see Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S., at 298-299; Braden v. United States, 365 U. S., at 436-437.
We do not decide today any question respecting the power or legislative purpose of this subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Nor do we reach the large issues stirred by the petitioner’s First Amendment claims. Our decision is made within the conventional framework of the federal criminal law, and in accord with its traditional concepts. In a word, we hold only that the Government failed to prove its case.
Reversed.
“Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.” 2 U. S. C. § 192.
See, in addition to the cases cited in the text, supra: Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263; United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323; United States v. Fleischman, 339 U. S. 349; United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41; Sacher v. United States, 356 U. S. 576; Flaxer v. United States, 358 U. S. 147. See also McPhaul v. United States, 364 U. S. 372.
“I will answer that question, but only under protest.
“I wish to register a challenge as to the jurisdiction of this committee under Public Law 601, which is the committee’s enabling legislation. This question, or any similar questions involving my associations, past or future, I am answering, but only under protest as to its constitutionality. But, under your jurisdiction as stated, I answer yes, I was a member of the Communist Party.”
The following colloquies are typical:
“Mr. Doyle: Who published the leaflets?
“Mr. Deutch: I believe the Communist Party published them.
“Mr. Doyle: What Communist Party? Where did you get the leaflets? From the national headquarters?
“Mr. Deutch: I don’t believe so. It was a local branch.
“Mr. Doyle: Where was the office of the local branch from which you got these leaflets?
“Mr. Deutch: I didn’t know where it was. I was just asked to distribute them.”
“Mr. Tavenner: Were you ever a member of the Downtown Club of the Communist Party in Ithaca?
“Mr. Deutch: I don’t believe so.
“Mr. Tavenner: Did you attend meetings of that group?
“Mr. Deutch: No. That is, I don’t believe so. The reason I wonder is because that organization became defunct so that there was really no organization. Downtown was Uptown, and there were so few people that I just want to qualify that statement.”
“Mr. Scherer: Let me ask you this question. You knew where the meetings were held?
“Mr. Deutch: I don’t believe I know exactly where they were. This is because — since Mr. Richardson drove me there.” [Mr. Richardson was a law student at Cornell who had joined the Communist Party at the behest of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. See p. 466, infra.']
The questions, as set out in the five counts of the indictment, were as follows:
“Count One
“The committee was advised that a witness by the name of Ross Richardson has stated that you acted as liaison between a Communist Party group on the campus and a member of the faculty at Cornell, and that you knew the name of the member of that faculty, who was a member of the Communist Party. Will you tell us who that member of the faculty was?
“Count Two
“Will you tell the committee, please, the source of that $100 contribution, if it was made?
“Count Three
“Where were these meetings held?
“Count Four
“Were you acquainted with Homer Owen?
“Count Five
“The witness is directed to give the name of the person by whom he was approached.”
The petitioner was convicted on all but Count Three.
“The committee is charged by the Congress of the United States with the responsibility of investigating the extent, character and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries, or of a domestic origin, and attacks the principles of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution and all other questions in relation thereto that will aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.
“It has been fully established by testimony before this and other congressional committees and before the courts of our land that the Communist Party of the United States is part of an international conspiracy, which is being used as a tool or a weapon by a foreign power to promote its own foreign policy and which has for its objective the overthrow of the governments of all non-Communist countries, resorting to the use of force and violence if necessary. This organization cannot live and expand within the United States except by the promulgation and diffusion of subversive and un-American propaganda designed to win adherence to its cause. .
“The first witness in this hearing will testify regarding certain aspects of the worldwide Communist conspiracy, which should demonstrate what a serious matter it is to permit individuals who are subject to the directives and discipline of the Communist Party to be placed in positions of leadership in any functional organization.
“The committee, in its course of investigation, came into possession of reliable information indicating Communist Party activities within the Albany area. The committee decided that this information was of such a character as to merit an investigation to determine its nature, extent, character, and objects.
“Many witnesses have appeared before this committee, sitting in various places throughout the United States, and have revealed their experiences as former Communist Party members. Such testimony has added immeasurably to the sum total of the knowledge, character, extent, and objects of Communist activities in this country.
“Witnesses from Hollywood, labor unions, the legal profession, medical profession, and other groups have made a great contribution to the defense of our country by disclosing to this committee facts within their knowledge.
“In the view of this committee, such testimony should not be held against an individual where it has that character of trustworthiness which convinces one that the witness has completely and finally terminated Communist Party membership and that such testimony has been given in all good faith.
“The committee is not concerned with the political beliefs or opinions of any witness who has been called before it. It is concerned only with the facts showing the extent, character, and objects of the Communist Party activities.
“In keeping with the long-standing policy of this committee, any individual or organization whose name is mentioned during the course of the hearings in such a manner as to adversely affect them shall have an opportunity to appear before the committee for the purpose of making a denial or explanation of any adverse references.
“I would also like at this time, before the beginning of these hearings, to make this announcement to the public: We are here at the discretion of the Congress of the United States, trying to discharge a duty and obligation that has been placed upon us. The public is here by permission of the committee and not by any compulsion. Any attempt or effort on the part of anyone to make a demonstration or audible comment in this hearing room, either favorably or unfavorably, toward the committee’s undertaking, or to what any witness may have to say, will not be countenanced by the committee. If such conduct should occur, the officers on duty will be requested to eject the offenders from the hearing room.”
The entire statement of Mr. Velde is set out at 354 U. S, 210-211, n. 49.
Schenectady is sixteen miles from Albany.
The subcommittee before which the petitioner appeared, “for the purpose of taking this testimony this morning,” consisted of Representative Jackson, Acting Chairman, and Representatives Scherer and Doyle. The subcommittee which had conducted the hearings at Albany a few days earlier was composed of Representative Kearney, Chairman, and Representatives Scherer and Walter.
“Q. How does it happen that Mr. Deutch’s testimony appears in ‘Education — 8’ if it was a part actually of ‘Albany’ ?
“A. Well, the staff in the releasing of this testimony at a later date placed it for convenience under the heading of Education.”
We disregard the evidence indicating that the subject under inquiry was Communist activities in the Chicago area.
This was hardly a matter within the peculiar knowledge of the petitioner. Cf. McPhaul v. United States, 364 U. S. 372, 379.
For a Court opinion specifically to join issue with what is written in dissent is a practice ordinarily to be avoided. One of the dissenting opinions in this case, however, is largely based upon what are asserted to be “the undisputed relevant facts in the record.” Since every litigant is entitled to have his case reviewed on the facts in the record, it is appropriate to state explicitly that:
(1) The record affirmatively shows that neither Marqusee nor Richardson testified, directly or indirectly, to “passing out handbills at strike scenes” or to any “plan of using the prestige and innocent aid of the university’s placement service in getting summer jobs with labor unions in upper New York,” or anywhere else.
(2) The record affirmatively shows that at no time did the subcommittee, or anyone on its behalf, “advise” the petitioner, or anyone else, that the subcommittee was investigating the infiltration of communism into the “educational and labor fields.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Five railroads which transport fruits and vegetables into New York and Philadelphia filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission schedules of charges for unloading services performed by them at these points. Various shippers and shipper organizations, State Commissions, and other interested parties, protested the proposed charges. The Secretary of Agriculture, acting on behalf of the affected agricultural interests, intervened. The Commission in due course approved the charges, 272 I. C. C. 648. On further consideration, the approved charges were cut roughly in half, 286 I. C. C. 119. Complaints against even these reduced charges were then filed with the Commission, but these were dismissed by it on the basis of its prior decision, and this litigation to enjoin and set aside the Commission’s order followed. 28 U. S. C. §§ 1336, 2325. Numerous parties again intervened — the shipper and consumer interests on the side of the protestants, and the carriers involved on the side of the Commission. The three-judge district court, with Judge De Vane dissenting, upheld the Commission, 114 F. Supp. 420. Direct appeals under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 brought the cases here. 347 U. S. 902.
The general rule is that it is the responsibility of the carrier, as part of the transportation service covered by the line-haul rate, to “deliver” the goods by placing them in such a position as to make them accessible to the consignee. Normally unloading is not a part of the delivery and is performed by the consignee. In accordance with these principles, the railroad spots the car on the team track in its yards in .the destination city, and the consignee is given appropriate free time in which to unload. In the case of private sidings, the railroad’s job ends when it has placed the car on the consignee’s siding.
These are not inflexible rules. The law recognizes and reflects the practicalities of transportation by rail and the diversities to which they give rise. Prior to 1925, the railroads, in order to meet the demands of competitive transportation industries, performed the unloading without additional charge at specified points. In the case of Loading and Unloading Carload Freight, 101 I. C. C. 394, the Commission approved tariffs by the railroads abolishing free unloading at most of these points, and authorized the carriers to make an additional charge thereafter for performing the unloading at the consignee’s request. By the time the present proceeding was instituted, Philadelphia and New York were the only points where the carriers were still performing unloading without any charge in addition to the line-haul rate.
The exception of these two cities was no aberration. It is the result of special conditions which exist in New York and Philadelphia. The significance of these special conditions is at the heart of this controversy.
No railroad carrying fruits or vegetables into New York, except the New York Central, has a direct line into Manhattan. The roads transporting the bulk of the produce into New York, the Pennsylvania and Erie Railroads, terminate their lines on the Jersey side of the Hudson River. There, the cars are put on barges and floated across the river, either to be switched onto the carriers’ Manhattan team tracks or to be unloaded directly at the Duane Street piers. These pier terminals are leased by the City of New York to the various carriers and are strategically located adjacent to Washington Market, New York’s largest fruit and vegetable market. At the team tracks, according to the usual practice, the consignees do their own unloading. However, because of the inadequacy of these facilities and because of the more advantageous location of the pier terminals, approximately 75% of the fruits and vegetables coming into New York are directed to the pier stations.
The procedure at the pier stations is as follows. When the floats are docked at the appropriate pier — this usually happens at night — work crews of the railroad begin to unload the cars and place the contents on the pier floor. The consignees are notified in advance of the arrival of their goods, and at specified times their trucks can come onto the pier floor to pick up their merchandise. Sales and auction facilities are also provided by the railroads, and some of the produce is immediately disposed of in this manner. In no event are the consignees allowed to unload the cars themselves; indeed the Commission has found that this would be “impracticable.”
At Philadelphia, the situation is somewhat different. Here there is no problem of water transportation, and the team track facilities where consignees can do their own unloading are not shown to be inadequate. However, in 1927, the Pennsylvania and the Baltimore & Ohio built competitive produce terminals, and, because of the special facilities available there, 95% of the fruits and vegetables consigned to Philadelphia are now received at these stations. Each of these terminals has two platforms, one for produce intended for private sale, one for produce intended for auction sale. The unloading operations here are considerably simpler and cheaper than at the New York piers; but, as in New York, all the unloading here is performed by the carriers.
It was in the light of this background that the carriers, faced by the sharply rising costs of the unloading operation, sought the Commission’s approval for special unloading charges at these two cities. Such charges, the carriers urged, would serve to bring New York and Philadelphia into line with the generally prevailing practice— that consignees must either do their own unloading or, if they want the carrier to do it for them, they must be prepared to pay for it.
The protestants, appellants here, do not challenge these general principles. It is their contention rather that at these particular points the unloading is an essential part of delivery in that without it the goods are not accessible to the consignees; that therefore the line-haul rate encompasses the unloading; and, finally, that a service covered by the line-haul rate cannot be separately compensated unless the carriers show that the line-haul rate is inadequate to cover it.
These are claims that must be met, and the real question before us is whether the Commission has met them with an adequacy that satisfies the requirements of judicial review, limited though its scope may be. With respect to New York, the Commission’s findings clearly show that since the consignees were not permitted to do their own unloading, the goods were not accessible to them until unloaded by the carriers. Cf. United States v. United States Smelting Co., 339 U. S. 186. Moreover, prior cases of the Commission dealing with the New York terminal have indicated that the unloading cost there is an integral part of the through rate. See Fruits and Vegetables to Duane St., N. Y., 66 I. C. C. 135, 139; Erie R. Co. v. Alabama & V. R. Co., 98 I. C. C. 268, 272, 280-281. Yet the court below attributed to the Commission findings that “the line haul service terminated when the cars reached the pier station,” and that “unloading is an additional service, wholly distinct from delivery.” 114 F. Supp., at 424. But the findings of the Commission, taken as a whole, do not support these statements.
Prior cases where the Commission had sustained the imposition of unloading charges do not serve as useful precedents here. E. g., Loading and Unloading Carload Freight, supra. In those cases, there was an absence of circumstances to justify deviation from the normal rule that unloading is not part of delivery, and therefore the Commission was warranted in concluding that the carrier might impose a separate charge for the unloading where the consignee requested it. Here, however, because of the peculiar conditions prevailing at the New York piers, the unloading is an essential part of the delivery and hence is necessarily encompassed in the line haul. Instead of treating this situation on its own merits, the Commission appears to have relied too much on prior decisions dealing with the problem of unloading charges in different contexts.
While the normal course for the Commission in dealing with a situation like the present would have been to re-examine the sufficiency of the line-haul rate, or to initiate a new division of the existing line-haul rate, the Commission was not precluded from following a procedure fairly adapted to the unique circumstances of this case. The Commission may not unnaturally have felt that it would be undesirable to revise the line-haul rate with its inevitable effect on the entire tariff structure, in order to deal appropriately with the special, localized situation presented at the New York piers. Or the Commission might well have thought that a redivision of the line-haul rate would not be appropriate for the substantial additional cost here involved.
It is not necessary now to consider the Commission’s power, under appropriate findings, to approve such unloading charges without pursuing one of these courses. In dealing with technical and complex matters like these, the Commission must necessarily have wide discretion in formulating appropriate solutions. But we do say that while the Commission has adumbrated the reasons that commended these charges to its approval, the Commission has not adequately explained its departure from prior norms and has not sufficiently spelled out the legal basis of its decision. We do not know whether the Commission has disregarded its own findings that the unloading here is a prerequisite to delivery of the goods; or whether, in order to meet an unusual situation, the Commission has modified the normal doctrine that delivery is the responsibility of the carrier, see New Eng land Coal & Coke Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 33 I. C. C. 276; or whether the Commission, for a reason not made explicit, has here deemed irrelevant the prevailing rule of its prior cases that a service necessarily encompassed by the line-haul rate cannot be separately restated without examining the sufficiency of the line-haul rate to cover it. See, e. g., Terminal Charges at Pacific Coast Ports, 255 I. C. C. 673; Unloading Lumber to New York Harbor, 256 I. C. C. 463. In short, the Commission has not explained its decision “with the simplicity and clearness through which a halting impression ripens into reasonable certitude. In the end we are left to spell out, to argue, to choose between conflicting inferences. Something more precise is requisite in the quasi-jurisdictional findings of an administrative agency. Beaumont, S. L. & W. R. Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 74, 86; Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, 215. We must know what a decision means before the duty becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong.” United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 510-511.
Appellants also contend that to permit separate charges to be imposed for the unloading of fruits and vegetables, while not imposing similar charges on other commodities unloaded at these points, violates §§ 2 and 3 of the Interstate Commerce Act. Since we have already concluded that the case should be remanded to the Commission, the Commission on remand should also make more explicit findings as to the differences and similarities in the treatment accorded other commodities unloaded at these same points. If such commodities are unloaded “under substantially similar circumstances,” the Act requires that the charges imposed be the same. If, on the other hand, there are important differences in treatment justifying the imposition of different unloading charges or of no unloading charges at all, the Commission ought to find no difficulty in defining the differences.
Similarly, we deem it desirable that upon reconsideration of this controversy, the Commission should also be more explicit in stating the reasons that led it to assimilate, so far as these unloading charges are concerned, the situation at Philadelphia to that at New York.
The judgment is vacated, and the cases are ordered to be remanded to the Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Douglas would hold the Commission’s order invalid and enjoin its enforcement on the ground that the Commission failed to determine the reasonableness of the railroads’ line-haul rates on the basis of increased unloading rates allowed by the Commission.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Under 7 U. S. C. § 1291, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make complaint to the Commission as well as to intervene before the Commission and resort to original and appellate judicial remedies in cases affecting the transportation of farm products.
The New York Central and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroads also perform such floatage.
The unloading practices vary somewhat from carrier to carrier. For example, the Erie has a special contractor do its unloading; the Pennsylvania uses automatic equipment instead of manual labor.
272 I. C. C., at 655. In its later report, the Commission also made the somewhat inconsistent finding that “at the original hearing the railroads offered to permit consignees to unload their freight from the car float.” 286 I. C. C., at 125. But when the California Fruit Growers Exchange, after the Commission’s initial decision, requested the railroads to “permit the consignees, as a whole, to perform the unloading at the piers” the railroads refused.
The B. & 0. terminal is used jointly by it and the Reading Railroad.
At Philadelphia, too, the consignees requested the carriers to be permitted to do their own unloading, or to let the auction company which was selling the fruit on their account do the unloading. The Pennsylvania refused, on the ground that the “terminal was a public facility and that the granting of such permission might give rise to a dual method of unloading, one to be conducted by the fruit and vegetable trade, and the other by the railroad for the general public.” 286 I.. C. C., at 137. In this connection, it should be noted that the Commission made no findings that it would be “impracticable” for the consignees to do the unloading at the Philadelphia produce terminals.
272 I. C. C. 648, 654-655: “Delivery to the consignee is not effected until after the cars are unloaded and the lading placed at a convenient location on the pier floor.” 286 I. C. C. 119, 125: “The pier floor is the first place where, after the freight has been unloaded, delivery can be taken.” 286 I. C. C. 119, 127: “After the vegetables are placed on the pier platform they are accessible to the consignee . . . .” 286 I. C. C. 119, 129: The proposed charge, in addition to the line-haul rate, is “for making delivery at New York piers.”
The relation between the unloading charges and the line haul was also adverted to in the Commission’s earlier report, 272 I. C. C., at 662, but not with sufficient clarity.
Under 49 U. S. C. § 15 (6), the Commission may authorize a new division of the rate among the participating carriers if it finds the present division “unjust, unreasonable, [or] inequitable.” In such a proceeding special terminal costs can be taken into account prior to allocating the rate among the line-haul carriers. See Erie B. Co. v. Alabama & V. R. Co., 98 I. C. C. 268, 280; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Arcade & A. R. Corp., 194 I. C. C. 729, 745-747; Official-Southern Divisions, 287 I. C. C. 497, 538-543; Official-Southwestern Divisions, 287 I. C. C. 553, 584-593.
As the Commission stated:
“An unusual situation, arising primarily from the topography of the area, exists on lower Manhattan as a result of which the present method of handling shipments through the pier stations is of benefit to both shippers (including consignees) and carriers. It is also helpful in the avoidance of traffic congestion. The acquisition of land in that area for additional track facilities would be impracticable if not impossible. . . . Physical conditions in and around New York which limit available space for the establishment and operation of railroad terminal facilities is a general community problem and obviously there should be some sharing between the carriers and their patrons of the burden of overcoming the existing difficulties if this congested area is to be served by railroad transportation.” 286 I. C. C., at 139-140.
The Commission also made reference to figures introduced by the carriers showing the considerable disparity between the cost per car of making team track delivery and cost per car of making terminal delivery, including unloading (286 I. C. C., at 131):
New York
Manhattan Pier
Team Tracks Terminals
Erie. $45.44 $83.87
Pennsylvania . 73.57 122.73
B. & 0 . 70.46 119.86
Philadelphia
Produce
Team Tracks Terminals
Pennsylvania . $39.64 $109.36
B. & 0 . 27.66 75.94
49 U. S. C. § 2 prohibits a carrier from charging or receiving “a greater or less compensation for any service rendered . . . than it charges . . . any other person . . . [for] a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances . . . .”
Section 3 (1) makes it unlawful for any carrier to subject “any particular description of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever . . . .”
In its latest report, the Commission stated that “as regards the movement of freight, other than fruits and vegetables . . . the operation is identical with the manner in which fruits and vegetables are car-floated and unloaded.” 286 I. C. C., at 123. Without more, the Commission then concluded that “the record does not warrant a finding of undue preference and prejudice or unjust discrimination in violation of sections 2 or 3 of the act.” 286 I. C. C., at 142.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 is granted. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Brennan would vacate the judgment and remand the case in light of Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, ante, p. 337.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Georgia is the only State — indeed, apparently the only jurisdiction in the common-law world — to retain the common-law rule that a person charged with a criminal offense is incompetent to testify under oath in his own behalf at his trial. Georgia in 1866 abolished by statute the common-law rules of incompetency for most other persons. However, the statute, now Georgia Code § 38-416, expressly retained the incompetency rule as to persons “charged in any criminal proceeding with the commission of any indictable offense or any offense punishable on summary conviction... Two years later, in 1868, Georgia allowed the criminal defendant to make an unsworn statement. The statute enacted for that purpose, as amended, is now Georgia Code § 38-415, and provides: “In all criminal trials, the prisoner shall have the right to make to the court and jury such statement in the case as he may deem proper in his defense. It shall not be under oath, and shall have such force only as the jury may think right to give it. They may believe it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case. The prisoner shall not be compelled to answer any questions on cross-examination, should he think proper to decline to answer.”
In this case a jury in the Superior Court, Douglas County, Georgia, convicted the appellant of murder, and he is under sentence of death. After the State rested its case at the trial, the appellant’s counsel called him to the stand, but the trial judge sustained the State’s objection to counsel’s attempt to question him. To the argument that to deny counsel the “right to ask the defendant any questions on the stand... violates... [Amendment] VI... [and] the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States... [because] it deprives the defendant of the benefit of his counsel asking him questions at the most important period of the trial...,” the trial judge answered that under § 38-415, “... you do not have the right to do anything more than instruct your client as to his rights, and... you have no right to question him on direct examination.” In affirming the conviction and sustaining this ruling, the Supreme Court of Georgia said:
“The constitutional provisions granting to persons charged with crime the benefit and assistance of counsel confer only the right to have counsel perform those duties and take such actions as are permitted by the law; and to require counsel to conform to the rules of practice and procedure, is not a denial of the benefit and assistance of counsel. It has been repeatedly held by this court that counsel for the accused cannot, as a matter of right, ask the accused questions or make suggestions to him when he is making his statement to the court and jury.” 215 Ga. 117, 119, 109 S. E. 2d 44, 46-47.
On appeal brought here under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), we noted probable jurisdiction. 362 U. S. 901.
The only question which the appellant properly brings before us is whether this application by the Georgia courts of § 38-415 denied the appellant “the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him,” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 69, within the requirements of due process in that regard as imposed upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U. S. 3.
Appellant raises no question as to the constitutional validity of § 38-416, the incompetency statute. However, decision of the question which is raised under § 38-415 necessarily involves consideration of both statutes. Historically these provisions have been intertwined. For § 38-416 is a statutory declaration of the common-law rule disqualifying criminal defendants from testifying, and § 38-415, also with its roots in the common law, was an attempt to mitigate the rigors of that incompetency.
The disqualification of parties as witnesses characterized the common law for centuries. Wigmore traces its remote origins to the contest for judicial hegemony between the developing jury trial and the older modes of trial, notably compurgation and wager of law. See 2 Wigmore, Evidence, pp. 674-683. Under those old forms, the oath itself was a means of decision. See Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, pp. 24-34. Jury trial replaced decision by oath with decision of the jurors based on the evidence of witnesses; with this change “[T]he party was naturally deemed incapable of being such a witness.” 2 Wigmore, p. 682. Incompetency of the parties in civil cases seems to have been established by the end of the sixteenth century. See 9 Holdsworth, History of English Law, p. 194. In time the principal rationale of the rule became the possible untrustworthiness of the party’s testimony; for the same reason disqualification was applied in the seventeenth century to interested nonparty witnesses.
Its firm establishment for criminal defendants seems to have come somewhat later. In the sixteenth century it was necessary for an accused to conduct his own defense, since he was neither allowed to call witnesses in his behalf nor permitted the assistance of counsel. 1 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, p. 350. The criminal trial of this period has been described as “a long argument between the prisoner and the counsel for the Crown, in which they questioned each other and grappled with each other’s arguments with the utmost eagerness and closeness of reasoning.” Stephen, supra, p. 326. In the process the defendant could offer by way of explanation material that would later be characterized as testimony. 2 Wigmore, p. 684. In the seventeenth century, however, he was allowed to call witnesses in his behalf; the right to have them sworn was accorded by statute for treason in 1695 and for all felony in 1701. 7 Will. Ill, c. 3; 1 Anne, St. 2, c. 9. See Thayer, supra, pp. 157-161, and n. 4; 2 Wigmore, pp. 685-686. A distinction was drawn between the accused and his witnesses — they gave evidence but he did not. See 2 Wigmore, pp. 684-685, and n. 42; 9 Holdsworth, supra, pp. 195-196. The general acceptance of the interest rationale as a basis for disqualification reinforced this distinction, since the criminal defendant was, of course, par excellence an interested witness. “The old common law shuddered at the idea of any person testifying who had the least interest.” State v. Barrows, 76 Me. 401, 409. See Benson v. United States, 146 U. S. 325, 336-337.
Disqualification for interest was thus extensive in the common law when this Nation was formed. 3 Bl. Comm. 369. Here, as in England, criminal defendants were deemed incompetent as witnesses. In Rex v. Lukens, 1 Dall. 5, 6, decided in 1762, a Pennsylvania court refused to swear a defendant as a witness, holding that the issue there in question “must be proved by indifferent witnesses.” Georgia by statute adopted the common law of England in 1784, and “... the rules of evidence belonging to it... [were] in force there....” Doe v. Winn, 5 Pet. 233, 241. Georgia therefore followed the incompetency rule for criminal defendants long before it was given statutory form by the Act of 1866. See Jones v. State, 1 Ga. 610; Roberts v. State, 189 Ga. 36, 40-41, 5 S. E. 2d 340, 343.
Broadside assaults upon the entire structure of disqualifications, particularly the disqualification for interest, were launched early in the nineteenth century in both England and America. Bentham led the movement for reform in England, contending always for rules that would not exclude but would let in the truth. See Rationale of Judicial Evidence, bk. IX, pt. Ill, c. Ill (Bowring ed.), pp. 393-406. The basic ground of the attack was, as Macaulay said, that “[A] 11 evidence should be taken at what it may be worth, that no consideration which has a tendency to produce conviction in a rational mind should be excluded from the consideration of the tribunals.” Lord Macaulay’s Legislative Minutes, 1835, pp. 127-128. The qualification in civil cases of nonparty witnesses despite interest came first. See Lord Denman’s Act of 1843, 6 & 7 Viet., c. 85. The first general exception in England for party witnesses in civil cases was the County Courts Act of 1846, 9 & 10 Viet., c. 95, although there had been earlier grants of capacity in certain other courts. Best, Evidence (Lely ed. 1893), pp. 158-159. Lord Brougham’s Act of 1851, 14 & 15 Viet., c. 99, virtually abolished the incompetency of parties in civil cases.
The qualification of criminal defendants to give sworn evidence if they wished came last. The first statute was apparently that enacted by Maine in 1859 making defendants competent witnesses in prosecutions for a few crimes. Maine Acts 1859, c. 104. This was followed in Maine in 1864 by the enactment of a general competency statute for criminal defendants, the first such statute in the English-speaking world. The reform was largely the work of John Appleton of the Supreme Court of Maine, an American disciple of Bentham. Within 20 years most of the States now comprising the Union had followed Maine’s lead. A federal statute to the same effect was adopted in 1878, 20 Stat. 30, 18 U. S. C. § 3481. Before the end of the century every State except Georgia had abolished the disqualification.
Common-law jurisdictions outside the United States also long ago abolished the disqualification. This change came in England with the enactment in 1898 of the Criminal Evidence Act, 61 & 62 Viet., c. 36. Various States of Australia had enacted competency statutes even before the mother country, as did Canada and New Zealand. Competency was extended to defendants in Northern Ireland in 1923, in the Republic of Ireland in 1924, and in India in 1955.
The lag in the grant of competency to the criminally accused was attributable in large measure to opposition from those who believed that such a grant threatened erosion of the privilege against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence. “[I]f we were to hold that a prisoner'offering to make a statement must be sworn in the cause as a witness, it would be difficult to protect his constitutional rights in spite of every caution, and would often lay innocent parties under unjust suspicion where they were honestly silent, and embarrassed and overwhelmed by the shame of a false accusation.... [It would result in]... the degradation of our criminal jurisprudence by converting it into an inquisitory system, from which we have thus far been happily delivered.” People v. Thomas, 9 Mich. 314, 320-321 (concurring opinion). See also Ruloff v. People, 45 N. Y. 213, 221-222; People v. Tyler, 36 Cal. 522, 528-530; State v. Cameron, 40 Vt. 555, 565-566; 1 Am. L. Rev. 443; Maury, Validity of Statutes Authorizing the Accused to Testify, 14 Am. L. Rev. 753.
The position of many who supported competency gave credence to these fears. Neither Bentham nor Appleton was a friend of the privilege against self-incrimination. While Appleton justified competency as a necessary protection for the innocent, he also believed that incompetency had served the guilty as a shield and thus disserved the public interest. Competency, he thought, would open the accused to cross-examination and permit an unfavorable inference if he declined to take the stand to exculpate himself.
This controversy left its mark on the laws of many jurisdictions which enacted competency. The majority of the competency statutes of the States forbid comment by the prosecution on the failure of an accused to testify, and provide that no presumption of guilt should arise from his failure to take the stand. The early cases particularly emphasized the importance of such limitations. See, e. g., Staples v. State, 89 Tenn. 231, 14 S. W. 603; Price v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. 393; State v. Taylor, 57 W. Va. 228, 234-235, 50 S. E. 247, 249-250. Cf. 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed.), pp. 658-661. See generally, Reeder, Comment Upon Failure of Accused to Testify, 31 Mich. L. Rev. 40. For the treatment of the accused as a witness in Canada, see 12 Can. Bar Rev. 519, 13 Can. Bar Rev. 336; in Australia, see 6 Res Judicatae 60; and in Great Britain, see 2 Taylor, Evidence (12th ed.) 864-865 ; 51 L. Q. Rev. 443; 58 L. Q. Rev. 369.
Experience under the American competency statutes was to change the minds of many who had opposed them. It was seen that the shutting out of his sworn evidence could be positively hurtful to the accused, and that innocence was in fact aided, not prejudiced, by the opportunity of the accused to testify under oath. An American commentator discussing the Massachusetts statute in the first year of its operation said: “We have always been of opinion, that the law permitting criminals to testify would aid in the detection of guilt; we are now disposed to think that it will be equally serviceable for the protection of innocence.” 1 Am. L. Rev. 396. See also 14 Am. L. Reg. 129.
This experience made a significant impression in England and helped to persuade Parliament to follow the American States and other common-law jurisdictions in granting competency to criminal defendants. In the debates of 1898, the Lord Chancellor quoted a distinguished English jurist, Russell Gurney: “[A]fter what he had seen there [in America], he could not entertain a doubt about the propriety of allowing accused persons to be heard as witnesses on their own behalf.” 54 Hansard, supra, p. 1176. Arthur Balfour reported to the Commons that “precisely the same doubts and difficulties which beset the legal profession in this country on the suggestion of this change were felt in the United States, but the result of the experiment, which has been extended gradually from State to State, is that all fears have proved illusory, that the legal profession, divided as they were before the change, have now become unanimous in favor of it, and that no section of the community, not even the prisoners at the bar, desire to see any alteration made in the system.” 60 Hansard, supra, pp. 679-680.
A particularly striking change of mind was that of the noted authority on the criminal law, Sir James Stephen. Writing in 1863, Stephen opposed the extension of competency to defendants. He argued that it was inherent that a defendant could not be a real witness: “[I]t is not in human nature to speak the truth under such a pressure as would be brought to bear on the prisoner, and it is not a light thing to institute a system which would almost enforce perjury on every occasion.” A General View of the Criminal Law of England, p. 202. Competency would put a dangerous discretion in the hands of counsel. “By not calling the prisoner he might expose himself to the imputation of a tacit confession of guilt, by calling him he might expose an innocent man to a cross-examination which might make him look guilty.” Ibid. Allowing questions about prior convictions “would indirectly put the man upon his trial for the whole of his past life.” Id., p. 203. Twenty years later, Stephen, after many years’ experience on the criminal bench, was to say: “I am convinced by much experience that questioning, or the power of giving evidence, is a positive assistance, and a highly important one, to innocent men, and I do not see why in the case of the guilty there need be any hardship about it.... A poor and ill-advised man... is always liable to misapprehend the true nature of his defence, and might in many cases be saved from the consequences of his own ignorance or misfortune by being questioned as a witness.” 1 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, pp. 442, 444.
In sum, decades ago the considered consensus of the English-speaking world came to be that there was no rational justification for prohibiting the sworn testimony of the accused, who above all others may be in a position to meet the prosecution’s case. The development of the unsworn-statement practice was itself a recognition of the harshness of the incompetency rule. While its origins antedated the nineteenth century, its strong sponsorship by English judges of that century is explained by their desire for a mitigation of the rigors of that rule. Baron Alderson said: “I would never prevent a prisoner from making a statement, though he has counsel. He may make any statement he pleases before his counsel addresses the jury, and then his counsel may comment upon that statement as a part of the case. If it were otherwise, the most monstrous injustice might result to prisoners.” Reg. v. Dyer, 1 Cox C. C. 113, 114. See also Reg. v. Malings, 8 Car. & P. 242; Reg. v. Walkling, 8 Car. & P. 243; Reg. v. Manzano, 2 F. & F. 64; Reg. v. Williams, 1 Cox C. C. 363. Judge Stephen’s sponsorship of the practice was especially influential. See Reg. v. Doherty, 16 Cox C. C. 306. See also Reg. v. Shimmin, 15 Cox C. C. 122; 60 Hansard, supra, p. 657. It became so well established in England that it was expressly preserved in the Criminal Evidence Act of 1898.
The practice apparently was followed in this country at common law in a number of States and received statutory recognition in some. Michigan passed the first such statute in 1861; unlike the Georgia statute of 1868, it provided that the prisoner should be subject to cross-examination on his statement. See People v. Thomas, 9 Mich. 314. The Georgia Supreme Court, in one of the early decisions considering the unsworn-statement statute, stressed the degree of amelioration expected to be realized from the practice, thereby implicitly acknowledging the disadvantages for the defendant of the incompetency rule. The Court, emphasized “the broad and liberal purpose which the legislature intended to accomplish.... This right granted to the prisoner is a modern innovation upon the criminal jurisprudence of the common law, advancing to a degree hitherto unknown the right of the prisoner to give his own narrative of the accusation against him to the jurors, who are permitted to believe it in preference to the sworn testimony of the witnesses.” Coxwell v. State, 66 Ga. 309, 316-317.
But the unsworn statement was recognized almost everywhere else as simply a stopgap solution for the serious difficulties for the accused created by the incompetency rule. “The system of allowing a prisoner to make a statement had been introduced as a mere makeshift, by way of mitigating the intolerable hardship which occasionally resulted from the prisoner not being able to speak on his own behalf.” 60 Hansard, supra, p. 652. “The custom grew up in England out of a spirit of fairness to give an accused, who was otherwise disqualified, an opportunity to tell his story in exculpation.” State v. Louviere, 169 La. 109, 119, 124 So. 188, 192. The abolition of the incompetency rule was therefore held in many jurisdictions also to abolish the unsworn-statement practice. “In such cases the unsworn statement of an accused becomes secondary to his right of testifying under oath and cannot be received.” State v. Louviere, supra, 169 La., at 119, 124 So., at 192. “The privilege was granted to prisoners because they were debarred from giving evidence on oath, and for that reason alone. When the law was changed and the right accorded to them to tell their story on oath as any other witness the reason for making an unsworn statement was removed.” Rex v. Krafchenko, [1914] 17 D. L. R. 244, 250 (Man. K. B.).
Where the practice survives outside America, little value has been attached to it. “If the accused does not elect to call any evidence or to give evidence himself, he very often makes an unsworn statement from the dock. It is well understood among lawyers that such a statement has but little evidential value compared with the sworn testimony upon which the accused can be cross-examined....” Rex v. Zware, [1946] S. A. L. R. 1, 7-8. “How is a jury to understand that it is to take the statement for what it is worth, if it is told that it cannot regard it as evidence (i. e., proof) of the facts alleged?” 68 L. Q. Rev. 463. The unsworn statement “is seldom of much value, since it is generally incoherent and leaves open many doubts which cannot be resolved by cross-examination.” 69 L. Q. Rev. 22, 25. “The right of a prisoner to make an unsworn statement from the dock still exists... but with greatly discounted value.” 1933 Scots Law Times 29. Commentators and judges in jurisdictions with statutory competency have suggested abrogation of the unsworn-statement right. See 94 Irish Law Times, March 5, 1960, p. 56; 68 L. Q. Rev. 463; Rex v. McKenna, [1951] Q. S. R. 299, 308.
Georgia judges, on occasion, have similarly disparaged the unsworn statement. “Really, in practice it is worth, generally, but little if anything to defendants. I have never known or heard of but one instance where it was supposed that the right had availed anything. It is a boon that brings not much relief.” Bird v. State, 50 Ga. 585, 589. “The statement stands upon a peculiar footing. It is often introduced for the mere purpose of explaining-evidence, or as an attempt at mitigation; the accused and his counsel throw it in for what it may happen to be worth and do not rely upon it as a substantive ground of acquittal.” Underwood v. State, 88 Ga. 47, 51, 13 S. E. 856, 858.
The unsworn statement has anomalous characteristics in Georgia practice. It is not treated as evidence or like the testimony of the ordinary sworn witness. “The statement may have the effect of explaining, supporting, weakening or overcoming the evidence, but still it is something different from the evidence, and to confound one with the other, either explicitly or implicitly, would be confusing and often misleading.... The jury are to deal with it on the plane of statement and not on the plane of evidence, and may derive from it such aid as they can in reaching the truth. The law fixes no value upon it; it is a legal blank. The jury may stamp it with such value as they think belongs to it.” Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 731, 739, 16 S. E. 64, 66. Because the statement is not evidence, even the charge in the strict terms of the statute favored by the Georgia Supreme Court, see Garrett v. State, 203 Ga. 756, 765, 48 S. E. 2d 377, 383; Emmett v. State, 195 Ga. 517, 541, 25 S. E. 2d 9, 23, calls attention to the fact that the defendant is not under oath. Moreover, charge after charge going beyond the terms of the statute has been sustained. Thus in Garrett v. State, supra, the trial judge instructed that while the defendants were “allowed” to make a statement, “they are not under oath, not subject to cross-examination, and you are authorized to give to their statement just such weight and credit as you think them entitled to receive.” In Emmett v. State, 195 Ga., at 540, 25 S. E. 2d, at 22, the instruction was that the statement migrrt be believed in preference to the sworn testimony “if you see proper to give it that weight and that place and that importance in the trial of this case.” In Douberly v. State, 184 Ga. 573, 575, 192 S. E. 223, 225, the jury were told they might credit the statement “provided they believe it to be true.” In Allen v. State, 194 Ga. 430, 436, 22 S. E. 2d 65, 68, the charge was: “There is no presumption attached to the defendant’s statement. No presumption that it is true, nor any presumption that it is not true. In other words, it goes to you without a presumption either for or against him. You have the right to reject the statement entirely if you do not believe it to be true.” In many cases the trial judges have been sustained in specifically pointing out that defendants were not subject to the sanction for perjury with respect to their unsworn statements. “[I]f he failed to tell you the truth, he incurred no penalty by reason of such failure.” Darden v. State, 171 Ga. 160, 161, 155 S. E. 38, 40. “[T]he defendant's statement is not under oath; no penalty is prescribed for making a false statement....” Klug v. State, 77 Ga. 734, 736. “Surely there can be no wrong in calling the attention of the jury to circumstances which should impair the force of such testimony or which should enable them to give it the weight to which it is entitled.” Poppell v. State, 71 Ga. 276, 278. See also Grimes v. State, 204 Ga. 854, 51 S. E. 2d 797; Thurmond v. State, 198 Ga. 410, 31 S. E. 2d 804; Willingham v. State, 169 Ga. 142, 149 S. E. 887; Millen v. State, 175 Ga. 283, 165 S. E. 226.
Because it is not evidence, the statement is not a foundation supporting the offer of corroborative evidence. Chapman v. State, 155 Ga. 393, 117 S. E. 321; Medlin v. State, 149 Ga. 23, 98 S. E. 551. “The statute is silent as to corroborating the mere statement of the accused, and while it allows the jury to believe it in preference to the sworn testimony, it seems to contemplate that the statement shall compete with sworn testimony single-handed, and not that it shall have the advantage of being reinforced by facts which do not weaken the sworn evidence otherwise than by strengthening the statement opposed to it.” Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 731, 736, 16 S. E. 64, 65. Similarly the statement is not an independent basis for authenticating and introducing documents. Sides v. State, 213 Ga. 482, 99 S. E. 2d 884; see also Register v. State, 10 Ga. App. 623, 74 S. E. 429. In the absence of a specific request, the trial judge need not charge the law applicable to a defense presented by the statement but not supported in sworn testimony. Prater v. State, 160 Ga. 138, 143, 127 S. E. 296, 298; Cofer v. State, 213 Ga. 22, 96 S. E. 2d 601; Willingham v. State, 169 Ga. 142, 149 S. E. 887; Holleman v. State, 171 Ga. 200, 154 S. E. 906; Darby v. State, 79 Ga. 63, 3 S. E. 663. In contrast the trial judge may sua sponte instruct the jury to treat the accused’s explanation as not presenting a defense in law; “[i]n proper cases the jury may be guarded by a charge from the court against giving the statement an undue effect in favor of the prisoner... Underwood v. State, 88 Ga. 47, 51, 13 S. E. 856, 858; Fry v. State, 81 Ga. 645, 8 S. E. 308.
It is said that an advantage of substance which the defendant may realize from the distinction is that the contents of his statement are not circumscribed by the ordinary exclusionary rules of evidence. Prater v. State, 160 Ga. 138, 142-147, 127 S. E. 296, 298-300; Richardson v. State, 3 Ga. App. 313, 59 S. E. 916; Birdsong v. State, 55 Ga. App. 730, 191 S. E. 277; Tiget v. State, 110 Ga. 244, 34 S. E. 1023. However, “The prisoner must have some regard to relevancy and the rules of evidence, for it was never intended that in giving his narrative of matters pertaining to his defense he should attempt to get before the jury wholly immaterial facts or attempt to bolster up his unsworn statement by making profert of documents, letters, or the like, which if relevant might be introduced in evidence on proof of their genuineness.” Nero v. State, 126 Ga. 554, 555, 55 S. E. 404. See also Saunders v. State, 172 Ga. 770, 158 S. E. 791; Montross v. State, 72 Ga. 261; Theis v. State, 45 Ga. App. 364, 164 S. E. 456; Vincent v. State, 153 Ga. 278, 293-294, 112 S. E. 120, 127.
The situations in which the Georgia cases do assimilate the defendant to an ordinary witness. emphasize the anomalous nature of the unsworn statement. If he admits relevant facts in his statement the prosecution is relieved of the necessity of proving them by evidence of its own. “The prisoner’s admission in open court, made as a part of his statement on the trial, may be treated by the jury as direct evidence as to the facts.” Hargroves v. State, 179 Ga. 722, 725, 177 S. E. 561, 563. “It is well settled that the statement of a defendant to a jury is a statement made in judicio and is binding on him. Where the defendant makes an admission of a fact in his statement, such admission is direct evidence, and the State need not prove such fact by any other evidence.” Barbour v. State, 66 Ga. App. 498, 499, 18 S. E. 2d 40, 41; Dumas v. State, 62 Ga. 58. And admissions in a statement will open the door to introduction of prosecution evidence which might otherwise be inadmissible. McCoy v. State, 124 Ga. 218, 52 S. E. 434. Admissions in a statement at one trial are admissible against the accused in a later trial. Cady v. State, 198 Ga. 99, 110, 31 S. E. 2d 38, 46; Dumas v. State, supra. The prosecution may comment on anything he says in the statement. Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 277, 80 S. E. 1016. Although it has been held that the mere making of a statement does not put the defendant’s character in issue, Doyle v. State, 77 Ga. 513, it is settled that “A defendant’s statement may be contradicted by testimony as to the facts it narrates, and his character may be as effectively put in issue by his statement as by witnesses sworn by him for this purpose.” Jackson v. State, 204 Ga. 47, 56, 48 S. E. 2d 864, 870; Barnes v. State, 24 Ga. App. 372, 100 S. E. 788. The prosecution may introduce rebuttal evidence of alleged false statements. Johnson v. State, 186 Ga. 324, 197 S. E. 786; Camp v. State, 179 Ga. 292, 175 S. E. 646; Morris v. State, 177 Ga. 106, 169 S. E. 495.
Perhaps any adverse consequences resulting from these anomalous characteristics might be in some measure overcome if the defendant could be assured of the opportunity to try to exculpate himself by an explanation delivered in an organized, complete and coherent way. But the Georgia practice puts obstacles in the way of this. He must deliver a finished and persuasive statement on his first attempt, for he will probably not be permitted to supplement it. Apparently the situation must be most unusual before the exercise by the trial judge of his discretion to refuse to permit the defendant to make a supplemental statement will be set aside. See Sharp v. State, 111 Ga. 176, 36 S. E. 633; Jones v. State, 12 Ga. App. 133, 76 S. E. 1070. Even after the State has introduced new evidence to rebut the statement or to supplement its own case, leave to make a supplemental statement has been denied. Fairfield v. State, 155 Ga. 660, 118 S. E. 395; Johnson v. State, 120 Ga. 509, 48 S. E. 199; Knox v. State, 112 Ga. 373, 37 S. E. 416; Boston v. State, 94 Ga. 590, 21 S. E. 603; Garmon v. State, 24 Ga. App. 586,101 S. E. 757. If the subject matter of the supplementary statement originates with counsel and not with the defendant, it has been held that this is sufficient reason to refuse to permit the making of a supplemental statement. August v. State, 20 Ga. App. 168, 92 S. E. 956. And the defendant who may have a persuasive explanation to give has no effective way of overcoming the possible prejudice from the fact that he may not be subjected to cross-examination without
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases arise from a series of strikes along the Philadelphia waterfront. The petitioner union, representing the longshoremen involved in those strikes, had entered into a collective bargaining agreement in 1959 with the respondent, an association of employers in the Port of Philadelphia. The agreement included provisions for compensating longshoremen who are told after they report for duty that they will not be needed until the afternoon. The union construed those “set-back” provisions to mean that, at least in some situations, longshoremen whose employment was postponed because of unfavorable weather conditions were entitled to four hours’ pay; the association interpreted the provisions to guarantee no more than one hour’s pay under such circumstances.
In April 1965, when this disagreement first became apparent, the parties followed the grievance procedure established by their collective bargaining contract and submitted the matter to an arbitrator for binding settlement. On June 11 the arbitrator ruled that the association’s reading of the set-back provisions was correct. In July, however, a group of union members refused to unload a ship unless their employer would promise four hours’ pay for having set back their starting time from 8 a. m. to 1 p. m. The union sought to arbitrate the matter, but the association viewed the original arbitrator’s decision as controlling and instituted proceedings in the District Court to enforce it. The complaint alleged that the union had refused “to abide by the terms of the Arbitrator’s Award . . . resulting in serious loss and damage to [the] Employer . . . and to the Port of Philadelphia.” This refusal, the complaint charged, constituted “a breach of the applicable provisions of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement between the P. M. T. A. and the Union.” The complaint concluded with a prayer “that the Court set an immediate hearing and enter an order enforcing the Arbitrator’s Award, and that plaintiff may have such other and further relief as may be justified.”
Before the court could take any action, the employer had met the union’s demands and the men had returned to work. The District Court heard evidence in order to “put the facts on record” but concluded that the case was “moot at the moment” and decided simply to “keep the matter in hand as a judge [and] take jurisdiction .. . [i]f anything arises.” A similar situation did in fact arise — this time in September. Again, before the District Court could act, the work stoppage ended. The association nonetheless requested
“an order ... to make it perfectly clear to the [union] that it is required to comply with the Arbitrator’s award because we cannot operate in this port if we are going to be continually harassed by the Union in taking the position that they are not going to abide by an Arbitrator’s award . . . .”
Counsel for the union rejected that characterization of its position. He submitted that the set-back disputes of July and September were distinguishable from the one which occurred in April, and that the arbitrator’s decision of June 11, 1965, resolving the April controversy, was not controlling. The District Court expressed no opinion on any of these contentions but simply entered a decree, dated September 15, 1965, requiring that the arbitrator’s award “issued on June 11,1965, be specifically enforced.” The decree ordered the union “to comply with and to abide by the said Award.” It contained no other command.
When the District Court first indicated that it would issue such a decree, counsel for the union asked the court for clarification:
“Mr. Freedman: Well, what does it mean, Your Honor?
“The Court: That you will have to determine, what it means.
“Mr. Freedman: Well, I am asking. I have to give my client advice and I don’t know what it means. I am asking Your Honor to tell me what it means. It doesn’t—
“The Court: You handled the case. You know about it. . . .
“Mr. Freedman: I am telling you very frankly now I don’t know what this order means, this proposed order. It says, ‘Enforcement of the award.’ Now, just what does it mean? . . . The arbitration . . . involved an interpretation of the contract under a specific set of facts .... Now, how do you enforce it? That case is over and done with. These are new cases. Your Honor is changing the contract of the parties when you foreclose them from going to arbitration on this point again.”
“The Court: The Court has acted. This is the order.
“Mr. Freedman: Well, won’t Your Honor tell me what it means?
“The Court: You read the English language and I do.”
Although the association had expressly told the District Court that it was “not seeking to enjoin work stoppages,” counsel for the union asked whether the decree might nonetheless have that effect:
“Mr. Freedman: . . . Does this mean that the union cannot engage in a strike or refuse to work or picket?
“The Court: You know what the arbitration was about. You know the result of the arbitration.
“I have signed the order. Anything else to come before us?
“Mr. Freedman: I know, but Your Honor is leaving me in the sky. I don’t know what to say to my client.
“Mr. Scanlan: No, I have nothing further, Your Honor.
“The Court: The hearing is closed.”
Thus, despite counsel’s repeated requests, the District Judge steadfastly refused to explain the meaning of the order.
When further set-back disputes disrupted work throughout the Port of Philadelphia in late February 1966, the District Court issued a rule to show cause why the union and its officers should not be held in contempt for violating the order of September 15. Throughout the contempt hearing held on March 1, 1966, counsel for the union sought without success to determine precisely what acts by the union, its officers, or its members were alleged to have violated the court’s order. “We have a right to know,” he said, “what it is that we are being accused of . . . .” The District Judge refused to comment. At some points in the proceedings, it appeared that the alleged violation consisted of the work stoppage during the last few days of February; but at other times the inquiry focused upon the union’s request for a grievance meeting on February 28 to discuss the latest set-back problem. “Why,” counsel for the association asked, did the union seek “to rearbitrate the award . . . ?” As the contempt hearing drew to a close, counsel for the association suggested yet another possibility — that union officials violated the District Court’s decree when they “castigated” the arbitrator’s award and failed to “tell [the men] that their work stoppage was unauthorized” under the award entered some eight months earlier. “[I]n failing to do that,” counsel said, “they have shown that they do not intend to abide by the arbitrator’s award which was the essence of the order which Your Honor issued . . . .”
Invited to make a closing argument, counsel for the union said:
“I really don’t know what to address myself to because I don’t know what it is we are being charged with. Are we being charged because we want to arbitrate or because we asked to invoke the provisions or are we being charged for something else? . . .
“I may say to Your Honor that we have been shooting in the dark here now, trying to guess at what may be an issue . . . .”
But the District Judge evidently felt no need for explanation. After a short recess, the court announced that the dock strike was “illegal . . . under the circumstances,” and that the union had “violated the order of this Court and therefore shall be adjudged in civil contempt.” After extending the contempt holding to “the officers and the men who participated,” the court fined the union $100,000 per day, retroactive to 2 p. m., March 1, 1966, when the contempt hearing began, and every day thereafter “as long as the order of this Court is violated.” The Court of Appeals affirmed both the original decree of the District Court and its subsequent contempt order, and we granted certiorari to consider the questions presented by these two judgments.
Much of the argument in the Court of Appeals and in this Court has centered upon the District Court’s power to issue the order of September 15, 1965. The union maintains that the order was an injunction against work stoppages and points out that in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, we held that, because of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, a federal court cannot enjoin a work stoppage even when the applicable collective bargaining agreement contains a no-strike clause. The association, on the other hand, argues that the order no more than enforced an arbitrator’s award, and points out that in Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, we held that, under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, a federal court may grant equitable relief to enforce an agreement to arbitrate. The parties have strenuously argued the applicability of Sinclair and Lincoln Mills to the facts before us. We do not, however, reach the underlying questions of federal labor law these arguments present. For whatever power the District Court might have, possessed under the circumstances disclosed by this record, the conclusion is inescapable that the decree which the court in fact entered was too vague to be sustained as a valid exercise of federal judicial authority.
On its face, the decree appears merely to enforce an arbitrator’s award. But that award contains only an abstract conclusion of law, not an operative command capable of “enforcement.” When counsel for the union noted this difficulty and sought to ascertain the District Court’s meaning, he received no response. Even at the contempt hearing on Marchrl, the union was not told how it had failed to “comply with and . . . abide by the [Arbitrator’s] Award,” in accordance with the District Court’s original order. That court did express the view on March 1 that the February walkouts had been “illegal . . . under the circumstances.” But such strikes would have been “illegal” — in the sense that they would have been violative of the collective bargaining agreement — even if the District Court had entered no order at all, Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, and the record does not reveal what further “circumstances” the court deemed relevant to the conclusion that the union had violated its decree. Thus the September 15 decree, even when illuminated by subsequent events, left entirely unclear what it demanded.
Rule 65 (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was designed to prevent precisely the sort of confusion with which this District Court clouded its command. That rule provides:
“Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained; and is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.”
Whether or not the District Court’s order was an “injunction” within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, it was an equitable decree compelling obedience under the threat of contempt and was therefore an “order granting an injunction” within the meaning of Rule 65 (d). Viewing the decree as “specifically enforcing” the arbitrator’s award would not alter this conclusion. We have previously employed the term “mandatory injunction” to describe an order compelling parties to abide by an agreement to arbitrate, and there is no reason to suppose that Rule 65 (d) employed the injunction concept more narrowly. That rule is the successor of § 19 of the Clayton Act. Section 19 was intended to be “of general application,” to the end that “[defendants . . . never be left to guess at what they are forbidden to do . . . .” Consistent with the spirit and purpose of its statutory predecessor, we have applied Rule 65 (d) in reviewing a judgment enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board, and the courts of appeals have applied the rule not only to prohibitory injunctions but to enforcement orders and affirmative decrees as well. We have no doubt, therefore, that the District Court's decree, however it might be characterized for other purposes, was an “order granting an injunction” for purposes of Rule 65 (d).
The order in this case clearly failed to comply with that rule, for it did not state in “specific . . . terms” the acts that it required or prohibited. The Court of Appeals viewed this error as “minor and in no way decisional.” We consider it both serious and decisive.
The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon. When it is founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be a deadly one. Congress responded to that danger by requiring that a federal court frame its orders so that those who must obey them will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbid. Because the decree of this District Court was not so framed, it cannot stand. And with it must fall the District Court’s decision holding the union in contempt. We do not deal here with a violation of a court order by one who fully understands its meaning but chooses to ignore its mandate. We deal instead with acts alleged to violate a decree that can only be described as unintelligible. The most fundamental postulates of our legal order forbid the imposition of a penalty for disobeying a command that defies comprehension.
Reversed.
The 1959 agreement provided in Article 9 (a) that “Men employed from Monday to Sunday, inclusive, shall be guaranteed four (4) hours’ pay for the period between 8:00 A. M. and 12:00 Noon, regardless of any condition.” Article 9 (h) provided that “If a ship is knocked off on account of inclement weather by the Ship’s Master or his authorized representative, the men will be paid the applicable guarantee, but in the event the men knock off themselves, they will be paid only for the time worked, regardless of guarantee provided for in this Agreement.”
A Memorandum of Settlement, effective October 1, 1964, provided in Article 10 (5) that “[f]or work commencing at 8 AM on Monday or at 8 AM on the day following a holiday,” employers would “have the right because of non-arrival of a vessel in port to cancel the gangs by 7:30 A. M.” Article 10 (6) then stated: “Gangs ordered for an 8 AM start Monday through Friday can be set back at 7:30 AM on the day of work to commence at 1 PM at which time a four hour guarantee shall apply. A one hour guarantee shall apply for the morning period unless employed during the morning period.”
Article 16 of the Memorandum of Settlement adopted the provisions of the 1959 agreement by reference, with the proviso that, in cases of conflict, “the provisions of [the Memorandum] shall prevail.”
Article 28 of the 1959 agreement, unchanged by the Memorandum of Settlement, provided:
“All disputes and grievances of any kind or nature whatsoever arising under the terms and conditions of this agreement, and all questions involving the interpretation of this agreement other than any disputes or grievances arising under the terms and conditions of paragraph 13 (d) hereof, shall be referred to a Grievance Committee, which shall consist of two members selected by the Employers and two members selected by the Union. . . . Should the Grievance Committee be unable to resolve the issue submitted and should neither party request an immediate decision from the Arbitrator, then the grievance or dispute shall be submitted to a Joint Grievance Panel consisting of three representatives of the Association and three representatives of the Union. To the end that there shall be no work interruptions and to the end that there shall be limited necessity for arbitration, the Panel shall make every effort to resolve all grievances or disputes which could not be resolved by the Grievance Committee. . . . Should the Panel be unable to resolve a grievance or dispute which arose in the previous two weeks, or be unable to resolve a grievance or dispute anticipated in the ensuing two weeks, the dispute or grievance, including matters of interpretation of the contract, shall be referred to an Impartial Arbitrator who shall be selected to serve for a period of one year from a panel of five arbitrators to be submitted by the American Arbitration Association. . . . The Arbitrator thus selected shall conduct his hearings and procedures in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, except that he shall be obliged to render his decision within forty-eight hours of the conclusion of his hearings or procedures. . . . Should the terms and conditions of this agreement fail to specifically provide for an issue in dispute, or should a provision of this agreement be the subject of disputed interpretation, the Arbitrator shall consider port practice in resolving the issue before him. If the Arbitrator determines that there is no port practice to assist him in determining an issue not specifically provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, or no port practice to assist him in resolving an interpretation of the agreement,, the issue shall become the subject of negotiation between the parties. There shall be no strike and no lock-out during the pendency of any dispute or issue while before the Grievance Committee, the Joint Panel, or the Arbitrator.”
The text of the arbitrator’s award was this:
“The contention of the Employer, the Philadelphia Marine Trade Association, is hereby sustained and it is the Arbitrator’s determination that Section 10 (6) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated February 11, 1965, providing gangs ‘ordered for an 8 AM start Monday through Friday can be set back at 7:30 AM on the day of work to commence at 1 PM, at which time a 4 hour guarantee shall apply. A 1 hour guarantee shall apply for the morning period unless employed during the morning period,’ may be invoked by the Employer without qualification.
“The contention of the Union, the International Longshoremen’s Association, Local No. 1291, that Section 10 (6) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated February 11, 1965, referred to above, can only be invoked by the Employer because of non-arrival of a vessel in port, is denied.”
The union’s position in this regard was twofold. It maintained, first, that even if the July and September disputes had been factually identical to that of April, it was "quite clear . . . from past practice and from-the agreement itself that ... the award as to [any given] dispute relates only to that dispute and is not controlling so far as any future dispute is concerned.” The union contended, second, that the disputes were factually different in at least one crucial respect: In the later disputes, the longshoremen were not notified of the set-back by 7:30 a. m., as required by Article 10 of the Memorandum of Settlement. The arbitrator’s award, by its own terms, dealt only with situations in which longshoremen were “set back at 7:30 a. m.” Counsel for the association seemingly agreed that the question of notice thus presented an independently arbi-trable issue. He said: “[T]he factual issues as far as whether or not there was notice . . . should be brought up under the grievance procedure which is in the contract.” “The question of notification,” he agreed, “was not a matter in the arbitrator's award.” He stated that the time and method of notification had not changed from April to September but he conceded that the problem “was never brought to [the arbitrator’s] attention by the parties.” On this basis, counsel for the union said that his adversary had “admitted on the stand that this situation goes beyond the arbitrator’s award.” The District Judge thought otherwise: “You have added words to his mouth, my dear boy, and that you can’t do.”
The full text of the decree was this:
“Order — September 15, 1965
“And Now to Wit, This 15th day of September, 1965, after hearing, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Arbitrator’s Award in the matter of arbitration between the Philadelphia Marine Trade Association and International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1291, issued on June 11, 1965, be specifically enforced by defendant, International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1291, and the said defendant is hereby ordered to comply with and to abide by the said Award.
“By the Court.
‘Ralph C. Body, J.”
At the hearing following the July work stoppage, the District Judge had agreed that, as to factual situations going “beyond the arbitrator’s award, the union is not bound.” The union thus attempted to prove at the contempt hearing on March 1 that the February disputes, like those of the previous July and September, went beyond the arbitrator’s award in that they raised a separate question of notice. Cf. n. 4, supra. The District Judge did not comment upon this aspect of the case in holding the union guilty of contempt.
365 F. 2d 295, 368 F. 2d 932.
386 U. S. 907, 387 U. S. 916.
Other issues have been argued as well. In light of our disposition of these cases, we do not reach them.
Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, upheld federal judicial power to issue such an enforcement order. In Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, we described “the equitable relief granted in” Lincoln Mills as “a mandatory injunction to carry out an agreement to arbitrate.” Id., at 212.
38 Stat. 738, 28 U. S. C. § 383 (1940 ed.).
H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 26 (1914); S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 21 (1914).
Regal Knitwear Co. v. Board, 324 U. S. 9, 13-15.
See, e. g., International Brotherhood v. Keystone F. Lines, 123 F. 2d 326, 330 (C. A. 10th Cir.); NLRB v. Birdsall-Stockdale Motor Co., 208 F. 2d 234, 236-237 (C. A. 10th Cir.); English v. Cun ningham, 106 U. S. App. D. C. 70, 77-78, 269 F. 2d 517, 524-525. Cf. Brumby Metals, Inc. v. Bargen, 275 F. 2d 46, 48-50 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Callander, 256 F. 2d 410, 415 (C. A. 5th Cir.).
365 F. 2d 295, 301.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Article 8 of an investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina contains a dispute-resolution provision, applicable to disputes between one of those nations and an investor from the other. See Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Art. 8(2), Dec. 11, 1990, 1765 U.N.T.S. 38 (hereinafter Treaty). The provision authorizes either party to submit a dispute "to the decision of the competent tribunal of the Contracting Party in whose territory the investment was made," i.e., a local court. Art. 8(1). And it provides for arbitration
"(i) where, after a period of eighteen months has elapsed from the moment when the dispute was submitted to the competent tribunal..., the said tribunal has not given its final decision; [or]
"(ii) where the final decision of the aforementioned tribunal has been made but the Parties are still in dispute." Art. 8(2)(a).
The Treaty also entitles the parties to agree to proceed directly to arbitration. Art. 8(2)(b).
This case concerns the Treaty's arbitration clause, and specifically the local court litigation requirement set forth in Article 8(2)(a). The question before us is whether a court of the United States, in reviewing an arbitration award made under the Treaty, should interpret and apply the local litigation requirement de novo, or with the deference that courts ordinarily owe arbitration decisions. That is to say, who-court or arbitrator-bears primary responsibility for interpreting and applying the local litigation requirement to an underlying controversy? In our view, the matter is for the arbitrators, and courts must review their determinations with deference.
I
A
In the early 1990's, the petitioner, BG Group plc, a British firm, belonged to a consortium that bought a majority interest in an Argentine entity called MetroGAS. MetroGAS was a gas distribution company created by Argentine law in 1992, as a result of the government's privatization of its state-owned gas utility. Argentina distributed the utility's assets to new, private companies, one of which was MetroGAS. It awarded MetroGAS a 35-year exclusive license to distribute natural gas in Buenos Aires, and it submitted a controlling interest in the company to international public tender. BG Group's consortium was the successful bidder.
At about the same time, Argentina enacted statutes providing that its regulators would calculate gas "tariffs" in U.S. dollars, and that those tariffs would be set at levels sufficient to assure gas distribution firms, such as MetroGAS, a reasonable return.
In 2001 and 2002, Argentina, faced with an economic crisis, enacted new laws. Those laws changed the basis for calculating gas tariffs from dollars to pesos, at a rate of one peso per dollar. The exchange rate at the time was roughly three pesos to the dollar. The result was that MetroGAS' profits were quickly transformed into losses. BG Group believed that these changes (and several others) violated the Treaty; Argentina believed the contrary.
B
In 2003, BG Group, invoking Article 8 of the Treaty, sought arbitration. The parties appointed arbitrators; they agreed to site the arbitration in Washington, D.C.; and between 2004 and 2006, the arbitrators decided motions, received evidence, and conducted hearings. BG Group essentially claimed that Argentina's new laws and regulatory practices violated provisions in the Treaty forbidding the "expropriation" of investments and requiring that each nation give "fair and equitable treatment" to investors from the other. Argentina denied these claims, while also arguing that the arbitration tribunal lacked "jurisdiction" to hear the dispute. App. to Pet. for Cert. 143a-144a, 214a-218a, 224a-232a. According to Argentina, the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction because: (1) BG Group was not a Treaty-protected "investor"; (2) BG Group's interest in MetroGAS was not a Treaty-protected "investment"; and (3) BG Group initiated arbitration without first litigating its claims in Argentina's courts, despite Article 8's requirement. Id., at 143a-171a. In Argentina's view, "failure by BG to bring its grievance to Argentine courts for 18 months renders its claims in this arbitration inadmissible." Id., at 162a.
In late December 2007, the arbitration panel reached a final decision. It began by determining that it had "jurisdiction" to consider the merits of the dispute. In support of that determination, the tribunal concluded that BG Group was an "investor," that its interest in MetroGAS amounted to a Treaty-protected "investment," and that Argentina's own conduct had waived, or excused, BG Group's failure to comply with Article 8's local litigation requirement. Id., at 99a, 145a, 161a, 171a. The panel pointed out that in 2002, the President of Argentina had issued a decree staying for 180 days the execution of its courts' final judgments (and injunctions) in suits claiming harm as a result of the new economic measures. Id., at 166a-167a. In addition, Argentina had established a "renegotiation process" for public service contracts, such as its contract with MetroGAS, to alleviate the negative impact of the new economic measures. Id., at 129a, 131a. But Argentina had simultaneously barred from participation in that "process" firms that were litigating against Argentina in court or in arbitration. Id., at 168a-171a. These measures, while not making litigation in Argentina's courts literally impossible, nonetheless "hindered" recourse "to the domestic judiciary" to the point where the Treaty implicitly excused compliance with the local litigation requirement. Id., at 165. Requiring a private party in such circumstances to seek relief in Argentina's courts for 18 months, the panel concluded, would lead to "absurd and unreasonable result[s]." Id., at 166a.
On the merits, the arbitration panel agreed with Argentina that it had not "expropriate[d]" BG Group's investment, but also found that Argentina had denied BG Group "fair and equitable treatment." Id., at 222a-223a, 240a-242a. It awarded BG Group $185 million in damages. Id., at 297a.
C
In March 2008, both sides filed petitions for review in the District Court for the District of Columbia. BG Group sought to confirm the award under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act. See Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Art. IV, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2519, T.I.A.S. No. 6997 (New York Convention) (providing that a party may apply "for recognition and enforcement" of an arbitral award subject to the Convention); 9 U.S.C. §§ 204, 207 (providing that a party may move "for an order confirming [an arbitral] award" in a federal court of the "place designated in the agreement as the place of arbitration if such place is within the United States"). Argentina sought to vacate the award in part on the ground that the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction. See § 10(a)(4) (a federal court may vacate an arbitral award "where the arbitrators exceeded their powers").
The District Court denied Argentina's claims and confirmed the award. 764 F.Supp.2d 21 (D.D.C.2011); 715 F.Supp.2d 108 (D.D.C.2010). But the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. 665 F.3d 1363 (2012). In the appeals court's view, the interpretation and application of Article 8's local litigation requirement was a matter for courts to decide de novo, i.e., without deference to the views of the arbitrators. The Court of Appeals then went on to hold that the circumstances did not excuse BG Group's failure to comply with the requirement. Rather, BG Group must "commence a lawsuit in Argentina's courts and wait eighteen months before filing for arbitration." Id., at 1373. Because BG Group had not done so, the arbitrators lacked authority to decide the dispute. And the appeals court ordered the award vacated. Ibid.
BG Group filed a petition for certiorari. Given the importance of the matter for international commercial arbitration, we granted the petition. See, e.g., K. Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy & Interpretation 430-432 (2010) (explaining that dispute-resolution mechanisms allowing for arbitration are a "critical element" of modern day bilateral investment treaties); C. Dugan, D. Wallace, N. Rubins, & B. Sabahi, Investor-State Arbitration 51-52, 117-120 (2008) (referring to the large number of investment treaties that provide for arbitration, and explaining that some also impose prearbitration requirements such as waiting periods, amicable negotiations, or exhaustion of local remedies).
II
As we have said, the question before us is who-court or arbitrator-bears primary responsibility for interpreting and applying Article 8's local court litigation provision. Put in terms of standards of judicial review, should a United States court review the arbitrators' interpretation and application of the provision de novo, or with the deference that courts ordinarily show arbitral decisions on matters the parties have committed to arbitration? Compare, e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995) (example where a "court makes up its mind about [an issue] independently" because the parties did not agree it should be arbitrated), with Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2064, 2068, 186 L.Ed.2d 113 (2013) (example where a court defers to arbitrators because the parties " 'bargained for' " arbitral resolution of the question (quoting Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62, 121 S.Ct. 462, 148 L.Ed.2d 354 (2000))). See also Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 588, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008) (on matters committed to arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act provides for "just the limited review needed to maintain arbitration's essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway" and to prevent it from becoming "merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time-consuming judicial review process" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Eastern Associated Coal Corp., supra, at 62, 121 S.Ct. 462 (where parties send a matter to arbitration, a court will set aside the "arbitrator's interpretation of what their agreement means only in rare instances").
In answering the question, we shall initially treat the document before us as if it were an ordinary contract between private parties. Were that so, we conclude, the matter would be for the arbitrators. We then ask whether the fact that the document in question is a treaty makes a critical difference. We conclude that it does not.
III
Where ordinary contracts are at issue, it is up to the parties to determine whether a particular matter is primarily for arbitrators or for courts to decide. See, e.g.,Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960) ("[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit"). If the contract is silent on the matter of who primarily is to decide "threshold" questions about arbitration, courts determine the parties' intent with the help of presumptions.
On the one hand, courts presume that the parties intend courts, not arbitrators, to decide what we have called disputes about "arbitrability." These include questions such as "whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause," or "whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy." Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002); accord, Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 299-300, 130 S.Ct. 2847, 177 L.Ed.2d 567 (2010) (disputes over "formation of the parties' arbitration agreement"
and "its enforceability or applicability to the dispute" at issue are "matters... the court must resolve" (internal quotation marks omitted)). See First Options, supra, at 941, 943-947, 115 S.Ct. 1920 (court should decide whether an arbitration clause applied to a party who "had not personally signed" the document containing it); AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 651, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986) (court should decide whether a particular labor-management layoff dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining contract); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 546-548, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964) (court should decide whether an arbitration provision survived a corporate merger). See generally AT & T Technologies, supra, at 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415 ("Unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator").
On the other hand, courts presume that the parties intend arbitrators, not courts, to decide disputes about the meaning and application of particular procedural preconditions for the use of arbitration. See Howsam, supra, at 86, 123 S.Ct. 588 (courts assume parties "normally expect a forum-based decisionmaker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters" (emphasis added)). These procedural matters include claims of "waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability." Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). And they include the satisfaction of " 'prerequisites such as time limits, notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate.' " Howsam, supra, at 85, 123 S.Ct. 588 (quoting the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 § 6, Comment 2, 7 U.L.A. 13 (Supp.2002); emphasis deleted). See also § 6(c) ("An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled"); § 6, Comment 2 (explaining that this rule reflects "the holdings of the vast majority of state courts" and collecting cases).
The provision before us is of the latter, procedural, variety. The text and structure of the provision make clear that it operates as a procedural condition precedent to arbitration. It says that a dispute "shall be submitted to international arbitration" if "one of the Parties so requests," as long as "a period of eighteen months has elapsed" since the dispute was "submitted" to a local tribunal and the tribunal "has not given its final decision." Art. 8(2). It determines when the contractual duty to arbitrate arises, not whether there is a contractual duty to arbitrate at all. Cf. 13 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 38:7, pp. 435, 437; § 38:4, p. 422 (4th ed. 2013) (a "condition precedent" determines what must happen before "a contractual duty arises" but does not "make the validity of the contract depend on its happening" (emphasis added)). Neither does this language or other language in Article 8 give substantive weight to the local court's determinations on the matters at issue between the parties. To the contrary, Article 8 provides that only the "arbitration decision shall be final and binding on both Parties." Art. 8(4). The litigation provision is consequently a purely procedural requirement-a claims-processing rule that governs when the arbitration may begin, but not whether it may occur or what its substantive outcome will be on the issues in dispute.
Moreover, the local litigation requirement is highly analogous to procedural provisions that both this Court and others have found are for arbitrators, not courts, primarily to interpret and to apply. See Howsam, supra, at 85, 123 S.Ct. 588 (whether a party filed a notice of arbitration within the time limit provided by the rules of the chosen arbitral forum "is a matter presumptively for the arbitrator, not for the judge"); John Wiley, supra, at 555-557, 84 S.Ct. 909 (same, in respect to a mandatory prearbitration grievance procedure that involved holding two conferences). See also Dialysis Access Center, LLC v. RMS Lifeline, Inc., 638 F.3d 367, 383 (C.A.1 2011) (same, in respect to a prearbitration "good faith negotiations" requirement); Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Broadspire Management Servs., Inc., 623 F.3d 476, 481 (C.A.7 2010) (same, in respect to a prearbitration filing of a "Disagreement Notice").
Finally, as we later discuss in more detail, see infra, at 1209 - 1210, we can find nothing in Article 8 or elsewhere in the Treaty that might overcome the ordinary assumption. It nowhere demonstrates a contrary intent as to the delegation of decisional authority between judges and arbitrators. Thus, were the document an ordinary contract, it would call for arbitrators primarily to interpret and to apply the local litigation provision.
IV
A
We now relax our ordinary contract assumption and ask whether the fact that the document before us is a treaty makes a critical difference to our analysis. The Solicitor General argues that it should. He says that the local litigation provision may be "a condition on the State's consent to enter into an arbitration agreement." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25. He adds that courts should "review de novo the arbitral tribunal's resolution of objections based on an investor's non-compliance" with such a condition. Ibid. And he recommends that we remand this case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the court-exhaustion provision is such a condition. Id., at 31-33.
1
We do not accept the Solicitor General's view as applied to the treaty before us. As a general matter, a treaty is a contract, though between nations. Its interpretation normally is, like a contract's interpretation, a matter of determining the parties' intent. Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 399, 105 S.Ct. 1338, 84 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985) (courts must give "the specific words of the treaty a meaning consistent with the shared expectations of the contracting parties"); Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 439, 41 S.Ct. 158, 65 L.Ed. 344 (1921) ("[T]reaties are to be interpreted upon the principles which govern the interpretation of contracts in writing between individuals, and are to be executed in the utmost good faith, with a view to making effective the purposes of the high contracting parties"); Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40, 57, 23 S.Ct. 781, 47 L.Ed. 948 (1903) ("Treaties must receive a fair interpretation, according to the intention of the contracting parties"). And where, as here, a federal court is asked to interpret that intent pursuant to a motion to vacate or confirm an award made in the United States under the Federal Arbitration Act, it should normally apply the presumptions supplied by American law. See New York Convention, Art. V(1)(e) (award may be "set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made"); Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties, at 446 (arbitral awards pursuant to treaties are "subject to review under the arbitration law of the state where the arbitration takes place"); Dugan, Investor-State Arbitration, at 636 ("[T]he national courts and the law of the legal situs of arbitration control a losing party's attempt to set aside [an] award").
The Solicitor General does not deny that the presumption discussed in Part III, supra (namely, the presumption that parties intend procedural preconditions to arbitration to be resolved primarily by arbitrators), applies both to ordinary contracts and to similar provisions in treaties when those provisions are not also "conditions of consent." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25-27. And, while we respect the Government's views about the proper interpretation of treaties, e.g.,Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1, 15, 130 S.Ct. 1983, 176 L.Ed.2d 789 (2010), we have been unable to find any other authority or precedent suggesting that the use of the "consent" label in a treaty should make a critical difference in discerning the parties' intent about whether courts or arbitrators should interpret and apply the relevant provision.
We are willing to assume with the Solicitor General that the appearance of this label in a treaty can show that the parties, or one of them, thought the designated matter quite important. But that is unlikely to be conclusive. For parties often submit important matters to arbitration. And the word "consent" could be attached to a highly procedural precondition to arbitration, such as a waiting period of several months, which the parties are unlikely to have intended that courts apply without saying so. See, e.g., Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Art. 9, Netherlands-Slovenia, Sept. 24, 1996, Netherlands T.S. No. 296 ("Each Contracting Party hereby consents to submit any dispute... which they can not [ sic ] solve amicably within three months... to the International Center for Settlement of Disputes for settlement by conciliation or arbitration"), online at www. rijksoverheid. nl/ documenten- en- publicaties/ besluiten/ 2006/ 10/ 17/ slovenia. html (all Internet materials as visited on Feb. 28, 2014, and available in Clerk of Court's case file); Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Art. 8(1), United Kingdom-Egypt, June 11, 1975, 14 I.L.M. 1472 ("Each Contracting Party hereby consents to submit" a dispute to arbitration if "agreement cannot be reached within three months between the parties"). While we leave the matter open for future argument, we do not now see why the presence of the term "consent" in a treaty warrants abandoning, or increasing the complexity of, our ordinary intent-determining framework. See Howsam, 537 U.S., at 83-85, 123 S.Ct. 588;First Options, 514 U.S., at 942-945, 115 S.Ct. 1920;John Wiley, 376 U.S., at 546-549, 555-559, 84 S.Ct. 909.
2
In any event, the treaty before us does not state that the local litigation requirement is a "condition of consent" to arbitration. Thus, we need not, and do not, go beyond holding that, in the absence of explicit language in a treaty demonstrating that the parties intended a different delegation of authority, our ordinary interpretive framework applies. We leave for another day the question of interpreting treaties that refer to "conditions of consent" explicitly. See, e.g., United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, Art. 11.18, Feb. 10, 2011 (provision entitled "Conditions and Limitations on Consent of Each Party" and providing that "[n]o claim may be submitted to arbitration under this Section" unless the claimant waives in writing "any right" to press his claim before an "administrative tribunal or court"), online at www. ustr. gov/ trade- agreements/ free- trade- agreements/ korus- fta/ final- text; North American Free Trade Agreement, Arts. 1121-1122, Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I. L. M. 643-644 (providing that each party's "[c]onsent to [a]rbitration" is conditioned on fulfillment of certain "procedures," one of which is a waiver by an investor of his right to litigate the claim being arbitrated). See also 2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, Art. 26 (entitled "Conditions and limitations on Consent of Each Party"), online at www. ustr. gov/ sites/ default/ files/ BIT% 20text% 20for% 220ACIEP% 20Meeting.pdf. And we apply our ordinary presumption that the interpretation and application of procedural provisions such as the provision before us are primarily for the arbitrators.
B
A treaty may contain evidence that shows the parties had an intent contrary to our ordinary presumptions about who should decide threshold issues related to arbitration. But the treaty before us does not show any such contrary intention. We concede that the local litigation requirement appears in ¶ (1) of Article 8, while the Article does not mention arbitration until the subsequent paragraph, ¶ (2). Moreover, a requirement that a party exhaust its remedies in a country's domestic courts before seeking to arbitrate may seem particularly important to a country offering protections to foreign investors. And the placing of an important matter prior to any mention of arbitration at least arguably suggests an intent by Argentina, the United Kingdom, or both, to have courts rather than arbitrators apply the litigation requirement.
These considerations, however, are outweighed by others. As discussed supra, at 1207 - 1208, the text and structure of the litigation requirement set forth in Article 8 make clear that it is a procedural condition precedent to arbitration-a sequential step that a party must follow before giving notice of arbitration. The Treaty nowhere says that the provision is to operate as a substantive condition on the formation of the arbitration contract, or that it is a matter of such elevated importance that it is to be decided by courts. International arbitrators are likely more familiar than are judges with the expectations of foreign investors and recipient nations regarding the operation of the provision. See Howsam, supra, at 85, 123 S.Ct. 588 (comparative institutional expertise a factor in determining parties' likely intent). And the Treaty itself authorizes the use of international arbitration associations, the rules of which provide that arbitrators shall have the authority to interpret provisions of this kind. Art. 8(3) (providing that the parties may refer a dispute to the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) or to arbitrators appointed pursuant to the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)); accord, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Art. 23(1) (rev. 2010 ed.) ("[A]rbitral tribunal shall have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction"); ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules, Art. 41(1) (2006 ed.) ("Tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence"). Cf. Howsam, supra, at 85, 123 S.Ct. 588 (giving weight to the parties' incorporation of the National Association of Securities Dealers' Code of Arbitration into their contract, which provided for similar arbitral authority, as evidence that they intended arbitrators to "interpret and apply the NASD time limit rule").
The upshot is that our ordinary presumption applies and it is not overcome. The interpretation and application of the local litigation provision is primarily for the arbitrators. Reviewing courts cannot review their decision de novo. Rather, they must do so with considerable deference.
C
The dissent interprets Article 8's local litigation provision differently. In its view, the provision sets forth not a condition precedent to arbitration in an already-binding arbitration contract (normally a matter for arbitrators to interpret), but a substantive condition on Argentina's consent to arbitration and thus on the contract's formation in the first place (normally something for courts to interpret). It reads the whole of Article 8 as a "unilateral standing offer" to arbitrate that Argentina and the United Kingdom each extends to investors of the other country. Post, at 1219 - 1220 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.). And it says that the local litigation requirement is one of the essential " 'terms in which the offer was made.' " Post, at 1218 (quoting Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheat. 225, 228, 4 L.Ed. 556 (1819); emphasis deleted).
While it is possible to read the provision in this way, doing so is not consistent with our case law interpreting similar provisions appearing in ordinary arbitration contracts. See Part III, supra. Consequently, interpreting the provision in such a manner would require us to treat treaties as warranting a different kind of analysis. And the dissent does so without supplying any different set of general principles that might guide that analysis. That is a matter of some concern in a world where foreign investment and related arbitration treaties increasingly matter.
Even were we to ignore our ordinary contract principles, however, we would not take the dissent's view. As we have explained, the local litigation provision on its face concerns arbitration's timing, not the Treaty's effective date; or whom its arbitration clause binds; or whether that arbitration clause covers a certain kind of dispute. Cf. Granite Rock, 561 U.S., at 296-303, 130 S.Ct. 2847 (ratification date); First Options, 514 U.S., at 941, 943-947, 115 S.Ct. 1920 (parties); AT & T Technologies, 475 U.S., at 651, 106 S.Ct. 1415 (kind of dispute). The dissent points out that Article 8(2)(a) "does not simply require the parties to wait for 18 months before proceeding to arbitration," but instructs them to do something-to "submit their claims for adjudication." Post, at 1219. That is correct. But the something they must do has no direct impact on the resolution of their dispute, for as we previously pointed out, Article 8 provides that only the decision of the arbitrators (who need not give weight to the local court's decision) will be "final and binding." Art. 8(4). The provision, at base, is a claims-processing rule. And the dissent's efforts to imbue it with greater significance fall short.
The treatises to which the dissent refers also fail to support its position. Post, at 1216, 1217 - 1218. Those authorities primarily describe how an offer to arbitrate in an investment treaty can be accepted, such as through an investor's filing of a notice of arbitration. See J. Salacuse, The Law of Investment Treaties 381 (2010); Schreuer, Consent to Arbitration, in The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law 830, 836-837 (P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, & C. Schreuer eds. 2008); Dugan, Investor-State Arbitration, at 221-222. They do not endorse the dissent's reading of the local litigation provision or of provisions like it.
To the contrary, the bulk of international authority supports our view that the provision functions as a purely procedural precondition to arbitrate. See 1 G. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 842 (2009) ("A substantial body of arbitral authority from investor-state disputes concludes that compliance with procedural mechanisms in an arbitration agreement (or bilateral investment treaty) is not ordinarily a jurisdictional prerequisite"); Brief for Professors and Practitioners of Arbitration Law as Amici Curiae 12-16 (to assume the parties intended de novo review of the provision by a court "is likely to set United States courts on a collision course with the international regime embodied in thousands of [bilateral investment treaties]"). See also Schreuer, Consent to Arbitration, supra, at 846-848 ("clauses of this kind... creat[e] a considerable burden to the party seeking arbitration with little chance of advancing the settlement of the dispute," and "the most likely effect of a clause of this kind is delay and additional cost").
In sum, we agree with the dissent that a sovereign's consent to arbitration is important. We also agree that sovereigns can condition their consent to arbitrate by writing various terms into their bilateral investment treaties. Post, at 1207 - 1208. But that is not the issue. The question is whether the parties intended to give courts or arbitrators primary authority to interpret and apply a threshold provision in an arbitration contract-when the contract is silent as to the delegation of authority. We have already explained why we believe that where, as here, the provision resembles a claims-processing requirement and is not a requirement that affects the arbitration contract's validity or scope, we presume that the parties (even if they are sovereigns) intended to give that authority to the arbitrators. See Parts III, IV-A and IV-B, supra.
V
Argentina correctly argues that it is nonetheless entitled to court review of the arbitrators' decision to excuse BG Group's noncompliance with the litigation requirement, and to take jurisdiction over the dispute. It asks us to provide that review, and it argues that even if the proper standard is "a [h]ighly [d]eferential" one, it should still prevail. Brief for Respondent 50. Having the relevant materials before us, we shall provide that review. But we cannot agree with Argentina that the arbitrators " 'exceeded their powers' " in concluding they had jurisdiction. Ibid. (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4)).
The arbitration panel made three relevant determinations:
(1) "As a matter of treaty interpretation," the local litigation provision "cannot be construed as an absolute impediment to arbitration," App. to Pet. for Cert. 165a;
(2) Argentina enacted laws that "hindered" "recourse to the domestic judiciary" by those "whose rights were allegedly affected by the emergency measures," id., at 165a-166a; that sought "to prevent any judicial interference with the emergency legislation," id., at 169a; and that "excluded from the renegotiation process" for public service contracts "any licensee seeking judicial redress," ibid.;
(3) under these circumstances, it would be "absurd and unreasonable" to read Article 8 as requiring an investor to bring its grievance to a domestic court before arbitrating. Id., at 166a.
The first determination lies well within the arbitrators' interpretive authority. Construing the local litigation provision as an "absolute" requirement would mean Argentina could avoid arbitration by, say, passing a law that closed down its court system indefinitely or that prohibited
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is pre-empted either by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, 46 U. S. C. §§4301-4311 (FBSA, 1971 Act, or Act), or by the decision of the Coast Guard in 1990 not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
I
On July 10, 1995, petitioner’s wife, Jeanne Sprietsma, died as a result of a boating accident on an inland lake that spans the Kentucky-Tennessee border. She was riding in an 18-foot ski boat equipped with a 115-horsepower outboard motor manufactured by respondent, Mercury Marine, which is a division of the Brunswick Corporation (Brunswick). Apparently when the boat turned, she fell overboard and was struck by the propeller, suffering fatal injuries.
Petitioner filed a nine-count complaint in an Illinois court seeking damages from Brunswick on state-law theories. Each count alleged that Brunswick had manufactured an unreasonably dangerous product because, among other things, the motor was not protected by a propeller guard. The trial court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed on the ground that the action was expressly pre-empted by the FBSA. 312 Ill. App. 3d 1040, 729 N. E. 2d 45 (2000). Relying on our intervening decision in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861 (2000), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the appellate court’s express pre-emption rationale, but affirmed on implied pre-emption grounds. 197 Ill. 2d 112, 757 N. E. 2d 75 (2001). The court’s decision added to a split of authority on this precise issue arising from lawsuits against, among a few others, this particular respondent and its corporate subsidiaries.
We granted certiorari, 534 U. S. 1112 (2002), to decide whether the FBSA pre-empts state common-law claims of this character. Because the pre-emption defense raises a threshold issue, we have no occasion to consider the merits of petitioner’s claims, or even whether the claims are viable as a matter of Illinois law. We must, however, evaluate three distinct theories that may support the pre-emption defense: (1) that the 1971 Act expressly pre-empts common-law claims; (2) that the Coast Guard’s decision not to regulate propeller guards pre-empts the claims; and (3) that the potential conflict between diverse state rules and the federal interest in a uniform system of regulation impliedly preempts such claims. Before considering each of these theories, we review the history of federal regulation in this area.
II
The 1971 Act is the most recent and most comprehensive of the several statutes that Congress has enacted to improve the safe operation of recreational boats. A 1910 enactment required three classes of motorboats to carry certain lights, sound signals, life preservers, and fire extinguishers. Act of June 9, 1910, 36 Stat. 462. In 1918, Congress passed a law that required the numbering of motorboats over 16 feet long, Act of June 7, 1918, ch. 93, 40 Stat. 602, and in 1940, it reenacted the above requirements, provided a system of federal inspection, and authorized penalties for the reckless operation of motorboats, Act of Apr. 25, 1940, ch. 155, 54 Stat. 163. In 1958, Congress enacted additional numbering requirements to be administered by the States and directed the States to compile and transmit boating accident statistics to the Secretary of the Treasury. Federal Boating Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 1754. Section 9 of the 1958 Act expressed a policy of encouraging uniformity of boating laws insofar as practicable.
The accident statistics compiled by the States presumably were instrumental in persuading the 1971 Congress that additional federal legislation was necessary. In its statement of purposes, the FBSA recites that it was enacted “to improve boating safety,” to authorize “the establishment of national construction and performance standards for boats and associated equipment,” and to encourage greater “uniformity of boating laws and regulations as among the several States and the Federal Government.” Pub. L. 92-75, §2, 85 Stat. 213-214. Three of the provisions implementing these goals are particularly relevant to this case.
Section 5 of the FBSA, as amended and codified in 46 U. S. C. § 4302, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations establishing “minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and associated equipment,” and requiring the installation or use of such equipment. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Coast Guard. See 49 CFR § 1.46(n)(1) (1997). Before exercising that authority, the Coast Guard must consider certain factors, such as the extent to which the proposed regulation will contribute to boating safety, and must consult with a special National Boating Safety Advisory Council appointed pursuant to § 33 of the Act, 46 U. S. C. §13110. The Advisory Council consists of 21 members, 7 representatives from each of three different groups: (1) “State officials responsible for State boating safety programs,” (2) boat and equipment manufacturers, and (3) “national recreational boating organizations and . . . the general public.” § 13110(b). The Coast Guard may also issue exemptions from its regulations if it determines that boating safety “will not be adversely affected.” §4305.
Section 10 of the Act, as codified in 46 U. S. C. § 4306, sets forth the Act’s pre-emption clause and thus provides the basis for respondent’s express pre-emption argument. It states in full:
“Unless permitted by the Secretary under section 4305 of this title, a State or political subdivision of a State may not establish, continue in effect, or enforce a law or regulation establishing a recreational vessel or associated equipment performance or other safety standard or imposing a requirement for associated equipment (except insofar as the State or political subdivision may, in the absence of the Secretary’s disapproval, regulate the carrying or use of marine safety articles to meet uniquely hazardous conditions or circumstances within the State) that is not identical to a regulation prescribed under section 4B02 of this title.”
Section 40, 46 U. S. C. §4311, sets forth the penalties that may be assessed against persons who violate the Act. At the end of that section, Congress included the following saving clause:
“Compliance with this chapter or standards, regulations, or orders prescribed under this chapter does not relieve a person from liability at common law or under State law. ” § 4311(g).
Federal Regulation Under the FBSA
The day after the President signed the FBSA into law, the Secretary of Transportation took action that was based on the assumption that § 10 would pre-empt existing state regulation that “is not identical to a regulation prescribed” under § 5 of the Act, even if no such federal regulation had been promulgated. On August 11, 1971, the Secretary issued a statement exempting all then-existing state laws from preemption under the Act. 36 Fed. Reg. 15764-15765. He explained that boating safety would “not be adversely affected by continuing in effect those existing laws and regulations of the various States and political subdivisions” until new federal regulations could be issued. Id., at 15765.
One year later, on August 4,1972, the Coast Guard issued its first regulations under § 5 of the Act. See 37 Fed. Reg. 15777-15785. Those regulations included boat performance and safety standards such as requirements for hull identification numbers, maximum capacity and warnings of such capacity, and minimum boat flotation. They did not include any propeller guard requirement. After those federal regulations became effective, the Secretary limited the scope of his original blanket exemption to pre-empt those “State statutes and regulations” that concerned requirements covered by the 1972 regulations. See 38 Fed. Reg. 6914-6915 (1973). Existing state laws that regulated matters not covered by the federal regulations continued to be exempted from preemption. Ibid.
In the years since, the Coast Guard has promulgated a host of detailed regulations. Some prescribe the use of specified equipment, such as personal flotation devices and visual distress signals, 33 CFR pts. 175(B), (C) (2001), and certain procedures, such as compliance labeling by manufacturers and prompt accident reporting by operators, pts. 181(B), 173(C). See generally pts. 173-181.. Other regulations impose precise standards governing the design and manufacture of boats themselves and of associated equipment, such as electrical and fuel systems, ventilation, and “start-in-gear protection” devices. Pt. 183; cf. Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U. S. 235, 242 (2002) (“Congress has assigned a broad and important mission to the Coast Guard. . . . [T]he Coast Guard possesses authority to promulgate and enforce regulations promoting the safety of vessels ...”).
Coast Guard Consideration of Propeller Guard Regulation
In May 1988, the Coast Guard decided that the number of recreational boating accidents in which persons in the water were struck by propellers merited a special study. Acting at the request of the Coast Guard, the National Boating Safety Advisory Council appointed a special Propeller Guard Subcommittee. The subcommittee was directed to review “the available data on the prevention of propeller-strike accidents” and to study the “various methods of shrouding propellers to prevent contact with [a] person in the water.” App. 43.
After 18 months of study, the subcommittee recommended that the Coast Guard “should take no regulatory action to require propeller guards.” Id., at 40. Its recommendation rested upon findings that, given current technology, feasible propeller guards might prevent penetrating injuries but increase the potential for blunt trauma caused by collision with the guard, which enlarges the boat’s underwater profile; feasible models would cause power and speed loss at higher speeds; and it would be “prohibitive[ly]” expensive to retrofit all existing boats with propeller guards because “[n]o simple universal design suitable for all boats and motors in existence” had been proved feasible. Id., at 36-38.
The Advisory Council endorsed the subcommittee’s recommendation, as did the Coast Guard. In a 1990 letter to the Council, the Chief of the Coast Guard’s Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services agreed that the available accident data did not support the adoption of a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats, but stated that the Coast Guard would continue to review information “regarding development and testing of new propeller guarding devices or other information on the state of the art.” Id., at 81. In 1995, 1996, and 1997, the Coast Guard invited public comment on various proposals to reduce the number of injuries involving propeller strikes.
In April 2001, the Advisory Council recommended that the Coast Guard develop four specific regulations. See 66 Fed. Reg. 63645, 63647. In response, in December 2001, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing one of the recommendations. The proposed rule, if adopted, would require an owner of a nonplaning houseboat for rent to equip her vessel with either a propeller guard or “a combination of three propeller injury avoidance measures.” Ibid. The Advisory Council also recommended that the Coast Guard require “manufacturers and importers of new planing vessels 12 feet to 26 feet in length with propellers aft of the transom to select and install one of several factory installed propeller injury avoidance methods.” Ibid. Although the Coast Guard has indicated that this recommendation, along with the Advisory Council’s other recommendations, will be addressed in “subsequent regulatory projects,” ibid., it has not yet issued any regulation either requiring or prohibiting propeller guards on recreational planing vessels such as the boat involved in this case.
III
Because the FBSA contains an express pre-emption clause, our “task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U. S. 658, 664 (1993). Here, the express pre-emption clause in § 10 applies to “a [state or local] law or regulation.” 46 U. S. C. §4306. We think that this language is most naturally read as not encompassing common-law claims for two reasons. First, the article “a” before “law or regulation” implies a discreteness — which is embodied in statutes and regulations — that is not present in the common law. Second, because “a word is known by the company it keeps,” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U. S. 561, 575 (1995), the terms “law” and “regulation” used together in the pre-emption clause indicate that Congress pre-empted only positive enactments. If “law” were read broadly so as to include the common law, it might also be interpreted to include regulations, which would render the express reference to “regulation” in the pre-emption clause superfluous.
The Act’s saving clause buttresses this conclusion. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S., at 867-868. It states that “[compliance with this chapter or standards, regulations, or orders prescribed under this chapter does not relieve a person from liability at common law or under State law.” § 4311(g). As we held in Geier, the “saving clause assumes that there are some significant number of common-law liability cases to save [and t]he language of the preemption provision permits a narrow reading that excludes common-law actions.” Id., at 868.
The saving clause is also relevant for an independent reason. The contrast between its general reference to “liability at common law” and the more specific and detailed description of what is pre-empted by § 10 — including the exception for state regulations addressing “uniquely hazardous conditions” — indicates that § 10 was drafted to pre-empt performance standards and equipment requirements imposed by statute or regulation.
Our interpretation of the statute’s language does not produce anomalous results. It would have been perfectly rational for Congress not to pre-empt common-law claims, which — unlike most administrative and legislative regulations — necessarily perform an important remedial role in compensating accident victims. Cf. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 251 (1984). Indeed, compensation is the manifest object of the saving clause, which focuses not on state authority to regulate, but on preserving “liability at common law or under State law.” In context, this phrase surely refers to private damages remedies. We thus agree with the Illinois Supreme Court’s conclusion that petitioner’s common-law tort claims are not expressly preempted by the FBSA.
IV
Even if §10 of the FBSA does not expressly pre-empt state common-law claims, respondent contends that such claims are implicitly pre-empted by the entire statute, and more specifically by the Coast Guard’s decision not to regulate propeller guards. Both are viable pre-emption theories:
“We have recognized that a federal statute implicitly overrides state law either when the scope of a statute indicates that Congress intended federal law to occupy a field exclusively, English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 78-79 (1990), or when state law is in actual conflict with federal law. We have found implied conflict preemption where it is ‘impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements,’ id., at 79, or where state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941).” Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U. S. 280, 287 (1995).
Moreover, Congress’ inclusion of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict preemption principles,” Geier, 529 U. S., at 869 (emphasis in original), that find implied pre-emption “where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Freightliner Corp., 514 U. S., at 287 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We are not persuaded, however, that the FBSA has any such pre-emptive effect.
We first consider, and reject, respondent’s reliance on the Coast Guard’s decision not to adopt a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats. It is quite wrong to view that decision as the functional equivalent of a regulation prohibiting all States and their political subdivisions from adopting such a regulation. The decision in 1990 to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation to “take no regulatory action,” App. 80, left the law applicable to propeller guards exactly the same as it had been before the subcommittee began its investigation. Of course, if a state common-law claim directly conflicted with a federal regulation promulgated under the Act, or if it were impossible to comply with any such regulation without incurring liability under state common law, pre-emption would occur. This, however, is not such a case.
Indeed, history teaches us that a Coast Guard decision not to regulate a particular aspect of boating safety is fully consistent with an intent to preserve state regulatory authority pending the adoption of specific federal standards. That was the course the Coast Guard followed in 1971 immediately after the Act was passed, and again when it imposed its first regulations in 1972 and 1973. The Coast Guard has never taken the position that the litigation of state common-law claims relating to an area not yet subject to federal regulation would conflict with “the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941).
The Illinois Supreme Court concluded “that the Coast Guard’s failure to promulgate a propeller guard requirement here equates to a ruling that no such regulation is appropriate pursuant to the policy of the FBSA.” 197 Ill. 2d, at 128, 757 N. E. 2d, at 85. With regard to policies defined by Congress, we have recognized that “a federal decision to forgo regulation in a given area may imply an authoritative federal determination that the area is best left ^regulated, and in that event would have as much pre-emptive force as a decision to regulate.” Arkansas Elec. Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 461 U. S. 375, 384 (1983); see also Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relations Bd., 330 U. S. 767, 774 (1947) (state law is pre-empted “where failure of the federal officials affirmatively to exercise their full authority takes on the character of a ruling that no such regulation is appropriate or approved pursuant to the policy of the statute”). In this instance, however, the Illinois Supreme Court’s conclusion does not accurately reflect the Coast Guard’s entire explanation for its decision:
“The regulatory process is very structured and stringent regarding justification. Available propeller guard accident data do not support imposition of a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats. Regulatory action is also limited by the many questions about whether a universally acceptable propeller guard is available or technically feasible in all modes of boat operation. Additionally, the question of retrofitting millions of boats would certainly be a major economic consideration.” App. 80.
This statement reveals only a judgment that the available data did not meet the FBSA’s “stringent” criteria for federal regulation. The Coast Guard did not take the further step of deciding that, as a matter of policy, the States and their political subdivisions should not impose some version of propeller guard regulation, and it most definitely did not reject propeller guards as unsafe. The Coast Guard’s apparent focus was on the lack of any “universally acceptable” propeller guard for “all modes of boat operation.” But nothing in its official explanation would be inconsistent with a tort verdict premised on a jury’s finding that some type of propeller guard should have been installed on this particular kind of boat equipped with respondent’s particular type of motor. Thus, although the Coast Guard’s decision not to require propeller guards was undoubtedly intentional and carefully considered, it does not convey an “authoritative” message of a federal policy against propeller guards. And nothing in the Coast Guard’s recent regulatory activities alters this conclusion.
The Coast Guard’s decision not to impose a propeller guard requirement presents a sharp contrast to the decision of the Secretary of Transportation that was given pre-emptive effect in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861 (2000). As the Solicitor General had argued in that ease, the promulgation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 embodied an affirmative “policy judgment that safety would best be promoted if manufacturers installed alternative protection systems in their fleets rather than one particular system in every car.” Id., at 881. In finding pre-emption, we expressly placed “weight upon the DOT’S interpretation of FMVSS 208’s objectives and its conclusion, as set forth in the Government’s brief, that a tort suit such as this one would ‘ “ ‘stan[d] as an obstacle to the aceomplishment and execution”” of those objectives .... Congress has delegated to DOT authority to implement the statute; the subject matter is technical; and the relevant history and background are complex and extensive. The agency is likely to have a thorough understanding of its own regulation and its objectives and is ‘uniquely qualified’ to comprehend the likely impaet of state requirements.” Id., at 883. In the case before us today, the Solicitor General, joined by counsel for the Coast Guard, has informed us that the agency does not view the 1990 refusal to regulate or any subsequent regulatory actions by the Coast Guard as having any preemptive effect. Our reasoning in Geier therefore provides strong support for petitioner’s submission.
V
Even though the refusal to regulate propeller guards in 1990 had no pre-emptive effect, it is possible that the statutory scheme as a whole implicitly pre-empted common-law claims such as petitioner’s when it was enacted in 1971. If that were so, the exemption carried forward by the Secretary in 1973 after the first federal regulations were adopted might have saved existing state common-law rules “in effect on the effective date” of the 1971 Act, so far as those rules relate to propeller guards. 38 Fed. Reg., at 6915. But even if that is not the case, we think it clear that the FBSA did not so completely occupy the field of safety regulation of recreational boats as to foreclose state common-law remedies.
In Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U. S. 151 (1978), we considered a federal statute that directed the Secretary of Transportation to determine “which oil tankers are sufficiently safe to be allowed to proceed in the navigable waters of the United States,” and after inspection to certify “each vessel as sufficiently safe to protect the marine environment.” Id., at 163, 165. We held that this scheme of mandatory federal regulation implicitly pre-empted the power of the State of Washington “to exclude from Puget Sound vessels certified by the Secretary as having acceptable design characteristics, unless they satisfy the different and higher design requirements imposed by state law.” Id., at 165. As we explained in United States v. Locke, 529 U. S. 89 (2000), the analysis in Ray was governed by field-preemption rules because the rules at issue were in a “field reserved for federal regulation” and “Congress ha[d] left no room for state regulation of these matters.” 529 U. S., at 111. In particular, Title II of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA) required the Secretary to issue “such rules and regulations as may be necessary with respect to the design, construction, and operation of the covered vessels.” 435 U. S., at 161.
The Illinois Supreme Court relied on both Ray and Locke to find petitioner’s claims impliedly pre-empted. But the FBSA, unlike Title II of the PWSA, does not require the Coast Guard to promulgate comprehensive regulations covering every aspect of recreational boat safety and design; nor must the Coast Guard certify the acceptability of every recreational boat subject to its jurisdiction. Moreover, neither Title II of the PWSA nor the holding in either Ray or Locke purported to pre-empt possible common-law claims, whereas the FBSA expressly preserves such claims.
The FBSA might be interpreted as expressly occupying the field with respect to state positive laws and regulations but its structure and framework do not convey a “clear and manifest” intent, English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 79 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), to go even further and implicitly pre-empt all state common law relating to boat manufacture. Rather, our conclusion that the Act’s express pre-emption clause does not cover common-law claims suggests the opposite intent. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, 517 (1992); id., at 547 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Nor is a clear and manifest intent to sweep away state common law established by an unembellished statement in a House Report that the 1971 Act “preempts the field on boating standards or regulations.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-324, p. 11 (1971). The statement was made prior to the amendment containing the saving clause, and nothing in the entire report suggests that it meant the occupied “field” to include judge-made common law.
Respondent ultimately relies upon one of the FBSA’s main goals: fostering uniformity in manufacturing regulations. Uniformity is undoubtedly important to the industry, and the statute’s pre-emption clause was meant to “assur[e] that manufacture for the domestic trade will not involve compliance with widely varying local requirements.” S. Rep. 20. Yet this interest is not unyielding, as is demonstrated both by the Coast Guard’s early grants of broad exemptions for state regulations and by the position it has taken in this litigation. Absent a contrary decision by the Coast Guard, the concern with uniformity does not justify the displacement of state common-law remedies that compensate accident victims and their families and that serve the Act’s more prominent objective, emphasized by its title, of promoting boating safety.
The judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The complaint alleges that the Sprietsmas and the owners of the boat were residents of Illinois and that the boat had been purchased in Illinois. App. 101.
Id., at 100-122.
Compare Lewis v. Brunswick Corp., 107 F. 3d 1494 (CA11) (finding implied pre-emption under the FBSA), cert. granted, 522 U. S. 978 (1997), cert. dismissed, 523 U. S. 1113 (1998); Carstensen v. Brunswick Corp., 49 F. 3d 430 (CA8) (finding express pre-emption under the FBSA), cert. denied, 516 U. S. 866 (1995); and Ryan v. Brunswick Corp., 454 Mich. 20, 557 N. W. 2d 541 (1997) (finding express pre-emption under the FBSA), with Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp., 889 S. W. 2d 246 (Tex.) (holding that federal law did not pre-empt state law in this context), cert. denied sub nom. Vivian Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Moore, 513 U. S. 1057 (1994). See also Lady v. Neal Glaser Marine, Inc., 228 F. 3d 598 (CA5 2000) (holding that common-law claims based on the manufacturer’s failure to provide a propeller guard were impliedly pre-empted by the FBSA; Outboard Marine, the successor to Neal Glaser Marine, declared bankruptcy shortly after the petition for certiorari was filed), cert. denied sub nom. Lady v. Outboard Marine Corp., 532 U. S. 941 (2001).
Brunswick has asserted that federal maritime law governs this case. Because this argument was not raised below, it is waived.
The Senate Report on the 1971 Act observed that approximately 40 million Americans engaged in recreational boating activities every year, and that nearly 7,000 persons had died in boating accidents during the preceding 5-year period. S. Rep. No. 92-248, pp. 6-7 (1971) (hereinafter S. Rep.). The Report added: “It seems apparent that the annual loss of life is of sufficiently alarming proportion that the Federal Government should require products , involved to be built to standards of safety commensurate with the risks associated with their use. Similar federal legislation exists with regard to other products, including aircraft and motor vehicles. Also, safety standards and requirements for certain categories of larger commercial vessels have existed for many years.” Id., at 13.
Title 46 U. S. C. §4302 provides:
“(a) The Secretary may prescribe regulations—
“(1) establishing minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and associated equipment, and establishing procedures and tests required to measure conformance with those standards, with each standard—
“(A) meeting the need for recreational vessel safety; and
“(B) being stated, insofar as practicable, in terms of performance;
“(2) requiring the installation, carrying, or use of associated equipment ... on recreational vessels and classes of recreational vessels subject to this chapter, and prohibiting the installation, carrying, or use of associated equipment that does not conform with safety standards established under this section ....”
“In prescribing regulations under this section, the Secretary shall, among other things—
“(1) consider the need for and the extent to which the regulations will contribute to recreational vessel safety;
“(2) consider relevant available recreational vessel safety standards, statistics, and data, including public and private research, development, testing, and evaluation;
“(3) not compel substantial alteration of a recreational vessel or item of associated equipment that is in existence, or the construction or manufacture of which is begun before the effective date of the regulation, but subject to that limitation may require compliance or performance, to avoid a substantial risk of personal injury to the public, that the Secretary considers appropriate in relation to the degree of hazard that the compliance will correct; and
“(4) consult with the National Boating Safety Advisory Council established under section 13110 of this title about the considerations referred to in clauses (1M3) of this subsection.”
Between 1976 and 1990, the Coast Guard officially reported about 100 propeller-strike injuries in the United States per year. App. in Lewis v. Brunswick, O. T. 1997, No. 97-288, p. 170. A 1992 study by members of the Johns Hopkins University Injury Prevention Center and the Institute for Injury Reduction concluded that, when adjusted for underreporting, “the true number of propeller injuries and fatalities may be closer to . .. 2,000-3,000 per year.” Id., at 199.
“After discussing the alternatives and their cost, the Council recommended that the Coast Guard ... develop four specific regulations:
“(1) Require owners of all propeller driven vessels 12 feet in length and longer with propellers aft of the transom to display propeller warning labels and to employ an emergency cut-off switch, where installed;
“(2) Require manufacturers and importers of new planing vessels 12 feet to 26 feet in length with propellers aft of the transom to select and install one of several factory installed propeller injury avoidance methods;
“(3) Require manufacturers and importers of new non-planing vessels 12 feet in length and longer with propellers aft of the transom to select and install one of several factory installed propeller injury avoidance methods; and
“(4) Require owners of all non-planing rental boats with propellers aft of the transom to install either a jet propulsion system or a propeller guard or all of several propeller injury avoidance measures.” 66 Fed. Reg., at 63647.
The FBSA itself imposes civil money penalties payable to the United States, as well as imprisonment for willful violations, 46 U. S. C. §4311, but does not authorize any private damages remedies for persons injured by noncomplying operators, boats, or equipment.
Indeed, in response to the Propeller Guard Subcommittee’s recommendation in favor of “educational and awareness campaigns,” the Coast Guard indicated that it would publish a series of articles “aimed at avoiding boat/propeller strike accidents,” which could include the topic of “available propeller guards.” App. 82-83.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Appellant, along with other railroads, has for years engaged in the “roller lumber traffic” by performing intentionally delayed service in the transportation of lumber from the West Coast to market. Six roads so engaged have filed tariffs covering such services at the same rate as their fast freight, and the Interstate Commerce Commission now has such tariffs under investigation and consideration. Appellant, however, has refused to file a tariff covering such service but continues to handle roller lumber traffic on the same tariff as its fast freight.
The United States, at the instance of the Interstate Commerce Commission, sought and obtained a permanent injunction restraining appellant from performing its roller lumber traffic service until it publishes and files a tariff covering the same. The District Court found that appellant renders a 14-day delayed lumber service over a route ordinarily requiring from two to four days. The delay is accomplished by the holding of cars on sidings at certain points on its trunk lines awaiting diversion orders to move the shipment forward over the railroad’s regular service. This affords the shipper additional time to find a market for the lumber while it is in transit. This service, the District Court found, incurred additional “operational problems and costs” for appellant, including switching, siding, storage and “per diem cost for the use of foreign cars” not present in its fast freight service and not included in its published tariff. We agree with the District Court that such delayed service constitutes the furnishing of additional “privileges or facilities” under § 6 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act, and, therefore, must be published and filed in its tariff. 49 U. S. C. § 6 (1). See Turner Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 271 U. S. 259, 262 (1926).
If and when appellant publishes and files such a tariff, as other roads have already done, the Commission can then consider the reasonableness and justness of appellant’s service in the light of that rate, giving due regard to any unjust or unreasonable preferences or advantages that might result to shippers or other roads should the same not be approved.
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of federal drug offenses based on evidence seized in January 1971 when Border Patrol officers stopped his camper pickup at a traffic checkpoint on California Highway 86, about 36 air miles from the Mexican border. The officers first determined that petitioner was a United States citizen, then asked him to open the camper so that they could search for concealed aliens. When petitioner opened the door, one officer noticed a strong odor of marihuana. He entered the camper and discovered approximately 356 pounds of the drug. A subsequent search of the passenger compartment produced a number of benzedrine tablets.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed petitioner’s conviction, rejecting his argument that the search was unlawful. 462 F. 2d 347 (1972). A petition for certiorari was pending when we announced our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of roving patrols to search vehicles, with neither a warrant nor probable cause, at points removed from the border and its functional equivalents. We vacated the judgment in petitioner’s case and remanded for reconsideration in light of Almeida-Sanchez. 413 U. S. 915 (1973).
The Court of Appeals reheard the case en banc and held, in a sharply divided opinion, that the principles of Almeida-Sanchez applied to searches conducted at traffic checkpoints as well as searches conducted by roving patrols. The Court nevertheless affirmed petitioner’s conviction, holding that Almeida-Sanchez would not be applied to invalidate searches that occurred prior to the date of that decision. 500 F. 2d 960 (1974). We granted certiorari to resolve an apparent conflict with the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v. King, 485 F. 2d 353 (1973), and United States v. Maddox, 485 F. 2d 361 (1973).
We hold today in United States v. Ortiz, ante, p. 891, that the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted in AlmeidaSanchez, forbids searching cars at traffic checkpoints in the absence of consent or probable cause. In this case the Government does not contend that the Highway 86 checkpoint is a functional equivalent of the border, that the officers had probable cause to open the camper, or that petitioner consented to the search. The primary question for decision is whether the principles of Almeida-Sanchez should have been applied retroactively.
In United States v. Peltier, ante, p. 531, we refused to apply Almeida-Sanchez to a roving-patrol search conducted before June 21, 1973, even though a direct appeal was pending on that date. We think the decision in Peltier is controlling here, as the reasons that dictated a holding of nonretroactivity in that case are equally applicable. At the time of our decision in Almeida-Sanchez, all the Courts of Appeals in Circuits adjacent to the Mexican border had held that immigration officers at traffic checkpoints could search automobiles for concealed aliens. E. g., United States v. McCormick, 468 F. 2d 68 (CA10 1972); United States v. De Leon, 462 F. 2d 170 (CA5 1972); Fumagalli v. United States, 429 F. 2d 1011 (CA9 1970) , This Court had not ruled on the question, and no contrary precedent was reported in other Courts of Appeals. The Border Patrol reasonably relied on the decisions of the Court of Appeals in performing the search in this case and others like it, and in these circumstances the purposes of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule would not be served by applying the principles of Almeida-Sanchez retroactively.
Petitioner further argues that even if Almeida-Sanchez is not to be applied retroactively he is entitled to the benefit of the Court of Appeals’ decision that AlmeidaSanchez extended to checkpoint searches. He invokes this Court’s practice of applying new constitutional doctrine in the case that establishes the point, and maintains that the Court of Appeals’ refusal to apply its extension of Almeida-Sanchez in his case made its discussion of that point mere dictum. We conclude, however, that the only error of the Court of Appeals was its reaching out to decide that Almeida-Sanchez applied to checkpoint searches in a case that did not require decision of the issue.
The Government raised two questions in the Court of Appeals: whether Almeida-Sanchez applied retroactively, and if it did, whether it would require probable cause for checkpoint searches. This Court consistently has declined to address unsettled questions regarding the scope of decisions establishing new constitutional doctrine in cases in which it holds those decisions nonretroactive. E. g., Michigan v. Payne, 412 U. S. 47, 49-50 (1973); DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U. S. 631 (1968). This practice is rooted in our reluctance to decide constitutional questions unnecessarily. See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 21 (1960); Ashwander v. TV A, 297 U. S. 288, 346-347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) . Because this reluctance in turn is grounded in the constitutional role of the federal courts, United States v. Raines, supra, the district courts and courts of appeals should follow our practice, when issues of both retro-activity and application of constitutional doctrine are raised, of deciding the retroactivity issue first. As the Court of Appeals correctly decided in this case that Almeida-Sanchez did not apply to a 1971 search, it should have refrained from considering whether our decision in that case applied to searches at checkpoints.
Petitioner contends, nevertheless, that once the Court of Appeals addressed the unnecessary issue it was bound to apply that ruling in his case. Because it refused to do so, petitioner says the court rendered a hypothetical decision forbidden by Art. Ill of the Constitution. It is true that this Court has suggested that Art. Ill is the primary impetus for applying new constitutional doctrines in cases that establish them for the first time. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 301 (1967). But petitioner’s case is altogether different. Almeida-Sanchez already had established the principle, and there was a genuine controversy between petitioner and the United States over its retroactive application. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the court’s jurisdiction to resolve that controversy could not be dislodged by its discussion of an unnecessary issue.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Douglas dissents for the reasons stated in his dissent in United States v. Peltier, ante, p. 543.
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall dissent and would reverse substantially for the reasons expressed in Mr. Justice Brennan’s dissent in United States v. Peltier, ante, p. 544.
Mr. Justice Stewart dissents.
While approving checkpoint searches for aliens, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had limited the Border Patrol’s authority to search for contraband at points away from the border. E. g., Cervantes v. United States, 263 F. 2d 800 (1959); see Fumagalli v. United States, 429 F. 2d 1011 (1970). The search of petitioner’s camper was not invalid under these cases because the agent was engaged in a search for aliens, legal under the Ninth Circuit’s decisions, when he developed probable cause to believe that the camper contained marihuana.
There was some ground for confusion about the state of the law in the Fifth Circuit at the time Almeida-Sanchez was decided. Early cases had affirmed immigration officers’ authority to search for aliens at traffic checkpoints. E. g., Ramirez v. United States, 263 F. 2d 385 (1959); Kelly v. United States, 197 F. 2d 162 (1952). Later cases took the same view, e. g., United States v. De Leon, 462 F. 2d 170 (1972), although one opinion seemed to hold that the authority to search at checkpoints was qualified by a requirement that the location and operation of the checkpoint be reasonable. United States v. McDaniel, 463 F. 2d 129, 133 (1972). Two decisions by other panels of the court ambiguously suggested that a search at a checkpoint must be supported by “reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Wright, 476 F. 2d 1027 (1973) ; United States v. Maggard, 451 F. 2d 502 (1971). But a later opinion seemed to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s distinction between searches for aliens and searches for contraband, suggesting that immigration searches could be made without suspicion while customs searches required a foundation for believing that the particular car contained contraband. United States v. Thompson, 475 F. 2d 1359, 1362 (1973).
Neither of the cases suggesting that “reasonable suspicion” was required for immigration searches resulted in a decision invalidating a search, and none of the court’s opinions indicated disagreement with the earlier cases establishing an unqualified right to search for aliens at checkpoints whose location and operation were reasonable. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Government reasonably relied on the earlier cases in continuing to make immigration searches at checkpoints.
See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 301 (1967); compare Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), with DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U. S. 631 (1968); compare North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), with Michigan v. Payne, 412 U. S. 47 (1973).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether operating a dam to produce hydroelectricity “may result in any discharge into the navigable waters” of the United States. If so, a federal license under §401 of the Clean Water Act requires state certification that water protection laws will not be violated. We hold that a dam does raise a potential for a discharge, and state approval is needed.
I
The Presumpscot River runs through southern Maine from Sebago Lake to Casco Bay, and in the course of its 25 miles petitioner, S. D. Warren Company, operates several hydro-power dams to generate electricity for its paper mill. Each dam creates a pond, from which water funnels into a “power canal,” through turbines, and back to the riverbed, passing around a section of the river just below the impoundment.
It is undisputed that since 1935, Warren has needed a license to operate the dams, currently within the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power Act. 16 U. S. C. §§817(1), 792; see also Public Utility Act of 1935, §210, 49 Stat. 846. FERC grants these licenses for periods up to 50 years, 16 U. S. C. § 799, after a review that looks to environmental issues as well as the rising demand for power, § 797(e).
Over 30 years ago, Congress enacted a specific provision for licensing an activity that could cause a “discharge” into navigable waters; a license is conditioned on a certification from the State in which the discharge may originate that it will not violate certain water quality standards, including those set by the State’s own laws. See Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, § 103, 84 Stat. 108. Today, this requirement can be found in § 401 of the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 877, 33 U. S. C. § 1341: “Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity ... which may result in any discharge into the navigable water[s] shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates .. . .” § 1341(a)(1).
“Any certification provided under this section shall set forth any effluent limitations and other limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any applicant for a Federal license or permit will comply with [§§ 1311, 1312, 1316, and 1317] and with any other appropriate requirement of State law set forth in such certification, and shall become a condition on any Federal license or permit subject to the provisions of this section.” § 1341(d).
In 1999, Warren sought to renew federal licenses for five of its hydroelectric dams. It applied for water quality certifications from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (the state agency responsible for what have come to be known as “401 state certifications”), but it filed its application under protest, claiming that its dams do not result in any “discharge into” the river triggering application of §401.
The Maine agency issued certifications that required Warren to maintain a minimum stream flow in the bypassed portions of the river and to allow passage for various migratory fish and eels. When FERC eventually licensed the five dams, it did so subject to the Maine conditions, and Warren continued to deny any need of §401 state certification. After appealing unsuccessfully to Maine’s administrative appeals tribunal, the Board of Environmental Protection, Warren filed this suit in the State’s Cumberland County Superior Court. That court rejected Warren’s argument that its dams do not result in discharges, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed. 2005 ME 27, 868 A. 2d 210. We granted certiorari, 546 U. S. 933 (2005), and now affirm as well.
II
The dispute turns on the meaning of the word “discharge,” the key to the state certification requirement under §401. The Act has no definition of the term, but provides that “[t]he term ‘discharge’ when used without qualification includes a discharge of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(16). It does define “discharge of a pollutant” and “discharge of pollutants” as meaning “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” § 1362(12). But “discharge” presumably is broader, else superfluous, and since it is neither defined in the statute nor a term of art, we are left to construe it “in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 476 (1994).
When it applies to water, “discharge” commonly means a “flowing or issuing out,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 742 (2d ed. 1954); see also ibid. (“[t]o emit; to give outlet to; to pour forth; as, the Hudson discharges its waters into the bay”), and this ordinary sense has consistently been the meaning intended when this Court has used the term in prior water cases. See, e. g., Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U. S. 360, 364 (1989) (describing a dam’s “'multiport’ structure, which will permit discharge of water from any of five levels”); Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546, 619, n. 25 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting in part) (quoting congressional testimony regarding those who “ 'take . .. water out of the stream which has been discharged from the reservoir’ ”); United States v. Arizona, 295 U. S. 174, 181 (1935) (“Parker Dam will intercept waters discharged at Boulder Dam”).
In fact, this understanding of the word “discharge” was accepted by all Members of the Court sitting in our only other case focused on §401 of the Clean Water Act, PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U. S. 700 (1994). At issue in PUD No. 1 was the State of Washington’s authority to impose minimum stream flow rates on a hydroelectric dam, and in posing the question presented, the Court said this:
“There is no dispute that petitioners were required to obtain a certification from the State pursuant to §401. Petitioners concede that, at a minimum, the project will result in two possible discharges — the release of dredged and fill material during the construction of the project, and the discharge of water at the end of the tailrace after the water has been used to generate electricity.” Id., at 711.
The Pud No. 1 petitioners claimed that a state condition imposing a stream flow requirement on discharges of water from a dam exceeded the State’s §401 authority to prevent degradation of water quality, but neither the parties nor the Court questioned that the “discharge of water” from the dam was a discharge within the ambit of §401. Ibid. And although the Court’s opinion made no mention of the dam as adding anything to the water, the majority’s use of the phrase “discharge of water” drew no criticism from the dissent, which specifically noted that “[t]he term ‘discharge’ is not defined in the [Clean Water Act] but its plain and ordinary meaning suggests ‘a flowing or issuing out,’ or ‘something that is emitted.’ ” Id., at 725 (opinion of Thomas, J.) (quoting Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 360 (1991)).
In resort to common usage under §401, this Court has not been alone, for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FERC have each regularly read “discharge” as having its plain meaning and thus covering releases from hydroelectric dams. See, e. g., EPA, Water Quality Standards Handbook § 7.6.3, p. 7-10 (2d ed. 1994) (“EPA has identified five Federal permits and/or licenses that authorize activities that may result in a discharge to the waters[, including] licenses required for hydroelectric projects issued under the Federal Power Act”); FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC, 111 FERC ¶ 61,104, p. 61,505 (2005) (rejecting, in a recent adjudication, the argument that Congress “used the term ‘discharge’ as nothing more than a shorthand expression for ‘discharge of a pollutant or pollutants’ ”). Warren is, of course, entirely correct in cautioning us that because neither the EPA nor FERC has formally settled the definition, or even set out agency reasoning, these expressions of agency understanding do not command deference from this Court. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U. S. 243, 258 (2006) (“Chevron deference ... is not accorded merely because the statute is ambiguous and an administrative official is involved”); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944). But even so, the administrative usage of “discharge” in this way confirms our understanding of the everyday sense of the term.
m
Warren makes three principal arguments for reading the term “discharge” differently from the ordinary way. We find none availing.
A
The first involves an interpretive canon we think is out of place here. The canon, noscitur a sociis, reminds us that “a word is known by the company it keeps,” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U. S. 561, 575 (1995), and is invoked when a string of statutory terms raises the implication that the “words grouped in a list should be given related meaning,” Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U. S. 26, 36 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Beecham v. United States, 511 U. S. 368, 371 (1994) (“That several items in a list share an attribute counsels in favor of interpreting the other items as possessing that attribute as well”).
Warren claims that the canon applies to §502(16) of the Clean Water Act, which provides that “[t]he term ‘discharge’ when used without qualification includes a discharge of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(16). Warren emphasizes that the “include[d]” terms, pollutant discharges, are themselves defined to require an “addition” of pollutants to water. § 1362(12). Since “discharge” pure and simple is keeping company with “discharge” defined as adding one or more pollutants, Warren says “discharge” standing alone must require the addition of something foreign to the water into which the discharge flows. And because the release of water from the dams adds nothing to the river that was not there above the dams, Warren concludes that water flowing out of the turbines cannot be a discharge into the river.
The problem with Warren’s argument is that it purports to extrapolate a common feature from what amounts to a single item (discharge of a pollutant plus the plural variant involving more than one pollutant). See Beecham, supra, at 371. The argument seems to assume that pairing a broad statutory term with a narrow one shrinks the broad one, but there is no such general usage; giving one example does not convert express inclusion into restrictive equation, and noscitur a sociis is no help absent some sort of gathering with a common feature to extrapolate. It should also go without saying that uncritical use of interpretive rules is especially risky in making sense of a complicated statute like the Clean Water Act, where technical definitions are worked out with great effort in the legislative process. Cf. H. R. Rep. No. 92-911, p. 125 (1972) (“[I]t is extremely important to an understanding of [§402] to know the definition of the various terms used and a careful reading of the definitions ... is recommended. Of particular significance [are] the words ‘discharge of pollutants’ ”).
B
Regardless, Warren says the statute should, and even must, be read its way, on the authority of South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U. S. 95 (2004). But that case is not on point. Miccosukee addressed §402 of the Clean Water Act, not § 401, and the two sections are not interchangeable, as they serve different purposes and use different language to reach them. Section 401 recast pre-existing law and was meant to “continu[e] the authority of the State ... to act to deny a permit and thereby prevent a Federal license or permit from issuing to a discharge source within such State.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 69 (1971). Its terms have a broad reach, requiring state approval any time a federally licensed activity “may” result in a discharge (“discharge” of course being without any qualifiers here), 33 U. S. C. § 1341(a)(1), and its object comprehends maintaining state water quality standards, see n. 1, supra.
Section 402 has a historical parallel with §401, for the legislative record suggests that it, too, was enacted to consolidate and ease the administration of some predecessor regulatory schemes, see H. R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 124-125. But it contrasts with §401 in its more specific focus. It establishes what Congress called the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, requiring a permit for the “discharge of any pollutant” into the navigable waters of the United States, 33 U. S. C. § 1342(a). The triggering statutory term here is not the word “discharge” alone, but “discharge of a pollutant,” a phrase made narrower by its specific definition requiring an “addition” of a pollutant to the water. § 1362(12).
The question in Miccosukee was whether a pump between a canal and an impoundment produced a “discharge of a pollutant” within the meaning of §402, see 541 U. S., at 102-103, and the Court accepted the shared view of the parties that if two identified volumes of water are “simply two parts of the same water body, pumping water from one into the other cannot constitute an 'addition’ of pollutants,” id., at 109. Miccosukee was thus concerned only with whether an “addition” had been made (phosphorous being the substance in issue) as required by the definition of the phrase “discharge of a pollutant”; it did not matter under § 402 whether pumping the water produced a discharge without any addition. In sum, the understanding that something must be added in order to implicate §402 does not explain what suffices for a discharge under §401.
c
Warren’s third argument for avoiding the common meaning of “discharge” relies on the Act’s legislative history, but we think that if the history means anything it actually goes against Warren’s position. Warren suggests that the word “includes” in the definition of “discharge” should not be read with any spacious connotation, because the word was simply left on the books inadvertently after a failed attempt to deal specifically with “thermal discharges.” As Warren describes it, several Members of Congress recognized that “heat is not as harmful as what most of us view as ‘pollut-. ants,’ because it dissipates quickly in most bodies of receiving waters,” 1 Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 93-1, p. 273 (1973) (remarks of Rep. Clark), and they proposed to regulate thermal discharges less stringently than others. They offered an amendment to exclude thermal discharges from the requirements under § 402, but they also wanted to ensure that thermal discharges remained within the scope of § 401 and so sought to include them expressly in the general provision covering “discharge.” See id., at 1069-1070, 1071. The proposed definition read, “[t]he term ‘discharge’ when used without qualification includes a discharge of a pollutant, a discharge of pollutants, and a thermal discharge.” Id., at 1071.
Of course, Congress omitted the reference to “thermal discharge,” and settled on the definition we have today. See Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, § 502(16), 86 Stat. 887. Warren reasons that once Congress abandoned the special treatment for thermal pollutants, it merely struck the words “thermal discharge” from 33 U. S. C. § 1362(16) and carelessly left in the word “includes.” Thus, Warren argues, there is no reason to assume that describing “discharge” as including certain acts was meant to extend the reach of § 401 beyond acts of the kind specifically mentioned; the terminology of § 401 simply reflects a failed effort to narrow the scope of § 402.
This is what might be called a lawyer’s argument. We will assume that Warren is entirely correct about the impetus behind the failed attempt to rework the scope of pollutant discharge under § 402. It is simply speculation, though, to say that the word “includes” was left in the description of a “discharge” by mere inattention, and for reasons given in Part IV of this opinion it is implausible speculation at that. But if we confine our view for a moment strictly to the drafting history, the one thing clear is that if Congress had left “thermal discharge” as an included subclass of a “discharge” under §502(16), Warren would have a stronger noscitur a sociis argument. For a thermal discharge adds something, the pollutant heat, see n. 3, supra. Had the list of examples of discharge been lengthened to include thermal discharges, there would have been at least a short series with the common feature of addition. As it stands, however, the only thing the legislative history cited by Warren demonstrates is the congressional rejection of language that would have created a short series of terms with a common implication of an addition.
Warren’s theory, moreover, has the unintended consequence of underscoring that Congress probably distinguished the terms “discharge” and “discharge of pollutants” deliberately, in order to use them in separate places and to separate ends. Warren hypothesizes that Congress attempted to tinker with the definition of “discharge” because it wanted to subject thermal discharges to the requirements of §401, but not §402. But this assumption about Congress’s motives only confirms the point that when Congress fine-tunes its statutory definitions, it tends to do so with a purpose in mind. See Bates v. United States, 522 U. S. 23, 29-30 (1997) (if “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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
IV
Warren’s arguments against reading the word “discharge” in its common sense fail on their own terms. They also miss the forest for the trees.
Congress passed the Clean Water Act to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” 33 U. S. C. § 1251(a); see also PUD No. 1, 511 U. S., at 714, the “national goal” being to achieve “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water,” 33 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(2). To do this, the Act does not stop at controlling the “addition of pollutants,” but deals with “pollution” generally, see § 1251(b), which Congress defined to mean “the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water,” § 1362(19).
The alteration of water quality as thus defined is a risk inherent in limiting river flow and releasing water through turbines. Warren itself admits that its dams “can cause changes in the movement, flow, and circulation of a river ... causing] a river to absorb less oxygen and to be less passable by boaters and fish.” Brief for Petitioner 23. And several amici alert us to the chemical modification caused by the dams, with “immediate impact on aquatic organisms, which of course rely on dissolved oxygen in water to breathe.” Brief for Trout Unlimited et al. as Amici Curiae 13; see also, e. g., Brief for National Wildlife Federation et al. as Amici Curiae 6 (explaining that when air and water mix in a turbine, nitrogen dissolves in the water and can be potentially lethal to fish). Then there are the findings of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection that led to this appeal:
“The record in this case demonstrates that Warren’s dams have caused long stretches of the natural river bed to be essentially dry and thus unavailable as habitat for indigenous populations of fish and other aquatic organisms; that the dams have blocked the passage of eels and sea-run fish to their natural spawning and nursery-waters; that the dams have eliminated the opportunity for fishing in long stretches of river, and that the dams have prevented recreational access to and use of the river.” In re S. D. Warren Co., L-19713-33-E-N etc. (2003), in App. to Pet. for Cert. A-49.
Changes in the river like these fall within a State’s legitimate legislative business, and the Clean Water Act provides for a system that respects the States’ concerns. See 33 U. S. C. § 1251(b) (“It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution”); § 1256(a) (federal funds for state efforts to prevent pollution); see also §1370 (States may impose standards on the discharge of pollutants that are stricter than federal ones).
State certifications under § 401 are essential in the scheme to preserve state authority to address the broad range of pollution, as Senator Muskie explained on the floor when what is now § 401 was first proposed:
“No polluter will be able to hide behind a Federal license or permit as an excuse for a violation of water quality standard[s]. No polluter will be able to make major investments in facilities under a Federal license or permit without providing assurance that the facility will comply with water quality standards. No State water pollution control agency will be confronted with a fait accompli by an industry that has built a plant without consideration of water quality requirements.” 116 Cong. Rec. 8984 (1970).
These are the very reasons that Congress provided the States with power to enforce “any other appropriate requirement of State law,” 33 U. S. C. § 1341(d), by imposing conditions on federal licenses for activities that may result in a discharge, ibid.
Reading § 401 to give “discharge” its common and ordinary meaning preserves the state authority apparently intended. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia joins all but Part III-C of this opinion.
The statutes cross-referenced go to effluent limitations and other limitations, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311, 1312, standards of performance, § 1316, and toxic effluent standards, §1317. As we have explained before, “state water quality standards adopted pursuant to §303 [of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1313,] are among the ‘other limitations’ with which a State may ensure compliance through the §401 certification process.” PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U. S. 700, 713 (1994).
No one disputes that the Presumpscot River is a navigable water of the United States.
The term “pollutant” is defined in the Act to mean “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(6).
Warren relies on a document from the EPA as a counterexample of the EPA’s position in this regard. See Memorandum from Ann R. Klee, EPA General Counsel, et al., to Regional Administrators, regarding “Agency Interpretation on Applicability of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act to Water Transfers” (Aug. 5, 2005), available at http://www.epa.gov/oge/ doeuments/water_transfers.pdf (as visited Apr. 13, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s ease file). The memorandum does not help Warren, however; it interprets §402 of the Clean Water Act, not §401, and construes the statutory phrase “discharge of a pollutant,” which, as explained below, implies a meaning different under the statute from the word “discharge” used alone. The memorandum, in fact, declares that “[i]t does not address any ... terms under the statute other than ‘addition.’ ” Id., at 18.
We note that the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine accepted the assertion that “[a]n ‘addition’ is the fundamental characteristic of any discharge.” 2005 ME 27, ¶ 11, 868 A. 2d 210, 215. It then held that Warren’s dams add to the Presumpseot River because the water “losfes its] status as waters of the United States” when diverted from its natural course, and becomes an addition to the waters of the United States when redeposited into the river. 868 A. 2d, at 216 (emphasis deleted). We disagree that an addition is fundamental to any discharge, nor can we agree that one can denationalize national waters by exerting private control over them. Cf. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 69 (1913) (“[T]hat the running water in a great navigable stream is capable of private ownership is inconceivable”). Thus, though we affirm the Maine judgment, we do so on different reasoning.
The fact that the parties in Miccosukee conceded that the water being pumped was polluted does not transform the Court’s analysis from one centered on the word “addition” to one centered on the word “discharge.” Before Miccosukee, one could have argued that transferring polluted water from a canal to a connected impoundment constituted an “addition.” Miccosukee is at odds with that construction of the statute, but it says nothing about whether the transfer of polluted water from the canal to the impoundment constitutes a “discharge.”
Likewise, we are not persuaded by Warren’s claim that the word “into” somehow changes the meaning of the word “discharge” so as to require an addition. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 1-2 (“However one might read the lone word ‘discharge’ by itself, the complete statutory phrase ‘discharge into the navigable waters’ entails the introduction of something into the waters”). The force of this argument escapes us, since one can easily refer to water being poured or discharged out of one place into another without implying that an addition of some hitherto unencountered mixture or quality of water is made. Indeed, the preposition “into” was used without connoting an addition in the Miccosukee analogy cited by Warren. See 541 U. S., at 110 (“[I]f one takes a ladle of soup from a pot... and pours it back into the pot, one has not ‘added’ soup or anything else to the pot” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).
Warren is hesitant to follow its own logic to completion by simply claiming that §401 covers nothing but what §502(16) mentions, the discharge of a pollutant or pollutants.
Warren briefly makes another argument for disregarding the plain meaning of the word “discharge,” relying on § 511(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1371(c)(2). This section addresses the intersection of the Act with another statute, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U. S. C. §4321 et seq. NEPA “imposes only procedural requirements on federal agencies with a particular focus on requiring agencies to undertake analyses of the environmental impact of their proposals and actions.” Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U. S. 752, 756-757 (2004). Section 511(c)(2) makes the point that nothing in NEPA authorizes any federal agency “authorized to license or permit the conduct of any activity which may result in the discharge of a pollutant” to review “any effluent limitation or other requirement established pursuant to this chapter or the adequacy of any certification under [§ 401].” 33 U. S. C. § 1371(c)(2)(A). Warren argues that reading §401 to cover discharges generally would preclude duplicative NEPA review of certifications involving pollutant discharges, but allow such review of those involving nonpollutant discharges.
But Warren overlooks the fact that “discharge of a pollutant” is used in § 511(c)(2) in the course of identifying the agency, not the activity to be certified. Whether a §401 certification involves an activity that discharges pollutants or one that simply discharges, FERC (as an agency that may be described, always, as one with “authority] to license or permit the conduct of any activity which may result in the discharge of a pollutant,” ibid.) may not review it. Thus, nothing in § 511(c)(2) is disturbed by our holding that hydroelectric dams require § 401 state certifications. It is still the ease that, when a State has issued a certification covering a discharge that adds no pollutant, no federal agency will be deemed to have authority under NEPA to “review” any limitations or the adequacy of the § 401 certification.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we are concerned with the legality of an employer’s contributions of unencumbered property to a defined benefit pension plan. Specifically, we must address the question whether such a contribution, when applied to the employer’s funding obligation, is a prohibited “sale or exchange” under 26 U. S. C. §4975 so that the employer thereby incurs the substantial excise taxes imposed by the statute.
I
A “defined benefit pension plan,” as its name implies, is one where the employee, upon retirement, is entitled to a fixed periodic payment. The size of that payment usually depends upon prior salary and years of service. The more common “defined contribution pension plan,” in contrast, is typically one where the employer contributes a percentage of payroll or profits to individual employee accounts. Upon retirement, the employee is entitled to the funds in his account. See 29 U. S. C. §§ 1002(34) and (35).
If either type of plan qualifies for favorable tax treatment, the employer, for income tax purposes, may deduct its current contributions to the plan; the retiree, however, is not taxed until he receives payment from the plan. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 402(a)(1) and 404(a)(1).
II
The facts that are pertinent for resolving the present litigation are not in dispute. During its taxable years ended June 30, 1983, through June 30, 1988, inclusive, respondent Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Dallas, Tex., maintained several tax-qualified defined benefit pension plans. These were subject to the minimum funding requirements prescribed by §302 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Pub. L. 93-406, §302, 88 Stat. 869, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1082. See also 26 U. S. C. § 412. Respondent funded the plans by contributions to the Keystone Consolidated Master Pension Trust.
On March 8, 1983, respondent contributed to the Pension Trust five truck terminals having a stated fair market value of $9,655,454 at that time. Respondent credited that value against its minimum funding obligation to its defined benefit pension plans for its fiscal years 1982 and 1983. On March 13, 1984, respondent contributed to the Pension Trust certain Key West, Fla., real property having a stated fair market value of $5,336,751 at that time. Respondent credited that value against its minimum funding obligation for its fiscal year 1984. The truck terminals were not encumbered at the times of their transfers. Neither was the Key West property. Their respective stated fair market values are not challenged here.
Respondent claimed deductions on its federal income tax returns for the fair market values of the five truck terminals and the Key West property. It also reported as taxable capital gain the difference between its income tax basis in each property and that property’s stated fair market value. Thus, for income tax purposes, respondent treated the disposal of each property as a “sale or exchange” of a capital asset. See 26 U.S.C. §1222.
Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. §4975, was added by § 2003(a) of ERISA. See 88 Stat. 971. It imposes a two-tier excise tax on specified “prohibited transactions” between a pension plan and a “disqualified person.” Among the “disqualified persons” listed in the statute is the employer of employees covered by the pension plan. See § 4975(e)(2)(C). Among the transactions prohibited is “any direct or indirect . . . sale or exchange ... of any property between a plan and a disqualified person.” See § 4975(c)(1)(A).
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is the petitioner here, ruled that respondent’s transfers to the Pension Trust of the five truck terminals and the Key West property were sales or exchanges prohibited under § 4975(c)(1)(A). This ruling resulted in determined deficiencies in respondent’s first-tier excise tax liability of $749,610 for its fiscal year 1984 and of $482,773 for each of its fiscal years 1983 and 1985-1988, inclusive. The Commissioner also determined that respondent incurred second-tier excise tax liability in the amount of $9,655,454 for its fiscal year 1988.
Respondent timely filed a petition for redetermination with the United States Tax Court. That court, with an unreviewed opinion on cross-motions for summary judgment, ruled in respondent’s favor. 60 TCM 1423 (1990), ¶ 90,628 P-H Memo TC.
The Tax Court acknowledged that “there is a potential for abuse by allowing unencumbered property transfers to plans in satisfaction of minimum funding requirements.” Id., at 1424, ¶ 90,628 P-H Memo TC, p. 90-3071. Nonetheless, it did not agree that the transfers in this case constituted sales or exchanges under §4975. It rejected the Commissioner’s attempt to analogize the property transfers to the recognition of income for income tax purposes, for it considered the issue whether a transfer is a prohibited transaction under §4975 to be “separate and distinct from income tax recognition.” Id., at 1425, ¶ 90,628 P-H Memo TC, p. 90-3071.
In drawing this distinction, the Tax Court cited 26 U. S. C. § 4975(f)(3). That section specifically states that a transfer of property “by a disqualified person to a plan shall be treated as a sale or exchange if the property is subject to a mortgage or similar lien.” The court observed: “Since section 4975(f)(3) specifically describes certain transfers of real or personal property to a plan by a disqualified person as a sale or exchange for purposes of section 4975, the definitional concerns of ‘sale or exchange’ are removed from the general definitions found in other areas of the tax law.” 60 TCM, at 1425, ¶ 90,628 P-H Memo TC, p. 90-3071. The Tax Court thus seemed to say that § 4975(f)(3) limits the reach of § 4975(c)(1)(A), so that only transfers of encumbered property-are prohibited.
The Tax Court also rejected the Commissioner’s argument that by contributing noncash property to its plan, the employer was in a position to exert unwarranted influence over the Pension Trust’s investment policy. The court’s answer was that the trustee “can dispose of” the property. Id., at 1425, ¶ 90,628 P-H Memo TC, p. 90-3072. The court noted that it earlier had rejected the Commissioner’s distinction between transfers of property that satisfy a funding obligation and transfers of encumbered property, whether or not the latter transfers fulfill a funding obligation, in Wood v. Commissioner, 95 T. C. 364 (1990) (unreviewed), rev’d, 955 F. 2d 908 (CA4), cert. granted, 504 U. S. 972, dism’d, 505 U. S. 1231 (1992). See 60 TCM, at 1425, ¶ 90,628 P-H Memo TC, p. 90-3072.
The United States. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 951 F. 2d 76 (1992). It read § 4975(f)(3) as “implying that unless it is encumbered by a mortgage or lien, a transfer of property is not to be treated as if it were a sale or exchange.” Id., at 78. It rejected the Commissioner’s argument that § 4975(f)(3) was intended to expand the definition of “sale or exchange” to include transfers of encumbered property that do not fulfill funding obligations; in the court’s view, “there is no basis for this distinction between involuntary and voluntary transfers anywhere in the Code.” Ibid. The court reasoned: “If all transfers of property to a plan were to be treated as a sale or exchange” under § 4975(c)(1)(A), then § 4975(f)(3) “would be superfluous.” Ibid. That a transfer of property in satisfaction of an obligation is treated as a “sale or exchange” of property for income tax purposes is “irrelevant,” because “[s]eetion 4975 was not enacted to measure economic income.” Id., at 79.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the Commissioner’s views were not entitled to deference, despite the fact that both the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor administer ERISA’s prohibited-transaetion provisions. This was because the Commissioner’s views had not been set out in a formal regulation, and because the Department of Labor’s views were set out in an advisory opinion that was binding only “on the parties thereto, and has no precedential effect.” Ibid.
In view of the acknowledged conflict between the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Wood, see 955 F. 2d, at 913, and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in the present litigation, cases decided within two weeks of each other, we granted certiorari. 506 U. S. 813 (1992).
Ill
The statute with which we are concerned is a complicated one. But when much of its language, not applicable to the present case, is set to one side, the issue before us comes into better focus. Respondent acknowledges that it is a “disqualified person” with respect to the Pension Trust. It also acknowledges that the trust qualifies as a plan under §4975. Our task, then, is only to determine whether the transfers of the terminals and of the Key West property were sales or exchanges within the reach of § 4975(c)(1)(A) and therefore were prohibited transactions.
A
It is well established for income tax purposes that the transfer of property in satisfaction of a monetary obligation is usually a “sale or exchange” of the property. See, e. g., Helvering v. Hammel, 311 U. S. 504 (1941). See also 2 B. Bittker & L. Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 40.4, p. 40-11 (2d ed. 1990). It seems clear, therefore, that respondent’s contribution of the truck terminals and the Key West property constituted, under the income tax laws, sales of those properties to the Pension Trust. The Fourth Circuit, in Wood, supra, observed: “[W]e are aware of no instance when the term ‘sale or exchange’ has been used or interpreted not to include transfers of property in satisfaction of indebtedness.” 955 F. 2d, at 913.
This logic applied in income tax cases is equally applicable under § 4975(c)(1)(A). The phrase “sale or exchange” had acquired a settled judicial and administrative interpretation over the course of a half century before Congress enacted in § 4975 the even broader statutory language of “any direct or indirect... sale or exchange.” Congress presumptively was aware when it enacted §4975 that the phrase “sale or exchange” consistently had been construed to include the transfer of property in satisfaction of a monetary obligation. See Albernaz v. United States, 450 U. S. 333, 340-343 (1981). It is a “normal rule of statutory construction,” Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U. S. 851, 860 (1986), that “identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning,” Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 433 (1932). Further, “the Code must be given ‘as great an internal symmetry and consistency as its words permit.’ ” Commissioner v. Lester, 366 U. S. 299, 304 (1961). Accordingly, when we construe § 4975(c)(1)(A), it is proper to accept the already settled meaning of the phrase “sale or exchange.”
Even if this phrase had not possessed a settled meaning, it still would be clear that § 4975(c)(1)(A) prohibits the transfer of property in satisfaction of a debt. Congress barred not merely a “sale or exchange.” It prohibited something more, namely, “any direct or indirect... sale or exchange.” The contribution of property in satisfaction of a funding obligation is at least both an indirect type of sale and a form of exchange, since the property is exchanged for diminution of the employer’s funding obligation.
B
We note, too, that this construction of the statute’s broad language is necessary to accomplish Congress’ goal. Before ERISA’s enactment in 1974, the measure that governed a transaction between a pension plan and its sponsor was the customary arm’s-length standard of conduct. This provided an open door for abuses such as the sponsor’s sale of property to the plan at an inflated price or the sponsor’s satisfaction of a funding obligation by contribution of property that was overvalued or nonliquid. Congress’ response to these abuses included the enactment of ERISA’s § 406(a)(1)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1106(a)(1)(A), and the addition of §4975 to the Internal Revenue Code.
Congress’ goal was to bar categorically a transaction that was likely to injure the pension plan. S. Rep. No. 93-383, pp. 95-96 (1973). The transfer of encumbered property may jeopardize the ability of the plan to pay promised benefits. See Wood v. Commissioner, supra. Such a transfer imposes upon the trust the primary obligation to pay the encumbrance, and thus frees cash for the employer by restricting the use of cash by the trust. Overvaluation, the burden of disposing of the property, and the employer’s substitution of its own judgment as to investment policy, are other obvious considerations. Although the burden of an encumbrance is unique to the contribution of encumbered property, concerns about overvaluation, disposal of property, and the need to maintain an independent investment policy animate any contribution of property that satisfies a funding obligation, regardless of whether or not the property is encumbered. This is because as long as a pension fund is giving up an account receivable in exchange for property, the fund runs the risk of giving up more than it is getting in return if the property is either less valuable or more burdensome than a cash contribution would have been.
These potential harmful effects are illustrated by the facts of the present case, even though the properties at issue were unencumbered and not overvalued at the times of their respective transfers. There were exclusive sales-listing agreements respondent had made with respect to two of the truck terminals; these agreements called for sales commissions. The presence of this requirement demonstrates that it is neither easy nor costless to-dispose of such properties. The Chicago truck terminal, for example, was not sold for SVz years after it was listed for sale by the Pension Trust.
These problems are not solved, as the Court of Appeals suggested, by the mere imposition of excise taxes by §4971. It is §4975 that prevents the abuses.
C
We do not agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that § 4975(f)(3) limits the meaning of “sale or exchange,” as that phrase appears in § 4975(e)(1)(A). Section 4975(f)(3) states that a transfer of property “by a disqualified person to a plan shall be treated as a sale or exchange if the property is subject to a mortgage or similar lien.” The Court of Appeals read this language as implying that unless property “is encumbered by a mortgage or lien, a transfer of property is not to be treated as if it were a sale or exchange.” 951 F. 2d, at 78. We feel that by this language Congress intended § 4975(f)(3) to expand, not limit, the scope of the prohibited-transaction provision. It extends the reach of “sale or exchange” in § 4975(e)(1)(A) to include contributions of encumbered property that do not satisfy funding obligations. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, p. 307 (1974). Congress intended by § 4975(f)(3) to provide additional protection, not to limit the protection already provided by § 4975(c)(1)(A).
We feel that the Commissioner’s construction of §4975 is a sensible one. A transfer of encumbered property, like the transfer of unencumbered property to satisfy an obligation, has the potential to burden a plan, while a transfer of property that is neither encumbered nor satisfies a debt presents far less potential for causing loss to the plan.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia joins all but Part III-B of this opinion.
The first-tier tax is “5 percent of the amount involved.” 26 U. S. C. § 4975(a). The second-tier tax is ‘TOO percent of the amount involved.” § 4975(b). The “amount involved” is the greater of the amount of money and the fair market value of the other property given or the amount of money and the fair market value of the other properly received. § 4975(f)(4). The second-tier tax usually may be avoided by timely correction of the prohibited transaction upon completion of the litigation concerning the taxpayer’s liability for the tax. See §§ 4961(a), 4963(b) and (e), 6213(a), and 7481(a).
Such expanded coverage is illustrated by the following example. An employer with no outstanding funding obligations wishes to contribute property to a pension fund to reward its employees for an especially productive year of service. Under our analysis, the property contribution is permissible if the property is unencumbered, because it will not be “exr changed” for a diminution in funding obligations and therefore does not fall within the prohibition of § 4975(c)(1)(A). On the other hand, the property contribution is impermissible if the property is encumbered, because § 4975(f)(3) specifically prohibits all contributions of encumbered property.
We note, in passing, that the parties and the amicus have argued strenuously the issue whether we should afford deference to the interpretation of the statute by the two agencies charged with administering it. See Brief for Petitioner 29-32; Brief for Respondent 39-42; Reply Brief for Petitioner 18-20; Brief for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as Amicus Curiae 10-13.
It does appear that the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service consistently have taken the position that a sponsoring employer’s transfer of unencumbered properly to a pension plan to satisfy its funding obligation is a prohibited sale or exchange. See Department of Labor Advisory Opinion 81-69A, issued July 28, 1981; Department of Labor Advisory Opinion 90-05A, issued March 29, 1990; Rev. Rule 81-40, 1981-1 Cum. Bull. 508; Rev. Rule 77-379, 1977-2 Cum. Bull. 387.
We reach our result in this case without reliance on any rule of deference. Because of the nature and limitations of these rulings, we express no view as to whether they are or are not entitled to deference. The resolution of that issue is deferred to another day.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
What began as a dispute over renewal of a collective-bargaining agreement between a small railroad in Maine and some of its employees expanded to picketing and threats of strike activity at railroad facilities around the country. A Federal District Court then enjoined the picketing of any railroads other than those involved in the primary dispute. The question we must decide is whether a federal court has jurisdiction to issue such an injunction.
I — i
Respondent Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (BMWE) represents railroad employees nationwide. Its members include employees of the Maine Central Railroad and the Portland Terminal Company, subsidiaries of Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc. (Guilford). Guil-ford also owns two other railroads, the Delaware Hudson Railway Company, and the Boston and Maine Corporation. The Guilford system covers some 4,000 miles of track in the northeast United States, east from Buffalo to Maine, and north from Washington, D. C., to Montreal. The Guilford system is not as large, however, as some other railroads, and Guilford depends on other railroads to carry much of its traffic.
The crux of the dispute between Maine Central and BMWE was Maine Central’s decision, following its acquisition by Guilford in 1981, to abolish over a 5-year period the jobs of roughly 300 out of 400 employees represented by BMWE. The collective-bargaining agreement between BMWE and Maine Central expired in 1984, before the parties were able to reach agreement either on the problem of job losses or on various questions of wages, hours, and working conditions. A dispute “over the formation of collective agreements or efforts to secure them” is a “major dispute” in the parlance of railway labor law, Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 723 (1945), and is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. For over a year, the parties attempted to reach a settlement by following the detailed settlement procedures mandated by the RLA. On March 3, 1986, having exhausted these procedures, BMWE began a lawful strike against Maine Central and Portland Terminal. Two days later, BMWE lawfully extended the strike to Guilford’s other two railroad subsidiaries.
It first appeared to BMWE that its strike was having the desired effect of slowing traffic on Guilford’s lines. But Guilford’s supervisors took on some of the responsibilities of the striking workers, and after several weeks the volume of traffic on Guilford’s lines began to increase. BMWE received information that led it to believe that Guilford was receiving financial assistance from other railroads (a belief that later proved mistaken), and observed non-Guilford locomotives moving on Guilford lines. BMWE also perceived that Maine Central had become less willing to negotiate.
In early April, BMWE decided to extend its strike beyond Guilford’s subsidiaries. It first attempted to picket other railroads in the east with which Guilford interchanged a significant volume of traffic. This picketing was enjoined by two federal-court orders. On April 8, 1986, BMWE notified the president of the American Association of Railroads of its plans to picket the facilities of other carriers and to ask other carriers’ employees to withdraw from service until Maine Central’s willingness to bargain increased. In addition, BMWE began to picket “strategic locations through which Guilford’s traffic flowed, such as Chicago,” Brief for Respondents 4, and to picket the Los Angeles facilities of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, based on the belief (again later proved mistaken) that Union Pacific supervisors were assisting on Guilford lines.
On April 9, 62 railroads (not including petitioner Burlington Northern Railroad Company (Burlington Northern)), filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a temporary restraining order against the picketing. Their request was denied the next day. Alton & Southern R. Co. v. BMWE, Civ. No. 86-0977 (1986). Meanwhile, also on April 9, Burlington Northern sought and obtained ex parte a temporary restraining order from the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, enjoining BMWE from picketing or striking Burlington Northern. The six other railroad petitioners here quickly filed notices of dismissal in the District of Columbia and then filed new actions against BMWE on April 10 and 11 in the Northern District of Illinois. On April 11, that District Court issued temporary restraining orders in each of these cases enjoining BMWE from picketing and striking the facilities of these seven railroads.
The Illinois District Court then consolidated the cases and held a single hearing on the railroads’ motion for a preliminary injunction on April 21, 1986. On April 23, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction. The court noted that §§ 1 and 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. §§ 101, 104, bar federal courts from issuing injunctions against secondary activity “growing out of any labor dispute.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a-28a. The court held that these sections were inapplicable, however, because this case did not “grow out of a labor dispute” as that phrase is defined in § 13(a) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 113(a). In limiting the range of activity that could be considered to grow out of a labor dispute, the court employed the “substantial alignment” test of Ashley, Drew & N. R. Co. v. United Transportation Union and Its Affiliated Local No. 1121, 625 F. 2d 1357 (CA8 1980). Under this test, the scope of lawful strike activity (and hence of a labor dispute) is confined to activities that the court concludes will “furthe[r] the union’s economic interest in a labor dispute.” Id., at 1363. Only activities directed at the primary employer and other employers that are substantially aligned with it pass the test. A railroad is substantially aligned with the primary railroad if it has an ownership interest in the primary railroad, or if it provides essential services or facilities to the primary railroad or otherwise shares with it a “‘significant commonality of interest.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a (quoting Ashley, Drew, supra, at 1365). Because none of the railroad petitioners here were “substantially aligned” with Guilford, the court concluded that BMWE’s secondary activity did not grow out of a labor dispute for purposes of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and therefore could be enjoined.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 793 F. 2d 795 (CA71986). The court rejected the Ashley, Drew substantial-alignment test as inconsistent with both the plain language of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and with this Court’s construction of it. The court then turned to an argument raised in but not addressed by the District Court — that secondary picketing is illegal.under the RLA, and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prevent courts from enjoining conduct that violates other labor statutes. The court concluded, however, that the RLA does not prohibit secondary picketing. It also observed that, even assuming that the RLA does contain such a prohibition, “the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the use of injunctions against economic self-help” once the major dispute resolution process is complete. Id., at 804-805. The court concluded that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter an injunction, and ordered the District Court to dismiss petitioners’ complaints.
While these judicial proceedings were pending, Congress and the Executive Branch took steps to resolve the controversy. On May 16, 1986, pursuant to § 10 of the RLA, 45 U. S. C. §160, the President issued Executive Order No. 12557, 51 Fed. Reg. 18429 (1986). Under this Order, Presidential Emergency Board No. 209 was convened and given the task of investigating the dispute and reporting to the President within 30 days. Section 10 provides that during this 30-day period, and for 30 days after the report is delivered, the parties to the controversy must return to and maintain the status quo prior to the dispute. The Presidential Emergency Board issued its report and recommendations on June 20, 1986. Its recommendations are not binding, however, and the parties did not accept them. On August 21, 1986, Congress passed a joint resolution establishing an advisory board to perform a second investigation and make a report. Four weeks later, on September 8, this board advised Congress that it should enact legislation binding the parties to the recommendation of Presidential Emergency Board No. 209. Congress promptly passed a joint resolution to this effect on September 23,1986, and seven days later the President signed the bill into law. Pub. L. 99-431,100 Stat. 987.
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 812 (1986), to resolve the Circuit conflict over the propriety of using the substantial-alignment test to narrow the definition of labor disputes under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and to address, if necessary, the applicability of the RLA and §§1 and 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to secondary picketing.
II
“The Norris-LaGuardia Act... expresses a basic policy against the injunction of activities of labor unions.” Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, 772 (1961). Section 1 of the Act states that “[n]o court of the United States... shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter.” 29 U. S. C. §101. Section 4 enumerates specific acts that shall not be subject to any restraining order or injunction; these include:
“(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.” 29 U. S. C. §§ 104(a), 104(e).
The congressional debates over the Norris-LaGuardia Act disclose that the Act’s sponsors were convinced that the extraordinary step of divesting federal courts of equitable jurisdiction was necessary to remedy an extraordinary problem. According to the sponsors, federal courts had refused to abide by the clear command of § 20 of the Clayton Act, which stated in part:
“[N]o... restraining order or injunction shall prohibit any person or persons, whether singly or in concert,... from ceasing to perform any work or labor, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do; or from attending at any place where any such person or persons may lawfully be, for the purpose of [so recommending and persuading];... or from peaceably assembling in a lawful manner, and for lawful purposes....” 29 U. S. C. §52.
The language of the Clayton Act was broad enough to encompass all peaceful strike activity, whether directed at the primary employer or at neutral “secondary” employers. Nevertheless, in Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443 (1921), the Court held that §20 did not prevent courts from enjoining secondary activity. In Duplex, the employees’ primary dispute was with a manufacturer of printing presses in Battle Creek, Michigan. Because a strike by only the employees of the manufacturer was unlikely to succeed, the international union representing the employees expanded the strike to those employers who transported, installed, and serviced the presses. The Court held that Congress did not intend § 20 to protect such an expansion. In reaching this conclusion, the Court appeared to rely not only on certain remarks made during the legislative debates, see id., at 475-477, n. 1, but also on its more general intuition about the political and economic significance of secondary picketing. Federal courts could enjoin secondary picketing, the Court stated, because “Congress had in mind [the protection of] particular industrial controversies, not a general class war.” Id., at 472. See also Bedford Co. v. Stone Cutters Assn., 274 U. S. 37, 60 (1927) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
The Norris-LaGuardia Act responded directly to the construction of the Clayton Act in Duplex, and to the pattern of injunctions entered by federal judges. “The underlying aim of the Norris-LaGuardia Act was to restore the broad purpose which Congress thought it had formulated in the Clayton Act but which was frustrated, so Congress believed, by unduly restrictive judicial construction.” United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219, 235-236 (1941). Representative LaGuardia’s description of the need for the Act is typical of those offered in the House debate:
“Gentlemen, there is one reason why this legislation is before Congress, and that one reason is disobedience of the law on the part of whom? On the part of organized labor? No. Disobedience of the law on the part of a few Federal judges. If the courts had been satisfied to construe the law as enacted by Congress, there would not be any need of legislation of this kind. If the courts had administered even justice to both employers and employees, there would be no need of considering a bill of this kind now. If the courts had not emasculated and purposely misconstrued the Clayton Act, we would not today be discussing an anti-injunction bill.” 75 Cong. Rec. 5478 (1932).
The Act thus reflects Congress’ decision to “abolis[h], for purposes of labor immunity, the distinction between primary activity between the ‘immediate disputants’ and secondary activity in which the employer and the members of the union do not stand ‘in the proximate relation of employer and employee.’” Woodwork Manufacturers v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612, 623 (1967) (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 669, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1932)). Moreover, the legislative history leaves no doubt that Congress intended the Norris-LaGuardia Act to cover the railroads. After lengthy debate, punctuated with numerous references to the notorious Pullman Strike of 1894, the House refused an amendment proposed by Representative Beck that would have exempted railroads from the coverage of the Act. See 75 Cong. Rec. 5471-5480, 5501-5512 (1932). The historical background of the Norris-LaGuardia Act thus reveals that Congress intended to preclude courts from enjoining secondary as well as primary activity, and that the railroads were to be treated no differently from other industries in this regard.
H-1 H-t
We first consider petitioners’ argument that § 4’s ban on injunctions is inapplicable to this case because the controversy is not one “involving or growing out of” a “labor dispute” under §4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
Section 13(c) of the Norris-LaGuardia Act states that “[t]he term ‘labor dispute’ includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment... regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.” 29 U. S. C. § 113(c). Section 13(a) provides in pertinent part that: “[a] case shall be held to involve or to grow out of a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in the same industry....” § 113(a). If this statutory language is accorded its plain meaning, BMWE’s dispute with Maine Central over the terms and conditions of employment is unquestionably a labor dispute, and the secondary activity against petitioners grows out of that dispute.
Petitioners argue, however, that this Court should adopt a test of “substantial alignment” to narrow the scope of labor disputes under § 13(c). Petitioners rely on several lower court decisions in which the term “labor dispute” has been applied only to disputes where the picketed employer is “substantially aligned” with the primary employer. See Ashley, Drew & N. R. Co. v. United Transportation Union, 625 F. 2d, at 1363-1364 (citing cases). In Ashley, Drew, the court held that secondary picketing “grows out of” a labor dispute only when a court independently determines that the secondary employer is linked economically or otherwise to the primary employer, and that the picketing therefore furthers the union’s interests in its primary dispute. Although petitioners endorse Ashley, Drew, they also propose an even narrower definition of substantial alignment: “a secondary employer is substantially aligned with a primary employer— and therefore subject to strikes or picketing — only if the secondary employer has ‘joined the fray’ and thus, in effect, has assumed a role in the primary dispute.” Brief for Petitioners 48. Under either test, petitioner railroads argue that they are not substantially aligned with Guilford, and therefore that this controversy cannot be said to involve or grow out of BMWE’s primary dispute with Guilford.
We reject these narrow constructions of § 13(c) for several reasons. First, we have long recognized that “Congress made the definition [of “labor dispute”] broad because it wanted it to be broad.... Congress attempted to write its bill in unmistakable language because it believed previous measures looking toward the same policy against nonjudicial intervention in labor disputes had been given unduly limited constructions by the Courts.” Telegraphers v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 362 U. S. 330, 335-336 (1960); see also Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama S.S. Co., 362 U. S. 365, 369 (1960) (“The [Act’s] language is broad because Congress was intent upon taking the federal courts out of the labor injunction business except in the very limited circumstances left open for federal jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act”).
Accordingly, we have consistently declined to construe § 13(c) narrowly. For example, we have interpreted § 13(c) to embrace disputes “having their genesis in political protests” as opposed to economic self-interest. Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Longshoremen, 457 U. S. 702, 711 (1982). It would be particularly anomalous to adopt a narrowing construction of the phrase “growing out of a labor dispute” in the context of secondary picketing, because Congress’ primary motivation in passing the Norris-LaGuardia Act was to immunize such picketing from federal-court injunctions. Were we to limit the scope of § 13(c) as petitioners suggest, we would again commit precisely the error that prompted Congress to pass the Act.
Adoption of some variant of the substantial-alignment test would be contrary to the Act in yet another way. The focus of the substantial-alignment test — whether labor activity will “furthe[r] the union’s economic interest in a labor dispute,” Ashley, Drew, supra, at 1363 — requires courts to second-guess which activities are truly in the union’s interest. As the Court of Appeals explained:
“No union engages in secondary conduct without expecting to advance its economic interests.... Unions do not lightly call in their chips and impose burdens on other workers who find their own pay and working conditions satisfactory.... Under the ‘substantial alignment’ test of Ashley, Drew the court must... weig[h] the economic gains to the union’s members from secondary pressure against the losses the secondary conduct imposes on others in society. It is only a small exaggeration to say that this is exactly what courts were doing before 1932, exactly why Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act.” 793 F. 2d, at 806.
Finally, nothing in the Norris-LaGuardia Act or the RLA distinguishes permissible from impermissible secondary activity. As we observed in Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369, 386-387 (1969):
“No cosmic principles announce the existence of secondary conduct, condemn it as an evil, or delimit its boundaries. These tasks were first undertaken by judges, intermixing metaphysics with their notions of social and economic policy. And the common law of labor relations... has drawn no lines more arbitrary, tenuous, and shifting than those separating ‘primary’ from ‘secondary’ activities.”
For the railway industry, unlike other industries covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), Congress has provided “neither usable standards nor access to administrative expertise” to facilitate the difficult task of distinguishing primary and secondary activity. Id., at 392. Given the inherent indeterminacy of these concepts and the lack of congressional guidance, it is obvious that any judicial attempt to limit the language of § 13 would make “the lawfulness of a strike... depend upon judicial views of social and economic policy.” Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc., supra, at 715. Even if we were confident that our mixture of metaphysics and social policy, unlike that of our predecessors earlier in this century, would produce a construction of § 13(c) that would substantially align with Congress’ contemporary views, the fact remains that Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act to forestall judicial attempts to narrow labor’s statutory protection. Accordingly, we refuse to narrow the definition of “labor dispute” under § 13(c) to exclude those battles involving secondary activity.
> i — 1
In certain limited circumstances, the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prevent a court from enjoining violations of the specific mandate of another labor statute. Petitioners claim that the injunction here was valid because, under the RLA, it is illegal for a union to resort to secondary picketing after the parties have exhausted the major dispute resolution procedures. To evaluate this argument, we must briefly review the RLA.
The Railway Labor Act “cannot be appreciated apart from the environment out of which it came and the purposes which it was designed to serve.” Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 751 (1945) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Following decades of labor unrest that persistently revealed the shortcomings of every legislative attempt to address the problems, representatives of railroad labor and management created a system for dispute resolution that Congress enacted as the RLA in 1926. The RLA subjects all railway disputes to virtually endless “negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, and conciliation.” Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R. Co. v. Transportation Union, 396 U. S. 142, 148-149 (1969) (Shore Line). Moreover, the RLA requires all parties both “to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain” collectively bargained agreements, § 2 First, and to abide by the terms of the most recent collective-bargaining agreement until all the settlement procedures provided by the RLA have been exhausted, §§ 5, 6, 10; see Shore Line, supra, at 150-153. Nevertheless, if the parties exhaust these procedures and remain at loggerheads, they may resort to self-help in attempting to resolve their dispute, subject only to such restrictions as may follow from the invocation of an Emergency Board under § 10 of the RLA. See Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., supra, at 378-379 (citing “long line of decisions” upholding parties’ right to self-help following exhaustion).
If the RLA is to function as its framers intended, compliance with its mandates obviously is essential. To accommodate the competing demands of the RLA and the Norris-LaGuardia Act, our cases establish that the Norris-LaGuardia Act
“does not deprive the federal court of jurisdiction to enjoin compliance with various mandates of the Railway Labor Act. Virginian R. Co. v. [Railway Employees], 300 U. S. 515; Graham v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 338 U. S. 232.” Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S., at 772-773; see also Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Transportation Union, 402 U. S. 570, 581-582 (1971).
This exception is necessarily a limited one. Even when a violation of a specific mandate of the RLA is shown, “[cjourts should hesitate to fix upon the injunctive remedy... unless that remedy alone can effectively guard the plaintiff’s right.” Machinists, supra, at 773.
Petitioners concede, as they must, that the RLA does not contain an express mandate limiting the scope of self-help available to a union once the RLA’s major dispute resolution procedures have been exhausted. They argue, however, that the drafters of the RLA did not need to insert an express prohibition of secondary picketing because in 1926 federal law clearly prohibited such picketing. Because language banning that which was already illegal would have been superfluous, petitioners construe the RLA to adopt the limits on self-help that existed at the time the RLA became law.
Petitioners read too much, however, into the silence of the Act. The RLA’s silence could just as easily signify an intent to allow the parties to resort to whatever self-help is legally available at the time a dispute arises. Faced with a choice between the ambiguity in the RLA and the unambiguous mandate of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, we choose the latter.
Indeed, this Court has already refused to find in the silence of the RLA an intent to prohibit secondary picketing. In Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., supra, we held that state courts may not enjoin secondary picketing in a railway dispute after parties exhaust the RLA’s procedures. We noted that Congress had not provided the courts with the standards needed to distinguish primary from secondary picketing, and that “parties who have unsuccessfully exhausted the Railway Labor Act’s procedures for resolution of a major dispute... [may] employ the full range of whatever peaceful economic power they can muster, so long as its use conflicts with no other obligation imposed by federal law.” 394 U. S., at 392. We concluded that, in railway disputes, “until Congress acts, picketing — whether characterized as primary or secondary — must be deemed conduct protected against state proscription.” Id., at 392-393.
Petitioners note that our decision in Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. did not require us to determine the scope of federal-court injunctive power under the RLA, nor to assess the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to either the state- or federal-court injunctive power. See id., at 382, n. 18. Nevertheless, the primary rationale for our decision — that “we have been furnished by Congress neither usable standards nor access to administrative expertise” in evaluating the lawfulness of secondary picketing — remains equally persuasive today, for in the 18 years since our decision Congress has provided no guidance on the subject. Where the Judiciary lacks manageable standards, federal courts should not enter where state courts are forbidden to tread.
Petitioners next maintain that when, as here, the RLA does not provide a clear answer to a particular problem, this Court has looked to the NLRA “for assistance in construing” the RLA. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S., at 383. Petitioners argue that the NLRA embodies Congress’ view that secondary activity is an unfair labor practice, and that this view should govern our construction of the RLA.
The NLRA does not contain a “sweeping prohibition” of secondary activity; instead it “describes and condemns specific union conduct directed to specific objectives.” Carpenters v. NLRB, 357 U. S. 93, 98 (1958). Moreover, the NLRA does not permit employers to seek injunctions against the activity that it does prohibit. It grants to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) exclusive authority to seek injunctions against some forms of secondary activity. 29 U. S. C. §§ 158(b)(4), 160(j), 160(1). Thus, congressional policy, as expressed in the NLRA, remains that employers are not permitted to obtain injunctions of secondary activity. Finally, it is significant that Congress excluded rail carriers and rail employees from the coverage of the NLRA: even the NLRB has no authority to seek injunctions in railway disputes. §§ 152(2), 152(3). We conclude that the NLRA could not make clearer Congress’ intent to prohibit federal courts from issuing the injunctions sought in this case.
Petitioners next argue that in some cases the Court has allowed an injunction to issue to enforce a duty that is merely inferred from the language and structure of the RLA. In Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30 (1957) (Chicago River), for example, the Court held that federal courts may enjoin a strike-over a minor dispute in order to enforce compliance with § 3 First of the RLA, which provides for compulsory arbitration of minor disputes before the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Petitioners note that nothing in § 3 First expressly forbids a union to strike over a minor dispute, and argue that the Court necessarily inferred the prohibition against strikes during compulsory arbitration from the language and legislative history of the RLA. Similarly, in Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Transportation Union, 402 U. S. 570 (1971) (Chicago & North Western), the Court held that a federal court may enjoin a strike following the exhaustion of major dispute resolution procedures if a union does not comply with its obligation under §2 First of the RLA “to exert every reasonable effort” to resolve the dispute. 45 U. S. C. § 152 First. Petitioners note that nothing in § 2 First expressly declares that its obligations are enforceable during the period of self-help, and therefore argue that in Chicago & North Western, as in Chicago River, the Court allowed federal courts to enforce by injunction a duty that was merely inferred from the Act.
Turning to this case, petitioners argue that a ban on secondary picketing may be inferred from the general language of § 2 First. Section 2 First states that:
“It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof.” 45 U. S. C. § 152 First.
Petitioners place particular emphasis on the duty this section places on employees to attempt to settle disputes and thereby avoid any interruption to interstate commerce. This duty, petitioners correctly note, is consistent with the major purpose of Congress in passing the RLA: “ ‘[T]o prevent, if possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce.’” Brief for Petitioners 14, quoting Shore Line, 396 U. S., at 148. See also H. R. Rep. No. 328, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1926). Petitioners conclude that construing the RLA to allow unions to resort to secondary activity is manifestly inconsistent with the major purpose of the RLA.
Although we agree with petitioners that the primary goal of the RLA is to settle strikes and avoid interruptions to commerce, we see nothing in the RLA to indicate that Congress intended to permit federal courts to enjoin secondary activity as a means toward that end. An injunction does not settle a dispute — it simply disables one of the parties. Moreover, “in view of the interests of both parties in avoiding a strike,” Virginian R. Co. v. Railway Employees, 300 U. S., 515, 552 (1937), the availability of such self-help measures as secondary picketing may increase the effectiveness of the RLA in settling major disputes by creating an incentive for the parties to settle prior to exhaustion of the statutory procedures:
“Underlying the entire statutory framework is the pressure born of the knowledge that in the final instance traditional self-help economic pressure may be brought to bear if the statutory mechanism does not produce agreement.... As the statutory machinery nears termination without achieving settlement, the threat of economic self-help and the pressures of informed public opinion create new impetus toward compromise and agreement.” Chicago & North Western, 402 U. S., at 597-598 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
Furthermore, as this case illustrates, § 10 of the RLA provides a ready mechanism for the Executive Branch to intervene and interrupt any self-help measures by invoking an Emergency Board and thereby imposing at a minimum a 60-day cooling-off period. If the Board’s recommendations are not initially accepted by the parties, Congress has the power to enforce the Board’s recommendation by statute, as it has done here. Allowing secondary picketing in the self-help period is thus not inconsistent with the structure or purpose of the Act, and may in fact increase the likelihood of settlement prior to self-help. This is therefore not a case in which “the scheme of the Railway Labor Act could not begin to work without judicial involvement.” Chicago & North Western, supra, at 595 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
While opinions regarding the RLA’s success in meeting its goals have varied over time, it does appear that under the RLA labor and management have been able to resolve most conflicts without resort to secondary picketing. We decline, at this advanced stage of the RLA’s development, to find in it an implied limit on a union’s resort to secondary activity. Instead, “if Congress should now find that abuses in the nature of secondary activities have arisen in the railroad industry... it is for the Congress, and not the Courts, to strike the balance ‘between the uncontrolled power of management and labor to further their respective interests.’” Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S., at 392.
V
“Th[e] judge-made law of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was based on self-mesmerized views of economic and social theory... and on statutory misconstruction.” Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., supra, at 382. It may be that the evolution of judicial attitudes toward labor in “the decades since the Norris-LaGuardia Act was passed has dissipated any legitimate concern about the impartiality of federal judges in disputes between labor and management.” Buffalo Forge Co. v. Steelworkers, 428 U. S. 397, 432 (1976) (Stevens, J., dissenting). But our decision in this case ultimately turns not on concerns of partiality, but on questions of power. In the Norris-LaGuardia Act, Congress divested federal courts of the power to enjoin secondary picketing in railway labor disputes. Congress has not seen fit to restore that power. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Guilford unsuccessfully attempted to enjoin this extension of the strike. BMWE v. Guilford Industries, Inc., No. 86-0084-P (D Me. Apr. 2,1986).
Consolidated Rail Carp. v. BMWE, Civ. No. 86-0318T (WDNY Apr. 6, 1986), vacated, 792 F. 2d 303 (CA2 1986), cert. pending, No. 86-353; Richmond
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Kennedy join.
In this case we decide whether our decision in American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U. S. 266 (1987), applies retroactively to taxation of highway use prior to the date of that decision.
I
In 1983 petitioners brought suit in the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, challenging the constitutionality of the newly enacted Arkansas Highway Use Equalization Tax Act (HUE), 1983 Ark. Gen. Acts, No. 685, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 27-35-204, 27-35-205 (1987) (formerly codified as Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 75-817.2, 75-817.3 (Supp. 1985)), under the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The HUE tax required trucks operating on Arkansas highways with a gross weight between 73,281 and 80,000 pounds to pay, alternatively, an annual flat tax of $175 or a tax of 5¢ per mile traveled in Arkansas or a trip permit fee of $8 per 100 miles. Effectively, HUE taxed only the first 3,500 miles of annual highway use by heavy trucks, that being the point at which it became advantageous to pay the flat tax of $175. Because trucks based in Arkansas were likely to travel many more miles on the State’s highways than heavy trucks based out of the State, petitioners argued that HUE impermissibly discriminated against interstate commerce by imposing on out-of-state truckers greater per-mile costs than those imposed on in-state truckers. To remedy the alleged federal constitutional violation petitioners argued that Art. 16, § 13, of the Arkansas Constitution required the State to refund all HUE taxes petitioners had paid. See App. 12-13, 22-23 (filed Mar. 6, 1989).
Pending determination on the merits of their constitutional challenge, petitioners sought a preliminary injunction placing all HUE tax revenues in escrow to prevent those revenues from being deposited into the state treasury and being distributed to state agencies. The Chancery Court’s denial of petitioners’ motion for the preliminary injunction was affirmed on interlocutory appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Gray, 280 Ark. 258, 657 S. W. 2d 207 (1983). After further proceedings, the Chancery Court upheld the constitutionality of HUE, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Gray, 288 Ark. 488, 707 S. W. 2d 759 (1986). That court relied on our decisions in Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice, 339 U. S. 542 (1950), Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Comm’rs of Mont., 332 U. S. 495 (1947), and Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, 295 U. S. 285 (1935), to hold that the flat tax portion of HUE was neither excessive nor unreasonable and did not, therefore, violate the Commerce Clause. In so doing, the Arkansas Supreme Court explicitly rejected petitioners’ argument that our decision in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274 (1977), had overruled the Aero Mayflower line of cases.
Petitioners appealed the Arkansas Supreme Court decision to this Court, and we held the case pending our decision in Scheiner, which involved a similar constitutional challenge to two flat highway use taxes enacted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In Scheiner, decided June 23, 1987, the Court held that unapportioned flat taxes such as those imposed by Pennsylvania penalize travel within a free trade area among the States. The Court applied the “internal consistency” test, see Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S. 638, 644 (1984), and concluded that “[i]f each State imposed flat taxes for the privilege of making commercial entrances into its territory, there is no conceivable doubt that commerce among the States would be deterred.” 483 U. S., at 284. We recognized in Scheiner that Arkansas, appearing as amicus curiae in that case, was one of a number of States that had enacted flat highway use taxes. See id., at 285, n. 17; id., at 300-301 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). Accordingly, three days after deciding Scheiner, we vacated the judgment of the Arkansas Supreme Court in Gray and remanded that case for further consideration in light of Scheiner. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Gray, 483 U. S. 1014 (1987). On motion by petitioners, who sought to expedite their efforts in the state courts to obtain injunctive relief against further enforcement of the HUE tax, and pursuant to this Court’s former Rule 52.2, Justice Blackmun shortened the time of issuance of our mandate to the Arkansas Supreme Court and ordered that the mandate issue on July 16, 1987.
Petitioners thereupon sought to enjoin further collection of the HUE tax or to order an escrow of the taxes to be collected pending reconsideration of Gray by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Motions seeking to accomplish this end were denied by that court, and petitioners returned here. In an opinion issued August 14, 1987, Justice Blackmun, acting as Circuit Justice, concluded there was a significant possibility that the Arkansas Supreme Court would find the HUE tax unconstitutional under Scheiner or, failing that, that this Court would note probable jurisdiction and strike down the HUE tax. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Gray, 483 U. S. 1306, 1309 (in chambers). He further concluded that, because “there is a substantial risk that [petitioners] will not be able to obtain a refund if the [HUE] tax ultimately is declared unconstitutional,” ibid., petitioners would suffer “irreparable injury absent injunctive relief.” Ibid. Justice Blackmun therefore ordered Arkansas to “escrow the HUE taxes to be collected, until a final decision on the merits in this case is reached.” Id., at 1310.
On October 9, 1987, the Arkansas Legislature met in special session, repealed the HUE tax, and replaced it with a tax requiring heavy trucks to pay 2.5¢ per mile of travel on Arkansas highways. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 27-35-204, 27-35-205 (1987). Subsequently, in an opinion delivered on March 14, 1988, the Arkansas Supreme Court reconsidered the HUE tax in light of Scheiner and ruled it unconstitutional. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Gray, 295 Ark. 43, 746 S. W. 2d 377. The court, however, declined to order tax refunds to petitioners for all HUE taxes paid prior to Justice Blackmun’s August 14, 1987, escrow order. The Arkansas Supreme Court reasoned that petitioners would be entitled to refunds of all their HUE tax payments only if that court were to apply our Scheiner decision retroactively. In order to determine whether it would so treat Scheiner, the State Supreme Court applied the three-factor test we enunciated in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971).
First, the Arkansas court ruled that Scheiner established a new rule of law with respect to flat highway use taxes by overruling the Aero Mayflower line of cases. The Arkansas court concluded that it reasonably relied on those cases in originally upholding the HUE tax against petitioners’ Commerce Clause challenge. Second, the court held that prospective application of Scheiner would effectuate the purpose of the Commerce Clause “to secure equal treatment for interand intrastate commerce and thus create an area of free trade among the states.” 295 Ark., at 46, 746 S. W. 2d, at 379. In this regard, the Arkansas Supreme Court relied heavily on the decision of the Washington Supreme Court denying tax refunds because of its determination that our decision in Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U. S. 232 (1987), should not be applied retroactively. See National Can Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 109 Wash. 2d 878, 888, 749 P. 2d 1286, 1291 (1988) (en banc) (“It is difficult to understand how retroactive application would encourage free trade among the states since whatever chill was imposed on interstate trade is in the past”), app. dism’d, 486 U. S. 1040 (1988). Third, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that it would be inequitable to order a total refund of HUE taxes already paid by petitioners into the state treasury. The court reasoned that because petitioners had driven their heavy trucks on Arkansas highways, a total refund would “allow them an unconscionable windfall far in excess of a fair recovery for the discrimination they may have suffered due to the tax. It would constitute unfair treatment of the Arkansas-based truckers who have paid the tax and seek no refund.” 295 Ark., at 47, 746 S. W. 2d, at 379. The Arkansas court determined, however, that HUE tax money paid into escrow after Justice Blackmun’s August 14, 1987, order should be refunded to petitioners as that money, having not been placed into the state treasury, had not been spent or budgeted for future expenditure. Justice Hickman dissented, believing that petitioners were entitled to refunds from the date Scheiner was decided “or certainly no later than when we were asked, in July 1987, to place the funds in escrow.” 295 Ark., at 47, 746 S. W. 2d, at 379. On petition for rehearing, petitioners modified their remedial request and urged the Arkansas court to refund HUE taxes paid in excess of taxes petitioners would have paid had they been based in the State. The petition for rehearing was denied.
Petitioners thereupon sought a writ of certiorari from this Court. They presented the questions whether Scheiner should be applied retroactively and whether, even if the Scheiner decision is not retroactive, they are still entitled to refunds for taxes paid before we decided Scheiner for the tax year that began after the Scheiner decision or to refunds for taxes paid after the Scheiner decision but before Justice Blackmun’s escrow order. We granted the petition for certiorari, 488 U. S. 954 (1988), and consolidated the case with No. 88-192, McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Business Regulation of Fla., which we also decide today. See ante, p. 18. We now affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further consideration.
II
When we have held state taxes unconstitutional in the past it has been our practice to abstain from deciding the remedial effects of such a holding. While the relief provided by the State must be in accord with federal constitutional requirements, see McKesson, ante, at 36-43, 51-52, we have entrusted state courts with the initial duty of determining appropriate relief. See, e. g., Scheiner, 483 U. S., at 297-298; Tyler Pipe, supra, at 251-253; Williams v. Vermont, 472 U. S. 14, 28 (1985); Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263, 276-277 (1984); Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U. S. 176, 196-197 (1983). Our reasons for doing so have arisen from a perception based in considerations of federal-state comity:
“[T]his Court should not take it upon itself in this complex area of state tax structures to determine how to apply its holding:
“‘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.’” Tyler Pipe, supra, at 252, quoting Bacchus, supra, at 277.
In a case such as this, where a state court has addressed the refund issues, the same comity-based perception that has dictated abstention in the first instance requires that we carefully disentangle issues of federal law from those of state law and refrain from deciding anything apart from questions of federal law directly presented to us. By these means we avoid interpreting state laws with which we are generally unfamiliar and deciding additional questions of federal law unnecessarily. Cf. Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1039-1042 (1983). In the present case, it is eminently clear that the “state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law....” Id., at 1040. Specifically, the Arkansas Supreme Court took the view that, whatever else Arkansas law might require, petitioners could not receive tax refunds if Scheiner is not retroactive under the test of Chevron Oil.
The determination whether a constitutional decision of this Court is retroactive—that is, whether the decision applies to conduct or events that occurred before the date of the decision—is a matter of federal law. When questions of state law are at issue, state courts generally have the authority to determine the retroactivity of their own decisions. See Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358, 364 (1932) (“We think the federal constitution has no voice upon the subject [of whether a state court may decline to give its decisions retroactive effect]”). The retroactive applicability of a constitutional decision of this Court, however, “is every bit as much of a federal question as what particular federal constitutional provisions themselves mean, what they guarantee, and whether they have been denied.” Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 21 (1967). In order to ensure the uniform application of decisions construing constitutional requirements and to prevent States from denying or curtailing federally protected rights, we have consistently required that state courts adhere to our retroactivity decisions. See, e. g., Michigan v. Payne, 412 U. S. 47 (1973) (holding that the state court erred in applying North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), retroactively to invalidate a resentencing proceeding occurring prior to the date of the decision in Pearce); Arsenault v. Massachusetts, 393 U. S. 5 (1968) (holding that the state court erred in determining that White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 (1963), requiring an accused to be represented by counsel during a preliminary hearing, did not apply retroactively to petitioner).
Although the Court has recently determined that new rules of criminal procedure must be applied retroactively to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final, see Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 328 (1987), retroactivity of decisions in the civil context “continues to be governed by the standard announced in [Chevron Oil],” id., at 322, n. 8; see also United States v. Johnson, 457 U. S. 537, 550, n. 12 (1982). In this case, the Arkansas Supreme Court decided that under Chevron Oil our decision in Scheiner need only apply prospectively. This decision presents a federal question: Did the Arkansas Supreme Court apply Chevron Oil correctly? As petitioners properly observed at oral argument, this is the only question before the Court in this case. Tr. of Oral Rearg. 7-10.
It is important to distinguish the question of retroactivity at issue in this case from the distinct remedial question at issue in McKesson, ante, p. 18: When taxpayers involuntarily pay a tax that is unconstitutional under existing precedents, to what relief are those affected taxpayers entitled as a matter of federal law? Our decision in McKesson indicates that federal law sets certain minimum requirements that States must meet but may exceed in providing appropriate relief. Because we decide that, in certain respects, the Arkansas Supreme Court misapplied Chevron Oil and, therefore, that our decision in Scheiner applies to some taxation of highway use pursuant to the HUE tax, we must remand this case to the Arkansas Supreme Court to determine appropriate relief in light of McKesson.
A
Using the Chevron Oil test, we consider first the application of Scheiner to taxation of highway use prior to June 23, 1987, the date we decided Scheiner, for the HUE tax year ending June 30, 1987. That test has three parts:
“First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. Second,... we must... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation. Finally, we [must] weig[h] the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for where a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the injustice or hardship by a holding of nonretroactivity.” 404 U. S., at 106-107 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
We think it obvious that Scheiner meets the first test of nonretroactivity. Both the majority and dissent in that case recognized that the Court’s decision left very little of the Aero Mayflower line of precedents standing. As the majority observed, “the precedents upholding flat taxes can no longer support the broad proposition... that every flat tax for the privilege of using a State’s highways must be upheld even if it has a clearly discriminatory effect on commerce by reason of that commerce’s interstate character.” 483 U. S., at 296. These precedents retain vitality only when flat taxes “are the only practicable means of collecting revenues from users,” ibid,—a situation no more present in Arkansas than it was in Pennsylvania. See also id., at 298 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (“[T]he Court today directly overrules the holdings of” the Aero Mayflower precedents); id., at 304 (Scalia, J., dissenting). That the Court in Scheiner recognized that Complete Auto Transit “called into question the future vitality of earlier cases that had upheld facially neutral flat taxes,” 483 U. S., at 295, does not alter our conclusion. As we observed last Term, “[i]f a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the [lower courts] should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989). This is precisely what the State of Arkansas argued and what the Arkansas Supreme Court did in its original decision holding the HUE tax constitutional. Moreover, that court noted with reliance that we cited the Aero Mayflower cases with approval in Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U. S. 444, 463-464 (1978), one year after we decided Complete Auto Transit. 288 Ark., at 497, 707 S. W. 2d, at 762-763. The Arkansas Supreme Court correctly concluded that Scheiner established a “new principle of law” by overruling those aspects of the Aero Mayflower cases on which the State of Arkansas relied in enacting and assessing the HUE tax.
The conclusion that Scheiner established a new principle of law in the area of our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence does not necessarily end the inquiry. See Florida v. Long, 487 U. S. 223, 230 (1988); Arizona Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U. S. 1073, 1109-1110 (1983) (O’Connor, J., concurring). It is equally clear to us, however, that the purpose of the Commerce Clause does not dictate retroactive application of Scheiner and that equitable considerations tilt the balance toward nonretroactive application. We observed in Scheiner that the Commerce Clause “ ‘by its own force created an area of trade free from interference by the States.’” 483 U. S., at 280, quoting Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U. S. 318, 328 (1977). Petitioners argue that the retroactive application of Scheiner will tend to deter future free trade violations which the several States have strong parochial incentives to commit. As we have just discussed, however, the HUE tax was entirely consistent with the Aero Mayflower line of cases, and it is not the purpose of the Commerce Clause to prevent legitimate state taxation of interstate commerce. See Complete Auto Transit, 430 U. S., at 288.
Finally, under the third prong of the Chevron Oil test, we consider the equities of retroactive application of Scheiner. Our decision today in McKesson makes clear that once a State’s tax statute is held invalid under the Commerce Clause, the State is obligated to provide relief consistent with federal due process principles. See ante, at 36-43. When the State comes under such a constitutional obligation, McKesson establishes that equitable considerations play only the most limited role in delineating the scope of that relief. Ante, at 44-51. Of course, we had no occasion to consider the equities of retroactive application of new law in McKesson because that case involved only the application of settled Commerce Clause precedent. See ante, at 31, n. 15. In light of McKesson’s holding that a ruling that a tax is unconstitutionally discriminatory under the Commerce Clause places substantial obligations on the States to provide relief, the threshold determination whether a new decision should apply retroactively is a crucial one, requiring a hard look at whether retroactive application would be unjust. At this initial stage, the question is not whether equitable considerations outweigh the obligation to provide relief for a constitutional violation, cf. ante, at 44-45, 50, but whether there is a constitutional violation in the first place.
A careful consideration of the equities persuades us that Scheiner should not apply retroactively. Unlike McKesson, where the State enacted a tax scheme that “was virtually identical to the Hawaii scheme invalidated in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 (1984),” ante, at 46, and thus the State could “hardly claim surprise at the Florida courts’ invalidation of the scheme,” ibid., here the State promulgated and implemented its tax scheme in reliance on the Aero Mayflower precedents of this Court. In light of these precedents, legislators would have good reason to suppose that enactment of the HUE tax would not violate their oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and the State Supreme Court would have every reason to consider itself bound by those precedents to uphold the tax against a constitutional challenge. Similarly, state tax collection authorities would have been justified in relying on state enactments valid under then-current precedents of this Court, particularly where, as here, the enactments were upheld by the State’s highest court.
Where a State can easily foresee the invalidation of its tax statutes, its reliance interests may merit little concern, see McKesson, ante, at 44-46, 50. By contrast, because the State cannot be expected to foresee that a decision of this Court would overturn established precedents, the inequity of unsettling actions taken in reliance on those precedents is apparent. Although at this point the burden that the retroactive application of Scheiner would place on Arkansas cannot be precisely determined, it is clear that the invalidation of the State’s HUE tax would have potentially disruptive consequences for the State and its citizens. A refund, if required by state or federal law, could deplete the state treasury, thus threatening the State’s current operations and future plans. Presumably, under McKesson, the State would be required to calculate and refund that portion of the tax that would be found under Scheiner to discriminate against interstate commerce, with the attendant potentially significant administrative costs that would entail. As McKesson makes clear, the State could also attempt to provide relief by retroactively increasing taxes on the favored taxpayers to cure any violation. But this too would entail substantial administrative costs and could at some point run into independent constitutional restrictions. See ante, at 40, n. 23 (“[B]eyond some temporal point the retroactive imposition of a significant tax burden may be ‘so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation’”). Moreover, such an approach would unfairly penalize favored taxpayers for the State’s failure to foresee that this Court would overrule established precedent. Although in the future States may be able to protect their fiscal stability by imposing procedural requirements on taxpayer actions, see McKesson, ante, at 45, 50, such prospective safeguards do not affect the inequities of retroactive application of Scheiner. Nor can Arkansas be faulted for continuing to rely on its statute after its highest state court upheld the constitutionality of the tax.
In sum, we conclude that applying Scheiner retroactively would “produce substantial inequitable results.” Chevron Oil, 404 U. S., at 107. The invalidation of the HUE tax has the potential for severely burdening the State’s operations. That burden may be largely irrelevant when a State violates constitutional norms well established under existing precedent. See McKesson. But we think it unjust to impose this burden when the State relied on valid, existing precedent in enacting and implementing its tax. Accordingly, we conclude that Scheiner does not apply to HUE taxation for highway use prior to June 23, 1987, for the HUE tax year ending June 30, 1987.
The dissent suggests that federal courts should weigh equitable considerations only in determining the scope of relief a federal court should award. This is precisely backwards. As previously discussed, McKesson makes plain that equitable considerations are of limited significance once a constitutional violation is found. As the dissent’s analysis ultimately makes clear, see, e. g., post, at 218-219, n. 8, 224, its suggested approach would effectively eliminate consideration of the equities entirely in a case such as this, when the judicial decision invalidating the State’s taxation scheme represented a clear break from prior precedent. This is inconsistent with our nonretroactivity doctrine and would work real and inequitable hardships in many cases.
Petitioners further argue that the equities always favor applying decisions retroactively when those decisions would burden only a governmental entity. They rely on Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 651 (1980), for the proposition that local governments should not be permitted to “disavow liability for the injury [they have] begotten.” Owen is not applicable to our considerations here. That case only addressed the question whether Congress intended a municipality to have good faith immunity from actions brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Our decision in Owen simply construed that statute through a consideration of its legislative history and the immunity traditionally accorded municipalities in 1871, when the forerunner of § 1983 was enacted. 445 U. S., at 635-650. Our delineation of the scope of liability under a statute designed to permit suit against governmental entities and officials provides little guidance for determining the fairest way to apply our own decisions. Indeed, the policy concerns involved are quite distinct. In Owen, we discerned that according municipalities a special immunity from liability for violations of constitutional rights would not best serve the goals of § 1983, even if those rights had not been clearly established when the violation occurred. Such a determination merely makes municipalities, like private individuals, responsible for anticipating developments in the law. We noted that such liability would motivate each of the city’s elected officials to “consider whether his decision comports with constitutional mandates and... weigh the risk that a violation might result in an award of damages from the public treasury.” Id., at 656. This analysis does not apply when a decision clearly breaks with precedent, a type of departure which, by definition, public officials could not anticipate nor have any responsibility to anticipate. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S., at 485.
In determining whether a decision should be applied retroactively, this Court has consistently given great weight to the reliance interests of all parties affected by changes in the law. See, e. g., Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701, 706 (1969) (“Significant hardships would be imposed on cities, bondholders, and other connected with municipal utilities if our decision today were given full retroactive effect”). To the extent that retrospective application of a decision burdens a government’s ability to plan or carry out its programs, the application injures all of the government’s constituents. These concerns have long informed the Court’s retroactivity decisions. The Court has used the technique of prospective overruling (accompanied by a stay of judgment) to avoid disabling Congress’ bankruptcy scheme, see, e. g., Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 88 (1982), and has refused to invalidate retrospectively the administrative actions and decisions of the Federal Election Commission, see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 142-143 (1976). The Court has also declined to provide retrospective remedies which would substantially disrupt governmental programs and functions. See, e. g., Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U. S. 192, 209 (1973) (Lemon II) (“[S]tate officials and those with whom they deal are entitled to rely on a presumptively valid state statute, enacted in good faith and by no means plainly unlawful”) (plurality opinion); see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 585 (1964) (“[U]nder certain circumstances, such as where an impending election is imminent and a State’s election machinery is already in progress, equitable considerations might justify a court in withholding the granting of immediately effective relief in a legislative apportionment case, even though the existing apportionment scheme was found invalid”); Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 (1969). The retrospective invalidation of a state tax that had been lawful under then-current precedents of this Court threatens a similar disruption of governmental operations. Therefore, our refusal here to retroactively invalidate legislation that was lawful when enacted is in accord with our previous determinations of how best to give effect to new constitutional decisions.
B
Before and after the date of our Scheiner decision, some petitioners paid HUE taxes for the tax year beginning July 1, 1987. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the State’s collection of these payments was constitutional until the date of Justice Blackmun’s escrow order. It therefore declined to order refunds for any 1987-1988 HUE taxes not paid into escrow. Petitioners argue that they are entitled to refunds of these payments even if Scheiner is not to be applied retroactively because these HUE tax payments were made to secure the privilege of driving heavy trucks on Arkansas highways between July 1, 1987, and June 30, 1988. Petitioners argue that the question whether Scheiner applies to the collection of 1987-1988 HUE taxes should depend on the “occurrence of the taxed transaction or the enjoyment of the taxed benefit, not the remittance of the tax.” Brief for Petitioners 47 (filed Jan. 18, 1989). Otherwise, petitioners contend, similarly situated 1987-1988 HUE taxpayers will receive different remedies depending solely and fortuitously on the date the individual taxpayers remitted the tax. We agree.
It is, of course, a fundamental tenet of our retroactivity doctrine that the prospective application of a new principle of law begins on the date of the decision announcing the principle. See, e. g., Florida v. Long, 487 U. S., at 237-238; Norris, 463 U. S., at 1111 (O’Connor, J., concurring); Lemon II, supra; Chevron Oil, 404 U. S., at 99; Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204, 214 (1970). This tenet of retro-activity, however, does not define the conduct to which Scheiner prospectively applies: Does it apply to the flat taxing of highway use or to the collection of taxes for highway use after the date of that decision? We think it apparent that Scheiner applies to the flat taxation of highway use after the date of that decision. This is true regardless of when the taxes for such use were actually collected. If Arkansas had collected HUE-like taxes for highway use occurring before the required tax payment date, a prospective decision of this Court that such taxes were unconstitutional would not preclude the State from collecting, after the date of that decision, taxes for highway use that occurred before the decision was announced. The very same principle applies where, as here, the converse is true. Because we hold Scheiner to apply only prospectively, flat highway taxation was permissible for highway use that occurred before the date of our decision but not after. A contrary rule would give States a perverse incentive to collect taxes far in advance of the occurrence of the taxable transaction. It would also penalize States that do not immediately collect taxes, but nevertheless plan their operations on the assumption that they will ultimately collect taxes that have accrued. In this case, the taxpayer is advantaged in the sense that certain of its tax payments were made under an unconstitutional statute and remedies may be in order; in the hypothetical converse case, the State is advantaged in the sense that it may continue to collect taxes after the date of our decision finding its tax to be prospectively unconstitutional. In both cases, as petitioners correctly note, the critical event for prospectivity is “the occurrence of the underlying transaction, and not the payment of money therefor....” Brief for Petitioners 47 (filed Jan. 18, 1989). Cf. Lemon II, supra.
Thus petitioners are correct that those HUE taxes paid to the State for the 1987-1988 tax year, regardless of whether they were paid before or after we announced Scheiner, are not protected by the conclusion that Scheiner applies only prospectively. In this regard, the Arkansas Supreme Court’s holding that petitioners were not entitled to refunds for the 1987-1988 HUE taxes they paid arose from a misapplication of Chevron Oil. From the face of the State Supreme Court’s opinion we can discern no reason apart from this misapprehension of the force of Chevron
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is reversed. Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U. S. 199; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice BREYERdelivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, an individual detained in a jail prior to trial brought a claim under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against several jail officers, alleging that they used excessive force against him, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The officers concede that they intended to use the force that they used. But the parties disagree about whether the force used was excessive.
The question before us is whether, to prove an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must show that the officers were subjectivelyaware that their use of force was unreasonable, or only that the officers' use of that force was objectivelyunreasonable. We conclude that the latter standard is the correct one.
I
A
Some but not all of the facts are undisputed: Michael Kingsley, the petitioner, was arrested on a drug charge and detained in a Wisconsin county jail prior to trial. On the evening of May 20, 2010, an officer performing a cell check noticed a piece of paper covering the light fixture above Kingsley's bed. The officer told Kingsley to remove it; Kingsley refused; subsequently other officers told Kingsley to remove the paper; and each time Kingsley refused. The next morning, the jail administrator, Lieutenant Robert Conroy, ordered Kingsley to remove the paper. Kingsley once again refused. Conroy then told Kingsley that officers would remove the paper and that he would be moved to a receiving cell in the interim.
Shortly thereafter, four officers, including respondents Sergeant Stan Hendrickson and Deputy Sheriff Fritz Degner, approached the cell and ordered Kingsley to stand, back up to the door, and keep his hands behind him. When Kingsley refused to comply, the officers handcuffed him, forcibly removed him from the cell, carried him to a receiving cell, and placed him face down on a bunk with his hands handcuffed behind his back.
The parties' views about what happened next differ. The officers testified that Kingsley resisted their efforts to remove his handcuffs. Kingsley testified that he did not resist. All agree that Sergeant Hendrickson placed his knee in Kingsley's back and Kingsley told him in impolite language to get off. Kingsley testified that Hendrickson and Degner then slammed his head into the concrete bunk-an allegation the officers deny.
The parties agree, however, about what happened next: Hendrickson directed Degner to stun Kingsley with a Taser; Degner applied a Taser to Kingsley's back for approximately five seconds; the officers then left the handcuffed Kingsley alone in the receiving cell; and officers returned to the cell 15 minutes later and removed Kingsley's handcuffs.
B
Based on these and related events, Kingsley filed a § 1983complaint in Federal District Court claiming (among other things) that Hendrickson and Degner used excessive force against him, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The officers moved for summary judgment, which the District Court denied, stating that "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the officers] acted with malice and intended to harm [Kingsley] when they used force against him." Kingsley v. Josvai,No. 10-cv-832-bbc (WD Wis., Nov. 16, 2011), App to Pet. for Cert. 66a-67a. Kingsley's excessive force claim accordingly proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the District Court instructed the jury as follows:
"Excessive force means force applied recklesslythat is unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances of the time. Thus, to succeed on his claim of excessive use of force, plaintiff must prove each of the following factors by a preponderance of the evidence:
"(1) Defendants used force on plaintiff;
"(2) Defendants' use of force was unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances at the time;
"(3) Defendants knew that using force presented a risk of harm to plaintiff, but they recklessly disregarded plaintiff's safety by failing to take reasonable measures to minimize the risk of harm to plaintiff; and
"(4) Defendants' conduct caused some harm to plaintiff.
"In deciding whether one or more defendants used 'unreasonable' force against plaintiff, you must consider whether it was unreasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer facing the same circumstances that defendants faced. You must make this decision based on what defendants knew at the time of the incident, not based on what you know now.
"Also, in deciding whether one or more defendants used unreasonable force and acted with reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights, you may consider factors such as:
"• The need to use force;
"• The relationship between the need to use force and the amount of force used;
"• The extent of plaintiff's injury;
"• Whether defendants reasonably believed there was a threat to the safety of staff or prisoners; and
"• Any efforts made by defendants to limit the amount of force used." App. 277-278 (emphasis added).
The jury found in the officers' favor.
On appeal, Kingsley argued that the correct standard for judging a pretrial detainee's excessive force claim is objective unreasonableness. And, the jury instruction, he said, did not hew to that standard. A panel of the Court of Appeals disagreed, with one judge dissenting. The majority held that the law required a "subjective inquiry" into the officer's state of mind. There must be " 'an actual intent to violate [the plaintiff's] rights or reckless disregard for his rights.' " 744 F.3d 443, 451 (C.A.7 2014)(quoting Wilson v. Williams,83 F.3d 870, 875 (C.A.7 1996)). The dissent would have used instructions promulgated by the Committee on Pattern Civil Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit, which require a pretrial detainee claiming excessive force to show only that the use of force was objectively unreasonable. 744 F.3d, at 455(opinion of Hamilton, J.); see Pattern Civ. Jury Instr. § 7.08 (2009). The dissent further stated that the District Court's use of the word "reckless" in the jury instruction added "an unnecessary and confusing element." 744 F.3d, at 455.
Kingsley filed a petition for certiorari asking us to determine whether the requirements of a § 1983excessive force claim brought by a pretrial detainee must satisfy the subjective standard or only the objective standard. In light of disagreement among the Circuits, we agreed to do so. Compare, e.g., Murray v. Johnson No. 260,367 Fed.Appx. 196, 198 (C.A.2 2010); Bozeman v. Orum,422 F.3d 1265, 1271 (C.A.11 2005)(per curiam), with Aldini v. Johnson,609 F.3d 858, 865-866 (C.A.6 2010); Young v. Wolfe,478 Fed.Appx. 354, 356 (C.A.9 2012).
II
A
We consider a legally requisite state of mind. In a case like this one, there are, in a sense, two separate state-of-mind questions. The first concerns the defendant's state of mind with respect to his physical acts-i.e.,his state of mind with respect to the bringing about of certain physical consequences in the world. The second question concerns the defendant's state of mind with respect to whether his use of force was "excessive." Here, as to the first question, there is no dispute. As to the second, whether to interpret the defendant's physical acts in the world as involving force that was "excessive," there is a dispute. We conclude with respect to that question that the relevant standard is objective not subjective. Thus, the defendant's state of mind is not a matter that a plaintiff is required to prove.
Consider the series of physical events that take place in the world-a series of events that might consist, for example, of the swing of a fist that hits a face, a push that leads to a fall, or the shot of a Taser that leads to the stunning of its recipient. No one here denies, and we must assume, that, as to the series of events that have taken place in the world, the defendant must possess a purposeful, a knowing, or possibly a reckless state of mind. That is because, as we have stated, "liability for negligentlyinflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process." County of Sacramento v. Lewis,523 U.S. 833, 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998)(emphasis added). See also Daniels v. Williams,474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)("Historically, this guarantee of due process has been applied to deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property"). Thus, if an officer's Taser goes off by accident or if an officer unintentionally trips and falls on a detainee, causing him harm, the pretrial detainee cannot prevail on an excessive force claim. But if the use of force is deliberate-i.e., purposeful or knowing-the pretrial detainee's claim may proceed. In the context of a police pursuit of a suspect the Court noted, though without so holding, that recklessness in some cases might suffice as a standard for imposing liability. See Lewis, supra,at 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Whether that standard might suffice for liability in the case of an alleged mistreatment of a pretrial detainee need not be decided here; for the officers do not dispute that they acted purposefully or knowingly with respect to the force they used against Kingsley.
We now consider the question before us here-the defendant's state of mind with respect to the proper interpretation of the force (a series of events in the world) that the defendant deliberately (not accidentally or negligently) used. In deciding whether the force deliberately used is, constitutionally speaking, "excessive," should courts use an objective standard only, or instead a subjective standard that takes into account a defendant's state of mind? It is with respect to this question that we hold that courts must use an objective standard. In short, we agree with the dissenting appeals court judge, the Seventh Circuit's jury instruction committee, and Kingsley, that a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.
A court (judge or jury) cannot apply this standard mechanically. See Lewis, supra,at 850, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Rather, objective reasonableness turns on the "facts and circumstances of each particular case." Graham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). A court must make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See ibid. A court must also account for the "legitimate interests that stem from [the government's] need to manage the facility in which the individual is detained," appropriately deferring to "policies and practices that in th[e] judgment" of jail officials "are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Bell v. Wolfish,441 U.S. 520, 540, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979).
Considerations such as the following may bear on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the force used: the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff's injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting. See, e.g.,Graham, supra,at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865. We do not consider this list to be exclusive. We mention these factors only to illustrate the types of objective circumstances potentially relevant to a determination of excessive force.
B
Several considerations have led us to conclude that the appropriate standard for a pretrial detainee's excessive force claim is solely an objective one. For one thing, it is consistent with our precedent. We have said that "the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment." Graham, supra,at 395, n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865. And in Bell,we explained that such "punishment" can consist of actions taken with an "expressed intent to punish." 441 U.S., at 538, 99 S.Ct. 1861. But the BellCourt went on to explain that, in the absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee can nevertheless prevail by showing that the actions are not "rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose" or that the actions "appear excessive in relation to that purpose."Id.,at 561, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The BellCourt applied this latter objective standard to evaluate a variety of prison conditions, including a prison's practice of double-bunking. In doing so, it did not consider the prison officials' subjective beliefs about the policy. Id.,at 541-543, 99 S.Ct. 1861. Rather, the Court examined objective evidence, such as the size of the rooms and available amenities, before concluding that the conditions were reasonably related to the legitimate purpose of holding detainees for trial and did not appear excessive in relation to that purpose. Ibid.
Bell's focus on "punishment" does not mean that proof of intent (or motive) to punish is required for a pretrial detainee to prevail on a claim that his due process rights were violated. Rather, as Bellitself shows (and as our later precedent affirms), a pretrial detainee can prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose. Cf. Block v. Rutherford,468 U.S. 576, 585-586, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984)(where there was no suggestion that the purpose of jail policy of denying contact visitation was to punish inmates, the Court need only evaluate whether the policy was "reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives" and whether it appears excessive in relation to that objective); Schall v. Martin,467 U.S. 253, 269-271, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984)(similar); see also United States v. Salerno,481 U.S. 739, 747, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)("[T]he punitive/regulatory distinction turns on'whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned [to it]' " (quoting Schall, supra,at 269, 104 S.Ct. 2403; emphasis added and some internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court did not suggest in any of these cases, either by its words or its analysis, that its application of Bell's objective standard should involve subjective considerations. Our standard is also consistent with our use of an objective "excessive force" standard where officers apply force to a person who, like Kingsley, has been accused but not convicted of a crime, but who, unlike Kingsley, is free on bail. See Graham, supra.
For another thing, experience suggests that an objective standard is workable. It is consistent with the pattern jury instructions used in several Circuits. We are also told that many facilities, including the facility at issue here, train officers to interact with all detainees as if the officers' conduct is subject to an objective reasonableness standard. See Brief for Petitioner 26; App. 247-248; Brief for Former Corrections Administrators and Experts as Amici Curiae8-18.
Finally, the use of an objective standard adequately protects an officer who acts in good faith. We recognize that "[r]unning a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking," Turner v. Safley,482 U.S. 78, 84-85, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), and that "safety and order at these institutions requires the expertise of correctional officials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face," Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington,566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 1515, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012). Officers facing disturbances "are often forced to make split-second judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving." Graham,490 U.S., at 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865. For these reasons, we have stressed that a court must judge the reasonableness of the force used from the perspective and with the knowledge of the defendant officer. We have also explained that a court must take account of the legitimate interests in managing a jail, acknowledging as part of the objective reasonableness analysis that deference to policies and practices needed to maintain order and institutional security is appropriate. See Part II-A, supra.And we have limited liability for excessive force to situations in which the use of force was the result of an intentional and knowing act (though we leave open the possibility of including a "reckless" act as well). Ibid. Additionally, an officer enjoys qualified immunity and is not liable for excessive force unless he has violated a "clearly established" right, such that "it would [have been] clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Saucier v. Katz,533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae27-28. It is unlikely (though theoretically possible)
that a plaintiff could overcome these hurdles where an officer acted in good faith.
C
Respondents believe that the relevant legal standard should be subjective, i.e.,that the plaintiff must prove that the use of force was not "applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline" but, rather, was applied "maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." Brief for Respondents 27. And they refer to several cases that they believe support their position. See id.,at 26-31 (citing Whitley v. Albers,475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986); Hudson v. McMillian,503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Lewis,523 U.S. 833, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043; Johnson v. Glick,481 F.2d 1028 (C.A.2 1973)).
The first two of these cases, however, concern excessive force claims brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, not claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Whitley, supra,at 320, 106 S.Ct. 1078; Hudson, supra,at 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995. The language of the two Clauses differs, and the nature of the claims often differs. And, most importantly, pretrial detainees (unlike convicted prisoners) cannot be punished at all, much less "maliciously and sadistically." Ingraham v. Wright,430 U.S. 651, 671-672, n. 40, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977); Graham, supra,at 395, n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989); see also 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *300 ("[I]f the offence be not bailable, or the party cannot find bail, he is to be committed to the county [jail]... [b]ut... only for safe custody, and not for punishment"). Thus, there is no need here, as there might be in an Eighth Amendment case, to determine when punishment is unconstitutional. Whitleyand Hudsonare relevant here only insofar as they address the practical importance of taking into account the legitimate safety-related concerns of those who run jails. And, as explained above, we believe we have done so.
Lewisdoes not prove respondents' point, either. There, the Court considered a claim that a police officer had violated due process by causing a death during a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspect. We wrote that "[j]ust as a purpose to cause harm is needed for Eighth Amendment liability in a [prison] riot case, so it ought to be needed for due process liability in a pursuit case." 523 U.S., at 854, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Respondents contend that this statement shows that the Court embraced a standard for due process claims that requires a showing of subjective intent. Brief for Respondents 30-31. Other portions of the Lewisopinion make clear, however, that this statement referred to the defendant's intent to commit the acts in question, not to whether the force intentionally used was "excessive." 523 U.S., at 854, and n. 13, 118 S.Ct. 1708. As explained above, the parties here do not dispute that respondents' use of force was intentional. See Part II-A, supra.
Nor does Glickprovide respondents with significant support. In that case Judge Friendly, writing for the Second Circuit, considered an excessive force claim brought by a pretrial detainee under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Judge Friendly pointed out that the "management by a few guards of large numbers of prisoners" in an institution "may require and justify the occasional use of a degree of intentional force." 481 F.2d, at 1033. He added that, in determining whether that intentional use of force "crosse[s]" the "constitutional line," a court should look:
"to such factors as [ (1) ] the need for the application of force, [ (2) ] the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, [ (3) ] the extent of injury inflicted, and [ (4) ] whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Ibid.
This statement does not suggest that the fourth factor (malicious and sadistic purpose to cause harm) is a necessarycondition for liability. To the contrary, the words "such... as" make clear that the four factors provide examples of some considerations, among others, that might help show that the use of force was excessive.
Respondents believe these cases nonetheless help them make a broader point-namely, that a subjective standard "protects against a relative flood of claims," many of them perhaps unfounded, brought by pretrial detainees. Brief for Respondents 38. But we note that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which is designed to deter the filing of frivolous litigation against prison officials, applies to both pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners. Nor is there evidence of a rash of unfounded filings in Circuits that use an objective standard.
We acknowledge that our view that an objective standard is appropriate in the context of excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment may raise questions about the use of a subjective standard in the context of excessive force claims brought by convicted prisoners. We are not confronted with such a claim, however, so we need not address that issue today.
III
We now consider the lawfulness of the jury instruction given in this case in light of our adoption of an objective standard for pretrial detainees' excessive force claims. See Part II-A, supra. That jury instruction defined "excessive force" as "force applied recklessly that is unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances of the time." App. 277. It required Kingsley to show that the officers "recklessly disregarded [Kingsley's] safety." Id.,at 278. And it suggested that Kingsley must show the defendants "acted with reckless disregard of [Kingsley's] rights," while telling the jury that it could consider several objective factors in making this determination. Ibid.
Kingsley argues that the jury instruction is faulty because the word "reckless" suggests a need to prove that respondents acted with a certain subjective state of mind with respect to the excessive or nonexcessive nature of the force used, contrary to what we have just held. Reply Brief 20-22. Respondents argue that irrespective of our holding, any error in the instruction was harmless. Brief for Respondents 57-58. And the Solicitor General suggests that, because the instructions defined "recklessness" with reference to objective factors, those instructions effectively embody our objective standard and did not confuse the jury. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae28-32.
We agree with Kingsley that the instructions were erroneous. "[R]eckles[s] disregar[d] [of Kingsley's] safety" was listed as an additional requirement, beyond the need to find that "[respondents'] use of force was unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances at the time." App. 278. See also ibid.(Kingsley had to show respondents "used unreasonable force andacted with reckless disregard of [Kingsley's] rights" (emphasis added)). And in determining whether respondents "acted with reckless disregard of [Kingsley's] rights," the jury was instructed to "consider... [w]hether [respondents] reasonably believedthere was a threat to the safety of staff or prisoners." Ibid.(emphasis added). Together, these features suggested the jury should weigh respondents' subjective reasons for using force and subjective views about the excessiveness of the force. As we have just held, that was error. But because the question whether that error was harmless may depend in part on the detailed specifics of this case, we leave that question for the Court of Appeals to resolve in the first instance.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice THOMAS join, dissenting.
The Constitution contains no freestanding prohibition of excessive force. There are, however, four constitutional provisions that we have said forbid the use of excessive force in certain circumstances. The Fourth Amendment prohibits it when it makes a search or seizure "unreasonable." The Eighth Amendment prohibits it when it constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit it (or, for that matter, any use of force) when it is used to "deprive" someone of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This is a Fourteenth Amendment case. The Fifth Amendment applies only to federal actors; Kingsley forfeited any argument under the Fourth Amendment by failing to raise it below; and he acknowledges that the Eighth Amendment standard is inapplicable, Brief for Petitioner 27, n. 8. The only question before us is whether a pretrial detainee's due process rights are violated when "the force purposely or knowingly used against him [is] objectively unreasonable." Ante, at 2473. In my view, the answer is no. Our cases hold that the intentional infliction of punishment upon a pretrial detainee may violate the Fourteenth Amendment; but the infliction of "objectively unreasonable" force, without more, is not the intentional infliction of punishment.
In Bell v. Wolfish,441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), we held that the Due Process Clause forbids holding pretrial detainees in conditions that "amount to punishment." Id.,at 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861. Conditions amount to punishment, we explained, when they are "imposed for the purpose of punishment." Id.,at 538, 99 S.Ct. 1861. Acting with the intent to punish means taking a " 'deliberate act intended to chastise or deter.' " Wilson v. Seiter,501 U.S. 294, 300, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991)(quoting Duckworth v. Franzen,780 F.2d 645, 652 (C.A.7 1985)); see also Bell, supra,at 537-538, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The Court in Bellrecognized that intent to punish need not be "expressed," 441 U.S. at 538, 99 S.Ct. 1861, but may be established with circumstantial evidence. More specifically, if the condition of confinement being challenged "is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal-if it is arbitrary or purposeless-a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment." Id.,at 539, 99 S.Ct. 1861. We endorsed the same inference when we applied Bell's intent-to-punish test in challenges brought by pretrial detainees against jailhouse security policies, id.,at 560-562, 99 S.Ct. 1861; Block v. Rutherford,468 U.S. 576, 583-584, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984), and statutes permitting pretrial detention, Schall v. Martin,467 U.S. 253, 255, 269, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984); United States v. Salerno,481 U.S. 739, 741, 746-747, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987).
In light of these cases, I agree with the Court that "the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment." Graham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386, 395, n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)(citing Bell, supra,at 535-539, 99 S.Ct. 1861). I disagree, however, that any intentional application of force that is objectively unreasonable in degree is a use of excessive force that "amount[s] to punishment." Bell,441 U.S., at 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The Court reaches that conclusion by misreading Bellas forbidding States to take any harmful action against pretrial detainees that is not "reasonably related to a legitimate goal." Id., at 539, 99 S.Ct. 1861.
Bellendorsed this "reasonable relation" inference in the context of a challenge to conditions of a confinement-specifically, challenges to the State's policy of housing two people in each cell, id.,at 528, 99 S.Ct. 1861and various security policies, id.,at 548-549, 553, 555, 558, 560-562, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The conditions in which pretrial detainees are held, and the security policies to which they are subject, are the result of considered deliberation by the authority imposing the detention. If those conditions and policies lack any reasonable relationship to a legitimate, nonpunitive goal, it is logical to infer a punitive intent. And the same logic supports finding a punitive intent in statutes authorizing detention that lacks any reasonable relationship to a valid government interest. Schall, supra,at 269, 104 S.Ct. 2403; Salerno, supra,at 746-747, 107 S.Ct. 2095.
It is illogical,however, automatically to infer punitive intent from the fact that a prison guard used more force against a pretrial detainee than was necessary. That could easily have been the result of a misjudgment about the degree of force required to maintain order or protect other inmates, rather than the product of an intent to punish the detainee for his charged crime (or for any other behavior). An officer's decision regarding how much force to use is made "in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance," Hudson v. McMillian,503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992)(internal quotation marks omitted), not after the considered thought that precedes detention-policy determinations like those at issue in Bell,Block,Schall,and Salerno. That an officer used more force than necessary might be evidencethat he acted with intent to punish, but it is no more than that.
In sum: Bellmakes intent to punish the focus of its due-process analysis. Objective reasonableness of the force used is nothing more than a heuristic for identifying this intent. That heuristic makes good sense for considered decisions by the detaining authority, but is much weaker in the context of excessive-force claims. Kingsley does not argue that respondents actually intended to punish him, and his reliance on Bellto infer such an intent is misplaced.
Kingsley claims that "the protections of due process... extend beyond the narrow context of 'punishment.' " Brief for Petitioner 15. Unquestionably. A State would plainly violate the Due Process Clause if it extended a detainee's confinement because it believed him mentally ill (not as "punishment"), without giving him the constitutionally guaranteed processes that must precede the deprivation of liberty. But Kingsley does not claim deprivation of liberty in that normal sense of that word-the right to walk about free. He claims that the Due Process Clause confers, on pretrial detainees, a substantive "liberty" interest that consists of freedom from objectively unreasonable force. Kingsley seeks relief, in other words, under the doctrine of "substantive due process," through which we have occasionally recognized "liberty" interests other than freedom from incarceration or detention, that "cannot be limited at all, except by provisions that are 'narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.' " Kerry v. Din, --- U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2128, 2133, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2015)(plurality opinion) (quoting Reno v. Flores,507 U.S. 292, 301-302, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993)).
Even if one believed that the right to process can confer the right to substance in particular cases, Kingsley's interest is not one of the "fundamental liberty interests" that substantive due process protects. We have said that that doctrine protects only those liberty interests that, carefully described, are "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed." Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U.S. 702, 720-721, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997)(
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we determine whether the Double Jeopardy Clause requires us to vacate the sentence of death imposed on petitioner Thomas Schiro. For the reasons explained below, we hold that it does not.
I
Schiro was convicted and sentenced to death for murder. The body of Laura Luebbehusen was discovered in her home on the morning of February 5, 1981, by her roommate, Darlene Hooper, and Darlene Hooper’s former husband. Darlene Hooper, who had been away, returned to find the home in disarray. Blood covered the walls and floor; Laura Luebbehusen’s semiclad body was lying near the entrance. The police recovered from the scene a broken vodka bottle, a handle and metal portions of an iron, and bottles of various types of liquor.
The pathologist testified that there were a number of contusions on the body, including injuries to the head. The victim also had lacerations on one nipple and a thigh, and a tear in the vagina, all caused after death. A forensic dentist determined that the thigh injury was caused by a human bite. The cause of death was strangulation.
Laura Luebbehusen’s car was later found near a halfway house where Schiro was living. Schiro told one counselor at the halfway house he wanted to discuss something “heavy.” App. 53. Schiro later confessed to another counselor that he had committed the murder. After his arrest, he confessed to an inmate in the county jail that he had been drinking and taking Quaaludes the night of the killing, and that he had had intercourse with the victim both before and after killing her.
Schiro also admitted the killing to his girlfriend', Mary Lee. Schiro told Mary Lee that he gained access to Laura Luebbehusen’s house by telling her his car had broken down. Once in the house, he exposed himself to her. She told him that she was a lesbian, that she had been raped as a child, that she had never otherwise had intercourse before and did not want to have sex. Nonetheless, Schiro raped her numerous times. There was evidence that Schiro forced her to consume drugs and alcohol. When Laura Luebbehusen tried to escape, Schiro restrained and raped her at least once more. Then, as Laura Luebbehusen lay or slept on the bed, Schiro realized that she would have to die so that she would not turn him in. He found the vodka bottle and beat her on the head with it until it broke. He then beat her with the iron and, when she resisted, finally strangled her to death. Schiro dragged her body into another room and sexually assaulted the corpse. After the murder, he attempted to destroy evidence linking him to the crime.
II
At the time of the crime, the State of Indiana defined murder as follows:
“A person who:
“(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being; or
“(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape or robbery; “commits murder, a felony.” Ind. Code §35-42-1-1 (Supp. 1978).
Schiro was charged with three counts of murder. In Count I he was charged with “knowingly” killing Laura Luebbehusen; in Count II with killing her while committing the crime of rape; and in Count III with killing her while committing criminal deviate conduct. App. 3-5. The State sought the death penalty for Counts II and III.
At trial, Schiro did not contest that he had killed Laura Luebbehusen. Indeed, in closing argument, Schiro’s defense attorney stated: “Was there a killing? Sure, no doubt about it. Did Tom Schiro do it? Sure .... There’s no question about it, I’m not going to try . . . and ‘bamboozle’ this jury. There was a killing and he did it.” App. to Brief for Respondent 24. Instead, the defense argued that Schiro either was not guilty by reason of insanity or was guilty but mentally ill, an alternative verdict permitted under Indiana law.
The jury was given 10 possible verdicts, among them the 3 murder counts described above, the lesser included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, guilty but mentally ill, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty. App. 37-38. After five hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on Count II; it left the remaining verdict sheets blank.
Under Indiana law, to obtain the death penalty the State is required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of at least one of nine aggravating factors. Ind. Code' § 35-50-2-9(b) (Supp. 1978). The aggravating factor relevant here is: “[T]he defendant committed the murder by intentionally killing the victim while committing or attempting to commit . . . rape” or another enumerated felony. §35-50 — 2—9(b)(1). Upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an aggravating factor, the sentencer weighs the factor against any mitigating circumstances. When the initial conviction is by a jury, the “jury . . . reconvene^] for the sentencing hearing” to “recommend to the court whether the death penalty should be imposed.” §§35-50-2-9(d), (e). The trial judge makes “the final determination of the sentence, after considering the jury’s recommendation.” § 35-50-2-9(e)(2). “The court is not bound by the jury’s recommendation,” however. Ibid.
The primary issue at the sentencing hearing was the weight to be given Schiro’s mitigating evidence. Defense counsel stated to the jury that “I assume by your verdict [at the guilt phase that] you’ve probably decided” that the aggravating circumstance was proved. App. to Brief for Respondent 31-32. He therefore confined his argument to a plea for leniency, citing Schiro’s mental and emotional problems. After considering the statements of counsel, the jury recommended against the death penalty. The trial judge rejected the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Schiro to death. While the case was pending on direct appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court granted the State’s petition to remand the case to the trial court to make written findings of fact regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The trial court found that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that “[t]he defendant committed the murder by intentionally killing the victim while committing or attempting to commit. . . rape.” App. 46. The trial court also found that no mitigating circumstances had been established, and reaffirmed the sentence of death. Id., at 50.
The sentence was affirmed on direct appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. Schiro v. State, 451 N. E. 2d 1047 (1983). This Court denied certiorari. Schiro v. Indiana, 464 U. S. 1003 (1983). Schiro sought postconviction relief in state court. Again, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Schiro v. State, 479 N. E. 2d 556 (1985). This Court again denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. Schiro v. Indiana, 475 U. S. 1036 (1986). Schiro then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The District Judge remanded the case to the Indiana courts for exhaustion of state remedies. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence for a third time. Schiro v. State, 533 N. E. 2d 1201 (1989). In so doing, the Indiana Supreme Court rejected Schiro’s argument that the jury’s failure to convict him on the first murder count operated as an acquittal of intentional murder, and that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the use of the intentional murder aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. The Indiana Supreme Court held that “[felony murder] is not an included offense of [murder] and where the jury, as in the instant case, finds the defendant guilty of one of the types of murder and remains silent on the other, it does not operate as an acquittal of the elements of the type of murder the jury chose not to consider.” Id., at 1208. This Court denied certiorari. Schiro v. Indiana, 493 U. S. 910 (1989).
The Federal District Court then denied Schiro’s federal habeas petition. Schiro v. Clark, 754 F. Supp. 646 (ND Ind. 1990). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Schiro v. Clark, 963 F. 2d 962 (1992). The Court of Appeals accepted the Indiana Supreme Court’s conclusion that the jury’s verdict was not an acquittal on the Count I murder charge, and that the Double Jeopardy Clause was not violated by the use of the intentional murder aggravating circumstance. The Court of Appeals also concluded that collateral estoppel was not implicated since “the defendant must show that the jury’s verdict actually and necessarily determined the issue he seeks to foreclose” and “Schiro’s conviction for murder/rape did not act as an acquittal with respect to the pure murder charge as a matter of state law.” Id., at 970, n. 7.
We granted certiorari, 508 U. S. 905 (1993), to consider whether the trial court violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by relying on the intentional murder aggravating circumstance.
Ill
The State argues that granting relief to Schiro would require the retroactive application of a new rule, in violation of the principle announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989) (plurality opinion). Teague analysis is ordinarily our first step when we review a federal habeas case. See, e. g., Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 466-467 (1993). The Teague bar to the retroactive application of new rules is not, however, jurisdictional. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37, 40-41 (1990). In this case, the State did not raise the Teague argument in the lower courts. Cf. Parke v. Raley, 506 U. S. 20, 26 (1993). While we ordinarily do not review claims made for the first time in this Court, see, e. g., Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U. S. 638, 645-646 (1992), we recognize that the State, as respondent, is entitled to rely on any legal argument in support of the judgment below. See, e. g., Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475, n. 6 (1970).
Nevertheless, the State failed to argue Teague in its brief in opposition to the petition for a writ of certiorari. In deciding whether to grant certiorari in a particular case, we rely heavily on the submissions of the parties at the petition stage. See this Court’s Rule 15.1. If, as in this case, a legal issue appears to warrant review, we grant certiorari in the expectation of being able to decide that issue. Since a State can waive the Teague bar by not raising it, see Godinez v. Moran, 509 U. S. 389, 397, n. 8 (1993), and since the propriety of reaching the merits of a dispute is an important consideration in deciding whether or not to grant certiorari, the State’s omission of any Teague defense at the petition stage is significant. Although we undoubtedly have the discretion to reach the State’s Teague argument, we will not do so in these circumstances.
IV
Schiro first argues that he could not be sentenced to death based on the intentional murder aggravating circumstance, because the sentencing proceeding amounted to a successive prosecution for intentional murder in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
We have recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause consists of several protections: “It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 717 (1969) (footnotes omitted). These protections stem from the underlying premise that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense. United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 339 (1975). The Clause operates as a “bar against repeated attempts to convict, with consequent subjection of the defendant to embarrassment, expense, anxiety, and insecurity, and the possibility that he may be found guilty even though innocent.” United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U. S. 117, 136 (1980). When a defendant has been acquitted, the “Clause guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict him.” Wilson, supra, at 343. Where, however, there is “no threat of either multiple punishment or successive prosecutions, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not offended.” 420 U. S., at 344 (footnote omitted). Thus, our cases establish that the primary evil to be guarded against is successive prosecutions: “[T]he prohibition against multiple trials is the controlling constitutional principle.” DiFrancesco, supra, at 132 (internal citations omitted). See also United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 569 (1977).
Schiro urges us to treat the sentencing phase of a single prosecution as a successive prosecution for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. We decline to do so. Our prior decisions are inconsistent with the argument that a first sentencing proceeding can amount to a successive prosecution. In Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15, 17-18 (1919), we held that where a defendant’s murder conviction was overturned on appeal, the defendant could be resentenced after retrial. Similarly, we found no constitutional infirmity in holding a second sentencing hearing where the first sentence was improperly based on a prior conviction for which the defendant had been pardoned. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U. S. 33 (1988). See also North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, at 721 (“[W]e cannot say that the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy of its own weight restricts the imposition of an otherwise lawful single punishment” upon retrial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, 23-24 (1973) (same). If a second sentencing proceeding ordinarily does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we fail to see how an initial sentencing proceeding could do so.
We have also upheld the use of prior convictions to enhance sentences for subsequent convictions, even though this means a defendant must, in a certain sense, relitigate in a sentencing proceeding conduct for which he was previously tried. Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 560 (1967). Cf. Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673, 678 (1895) (“[T]he State may undoubtedly provide that persons who have been before convicted of a crime may suffer severer punishment for subsequent offences than for a first offence”). In short, as applied to successive prosecutions, the Clause “is written in terms of potential or risk of trial and conviction, not punishment.” Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, 329 (1970).
Our decision in Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430 (1981), is not to the contrary. Bullington was convicted of capital murder. At the first death penalty sentencing proceeding, the jury rejected the death penalty and sentenced him to a term of years. The conviction was overturned; on resentencing the State again sought the death penalty. In Bullington we recognized the general rule that “the Double Jeopardy Clause imposes no absolute prohibition against the imposition of a harsher sentence at retrial.” Id., at 438. Nonetheless, we recognized a narrow exception to this general principle because the capital sentencing scheme at issue “differed] significantly from those employed in any of the Court’s cases where the Double Jeopardy Clause has been held inapplicable to sentencing.” Ibid. Because the capital sentencing proceeding “was itself a trial on the issue of punishment,” ibid., requiring a defendant to submit to a second, identical proceeding was tantamount to permitting a second prosecution of an acquitted defendant, id., at 446.
This case is manifestly different. Neither the prohibition against a successive trial on the issue of guilt nor the Bullington prohibition against a second capital sentencing proceeding is implicated here — the State did not reprosecute Schiro for intentional murder, nor did it force him to submit to a second death penalty hearing. It simply conducted a single sentencing hearing in the course of a single prosecution. The state is entitled to “one fair opportunity” to prosecute a defendant, Bullington, supra, at 446 (internal quotation marks omitted), and that opportunity extends not only to prosecution at the guilt phase, but also to present evidence at an ensuing sentencing proceeding.
V
Schiro also contends that principles of constitutional collateral estoppel require vacation of his death sentence. In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436 (1970), we held that the Double Jeopardy Clause incorporates the doctrine of collateral estoppel in criminal proceedings. See also Dowling v. United States, 493 U. S. 342,347 (1990). Collateral estoppel, or, in modern usage, issue preclusion, “means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” Ashe, 397 U. S., at 443. Schiro reasons that the jury acquitted him of “intentionally” murdering Laura Luebbehusen, and that as a result, the trial court was precluded from finding the existence of the aggravating circumstance that he “committed the murder by intentionally killing the victim while committing or attempting to commit . . . rape.” We do not address whether collateral estoppel could bar the use of the “intentional” murder aggravating circumstance, because Schiro has not met his burden of establishing the factual predicate for the application of the doctrine, if it were applicable, namely, that an “issue of ultimate fact has once been determined” in his favor. Ibid.
The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the jury verdict did not amount to an acquittal on the intentional murder count. Schiro v. State, 533 N. E. 2d, at 1201. Ordinarily on habeas review, we presume the correctness of state court findings of fact. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). Cf. also Cichos v. Indiana, 385 U. S. 76, 79-80 (1966). The preclusive effect of the jury’s verdict, however, is a question of federal law which we must review de novo. Cf. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S., at 444.
We must first determine “whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than” Schiro’s intent to kill. Ibid. Cf. 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4421, p. 192 (1981) (“Issue preclusion attaches only to determinations that were necessary to support the judgment entered in the first action”). To do so, we “examine the record of a prior proceeding taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter....” Ashe v. Swenson, supra, at 444 (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden is “on the defendant to demonstrate that the issue whose relitigation he seeks to foreclose was actually decided in the first proceeding.” Dowling, 493 U. S., at 350. In Dowling, for example, the defendant contended that because he had been acquitted of a robbery, the jury must have concluded that he had not been present at the crime. Ibid. In rejecting that argument, we considered the fact that during the trial there was a discussion between the lawyers and the judge where it was asserted that the intruder’s identity was not a factual issue in the case. Id., at 351. Because there were “any number of possible explanations for the jury’s acquittal verdict,” the defendant had “failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating” that he was not one of the intruders. Id., at 352.
Applying these principles, we find that the jury could have grounded its verdict on an issue other than Schiro’s intent to kill. The jury was not instructed to return verdicts on all the counts listed on the verdict sheets. In fact, there are indications in the record that the jury might have believed it could only return one verdict. In closing argument at the guilt phase, defense counsel told the jury that it would “have to go back there and try to figure out which one of eight or ten verdicts . . . that you will return back into this Court.” App. to Brief for Respondents 17. The prosecution also told the jury that “you are only going to be allowed to return one verdict.” Id., at 27. Although the jury instructions indicated to the jury that more than one verdict was possible, id, at 27-28, on this record it is impossible to tell which of these statements the jury relied on. The dissent concludes that the jury acquitted on Count I for lack of intent, based on the fact that the only way the jury could have expressed that conclusion was by leaving the Count I verdict form blank, as it did. What stands in the way of such an inference, however, is that the jury would also have acted as it did after reaching a guilty verdict on Count II but without ever deliberating on Count I. In short, since it was not clear to the jury that it needed to consider each count independently, we will not draw any particular conclusion from its failure to return a verdict on Count I.
The jury instructions on the issue of intent to kill were also ambiguous. Under Indiana law, a person who either “knowingly or intentionally kills another human being” or “kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit... rape” is guilty of “murder.” Ind. Code §35-42-1-1 (Supp. 1978). Thus, intent to kill is not required for a felony murder conviction. Schiro reasons that since the jury found him guilty of felony murder in the course of a rape, but failed to convict him of intentional murder, the jury must have found that he did not have an intent to kill.
We do not so interpret the jury’s failure to convict on Count I, however. Although the jury was provided with the state law definition of murder, App. 21, the judge also instructed the jury that the State had to prove intent for both felony and intentional murder: “To sustain the charge of murder, the State must prove . . . [t]hat the defendant engaged in the conduct which caused the death of Laura Luebbehusen [and] [t]hat when the defendant did so, he knew the conduct would or intended the conduct to cause the death of Laura Luebbehusen.” Id, at 22-23 (emphasis added). This instruction did not differentiate between the two ways of proving “murder” under Indiana law. The jury was further told that “[t]he instructions of the court are the best source as to the law applicable to this case.” Id., at 20. The jury may well have believed, therefore, that it was required to find a knowing or intentional killing in order to convict Schiro on any of the three murder counts. In sum, in light of the jury instructions, we find that as a matter of law the jury verdict did not necessarily depend on a finding that Schiro lacked an intent to kill.
Although not necessary to our conclusion, we note that there is additional evidence in the record indicating that Schiro’s intent to kill was not a significant issue in the case. The defense primarily confined its proof at trial to showing that Schiro was insane, and did not dispute that Schiro had committed the murder. At no point during the guilt phase did defense counsel or any of the defense witnesses assert that Schiro should be acquitted on Count I because he lacked an intent to kill. Indeed, we have located no point in the transcript of the proceedings where defense counsel or defense witnesses even discussed the issue of Schiro’s intent to kill. Schiro argues that his intent to kill was put in issue by the insanity defense. But, even if that were so, the jury did not accept this defense. Even defense counsel apparently believed that Schiro’s intent was not an issue in the case. After the jury returned its verdict of guilty on Count II, and reconvened to consider the appropriate sentence, defense counsel indicated his belief that by convicting Schiro on Count II, the jury had found that he had an intent to kill:
“The statute... provides for aggravating circumstances. There is one listed in this case, and one which you may consider. And that one is that the murder was committed, was intentionally committed in the commission of rape and some other things. I assume by your verdict Friday, or Saturday, that you’ve probably ... decided that issue. In finding him guilty of murder in the commission of rape, I’m assuming you’ve decided beyond a reasonable doubt that it was done in the commission of a rape, and so that aggravating circumstance most likely exists in your mind.” App. to Brief for Respondent 31-32.
Finally, we observe that a jury finding of intent to kill is entirely consistent with the evidence presented at trial. By Schiro’s own admission, he decided to kill Laura Luebbehusen after she tried to escape and he realized she would go to the police. In addition, the physical evidence suggested a deliberate, rather than unintentional, accidental, or even reckless, killing. The victim was repeatedly beaten with a bottle and an iron; when she resisted, she was strangled to death.
We have in some circumstances considered jury silence as tantamount to an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 190-191 (1957); Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S., at 329. The failure to return a verdict does not have collateral estoppel effect, however, unless the record establishes that the issue was actually and necessarily decided in the defendant’s favor. As explained above, our cases require an examination of the entire record to determine whether the jury could have “grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.” Ashe, 397 U. S., at 444 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Dowling, 493 U. S., at 350. In view of Schiro’s confession to the killing, the instruction requiring the jury to find intent to kill, and the uncertainty as to whether the jury believed it could return more than one verdict, we find that Schiro has not met his “burden ... to demonstrate that the issue whose relitigation he seeks to foreclose was actually decided” in his favor. Ibid.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari, 509 U. S. 953 (1993), to consider the question whether, in an action against several alleged joint tortfeasors under general maritime law, the plaintiff’s settlement with one defendant bars a claim for contribution brought by nonsettling defendants against the settling defendant. Because the opinion that we announce today in McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, ante, p. 202, adopts the proportionate share rule, under which actions for contribution against settling defendants are neither necessary nor permitted, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are “silent” on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq.
I
A
Petitioners are shipping companies that serve a large share of the world market for parcel tankers — seagoing vessels with compartments that are separately chartered to customers wishing to ship liquids in small quantities. One of those customers is AnimalFeeds International Corp. (hereinafter AnimalFeeds), which supplies raw ingredients, such as fish oil, to animal-feed producers around the world. Animal-Feeds ships its goods pursuant to a standard contract known in the maritime trade as a charter party. Numerous charter parties are in regular use, and the charter party that AnimalFeeds uses is known as the “Vegoilvoy” charter party. Petitioners assert, without contradiction, that charterers like AnimalFeeds, or their agents — not the shipowners— typically select the particular charter party that governs their shipments. Accord, Trowbridge, Admiralty Law Institute: Symposium on Charter Parties: The History, Development, and Characteristics of the Charter Concept, 49 Tulane L. Rev. 743, 753 (1975) (“Voyage charter parties are highly standardized, with many commodities and charterers having their own specialized forms”).
Adopted in 1950, the Vegoilvoy charter party contains the following arbitration clause:
“Arbitration. Any dispute arising from the making, performance or termination of this Charter Party shall be settled in New York, Owner and Charterer each appointing an arbitrator, who shall be a merchant, broker or individual experienced in the shipping business; the two thus chosen, if they cannot agree, shall nominate a third arbitrator who shall be an Admiralty lawyer. Such arbitration shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions and procedure of the United States Arbitration Act [i e., the FAA], and a judgment of the Court shall be entered upon any award made by said arbitrator.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 69a.
In 2003, a Department of Justice criminal investigation revealed that petitioners were engaging in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy. When AnimalFeeds learned of this, it brought a putative class action against petitioners in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting antitrust claims for supracompetitive prices that petitioners allegedly charged their customers over a period of several years.
Other charterers brought similar suits. In one of these, the District Court for the District of Connecticut held that the charterers’ claims were not subject to arbitration under the applicable arbitration clause, but the Second Circuit reversed. See JLM Industries, Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen S. A., 387 F. 3d 163, 183 (2004). While that appeal was pending, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of then-pending actions against petitioners, including AnimalFeeds’ action, in the District of Connecticut. See In re Parcel Tanker Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litigation, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1371, and n. 1 (2003). The parties agree that as a consequence of these judgments and orders, AnimalFeeds and petitioners must arbitrate their antitrust dispute.
B
In 2005, AnimalFeeds served petitioners with a demand for class arbitration, designating New York City as the place of arbitration and seeking to represent a class of “[a]ll direct purchasers of parcel tanker transportation services globally for bulk liquid chemicals, edible oils, acids, and other specialty liquids from [petitioners] at any time during the period from August 1, 1998, to November 30, 2002.” 548 F. 3d 85, 87 (CA2 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The parties entered into a supplemental agreement providing for the question of class arbitration to be submitted to a panel of three arbitrators who were to “follow and be bound by Rules 3 through 7 of the American Arbitration Association’s Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations (as effective Oct. 8, 2003).” App. to Pet. for Cert. 59a. These rules (hereinafter Class Rules) were developed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) after our decision in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U. S. 444 (2003), and Class Rule 3, in accordance with the plurality opinion in that case, requires an arbitrator, as a threshold matter, to determine “whether the applicable arbitration clause permits the arbitration to proceed on behalf of or against a class.” App. 56a.
The parties selected a panel of arbitrators and stipulated that the arbitration clause was “silent” with respect to class arbitration. Counsel for AnimalFeeds explained to the arbitration panel that the term “silent” did not simply mean that the clause made no express reference to class arbitration. Rather, he said, “[a]ll the parties agree that when a contract is silent on an issue there’s been no agreement that has been reached on that issue.” Id., at 77a.
After hearing argument and evidence, including testimony from petitioners’ experts regarding arbitration customs and usage in the maritime trade, the arbitrators concluded that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration. They found persuasive the fact that other arbitrators ruling after Bazzle had construed “a wide variety of clauses in a wide variety of settings as allowing for class arbitration,” but the panel acknowledged that none of these decisions was “exactly comparable” to the present dispute. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a-50a. Petitioners’ expert evidence did not show an “inten[t] to preclude class arbitration,” the arbitrators reasoned, and petitioners’ argument would leave “no basis for a class action absent express agreement among all parties and the putative class members.” Id., at 51a.
The arbitrators stayed the proceeding to allow the parties to seek judicial review, and petitioners filed an application to vacate the arbitrators’ award in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. See 9 U. S. C. § 10(a)(4) (authorizing a district court to “make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration... where the arbitrators exceeded their powers”); Petition To Vacate Arbitration Award, No. 1:06-CV-00420-JSR (SDNY), App. in No. 06-3474-cv (CA2), p. A-17, ¶ 16 (citing § 10(a)(4) as a ground for vacatur of the award); see also id., at A-15 to A-16, ¶ 9 (invoking the District Court’s jurisdiction under 9 U. S. C. §203 and 28 U. S. C. §§1331 and 1333). The District Court vacated the award, concluding that the arbitrators’ decision was made in “manifest disregard” of the law insofar as the arbitrators failed to conduct a choice-of-law analysis. 435 F. Supp. 2d 382, 384-385 (SDNY 2006). See Wilko v. Swan, 346 U. S. 427, 436-437 (1953) (“[T]he interpretations of the law by the arbitrators in contrast to manifest disregard are not subject, in the federal courts, to judicial review for error in interpretation”); see also Petition To Vacate Arbitration Award, supra, at A-17, ¶ 17 (alleging that the arbitration panel “manifestly disregarded the law”). Had such an analysis been conducted, the District Court held, the arbitrators would have applied the rule of federal maritime law requiring that contracts be interpreted in light of custom and usage. 435 F. Supp. 2d, at 385-386.
AnimalFeeds appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed. See 9 U. S. C. § 16(a)(1)(E) (“An appeal may be taken from... an order... vacating an award”). As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals held that the “manifest disregard” standard survived our decision in Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U. S. 576 (2008), as a “judicial gloss” on the enumerated grounds for vacatur of arbitration awards under 9 U. S. C. § 10. 548 F. 3d, at 94. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals concluded that, because petitioners had cited no authority applying a federal maritime rule of custom and usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators’ decision was not in manifest disregard of federal maritime law. Id., at 97-98. Nor had the arbitrators manifestly disregarded New York law, the Court of Appeals continued, since nothing in New York case law established a rule against class arbitration. Id., at 98-99.
We granted certiorari. 557 U. S. 903 (2009).
II
A
Petitioners contend that the decision of the arbitration panel must be vacated, but in order to obtain that relief, they must clear a high hurdle. It is not enough for petitioners to show that the panel committed an error — or even a serious error. See Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U. S. 57, 62 (2000); Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U. S. 29, 38 (1987). “It is only when [an] arbitrator strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively ‘dispenséis] his own brand of industrial justice’ that his decision may be unenforceable. ” Major League Baseball Players Assn. v. Garvey, 532 U. S. 504, 509 (2001) (per curiam) (quoting Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593, 597 (1960)). In that situation, an arbitration decision may be vacated under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA on the ground that the arbitrator “exceeded [his] powers,” for the task of an arbitrator is to interpret and enforce a contract, not to make public policy. In this ease, we must conclude that what the arbitration panel did was simply to impose its own view of sound policy regarding class arbitration.
B
1
In its memorandum of law filed in the arbitration proceedings, AnimalFeeds made three arguments in support of construing the arbitration clause to permit class arbitration:
“The parties’ arbitration clause should be construed to allow class arbitration because (a) the clause is silent on the issue of class treatment and, without express prohibition, class arbitration is permitted under Bazzle; (b) the clause should be construed to permit class arbitration as a matter of public policy; and (c) the clause would be unconscionable and unenforceable if it forbade class arbitration.” App. in No. 06-3474-cv (CA2), at A-308 to A-309 (emphasis added).
The arbitrators expressly rejected AnimalFeeds’ first argument, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a, and said nothing about the third. Instead, the panel appears to have rested its decision on AnimalFeeds’ public policy argument. Because the parties agreed their agreement was “silent” in the sense that they had not reached any agreement on the issue of class arbitration, the arbitrators’ proper task was to identify the rule of law that governs in that situation. Had they engaged in that undertaking, they presumably would have looked either to the FAA itself or to one of the two bodies of law that the parties claimed were governing, i. e., either federal maritime law or New York law. But the panel did not consider whether the FAA provides the rule of decision in such a situation; nor did the panel attempt to determine what rule would govern under either maritime or New York law in the ease of a “silent” contract. Instead, the panel based its decision on post -Bazzle arbitral decisions that “construed a wide variety of clauses in a wide variety of settings as allowing for class arbitration.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a-50a. The panel did not mention whether any of these decisions were based on a rule derived from the FAA or on maritime or New York law.
Rather than inquiring whether the FAA, maritime law, or New York law contains a “default rule” under which an arbitration clause is construed as allowing class arbitration in the absence of express consent, the panel proceeded as if it had the authority of a common-law court to develop what it viewed as the best rule to be applied in such a situation. Perceiving a post-Bazzle consensus among arbitrators that class arbitration is beneficial in “a wide variety of settings,” the panel considered only whether there was any good reason not to follow that consensus in this case. App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a-50a. The panel was not persuaded by “court cases denying consolidation of arbitrations,” by undisputed evidence that the Vegoilvoy charter party had “never been the basis of a class action,” or by expert opinion that “sophisticated, multinational commercial parties of the type that are sought to be included in the class would never intend that the arbitration clauses would permit a class arbitration.” Id., at 50a-51a. Accordingly, finding no convincing ground for departing from the post-Bazzle arbitral consensus, the panel held that class, arbitration was permitted in this ease. App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a. The conclusion is inescapable that the panel simply imposed its own conception of sound policy.
2
It is true that the panel opinion makes a few references to intent, but none of these shows that the panel did anything other than impose its own policy preference. The opinion states that, under Bazzle, “arbitrators must look to the language of the parties’ agreement to ascertain the parties’ intention whether they intended to permit or to preclude class action,” and the panel added that “[tjhis is also consistent with New York law.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a. But the panel had no occasion to “ascertain the parties’ intention” in the present case because the parties were in complete agreement regarding their intent. In the very next sentence after the one quoted above, the panel acknowledged that the parties in this case agreed that the Yegoilvoy charter party was “silent on whether [it] permitted] or preelude[d] class arbitration,” but that the charter party was “not ambiguous so as to call for parol evidence.” Ibid. This stipulation left no room for an inquiry regarding the parties’ intent, and any inquiry into that settled question would have been outside the panel’s assigned task.
The panel also commented on the breadth of the language in the Vegoilvoy charter party, see id., at 50a, but since the only task that was left for the panel, in light of the parties’ stipulation, was to identify the governing rule applicable in a case in which neither the language of the contract nor any other evidence established that the parties had reached any agreement on the question of class arbitration, the particular wording of the charter party was quite beside the point.
In sum, instead of identifying and applying a rule of decision derived from the FAA or either maritime or New York law, the arbitration panel imposed its own policy choice and thus exceeded its powers. As a result, under § 10(b) of the FAA, we must either “direct a rehearing by the arbitrators” or decide the question that was originally referred to the panel. Because we conclude that there can be only one possible outcome on the facts before us, we see no need to direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.
III
A
The arbitration panel thought that Bazzle “controlled” the “resolution” of the question whether the Vegoilvoy charter party “permitís] this arbitration to proceed on behalf of a class,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a-49a, but that understanding was incorrect.
Bazzle concerned contracts between a commercial lender (Green Tree) and its customers. These contracts contained an arbitration clause but did not expressly mention class arbitration. Nevertheless, an arbitrator conducted class arbitration proceedings and entered awards for the customers.
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the awards. Bazzle v. Green Tree Financial Corp., 351 S. C. 244, 569 S. E. 2d 349 (2002). After discussing both Seventh Circuit precedent holding that a court lacks authority to order classwide arbitration under § 4 of the FAA, see Champ v. Siegel Trading Co., 55 F. 3d 269 (1995), and conflicting California precedent, see Keating v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty., 31 Cal. 3d 584, 645 P. 2d 1192 (1982), the State Supreme Court elected to follow the California approach, which it characterized as permitting a trial eourt to “order class-wide arbitration under adhesive but enforceable franchise contracts,” 351 S. C., at 259, 266, 569 S. E. 2d, at 357, 360. Under this approach, the South Carolina court observed, a trial judge must “[b]alanc[e] the potential inequities and inefficiencies” of requiring each aggrieved party to proceed on an individual basis against “resulting prejudice to the drafting party” and should take into account factors such as “efficiency” and “equity.” Id., at 260, and n. 15, 569 S. E. 2d, at 357, and n. 15.
Applying these standards to the case before it, the South Carolina Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause in the Green Tree contracts was “silent regarding class-wide arbitration.” Id., at 263, 569 S. E. 2d, at 359 (emphasis deleted). The court described its holding as follows:
“[W]e... hold that class-wide arbitration may be ordered when the arbitration agreement is silent if it would serve efficiency and equity, and would not result in prejudice. If we enforced a mandatory, adhesive arbitration clause, but prohibited class actions in arbitration where the agreement is silent, the drafting party could effectively prevent class actions against it without having to say it was doing so in the agreement.” Id., at 266, 569 S. E. 2d, at 360 (footnote omitted).
When Bazzle reached this Court, no single rationale commanded a majority. The opinions of the Justices who joined the judgment — that is, the plurality opinion and Justice Stevens’ opinion — collectively addressed three separate questions. The first was which decisionmaker (court or arbitrator) should decide whether the contracts in question were “silent” on the issue of class arbitration. The second was what standard the appropriate decisionmaker should apply in determining whether a contract allows class arbitration. (For example, does the FAA entirely preclude class arbitration? Does the FAA permit class arbitration only under limited circumstances, such as when the contract expressly so provides? Or is this question left entirely to state law?) The final question was whether, under whatever standard is appropriate, class arbitration had been properly ordered in the case at hand.
The plurality opinion decided only the first question, concluding that the arbitrator and not a court should decide whether the contracts were indeed “silent” on the issue of class arbitration. The plurality noted that, “[i]n certain limited circumstances,” involving “gateway matters, such as whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement at all or whether a concededly binding arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy,” it is assumed “that the parties intended courts, not arbitrators,” to make the decision. 539 U. S., at 452. But the plurality opined that the question whether a contract with an arbitration clause forbids class arbitration “does not fall into this narrow exception.” Ibid. The plurality therefore concluded that the decision of the State Supreme Court should be vacated and that the case should be remanded for a decision by the arbitrator on the question whether the contracts were indeed “silent.” The plurality did not decide either the second or the third question noted above.
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment vacating and remanding because otherwise there would have been “no controlling judgment of the Court,” but he did not endorse the plurality’s rationale. Id., at 455 (opinion concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). He did not take a definitive position on the first question, stating only that “[ajrguably the interpretation of the parties’ agreement should have been made in the first instance by the arbitrator.” Ibid. (emphasis added). But because he did not believe that Green Tree had raised the question of the appropriate decisionmaker, he preferred not to reach that question and, instead, would have affirmed the decision of the State Supreme Court on the ground that “the decision to conduct a class-action arbitration was correct as a matter of law.” Ibid. Accordingly, his analysis bypassed the first question noted above and rested instead on his resolution of the second and third questions. Thus, Bazzle did not yield a majority decision on any of the three questions.
B
Unfortunately, the opinions in Bazzle appear to have baffled the parties in this case at the time of the arbitration proceeding. For one thing, the parties appear to have believed that the judgment in Bazzle requires an arbitrator, not a court, to decide whether a contract permits class arbitration. See App. 89a (transcript of argument before arbitration panel) (counsel for Stolt-Nielsen states: ‘What [Bazzle] says is that the contract interpretation issue is left up to the arbitrator, that’s the rule in [Bazzle]”). In fact, however, only the plurality decided that question. But we need not revisit that question here because the parties’ supplemental agreement expressly assigned this issue to the arbitration panel, and no party argues that this assignment was impermissible.
Unfortunately, however, both the parties and the arbitration panel seem to have misunderstood Bazzle in another respect, namely, that it established the standard to be applied by a decisionmaker in determining whether a contract may permissibly be interpreted to allow class arbitration. The arbitration panel began its discussion by stating that the parties “differ regarding the rule of interpretation to be gleaned from [the Bazzle] decision.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a (emphasis added). The panel continued:
“Claimants argue that Bazzle requires clear language that forbids class arbitration in order to bar a class action. The Panel, however, agrees with Respondents that the test is a more general one — arbitrators must look to the language of the parties’ agreement to ascertain the parties’ intention whether they intended to permit or to preclude class action.” Ibid.
As we have explained, however, Bazzle did not establish the rule to be applied in deciding whether class arbitration is permitted. The decision in Bazzle left that question open, and we turn to it now.
IV
While the interpretation of an arbitration agreement is generally a matter of state law, see Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U. S. 624, 630-631 (2009); Perry v. Thomas, 482 U. S. 483, 493, n. 9 (1987), the FA A imposes certain rules of fundamental importance, including the basic precept that arbitration “is a matter of consent, not coercion,” Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 479 (1989).
A
In 1925, Congress enacted the United States Arbitration Act, as the FAA was formerly known, for the express purpose of making “valid and enforceable written provisions or agreements for arbitration of disputes arising out of contracts, maritime transactions, or commerce among the States or Territories or with foreign nations.” 43 Stat. 883. Reenacted and codified in 1947, see 61 Stat. 669, the FAA provides, in pertinent part, that a “written provision in any maritime transaction” calling for the arbitration of a controversy arising out of such transaction “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2. Under the FAA, a party to an arbitration agreement may petition a United States district court for an order directing that “arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” §4. Consistent with these provisions, we have said on numerous occasions that the central or “primary” purpose of the FAA is to ensure that “private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms.” Volt, supra, at 479; Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U. S. 52, 57, 58 (1995); see also Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 688 (1996). See generally 9 U. S. C. §4.
Whether enforcing an agreement to arbitrate or construing an arbitration clause, courts and arbitrators must “give effect to the contractual rights and expectations of the parties.” Volt, supra, at 479. In this endeavor, “as with any other contract, the parties’ intentions control.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 626 (1985). This is because an arbitrator derives his or her powers from the parties’ agreement to forgo the legal process and submit their disputes to private dispute resolution. See AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U. S. 643, 648-649 (1986) (“[A]rbitrators derive their authority to resolve disputes only because the parties have agreed in advance to submit such grievances to arbitration”); Mitsubishi Motors, supra, at 628 (“By agreeing to arbitrate..., [a party] trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the courtroom for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration”); see also Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U. S. 574, 581 (1960) (an arbitrator “has no general charter to administer justice for a community which transcends the parties” but rather is “part of a system of self-government created by and confined to the parties” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Underscoring the consensual nature of private dispute resolution, we have held that parties are “‘generally free to structure their arbitration agreements as they see fit.’” Mastrobuono, supra, at 57; see also AT&T Technologies, supra, at 648-649. For example, we have held that parties may agree to limit the issues they choose to arbitrate, see Mitsubishi Motors, supra, at 628, and may agree on rules under which any arbitration will proceed, Volt, supra, at 479. They may choose who will resolve specific disputes. E. g., App. 30a; Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 57 (1974); Burchell v. Marsh, 17 How. 344, 349 (1855); see also International Produce, Inc. v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F. 2d 548, 552 (CA2) (“The most sought-after arbitrators are those who are prominent and experienced members of the specific business community in which the dispute to be arbitrated arose”), cert. denied, 451 U. S. 1017 (1981).
We think it is also clear from our precedents and the contractual nature of arbitration that parties may specify with wkom they choose to arbitrate their disputes. See EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U. S. 279, 289 (2002) (“[Njothing in the [FAA] authorizes a court to compel arbitration of any issues, or by any parties, that are not already covered in the agreement” (emphasis added)); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 20 (1983) (“[A]n arbitration agreement must be enforced notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement”); Steelworkers, supra, at 581 (an arbitrator “has no general charter to administer justice for a community which transcends the parties” (internal quotation marks omitted)); accord, First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U. S. 938, 943 (1995) (“[Arbitration is simply a matter of contract between the parties; it is a way to resolve those disputes — but only those disputes — that the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration” (emphasis added)). It falls to courts and arbitrators to give effect to these contractual limitations, and when doing so, courts and arbitrators must not lose sight of the purpose of the exercise: to give effect to the intent of the parties. Volt, 489 U. S., at 479.
B
From these principles, it follows that a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so. In this case, however, the arbitration panel imposed class arbitration even though the parties concurred that they had reached “no agreement” on that issue, see App. 77a. The critical point, in the view of the arbitration panel, was that petitioners did not “establish that the parties to the charter agreements intended to preclude class arbitration.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 51a. Even though the parties are sophisticated business entities, even though there is no tradition of class arbitration under maritime law, and even though AnimalFeeds does not dispute that it is customary for the shipper to choose the charter party that is used for a particular shipment, the panel regarded the agreement’s silence on the question of class arbitration as dispositive. The panel’s conclusion is fundamentally at war with the foundational FAA principle that arbitration is a matter of consent.
In certain contexts, it is appropriate to presume that parties that enter into an arbitration agreement implicitly authorize the arbitrator to adopt such procedures as are necessary to give effect to the parties’ agreement. Thus, we have said that “' “procedural” questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition’ are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide.” Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U. S. 79, 84 (2002) (quoting John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U. S. 543, 557 (1964)). This recognition is grounded in the background principle that “[w]hen the parties to a bargain sufficiently defined to be a contract have not agreed with respect to a term which is essential to a determination of their rights and duties, a term which is reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts §204 (1979).
An implicit agreement to authorize class-action arbitration, however, is not a term that the arbitrator may infer solely from the fact of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. This is so because class-action arbitration changes the nature of arbitration to such a degree that it cannot be presumed the parties consented to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes to an arbitrator. In bilateral arbitration, parties forgo the procedural rigor and appellate review of the courts in order to realize the benefits of private dispute resolution: lower costs, greater efficiency and speed, and the ability to choose expert adjudicators to resolve specialized disputes. See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 31 (1991); Mitsubishi Motors, 473 U. S., at 628; see also 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U. S. 247, 257 (2009) (“Parties generally favor arbitration precisely because of the economics of dispute resolution” (citing Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 123 (2001))); Gardner-Denver, supra, at 57 (“Parties usually choose an arbitrator because they trust his knowledge and judgment concerning the demands and norms of industrial relations”). But the relative benefits of class-action arbitration are much less assured, giving reason to doubt the parties’ mutual consent to resolve disputes through classwide arbitration. Cf. First Options, supra, at 945 (noting that “one can understand why courts might hesitate to interpret silence or ambiguity on the ‘who should decide arbitrability point as giving the arbitrators that power, for doing so might too often force unwilling parties to arbitrate” contrary to their expectations).
Consider just some of the fundamental changes brought about by the shift from bilateral arbitration to class-action arbitration. An arbitrator chosen according to an agreed-upon procedure, see, e. g., supra, at 667, no longer resolves a single dispute between the parties to a single agreement, but instead resolves many disputes between hundreds or perhaps even thousands of parties. See App. 86a (“[W]e believe domestic class members could be in the hundreds” and that “[t]here could be class members that ship to and from the U. S. who are not domestic who we think would be covered”); see also, e. g., Bazzle, 351 S. C., at 251, 569 S. E. 2d, at 352-353 (involving a class of 1,899 individuals that was awarded damages, fees, and costs of more than $14 million by a single arbitrator). Under the Class Rules, “[t]he presumption of privacy and confidentiality” that applies in many bilateral arbitrations “shall not apply in class arbitrations,” see Addendum to Brief for AAA as Amicus Curiae 10a (Class Rule 9(a)), thus potentially frustrating the parties' assumptions when they agreed to arbitrate. The arbitrator's award no longer purports to bind just the parties to a single arbitration agreement, but adjudicates the rights of absent parties as well. Cf. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U. S. 815, 846 (1999) (noting that “the burden of justification rests on the exception” to the general rule that “one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And the commercial stakes of class-action arbitration are comparable to those of class-action litigation, cf. App. in No. 06-3474-cv (CA2), at A-77, A-79, ¶¶30, 31, 40, even though the scope of judicial review is much more limited, see Hall Street, 552 U. S., at 588. We think that the differences between bilateral and class-action arbitration are too great for arbitrators to presume, consistent with their limited powers under the FAA, that the parties’ mere silence on the issue of class-action arbitration constitutes consent to resolve their disputes in class proceedings.
The dissent minimizes these crucial differences by characterizing the question before the arbitrators as being merely what “procedural mode” was available to present Animal-Feeds’ claims. Post, at 696. If the question were that simple, there would be no need to consider the parties’ intent with respect to class arbitration. See Howsam, supra, at 84 (committing “procedural questions” presumptively 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: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Geders v. United States, 425 U. S. 80 (1976), we held that a trial court’s order directing a defendant not to consult his attorney during an overnight recess, called while the defendant was on the witness stand, violated his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Today we consider whether the Geders rule applies to a similar order entered at the beginning of a 15-minute afternoon recess.
I
Petitioner was tried and convicted by a jury of participating in a brutal murder, kidnaping, and sexual assault. His defense was that he had not taken an active part in the abduction or the homicide and that his participation in the sexual assault was the product of duress. Evidence offered on his behalf indicated that he was mildly retarded and that he was a nonviolent person who could be easily influenced by others. He took the stand and began to testify in his own defense after a lunch recess.
At the conclusion of his direct testimony, the trial judge declared a 15-minute recess, and, without advance notice to counsel, ordered that petitioner not be allowed to talk to anyone, including his lawyer, during the break. When the trial resumed, counsel moved for a mistrial. The judge denied the motion, explaining that petitioner “was in a sense then a ward of the Court. He was not entitled to be cured or assisted or helped approaching his cross examination.” App. 4-5.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed petitioner’s conviction. State v. Perry, 278 S. C. 490, 299 S. E. 2d 324 (1983). It concluded that Geders was not controlling because our opinion in that case had emphasized the fact that a defendant would normally confer with counsel during an overnight recess and that we had explicitly stated that “we do not deal with . . . limitations imposed in other circumstances.” Geders v. United States, supra, at 91. The state court explained:
“We attach significance to the words ‘normally confer.’ Normally, counsel is not permitted to confer with his defendant client between direct examination and cross examination. Should counsel for a defendant, after direct examination, request the judge to declare a recess so that he might talk with his client before cross examination begins, the judge would and should unhesitatingly deny the request.” 278 S. C., at 491-494, 299 S. E. 2d, at 325-326.
Justice Ness dissented. He pointed out that a defendant would normally confer with his lawyer during a short routine recess and therefore that Geders should apply. Moreover, in his opinion the importance of protecting the defendant’s fundamental right to the assistance of counsel far outweighs the negligible value of preventing the lawyer from “coaching” his or her client during a brief recess.
Thereafter, petitioner sought and obtained a federal writ of habeas corpus. Applying settled law in the Fourth Circuit, the District Court held that although a defendant has no right to be coached on cross-examination, he does have a right to counsel during a brief recess and he need not demonstrate prejudice from the denial of that right in order to have his conviction set aside. App. 17-19; see United States v. Allen, 542 F. 2d 630, 633-634 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 908 (1977); Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F. 2d 1205, 1206-1207 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U. S. 907 (1983).
The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed. 832 F. 2d 837 (1987). It agreed with the District Court that Geders applied and that constitutional error had occurred, but it concluded that petitioner’s conviction should stand because the error was not prejudicial. This conclusion rested on the court’s view that our opinions in United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), implied that trial errors of this kind do not pose such a fundamental threat to a fair trial that reversal of a conviction should be automatic. After a review of the record, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence against petitioner was “overwhelming,” 832 F. 2d, at 843, and that there was no basis for believing that his performance on cross-examination would have been different had he been given an opportunity to confer with his lawyer during the brief recess.
Four judges dissented. They argued that Geders had been properly interpreted in earlier Fourth Circuit cases to require automatic reversal and that the majority’s reliance on Strickland was misplaced because the prejudice inquiry in that case was employed to determine whether a Sixth Amendment violation had occurred — not to determine the consequences of an acknowledged violation. Moreover, they reasoned that the prejudice inquiry was particularly inappropriate in this context because it would almost inevitably require a review of private discussions between client and lawyer.
Because the question presented by this case is not only important, but also one that frequently arises, we granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 976 (1988).
II
There is merit in petitioner’s argument that a showing of prejudice is not an essential component of a violation of the rule announced in Geders. In that case, we simply reversed the defendant’s conviction without pausing to consider the extent of the actual prejudice, if any, that resulted from the defendant’s denial of access to his lawyer during the overnight recess. That reversal was consistent with the view we have often expressed concerning the fundamental importance of the criminal defendant’s constitutional right to be represented by counsel. See, e. g., United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S., at 653-654; Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 23, n. 8 (1967); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 76 (1942).
The disposition in Geders was also consistent with our later decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), in which we considered the standard for determining whether counsel’s legal assistance to his client was so inadequate that it effectively deprived the client of the protections guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. In passing on such claims of “‘actual ineffectiveness,’” id., at 686, the “benchmark . . . 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.” Ibid. More specifically, a defendant must show “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and that “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Id., at 687. Prior to our consideration of the standard for measuring the quality of the lawyer’s work, however, we had expressly noted that direct governmental interference with the right to counsel is a different matter. Thus, we wrote:
“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).” Id., at 686.
Our citation of Geders in this context was intended to make clear that “[a]ctual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether,” Strickland v. Washington, supra, at 692, is not subject to the kind of prejudice analysis that is appropriate in determining whether the quality of a lawyer’s performance itself has been constitutionally ineffective. See Benson v. Ohio, ante, at 88; United States v. Cronic, supra, at 659, and n. 25. Thus, we cannot accept the rationale of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Ill
We are persuaded, however, that the underlying question whether petitioner had a constitutional right to confer with his attorney during the 15-minute break in his testimony — a question that we carefully preserved in Geders — was correctly resolved by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Admittedly, the line between the facts of Geders and the facts of this case is a thin one. It is, however, a line of constitutional dimension. Moreover, contrary to the views expressed by the dissenting member of the South Carolina Supreme Court, see n. 1, supra, it is not one that rests on an assumption that trial counsel will engage in unethical “coaching.”
The distinction rests instead on the fact that when a defendant becomes a witness, he has no constitutional right to consult with his lawyer while he is testifying. He has an absolute right to such consultation before he begins to testify, but neither he nor his lawyer has a right to have the testimony interrupted in order to give him the benefit of counsel’s advice.
The reason for the rule is one that applies to all witnesses — not just defendants. It is a common practice for a judge to instruct a witness not to discuss his or her testimony with third parties until the trial is completed. Such nondiscussion orders are a corollary of the broader rule that witnesses may be sequestered to lessen the danger that their testimony will be’ influenced by hearing what other witnesses have to say, and to increase the likelihood that they will confine themselves to truthful statements based on their own recollections. The defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him immunizes him from such physical sequestration. Nevertheless, when he assumes the role of a witness, the rules that generally apply to other witnesses — rules that serve the truth-seeking function of the trial — are generally applicable to him as well. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate for a trial judge to decide, after listening to the direct examination of any witness, whether the defendant or a nondefendant, that cross-examination is more likely to elicit truthful responses if it goes forward without allowing the witness an opportunity to consult with third parties, including his or her lawyer.
In other words, the truth-seeking function of the trial can be impeded in ways other than unethical “coaching.” Cross-examination often depends for its effectiveness on the ability of counsel to punch holes in a witness’ testimony at just the right time, in just the right way. Permitting a witness, including a criminal defendant, to consult with counsel after direct examination but before cross-examination grants the witness an opportunity to regroup and regain a poise and sense of strategy that the unaided witness would not possess. This is true even if we assume no deceit on the part of the witness; it is simply an empirical predicate of our system of adversary rather than inquisitorial justice that cross-examination of a witness who is uncounseled between direct examination and cross-examination is moré likely to lead to the discovery of truth than is cross-examination of a witness who is given time to pause and consult with his attorney. “Once the defendant places himself at the very heart of the trial process, it only comports with basic fairness that the story presented on direct is measured for its accuracy and completeness by uninfluenced testimony on cross-examination.” United States v. DiLapi, 651 F. 2d 140, 151 (CA2 1981) (Mishler, J., concurring), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 938 (1982).
Thus, just as a trial judge has the unquestioned power to refuse to declare a recess at the close of direct testimony — or at any other point in the examination of a witness — we think the judge must also have the power to maintain the status quo during a brief recess in which there is a virtual certainty that any conversation between the witness and the lawyer would relate to the ongoing testimony. As we have said, we do not believe the defendant has a constitutional right to discuss that testimony while it is in process.
The interruption in Geders was of a different character because the normal consultation between attorney and client that occurs during an overnight recess would encompass matters that go beyond the content of the defendant’s own testimony-matters that the defendant does have a constitutional right to discuss with his lawyer, such as the availability of other witnesses, trial tactics, or even the possibility of negotiating a plea bargain. It is the defendant’s right to unrestricted access to his lawyer for advice on a variety of trial-related matters that is controlling in the context of a long recess. See Geders v. United States, 425 U. S., at 88. The fact that such discussions will inevitably include some consideration of the defendant’s ongoing testimony does not compromise that basic right. But in a short recess in which it is appropriate to presume that nothing but the testimony will be discussed, the testifying defendant does not have a constitutional right to advice.
Our conclusion does not mean that trial judges must forbid consultation between a defendant and his counsel during such brief recesses. As a matter of discretion in individual cases, or of practice for individual trial judges, or indeed, as a matter of law in some States, it may well be appropriate to permit such consultation. We merely hold that the Federal Constitution does not compel every trial judge to allow the defendant to consult with his lawyer while his testimony is in progress if the judge decides that there is a good reason to interrupt the trial for a few minutes.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
“I agree with the Fourth Circuit decision in [United States] v. Allen, [542 F. 2d 630 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 908 (1977)], which held the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is so fundamental that it should never be interfered with for any length of time absent some compelling reason. See also Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F. 2d 1205 (4th Cir. 1982) [,cert. denied, 461 U. S. 907 (1983)]. To allow defendants to be deprived of counsel during court-ordered recesses is to assume the worst of our system of criminal justice, i. e., that defense lawyers will urge their clients to lie under oath. I am unwilling to make so cynical an assumption, it being my belief that the vast majority of lawyers take seriously their ethical obligations as officers of the court.
“Even if that assumption is to be made, the Geders opinion pointed out that opposing counsel and the trial judge are not without weapons to combat the unethical lawyer. The prosecutor is free to cross-examine concerning the extent of any ‘coaching,’ or the trial judge may direct the examination to continue without interruption until completed. Additionally, as noted in Allen, a lawyer and client determined to lie will likely invent and polish the story long before trial; thus, the State benefits little from depriving a defendant of counsel during short recesses.
“I think the Sixth Amendment right to counsel far outweighs the negligible value of restricting that right for a few minutes during trial.” State v. Perry, 278 S. C., at 495-497, 299 S. E. 2d, at 327-328 (dissenting opinion).
Federal and state courts since Geders have expressed varying views on the constitutionality of orders barring a criminal defendant’s access to his or her attorney during a trial recess. See Sanders v. Lane, 861 F. 2d 1033 (CA7 1988) (denial of access to counsel during lunchtime recess while defendant still on witness stand violation of the Sixth Amendment without consideration of prejudice, but error held harmless); Bova v. Dugger, 858 F. 2d 1539, 1540 (CA11 1988) (15-minute recess “sufficiently long to permit meaningful consultation between defendant and his counsel” and therefore bar on attorney-defendant discussion constitutional violation even though defendant on stand during cross-examination); Crutchfield v. Wainwright, 803 F. 2d 1103 (CA11 1986) (en banc) (6 of 12 judges hold that if defendant or counsel indicates, on the record, a desire to confer during a recess, then any denial of consultation is a per se constitutional violation; 5 judges hold that restriction on discussion with counsel regarding testimony during brief recess near end of direct examination when no objection was raised does not constitute constitutional violation; 1 judge holds that a violation may exist if defendant and counsel actually desired to confer, but then prejudice need be shown to gain postconvietion relief), cert. denied, 483 U. S. 1008 (1987); Mudd v. United States, 255 U. S. App. D. C. 78, 79-83, 798 F. 2d 1509, 1510-1514 (1986) (order permitting defense counsel to speak with client about all matters other than client’s testimony during weekend recess while client on stand per se Sixth Amendment violation); United States v. Romano, 736 F. 2d 1432, 1435-1439 (CA11 1984) (Sixth Amendment violation when judge barred attorney-defendant discussion only regarding defendant’s testimony during 5-day recess), vacated in part on other grounds, 755 F. 2d 1401 (CA11 1985); United States v. Vasquez, 732 F. 2d 846, 847-848 (CA11 1984) (refusing to adopt rule “that counsel may interrupt court proceedings at any time to confer with his or her client about a matter in the case,” thus affirming denial of counsel’s request to consult with client during court’s sidebar explanation to counsel); Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F. 2d 1205, 1206-1207 (CA4 1982) (denial of access to counsel during lunch recess while defendant on stand constitutionally impermissible, but no deprivation of right to counsel here because no showing that defendant desired to consult with attorney and would have done so but for the restriction), cert denied, 461 U. S. 907 (1983); Bailey v. Redman, 657 F. 2d 21, 22-25 (CA3 1981) (no deprivation of right to counsel from order barring defendant from discussing ongoing testimony with anyone during overnight recess because no objection and no showing that defendant would have conferred with counsel but for order), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1153 (1982); United States v. DiLapi, 651 F. 2d 140, 147-149 (CA2 1981) (denial of access to counsel during 5-minute recess while defendant on stand Sixth Amendment violation, but nonprejudieial in this case), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 938 (1982); 651 F. 2d, at 149-151 (Mishler, J., concurring) (no Sixth Amendment right to consult with attorney during cross-examination; instead, Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements should govern whether such denial of access to counsel rendered trial unfair); United States v. Conway, 632 F. 2d 641, 643-645 (CA5 1980) (denial of access to counsel during lunch recess while defendant on stand violation of right to effective assistance of counsel); United States v. Bryant, 545 F. 2d 1035, 1036 (CA6 1976) (denial of access to counsel during lunch recess while defendant on stand violation of right to counsel); United States v. Allen, 542 F. 2d 630, 632-634 (CA4 1976) (“[A] restriction on a defendant’s right to consult with his attorney during a brief routine recess is constitutionally impermissible,” even while defendant is still on stand), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 908 (1977); Ashurst v. State, 424 So. 2d 691, 691-693 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982) (bar on defendant’s access to attorney during defendant’s testimony, including all breaks and recesses, violates right to counsel); State v. Mebane, 204 Conn. 585, 529 A. 2d 680 (1987) (denial of access to counsel during 21-minute recess while defendant on stand per se error), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1046-1047 (1988); Bailey v. State, 422 A. 2d 956, 957-964 (Del. 1980) (order prohibiting defendant from discussing testimony with anyone during overnight recess, not objected to, not error, and if error, harmless); McFadden v. State, 424 So. 2d 918, 919-920 (Fla. App. 1982) (error by instructing counsel not to discuss defendant’s ongoing testimony with him over holiday recess, but error held harmless because judge gave attorney ample opportunity to meet with defendant before proceeding to trial after recess); Bova v. State, 410 So. 2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 1982) (denial of access to counsel during 15-minute break during cross-examination of defendant violation of Sixth Amendment, but harmless error); People v. Stroner, 104 Ill. App. 3d 1, 5-6, 432 N. E. 2d 348, 351 (1982) (no violation of right to counsel when judge barred defendant from discussing testimony, but permitted other contact with attorney, during 30-minute recess while defendant on stand), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 96 Ill. 2d 204, 449 N. E. 2d 1326 (1983); Wooten-Bey v. State, 76 Md. App. 603, 607-616, 547 A. 2d 1086, 1088-1092 (1988) (order denying defendant consultation with counsel concerning ongoing testimony during lunch break error, but error cured by judge’s permitting discussion with counsel and opportunity for further redirect after defendant left stand); People v. Hagen, 86 App. Div. 2d 617, 446 N. Y. S. 2d 91 (1982) (Sixth Amendment violation when judge barred still-testifying defendant from discussing testimony with attorney during overnight recess).
See U. S. Const., Arndt. 6 (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence”).
See, e. g., Jerry Parks Equipment Co. v. Southeast Equipment Co., 817 F. 2d 340, 342-343 (CA5 1987) (improper discussion of case by defense witness with defense counsel); United States v. Greschner, 802 F. 2d 373, 375-376 (CA10 1986) (circumvention of sequestration order where “witnesses indirectly defeat its purpose by discussing testimony they have given and events in the courtroom with other witnesses who are to testify”), cert. denied, 480 U. S. 908 (1987); United States v. Johnston, 578 F. 2d 1352, 1355 (CA10) (exclusion of witnesses from courtroom a “time-honored practice designed to prevent the shaping of testimony by hearing what other witnesses say”; judge should avoid circumvention of rule by “making it clear that witnesses are not only excluded from the courtroom but also that they are not to relate to other witnesses what their testimony has been and what occurred in the courtroom”), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 931 (1978); Milanovich v. United States, 275 F. 2d 716, 720 (CA4 1960) (“[0]r-dinarily, when a judge exercises his discretion to exclude witnesses from the courtroom, it would seem proper for him to take the further step of making the exclusion effective to accomplish the desired result of preventing the witnesses from comparing the testimony they are about to give. If witnesses are excluded but not cautioned against communicating during the trial, the benefit of the exclusion may be largely destroyed”), aff’d in part and set aside in part on other grounds, 365 U. S. 551 (1961).
See, e. g., 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§1837-1838 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1976 and Supp. 1988); Fed. Rule of Evid. 615, “Exclusion of Witnesses.”
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 6 (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right. . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him”); see also, e. g., Coy v. Iowa, 487 U. S. 1012, 1016 (1988) (“We have never doubted . . . that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact”).
See United States v. DiLapi, 651 F. 2d, at 149-151 (Mishler, J., concurring) (emphasis in original):
“[W]e must also account for the function of cross-examination in the trial process in construing the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel.
“ ‘The age-old tool for ferreting out truth in the trial process is the right to cross-examination. “For two centuries past, the policy of the Anglo-American system of evidence has been to regard the necessity of testing by cross-examination as a vital feature of the law.’” 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (Chadbourn rev. 1974). The importance of cross-examination to the English judicial system, and its continuing importance since the inception of our judicial system in testing the facts offered by the defendant on direct, . . . suggests that the right to assistance of counsel did not include the right to have counsel’s advice on cross-examination.
“The Court has consistently acknowledged the vital role of cross-examination in the search for truth. It has recognized that the defendant’s decision to take the stand, and to testify on his own behalf, places into question his credibility as a witness and that the prosecution has the right to test his credibility on cross-examination. . . . Once the defendant places himself at the very heart of the trial process, it only comports with basic fairness that the story presented on direct is measured for its accuracy and completeness by uninfluenced testimony on cross-examination.”
Cf. 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974) (calling cross-examination “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth”); 4 J. Weinstein, Evidence ¶800[01] (1988) (cross-examination, a “‘vital feature’ of the Anglo-American system,” “‘sheds light on the witness’ perception, memory and narration,’ ” and “can expose inconsistencies, incompletenesses, and inaccuracies in his testimony”).
Alternatively, the judge may permit consultation between counsel and defendant during such a recess, but forbid discussion of ongoing testimony. See People v. Stroner, 104 Ill. App. 3d, at 5-6, 432 N. E. 2d, at 351 (no violation of right to counsel when judge barred defendant from discussing testimony, but permitted other contact with attorney, during 30-minute recess while defendant on stand), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 96 Ill. 2d 204, 449 N. E. 2d 1326 (1983).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the issue whether in a diversity action the federal court should follow state law or, alternatively, Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in determining when an action is commenced for the purpose of tolling the state statute of limitations.
I
According to the allegations of the complaint, petitioner, a carpenter, was injured on August 22, 1975, in Oklahoma City, Okla., while pounding a Sheffield nail into a cement wall. Respondent was the manufacturer of the nail. Petitioner claimed that the nail contained a defect which caused its head to shatter and strike him in the right eye, resulting in permanent injuries. The defect was allegedly caused by respondent’s negligence in manufacture and design.
Petitioner is a resident of Oklahoma, and respondent is a foreign corporation having its principal place of business in a State other than Oklahoma. Since there was diversity of citizenship, petitioner brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The complaint was filed on August 19, 1977. Although summons was issued that same day, service of process was not made on respondent’s authorized service agent until December 1, 1977. On January 5, 1978, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the applicable Oklahoma statute of limitations. Although the complaint had been filed within the 2-year statute of limitations, Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 95 (1971), state law does not deem the action “commenced” for purposes of the statute of limitations until service of the summons on the defendant, Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 97 (1971). If the complaint is filed within the limitations period, however, the action is deemed to have commenced from that date of filing if the plaintiff serves the defendant within 60 days, even though that service may occur outside the limitations period. Ibid. In this case, service was not effectuated until long after this 60-day period had expired. Petitioner in his reply brief to the motion to dismiss admitted that his case would be foreclosed in state court, but he argued that Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the manner in which an action is commenced in federal court for all purposes, including the tolling of the state statute of limitations.
The District Court dismissed the complaint as barred by the Oklahoma statute of limitations. 452 F. Supp. 243 (1978). The court concluded that Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 97 (1971) was “an integral part of the Oklahoma statute of limitations,” 452 F. Supp., at 245, and therefore under Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U. S. 530 (1949), state law applied. The court rejected the argument that Ragan had been implicitly overruled in Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460 (1965).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 592 F. 2d 1133 (1979). That court concluded that Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 97 (1971), was in “direct conflict” with Rule 3. 592 P. 2d, at 1135. However; the Oklahoma statute was “indistinguishable” from the statute involved in Ragan, and the court felt itself “constrained” to follow Ragan. 592 F. 2d, at 1136.
We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 823 (1979), because of a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. We now affirm.
II
The question whether state or federal law should apply on various issues arising in an action based on state law which has been brought in federal court under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction has troubled this Court for many years. In the landmark decision of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), we overturned the rule expressed in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 (1842), that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction need not, in matters of “general jurisprudence,” apply the nonstatutory law of the State. The Court noted that “[diversity of citizenship jurisdiction was conferred in order to prevent apprehended discrimination in state courts against those not citizens of the State,” Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, at 74. The doctrine of Swift v. Tyson had led to the undesirable results of discrimination in favor of non-citizens, prevention of uniformity in the administration of state law, and forum shopping. 304 U. S., at 74-75. In response, we established the rule that “[e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any [diversity] case is the law of the State,” id., at 78.
In Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99 (1945), we addressed ourselves to “the narrow question whether, when no recovery could be had in a State court because the action is barred by the statute of limitations, a federal court in equity can take cognizance of the suit because there is diversity of citizenship between the parties,” id., at 107. The Court held that the Erie doctrine applied to suits in equity as well as to actions at law. In construing Erie we noted that “[i]n essence, the intent of that decision was to insure that, in all cases where a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in a State court.” 326 U. S., at 109. We concluded that the state statute of limitations should be applied. “Plainly enough, a statute that would completely bar recovery in a suit if brought in a State court bears on a State-created right vitally and not merely formally or negligibly. As to consequences that so intimately affect recovery or non-recovery a federal court in a diversity case should follow State law.” Id., at 110.
The decision in York led logically to our holding in Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., supra. In Ragan, the plaintiff had filed his complaint in federal court on September 4, 1945, pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The accident from which the claim arose had occurred on October 1, 1943. Service was made on the defendant on December 28, 1945. The applicable statute of limitations supplied by Kansas law was two years. Kansas had an additional statute which provided: “An action shall be deemed commenced within the meaning of [the statute of limitations], as to each defendant, at the date of the summons which is served on him. . . . An attempt to commence an action shall be deemed equivalent to the commencement thereof within the meaning of this article when the party faithfully, properly and diligently endeavors to procure a service; but such attempt must be followed by the first publication or service of the summons within sixty days.” Kan. Gen. Stat. § 60-308 (1935). The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Kansas statute of limitations barred the action since service had not been made within either the 2-year period or the 60-day period. It was conceded that had the case been brought in Kansas state court it would have been barred. Nonetheless, the District Court held that the statute had been tolled by the filing of the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed because “the requirement of service of summons within the statutory period was an integral part of that state’s statute of limitations.” Ragan, 337 U. S., at 532.
We affirmed, relying on Ene and York. “We cannot give [the cause of action] longer life in the federal court than it would have had in the state court without adding something to the cause of action. We may not do' that consistently with Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins.” 337 U. S., at 533-534. We rejected the argument that Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governed the manner in which an action was commenced in federal court for purposes of tolling the state statute of limitations. Instead, we held that the service of summons statute controlled because it was an integral part of the state statute of limitations, and under York that statute of limitations was part of the state-law cause of action.
Ragan was not our last pronouncement in this difficult area, however. In 1965 we decided Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, holding that in a civil action where federal jurisdiction was based upon diversity of citizenship, Rule 4 (d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than state law, governed the manner in which process was served. Massachusetts law required in-hand service on an executor or administrator of an estate, whereas Rule 4 permits service by leaving copies of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s home with some person “of suitable age and discretion.” The Court noted that in the absence of a conflicting state procedure, the Federal Rule would plainly control, 380 U. S., at 465. We stated that the “outcome-determination” test of Erie and York had to be read with reference to the “twin aims” of Erie: “discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.” 380 U. S., at 468. We determined that the choice between the state in-hand service rule and the Federal Rule “would be of scant, if any, relevance to the choice of a forum,” for the plaintiff “was not presented with a situation where application of the state rule would wholly bar recovery; rather, adherence to the state rule would have resulted only in altering the way in which process was served.” Id., at 469 (footnote omitted). This factor served to distinguish that case from York and Ragan. See 380 U. S., at 469, n. 10.
The Court in Hanna, however, pointed out “a more fundamental flaw” in the defendant’s argument in that case. Id., at 469. The Court concluded that the Erie doctrine was simply not the appropriate test of the validity and applicability of one of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
“The Erie rule has never been invoked to void a Federal Rule. It is true that there have been cases where this Court had held applicable a state rule in the face of an argument that the situation was governed by one of the Federal Rules. But the holding of each such ease was not that Erie commanded displacement of a Federal Rule by an inconsistent state rule, but rather that the scope of the Federal Rule was not as broad as the losing party urged, and therefore, there being no Federal Rule which covered the point in dispute, Erie commanded the enforcement of state law.” 380 U. S., at 470.
The Court cited Ragan as one of the examples of this proposition, 380 U. S., at 470, n. 12. The Court explained that where the Federal Rule was clearly applicable, as in Hanna, the test was whether the Rule was within the scope of the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2072, and if so, within a constitutional grant of power such as the Necessary and Proper Clause of Art. I. 380 U. S., at 470-472.
Ill
The present case is indistinguishable from Ragan. The statutes in both cases require service of process to toll the statute of limitations, and in fact the predecessor to the Oklahoma statute in this case was derived from the predecessor to the Kansas statute in Ragan. See Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co. v. Davis, 48 Okla. 14, 22, 145 P. 337, 340 (1914). Here, as in Ragan, the complaint was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction within the 2-year statute of limitations, but service of process did not occur until after the 2-year period and the 60-day service period had run. In both cases the suit would concededly have been barred in the applicable state court, and in both instances the state service statute was held to be an integral part of the statute of limitations by the lower court more familiar than we with state law. Accordingly, as the Court of Appeals held below, the instant action is barred by the statute of limitations unless Ragan is no longer good law.
Petitioner argues that the analysis and holding of Ragan did not survive our decision in Hanna. Petitioner’s position is that Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 97 (1971), is in direct conflict with the Federal Rule. Under Hanna, petitioner contends, the appropriate question is whether Rule 3 is within the scope of the Rules Enabling Act and, if so, within the constitutional power of Congress. In petitioner’s view, the Federal Rule is to be applied unless it violates one of those two restrictions. This argument ignores both the force of stare decisis and the specific limitations that we carefully placed on the Hanna analysis.
We note at the outset that the doctrine of stare decisis weighs heavily against petitioner in this case. Petitioner seeks to have us overrule our decision in Ragan. Stare decisis does not mandate that earlier decisions be enshrined forever, of course, but it does counsel that we use caution in rejecting established law. In this case, the reasons petitioner asserts for overruling Ragan are the same factors which we concluded in Hanna did not undermine the validity of Ragan. A litigant who in effect asks us to reconsider not one but two prior decisions bears a heavy burden of supporting such a change in our jurisprudence. Petitioner here has not met that burden.
This Court in Hanna distinguished Ragan rather than overruled it, and for good reason. Application of the Hanna analysis is premised on a “direct collision” between the Federal Rule and the state law. 380 U. S., at 472. In Hanna itself the “clash” between Rule 4 (d) (1) and the state in-hand service requirement was “unavoidable.” 380 U. S., at 470. The first question must therefore be whether the scope of the Federal Rule in fact is sufficiently broad to control the issue before the Court. It is only if that question is answered affirmatively that the Hanna analysis applies.
As has already been noted, we recognized in Hanna that the present case is an instance where “the scope of the Federal Rule [is] not as broad as the losing party urge[s], and therefore, there being no Federal Rule which cover[s] the point in dispute, Erie command[s] the enforcement of state law.” Ibid. Rule 3 simply states that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” There is no indication that the Rule was intended to toll a state statute of limitations, much less that it purported to displace state tolling rules for purposes of state statutes of limitations. In our view, in diversity actions Rule 3 governs the date from which various timing requirements of the Federal Rules begin to run, but does not affect state statutes of limitations. Cf. 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1057, pp. 190-191 (1969); id., § 1051, at 165-166.
In contrast to Rule 3, the Oklahoma statute is a statement of a substantive decision by that State that actual service on, and accordingly actual notice by, the defendant is an integral part of the several policies served by the statute of limitations. See C & C Tile Co. v. Independent School District No. 7 of Tulsa County, 503 P. 2d 554, 559 (Okla. 1972). The statute of limitations establishes a deadline after which the defendant may legitimately have peace of mind; it also recognizes that after a certain period of time it is unfair to require the defendant to attempt to piece together his defense to an old claim. A requirement of actual service promotes both of those functions of the statute. See generally ibid.; Seitz v. Jones, 370 P. 2d 300, 302 (Okla. 1961). See also Ely, The Irrepressible Myth of Erie, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 693, 730-731 (1974). It is these policy aspects which make the service requirement an “integral” part of the statute of limitations both in this case and in Ragan. As such, the service rule must be considered part and parcel of the statute of limitations. Rule 3 does not replace such policy determinations found in state law. Rule 3 and Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 97 (1971), can exist side by side, therefore, each controlling its own intended sphere of coverage without conflict.
Since there is no direct conflict between the Federal Rule and the state law, the Hanna analysis does not apply. Instead, the policies behind Erie and Ragan control the issue whether, in the absence of a federal rule directly on point, state service requirements which are an integral part of the state statute of limitations should control in an action based on state law which is filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The reasons for the application of such a state service requirement in a diversity action in the absence of a conflicting federal rule are well explained in Erie and Ragan, see supra, at 744-746, and need not be repeated here. It is sufficient to note that although in this case failure to apply the state service law might not create any problem of forum shopping, the result would be an “inequitable administration” of the law. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S., at 468. There is simply no reason why, in the absence of a controlling federal rule, an action based on state law which concededly would be barred in the state courts by the state statute of limitations should proceed through litigation to judgment in federal court solely because of the fortuity that there is diversity of citizenship between the litigants. The policies underlying diversity jurisdiction do not support such a distinction between state and federal plaintiffs, and Erie and its progeny do not permit it.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Court of Appeals stated that summons was issued the following day, August 20. See 592 F. 2d 1133, 1134 (CA10 1979). However, the docket sheet in the District Court indicates that summons was issued August 19. See App. insert preceding p. A-l. Nothing turns on this difference.
The record does not indicate why this delay occurred. The face of the process record shows that the United States Marshal acknowledged receipt of the summons on December 1, 1977, and that service was effectuated that same day. Id., at A-5. At oral argument counsel for petitioner stated that the summons was found “in an unmarked folder in the filing cabinet” in counsel’s office some 90 days after the complaint had been filed. Tr. of Oral Arg. 3. See also id., at 6. Counsel conceded that the summons was not delivered to the Marshal until December 1. Id., at 3-4. It is unclear why the summons was placed in the filing cabinet. See id., at 17.
Under Oklahoma law, a suit for products liability, whether based on a negligence theory or a breach of implied warranty theory, is governed by the 2-year statute of limitations period of Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 95 (1971). See Hester v. Purex Corp., 534 P. 2d 1306, 1308 (Okla. 1975); O’Neal v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., 523 P. 2d 614, 615 (Okla. 1974); Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P. 2d 1353, 1361 (Okla. 1974). The period begins to run from the date of injury. O’Neal v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., supra, at 615; Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., supra, at 1361.
Oklahoma Stat., Tit. 12, §97 (1971), provides in pertinent part: “An action shall be deemed commenced, within the meaning of this article [the statute of limitations], as to each defendant, at the date of the summons which is served on him, or on a codefendant, who is a joint contractor or otherwise united in interest with him. ... An attempt to commence an action shall be deemed equivalent to the commencement thereof, within the meaning of this article, when the party faithfully, properly and diligently endeavors to procure a service; but such attempt must be followed by the first publication or service of the summons, . . . within sixty (60) days.”
Petitioner also argued in his reply brief to the motion to dismiss that respondent should have relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 — dismissal for failure to prosecute — rather than the state statute of limitations. Respondent in its response to the reply brief argued that a Rule 41 argument was implicit in its motion to dismiss. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed this issue.
Compare case below; Rose v. K. K. Masutoku Toy Factory Co., 597 F. 2d 215 (CA10 1979); Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 592 F. 2d 1118, 1121-1123 (CA10), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 856 (1979); Witherow v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 530 F. 2d 160, 163-166 (CA3 1976); Anderson v. Papillion, 445 F. 2d 841 (CA5 1971) (per curiam); Groninger v. Davison, 364 F. 2d 638 (CA8 1966); Sylvester v. Messler, 351 F. 2d 472 (CA6 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 1011 (1966), all holding that state law controls, with Smith v. Peters, 482 F. 2d 799 (CA6 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 989 (1974), and Sylvestri v. Warner & Swasey Co., 398 F. 2d 598 (CA2 1968), holding that Rule 3 controls. See also Ingram v. Kumar, 585 F. 2d 566, 568 (CA2 1978) (reaffirming Sylvestri), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 940 (1979); Prashar v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 480 F. 2d 947 (CA8 1973) (distinguishing Ragan), cert. denied sub nom. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Prashar, 415 U. S. 994 (1974); Chappell v. Rouch, 448 F. 2d 446 (CA10 1971) (distinguishing Ragan). See generally Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 180 U. S. App. D. C. 306, 308-311, 554 F. 2d 1165, 1167-1170 (1977) (dicta).
The Court in Hanna noted that “this Court has never before been confronted with a case where the applicable Federal Rule is in direct collision with the law of the relevant State.” 380 U. S., at 472.
Mr. Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in Hanna concluded that Ragan was no longer good law. 380 U. S., at 474-478. See also Sylvestri v. Warner & Swasey Co., 398 F. 2d 598 (CA2 1968).
This is not to suggest that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be narrowly construed in order to avoid a “direct collision” with state law. The Federal Rules should be given their plain meaning. If a direct collision with state law arises from that plain meaning, then the analysis developed in Hanna v. Plumer applies.
“Rule 3 simply provides that an action is commenced by filing the complaint and has as its primary purpose the measuring of time periods that begin running from' the date -of commencement; the rule does not state that filing tolls the statute of limitations.” 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1057, p. 191 (1969) (footnote omitted).
The Note of the Advisory Committee on the Rules states:
“When a Federal or State statute of limitations is pleaded as a defense, a question may arise under this rule whether the mere filing of the complaint stops the running of the statute, or whether any further step is required, such as, service of the summons and complaint or their delivery to the marshal for service. The answer to this question may depend on whether it is competent for the Supreme Court, exercising the power to make rules of procedure without affecting substantive rights, to vary the operation of statutes of limitations. The requirement of Rule 4 (a) that the clerk shall forthwith issue the summons and deliver it to the marshal for service will reduce the chances of such a-question arising.” 28 IT. S. C. App., pp. 394-395.
This Note establishes that the Advisory Committee predicted the problem which arose in Ragan and arises again in the instant case. It does not indicate, however, that Rule 3 was intended to serve as a tolling provision for statute of limitations purposes; it only suggests that the Advisory Committee thought the Rule might have that effect.
The Court suggested in Ragan that in suits to enforce rights under a federal statute Rule 3 means that filing of the complaint tolls the applicable statute of limitations. 337 U. S., at 533, distinguishing Bomar v. Keyes, 162 F. 2d 136, 140-141 (CA2), cert. denied, 332 U. S. 825 (1947). See Ely, The Irrepressible Myth of Erie, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 693, 729 (1974). See also Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 180 U. S. App. D. C., at 308, n. 19, 554 F. 2d, at 1167, n. 19; 4 Wright & Miller, supra, § 1056, and authorities collected therein. We do not here address the role of Rule 3 as a tolling provision for a statute of limitations, whether set by federal law or borrowed from state law, if the cause of action is based on federal law.
The importance of actual service, with corresponding actual notice, to the statute of limitations scheme in Oklahoma is further demonstrated by the fact that under Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 97 (1971), the statute of limitations must be tolled as to each defendant through individual service, unless a codefendant who is served is “united in interest” with the unserved defendant. That requirement, like the service requirement itself, does nothing to promote the general policy behind all statutes of limitations of keeping stale claims out of court. Instead, the service requirement furthers a different but related policy decision: that each defendant has a legitimate right not to be surprised by notice of a lawsuit after the period of liability has run. If the defendant is “united in interest” with a codefendant who has been served, then presumably the defendant will receive actual notice of the lawsuit through the co defendant and will not have his peace of mind disturbed when he receives official service of process. Similarly, the defendant will know that he must begin gathering his evidence while that task is still deemed by the State to be feasible.
The substantive link of § 97 to the statute of limitations is made clear as well by another provision of Oklahoma law. Under Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 151 (1971), “[a] civil action is deemed commenced by filing in the office of the court clerk of the proper court a petition and by the clerk’s issuance of summons thereon.” This is the state-law corollary to Rule 3. However, § 97, not § 151, controls the commencement of the lawsuit for statute of limitations purposes. See Tyler v. Taylor, 578 P. 2d 1214 (Okla. App. 1977). Just as § 97 and § 151 can both apply in state court for their separate purposes, so too § 97 and Rule 3 may both apply in federal court in a diversity action.
Since we hold that Rule 3 does not apply, it is unnecessary for us to address the second question posed by the Hanna analysis: whether Rule 3, if it applied, would be outside the scope of the Rules Enabling Act or beyond the power of Congress under the Constitution.
There is no indication that when petitioner filed his suit in federal court he had any reason to believe that he would be unable to comply with the service requirements of Oklahoma law or that he chose to sue in federal court in an attempt to avoid those service requirements.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
These cases are here on cross-appeals from the judgment of a three-judge District Court in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in the District Court were four California prison inmates — Booker T. Hillery, Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile — and three professional journalists — Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs. The defendants were Raymond K. Procunier, Director of the California Department of Corrections, and several subordinate officers in that department. The plaintiffs brought the suit to challenge the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, of § 415.071 of the California Department of Corrections Manual, which provides that “[p]ress and other media interviews with specific individual inmates will not be permitted.” They sought both injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Section 415.071 was promulgated by defendant Procunier under authority vested in him by § 5058 of the California Penal Code and is applied uniformly throughout the State’s penal system to prohibit face-to-face interviews between press representatives and individual inmates whom they specifically name and request to interview. In accordance with 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, a three-judge court was convened to hear the case.
The facts are undisputed. Pell, Segal, and Jacobs each requested permission from the appropriate corrections officials to interview inmates Spain, Bly, and Guile, respectively. In addition, the editors of a certain periodical requested permission to visit inmate Hillery to discuss the possibility of their publishing certain of his writings and to interview him concerning conditions at the prison. Pursuant to § 415.071, these requests were all denied. The plaintiffs thereupon sued to enjoin the continued enforcement of this regulation. The inmate plaintiffs contended that § 415.071 violates their rights of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Similarly, the media plaintiffs asserted that the limitation that this regulation places on their newsgathering activity unconstitutionally infringes the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The District Court granted the inmate plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that § 415.071, insofar as it prohibited inmates from having face-to-face communication with journalists, unconstitutionally infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment freedoms. With respect to the claims of the media plaintiffs, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court noted that “[e]ven under § 415.071 as it stood before today’s ruling [that inmates’ constitutional rights were violated by § 415.071] the press was given the freedom to enter the California institutions and interview at random,” and concluded “that the even broader access afforded prisoners by today’s ruling sufficiently protects whatever rights the press may have with respect to interviews with inmates.” 364 F. Supp. 196, 200.
In No. 73-754, Corrections Director Procunier and the other defendants appeal from the judgment of the District Court that § 415.071 infringes the inmate plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In No. 73-918, the media plaintiffs appeal the court’s rejection of their claims. We noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals and consolidated the cases for oral argument. 414 U. ¡3. 1127, 1155.
I
In No. 73-754, the inmate plaintiffs claim that § 415.071, by prohibiting their participation in face-to-face communication with newsmen and other members of the general public, violates their right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although the constitutional right of free speech has never been thought to embrace a right to require a journalist or any other citizen to listen to a person's views, let alone a right to require a publisher to publish those views in his newspaper, see Avins v. Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, 385 F. 2d 151 (CA3 1967); Chicago Joint Board, Clothing Workers v. Chicago Tribune Co., 435 F. 2d 470 (CA7 1970); Associates & Aldrich Co. v. Times Mirror Co., 440 F. 2d 133 (CA9 1971), we proceed upon the hypothesis that under some circumstances the right of free- speech includes a right to communicate a person’s views to any willing listener, including a willing representative of the press for the purpose of publication by a willing publisher.
We start with the familiar proposition that “[1] awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 285 (1948). See also Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319, 321 (1972). In the First Amendment context a corollary of this principle is that a prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. Thus, challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system, to whose custody and care the prisoner has been committed in accordance with due process of law.
An important function of the corrections system is the deterrence of crime. The premise is that by confining criminal offenders in a facility where they are isolated from the rest of society, a condition that most people presumably find undesirable, they and others will be deterred from committing additional criminal offenses. This isolation, of course, also serves a protective function by-quarantining criminal offenders for a given period of time while, it is hoped, the rehabilitative processes of the corrections system work to correct the offender’s demonstrated criminal proclivity. Thus, since most offenders will eventually return to society, another paramount objective of the corrections system is the rehabilitation of those committed to its custody. Finally, central to all other corrections goals is the institutional consideration of internal security within the corrections facilities themselves. It is in the light of these legitimate penal objectives that a court must assess challenges to prison regulations based on asserted constitutional rights of prisoners.
The regulation challenged here clearly restricts one manner of communication between prison inmates and members of the general public beyond the prison walls. But this is merely to state the problem, not to resolve it. For the same could be said of a refusal by corrections authorities to permit an inmate temporarily to leave the prison in order to communicate with persons outside. Yet no one could sensibly contend that the Constitution requires the authorities to give even individualized consideration to such requests. Cf. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1965). In order properly to evaluate the constitutionality of § 415.071, we think that the regulation cannot be considered in isolation but must be viewed in the light of the alternative means of communication permitted under the regulations with persons outside the prison. We recognize that there “may be particular qualities inherent in sustained, face-to-face debate, discussion and questioning,” and “that [the] existence of other alternatives [does not] extinguis[h] altogether any constitutional interest on the part of the appellees in this particular form of access.” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 765 (1972). But we regard the available “alternative means of [communication as] a relevant factor” in a case such as this where “we [are] called upon to balance First Amendment rights against [legitimate] governmental . . . interests.” Ibid.
One such alternative available to California prison inmates is communication by mail. Although prison regulations, until recently, called for the censorship of s+atements, inter alia, that “unduly complain” or “magnify grievances,” that express “inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views,” or that were deemed “defamatory” or “otherwise inappropriate,” we recently held that “the Department’s regulations authorized censorship of prisoner mail far broader than any legitimate interest of penal administration demands,” and accordingly affirmed a district court judgment invalidating the regulations. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 416 (1974). In addition, we held that “[t]he interest of prisoners and their correspondents in uncensored communication by letter, grounded as it is in the First Amendment, is plainly a 'liberty’ interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment even though qualified of necessity by the circumstance of imprisonment.” Accordingly, we concluded that any “decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimal procedural safeguards.” Id., at 418, 417. Thus, it is clear that the medium of written correspondence affords inmates an open and substantially unimpeded channel for communication with persons outside the prison, including representatives of the news media.
Moreover, the visitation policy of the California Corrections Department does not seal the inmate off from personal contact with those outside the prison. Inmates are permitted to receive limited visits from members of their families, the clergy, their attorneys, and friends of prior acquaintance. The selection of these categories of visitors is based on the Director’s professional judgment that such visits will aid in the rehabilitation of the inmate while not compromising the other legitimate objectives of the corrections system. This is not a case in which the selection is based on the anticipated content of the communication between the inmate and the prospective visitor. If a member of the press fell within any of these categories, there is no suggestion that he would not be permitted to visit with the inmate. More importantly, however, inmates have an unrestricted opportunity to communicate with the press or any other member of the public through their families, friends, clergy, or attorneys who are permitted to visit them at the prison. Thus, this provides another alternative avenue of communication between prison inmates and persons outside the prison.
We would find the availability of such alternatives unimpressive if they were submitted as justification for governmental restriction of personal communication among members of the general public. We have recognized, however, that “[t]he relationship of state prisoners and the state officers who supervise their confinement is far more intimate than that of a State and a private citizen,” and that the “internal problems of state prisons involve issues . . . peculiarly within state authority and expertise.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 492 (1973).
In Procunier v. Martinez, supra, we could find no legitimate governmental interest to justify the substantial restrictions that had there been imposed on written communication by inmates. When, however, the question involves the entry of people into the prisons for fáce-to-face communication with inmates, it is obvious that institutional considerations, such as security and related administrative problems, as well as the accepted and legitimate policy objectives of the corrections system itself, require that some limitation be placed on such visitations. So long as reasonable and effective means of communication remain open and no discrimination in terms of content is involved, we believe that, in drawing such lines, “prison officials must be accorded latitude.” Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S., at 321.
In a number of contexts, we have held “that reasonable 'time, place and manner’ regulations [of communicative activity] may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 115 (1972); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 575-576 (1941); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395, 398 (1953); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554-555 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39, 46-48 (1966). “The nature of a place, the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable.” Grayned, supra, at 116 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “normal activity” to which a prison is committed — the involuntary confinement and isolation of large numbers of people, some of whom have demonstrated a capacity for violence — necessarily requires that considerable attention be devoted to the maintenance of security. Although they would not permit prison officials to prohibit all expression or communication by prison inmates, security considerations are sufficiently paramount in the administration of the prison to justify the imposition of some restrictions on the entry of outsiders into the prison for face-to-face contact with inmates.
In this case the restriction takes the form of limiting visitations to individuals who have either a personal or professional relationship to the inmate — family, friends of prior acquaintance, legal counsel, and clergy. In the judgment of the state corrections officials, this visitation policy will permit inmates to have personal contact with those persons who will aid in their rehabilitation, while keeping visitations at a manageable level that will not compromise institutional security. Such considerations are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials, and, in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters. Courts cannot, of course, abdicate their constitutional responsibility to delineate and protect fundamental liberties. But when the issue involves a regulation limiting one of several means of communication by an inmate, the institutional objectives furthered by that regulation and the measure of judicial deference owed to corrections officials in their attempt to serve those interests are relevant in gauging the validity of the regulation.
Accordingly, in light of the alternative channels of communication that are open to prison inmates, we cannot say on the record in this case that this restriction on one manner in which prisoners can communicate with persons outside of prison is unconstitutional. So long as this restriction operates in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression, it falls within the “appropriate rules and regulations” to which “prisoners necessarily are subject,” Cruz v. Beto, supra, at 321, and does not abridge any First Amendment freedoms retained by prison inmates.
II
In No. 73-918, the media plaintiffs ask us to hold that the limitation on press interviews imposed by § 415.071 violates the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They contend that, irrespective of what First Amendment liberties may or may not be retained by prison inmates, members of the press have a constitutional right to interview any inmate who is willing to speak with them, in the absence of an individualized determination that the particular interview might create a clear and present danger to prison security or to some other substantial interest served by the corrections system. In this regard, the media plaintiffs do not claim any impairment of their freedom to publish, for California imposes no restrictions on what may be published about its prisons, the prison inmates, or the officers who administer the prisons. Instead, they rely on their right to gather news without governmental interference, which the media plaintiffs assert includes a right of access to the sources of what is regarded as newsworthy information.
We note at the outset that this regulation is not part of an attempt by the State to conceal the conditions in its prisons or to frustrate the press’ investigation and reporting of those conditions. Indeed, the record demonstrates that, under current corrections policy, both the press and the general public are accorded full opportunities to observe prison conditions. The Department of Corrections regularly conducts public tours through the prisons for the benefit of interested citizens. In addition, newsmen are permitted to visit both the maximum security and minimum security sections of the institutions and to stop and speak about any subject to any inmates whom they might encounter. If security considerations permit, corrections personnel will step aside to permit such interviews to be confidential. Apart from general access to all parts of the institutions, newsmen are also permitted to enter the prisons to interview inmates selected at random by the corrections officials. By the same token, if a newsman wishes to write a story on a particular prison program, he is permitted to sit in on group meetings and to interview the inmate participants. In short, members of the press enjoy access to California prisons that is not available to other members of the public.
The sole limitation on newsgathering in California prisons is the prohibition in § 415.071 of interviews with individual inmates specifically designated by representatives of the press. This restriction is of recent vintage, having been imposed in 1971 in response to a violent episode that the Department of Corrections felt was at least partially attributable to the former policy with respect to face-to-face prisoner-press interviews. Prior to the promulgation of § 415.071, every journalist had virtually free access to interview any individual inmate whom he might wish. Only members of the préss were accorded this privilege; other members of the general public did not have the benefit of such an unrestricted visitation policy. Thus, the promulgation of § 415.071 did not impose a discrimination against press access, but merely eliminated a special privilege formerly given to representatives of the press vis-á-vis members of the public generally.
In practice, it was found that the policy in effect prior to the promulgation of § 415.071 had resulted in press attention being concentrated on a relatively small number of inmates who, as a result, became virtual “public figures” within the prison society and gained a disproportionate degree of notoriety and influence among their fellow inmates. Because of this notoriety and influence, these inmates often became the source of severe disciplinary problems. For example, extensive press attention to an inmate who espoused a practice of noncooperation with prison regulations encouraged other inmates to follow suit, thus eroding the institutions’ ability to deal effectively with the inmates generally. Finally, in the words of the District Court, on August 21, 1971, “[d]uring an escape attempt at San Quentin three staff members and two inmates were killed. This was viewed by the officials as the climax of mounting disciplinary problems caused, in part, by its liberal posture with regard to press interviews, and on August 23 § 415.071 was adopted to mitigate the problem.” 364 F. Supp., at 198. It is against this background that we consider the media plaintiffs’ claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The constitutional guarantee of a free press “assures the maintenance of our political system and an open society,” Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 389 (1967), and secures “the paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials,” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 77 (1964). See also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964). By the same token, “'[a]ny system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ ” New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 714 (1971); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415 (1971); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). Correlatively, the First and Fourteenth Amendments also protect the right of the public to receive such information and ideas as are published. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S., at 762-763; Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564 (1969).
In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972), the Court went further and acknowledged that “news gathering is not without its First Amendment protections/’ id., at 707, for “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated,” id., at 681. In Branzburg the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments were not abridged by requiring reporters to disclose the identity of their confidential sources to a grand jury when that information was needed in the course of a good-faith criminal investigation. The Court there could “perceive no basis for holding that the public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings [was] insufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering that is said to result from insisting that reporters, like other citizens, respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial,” id., at 690-691.
In this case, the media plaintiffs contend that § 415.071 constitutes governmental interference with their news-gathering activities that is neither consequential nor uncertain, and that no substantial governmental interest can be shown to justify the denial of press access to specifically designated prison inmates. More particularly, the media plaintiffs assert that, despite the substantial access to California prisons and their inmates accorded representatives of the press — access broader than is accorded members of the public generally — face-to-face interviews with specifically designated inmates is such an effective and superior method of newsgathering that its curtailment amounts to unconstitutional state interference with a free press. We do not agree.
“It has generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally. . . . Despite the fact that news gathering may be hampered, the press is regularly excluded from grand jury proceedings, our own conferences, the meetings of other official bodies gathering in executive session, and the meetings of private organizations. Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded.” Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, at 684-685. Similarly, newsmen have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments bar government from interfering in any way with a free press. The Constitution does not, however, require government to accord the press special access to information not shared by members of the public generally. It is one thing to say that a journalist is free to seek out sources of information not available to members of the general public, that he is entitled to some constitutional protection of the confidentiality of such sources, cf. Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, and that government cannot restrain the publication of news emanating from such sources. Cf. New York Times Co. v. United States, supra. It is quite another thing to suggest that the Constitution imposes upon government the affirmative duty to make available to journalists sources of information not available to members of the public generally. That proposition finds no support in the words of the Constitution or in any decision of this Court. Accordingly, since § 415.071 does not deny the press access to sources of information available to members of the general public, we hold that it does not abridge the protections that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee.
For the reasons stated, we reverse the District Court’s judgment that § 415.071 infringes the freedom of speéeh of the prison inmates and affirm its judgment that that regulation does not abridge the constitutional right of a free press. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
This litigation was first initiated before a single judge and proceeded for nearly a year with the court’s attention focused on the interview practice at San. Quentin State Penitentiary, where all the inmate plaintiffs are confined, where the interviews sought by the media plaintiffs were to occur, and where all the defendants, except Mr. Procunier, are employed. After the matter was briefed and argued, the single judge preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of § 415.071. Only then did the defendants bring to the court’s attention that § 415.071 was a regulation of statewide application. Thereafter a three-judge court was convened to pass on the constitutional validity of the regulation.
The periodical has since ceased publication and its editors did not join the media plaintiffs in this litigation.
There is some question as to whether the interview between Hil-lery and the magazine editors was denied under the authority of §415.071. Department of Corrections interview policy permits, on a case-by-case basis, meetings between inmate authors and their publishers. The defendants contend that the interview was denied here because the officials made an individualized determination that the meeting was not in fact necessary to effectuate the publication of Hillery’s works. Hillery, on the other hand, notes that the editors had indicated to the prison officials that they also wished to discuss with him the conditions in the prison in order to publish an article on that subject. Thus, it appears that the denial was in all likelihood based at least in part on § 415.071.
This policy does not appear to be codified or otherwise expressly articulated in any generally applicable rule or regulation. The statement of visiting privileges for San Quentin State Penitentiary indicates that all visitors must be approved by the corrections officials and must be either “members of the family or friends of long standing.” It also permits visits by attorneys to their clients. Although nothing is said in this statement about visits by members of the clergy, there is no dispute among the parties that the practice of the Department of Corrections is to permit such visits. There is also no disagreement among the parties that this visitation policy is generally applied by the Department throughout the state corrections system.
It is suggested by the inmate appellees that the use of the mails as an alternative means of communication may not be effective in the case of prisoners who are inarticulate or even illiterate. There is no indication, however, that any of the four inmates before the Court suffer from either of these disabilities. Indeed, the record affirmatively shows that two of the inmates are published writers. Although the complaint was filed as a class action, the plaintiffs never moved the District Court to certify the case as a class action as required by Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 23 (b)(3) and (c). Thus, the short answer to the inmates’ contention is that there is neither a finding by the District Court nor support in the record for a finding that the alternative channels of communication are not an effective means for the inmate appellees to express themselves to persons outside the prison.
Even with respect to inmates who may not be literate or articulate, however, there is no suggestion that the corrections officials would not permit such inmates to seek the aid of fellow inmates or of family and friends who visit them to commit their thoughts to writing for communication to individuals in the general public. Cf. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969). Merely because such inmates may need assistance to utilize one of the alternative channels does not make it an ineffective alternative, unless, of course, the State prohibits the inmate from receiving such assistance.
The inmates argue that restricting their access to press representatives unconstitutionally burdens their First and Fourteenth Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Communication with the press, the inmates contend, provides them with their only effective opportunity to communicate their grievances, through the channel of public opinion, to the legislative and executive branches of the government. We think, however, that the alternative means of communication with the press that are available to prisoners, together with the substantial access to prisons that California accords the press and other members of the public, see infra, at 830-831, satisfies whatever right the inmates may have to petition the goverment through the press.
We also note that California accords prison inmates substantial opportunities to petition the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government directly. Section 2600 of the California Penal Code permits an inmate to correspond confidentially with any public officeholder. And various rules promulgated by the Department of Corrections explicitly permit an inmate to correspond with the Governor, any other elected state or federal official, and any appointed head of a state or federal agency. Similarly, California has acted to assure prisoners the right to petition for judicial relief. See, e. g., In re Jordan, 7 Cal. 3d 930, 500 P. 2d 873 (1972); In re Van Geldern, 5 Cal. 3d 832, 489 P. 2d 578 (1971); In re Harrell, 2 Cal. 3d 675, 470 P. 2d 640 (1970). Section 845.4 of the California Government Code also makes prison officials liable for intentional interference with the right of a prisoner to obtain judicial relief from his confinement.
This policy reflects a recognition that the conditions in this Nation’s prisons are a matter that is both newsworthy and of great public importance. As The Chief Justice has commented, we cannot “continue ... to brush under the rug the problems of those who are found guilty and subject to criminal sentence. ... It is a melancholy truth that it has taken the tragic prison outbreaks of the past three years to focus widespread public attention on this problem.” Burger, Our Options are Limited, 18 Vill. L. Rev. 165, 167 (1972). Along the same lines, The Chief Justice has correctly observed that “[i]f we want prisoners to change, public attitudes toward prisoners and ex-prisoners must change. ... A visit to most prisons will make you a zealot for prison reform.” W. Burger, For Whom the Bell Tolls, reprinted at 25 Record of N. Y. C. B. A. (Supp.) 14, 20, 21 (1970).
It cannot be contended that because California permits family, friends, attorneys, and clergy to visit inmates, it cannot limit visitations by the press. No member of the general public who does not have a personal or professional relationship to the inmate is permitted to enter the prison and name an inmate with whom he would like to engage in face-to-face discourse. Thus, the press is granted the same access in this respect to prison inmates as is accorded any member of the general public. Indeed, as is noted in the text, the aggregate access that the press has to California prisons and their inmates is substantially greater than that of the general public.
As Mr. Chief Justice Warren put the matter in writing for the Court in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1965), “[t]here are few restrictions on action which could not be clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased data flow. For example, the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen’s opportunities to gather information he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country is being run, but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these cases we must decide whether a particular subsection in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 102 Stat. 2467-2486,25 U. S. C. §§2701-2721 (1994 ed.), exempts tribes from paying the gambling-related taxes that chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes—taxes that States need not pay. We hold that it does not create such an exemption.
I
The relevant Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (Gaming Act) subsection, as codified in 25 U. S. C. § 2719(d)(1), reads as follows:
“The provisions of [the Internal Revenue Code of 1986] (including sections 1441, 3402(q), 6041, and 60501, and chapter 35 of such [Code]) concerning the reporting and withholding of taxes with respect to the winnings from gaming or wagering operations shall apply to Indian gaming operations conducted pursuant to this chapter, or under a Tribal-State compact entered into under section 2710(d)(3) of this title that is in effect, in the same manner as such provisions apply to State gaming and wagering operations.”
The subsection says that Internal Revenue Code provisions that “concer[n] the reporting and withholding of taxes” with respect to gambling operations shall apply to Indian tribes in the same way as they apply to States. The subsection also says in its parenthetical that those provisions “includ[e]” Internal Revenue Code “chapter 35.” Chapter 35, however, says nothing about the reporting or the withholding of taxes. Rather, that chapter simply imposes taxes — excise taxes and occupational taxes related to gambling — -from which it exempts certain state-controlled gambling activities. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. §4401(a) (1994 ed.) (imposing 0.25% excise tax on each wager); §4411 (imposing $50 occupational tax on each individual engaged in wagering business); §4402(3) (exempting state-operated gambling operations, such as lotteries).
In this lawsuit two Native American Indian Tribes, the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, claim that the Gaming Act subsection exempts them from paying those chapter 35 taxes from which States are exempt. Brief for Petitioners 34-36. They rest their claim upon the subsection’s explicit parenthetical reference to chapter 35. The Tenth Circuit rejected their claim on the ground that the subsection, despite its parenthetical reference, applies only to Code provisions that concern the “reporting and withholding of taxes.” 208 F. 3d 871, 883-884 (2000); see also 210 F. 3d 389 (2000). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, reached the opposite conclusion. Little Six, Inc. v. United States, 210 F. 3d 1361, 1366 (2000). We granted certiorari in order to resolve the conflict. We agree with the Tenth Circuit.
II
The Tribes’ basic argument rests upon the subsection’s explicit reference to “chapter 35” — contained in a parenthetical that refers to four other Internal Revenue Code provisions as well. The subsection’s language outside the parenthetical says that the subsection applies to those Internal Revenue Code provisions that concern “reporting and withholding.” The other four parenthetical references are to provisions that concern, or at least arguably concern, reporting and withholding. See 26 U. S. C. § 1441 (1994 ed. and Supp. V) (withholding of taxes for nonresident alien); § 3402(q) (withholding of taxes from certain gambling winnings); § 6041 (reporting by businesses of payments, including payments of gambling winnings, to others); §60501 (reporting by businesses of large cash receipts, arguably applicable to certain gambling winnings or receipts).
But what about chapter 35? The Tribes eorrectly point out that chapter 35 has nothing to do with “reporting and withholding.” Brief for Petitioners 28-29. They add that the reference must serve some purpose, and the only purpose that the Tribes can find is that of expanding the scope of the Gaming Act’s subsection beyond reporting and withholding provisions — to the tax-imposing provisions that chapter 35 does contain. The Gaming Act therefore must exempt them (like States) from those tax payment requirements. The Tribes add that at least the reference to chapter 35 makes the subsection ambiguous. And they ask us to resolve the ambiguity by applying a special Indian-related interpretative canon, namely, “‘statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.’” Id., at 13 (quoting Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U. S. 759, 766 (1985)).
We cannot accept the Tribes’ claim. We agree with the Tribes that rejecting their argument reduces the phrase “(including... chapter 35)...” to surplusage. Nonetheless, we can find no other reasonable reading of the statute.
A
The language of the statute is too strong to bend as the Tribes would wish — i. e., so that it gives the chapter 35 reference independent operative effect. For one thing, the language outside the parenthetical is unambiguous. It says without qualification that the subsection applies to “provisions ... concerning the reporting and withholding of taxes.” And the language inside the parenthetical, prefaced with the word “including,” literally says the same. To “include” is to “contain” or “comprise as part of a whole.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 609 (1985). In this instance that which “contains” the parenthetical references — the “whole” of which the references are “parts” — is the phrase “provisions . . . concerning the reporting and withholding of taxes . . . .” The use of parentheses emphasizes the fact that that which is within is meant simply to be illustrative, hence redundant — a circumstance underscored by the lack of any suggestion that Congress intended the illustrative list to be complete. . Cf. 26 U. S. C. § 3406 (1994 ed.) (backup withholding provision not mentioned in parenthetical).
Nor can one give the chapter 35 reference independent operative effect without' seriously rewriting the language of the rest of the statute. One would have to read the word “including” to mean what it does not mean, namely, “including ... and.” One would have to read the statute as if, for example, it placed “chapter 35” outside the parenthetical and said “provisions of the . . . Code including chapter 35 and also provisions ... concerning the reporting and withholding of taxes ....” Or, one would have to read the language as if it said “provisions of the . . . Code . . . concerning the taxation and the reporting and withholding of taxes . . . .” We mention this latter possibility because the congressional bill that became the law before us once did read that way. But when the bill left committee, it contained not the emphasized words (“the taxation and”) but the cross-reference to chapter 35.
We recognize the Tribes’ claim (made here for the first time) that one could avoid rewriting the statute by reading the language outside the parenthetical as if it referred to two kinds of “provisions of the . . . Code”: first, those “concerning the reporting and withholding of taxes with respect to the winnings from gaming,” and, second, those “concerning ... wagering operations.” See Reply Brief for Petitioners 8-10. The subsection’s grammar literally permits this reading. But that reading, even if ultimately comprehensible, is far too convoluted to believe Congress intended it. Nor is there any reason to think Congress intended to sweep within the subsection’s scope every Internal Revenue Code provision concerning wagering — a result that this, unnatural reading would accomplish.
The subject matter at issue also counsels against accepting the Tribes’ interpretation. That subject matter is tax exemption. When Congress enacts a tax exemption, it ordinarily does so explicitly. We can find no comparable instance in which Congress legislated an exemption through an inexplicit numerical cross-reference — especially a cross-reference that might easily escape notice.
As we have said, the more plausible role for the parenthetical to play in this subsection is that of providing an illustrative list of examples. So considered, “chapter 35” is simply a bad example — an example that Congress included inadvertently. The presence of a bad example in a statute does not warrant rewriting the remainder of the statute’s language. Nor does it necessarily mean that the statute is ambiguous, i. e., “capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 77 (1985). Indeed, in ordinary life, we would understand an analogous instruction — say, “Test drive some cars, including Plymouth, Nissan, Chevrolet, Ford, and Kitchenaid” — not as creating ambiguity, but as reflecting a mistake. Here too, in context, common sense suggests that the cross-reference is simply a drafting mistake, a failure to delete an inappropriate cross-reference in the bill that Congress later enacted into law. Cf. Little Six, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. 3d 1383, 1385 (CA Fed. 2000) (Dyk, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (“The language of the provision has all the earmarks of a simple mistake in legislative drafting”).
B
The Gaming Act’s legislative history on balance supports our conclusion. The subsection as it appeared in the original Senate bill applied both to taxation and to reporting and withholding. It read as follows:
“Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code... concerning the taxation and the reporting and withholding of taxes with respect to gambling or wagering operations shall apply to Indian gaming operations ... the same as they apply to State operations.” S. 555, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 37 (1987).
With the “taxation” language present, it would have made sense to include chapter 35, which concerns taxation, in a parenthetical that included other provisions that concern reporting and withholding. But the Senate committee deleted the taxation language. Why did it permit the cross-reference to chapter. 35 to remain? Committee documents do not say.
The Tribes argue that the committee intentionally left it in the statute in order to serve as a substitute for the word “taxation.” An amicus tries to support this view by pointing to a tribal representative’s testimony that certain Tribes were “opposed to any indication where Internal Revenue would be collecting taxes from the tribal bingo operations.” Hearings on S. 555 and S. 1303 before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 109 (1987) (statement of Lionel John, Executive Director of United South and Eastern Tribes). . Other Tribes thought the “taxation” language too “vague,” preferring a clear statement “that the Internal Revenue Service is not being granted authority to tax tribes.” Id., at 433,435 (statement of Charles W. Blackwell, Representative of the American Indian Tribal Government and Policy Consultants, Inc.).
Substitution of “chapter 35” for the word “taxation,” however, could not have served the tribal witnesses purposes, for doing so took from the bill the very words that made clear the tribes would not be taxed and substituted language that made it more likely they would be taxed. Nor can we believe that anyone seeking to grant a tax exemption would intentionally substitute a confusion-generating numerical cross-reference, see Part II-A, supra, for pre-existing language that unambiguously carried out that objective. It is far easier to believe that the drafters, having included the entire parenthetical while the word “taxation” was still part of the bill, unintentionally failed to remove what had become a superfluous numerical cross-reference — particularly since the tax-knowledgeable Senate Finance Committee never received the opportunity to examine the bill. Cf. S. Doc. No. 100-1, Senate Manual 30 (1987) (proposed legislation concerning revenue measures shall be referred to the Committee on Finance).
Finally, the Tribes point to a letter written by one of the Gaming Act’s authors, stating that “by including reference to Chapter 35,” Congress intended “that the tax treatment of wagers conducted by tribal governments be the same as that for wagers conducted by state governments under Chapter 35.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 113a. This letter, however, was written after the event. It expresses the views of only one member of the committee. And it makes no effort to explain the critical legislative circumstance, namely, the elimination of the word “taxation” from the bill. The letter may express the Senator’s interpretive preference, but that preference cannot overcome the language of the statute and the related considerations we have discussed. See Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U. S. 291, 298 (1995) (A “statement [made] not during the legislative process, but after the statute became law ... is not a statement upon which other legislators might have relied in voting for or against the Act, but it simply represents the views of one informed person on an issue about which others may (or may not) have thought differently”). Cf. New York Telephone Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 440 U. S. 519, 564, n. 18 (1979) (Powell, J., dissenting) (“The comments ... of a single Congressman, delivered long after the original passage of the [act at issue], are of no aid in determining congressional intent...”).
In sum, to adopt the Tribes’ interpretation would read back into the Act the very word “taxation” that the Senate committee deleted. We ordinarily will not assume that Congress intended “‘to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded in favor of other language.’ ” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 443 (1987) (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359, 392-393 (1980)); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 200 (1974) (same); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 157 (1973) (same). There is no special reason for doing so here.
C
The Tribes point to canons of interpretation that favor their position. The Court has often said that “ ‘every clause and word of a statute’” should, “‘if possible,’” be given “ ‘effect.’ ” United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955) (quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883)). The Tribes point out that our interpretation deprives the words “chapter 35” of any effect. The Court has also said that “statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.” Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U. S., at 766; South Carolina v. Catawba Tribe, Inc., 476 U. S. 498, 520 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting). The Tribes point out that our interpretation is not to the Indians’ benefit.
Nonetheless, these canons do not determine how to read this statute. For one thing, canons are not mandatory rules. They are guides that “need not be conclusive.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 115 (2001). They are designed to help judges determine the Legislature’s intent as embodied in particular statutory language. And other circumstances evidencing congressional intent can overcome their force. In this instance, to accept as conclusive the canons on which the Tribes rely would produce an interpretation that we conclude would conflict with the intent embodied in the statute Congress wrote. Cf. Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 691 (1931) (upholding taxation where congressional intent reasonably clear); Superintendent of Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner, 295 U. S. 418 (1935) (same); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, supra (same). In light of the considerations discussed earlier, we cannot say that the statute is “fairly capable” of two interpretations, cf. Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, supra, at 766, nor that the Tribes’ interpretation is fairly “possible.”
Specific canons “are often countered ... by some maxim pointing in a different direction.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, supra, at 115. The canon requiring a court to give effect to each word “if possible” is sometimes offset by the canon that permits a court to reject words “as surplus-age” if “inadvertently inserted or if repugnant to the rest of the statute . . . .” K. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition 525 (1960). And the latter canon has particular force here where the surplus words consist simply of a numerical cross-reference in a parenthetical. Cf. Cabell Huntington Hospital, Inc. v. Shalala, 101 F. 3d 984, 990 (CA4 1996) (“A parenthetical is, after all, a parenthetical, and it cannot be used to overcome the operative terms of the statute”).
Moreover, the canon that assumes Congress intends its statutes to benefit the tribes is offset by the canon that warns us against interpreting federal statutes as providing tax exemptions unless those exemptions are clearly expressed. See United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U. S. 351, 354 (1988) (“[Exemptions from taxation . . . must be unambiguously proved”); Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U. S. 1, 6 (1956) (“[T]o be valid, exemptions to tax laws should be clearly expressed”); United States Trust Co. v. Helvering, 307 U. S. 57, 60 (1939) (“Exemptions from taxation do not rest upon implication”). Nor can one say that the pro-Indian canon is inevitably stronger — particularly where the interpretation of a congressional statute rather than an Indian treaty is at issue. Cf. post, at 100 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). This Court’s earlier cases are too individualized, involving too many different kinds of legal circumstances, to warrant any such assessment about the two canons’ relative strength. Compare, e. g., Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665, 675-676 (1912) (interpreting statement in treaty-related Indian land patents that land is “nontaxable” as creating property right invalidating later congressional effort to tax); Squire, supra, at 3 (Indian canon offsetting tax canon when related statutory provision and history make clear that language freeing Indian land “‘of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever’” includes tax); McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 411 U. S. 164, 174 (1973) (state tax violates principle of Indian sovereignty embodied in treaty), with Mescalero, supra (relying on tax canon to find Indians taxable); Choteau, supra (language makes clear no exemption); Five Tribes, supra (same).
Consequently, the canons here cannot make the difference for which the Tribes argue. We conclude that the judgments of the Tenth Circuit must be 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: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the following opinion.
Petitioners were convicted in an Alabama Circuit Court of assault with intent to murder in the shooting of one Reynolds after he and his wife parked their car on an Alabama highway to change a flat tire. The Alabama Court of Appeals affirmed, 44 Ala. App. 429, 211 So. 2d 917 (1968), and the Alabama Supreme Court denied review, 282 Ala. 725, 211 So. 2d 927 (1968). We granted certiorari, 394 U. S. 916 (1969). We vacate and remand.
Petitioners make two claims in this Court. First, they argue that they were subjected to a station-house lineup in circumstances so unduly prejudicial and conducive to irreparable misidentification as fatally to taint Reynolds’ in-court identifications of them at the trial. Second, they argue that the preliminary hearing prior to their indictment was a “critical stage” of the prosecution and that Alabama’s failure to provide them with appointed counsel at the hearing therefore unconstitutionally denied them the assistance of counsel.
I
The lineup of which petitioners complain was conducted on October 1, 1966, about two months after the assault and seven months before petitioners’ trial. Petitioners concede that since the lineup occurred before United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263, were decided on June 12, 1967, they cannot invoke the holding of those cases requiring the exclusion of in-court identification evidence which is tainted by exhibiting the accused to identifying witnesses before trial in the absence of counsel. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 296-301 (1967). Rather, they argue that in the circumstances here the conduct of the lineup was so unduly prejudicial as fatally to taint Reynolds’ in-court identification of them. This is a claim that must be determined on the totality of the surrounding circumstances. Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 301-302; Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968); Foster v. California, 394 U. S. 440 (1969).
At the trial Reynolds testified that at about 11:30 p. m. on July 24, 1966, he was engaged in changing a tire when three men approached from across the highway. One of them shot him from a short distance away. The three then ran up to within three or four feet. Reynolds arose from his stooped position and held on to his wife, who had left the car to watch him as he worked. One of the men put his hand on Mrs. Reynolds’ shoulder. Reynolds testified that this was Coleman. Within a few seconds a car with its lights on approached, and the three men turned and “ran across the road . . . .” As they turned to go, Reynolds was shot a second time. He identified petitioner Stephens as the gunman, stating that he saw him “in the car lights” while “looking straight at him.” Reynolds repeated on cross-examination his testimony on direct; he said he saw Coleman “face to face”; “I looked into his face,” “got a real good look at him.”
At the pretrial hearing on petitioners’ motion to suppress identification evidence, Detective Fordham testified that he had spoken briefly to Reynolds at the hospital two days after the assault and about two weeks later, and that on neither occasion was Reynolds able to provide much information about his assailants. At the hospital he gave a vague description — that the attackers were “young, black males, close to the same age and height.” Petitioners are both Negro; but Stephens was 18 and 6'2", and Coleman, 28 and 5'4%". However, Detective Fordham also testified that at the time Reynolds gave this description he was in considerable pain, and that consequently the questioning was very brief. The detective further stated that Reynolds did not identify any of his assailants from mug shots, but it does not appear whether pictures of petitioners were among those shown him. Detective Hart testified that a lineup was held on October 1 at the request of the police. He stated that Reynolds identified petitioner Stephens spontaneously before the formal lineup even began. “[T]he six men were brought in by the warden, up on the stage, and as Otis Stephens — he didn’t get to his position on the stage, which was number one, when Mr. Reynolds identified him as being one of his assailants.” Reynolds gave similar testimony: “As soon as he stepped inside the door — I hadn’t seen him previous to then until he stepped inside the door, and I recognized him . . . . Just as soon as he stepped up on the stage, I said, ‘That man, there, is the one; he is the one that shot me.’ ” Reynolds also testified that he identified Coleman at the lineup before Coleman could act on a request Reynolds had made that the lineup participants speak certain words used by the attackers. Reynolds admitted that he did not tell Detective Hart of his identification until later during the lineup, and the detective stated he could not recall whether Reynolds told him of the identification before or after Coleman spoke the words.
It cannot be said on this record that the trial court erred in finding that Reynolds’ in-court identification of the petitioners did not stem from an identification procedure at the lineup “so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Simmons v. United States, supra, at 384. Indeed, the court could find on the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing that Reynolds’ identifications were entirely based upon observations at the time of the assault and not at all induced by the conduct of the lineup. There is no merit in the three arguments offered by petitioners for a contrary conclusion.
First, Reynolds testified that when the police asked him to go to the city jail he “took [it] for granted” that the police had caught his assailants. But the record is utterly devoid of evidence that anything the police said or did prompted Reynolds' virtually spontaneous identification of petitioners among the lineup participants as the proceeding got under way.
Petitioners next contend that the lineup was unfair because they and their codefendant were the only ones required to say the words used by one of the attackers. There is some conflict in the testimony on this point. Petitioner Stephens testified that petitioners and their codefendant were the only ones who spoke the words. Reynolds testified that not all the men in the lineup spoke them. But Detective Hart stated that all the participants spoke the words. In any case, the court could find on the evidence that Reynolds identified both petitioners before either said anything, and that therefore any failure to require the other participants to say the same words did not aid or influence his identifications.
Finally, petitioner Coleman contends that he was unfairly singled out to wear a hat though all the other participants were bareheaded. One of the attackers had worn a hat. Although the record demonstrates that Coleman did in fact wear a hat at the lineup, nothing in the record shows that he was required to do so. Moreover, it does not appear that Reynolds’ identification of Coleman at the lineup was based on the fact that he remembered that Coleman had worn a hat at the time of the assault. On the contrary, the court could conclude from his testimony that Reynolds “asked them to make John Henry Coleman to take his hat off, or move it back,” because he wanted to see Coleman’s face more clearly.
II
This Court has held that a person accused of crime “requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him,” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 69 (1932), and that that constitutional principle is not limited to the presence of counsel at trial. “It is central to that principle that in addition to counsel’s presence at trial, the accused is guaranteed that he need not stand alone against the State at any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel’s absence might derogate from the accused’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. Wade, supra, at 226. Accordingly, “the principle of Powell v. Alabama and succeeding cases requires that we scrutinize any pretrial confrontation of the accused to determine whether the presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant’s basic right to a fair trial as affected by his right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself. It calls upon us to analyze whether potential substantial prejudice to defendant’s rights inheres in the particular confrontation and the ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice.” Id., at 227. Applying this test, the Court has held that “critical stages” include the pretrial type of arraignment where certain rights may be sacrificed or lost, Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, 54 (1961), see White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 (1963), and the pretrial lineup, United States v. Wade, supra; Gilbert v. California, supra. Cf. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), where the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination includes a right to counsel at a pretrial custodial interrogation. See also Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964).
The preliminary hearing is not a required step in an Alabama prosecution. The prosecutor may seek an indictment directly from the grand jury without a preliminary hearing. Ex parte Campbell, 278 Ala. 114, 176 So. 2d 242 (1965). The opinion of the Alabama Court of Appeals in this case instructs us that under Alabama law the sole purposes of a preliminary hearing 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. 44 Ala. App., at 433, 211 So. 2d, at 920. See Ala. Code, Tit. 15, §§ 139, 140, 151. The court continued:
“At the preliminary hearing . . . the accused is not required to advance any defenses, and failure to do so does not preclude him from availing himself of every defense he may have upon the trial of the case. Also Pointer v. State of Texas [380 U. S. 400 (1965)] bars the admission of testimony given at a pre-trial proceeding where the accused did not have the benefit of cross-examination by and through counsel. Thus, nothing occurring at the preliminary hearing in absence of counsel can substantially prejudice the rights of the accused on trial.” 44 Ala. App., at 433, 211 So. 2d, at 921.
This Court is of course bound by this construction of the governing Alabama law, Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684, 688 (1959); Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242, 244 (1953). However, from the fact that in cases where the accused has no lawyer at the hearing the Alabama courts prohibit the State’s use at trial of anything that occurred at the hearing, it does not follow that the Alabama preliminary hearing is not a “critical stage” of the State’s criminal process. The determination whether the hearing is a “critical stage” requiring the provision of counsel depends, as noted, upon an analysis “whether potential substantial prejudice to defendant’s rights inheres in the . . . confrontation and the ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice.” United States v. Wade, supra, at 227. Plainly the guiding hand of counsel at the preliminary hearing is essential to protect the indigent accused against an erroneous or improper prosecution. First, the lawyer’s skilled examination and cross-examination of witnesses may expose fatal weaknesses in the State’s case that may lead the magistrate to refuse to bind the accused over. Second, in any event, the skilled interrogation of witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State’s witnesses at the trial, or preserve testimony favorable to the accused of a witness who does not appear at the trial. Third, trained counsel can more effectively discover the case the State has against his client and make possible the preparation of a proper defense to meet that case at the trial. Fourth, counsel can also be influential at the preliminary hearing in making effective arguments for the accused on such matters as the necessity for an early psychiatric examination or bail.
The inability of the indigent accused on his own to realize these advantages of a lawyer’s assistance compels the conclusion that the Alabama preliminary hearing is a "critical- stage” of the State’s criminal process at which the accused is "as much entitled to such aid [of counsel] ... as at the trial itself.” Powell v. Alabama, supra, at 57.
Ill
There remains, then, the question of the relief to which petitioners are entitled. The trial transcript indicates that the prohibition against use by the State at trial of anything that occurred at the preliminary hearing was scrupulously observed. Cf. White v. Maryland, supra. But on the record it cannot be said whether or not petitioners were otherwise prejudiced by the absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing. That inquiry in the first instance should more properly be made by the Alabama courts. The test to be applied is whether the denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing was harmless error under Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967). See United States v. Wade, supra, at 242.
We accordingly vacate the petitioners’ convictions and remand the case to the Alabama courts for such proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion as they may deem appropriate to determine whether such denial of counsel was harmless error, see Gilbert v. California, supra, at 272, and therefore whether the convictions should be reinstated or a new trial ordered.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Blacicmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas, Me. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall join this Part I.
Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall join this Part II.
A textbook, Criminal Procedure in Alabama, by M. Clinton McGee (University of Alabama Press 1954), p. 41, states:
“A preliminary hearing or examination is not a trial in its ordinary sense nor is it a final determination of guilt. It is a proceeding whereby an accused is discharged or held to answer, as the facts warrant. It seeks to determine whether there is probable cause for believing that a crime has been committed and whether the accused is probably guilty, in order that he may be informed of the nature of such charge and to allow the state to take the necessary steps to bring him to trial. Such hearing also serves to perpetuate evidence and to keep the necessary witnesses within the control of the state. It also safeguards the accused against groundless and vindictive prosecutions, and avoids for both the accused and the state the expense and inconvenience of a public trial.”
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall join this Part III.
The trial judge held a hearing two months before the trial on motions on behalf of petitioners to suppress “any evidence or discovery whatsoever obtained ... on the preliminary hearing . . . and further any statements relating to any identification . . . during any line-up . . . .” The State conceded that the motion should be granted as to any statements of either petitioner taken by the police upon their arrests, and written and oral confessions made by them were therefore not offered at the trial. At an early stage of the hearing on the motions, the trial judge said:
“It has been my consistent ruling, and I don’t know of any law to the contrary, that, on the basis of what happened at the preliminary hearing, that if a lawyer was not representing the defendant that anything that may have occurred at that preliminary which might work against the defendant, whether it be anything he said there, assuming he might have taken the stand, anything of that nature, would, on the trial of the case on the merits, be inadmissible.
“I wouldn’t anticipate the State offering anything like that, but that has been my ruling on that ever since we changed some of our ways of doing things.
“It wouldn’t be material from the standpoint that a man down there, when not represented by counsel on the preliminary, made some statement, said, 'I am guilty.’ You know, a lot of times he might say, T am guilty.’
“That that would not be admissible if he weren’t represented by counsel, and that sort of thing.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. 155 Conn. 124, 230 A. 2d 573 (1967). Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from this Court. We grant the writ and reverse.
On Friday, December 6, 1963, petitioner was arrested on a coroner’s warrant charging him with murder. During that entire day until 9 p. m. petitioner was subjected to questioning. Sometime that evening, the officer in charge brought in a revolving disc and sought to persuade petitioner to look at it and “relax.” The' trial judge said that “[the officer] was not completely unaware that this was a common hypnotic device.” The wheel turned for about half an hour, but petitioner refused to look at it.
The next morning the questioning resumed and continued intermittently until about 4 p. m. when petitioner fell forward, according to the trial judge, “either fainting or pretending to faint.” He was revived and then confessed to the murder, as hereinafter described, in response to questioning by the officer in charge.
During the entire period petitioner was in custody, his counsel had been making determined but unsuccessful efforts to contact him or the officer in charge of him. On Friday, December 6, there were 19 phone calls to various police offices, including nine to the one at which petitioner was held. On Saturday, there were five calls, and on Sunday, there was one.
On Friday, there was a personal visit by one of the lawyers to the police barracks in Stafford Springs where petitioner had been taken that morning. But at about the same time that counsel arrived, the officer in charge took petitioner from the barracks and drove him around, apparently to protect him from what the officer thought were newspapermen. Counsel made four visits to various barracks on Saturday.
Each of these attempts was met with disclaimers of knowledge of the whereabouts of either petitioner or of the officer in charge. The trial judge found that it was “routine procedure” for investigating officers not to be disturbed during an investigation. At about 1 or 1:30 p. m. Saturday, at counsel’s request, a superior court judge issued a writ of habeas corpus. A deputy sheriff was instructed to serve the writ upon the officer in charge of petitioner and upon the coroner within half an hour. The sheriff could not locate the officer or the coroner, although the purpose of this inquiry was stated to the communications officer at the Hartford barracks. On Sunday, the sheriff called the Stafford Springs barracks in search of the officer and received a call informing him that the officer would be at the superior court at 2 p. m.
Petitioner’s first confession, made orally after the “fainting” incident on the afternoon of Saturday, December 7, the second day of arrest and interrogation, was excluded from evidence by the trial judge. The trial judge also excluded petitioner’s written confession made shortly thereafter. The trial judge, however, admitted a subsequent written confession made on Sunday, December 8, and evidence as to a partial re-enactment of the crime which petitioner staged on that day at the request of the police. During the course of this partial re-enactment, petitioner, as he had done intermittently during his custody, denied that he committed the crime. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed.
Since the trial in this case began before the decisions of this Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), these cases are not controlling. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966). But they are relevant on the issue of voluntariness. Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737 (1966). In the present case, petitioner’s lawyers made numerous attempts to communicate with petitioner or with the officer in charge. (Cf. Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 465, n. 35.) A writ of habeas corpus issued by a state judge at the request of petitioner’s counsel was fruitless; and petitioner on three separate occasions sought and was denied permission to communicate with the outside world.
The inference is inescapable that the officers kept petitioner incommunicado for the 30 to 48 hours during which they sought and finally obtained his confession. See Davis v. North Carolina, supra, at 745-746; Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503 (1963). Considering the “totality of the circumstances” (see Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967)), we conclude that the court erred in holding that the confession and the partial re-enactment were voluntary. The denial of access to counsel and the outside world continued throughout, and there was “no break in the stream of events” from arrest throughout the concededly invalid confessions of Saturday, December 7, to the confession and re-enactment of Sunday, December 8, “sufficient to insulate” the final events “from the effect of all that went before.” Clewis v. Texas, supra, at 710. See Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 35, 36, n. 2 (1967).
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for - a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment below is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our decision herein.
Mr. Justice White dissents.
When initially arrested, petitioner had asked to use the telephone but was not permitted to do so.
The trial judge specifically found that the officer in charge knew petitioner was represented by counsel at the coroner’s inquest just one day before his arrest, and that the officer called one of petitioner’s lawyers on Sunday to inform him that there would be a presentment at 2 p. m. The trial judge also found that the officer did not know whether or not counsel were on a retainer basis or had been engaged only for the inquest.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1972 Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so as to empower the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to bring suit in a federal district court against a private employer alleged to have violated the Act. The sole question presented by this case is what time limitation, if any, is imposed on the EEOC’s power to bring such a suit.
I
On December 27, 1970, an employee of the petitioner Occidental Life Insurance Co. filed a charge with the EEOC claiming that the company had discriminated against her because of her sex. After a fruitless referral to the appropriate state agency, the charge was formally filed with the EEOC on March 9, 1971, and subsequently served on the company. After investigation, the EEOC served proposed findings of fact on the company on February 25, 1972, to which the company in due course filed exceptions. Conciliation discussions between the EEOC and the company began in the summer of 1972. These discussions continued sporadically into 1973, but on September 13 of that year the EEOC determined that conciliation efforts had failed and so notified the company and the original complainant. The latter requested that the case be referred to the General Counsel of the EEOC to bring an enforcement action. On February 22, 1974, approximately three years and two months after the complainant first communicated with the EEOC and five months after conciliation efforts had failed, the EEOC brought this enforcement action in a Federal District Court.
The District Court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the law requires that an enforcement action be brought within 180 days of the filing of a charge with the EEOC. Alternatively, the court held that the action was subject to the most appropriate state limitations statute and was therefore barred by the one-year limitation provision of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. § 340 (3) (West Supp. 1977). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the federal law does not impose-a 180-day limitation on the EEOC’s authority to sue and that the action is not governed by any state statute of limitations. 535 F. 2d 533.
We granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 1022, to consider an important and recurring question regarding Title VII.
II
As enacted in 1964, Title VII limited the EEOC’s function to investigation of employment discrimination charges and informal methods of conciliation and persuasion. The failure of conciliation efforts terminated the involvement of the EEOC. Enforcement could then be achieved, if at all, only if the charging party, or other person aggrieved by the allegedly unlawful practice, initiated a private suit within 30 days after EEOC notification that conciliation had not been successful.
In the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 Congress established an integrated, multistep enforcement procedure culminating in the EEOC's authority to bring a civil action in a federal court. That procedure begins when a charge is filed with the EEOC alleging that an employer has engaged in an unlawful employment practice. A charge must be filed within 180 days after the occurrence of the allegedly unlawful practice, and the EEOC is directed to serve notice of the charge on the employer within 10 days of filing. The EEOC is then required to investigate the charge and determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that it is true. This determination is to be made “as promptly as possible and, so far as practicable, not later than one hundred and twenty days from the filing of the charge.” If the EEOC finds that there is reasonable cause it “shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” When “the Commission [is] unable to secure... a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action against any respondent not a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision named in the charge.”
The 1972 Act expressly imposes only one temporal restriction on the EEOC's authority to embark upon the final stage of enforcement — the bringing of a civil suit in a federal district court: Under § 706 (f)(1), the EEOC may not invoke the judicial power to compel compliance with Title VII until at least 30 days after a charge has been filed. But neither § 706 (f) nor any other section of the Act explicitly requires the EEOC to conclude its conciliation efforts and bring an enforcement suit within any maximum period of time.
The language of the Act upon which the District Court relied in finding a limitation that bars the bringing of a lawsuit by the EEOC more than 180 days after a timely charge has been filed with it is found in § 706 (f)(1), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. V), which provides in relevant part:
“If a charge filed with the Commission... is dismissed by the Commission, or within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge or the expiration of any period of reference [from a state agency], whichever is later, the Commission has not filed a civil action under this section..., or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission... shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved or (B) if such charge was filed by a member of the Commission, by any person whom the charge alleges was aggrieved by the alleged unlawful employment practice.”
On its face, § 706 (f)(1) provides little support for the argument that the 180-day provision is such a statute of limitations. Rather than limiting action by the EEOC, the provision seems clearly addressed to an alternative enforcement procedure: If a complainant is dissatisfied with the progress the EEOC is making on his or her charge of employment discrimination, he or she may elect to circumvent the EEOC procedures and seek relief through a private enforcement action in a district court. The 180-day limitation provides only that this private right of action does not arise until 180 days after a charge has been filed. Nothing in § 706 (f)(1) indicates that EEOC enforcement powers cease if the complainant decides to leave the case in the hands of the EEOC rather than to pursue a private action.
In short, the literal language of § 706 (f)(1) simply cannot support a determination that it imposes a 180-day time limitation on EEOC enforcement suits. On the contrary, a natural reading of § 706 (f)(1) can lead only to the conclusion that it simply provides that a complainant whose charge is not dismissed or promptly settled or litigated by the EEOC may himself bring a lawsuit, but that he must wait 180 days before doing so. After waiting for that period, the complainant may either file a private action within 90 days after EEOC notification or continue to leave the ultimate resolution of his charge to the efforts of the EEOC.
Only if the legislative history of § 706 (f) (1) provided firm evidence that the subsection cannot mean what it so clearly seems to say would there be any justification for construing it in any other way. But no such evidence is to be found.
The dominant Title VII battle in the 92d Congress was over what kind of additional enforcement powers should be granted to the EEOC. Proponents of increased EEOC power constituted a substantial majority in both Houses of Congress, but they were divided between those Members who favored giving the EEOC power to issue cease-and-desist orders and those who advocated authorizing it to bring suits in the federal district courts.
The supporters of cease-and-desist authority won the first victory when Committees in both Houses favorably reported bills providing for that enforcement technique. The bill reported by the House Committee contained a section entitled “Civil Actions by Persons Aggrieved,” embodying the provisions that eventually became that part of § 706 (f)(1) at issue in the present case.
The Committee Report clearly explained that the purpose of this provision was to afford an aggrieved person the option of withdrawing his case from the EEOC if he was dissatisfied with the rate at which his charge was being processed:
“In the case of the Commission, the burgeoning workload, accompanied by insufficient funds and a shortage of staff, has, in many instances, forced a party to wait 2 to 3 years before final conciliation procedures can be instituted. This situation leads the committee to believe that the private right of action, both under the present Act and in the bill, provides the aggrieved party a means by which he may be able to escape from the administrative quagmire which occasionally surrounds a case caught in an overloaded administrative process.”
Opponents of cease-and-desist authority carried their cause to the floor of the House, where Congressmen Erlenborn and Mazzoli introduced a substitute bill, which authorized the EEOC when conciliation failed to file federal-court actions rather than conduct its own hearings and issue cease-and-desist orders. The Erlenborn-Mazzoli substitute contained a private action provision substantially the same as that of the Committee bill. There was no suggestion in the House debates that that section in the substitute bill was intended to be a statute of limitations on EEOC enforcement action, or that the purpose of the provision differed in any way from that expressed in the Committee Report. The Erlenborn-Mazzoli substitute was adopted by the House.
Senate action on amendments to Title VII was essentially parallel to that of the House, beginning with the introduction of a bill giving the EEOC cease-and-desist power, and ending with the substitution of a bill authorizing it instead to file suits in the federal courts. As in the House, both the original and substitute Senate bills authorized complainants dissatisfied with the pace of EEOC proceedings to bring individual lawsuits after 180 days. And, as in the House, the Senate Committee explained that such a provision was necessary because the heavy caseload of the EEOC could result in delays unacceptable to aggrieved persons:
“As it indicated in testimony, [the EEOC’s] caseload has increased at a rate.which surpasses its own projections. The result has been increasing backlogs in making determinations, and the possibility of occasional hasty decisions, made under the press of time, which have unfairly prejudiced complaints. Accordingly, where the Commission is not able to pursue a complaint with satisfactory speed, or enters into an agreement which is not acceptable to the aggrieved party, the bill provides that the individual shall have an opportunity to seek his own remedy, even though he may have originally submitted his charge to the Commission.”
The Senate Committee further noted that the “primary concern should be to protect the aggrieved person’s option to seek a prompt remedy,” and that the purpose of the 180-day provision was to preserve “the private right of action by an aggrieved person.”
Senator Dominick led the opposition to the Committee bill on the floor of the Senate. His substitute bill did not give the EEOC power to issue cease-and-desist orders but authorized it instead to bring enforcement suits in federal courts. The substitute bill also contained a provision authorizing private lawsuits almost identical to that contained in the Committee bill. There ensued a month-long Senate debate, at the conclusion of which the substitute bill was adopted by the Senate. During the course of that debate there were only a few isolated and ambiguous references to the provision in the substitute bill authorizing federal suits by complainants dissatisfied with EEOC delay. But a section-by-section analysis of the substitute bill made available before the final vote in the Senate clearly explained the purpose of the 180-day provision:
“In providing this provision, it is intended that... the person aggrieved should [not] have to endure lengthy delays if the agency does not act with due diligence and speed. Accordingly, the provisions... would allow the person aggrieved to elect to pursue his or her own remedy in the courts where agency action does not prove satisfactory.”
After the final Senate vote the House and Senate bills were sent to a Conference Committee. An analysis presented to the Senate with the Conference Report provides the final and conclusive confirmation of the meaning of § 706 (f) (1):
“The retention of the private right of action, as amended,... is designed to make sure that the person aggrieved does not have to endure lengthy delays if the Commission... does not act with due diligence and speed. Accordingly, the provisions... allow the person aggrieved to elect to pursue his or her own remedy under this title in the courts where there is agency inaction, dalliance or dismissal of the charge, or unsatisfactory resolution.
“It is hoped that recourse to the private lawsuit will be the exception and not the rule, and that the vast majority of complaints will be handled through the offices of the EEOC.... However, as the individual’s rights to redress are paramount under the provisions of Title VII it is necessary that all avenues be left open for quick and effective relief.”
The legislative history of §706 (f)(1) thus demonstrates that the provision was intended to mean exactly what it seems to say: An aggrieved person unwilling to await the conclusion of extended EEOC proceedings may institute a private lawsuit 180 days after a charge has been filed. The subsection imposes no limitation upon the power of the EEOC to file suit in a federal court.
Ill
The company argues that if the Act contains no limitation on the time during which an EEOC enforcement suit may be brought, then the most analogous state statute of limitations should be applied. Relying on a long line of cases in this Court holding state limitations periods applicable to actions brought under federal statutes, the company contends that California law barred the EEOC from bringing this lawsuit.
When Congress has created a cause of action and has not specified the period of time within which it may be asserted, the Court has frequently inferred that Congress intended that a local time limitation should apply. E. g., Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 179-182 (Civil Rights Act of 1866); Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act); O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U. S. 318 (Civil Rights Act of 1871); Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390 (Sherman Antitrust Act); Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610 (Patent Act). This “implied absorption of State statutes of limitation within the interstices of... federal enactments is a phase of fashioning remedial details where Congress has not spoken but left matters for judicial determination.” Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 395.
But the Court has not mechanically applied a state statute of limitations simply because a limitations period is absent from the federal statute. State legislatures do not devise their limitations periods with national interests in mind, and it is the duty of the federal courts to assure that the importation of state law will not frustrate or interfere with the implementation of national policies. “Although state law is our primary guide in this area, it is not, to be sure, our exclusive guide.” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454, 465. State limitations periods will not be borrowed if their application would be inconsistent with the underlying policies of the federal statute. Ibid.; Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., supra, at 701; Board of County Comm’rs v. United States, 308 U. S. 343, 352. With these considerations in mind, we turn to the company’s argument in this case.
When Congress first enacted Title VII in 1964 it selected “[cooperation and voluntary compliance... as the preferred means for achieving” the goal of equality of employment opportunities. Alexander v. Gardner Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44. To this end, Congress created the EEOC and established an administrative procedure whereby the EEOC “would have an opportunity to settle disputes through conference, conciliation, and persuasion before the aggrieved party was permitted to file a lawsuit.” Ibid. Although the 1972 amendments provided the EEOC with the additional enforcement power of instituting civil actions in federal courts, Congress preserved the EEOC’s administrative functions in § 706 of the amended Act. Thus, under the procedural structure created by the 1972 amendments, the EEOC does not function simply as a vehicle for conducting litigation on behalf of private parties; it is a federal administrative agency charged with the responsibility of investigating claims of employment discrimination and settling disputes, if possible, in an informal, noncoercive fashion. Unlike the typical litigant against whom a statute of limitations might appropriately run, the EEOC is required by law to refrain from commencing a civil action until it has discharged its administrative duties.
In view of the federal policy requiring employment discrimination claims to be investigated by the EEOC and, whenever possible, administratively resolved before suit is brought in a federal court, it is hardly appropriate to rely on the “State’s wisdom in setting a limit... on the prosecution....” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, at 464. For the “State’s wisdom” in establishing a general limitation period could not have taken into.account the decision of Congress to delay judicial action while the EEOC performs its administrative responsibilities. See Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U. S. 342, 348; Cope v. Anderson, 331 U. S. 461, 464; Rawlings v. Ray, 312 U. S. 96, 98. Indeed, the one-year statute of limitations applied by the District Court in this case could under some circumstances directly conflict with the timetable for administrative action expressly established in the 1972 Act.
But even in cases involving no inevitable and direct conflict with the express time periods provided in the Act, absorption of state limitations would be inconsistent with the congressional intent underlying the enactment of the 1972 amendments. Throughout the congressional debates many Members of both Houses demonstrated an acute awareness of the enormous backlog of cases before the EEOC and the consequent delays of 18 to 24 months encountered by aggrieved persons awaiting administrative action on their complaints. Nevertheless, Congress substantially increased the workload of the EEOC by extending the coverage of Title VII to state employers, private employers with as few as 15 employees, and nonreligious educational institutions; by transferring the authority to bring pattern-or-practice suits from the Attorney General to the Commission; and by authorizing the Commission to bring civil actions in the federal courts. It would hardly be reasonable to suppose that a Congress aware of the severe time problems already facing the EEOC would grant that agency substantial additional enforcement responsibilities and at the same time consign its federal lawsuits to the vagaries of diverse state limitations statutes, some as short as one year.
Congress did express concern for the need of time limitations in the fair operation of the Act, but that concern was directed entirely to the initial filing of a charge with the EEOC and prompt notification thereafter to the alleged violator. The bills passed in both the House and the Senate contained short time periods within which charges were to be filed with the EEOC and notice given to the employer. And the debates and reports in both Houses made evident that the statute of limitations problem was perceived in terms of these provisions, rather than in terms of a later limitation on the EEOC’s power to sue. That perception was reflected in the final version of the 1972 Act, which requires that a charge must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged violation of Title VII, and that the alleged violator must be notified “of the charge (including the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice)... within ten days” thereafter.
The fact that the only statute of limitations discussions in Congress were directed to the period preceding the filing of an initial charge is wholly consistent with the Act’s overall enforcement structure — a sequential series of steps beginning with the filing of a charge with the EEOC. Within this procedural framework, the benchmark, for purposes of a statute of limitations, is not the last phase of the multistage scheme, but the commencement of the proceeding before the administrative body.
IV
The absence of inflexible time limitations on the bringing of lawsuits will not, as the company asserts, deprive defendants in Title VII civil actions of fundamental fairness or subject them to the surprise and prejudice that can result from the prosecution of stale claims. Unlike the litigant in a private action who may first learn of the cause against him upon service of the complaint, the Title VII defendant is alerted to the possibility of an enforcement suit within 10 days after a charge has been filed. This prompt notice serves, as Congress intended, to give him an opportunity to gather and preserve evidence in anticipation of a court action.
Moreover, during the pendency of EEOC administrative proceedings, a potential defendant is kept informed of the progress of the action. Regulations promulgated by the EEOC require that the charged party be promptly notified when a determination of reasonable cause has been made, 29 CFR § 1601.19b (b) (1976), and when the EEOC has terminated its efforts to conciliate a dispute, §§ 1601.23, 1601.26.
It is, of course, possible that despite these procedural protections a defendant in a Title VII enforcement action might still be significantly handicapped in making his defense because of an inordinate EEOC delay in filing the action after exhausting its conciliation efforts. If such cases arise the federal courts do not lack the power to provide relief. This Court has said that when a Title VII defendant is in fact prejudiced by a private plaintiff’s unexcused conduct of a particular case, the trial court may restrict or even deny backpay relief. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 424-425. The same discretionary power “to locate ‘a just result’ in light of the circumstances peculiar to the case,” ibid., can also be exercised when the EEOC is the plaintiff.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The charge specified that the most recent act of discrimination was on October 1, 1970.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§706 (b), (d), 78 Stat. 259, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-5 (b), (d); Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522.
The 1972 amendments to Title VII were made applicable “with respect to charges pending with the Commission on the date of enactment.” § 14, 86 Stat. 113. The District Court also held that EEOC enforcement suits, such as this one, based on charges within the coverage of § 14 must be brought within 180 days of March 24, 1972, the effective date of the amendments.
The District Court’s decision is reported in 12 FEP Cases 1298.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706 (a), 78 Stat. 259, 42 Ü. S. C. § 2000&-5 (a).
§ 706 (e), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e).
86 Stat. 103, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V), amending Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253. All subsequent citations to Title VII in this opinion are to the 1964 Act as amended.
§ 706 (©), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V). If a charge has been initially filed with or referred to a state or local agency, it must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days after the practice occurred or within 30 days after notice that the state or local agency has terminated its proceeding, whichever is earlier. Ibid.
§ 706 (b), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
Ibid.
§ 706 (f) (1), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. V). In the case of a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, the EEOC is required, upon failure of conciliation, to refer the case to the Attorney General who may then bring a civil action. Ibid.
The section in the House Committee bill provided, in relevant part:
“If (1) the Commission determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe the charge is true and dismisses the charge..., (2) finds no probable jurisdiction and dismisses the charge, or (3) within one hundred and eighty days after a charge is filed with the Commission..., the Commission has not either (i) issued a complaint..., (ii) determined that there is not reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true and dismissed the charge,... or (iii) entered into a conciliation agreement..., the Commission shall so notify the person aggrieved and within sixty days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought... by the person claiming to be aggrieved.... Upon timely application, the court may, in its. discretion, permit the Commission to intervene in such civil action if it certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon the commencement of such civil action, the Commission shall be divested of jurisdiction over the proceeding and shall take no further action with respect thereof [sic]....” H. R. 1746, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., § 8 (j) (1971), reprinted in H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, pp. 54r-55 (1971).
Id., at 12.
H. R. 9247, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., §3 (c) (1971).
S. 2515, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., § 4 (a) (1971); S. 2617, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., §3 (c) (1971).
S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 23 (1971).
Id., at 24, 40.
At one point in the debates Senator Javits, a sponsor of the Committee bill, sought to amend the substitute bill to clarify the relationship between EEOC and private lawsuits, by providing that “if within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commission... the Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission shall bring a civil action....” Senator Dominick objected to the substitution of the word “shall” for “may” and suggested that “in the interest of flexibility in the Commission’s schedule, and in the interest of flexibility in working something out through voluntary compliance, it would be far better to put in the word'may.’ ” In the exchange that followed, both Senators manifested their understanding that the 180-day provision in the Dominick amendment served the same purpose as the analogous provision in the Committee bill. 118 Cong. Rec. 1068-1069 (1972). Senator Javits later agreed to the use of the word “may,” and Senator Dominick responded as follows:
“I think this change is very meritorious, as I pointed out in my first statement. I do not think the Commission should be mandated on what date an agency should bring suit when we are trying to work out matters the best we can by conciliation.” Id., at 1069.
Id., at 4942.
Id., at 7168; see id., at 7565.
In addition to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the present case, six other Courts of Appeals have reached this conclusion. EEOC v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 516 F. 2d 1297 (CA3); EEOC v. Cleveland Mills Co., 502 F. 2d 153 (CA4); EEOC v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 505 F. 2d 610 (CA5); EEOC v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 511 F. 2d 1352 (CA6); EEOC v. Meyer Bros. Drug Co., 521 F. 2d 1364 (CA8); EEOC v. Duval Corp., 528 F. 2d 945 (CA10).
The two Courts of Appeals that have considered this question have reached differing conclusions. EEOC v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., supra, at 1359-1360 (state limitations not applicable); EEOC v. Griffin Wheel Co., 511 F. 2d 456 (CA5) (state limitations applicable to backpay suits only).
Since California has created a state agency with authority to provide a remedy for employment discrimination, Cal. Labor Code Ann. §§ 1410-1433 (West 1971), an aggrieved party in that State may file a charge with the EEOC as long as 300 days after the allegedly unlawful act. See n. 8, supra. Under § 706 (b) the EEOC may then take at least 120 days to investigate the charge and make its determination of reasonable cause. Thus, even if the aggrieved party and the EEOC act within the 420-day period expressly authorized by the Act, the California limitations period applied by the District Court would expire before the EEOC had an opportunity to begin any conciliation efforts, let alone bring a lawsuit.
In his testimony before the House Committee, William Brown III, Chairman of the EEOC, stated that as of February 20, 1971, there was a backlog of 25,195 pending charges. Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement Procedures, Hearings on H. R. 1746 before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 81 (1971). By the time Chairman Brown testified before the Senate Committee, the backlog had increased to nearly 32,000 cases and further increases were expected. Equal Employment Opportunity Enforcement Act of 1971, Hearings on S. 2515, S. 2617, H. R. 1746, before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 71 (1971).
See, e. g., 117 Cong. Rec. 31959 (1971) (remarks of Rep. Martin); id., at 31972 (remarks of Rep. Erlenborn); 118 Cong. Rec. 594^595 (1972) (remarles of Sen. Dominick); id., at 699-700 (remarks of Sen. Fannin) ; id., at 944 (remarks of Sens. Talmadge and Chiles); id., at 2386 (remarks of Sen. Allen); id., at 3136-3137 (remarks of Sens. Gurney and Allen); id., at 3969-3973 (remarks of Sens. Javits, Cooper, Dominick, Williams, and Allen).
The company contends that the numerous references in the debates to the EEOC’s backlog and delays demonstrate that by adopting the court enforcement plan Congress intended to restrict the time allowed for investigation and conciliation of a charge. Nearly all of the references, however, were in the context of discussions of whether enforcement after conciliation efforts had failed could be accomplished more expeditiously through an administrative process or through lawsuits in the federal courts. The concern, therefore, was with the additional delays that complainants would suffer if the EEOC were given the task of conducting its own hearings and issuing cease-and-desist orders. Congressional concern over delays during the investigation and conciliation process was resolved by providing complainants with the continuing opportunity to withdraw their cases from the EEOC and bring private suits. See Part II, swpra.
§§ 701 (a), (b), 702, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e (a), (b), 2000e-l (1970 ed., Supp. V). The number of state and local governmental employees who would be brought under the jurisdiction of the EEOC was estimated to be more than 10 million. 117 Cong. Rec. 31961 (1971) (remarks of Rep. Perkins); 118 Cong. Rec. 699 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Fannin). The elimination of the exemption for nonreligious educational institutions added an 'estimated 4.3 million employees. Id., at 4931 (remarks of Sen. Cranston).
§ 707 (c), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-6 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
§ 706 (f) (1), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
The House bill provided that the EEOC serve notice of the charge on the alleged violator within five days; the Senate bill required notice within 10 days. Both bills included a 180-day limitation on an aggrieved party’s filing of a charge. S. Rep. No. 92-681, pp. 16-17 (1972).
Because the bill reported by the House Committee did not require notice of a charge within any specific time, the dissenters from the Committee Report urged that the 180-day filing limitation be amended to require the EEOC to give notice within five days, or some other reasonable time, after a charge had been filed. H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 66 (1971). On the floor of the House, Congressman Erlenbom explained that the amendment was for the purpose of
“giving notice to the party charged [so] that he would have the opportunity to gather and preserve the evidence with which to sustain himself when formal charges are filed and subsequent enforcement proceedings are instituted.” 117 Cong. Rec. 31972 (1971).
The requirement of reasonable notice quickly received the support of proponents of the Committee bill. Id., at 31783-31784 (remarks of Rep. Dent); id., at 31961 (remarks of Rep. Perkins). In the Senate a 10-day-notice provision was included in the bill reported out of Committee in order “to protect fully the rights of the person or persons against whom the charge is filed.” S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 25 (1971).
§§ 706 (b), (e), 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-5 (b), (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
Prompt notice of a reasonable-cause determination also serves to cure any deficiencies in the 10-day notice that may result from EEOC amendment of the claimed violation after investigation. See EEOC v. General Electric Co., 532 F. 2d 359, 366 (CA4); EEOC v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., 511 F. 2d 453, 455 (CA5); EEOC v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 511 F. 2d, at 1363. See also NLRB v. Fant Milling Co., 360 U. S. 301;
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether trustees, who, in 1944, permanently set aside a charitable contribution from gains realized upon the disposition of capital assets held for more than six months, were entitled, in computing the federal income tax of the trust, to deduct the full amount of the contribution, although only half of those gains were taken into account in computing net income. For the reasons hereafter stated, our answer is in the negative.
The respondents are trustees of a trust created by the will of John E. Andrus. The will directs that the net income of the trust be divided into 100 parts, 55 to be paid to certain individual beneficiaries and 45 to the Surdna Foundation, Inc., a charitable corporation. Pursuant to those terms the trustees permanently set aside for the Foundation 45% of the trust’s net income for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1944, the period involved in this case.
In their fiduciary tax return, the trustees reported ordinary net income of $240,567.73, and deducted from it, as a charitable contribution, the $108,255.48 (45% of that net income) which they had set aside for the Surdna Foundation. This was done under § 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The trustees also reported gains of $60,374.01 on the disposition of capital assets held for more than six months. Of these gains, they took into account only 50%, amounting to $30,187.01, in computing the trust’s taxable income. This was done under § 117 (b). An uncontroverted deduction of $329.60, representing the carry-over of a 1942 loss, reduced this amount to $29,857.41. From this the trustees deducted 45%, representing a proportionate share of the trust’s contribution to the Surdna Foundation. This deduction amounted to $13,435.83, leaving a taxable net income of $16,421.58, on which a tax of $5,480.35 was paid, plus interest.
In 1947 the trustees filed a claim for a refund of $5,157.41. They based their claim upon a 1946 decision of the Tax Court as to the 1941 taxes of a nearly identical trust. Andrus Trust No. 1 v. Commissioner, 7 T. C. 573. On that basis, the trustees claimed a deduction from the aforesaid $29,857.41, not only of a proportionate share of the contribution which the trust had set aside from capital gains, but of the entire amount of that contribution. This increased that deduction from $13,435.83 (45% of $29,857.41) to $27,168.31 (45% of the total capital gains of $60,374.01), and correspondingly reduced the trust’s taxable net income from $16,421.58 to $2,689.10.
In July, 1947, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously reversed the Tax Court in the case relating to 1941 taxes. Commissioner v. Central Hanover Bank Co., 163 F. 2d 208, cert. denied, November, 1947, 332 U. S. 830. The Commissioner, however, took no action on the trustees’ claim for a refund relating to 1944 taxes, and, in 1948, the trustees filed this proceeding for its recovery through the Court of Claims. With one judge dissenting, that court decided in their favor. 112 Ct. Cl. 550, 81 F. Supp. 717. To resolve the resulting conflict, we granted certiorari. 336 U. S. 966.
An illustration based upon the facts in the instant case will bring the statutory problem into clearer focus. A trust realizes gains of $60,000 during the tax year from the sale of capital assets held for more than six months. From these it makes a charitable contribution of 50%. Section 162 (a) of the Code provides that a trust may deduct any part of its “gross income” which it contributes to such a charity as the one selected. Section 117 (b) provides that only 50% of such gains shall be taken into account in computing net income.
The trustees contend that, for tax purposes, the entire $60,000 is “gross income,” that from this amount the $30,000 charitable contribution may be deducted under § 162 (a), and that the entire remaining $30,000 is to be left out of account by force of § 117 (b), thereby leaving no taxable net income, although $30,000 goes to individual beneficiaries. The Commissioner, however, contends that only the $30,000 of the recognized capital gains that is taken into account by force of § 117 (b) constitutes “gross income,” and that necessarily the other $30,000 that is not to be taken into account for tax purposes is not “gross income.” Beginning, thus, with $30,000 of gross income, the Commissioner allows a deduction from it of that proportionate part of the charitable contribution that is attributable to the half of the recognized capital gains which has been taken into account. That deduction amounts to $15,000, leaving a taxable net income of $15,000.
The narrow statutory question thus presented is whether the entire recognized capital gains or only that half taken into account under § 117 (b) shall constitute gross income for tax purposes. Stated conversely, the question is whether that half of a taxpayer’s recognized capital gains that is not taken into account for tax purposes shall be left out of account by way of its initial exclusion from gross income, or by way of its subsequent deduction from gross income. On this precise question the Code is silent. No provision of the Code and nothing in the legislative history or administrative practice expressly settles the course to be followed. We, therefore, seek the purposes of the applicable sections of the Code and adopt that construction which best gives effect to those purposes.
We find that the obvious purpose of § 162 (a) is to encourage the making of charitable contributions out of the gross income of a trust and, to that end, it completely exempts such contributions from income tax, without the limitations imposed upon charitable contributions made by individuals or corporations. This purpose is served by each of the constructions of the Code suggested by the parties. Under either method of computation the beneficiaries of the charitable contribution will receive it in full and free of tax.
We then find that the effect of § 117 (b) is to tax recognized capital gains like ordinary income, except that the tax on capital gains held for more than six months is to be computed on 50% of the amount on which it would be computed if those gains were ordinary income. The Commissioner’s solution accomplishes precisely that result and thus serves that purpose. In the illustration, if the gains were ordinary income, the amount subject to tax, after the deduction of the charitable contribution, would be $30,000. As it is, the amount subject to tax is $15,000. The trustees’ construction in the instant case would result in taxing the capital gains at substantially less than 50% of the amount at which they would be taxed if they were ordinary income. To the extent that the amount subject to tax goes below that percentage, it fails to give effect to the purpose of § 117 (b). In the more extreme circumstances suggested by the illustration, this construction would entirely eliminate the tax.
We, therefore, approve that interpretation of § 117 (b) and the definition of statutory gross income adopted by the Commissioner. We treat the words in § 117 (b), which state that only 50% of certain recognized capital gains “shall be taken into account in computing . . . net income,” as applying to the entire computation of the tax, beginning with the statement of the gross income of the trust and concluding with its taxable net income. We treat that percentage of capital gains which expressly is not to be taken into account in computing taxable net income as also excluded from statutory gross income.
Accordingly, the acceptance by the Commissioner of the original return is approved and the judgment of the Court of Claims is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Jackson are of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Claims should be affirmed for the reasons which it gave.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
The contrariety of views expressed by the Tax Court, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court of Claims and now by this Court in the task of harmonizing §§ 22 (a), 117 (b) and 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code conclusively proves the opaqueness, if not inherent incongruity, of those provisions. Courts must do the best they can with such materials since the power to write or rewrite legislation is not theirs. But the fact that a taxpayer may astutely apply his income so as to reduce the net base on which a tax is to be levied is not in itself ground for rejecting a construction of the Revenue Code which permits the reduced base, even though the particular mode of distributing his income may not have been contemplated in the enactment of the classes of exemptions and deductions within which the taxpayer brings himself. I, too, recoil from a bizarre result and if legislation is ambiguous its construction should avoid such a result. But the rationale of construction ought not to be based on the impact of a single bizarre instance.
A deduction for trust income applied to charitable purposes should not be disallowed merely because one taxpayer can effect the payment of a lower income tax than another through the mode by which the charitable contribution is made. Thus, where the trust instrument provides that all charitable donations shall be allocated from ordinary income and not from capital gains, the taxpayer may doubtless deduct such charitable contributions in full and may at the same time report any capital gains under the special capital gains provisions of the Code. This would secure the very benefits sought by the taxpayers here. The rule enunciated by the Court may therefore itself rest tax liability on the astuteness shown in drawing the trust instrument allocating income for charitable purposes.
Since I am not alone in entertaining these doubts and they have not been dispelled, it seems appropriate to express them.
“SEC. 162. NET INCOME.
“The net income of the estate or trust shall be computed in the same manner and on the same basis as in the case of an individual, except that—
“ (a) There shall be allowed as a deduction (in lieu of the deduction for charitable, etc., contributions authorized by section 23 (o)) any part of the gross income, without limitation, which pursuant to the terms of the will or deed creating the trust, is during the taxable year paid or permanently set aside for the purposes and in the manner specified in section 23 (o), or is to be used exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, or for the establishment, acquisition, maintenance or operation of a public cemetery not operated for profit; . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) 53 Stat. 66, 26 U. S. C. §162 (a).
“SEC. 117. CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES.
. . . . .
“(b) Percentage Taken Into Account. — In the casé of a taxpayer, other than a corporation, only the following percentages of. the gain or loss recognized upon the sale or exchange of a capital asset shall be taken into account in computing net capital gain, net capital loss, and net income:
“100 per centum if the capital asset has been held for not more than 6 months;
“50 per centum if the capital asset has been held for more than 6 months.” 53 Stat. 50-51, as amended, 56 Stat. 843, 26 U. S. C. §117 (b).
The will creating the trust contained no provision as to the kind of income from which the charitable contributions were to be set aside, and it is not disputed that the trustees properly set aside the contributions proportionately from capital gains and all other income. There is nothing to indicate that the trustees, in setting aside the contribution, attempted to allocate them to any particular part or percentage of the capital gains. See Helvering v. Bliss, 293 U. S. 144, 149-150; Grey v. Commissioner, 118 F. 2d 153 (C. A. 7th Cir., affirming 41 B. T. A. 234); Scott v. United States, 111 Ct. Cl. 610, 618-620, 78 F. Supp. 811, 815-816; Newbury v. United States, 102 Ct. Cl. 192, 57 F. Supp. 168; Meissner v. Commissioner, 8 T. C. 780; Estate of Traiser v. Commissioner, 41 B. T. A. 228; Montgomery, Federal Taxes, Estates, Trusts and Gifts 179 (1948-1949); 2 Nossaman, Trust Administration and Taxation 115-116 (1945).
See note 1, supra.
See note 2, supra.
See note 1, supra.
See note 2, supra.
United States v. Pleasants, 305 U. S. 357, 363; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 301 U. S. 379, 384; Helvering v. Bliss, 293 U. S. 144, 147.
When the words “without limitation,” in § 162 (a), are read in connection with § 23 (o), 53 Stat. 12, 14-15, as amended, 53 Stat. 880, and 56 Stat. 826, 26 U. S. C. § 23 (o), their effect is only to make inapplicable the limitation of 15%, under § 23 (o), and any other statutory limitation which otherwise might apply to charitable contributions made out of the gross income of an estate or trust. Grey v. Commissioner, 41 B. T. A. 234, 243, aff’d, 118 F. 2d 153. See also, Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 301 U. S. 379, 382-384; Commissioner v. Central Hanover Bank Co., 163 F. 2d 208, 211 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Frank Trust of 1931 v. Commissioner, 145 F. 2d 411, 413 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Scott v. United States, 111 Ct. Cl. 610, 618-620, 78 F. Supp. 811, 815-816; Newbury v. United States, 102 Ct. Cl. 192, 57 F. Supp. 168. For the comparable 5% limitation applicable to charitable contributions made by corporations, see 53 Stat. 15-16, as amended, 56 Stat. 822, 26 U. S. C. § 23 (q).
See note 2, supra. The alternative computation of the tax on capital gains provided by § 117 (c) (2) of the Code is consistent with this result. 53 Stat. 51, as amended, 56 Stat. 843-844, 26 U. S. C. § 117 (c) (2).
It is unnecessary to review the intricate arguments presented as to the terminology of the Code. They do not compel the adoption of either interpretation or preclude the conclusion here reached. This is not a case in which the trust or the statute has required or even authorized the trustees to earmark their charitable contributions as coming from any particular items of trust income, or from any particular kind of trust income. The issue does not involve any possible allocation of a charitable deduction to ordinary income rather than to capital gains.
For the requirement that, under § 162 (a), each contribution in order to be deductible must be made or permanently set aside pursuant to the terms of the will or deed creating the trust, and also must be from a part of the gross income of the trust, see Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 301 U. S. 379; Frank Trust of 1931 v. Commissioner, 145 F. 2d 411 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Wellman v. Welch, 99 F. 2d 75 (C. A. 1st Cir.); Estate of Tyler v. Commissioner, 9 B. T. A. 255, 262-263.
See Commissioner v. Central Hanover Bank Co., 163 F. 2d 208, 210; Frank Trust of 1931 v. Commissioner, supra; Wellman v. Welch, supra; Green v. Commissioner, 7 T. C. 263, 277; Maloy v. Commissioner, 45 B. T. A. 1104, 1107.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These supplemental proceedings in this wide-ranging litigation are to determine the legal coastline of the United States in the area of Block Island Sound and the eastern portion of Long Island Sound. That determination turns on whether Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound constitute, in whole or in part, a juridical bay under the provisions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (the Convention). To the extent the Sounds constitute a juridical bay, the waters of that bay, under the Convention, are then internal waters subject to the jurisdiction of the adjacent States, and the line that closes the bay is coastline for the purpose of fixing the seaward boundaries of the States.
The Special Master concluded (a) that the Sounds in part do constitute a juridical bay, and (b) that the bay closes at the line drawn from Montauk Point, at the eastern tip of Long Island, to Watch Hill Point on the Rhode Island shore. We have independently reviewed the voluminous record, as we must, see Mississippi v. Arkansas, 415 U. S. 289, 291-292, 294 (1974); Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U. S. 310, 317 (1984), and find ourselves in agreement with the Special Master. We therefore adopt the Master’s findings, confirm his conclusions, and overrule the respective exceptions filed by the United States, the State of New York, and the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
I
This action, invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under U. S. Const., Art. III, § 2, and 28 U. S. C. § 1251(b)(2), was instituted in 1969, see 395 U. S. 955, with the filing of a complaint by the United States against the 13 States that border the Atlantic Ocean. The purpose of the suit was to determine whether the United States had exclusive rights to the seabed and subsoil underlying the ocean beyond three geographical miles from each State’s coastline. See Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq. In due course, after the filing of answers, the appointment of a Special Master, 398 U. S. 947 (1970), the submission of the Master’s Report, the filing of exceptions thereto, and oral argument, this Court delivered its opinion, 420 U. S. 515 (1975), and entered a general decree, 423 U. S. 1 (1975). The Court there determined that the States held interests in the seabeds only to a distance of three geographical miles from their respective coastlines. The Court did not then fix the precise coastline of any of the defendant States; instead, jurisdiction was reserved “to entertain such further proceedings, including proceedings to determine the coastline of any defendant State, to enter such orders, and to issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree.” Id., at 2.
Meanwhile, in an unrelated federal action, pilots licensed by Connecticut challenged a Rhode Island statute which requires every foreign vessel and every American vessel under register for foreign trade that traverses Block Island Sound to take on a pilot licensed by the Rhode Island Pilotage Commission. The District Court in that suit ruled that Rhode Island possessed the authority so to regulate pilotage in the Sound. Its theory was that the State had that authority under 46 U. S. C. § 211, a statute which gives the States power to regulate pilots in “bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and ports of the United States.” In so ruling, the court determined that Block Island Sound was a bay under the Convention and therefore qualified as internal waters within Rhode Island’s coastline. Warner v. Replinger, 397 F. Supp. 350, 355-356 (RI 1975). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed that judgment. Warner v. Dunlap, 532 F. 2d 767 (1976), cert. pending sub nom. Ball v. Dunlap, No. 75-6990.
In December 1976, obviously in response to the ruling in the Rhode Island Pilotage Commission suit, and apparently in the thought that coastline determinations would best be made in this then-existing original action, the United States filed a motion for supplemental proceedings to determine the exact legal coastlines of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This Court entered an order appointing the Honorable Walter E. Hoffman as Special Master, with the customary authority to request further pleadings, to summon witnesses, to take evidence, and to submit such reports as he might deem appropriate. 433 U. S. 917 (1977). The Massachusetts component of the litigation was separated from the Rhode Island component when it became clear that each concerned different issues. See n. 4, supra. Subsequently, the Master granted New York’s motion to participate in the Rhode Island proceedings.
The basic position of the United States is set forth in the following allegations of its second amended complaint:
“The coastline of Rhode Island is the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters.
“... [T]he coast of the the State of Rhode Island, except as to Block Island, is the ordinary low water line along the mainland beginning at the Massachusetts border to a point off Sakonnet Point, then a straight closing line across Narragansett Bay to Point Judith, then the ordinary low water line along the mainland to the Connecticut border. As to Block Island, the coast of the State of Rhode Island is the ordinary low water line around Block Island____”
Rhode Island’s basic position is asserted in its counterclaim:
“[T]he Rhode Island coast is the ordinary low water line along the mainland beginning at the Massachusetts border to a point off Sakonnet Point, then a straight closing line from Sakonnet Point west to Point Judith, then a straight closing line south to Sandy Point on Block Island, then the ordinary low water line along the Block Island shore clockwise, to a point along a straight closing line to Montauk Point on Long Island, State of New York.”
The status of Long Island Sound as internal waters over which the States have jurisdiction is no longer at issue, for the parties agree, as the Master had found, that Long Island Sound is a historic bay under Article 7(6) of the Convention. We, too, agree with that determination. Its waters therefore are internal waters regardless of whether it also is in part a juridical bay.
In his Report, the Special Master concluded that Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound constitute a juridical bay under the Convention, especially as interpreted by this Court’s decision in United States v. Louisiana (Louisiana Boundary Case), 394 U. S. 11 (1969). The Master so found after concluding that Long Island is to be viewed as an extension of the mainland and as constituting the southern headland of the bay. The Master went on to conclude, as noted above, that the bay closes at the line drawn from Montauk Point, at the eastern tip of Long Island, to Watch Hill Point on the Rhode Island shore.
The Special Master’s Report, when received here, was ordered filed, and exceptions thereto, and replies, were authorized. 465 U. S. 1018 (1984). In response, the United States, the State of Rhode Island, and the State of New York each filed exceptions. These were set for oral argument. 468 U. S. 1213 (1984). The case is now before us on the Report, the exceptions, and the briefs and arguments of the parties.
II
In this Court, the United States argues that it “quarrel[s] only with the Special Master’s recommendation that Long Island be deemed a part of the mainland and the consequences that necessarily flow from that ruling.” Exception of United States 5. It states that if Long Island is considered an island, rather than an extension of the mainland, it cannot form a juridical bay. It expresses concern about “the principle involved and the precedent created,” id., at 6, if its not-part-of-the-mainland argument is rejected, because of the effect of that decision on other States and its international implications. The United States argues that current social and economic ties between Long Island and the mainland cannot overcome the geographical separateness of the Island. It states that any emphasis on the “bay-like” appearance and usage of the waters sheltered by Long Island is “reasoning backwards.” Id., at 8. The Court should affirm, or really reaffirm, that a “geographical island is an island in the eye of the law except only in very rare and truly unusual circumstances.” Id., at 9. It finds support in Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1 (1906), and in the Louisiana Boundary Case, supra, and it points out that Long Island Sound indeed has been referred to, even by this Court, as “an insular formation.” See 394 U. S., at 72, n. 95.
Before this Court, Rhode Island has directed its exceptions to the fixing of a line that closes what it claims is a juridical bay consisting of Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound. Although it agrees with the other parties that Montauk Point is the bay’s southern headland, Rhode Island argues that Watch Hill Point cannot be the northern headland, if for no other reason than that a point east of Watch Hill Point (near Quonochontaug Pond) is a preferred choice, for it, too, would satisfy all required conditions and would enclose more water area. But Rhode Island further notes that Block Island lies at the opening of the long and deep indentation formed by the two Sounds. It is said that although Block Island lies seaward of a direct line from Montauk Point to Point Judith, it nevertheless influences Block Island Sound in a number of significant ways: coastal traffic routinely passes outside Block Island; commercial vessels rarely go between Montauk Point and Block Island because of the hazardous underwater conditions there; Block Island provides shelter in rough weather; the salinity of the water in Block Island Sound is less than that of water of the open sea; the island has an effect upon the currents of Block Island Sound; and these factors together link Block Island to the indentation rather than to the open sea.
New York, in its turn, argues here that the applicable criteria for determining the existence of a bay apply also to the portion of Block Island Sound east of the line between Montauk Point and Watch Hill Point. The passage between Block Island and Point Judith is the primary entrance to the indentation formed by the two Sounds. This places the northern headland at Point Judith. The shallow depth and underwater obstacles between Montauk Point and Block Island have an effect on the surface of the water in storm conditions, for they are part of the terminal moraine that formed Long Island. The waters of the Sound are sheltered by Block Island and the underwater obstructions. Commercial ships use the entrance to Block Island Sound which lies between Block Island and Point Judith. Thus, the artificial line between Montauk Point and Watch Hill Point in reality would not divide waters having the characteristics of a bay from those having the characteristics of the open sea. The waters of Block Island Sound do not constitute a route of international passage. They are closely related to the mainland by the intensity of their use for fishing and recreational boating. It is clear from the evidence, it is said, that the purposes and characteristics of a bay that are found in Long Island Sound are present, too, in Block Island Sound. Those waters are also landlocked, for they satisfy the objective test described by Rhode Island’s witness Jeremy C. E. White (land visible for at least 180 degrees upon entrance to a bay). The Rhode Island coast to the north provides closure and protection, and Block Island provides additional closure and protection sufficient for the waters of the Sound to be landlocked. Thus, New York says, the Master should have utilized Block Island in closing the Bay.
In its reply brief, the United States notes that if it prevails against the mainland-extension argument, the case is at an end. In the light of the possibility that it might not prevail in that argument, the United States turns to the closing line issue. Accepting, arguendo, “that Long Island, juridically, is a peninsula,” Reply Brief for United States 2, the Government endorses the Special Master’s resolution, namely, that the bay is closed by the line from Montauk Point to Watch Hill Point. Satisfaction of the semicircle and the 24-mile tests is not enough. Under the Convention, a well-marked indentation which is more than a mere curvature of the coast and the presence of landlocked waters are requirements that also must be satisfied. The natural companion for Montauk Point is Watch Hill Point, almost due north, and not Point Judith, 18 miles to the east. Watch Hill Point is the nearest point on the opposite shore. It was recognized and approved as a closing point by at least two expert witnesses. It is the first prominent point on the Rhode Island coast. The bay thus closed is surrounded by land on all sides but one, and it provides useful shelter and isolation from the sea. The enclosed waters clearly are landlocked. This cannot be said of the waters east of the line, which are open on two sides, unless one assumes a closure because of underwater conditions between Montauk Point and Block Island.
Ill
Under § 4 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1312, a coastal State’s boundary is measured from its legal coastline. The coastline is defined as “the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters.” § 1301(c). A State’s seaward boundary generally is set as a line three geographical miles distant from its coastline. § 1312. Waters landward of the coastline therefore are internal waters of the State, while waters up to three miles seaward of the coastline are also within a State’s boundary as part of the 3-mile ring referred to as the marginal sea. This Court previously has observed that Congress by the Submerged Lands Act left to the Court the task of defining the boundaries of the States’ internal waters, and the Court under that Act has adopted the definitions contained in the Convention in determining the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters of the States. See Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S., at 16, 35; United States v. California, 381 U. S. 139, 165-167 (1965).
Article 7 of the Convention establishes special criteria for drawing the baseline of a juridical bay. Article 7(2) defines a juridical bay:
“For the purposes of these articles, a bay is a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain landlocked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation.”
Article 7(4) states that waters in a bay with a mouth that does not exceed 24 miles are internal waters. As has been indicated, in the United States such waters are within the jurisdiction of the adjacent States pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act. If a body of water is found to be a juridical bay, then, the closing line of the bay becomes part of the coastline, and a State’s boundary generally extends three miles beyond that closing line.
IV
Addressing first the question whether Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound together constitute a juridical bay, we repeat the Convention’s criteria for determining whether such a bay exists: There must be a “well-marked indentation” into the coast and it must “constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast.” The indentation must enclose an area “as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of the indentation.” The indentation must “contain landlocked waters.” And the mouth of a bay must not exceed 24 miles.
A mere glance at a map of the region under consideration reveals that unless Long Island is considered to be part of the mainland and provides one of the headlands, neither Long Island Sound nor Block Island Sound satisfies Article 7’s requirements for a bay. Though the coast to the north of Long Island curves somewhat, it was the nearly unanimous conclusion of the testifying experts that, in the absence of Long Island, the curvature of the coast is no more than a “mere curvature” and is not an “indentation.” And, absent Long Island, the waters of the Sounds would not be sufficiently surrounded by land so as to be landlocked; neither would they satisfy the semicircle test.
On the other hand, if Long Island is to be viewed as a continuation or part of the mainland, it is evident that a bay is formed and that the requirements of Article 7 are satisfied. All the expert witnesses reached this conclusion. The surface area of the water enclosed by the deep indentation is substantially larger than the area of a semicircle whose diameter is that of the line across the mouth of the indentation, regardless of where that mouth is located. The question whether Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound constitute a juridical bay therefore depends entirely upon whether Long Island may be treated as an extension of the mainland for the application of Article 7.
There is nothing in the Convention or in the Submerged Lands Act that indicates whether islands may or may not be treated as extensions of the mainland for the purpose of forming a headland of a juridical bay. This Court, however, previously has held that in some circumstances islands under Article 7 may be treated as headlands of a juridical bay.
In the Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S., at 60-66, the Court held that small islands off the coast of Louisiana in the Mississippi River Delta constitute headlands of bays on that coast, because the shoreline there consists of a number of small deltaic islands. On the other hand, the Court determined that “Article 7 does not encompass bays formed in part by islands which cannot realistically be considered part of the mainland.” Id., at 67. The Court reasoned as follows:
“No language in Article 7 or elsewhere positively excludes all islands from the meaning of the ‘natural entrance points’ to a bay. Waters within an indentation which are ‘landlocked’ despite the bay’s wide entrance surely would not lose that characteristic on account of an additional narrow opening to the sea. That the area of a bay is delimited by the ‘low-water mark around the shore’ does not necessarily mean that the low-water mark must be continuous.
“Moreover, there is nothing in the history of the Convention or of the international law of bays which establishes that a piece of land which is technically an island can never be the headland of a bay. Of course, the general understanding has been — and under the Convention certainly remains — that bays are indentions in the mainland, and that islands off the shore are not headlands but at the most create multiple mouths to the bay. In most instances and on most coasts it is no doubt true that islands would play only that restricted role in the delimitation of bays....
“... While there is little objective guidance on this question to be found in international law, the question whether a particular island is to be treated as part of the mainland would depend on such factors as its size, its distance from the mainland, the depth and utility of the intervening waters, the shape of the island, and its relationship to the configuration or curvature of the coast.” Id., at 61-63, 66 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in original).
The Court also stated that an island’s “origin... and resultant connection with the shore” is another factor to be considered. Id., at 65, n. 84.
The Court reached this conclusion after surveying such case law as there was and the scholarly discussion of the question. See id., at 64-66, nn. 84 and 85. That survey suggested that there was a consensus that islands may be assimilated to the mainland, and that a common-sense approach was to be used to determine when islands may be so treated. See id., at 64; 1 A. Shalowitz, Shore and Sea Boundaries 162 (1962) (hereinafter Shalowitz). We see no reason to depart from those principles, and we conclude, once again, that an island or group of islands may be considered part of the mainland if they “are so integrally related to the mainland that they are realistically parts of the ‘coast’ within the meaning of the Convention.” Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S., at 66. See also Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S., at 45-46. We continue to find the illustrative list of factors quoted above to be useful in determining when an island or group of islands may be so assimilated.
The United States argues, however, that the language in the Louisiana Boundary Case should be restrictedly interpreted so as to allow islands to be treated as headlands only in a few narrow situations: when the island is separated from the mainland by a genuine “river”; when the island is connected to the mainland by a causeway; when the island is connected to the mainland by a low-tide elevation; or when, as in the Louisiana Boundary Case, the shoreline is deltaic in nature. We discern no such limits. Given the variety of possible geographic configurations, we feel that the proper approach is to consider each case individually in determining whether an island should be assimilated to the mainland.
Applying the “realistic approach,” see the Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U. S., at 63, we agree with the Special Master that Long Island, which indeed is unusual, presents the exceptional case of an island which should be treated as an extension of the mainland. In particular, its shape and its relation to the corresponding coast leads us to this conclusion. The island’s north shore roughly follows the south shore of the opposite mainland, with the island’s shore, however, curving slightly seaward and then back, while the mainland has a concave shape. As a result, the large pocket of water in Long Island Sound is almost completely enclosed by surrounding land.
The western end of Long Island helps form an integral part of the familiar outline of New York Harbor. It would be just as unrealistic to exclude Brooklyn on Long Island from New York’s coastline as it would be to exclude the islands of the Mississippi Delta from Louisiana’s. There is no acceptable sense in which, for example, the East Side of Manhattan Island, or Hunt’s Point in the Bronx, could be said to be locations on the Atlantic coast.
At Throgs Neck, Long Island is about one-half mile from the mainland. The East River, which separates Long Island from the mainland and from Manhattan Island, at one time was as shallow as 15-to-18 feet, with a rapid current that made navigation from Long Island Sound extremely hazardous. When we contrast this narrow and shallow opening to the 118-mile length of Long Island and to the extensive surface area of the bay it helps to form, we reach the conclusion that the existence of one narrow opening to the sea does not make Long Island Sound or Block Island Sound any less a bay than it otherwise would be. Both the proximity of Long Island to the mainland, the shallowness and inutility of the intervening waters as they were constituted originally, and the fact that the East River is not an opening to the sea, suggest that Long Island be treated as an extension of the mainland. Long Island and the adjacent shore also share a common geological history, formed by deposits of sediment and rocks brought from the mainland by ice sheets that retreated approximately 25,000 years ago.
Our conclusion that this area should be considered a bay is buttressed by the fact that as a result of the geographic configuration of Long Island, the enclosed water is used as one would expect a bay to be used. Ships do not pass through Block Island Sound and then Long Island Sound unless they are bound for points on Long Island or on the opposite coast or for New York Harbor. Long Island Sound is not a route of international passage, and ships headed for points south of New York do not use Long Island Sound. They pass, instead, seaward of Long Island.
The ultimate justification for treating a bay as internal waters, under the Convention and under international law, is that, due to its geographic configuration, its waters implicate the interests of the territorial sovereign to a more intimate and important extent than do the waters beyond an open coast. See generally M. McDougal & W. Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans 64, 305-309, 330-332 (1962). Our realistic approach to the question whether Long Island and Block Island Sounds constitute a bay does no more than recognize that, due to its geographic configuration, such interests are implicated here.
We reaffirm our understanding that the general rule is that islands may not normally be considered extensions of the mainland for purposes of creating the headlands of juridical bays. Consideration of the relevant factors in this factually specific inquiry, however, leads us to agree with the Special Master that in this case Long Island functions as an extension of the mainland forming the southern headland of a juridical bay.
V
Having concluded that Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound constitute a juridical bay, there remains the question as to where the bay ends or closes. The sections of Article 7 of the Convention having to do with the closing lines of bays, and pertinent here, are the following:
“3. For the purpose of measurement, the area of an indentation is that lying between the low-water mark around the shore of the indentation and a line joining the low-water marks of its natural entrance points. Where, because of the presence of islands, an indentation has more than one mouth, the semi-circle shall be drawn on a line as long as the sum total of the lengths of the lines across the different mouths. Islands within an indentation shall be included as if they were part of the water areas of the indentation.
“4. If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay does not exceed twenty-four miles, a closing line may be drawn between these two low-water marks, and the waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as internal waters.
“5. Where the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay exceeds twenty-four miles, a straight baseline of twenty-four miles shall be drawn within the bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that is possible with a line of that length.”
Article 7(2) specifies other less mathematical restrictions to be considered when determining the closing line. As previously noted, the waters in a bay must be “landlocked,” and a bay must be a “well-marked indentation,” which is more than a “mere curvature of the coast.” The Convention, thus, directs that the closing line be a line no more than 24 miles long connecting the natural entrance points to a well-marked indentation, and the line must enclose within the indentation landlocked waters. The closing lines may include islands if the islands cause the bay to have multiple mouths.
The Special Master agreed with the United States’ present secondary position that the bay should close at the line from Montauk Point north to Watch Hill Point. The States assert that all of Block Island Sound should be within the juridical bay. They propose that the closing line be drawn from Mon-tauk Point to a point near Southwest Point on Block Island, and from Sandy Point on Block Island to Point Judith in Rhode Island. Either proposed closing line satisfies both the 24-mile rule of Article 7 and the Article 7(2) requirement that the area enclosed be greater than that of a semicircle whose diameter is the closing line. The issue therefore comes down to the proper application of the more subjective requirements of Article 7.
Were it not for the presence of Block Island, the 14-mile line from Montauk Point to Watch Hill Point clearly would be the closing line of the bay. All the parties agree that Montauk Point is one of the natural entrance points, and thus one of the end points of the bay’s closing line. Watch Hill Point is nearly due north of Montauk Point. The waters west of this line are within a well-marked indentation and are landlocked under any definition of that word. They are surrounded by land on all but one side and are sheltered and isolated from the sea. The coast from Watch Hill Point eastward to Point Judith lacks any pronounced feature that might qualify as a headland. Point Judith itself is more than 24 miles from Montauk Point, so a straight line between those two Points cannot be considered a closing line.
The Montauk-Watch Hill closing line also satisfies the relevant objective tests that have been adopted to determine the natural entrance points to a bay. It is for that reason that the Law of the Sea Task Force Committee on the Delineation of the Coastline determined that if Long Island Sound were considered a juridical bay, the Montauk-Watch Hill line would be its closing line.
The States insist, however, that the presence of Block Island gives the indentation more than one mouth as allowed by Article 7(3) of the Convention, and therefore alters the outward limits of the bay. They note that the International Law Commission’s commentary on Article 7(2) of the Convention states that “the presence of islands at the mouth of an indentation tends to link it more closely to the mainland.” 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1956, p. 269. The States say that this implies that where a choice of lines exists due to the presence of islands near the mouth of a bay, the line that encloses the greater area of inland water should be selected. There is support for this proposition in Article 7(5) of the Convention, which calls for a 24-mile closing line to be drawn that encloses the maximum area of water whenever the natural closing line exceeds 24 miles. There is also support for this position among the text writers.
It is the view of the United States that no island like Block Island lying outside an indentation can form multiple mouths of a bay. It claims that unless Block Island is intersected by a line which would otherwise close the bay, it cannot be used to form multiple mouths.
This case presents no opportunity to resolve that dispute, for under any reasonable interpretation of the Convention, Block Island is too removed from what would otherwise be the closing line of the bay to affect that line. Block Island is nearly 12 miles from Montauk Point and 6 miles from the nearest land. At no point is it closer than 11 miles from the 14-mile line between Montauk Point and Watch Hill Point. It is an island far removed from the headlands of the juridical bay formed by Long Island.
The States appear to be arguing not that an island near the mouth of a bay creates multiple mouths, but that an island well beyond what would otherwise be the mouth of the bay can cause the bay to have an entirely different mouth. Because of the presence of Block Island, it is said, the waters landward of the island take on the appearance and uses of a bay's waters. To support their argument they note that ships entering Block Island Sound come between Block Island and Point Judith. The presence of Block Island, therefore, has the effect of making Point Judith one of the natural entrance points of the bay. And once the closing line is drawn from Montauk Point to Point Judith, Block Island is near enough to that closing line that it ought to be included as an island creating multiple mouths to the bay.
Such a treatment of islands beyond the natural entrance points of an indentation finds no support in the Convention or in any of the scholarly treatises. Nowhere has it been suggested that because ocean traffic headed into a bay happens to pass landward of an island in open sea in order to enter that bay, the island therefore marks an entrance point to the bay. Nor is such a theory a fair extrapolation of Articles 7(2) and (5) of the Convention.
There are also a number of substantial difficulties with that approach, not the least of which is that the line from Montauk Point to Point Judith exceeds the 24-mile limit imposed by the Convention. And, most significantly, some of the waters enclosed by the suggested closing line are not landlocked, as required by the Convention. The Convention does not define “landlocked,” and this Court has not yet felt it appropriate to offer a comprehensive definition of the term. Scholars interpreting the Convention have given the term a subjective and common-sense meaning. We agree with the general proposition that the term “landlocked” “implies both that there shall be land in all but one direction and also that it should be close enough at all points to provide [a seaman] with shelter from all but that one direction.” P. Beasley, Maritime Limits and Baselines: A Guide to Their Delineation, The Hydrographic Society, Special Publication No. 2, p. 13 (1978).
As the Special Master and the members of the Baseline Committee concluded, the waters in the outer reaches of Block Island Sound in any practical sense are not usefully sheltered and isolated from the sea so as to constitute a bay or bay-like formation. It was the credited testimony of witnesses that ships passing landward of Block Island, as a result, are not in the sheltered confines of what the Convention is willing to recognize as a bay. The waters eastward of the Montauk-Watch Hill line are exposed to the open sea on two sides and are not predominantly surrounded by land or sheltered from the sea. At the very least, therefore, the States’ proposed closing line is defective because it includes open sea in the indentation in violation of the mandates of the Convention. Such is the nearly inevitable result, it seems to us, of a theory that would treat islands well beyond the natural entrance points of an indentation as creating multiple mouths to that indentation.
VI
In summary, we agree with the Special Master and hold that Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound west of the line between Montauk Point on Long Island and Watch Hill Point in Rhode Island are a juridical bay under Article 7 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. This juridical bay is closed by that line connecting Montauk Point and Watch Hill Point. The waters of the bay west of the closing line are internal state waters, and the waters of Block Island Sound east of that line are territorial waters and high seas.
The respective exceptions filed by the United States, the State of Rhode Island, and the State of New York are overruled. The recommendations of the Special Master are adopted and his Report is confirmed. The parties are directed promptly to submit to the Special Master a proposed appropriate decree for this Court’s consideration; if the parties are unable to agree upon the form of the decree, each shall submit its proposal to the Master for his consideration and recommendation. Each party shall bear its own costs; the actual expenses of the Special Master shall be borne half by the United States and half by Rhode Island and New York.
The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as from time to time may be deemed necessary or advisable to effectuate and supplement the decree and the rights of the respective parties.
It is so ordered.
[1964] 15 U. S. T. (pt. 2) 1607, T. I. A. S. No. 5639. See United States v. Louisiana (Louisiana Boundary Case), 394 U. S. 11, 16, n. 7 (1969).
The State of Connecticut was not named as a defendant. This apparently was because the State borders only on a part of Long Island Sound deemed to be inland waters, rather than open sea. See United States v. Maine, 420 U. S. 515, 517, n. 1 (1975).
See also 400 U. S. 914 (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In connection with a 1964 consolidation by which petitioner railway company absorbed New York, Chicago & St. Louis R.,Co. (Nickel Plate), the so-called Sandusky Line, running from Columbus, Ohio, to Sandusky, Ohio, was acquired from the Pennsylvania Railroad system. Respondents were at the time employees of the Pennsylvania on the Sandusky Line. Their work was seasonal because the winter freeze barred navigation on Lake Erie. During those periods j unior employees of Sandusky worked at other points on the Pennsylvania’s Toledo Division.
In anticipation of the 1964 consolidation, petitioner entered into an agreement with 19 labor organizations for protection of the employees of the several railroads coming into the consolidation, including those on the San-dusky Line. Petitioner agreed to employ “all employees of the lines involved with the guarantee that they will not be adversely affected in their employment as a result of the proposed transactions or for any reason other than furloughs due to seasonal requirements or a decline in volume of traffic or revenue. 324 I. C. C. 1, 89 (emphasis added).
Each employee was to receive a monthly supplement to his post-consolidation monthly earnings equal to the excess, if any, of his average monthly compensation for the 12 months prior to the consolidation in which he had performed services.
Some 96 Sandusky Line employees elected to accept employment with petitioner on the terms and conditions stated. Twenty-five were junior men who had worked seasonally on the Toledo Division and they were the plaintiffs in this action.
The consolidation took place and over a year elapsed during which these trainmen were not paid the compensation promised. Arbitration pursuant to the collective agreement was agreed upon. At that point in 1965 the union and petitioner entered into a new agreement which reduced substantially the benefits of the junior trainmen who had been Sandusky Line employees. The District Court (287 F. Supp. 221, 309 F. Supp. 575) held that this new agreement was not enforceable as a matter of law as it violated the Act under which the consolidation or merger took place. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 436 F. 2d 841, with a modification that the damages due respondent-employees should be determined by the District Court, not through arbitration. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted, 402 U. S. 994.
Section 5 (2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, 54 Stat. 906, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2) (f), provides that in mergers and consolidations “the Commission shall require a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the interests of the railroad employees affected” for a period of four years.
The ICC in its approval of the consolidation or merger (324 I. C. C. 1, 106 (1964)) stated that the agreements respecting, inter alia, the rights of the Sandusky Line employees were “made pursuant to and in conformity with section 5 (2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act for the protection of covered employees.”
It construed the agreements as requiring “that job eliminations as a result of the proposed acquisition of control be accomplished only through normal attrition.” Ibid.
The mandate of § 5 (2)(f) seems clear enough: the Commission “shall require a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the interests of the railroad employees affected.” The Commission, as noted, said that the conditions protective of the employees were made pursuant to and in conformity with the provisions of § 5 (2) (f) and it gave its authorization “subject to such agreements.” 324 I. C. C., at 50. The Solicitor General and the ICC argue in their amicus curiae brief that the last sentence of § 5 (2) (f) — the “notwithstanding” provision — relieved the Commission of any duty to review the adequacy of the protective provisions contained in a collective-bargaining agreement, and that they were not accorded protection by the ICC order.
We disagree with that view. We reviewed the history of § 5 (2) (f) in Railway Executives’ Assn. v. United States, 339 U. S. 142, and said that “one of its principal purposes was to provide mandatory protection for the interests of employees affected by railroad consolidations.” Id., at 148. That “mandatory protection” can be accorded by terms provided by the Commission, or, as is more likely, by provisions of a collective agreement which the Commission adopts or approves as adequate for a minimum of four years (as required by the second sentence) or longer (as allowed by the first sentence) if the Commission so provides. Id., at 154. The purpose of § 5 (2) (f) was not to freeze jobs but to provide compensatory conditions. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes v. United States, 366 U. S. 169, 175-176. In that case we noted that the Commission has consistently followed that practice “in over 80 cases, with the full support of the intervening brotherhoods.” Id., at 177. And the Commission over and over again has adopted the set of labor conditions contained in collective agreements in discharge of its duty under § 5 (2) (f). See Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. Purchase, 261 I. C. C. 405, 434; Erie R. Co. Trackage Rights, 295 I. C. C. 303, 305; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. Trackage Rights, 295 I. C. C. 743, 755-756.
When there is a collective agreement and the Commission, as here, adopts or approves it, the “notwithstanding” sentence of § 5 (2) (f) is not, as suggested, read out of the Act. The collective agreement then becomes a “condition” of the Commission’s “approval” of the consolidation under the first sentence of § 5 (2) (f) and its provisions are deemed by the Commission to be “a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the interests” of the employees within the meaning of the first sentence. Thus, the significance of the “notwithstanding” proviso is that it provides the machinery for the terms of a pre-merger collective agreement and thus supplies the minimum measure of fairness required under the first sentence of § 5 (2)(f).
In 1965 an implementing agreement, entered into after the consolidation, was made between the union and petitioner. It is petitioner’s claim that it limited these junior employees to their average monthly earnings on the Sandusky Line during the 12 months before the consolidation, regardless of how many months the employees had worked during that period on other sections of the Toledo Division. That is to say, each of them would receive under the 1965 implementing agreement an average monthly compensation based only on their seasonal Sandusky Line work. Thus, respondent Nemitz had an average monthly compensation of $583.34 representing pre-consolidation work on several sections of the Toledo Division. Under the § 5 (2) (f) agreement governing the consolidation, his earnings would be supplemented to the extent that his post-consolidation monthly earnings fell short of $583.34. Under the 1965 agreement his average monthly compensation, based solely on his work on the Sandusky Line, would be $194.40. Even this amount would not be paid if, as likely, he received that much in unemployment compensation. The 1965 agreement obviously placed these junior employees “in a worse position with respect to compensation,” as those words are used in the pre-consolidation agreement. For they no longer could work on any part of the former Toledo Division except the Sandusky Line and their prior compensation, reflecting in part work on other parts of the Toledo Division, was no longer a measure of the “compensation” to which they were entitled under the pre-consolidation agreement. For those whose historical average monthly earnings were so slight that they were now on unemployment insurance, the result would be much more drastic than “normal attrition,” which the Commission said was the only way under the protective conditions by which jobs would be eliminated. The Court of Appeals said:
“An agreement made pursuant to the last sentence of Sec. 5 (2) (f) may vary the protections afforded by the I. C. C. order, but it may not substantially abrogate employees' rights grounded in an I. C. C. order.” 436 F. 2d, at 848.
We agree with that view. We also agree that the 1965 implementing agreement abrogated the standard of “compensation” covered by the pre-consolidation agreement which had come under the protective order of the Commission.
The judgment below is therefore
Affirmed.
It provides:
“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. In its order of approval the Commission shall include terms and conditions providing that during the period of four years from the effective date of such order such transaction will not result in employees of the carrier or carriers by railroad affected by such order being in a worse position with respect to their employment, except that the protection afforded to any employee pursuant to this sentence shall not be required to continue for a longer period, following the effective date of such order, than the period during which such employee was in the employ of such carrier or carriers prior to the effective date of such order. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, an agreement pertaining to the protection of the interests of said employees may hereafter be entered into by any carrier or carriers by railroad and the duly authorized representative or representatives of its or their employees.”
The Commission stated in its Report, 324 I. C. C. 1, 50:
“As previously stated herein and in appendix A, various agreements have been reached between employee representatives and the Norfolk & Western for the protection of employees adversely affected by these transactions. Our authorizations herein will, by reference, be made subject to such agreements. . . .
“We find that, as conditioned herein, the transactions under consideration meet the requirements prescribed by sections 5 (2) and 20a of the act and conform generally with the purposes and objectives of the national transportation policy declared by Congress. We are convinced that the transactions should be approved.”
In the Appendix to its Report and Order, 324 I. C. C., at 89, the Commission continued:
“Norfolk & Western has entered into an agreement with 19 of the principal labor organizations, members of the Railway Labor Executives’ Association, for the protection of employees of Norfolk & Western, Nickel Plate, and Wabash, as well as persons employed on the Sandusky Line of Pennsylvania, represented by these organizations. This agreement, which provides for the assumption by Norfolk & Western of all outstanding labor contracts, schedules and agreements of Nickel Plate and Wabash, as well as those having application on the Sandusky Line, basically requires that job eliminations as a result of the unification be accomplished only through normal attrition. Under its terms, Norfolk & Western agrees to take into its employment, upon consummation of the merger, lease, and purchase, all employees of the lines involved with the guarantee that they will not be adversely affected in their employment as a result of the proposed transactions or for any reason other than furloughs due to seasonal requirements or a decline in volume of traffic or revenue.”
The result, of course, would be that there would be no basis for judicial review of the ICC order pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1336.
A synopsis of the legislative history of § 5 (2) (f) is contained in an Appendix to our opinion in St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 347 U. S. 298, 315.
The agreement authorized by the Commission when the merger was approved was described as follows by the Commisson, Appendix to Report and Order of Interstate Commerce Commission, 324 I. C. C., at 89:
“The agreement also authorized Norfolk & Western to transfer the work of employees throughout the merged system and requires the labor organizations to enter into implementing agreements permitting employees either to follow their work or be assigned to other jobs within their craft or class within the same general locality as existing jobs, following a period of retraining, if necessary, at Norfolk & Western’s expense.”
The union that negotiated the Implementing Agreement disagreed with that position as did the union’s National Board of Appeals. Both, however, proceeded on a mistaken view of the law.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
On January 14, 1946, the petitioner, a Negro, concededly qualified to receive the professional legal education offered by the State, applied for admission to the School of Law of the University of Oklahoma, the only institution for legal education supported and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma. Petitioner’s application for admission was denied, solely because of her color.
Petitioner then made application for a writ of mandamus in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The writ of mandamus was refused, and the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P. 2d 135. We brought the case here for review.
The petitioner is entitled to secure legal education afforded by a state institution. To this time, it has been denied her although during the same period many white applicants have been afforded legal education by the State. The State must provide it for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938).
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide whether a trial court’s erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel entitles him to a reversal of his conviction.
I
Respondent Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez was charged in the Eastern District of Missouri with conspiracy to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. His family hired attorney John Fahle to represent him. After the arraignment, respondent called a California attorney, Joseph Low, to discuss whether Low would represent him, either in addition to or instead of Fahle. Low flew from California to meet with respondent, who hired him.
Some time later, Low and Fahle represented respondent at an evidentiary hearing before a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge accepted Low’s provisional entry of appearance and permitted Low to participate in the hearing on the condition that he immediately file a motion for admission pro hac vice. During the hearing, however, the Magistrate Judge revoked the provisional acceptance on the ground that, by passing notes to Fahle, Low had violated a court rule restricting the cross-examination of a witness to one counsel.
The following week, respondent informed Fahle that he wanted Low to be his only attorney. Low then filed an application for admission pro hac vice. The District Court denied his application without comment. A month later, Low filed a second application, which the District Court again denied without explanation. Low’s appeal, in the form of an application for a writ of mandamus, was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Fahle filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and for a show-cause hearing to consider sanctions against Low. Fahle asserted that, by contacting respondent while respondent was represented by Fahle, Low violated Mo. Rule of Professional Conduct 4-4.2 (2003), which prohibits a lawyer “[i]n representing a client” from “communicat[ing] about the subject of the representation with a party... represented by another lawyer” without that lawyer’s consent. Low filed a motion to strike Fahle’s motion. The District Court granted Fahle’s motion to withdraw and granted a continuance so that respondent could find new representation. Respondent retained a local attorney, Karl Dickhaus, for the trial. The District Court then denied Low’s motion to strike and, for the first time, explained that it had denied Low’s motions for admission pro hoc vice primarily because, in a separate case before it, Low had violated Rule 4-4.2 by communicating with a represented party.
The case proceeded to trial, and Dickhaus represented respondent. Low again moved for admission and was again denied. The court also denied Dickhaus’s request to have Low at counsel table with him and ordered Low to sit in the audience and to have no contact with Dickhaus during the proceedings. To enforce the court’s order, a United States Marshal sat between Low and Dickhaus at trial. Respondent was unable to meet with Low throughout the trial, except for once on the last night. The jury found respondent guilty.
After trial, the District Court granted Fahle’s motion for sanctions against Low. It read Rule 4-4.2 to forbid Low’s contact with respondent without Fahle’s permission. It also reiterated that it had denied Low’s motions for admission on the ground that Low had violated the same Rule in a separate matter.
Respondent appealed, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the conviction. 399 F. 3d 924 (2005). The court first held that the District Court erred in interpreting Rule 4-4.2 to prohibit Low’s conduct both in this case and in the separate matter on which the District Court based its denials of his admission motions. The District Court’s denials of these motions were therefore erroneous and violated respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to paid counsel of his choosing. See id., at 928-932. The court then concluded that this Sixth Amendment violation was not subject to harmless-error review. See id., at 932-935. We granted certiorari. 546 U. S. 1085 (2006).
II
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.” We have previously held that an element of this right is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153, 159 (1988). Cf. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 53 (1932) (“It is hardly necessary to say that, the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice”). The Government here agrees, as it has previously, that “the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing to represent the defendant even though he is without funds.” Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U. S. 617, 624-625 (1989). To be sure, the right to counsel of choice “is circumscribed in several important respects.” Wheat, supra, at 159. But the Government does not dispute the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion in this case that the District Court erroneously deprived respondent of his counsel of choice.
The Government contends, however, that the Sixth Amendment violation is not “complete” unless the defendant can show that substitute counsel was ineffective within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 691-696 (1984)—i. e., that substitute counsel’s performance was deficient and the defendant was prejudiced by it. In the alternative, the Government contends that the defendant must at least demonstrate that his counsel of choice would have pursued a different strategy that would have created a “reasonable probability that... the result of the proceedings would have been different,” id., at 694—in other words, that he was prejudiced within the meaning of Strickland by the denial of his counsel of choice even if substitute counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient. To support these propositions, the Government points to our prior cases, which note that the right to counsel “has been accorded... not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.” Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U. S. 162, 166 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). A trial is not unfair and thus the Sixth Amendment is not violated, the Government reasons, unless a defendant has been prejudiced.
Stated as broadly as this, the Government’s argument in effect reads the Sixth Amendment as a more detailed version of the Due Process Clause—and then proceeds to give no effect to the details. It is true enough that the purpose of the rights set forth in that Amendment is to ensure a fair trial; but it does not follow that the rights can be disregarded so long as the trial is, on the whole, fair. What the Government urges upon us here is what was urged upon us (successfully, at one time, see Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 (1980)) with regard to the Sixth Amendment’s right of confrontation—a line of reasoning that “abstracts from the right to its purposes, and then eliminates the right.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U. S. 836, 862 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Since, it was argued, the purpose of the Confrontation Clause was to ensure the reliability of evidence, so long as the testimonial hearsay bore “indicia of reliability,” the Confrontation Clause was not violated. See Roberts, supra, at 65-66. We rejected that argument (and our prior cases that had accepted it) in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004), saying that the Confrontation Clause “commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.” Id., at 61.
So also with the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. It commands, not that a trial be fair, but that a particular guarantee of fairness be provided—to wit, that the accused be defended by the counsel he believes to be best. “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.” Strickland, supra, at 684-685. In sum, the right at stake here is the right to counsel of choice, not the right to a fair trial; and that right was violated because the deprivation of counsel was erroneous. No additional showing of prejudice is required to make the violation “complete.”
The cases the Government relies on involve the right to the effective assistance of counsel, the violation of which generally requires a defendant to establish prejudice. See, e. g., Strickland, 466 U. S., at 694; Mickens, supra, at 166; United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984). The earliest case generally cited for the proposition 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), was based on the Due Process Clause rather than on the Sixth Amendment, see Powell, 287 U. S., at 57 (cited in, e. g., McMann, supra, at 771, n. 14). And even our recognition of the right to effective counsel within the Sixth Amendment was a consequence of our perception that representation by counsel “is critical to the ability of the adversarial system to produce just results.” Strickland, supra, at 685. Having derived the right to effective representation from the purpose of ensuring a fair trial, we have, logically enough, also derived the limits of that right from that same purpose. See Mickens, supra, at 166. The requirement that a defendant show prejudice in effective representation cases arises from the very nature of the specific element of the right to counsel at issue there—effective (not mistake-free) representation. Counsel cannot be “ineffective” unless his mistakes have harmed the defense (or, at least, unless it is reasonably likely that they have). Thus, a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective representation is not “complete” until the defendant is prejudiced. See Strickland, supra, at 685.
The right to select counsel of one’s choice, by contrast, has never been derived from the Sixth Amendment’s purpose of ensuring a fair trial. It has been regarded as the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee. See Wheat, 486 U. S., at 159; Andersen v. Treat, 172 U. S. 24 (1898). See generally W. Beaney, The Right to Counsel in American Courts 18-24, 27-33 (1955). Cf. Powell, supra, at 53. Where the right to be assisted by counsel of one’s choice is wrongly denied, therefore, it is unnecessary to conduct an ineffectiveness or prejudice inquiry to establish a Sixth Amendment violation. Deprivation of the right is “complete” when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received. To argue otherwise is to confuse the right to counsel of choice—which is the right to a particular lawyer regardless of comparative effectiveness—with the right to effective counsel—which imposes a baseline requirement of competence on whatever lawyer is chosen or appointed.
Ill
Having concluded, in light of the Government’s concession of erroneous deprivation, that the trial court violated respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, we must consider whether this error is subject to review for harmlessness. In Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991), we divided constitutional errors into two classes. The first we called “trial error,” because the errors “occurred during presentation of the case to the jury” and their effect may “be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether [they were] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 307-308 (internal quotation marks omitted). These include “most constitutional errors.” Id., at 306. The second class of constitutional error we called “structural defects.” These “defy analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards” because they “affee[t] the framework within which the trial proceeds,” and are not “simply an error in the trial process itself.” Id., at 309-310. See also Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 7-9 (1999). Such errors include the denial of counsel, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), the denial of the right of self-representation, see McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U. S. 168, 177-178, n. 8 (1984), the denial of the right to public trial, see Waller v. Georgia, 467 U. S. 39, 49, n. 9 (1984), and the denial of the right to trial by jury by the giving of a defective reasonable-doubt instruction, see Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275 (1993).
We have little trouble concluding that erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, “with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error.’ ” Id., at 282. Different attorneys will pursue different strategies with regard to investigation and discovery, development of the theory of defense, selection of the jury, presentation of the witnesses, and style of witness examination and jury argument. And the choice of attorney will affect whether and on what terms the defendant cooperates with the prosecution, plea bargains, or decides instead to go to trial. In light of these myriad aspects of representation, the erroneous denial of counsel bears directly on the “framework within which the trial proceeds,” Fulminante, supra, at 310—or indeed on whether it proceeds at all. It is impossible to know what different choices the rejected counsel would have made, and then to quantify the impact of those different choices on the outcome of the proceedings. Many counseled decisions, including those involving plea bargains and cooperation with the government, do not even concern the conduct of the trial at all. Harmless-error analysis in such a context would be a speculative inquiry into what might have occurred in an alternate universe.
The Government acknowledges that the deprivation of choice of counsel pervades the entire trial, but points out that counsel’s ineffectiveness may also do so and yet we do not allow reversal of a conviction for that reason without a showing of prejudice. But the requirement of showing prejudice in ineffectiveness "claims stems from the very definition of the right at issue; it is not a matter of showing that the violation was harmless, but of showing that a violation of the right to effective representation occurred. A choice-of-counsel violation occurs whenever the defendant’s choice is wrongfully denied. Moreover, if and when counsel’s ineffectiveness “pervades” a trial, it does so (to the extent we can detect it) through identifiable mistakes. We can assess how those mistakes affected the outcome. To determine the effect of wrongful denial of choice of counsel, however, we would not be looking for mistakes committed by the actual counsel, but for differences in the defense that would have been made by the rejected counsel—in matters ranging from questions asked on voir dire and cross-examination to such intangibles as argument style and relationship with the prosecutors. We would have to speculate upon what matters the rejected counsel would have handled differently— or indeed, would have handled the same but with the benefit of a more jury-pleasing courtroom style or a longstanding relationship of trust with the prosecutors. And then we would have to speculate upon what effect those different choices or different intangibles might have had. The difficulties of conducting the two assessments of prejudice are not remotely comparable.
IV
Nothing we have said today casts any doubt or places any qualification upon our previous holdings that limit the right to counsel of choice and recognize the authority of trial courts to establish criteria for admitting lawyers to argue before them. As the dissent too discusses, post, at 154, the right to counsel of choice does not extend to defendants who require counsel to be appointed for them. See Wheat, 486 U. S., at 159; Caplin & Drysdale, 491 U. S., at 624, 626. Nor may a defendant insist on representation by a person who is not a member of the bar, or demand that a court honor his waiver of conflict-free representation. See Wheat, 486 U. S., at 159-160. We have recognized a trial court’s wide latitude in balancing the right to counsel of choice against the needs of fairness, id., at 163-164, and against the demands of its calendar, Morris v. Slappy, 461 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1983). The court has, moreover, an “independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them.” Wheat, supra, at 160. None of these limitations on the right to choose one’s counsel is relevant here. This is not a case about a court’s power to enforce rules or adhere to practices that determine which attorneys may appear before it, or to make scheduling and other decisions that effectively exclude a defendant’s first choice of counsel. However broad a court’s discretion may be, the Government has conceded that the District Court here erred when it denied respondent his choice of counsel. Accepting that premise, we hold that the error violated respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice and that this violation is not subject to harmless-error analysis.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
I disagree with the Court’s conclusion that a criminal conviction must.automatically be reversed whenever a trial court errs in applying its rules regarding pro hac vice admissions and as a result prevents a defendant from being represented at trial by the defendant’s first-choice attorney. Instead, a defendant should be required to make at least some showing that the trial court’s erroneous ruling adversely affected the quality of assistance that the defendant received. In my view, the majority’s contrary holding is based on an incorrect interpretation of the Sixth Amendment and a misapplication of harmless-error principles. I respectfully dissent.
I
The majority makes a subtle but important mistake at the outset in its characterization of what the Sixth Amendment guarantees. The majority states that the Sixth Amendment protects “the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him.” Ante, at 144. What the Sixth Amendment actually protects, however, is the right to have the assistance that the defendant’s counsel of choice is able to provide. It follows that if the erroneous disqualification of a defendant’s counsel of choice does not impair the assistance that a defendant receives at trial, there is no violation of the Sixth Amendment.
The language of the Sixth Amendment supports this interpretation. The Assistance of Counsel Clause focuses on what a defendant is entitled to receive (“Assistance”), rather than on the identity of the provider. The background of the adoption of the Sixth Amendment points in the same direction. The specific evil against which the Assistance of Counsel Clause was aimed was the English common-law rule severely limiting a felony defendant’s ability to be assisted by counsel. United States v. Ash, 413 U. S. 300, 306 (1973). “[T]he core purpose of the counsel guarantee was to assure Assistance’ at trial,” id., at 309, and thereby “to assure fairness in the adversary criminal process,” United States v. Morrison, 449 U. S. 361, 364 (1981). It was not “the essential aim of the Amendment... to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153, 159 (1988); cf. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U. S. 1, 14 (1983) (“[W]e reject the claim that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a ‘meaningful relationship’ between an accused and his counsel”).
There is no doubt, of course, that the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel” carries with it a limited right to be represented by counsel of choice. At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, when the availability of appointed counsel was generally limited, that is how the right inevitably played out: A defendant’s right to have the assistance of counsel necessarily meant the right to have the assistance of whatever counsel the defendant was able to secure. But from the beginning, the right to counsel of choice has been circumscribed.
For one thing, a defendant’s choice of counsel has always been restricted by the rules governing admission to practice before the court in question. The Judiciary Act of 1789 made this clear, providing that parties “in all the courts of the United States” had the right to “the assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” Ch. 20, §35, 1 Stat. 92. Therefore, if a defendant’s first-choice attorney was not eligible to appear under the rules of a particular court, the defendant had no right to be represented by that attorney. Indeed, if a defendant’s top 10 or top 25 choices were all attorneys who were not eligible to appear in the court in question, the defendant had no right to be represented by any of them. Today, rules governing admission to practice before particular courts continue to limit the ability of a criminal defendant to be represented by counsel of choice. See Wheat, supra, at 159.
The right to counsel of choice is also limited by conflict-of-interest rules. Even if a defendant is aware that his or her attorney of choice has a conflict, and even if the defendant is eager to waive any objection, the defendant has no constitutional right to be represented by that attorney. See 486 U. S., at 159-160.
Similarly, the right to be represented by counsel of choice can be limited by mundane case-management considerations. If a trial judge schedules a trial to begin on a particular date and defendant’s counsel of choice is already committed for other trials until some time thereafter, the trial judge has discretion under appropriate circumstances to refuse to postpone the trial date and thereby, in effect, to force the defendant to forgo counsel of choice. See, e. g., Slappy, supra; United States v. Hughey, 147 F. 3d 423, 428-431 (CA5 1998).
These limitations on the right to counsel of choice are tolerable because the focus of the right is the quality of the representation that the defendant receives, not the identity of the attorney who provides the representation. Limiting a defendant to those attorneys who are willing, available, and eligible to represent the defendant still leaves a defendant with a pool of attorneys to choose from—and, in most jurisdictions today, a large and diverse pool. Thus, these restrictions generally have no adverse effect on a defendant’s ability to secure the best assistance that the defendant’s circumstances permit.
Because the Sixth Amendment focuses on the quality of the assistance that counsel of choice would have provided, I would hold that the erroneous disqualification of counsel does not violate the Sixth Amendment unless the ruling diminishes the quality of assistance that the defendant would have otherwise received. This would not require a defendant to show that the second-choice attorney was constitutionally ineffective within the meaning of Strickland v. Washing ton, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). Rather, the defendant would be entitled to a new trial if the defendant could show “an identifiable difference in the quality of representation between the disqualified counsel and the attorney who represents the defendant at trial.” Rodriguez v. Chandler, 382 F. 3d 670, 675 (CA7 2004), cert. denied, 543 U. S. 1156 (2005).
This approach is fully consistent with our prior decisions. We have never held that the erroneous disqualification of counsel violates the Sixth Amendment when there is no prejudice, and while we have stated in several cases that the Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to counsel of choice, see Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U. S. 617, 624-625 (1989); Wheat, supra, at 159; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 53 (1932), we had no occasion in those cases to consider whether a violation of this right can be shown where there is no prejudice. Nor do our opinions in those cases refer to that question. It is therefore unreasonable to read our general statements regarding counsel of choice as addressing the issue of prejudice.
II
But even accepting, as the majority holds, that the erroneous disqualification of counsel of choice always violates the Sixth Amendment, it still would not follow that reversal is required in all cases. The Constitution, by its terms, does not mandate any particular remedy for violations of its own provisions. Instead, we are bound in this case by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a), which instructs federal courts to “disregar[d]” “[a]ny error... which does not affect substantial rights.” See also 28 U. S. C. §2111; Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 22 (1967). The only exceptions we have recognized to this rule have been for “a limited class of fundamental constitutional errors that ‘defy analysis by “harmless error” standards.’ ” Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 7 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 309 (1991)); see also Chapman, supra, at 23. “Such errors... ‘necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair’ [and] deprive defendants of ‘basic protections’ without which ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence... and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.’” Neder, supra, at 8-9 (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570, 577-578 (1986); second omission in original); see also ante, at 149 (listing such errors).
Thus, in Neder, we rejected the argument that the omission of an element of a crime in a jury instruction “necessarily render[s] a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.” 527 U. S., at 9. In fact, in that case, “quite the opposite [was] true: Neder was tried before an impartial judge, under the correct standard of proof and with the assistance of counsel; a fairly selected, impartial jury was instructed to consider all of the evidence and argument in respect to Neder’s defense....” Ibid.
Neder’s situation—with an impartial judge, the correct standard of proof, assistance of counsel, and a fair jury—is much like respondent’s. Fundamental unfairness does not inexorably follow from the denial of first-choice counsel. The “decision to retain a particular lawyer” is “often uninformed,” Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 344 (1980); a defendant’s second-choice lawyer may thus turn out to be better than the defendant’s first-choice lawyer. More often, a defendant’s first- and second-choice lawyers may be simply indistinguishable. These possibilities would not justify violating the right to choice of counsel, but they do make me hard put to characterize the violation as “always rendering] a trial unfair,” Neder, supra, at 9. Fairness may not limit the right, see ante, at 145, but it does inform the remedy.
Nor is it always or nearly always impossible to determine whether the first choice would have provided better representation than the second choice. There are undoubtedly cases in which the prosecution would have little difficulty showing that the second-choice attorney was better qualified than or at least as qualified as the defendant’s initial choice, and there are other cases in which it will be evident to the trial judge that any difference in ability or strategy could not have possibly affected the outcome of the trial.
Requiring a defendant to fall back on a second-choice attorney is not comparable to denying a defendant the right to be represented by counsel at all. Refusing to permit a defendant to receive the assistance of any counsel is the epitome of fundamental unfairness, and as far as the effect on the outcome is concerned, it is much more difficult to assess the effect of a complete denial of counsel than it is to assess the effect of merely preventing representation by the defendant’s first-choice attorney. To be sure, when the effect of an erroneous disqualification is hard to gauge, the prosecution will be unable to meet its burden of showing that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. But that does not justify eliminating the possibility of showing harmless error in all cases.
The majority’s focus on the “trial error’’/“structural defect” dichotomy is misleading. In Fulminante, we used these terms to denote two poles of constitutional error that had appeared in prior cases; trial errors always lead to harmless-error review, while structural defects always lead to automatic reversal. See 499 U. S., at 306-310. We did not suggest that trial errors are the only sorts of errors amenable to harmless-error review, or that all errors “affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds,” id., at 310, are structural. The touchstone of structural error is fundamental unfairness and unreliability. Automatic reversal is strong medicine that should be reserved for constitutional errors that “always” or “necessarily,” Neder, supra, at 9 (emphasis in original), produce such unfairness.
Ill
Either of the two courses outlined above—requiring at least some showing of prejudice, or engaging in harmless-error review—would avoid the anomalous and unjustifiable consequences that follow from the majority’s two-part rule of error without prejudice followed by automatic reversal.
Under the majority’s holding, a defendant who is erroneously required to go to trial with a second-choice attorney is automatically entitled to a new trial even if this attorney performed brilliantly. By contrast, a defendant whose attorney was ineffective in the constitutional sense (i. e., “made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed... by the Sixth Amendment,” Strickland, 466 U. S., at 687) cannot obtain relief without showing prejudice.
Under the majority’s holding, a trial court may adopt rules severely restricting pro hoc vice admissions, cf. Leis v. Flynt, 439 U. S. 438, 443 (1979) (per curiam), but if it adopts a generous rule and then errs in interpreting or applying it, the error automatically requires reversal of any conviction, regardless of whether the erroneous ruling had any effect on the defendant.
Under the majority’s holding, some defendants will be awarded new trials even though it is clear that the erroneous disqualification of their first-choice counsel did not prejudice them in the least. Suppose, for example, that a defendant is initially represented by an attorney who previously represented the defendant in civil matters and who has little criminal experience. Suppose that this attorney is erroneously disqualified and that the defendant is then able to secure the services of a nationally acclaimed and highly experienced criminal defense attorney who secures a surprisingly favorable result at trial—for instance, acquittal on most but not all counts. Under the majority’s holding, the trial court’s erroneous ruling automatically means that the Sixth Amendment was violated—even if the defendant makes no attempt to argue that the disqualified attorney would have done a better job. In fact, the defendant would still be entitled to a new trial on the counts of conviction even if the defendant publicly proclaimed after the verdict that the second attorney had provided better representation than any other attorney in the country could have possibly done.
Cases as stark as the above hypothetical are unlikely, but there are certainly cases in which the erroneous disqualification of a defendant’s first-choice counsel neither seriously upsets the defendant’s preferences nor impairs the defendant’s representation at trial. As noted above, a defendant’s second-choice lawyer may sometimes be better than the defendant’s first-choice lawyer. Defendants who retain counsel are frequently forced to choose among attorneys whom they do not know and about whom they have limited information, and thus a defendant may not have a strong preference for any one of the candidates. In addition, if all of the attorneys considered charge roughly comparable fees, they may also be roughly comparable in experience and ability. Under these circumstances, the erroneous disqualification of a defendant’s first-choice attorney may simply mean that the defendant will be represented by an attorney whom the defendant very nearly chose initially and who is able to provide representation that is just as good as that which would have been furnished by the disqualified attorney. In light of these realities, mandating reversal without even a minimal showing of prejudice on the part of the defendant is unwarranted.
The consequences of the majority’s holding are particularly severe in the federal system and in other court systems that do not allow a defendant to take an interlocutory appeal when counsel is disqualified. See Flanagan v. United States, 465 U. S. 259, 260 (1984). Under such systems, appellate review typically occurs after the defendant has been tried and convicted. At that point, if an appellate court concludes that the trial judge made a marginally incorrect ruling in applying its own pro hac vice rules, the appellate court has no alternative but to order a new trial—even if there is not even any claim of prejudice. The Sixth Amendment does not require such results.
Because I believe that some showing of prejudice is required to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, I would vacate and remand to let the Court of Appeals determine whether there was prejudice. However, assuming for the sake of argument that no prejudice is required, I believe that such a violation, like most constitutional violations, is amenable to harmless-error review. Our statutes demand it, and our precedents do not bar it. I would then vacate and remand to let the Court of Appeals determine whether the error was harmless in this case.
The dissent proposes yet a third standard—viz., that the defendant must show “ ‘an identifiable difference in the quality of representation between the disqualified counsel and the attorney who represents the defendant at trial.’” Post, at 156 (opinion of Alito, J.). That proposal suffers from the same infirmities (outlined later in text) that beset the Government’s positions. In addition, however, it greatly impairs the clarity of the law. How is a lower-court judge to know what an “identifiable difference” consists of? Whereas the Government at least appeals to Strickland and the ease law under it, the most the dissent can claim by way of precedential support for its rule is that it is “consistent with” eases that never discussed the issue of prejudice. Post, at 156.
The dissent resists giving effect to our cases’ recognition, and the Government’s concession, that a defendant has a right to be defended by counsel of his choosing. It argues that because the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to the “assistance of counsel,” it is not violated unless “the erroneous disqualification of a defendant’s counsel of choice... impair[s] the assistance that a defendant receives at trial.” Post, at 153. But if our cases (and the Government’s concession) mean anything, it is that the Sixth Amendment is violated when the erroneous disqualification of counsel “impair[s] the assistance that a defendant receives at trial [from the counsel that he chose].”
In Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153 (1988), where we formulated the right to counsel of choice and discussed some of the limitations upon it, we took note of the overarching purpose of fair trial in holding that the trial court has discretion to disallow a first choice of counsel that
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought by The United States of America, June 24,1944, in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, against National Lead Company (a New Jersey corporation, here called National Lead or NL), its wholly owned subsidiary, Titan Company, Inc. (a Delaware corporation, here called Titan Inc. or Tine) and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (a Delaware corporation, here called du Pont or DP). It is a proceeding in equity instituted under § 4 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 26 Stat. 209, 36 Stat. 1167, 15 U. S. C. § 4, to prevent and restrain alleged violations of § § 1 and 2 of that Act, 26 Stat. 209, 50 Stat. 693, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1 and 2. The trial was conducted by-Judge Simon H. Rifkind of that court. It began December 4, 1944, and ended March 14, 1945. His opinion was filed July 5, 1945. His 96 findings of fact and two conclusions of law were entered October 2,1945. After extended consideration of its terms, by the court and by counsel for all parties, the decree was entered October 11, 1945. The opinion and decree are reported in 63 F. Supp. 513-535. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and much of the detailed discussion of the decree are in the record. Separate appeals were filed in this Court, in case No. 89 by the United States, in case No. 90 by National Lead and Titan Inc. and in case No. 91 by du Pont. The three companies are sometimes referred to as “the appellant companies.” We noted probable jurisdiction in each appeal, May 20, 1946, and the three appeals were argued together February 3-5, 1947. A partial stay of the decree had been granted by Mr. Justice Reed, on January 2, 1946, pending determination of the appeals. Reference is made to the opinion of the District Court for a recital of the complex facts which it had to consider in order to reach its conclusion that National Lead, Titan Inc. and du Pont each violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, although it found a marked difference between the conduct of National Lead and of its subsidiary, Titan Inc., on the one hand, and that of du Pont on the other. This Court affirms the judgment of the District Court, except as to the original effective dates of certain of its provisions, and our discussion will relate largely to the assignments of error as to the terms of the decree.
I. The first issue presented to the District Court was that of the participation of National Lead and Titan Inc. in a so-called “international cartel” dating back to 1920, and constituting a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in titanium pigments and compounds, among the several states of the United States and with foreign nations, which combination, after 1933, was alleged to include du Pont. The District Court found such participation. In their brief on appeal in No. 90, National Lead and Titan Inc. said:
“The Government’s case was based on a series of closely related agreements made between 1920 and 1944. The agreements have been cancelled and continuation or renewal has been enjoined. The appeals are greatly simplified by the fact that we accept the cancellation and the injunction against continuation or renewal. We submit, however, that the court went too far in forbidding normal and usual contractual arrangements.”
Accordingly, the finding of the District Court, as to the participation of National Lead and Titan Inc. in the violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, is accepted here without further discussion.
II. The second issue was that of the participation of du Pont in such combination after 1933. The District Court found that du Pont “joined the conspiracy found herein to exist between, NL and its foreign associates. DP’s status rights and obligations were different from those of the other members of the combination. DP did not thereafter withdraw.” Finding of Fact 73. The District Court, in its opinion, also stated that—
“At least then as to territorial delimitations of the titanium pigment business, DP joined the combination....
“My general summary of the evidence on this issue is that DP was a member of the combination — true, a special member, with a status, rights and obligations, different from that of the other members, but a member nonetheless.” 63 F. Supp. at 530, 531, and see the preamble to the decree at 532.
This finding is contested vigorously by du Pont and is the principal subject matter of its appeal in No. 91. After careful consideration, we agree with the following conclusion of the District Court:
“In sharp contrast with NL, DP exhibited, from the very beginning of its interest in titanium, an alert consciousness of the anti-trust laws and moved cautiously and under the guidance of trained antitrust lawyers. The question is whether it succeeded in avoiding not only the form but also the substance of transgression. I have concluded that it has not;....” Id. at527.
It would serve no beneficial purpose to review here the evidence upon which that court based its conclusion. Its opinion analyzes the facts (Id. at 527-531) and, in the light of the record as a whole, we find in those facts the support necessary for the conclusion reached.
III. Related to these issues was a third. This was whether the contract between National Lead and du Pont was offensive to the antitrust laws apart from the relation of that contract, and of the parties thereto, to the foreign producers. The District Court found that it was and also related it to the international situation. It found that — ’
“The defendants NL, DP and Tine have utilized their patents which relate to the manufacture and use of titanium pigments to control and regulate the manufacture and sale of titanium pigments and compounds in the United States; and NL and Tine with the co-operation of DP have done so throughout the rest of the world.” Finding of Fact 95, sub-paragraph 9.
In its opinion the District Court emphasized also “the great power they acquired” (Id. at 531) and indicated criticism of limitations originally inserted in certain important licenses, although later removed from them. Id. at 532. Added together, the control of the patents covered by this agreement gave to National Lead and du Pont “domination and control over the titanium pigment business in the U. S.” Finding of Fact 79. The District Court referred to the “proliferation of patents” as another “inevitable consequence” of the agreement. Id. at 532. This was explained to mean the great multiplication of related patents, resulting in increasing the difficulty of an attack upon them. The validity of none of the hundreds of patents involved has been litigated.
“These patents, through the agreements in which they are enmeshed and the manner in which they have been used, have, in fact, been forged into instruments of domination of an entire industry. The net effect is that a business, originally founded upon patents which have long since expired, is today less accessible to free enterprise than when it was first launched.” Id. at 532.
Referring to the exchange of patents between National Lead and du Pont, the District Court added:
“... in the context of the present case,... this exchange between two corporations, who between them controlled the entire market, becomes an instrument of restraint, available for use and used, to continue the mastery of the market which NL and DP achieved by means of the illegal international agreements.” Id. at 532.
These facts are important not only in affirming, as we do, the finding that National Lead, Titan Inc. and du Pont each has violated § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but also in passing upon the terms of the decree entered in order to prevent future violations of that Act by them.
IV. The remaining issues relate to the terms of the decree. The entire decree, exclusive of its Appendix, is reported at 63 F. Supp. 532-535, and, for reference purposes, is here reprinted in the margin, as there reported.
This decree represents a careful attempt to fit the remedy to the needs of this case. The record upon which it is based consists of two large volumes of testimony and four larger volumes of exhibits, representing a total of over 5,500 pages, reflecting more than three months of trial. It demonstrates a commendable procedure. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were submitted on behalf of the respective parties and a form of decree was submitted on behalf of the Government to the District Court immediately following the trial. The opinion of the District Court, when filed, formed the basis of further consultation and argument. After the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered, further conferences were held with counsel and full opportunity was given to them to propose changes in the findings of fact and the decree. Much of this discussion was reported in the record and has been of benefit to this Court in reviewing the decree.
In our opinion, the provisions of this decree, to a large extent, are matters lying within the discretion of the District Court as a court of equity whose duty it was to make the remedy as effective as possible. The District Court was confronted with an obligation to give effect to the provisions, on the one hand, of the patent laws granting certain valuable rights in the nature of monopolies to the patentees and their licensees, and also to give effect, on the other hand, to the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibiting any combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade among the several states or with foreign nations. We believe that the District Court has not exceeded its discretion in the provisions of this decree but has employed its discretion with commendable fairness having especial regard to the needs of this case. It has succeeded in keeping within the lines of precedent thus far established, although, in this field, such lines cannot be much more than guides. The essential consideration is that the remedy shall be as effective and fair as possible in preventing continued or future violations of the Antitrust Act in the light of the facts of the particular case.
The issues are presented by the assignments of error in the three appeals. They will be considered separately in conjunction with their supporting arguments. In each instance we sustain the present decree.
A. Request to omit the requirement of the granting of compulsory, nonexclusive licenses at uniform, reasonable royalties and to substitute for that requirement, either a perpetual injunction against the enforcement of the titanium patents presently owned or controlled by the respective appellant companies, or a provision for compulsory licenses to be issued under those patents, free of royalties.
This is the major legal issue in this case.
The material provisions in the present decree are as follows:
“4. The term 'patents as herein defined’ shall mean United States letters patent and applications as follows: (a) the letters patent and patent applications listed in Appendix A hereof; (b) all divisions, continuations or reissues of any of the foregoing patents and applications; (c) all patents issued upon such applications; (d) all patents which cover any titanium pigments or any process for the manufacture of titanium pigments issued to any of the defendants within five years from the date of this decree; and all such patents which any of the defendants acquires within such five years; and all such patents of which any of the defendants becomes the exclusive licensee within such five years with power to sublicense.
“7. Each of the defendants is ordered to grant to any applicant therefor, including any defendant or co-conspirator, a nonexclusive license under any or all of the patents as herein defined at a uniform, reasonable royalty. Such grant may, at the option of the licensor, be conditioned upon the reciprocal grant of a license by the applicant, at a reasonable royalty, under any and all patents covering titanium pigments or their manufacture, now issued or pending, or issued within five years from the date of this decree, if any, owned or controlled by such applicant. Such license or reciprocal license may, at the option of either party, contain a provision for the inspection of the books and records of the licensee by an independent auditor who shall report to the licensor only the amount of royalty due and payable and no other information. During a period of three years from the date of this decree such license or reciprocal license may at the option of either party contain a provision for the imparting in writing, at a reasonable charge, by the licensor to the licensee, of the methods and processes used by the former at the date of the license in its commercial practice under the licensed patents in connection with the production of titanium pigments. The Court reserves jurisdiction to pass upon the reasonableness of any royalty or charge herein directed to be reasonable. Defendants are restrained from attempting to enforce any rights under any foreign patents owned by them or under which they are the exclusive licensees to prevent the exportation of titanium pigments from the United States to any foreign country.”
The assignment of error originally made by the Government, in No. 89, as to this point was as follows:
“1. The court erred in failing to require each defendant to license its existing titanium pigment patents free of royalty until the court shall have determined, on application by any defendant, that the effects of the defendants’ illegal combination, as set forth in the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, have been fully dissipated.”
Later the Government moved to amend this assignment of error so that it would read as follows:
“The court erred in failing to enter an injunction perpetually enjoining the defendants from enforcing the titanium patents presently owned or controlled by them.”
This Court postponed consideration of the above motion to the hearing of the case on its merits. On oral argument, the Government supported its second proposal but indicated that, if that proposal were not satisfactory, it would prefer its original request to the provision for uniform, reasonable royalties now in the decree. The Government’s motion to amend its assignment of errors accordingly is granted. National Lead, in its assignments of error in No. 90, however, assigns the orders contained in paragraph 7 of the decree on this subject as error and, in its briefs, argues that “The court erred in refusing to order royalty-free licensing of all patents as defined in the judgment.” Accordingly, both proposals have been considered.
While it has been contended that, because of the decision of this Court in Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U. S. 386, the District Court was not free in the present case to require the issuance of royalty-free licenses, we feel that, without reaching the question whether royalty-free licensing or a perpetual injunction against the enforcement of a patent is permissible as a matter of law in any case, the present decree represents an exercise of sound judicial discretion.
This is a civil, not a criminal, proceeding. The purpose of the decree, therefore, is effective and fair enforcement, not punishment. An understanding of the findings of fact is essential to an appreciation of the reasons for the decree.
Pure titanium pigment and its compounds represent a product of comparatively recent development but of major commercial value. The District Court found that
“Titanium pigments are possessed of great opacity, hiding power and chemical inertness, and are largely displacing other pigments such as lithopone and white lead. Titanium pigments are used in the manufacture of paints and are also used in the manufacture of rubber, glass, paper, vitreous enamels, and many other products....
“In and before 1920 there was no substantial trade or commerce in, and no commercial manufacture of, titanium pigments for use in paint, paper, rubber, or other products;....” Finding of Fact 33.
“The production of titanium pigments in the United States has risen from 100 tons (on the basis of pure Ti02 content) in 1920 to approximately 110,000 tons in 1943 with a peak production of approximately 128,000 tons in the United States in 1941. The total production of titanium pigments and compounds outside of the United States has shown less growth, the estimated foreign production of titanium pigments and compounds being approximately 1,000 tons in 1920 and approximately 23,000 tons in 1938.” Finding of Fact 35.
There are four producers of titanium products in the United States — National Lead, du Pont, American Zirconium (here called Zirconium), which is a subsidiary of Glidden Company, and Virginia Chemical Company (here called Virginia Chemical), which is a subsidiary of American Cyanamid Company. National Lead and du Pont have cross-licensed each other under their respective patents. Zirconium entered the field in 1935 with licenses from National Lead and du Pont, but the National Lead license has been canceled. Virginia Chemical entered the field in 1937 with a license from du Pont. Finding of Fact 42.
National Lead has assets of over $100,000,000 and is the largest manufacturer of titanium pigments and compounds not only in the United States but in the world. In 1943 it manufactured and sold 76.5% of the composite pigments and 46.4% of pure Ti02 made in the United States. Finding of Fact 3. Du Pont is one of the largest chemical companies in the United States with assets of over $1,000,000,000. It is one of the largest manufacturers of titanium pigments in the United States. In 1943 it manufactured and sold approximately 23.5% of the composite pigments and 45.1% of pure Ti02 made in the United States. Finding of Fact 9.
National Lead took an early lead in promoting the commercial manufacture and use of titanium pigments. In 1920 it acquired an interest in The Titanium Pigment Company, Inc., which had been organized by the Titanium Alloy Manufacturing Company at Niagara Falls, New York. It made use of a patented process developed by Barton and Rossi. At about that time, a Norwegian chemist, Gustav Jebsen, made similar investigations but along different lines in Norway. He and his associates perfected a patented means for producing relatively pure titanium dioxide by a process much less costly than that in use at Niagara Falls. These associates had not, however, perfected processes for the manufacture of composite pigments. Finding of Fact 33. In about 1922, Joseph Blumenfeld, a chemist and managing director of a French company, obtained patents relating to the manufacture of titanium compounds. Finding of Fact 34.
On July 30, 1920, The Titanium Pigment Company, Inc., (affiliated with National Lead) and Titan Co. A/S (representing the Jebsen interests) entered into an agreement which is still uncanceled. Its principles became the basis for more than 60 subsequent agreements and for an international cartel in titanium pigments. The essential features of this agreement are stated in Finding of Fact 44 and in the opinion of the District Court, 63 F. Supp. at 517-518.
Briefly stated, it applied to a licensed field, defined as including all substances containing above 2% of titanium unless containing by weight more than 5% of a metal other than titanium in its purely metallic form. It applied to all apparatus, methods and processes useful in obtaining or manufacturing such substances both in the titanium and in the titanium compound field.
Both parties agreed to grant and accept a license, exclusive of all others including the licensor, under all “existing or future” patents of the licensing party. They divided the globe territorially. The American company was to have the North American continent. The Norwegian company was to have the rest of the world, except that reciprocal, nonexclusive rights of sale were reserved for both companies in South America.
Detailed provision was made for exchange of copies of applications for patents filed by the parties or their other licensees. Neither party was ever to question or contest the validity of any patent of the other under which it was licensed within the field described.
The American company became the exclusive agent for the Norwegian company in North America and vice versa outside of North and South America. Sales were to be at prices and on terms determined by the agent. Notwithstanding these agencies, however, importations of “finished articles” — that is, paint, paper, rubber, glass, etc. — containing titanium products of the principal, its licensees or sublicensees, would be permitted provided such products did not constitute such an important part of such finished articles that sales within the agent’s territory would interfere substantially with the agent’s sales of its own titanium products.
Each party would impart semiannually to the other information in detail as to knowledge obtained in and applicable to the “licensed field,” and would permit the other to inspect and study operations in its plants (exclusive of research laboratories). The reciprocal grants of exclusive licenses would extend to December 31, 1936, and thereafter for periods of ten years each, with provision for termination by notice to be given at least five years before the end of any such period. In particular, so long as each company held an exclusive license from the other under this agreement, it would have the right to grant licenses under its own patents, and sublicenses under the other’s patents, on the condition, nevertheless, that every such licensee or sublicensee would grant to the party to the 1920 agreement (other than its licensor), its patent rights in the “licensed field” identical in character, territorial scope, and duration to those given by its licensor to such other party under the 1920 agreement, and would impart technical information to such other party in the same manner and to the same extent as its licensor.
In 1929, the obligations of Titan Co. A/S under this agreement were assumed by Titan Inc. and, in 1936, the obligations of The Titanium Pigment Company, Inc., were assumed by National Lead.
Other companies throughout the world joined in carrying out this program to restrain international commerce and to establish an international combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. The complaint in the present case lists many of these foreign companies as co-conspirators with National Lead, Titan Inc. and du Pont, but it does not attempt to make such co-conspirators parties defendant. The District Court recognized that it did not have jurisdiction over such co-conspirators and found in that circumstance one of its difficulties in effectively restraining National Lead, Titan Inc. and du Pont from further violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, pursuant to this international as well as domestic program. To accomplish this purpose, the District Court has adjudged these agreements to be unlawful and it has canceled them. In addition, it has enjoined all three defendants, National Lead, Titan Inc. and du Pont, from further performance of any of the provisions of such agreements and of any agreements amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto. Pars. 5 and 6 of the decree, 63 F. Supp. at 533-534.
National Lead acquired an 87% interest in Titan Co. A/S, Jebsen retaining 13%. The District Court found that “The intended purpose of the acquisition of control of TAS by NL was to utilize TAS and the contract of 1920 to further control competition in the manufacture of titanium pigments and compounds in all markets of the world including the United States.” Finding of Fact 47. While this combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign commerce thus was developing from 1920 to 1931, with National Lead and Titan Inc. at its center, du Pont was unconnected with it. Du Pont had initiated independent, but unsuccessful, efforts to develop, through research, a new and patentable commercially feasible process in this field. It became convinced that if it were to undertake the manufacture and sale of titanium pigments as a development of its white pigment business, it would be necessary to enter the field as promptly as possible through the acquisition of the patents and of the going business of Commercial Pigments Company. That company had been formed by Commercial Solvents Corporation in 1928 and had acquired the Blumenfeld and other patents in the United States relating to the manufacture and sale of titanium pigments and compounds. It was operating a plant in Baltimore, Maryland, where it manufactured pure Ti02 pigment only and sold it in competition with the The Titanium Pigment Company, Inc. (the affiliate of National Lead). In July, 1931, du Pont, through its subsidiary, Krebs Pigment & Color Corporation, acquired all of the assets and assumed some of the obligations of Commercial Pigments Company. It thus continued and, in fact, increased its competition in the titanium pigment field against National Lead. Findings of Fact 70,12, 10 and 71.
“Both NL and DP in good faith claimed that each infringed certain of the other’s titanium pigment patents and both in good faith denied such infringement claiming, among other things, that the patents alleged to be infringed were of doubtful validity. NL and DP agreed in October, 1932, that the validity of the patents claimed to be infringed should not be questioned except as a last resort and that they should try to arrive at a general. understanding.” Finding of Fact 72.
Finally, in 1933, The Titanium Pigment Company, Inc. (by that time a 100% subsidiary of National Lead), and Krebs Pigment & Color Corporation (subsidiary of du Pont) were the only producers of titanium pigments in the United States. The 1920 agreement, however, prevented The Titanium Pigment Company, Inc. (National Lead), from entering into a contract with Krebs Pigment & Color Corporation (du Pont) unless the latter subscribed to the provisions of the 1920 agreement. Such a subscription would have required an agreement by Krebs (du Pont) not to export into the territories of National Lead’s foreign associates, and an agreement to grant to National Lead’s foreign associates exclusive licenses under all of Krebs’ (du Pont’s) present and future patents for titanium pigments and compounds in the territories of the foreign associates. Finding of Fact 73. After extensive negotiations, National Lead and du Pont formulated an agreement in writing, dated as of January 1, 1933, which was executed August 28,1933. It is summarized in Finding of Fact 73 and in the opinion of the lower court, 63 F. Supp. at 520-521. By its terms, it provided for cross-licensing but did not provide for the exclusive licensing and restrictive territorial and agency agreements specified in the 1920 program. Certain foreign associates of National Lead, particularly Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft (usually referred to as I. G. Farbenindustrie), insisted upon some such commitment from du Pont or its subsidiary. This insistence never was abandoned. After further negotiations and an exchange of letters, all as set forth in full in Finding of Fact 73 and in the opinion of the District Court, 63 F. Supp. at 528-529, some understanding was reached as to the future conduct of du Pont, or of its subsidiary. On the strength of this, I. G. Farbenindustrie agreed to the situation. On the basis of all the evidence, the District Court found that — ■
“DP, through Rupprecht [President of Krebs Pigment & Color Corporation] and Krebs [the corporation], by these assurances and Exhibit E [the agreement dated as of January 1, 1933], joined the conspiracy found herein to exist between, NL and its foreign associates. DP’s status rights and obligations were different from those of the other members of the combination. DP did not thereafter withdraw.” Finding of Fact 73.
That finding, which we accept, throws important light upon the conditions to which the decree is to be applied. Furthermore, although National Lead and du Pont exchanged technical information relating to the manufacturing or use of titanium pigments or compounds from about April, 1932, until April, 1940, this exchange was discontinued May 1, 1940. The agreement of 1933 between The Titanium Pigment Company, Inc., and Krebs Pigment & Color Corporation which then had been assumed by National Lead and du Pont, respectively, was amended on January 1, 1941, to eliminate provisions for the exchange of technical information. Finding of Fact 75. It was further amended to include extender pigments, which theretofore had been included by implication and practice. Finding of Fact 76. After January 1, 1941, patent applications were to be available between National Lead and du Pont only after six months from the date of their filing, instead of immediately. Finding of Fact 77.
“From 1933 on there was active competition between NL and DP for customers. There has been a vast increase in sales; and repeated reductions in the price of titanium pigments have taken place and a very few increases. DP entered the titanium pigment business in 1931 and since that date it has made frequent plant expansions for the manufacture of pure and composite Ti02 and its production increased from 20,027 tons in 1935 to 50,674 tons in 1941 and then decreased to 42,843 tons in 1943.
“NL and DP have endeavored to match each other’s titanium products; but each also manufactures certain titanium pigments having special applications not manufactured by the other.
“There is no allocation of territory or customers between NL and DP; and each maintains a large, highly trained technical sales force engaged in endeavoring to sell titanium, pigments. To a very large extent the salesmen of the two companies are chemists whose contact with consumers (that is, manufacturers of paint, rubber, glass, etc.) consists in endeavoring to demonstrate that their products merit acceptance on the basis of technical superiority. The buyers of titanium pigments are mainly well-informed, experienced purchasing agents. NL and DP sell for identical prices; there is no evidence that such price identity is the product of agreement or collusion.” Finding of Fact 78.
These findings disclose the special conditions which confronted the District Court in framing its decree. They disclose a vigorous, comparatively young, but comparatively large, world-wide industry in which two great companies, National Lead and du Pont, now control approximately 90% of the domestic production in substantially equal shares. The balance of that production is in the hands of two smaller companies. Each of these is affiliated with larger organizations, not parties to this case. The findings show vigorous and apparently profitable competition on the part of each of the four producers, including an intimation that the smaller companies are gaining ground rather than losing it. Keen competition has existed both before and after the elimination, by the 1933 agreement and understanding, of certain patent advantages from among the weapons of competition. The competition between National Lead and du Pont has been carried into this Court where today National Lead supports the Government’s proposal for royalty-free licenses, while du Pont argues strongly for a complete dismissal of the proceedings and contends that, in any event, if there are to be compulsory licenses they at least should require payment of uniform, reasonable royalties as provided in the present decree.
Assuming, as is justified, that violation of the Sherman Act in this case has consisted primarily of the misuse of patent rights placing restraint upon interstate and foreign commerce, that conduct is not before this Court for punishment. It is brought before this Court in order to secure an order for its immediate discontinuance and for its future prevention. That will be accomplished largely through the strict prohibition of further performance of the provisions of the unlawful agreements. Further assurance against continued illegal restraints upon interstate and foreign commerce through misuse of these patent rights is provided through the compulsory granting to any applicant therefor of licenses at uniform, reasonable royalties under any or all patents defined in the decree. Such patents include not only the patents and patent applications listed in the appendix to the decree, but also, among others, all patents which cover any titanium pigments or any process for the manufacture of such pigments issued to, or acquired by, any of the appellant companies within five years from the date of the decree. It applies also to all such patents of which any of the appellant companies shall become the exclusive licensee within such five years with power to sublicense.
On the facts before us, neither the issuance of such licenses on a royalty-free basis nor the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting the patentees and licensees from enforcing those patents has been shown to be necessary in order to enforce effectively the Antitrust Act. We do not, in this case, face the issue of the constitutionality of such an order. That issue would arise only in a case where the order would be more necessary and appropriate to the enforcement of the Antitrust Act than here. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it is obvious that some patents should entitle their owners to receive higher royalties than others. Also, it is clear that several patents, each of equal value, ordinarily should entitle their owners to a larger total return in royalties than would one of them alone. It follows that to reduce all royalties automatically to a total of zero, regardless of their nature and regardless of their number, appears, on its face, to be inequitable without special proof to support such a conclusion. On the other hand, it may well be that uniform, reasonable royalties computed on some patents will be found to be but nominal in value. Such royalties might be set at zero or at a nominal rate. The conclusion, however, would depend on the facts of each case.
Recognizing the difficulty of computing a reasonable royalty, nevertheless, that conception is one that already has been recognized both by Congress and by this Court.
The term frequently has been employed in Sherman Antitrust case consent decrees. In the present case, the royalties charged to and paid by Zirconium and Virginia Chemical provide enough guidance to indicate that the reasonableness of future royalties may be determined in this case with less difficulty than often might confront a court faced with such a task. Cf. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., 289 U. S. 689, 697-698. The growing strength of those two royalty-paying licensees has demonstrated that royalty-free licenses have not been essential to such progress even under past conditions. Finally, the District Court, under paragraphs 7 and 13 of the decree, will retain sufficient jurisdiction to enable it to vacate or modify its orders fixing reasonable royalty rates if it finds such action to be necessary or appropriate. We hold, therefore, that paragraphs 4 and 7 of the decree should not be modified either so as to provide for compulsory royalty-free licenses or so as to enjoin the patentees or licensees from enforcing the terms of the patents involved.
B. Request to add a provision requiring National Lead and du Pont each to submit, within a year, a plan for the divestiture by it of one of its two principal titanium pigment plants, together with the related physical property. This request is urged by the Government in No. 89. It is strongly opposed both by National Lead and du Pont. The issue was discussed at length by the parties and the District Court in the reported conferences as to the form of the decree.
We believe there is neither precedent nor good reason for such a requirement. The violation of the Sherman Act is found in these cases in the patent pooling and in the related agreements restraining interstate and foreign commerce. There is neither allegation in the complaint nor finding of fact by the District Court that the physical properties of either National Lead or du Pont have been acquired or used in a manner violative of the Sherman Act, except as such acquisition or use may have been incidental or related to the agreements above mentioned. The cancellation of such agreements and the injunction against the performance of them by the appellant companies eliminate them. Paragraph 8 of the decree goes further. It requires National Lead and its subsidiary, Titan Inc., to present, within one year, a plan for divesting themselves of their stockholdings and other financial interests in certain foreign corporations, or for the purchase of the entire stockholdings and other financial interests, direct or indirect, in such corporations or any of them. Such a plan, which was required also to provide for its completion within two years from the date of the decree, will go as far toward divestiture as the findings of fact indicate should be necessary to make the decree effective.
There is no finding of fact, and apparently no evidence, showing that the respective principal titanium plants of National Lead or du Pont were acquired in violation of law, that they ever were separately owned or operated, or that they are adapted 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: | 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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The proxy rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 bar the use of proxy statements that are false or misleading with respect to the presentation or omission of material facts. We are called upon to consider the definition of a material fact under those rules, and the appropriateness of resolving the question of materiality by summary judgment in this case.
I
The dispute in this case centers on the acquisition of petitioner TSC Industries, Inc., by petitioner National Industries, Inc. In February 1969 National acquired 34% of TSC’s voting securities by purchase from Charles E. Schmidt and his family. Schmidt, who had been TSC’s founder and principal shareholder, promptly resigned along with his son from TSC’s board of directors. Thereafter, five National nominees were placed on TSC’s board; and Stanley R. Yarmuth, National’s president and chief executive officer, became chairman of the TSC board, and Charles F. Simonelli, National’s executive vice president, became chairman of the TSC executive committee. On October 16, 1969, the TSC board, with the attending National nominees abstaining, approved a proposal to liquidate and sell all of TSC’s assets to National. The proposal in substance provided for the exchange of TSC common and Series 1 preferred stock for National Series B preferred stock and warrants. On November 12, 1969, TSC and National issued a joint proxy statement to their shareholders, recommending approval of the proposal. The proxy solicitation was successful, TSC was placed in liquidation and dissolution, and the exchange of shares was effected.
This is an action brought by respondent Northway, a TSC shareholder, against TSC and National, claiming that their joint proxy statement was incomplete and materially misleading in violation of § 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 895, 15 U. S. C. § 78n (a), and Rules 14a-3 and 14a-9, 17 CFR §§240.14a-3, 240.14a-9 (1975), promulgated thereunder. The basis of Northway’s claim under Rule 14a-3 is that TSC and National failed to state in the proxy statement that the transfer of the Schmidt interests in TSC to National had given National control of TSC. The Rule 14a-9 claim, insofar as it concerns us, is that TSC and National omitted from the proxy statement material facts relating to the degree of National’s control over TSC and the favorability of the terms of the proposal to TSC shareholders.
North way filed its complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 4, 1969, the day before the shareholder meeting on the proposed transaction, but while it requested in-junctive relief it never so moved. In 1972 Northway amended its complaint to seek money damages, restitution, and other equitable relief. Shortly thereafter, North way moved for summary judgment on the issue of TSC’s and National's liability. The District Court denied the motion, but granted leave to appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that there existed a genuine issue of fact as to whether National’s acquisition of the Schmidt interests in TSC had resulted in a change of control, and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate on the Rule 14a-3 claim. But the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s denial of summary judgment to Northway on its Rule 14a-9 claims, holding that certain omissions of fact were material as a matter of law. 512 F. 2d 324 (1975).
We granted certiorari because the standard applied by the Court of Appeals in resolving the question of materiality appeared to conflict with the standard applied by other Courts of Appeals. 423 U. S. 820 (1975). We now hold that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering that partial summary judgment be granted to Northway.
II
A
As we have noted on more than one occasion, § 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act “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.’ ” Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375, 381 (1970), quoting H. R. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1934); S. Rep. No. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 12 (1934). See also J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 431 (1964). In Borak, the Court held that § 14 (a)’s broad remedial purposes required recognition under § 27 of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa, of an implied private right of action for violations of the provision. And in Mills, we attempted to clarify to some extent the elements of a private cause of action for violation of § 14 (a). In a suit challenging the sufficiency under § 14 (a) and Rule 14a-9 of a proxy statement soliciting votes in favor of a merger, we held that there was no need to demonstrate that the alleged defect in the proxy statement actually had a decisive effect on the voting. So long as the misstatement or omission was material, the causal relation between violation and injury is sufficiently established, we concluded, if “the proxy solicitation itself... was an essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction.” 396 U. S., at 385. After Mills, then, the content given to the notion of materiality assumes heightened significance.
B
The question of materiality, it is universally agreed, is an objective one, involving the significance of an omitted or misrepresented fact to a reasonable investor. Variations in the formulation of a general test of materiality occur in the articulation of just how significant a fact must be or, put another way, how certain it must be that the fact would affect a reasonable investor’s judgment.
The Court of Appeals in this case concluded that material facts include “all facts which a reasonable shareholder might consider important.” 512 F. 2d, at 330 (emphasis added). This formulation of the test of materiality has been explicitly rejected by at least two courts as setting too low a threshold for the imposition of liability under Rule 14a-9. Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 478 F. 2d 1281, 1301-1302 (CA2 1973); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F. 2d 579, 603-604 (CA5 1974). In these cases, panels of the Second and Fifth Circuits opted for the conventional tort test of materiality — whether a reasonable man would attach importance to the fact misrepresented or omitted in determining his course of action. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 538 (2) (a) (Tent. Draft No. 10, Apr. 20, 1964). See also American Law Institute, Federal Securities Code § 256 (a) (Tent. Draft No. 2, 1973). Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, supra, at 1302, also approved the following standard, which had been formulated with reference to statements issued in a contested election: “whether, taking a properly realistic view, there is a substantial likelihood that the misstatement or omission may have led a stockholder to grant a proxy to the solicitor or to withhold one from the other side, whereas in the absence of this he would have taken a contrary course.” General Time Corp. v. Talley Industries, Inc., 403 F. 2d 159, 162 (CA2 1968), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 1026 (1969).
In arriving at its broad definition of a material fact as one that a reasonable shareholder might consider important, the Court of Appeals in this case relied heavily upon language of this Court in Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra. That reliance was misplaced. The Mills Court did characterize a determination of materiality as at least “embod[ying] 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.” 396 U. S., at 384. But if any language in Mills is to be read as suggesting a general notion of materiality, it can only be the opinion’s subsequent reference to materiality as a “requirement that the defect have a significant propensity to affect the voting process.” Ibid. (Emphasis in original.) For it was that requirement that the Court said “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).” Ibid. Even this language must be read, however, with appreciation that the Court specifically declined to consider the materiality of the omissions in Mills. Id., at 381 n. 4. The references to materiality were simply preliminary to our consideration of the sole question in the case — whether proof of the materiality of an omission from a proxy statement must be supplemented by a showing that the defect actually caused the outcome of the vote. It is clear, then, that Mills did not intend to foreclose further inquiry into the meaning of materiality under Rule 14a-9.
c
In formulating a standard of materiality under Rule 14a-9, we are guided, of course, by the recognition in Borak and Mills of the Rule’s broad remedial purpose. That purpose is not merely to ensure by judicial means that the transaction, when judged by its real terms, is fair and otherwise adequate, but to ensure disclosures by corporate management in order to enable the shareholders to make an informed choice. See Mills, 396 U. S., at 381. As an abstract proposition, the most desirable role for a court in a suit of this sort, coming after the consummation of the proposed transaction, would perhaps be to determine whether in fact the proposal would have been favored by the shareholders and consummated in the absence of any misstatement or omission. But as we recognized in Mills, supra, at 382 n. 5, such matters are not subject to determination with certainty. Doubts as to the critical nature of information misstated or omitted will be commonplace. And particularly in view of the prophylactic purpose of the Rule and the fact that the content of the proxy statement is within management’s control, it is appropriate that these doubts be resolved in favor of those the statute is designed to protect. Mills, supra, at 385.
We are aware, however, that the disclosure policy embodied in the proxy regulations is not without limit. See id., at 384. Some information is of such dubious significance that insistence on its disclosure may accomplish more harm than good. The potential liability for a Rule 14a-9 violation can be great indeed, and if the standard of materiality is unnecessarily low, not only may the corporation and its management be subjected to liability for insignificant omissions or misstatements, but also management’s fear of exposing itself to substantial liability may cause it simply to bury the shareholders in an avalanche of trivial information — a result that is hardly conducive to informed decisionmaking. Precisely these dangers are presented, we think, by the definition of a material fact adopted by the Court of Appeals in this case — a fact which a reasonable shareholder might consider important. We agree with Judge Friendly, speaking for the Court of Appeals in Gerstle, that the “might” formulation is “too suggestive of mere possibility, however unlikely.” 478 F. 2d, at 1302.
The general standard of materiality that we think best comports with the policies of Rule 14a-9 is as follows: An omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote. This standard is fully consistent with Mills’ general description of materiality as a requirement that “the defect have a significant 'propensity to affect the voting process.” It does not require proof of a substantial likelihood that disclosure of the omitted fact would have caused the reasonable investor to change his vote. What the standard does contemplate is a showing of a substantial likelihood that, under all the circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of the reasonable shareholder. Put another way, there must be a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available.
D
The issue of materiality may be characterized as a mixed question of law and fact, involving as it does the application of a legal standard to a particular set of facts. In considering whether summary judgment on the issue is appropriate, we must bear in mind that the underlying objective facts, which will often be free from dispute, are merely the starting point for the ultimate determination of materiality. The determination requires delicate assessments of the inferences a “reasonable shareholder” would draw from a given set of facts and the significance of those inferences to him, and these assessments are peculiarly ones for the trier of fact. Only if the established omissions are “so obviously important to an investor, that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality” is the ultimate issue of materiality appropriately resolved “as a matter of law” by summary judgment. Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, 422 F. 2d 1124, 1129 (CA4 1970). See Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F. 2d, at 604; Rogen v. Ilikon Corp., 361 F. 2d 260, 265-267 (CA1 1966).
Ill
The omissions found by the Court of Appeals to have been materially misleading as a matter of law involved two general issues — the degree of National’s control over TSC at the time of the proxy solicitation, and the favor-ability of the terms of the proposed transaction to TSC shareholders.
A. National’s Control of TSC
The Court of Appeals concluded that two omitted facts relating to National’s potential influence, or control, over the management of TSC were material as a matter of law. First, the proxy statement failed to state that at the time the statement was issued, the chairman of the TSC board of directors was Stanley Yarmuth, National’s president and chief executive officer, and the chairman of the TSC executive committee was Charles Simonelli, National’s executive vice president. Second, the statement did not disclose that in filing reports required by the SEC, both TSC and National had indicated that National “may be deemed to be a 'parent’ of TSC as that term is defined in the Rules and Regulations under the Securities Act of 1933.” App. 490, 512, 517. The Court of Appeals noted that TSC shareholders were relying on the TSC board of directors to negotiate on their behalf for the best possible rate of exchange with National. It then concluded that the omitted facts were material because they were “persuasive indicators that the TSC board was in fact under the control of National, and that National thus ‘sat on both sides of the table’ in setting the terms of the exchange.” 512 F. 2d, at 333.
We do not agree that the omission of these facts, when viewed against the disclosures contained in the proxy statement, warrants the entry of summary judgment against TSC and National on this record. Our conclusion is the same whether the omissions are considered separately or together.
The proxy statement prominently displayed the facts that National owned 34% of the outstanding shares in TSC, and that no other person owned more than 10%. App. 262-263, 267., It also prominently revealed that 5 out of 10 TSC directors were National nominees, and it recited the positions of those National nominees with National — indicating, among other things, that Stanley Yarmuth was president and a director of National, and that Charles Simonelli was executive vice president and a director of National. Id., at 267. These disclosures clearly revealed the nature of National’s relationship with TSC and alerted the reasonable shareholder to the fact that National exercised a degree of influence over TSC. In view of these disclosures, we certainly cannot say that the additional facts that Yarmuth was chairman of the TSC board of directors and Simonelli chairman of its executive committee were, on this record, so obviously important that reasonable minds could not differ on their materiality.
Nor can we say that it was materially misleading as a matter of law for TSC and National to have omitted reference to,SEC filings indicating that National “may be deemed to be a parent of TSC.” As we have already noted, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded, in denying summary judgment on the Rule 14a-3 claim, that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether National actually controlled TSC at the time of the proxy solicitation. We must assume for present purposes, then, that National did not control TSC. On that assumption, TSC and National obviously had no duty to state without qualification that control did exist. If the proxy statements were to disclose the conclusory statements in the SEC filings that National “may be deemed to be a parent of TSC,” then it would have been appropriate, if not necessary, for the statement to have included a disclaimer of National control over TSC or a disclaimer of knowledge as to whether National controlled TSC. The net contribution of including the contents of the SEC filings accompanied by such disclaimers is not of such obvious significance, in view of the other facts contained in the proxy statement, that their exclusion renders the statement materially misleading as a matter of law.
B. Favorability of the Terms to TSC Shareholders
The Court of Appeals also found that the failure to disclose two sets of facts rendered the proxy statement materially deficient in its presentation of the favorability of the terms of the proposed transaction to TSC shareholders. The first omission was of information, described by the Court of Appeals as “bad news” for TSC shareholders, contained in a letter from an investment banking firm whose earlier favorable opinion of the fairness of the proposed transaction was reported in the proxy statement. The second omission related to purchases of National common stock by National and by Madison Fund, Inc., a large mutual fund, during the two years prior to the issuance of the proxy statement.
1
The proxy statement revealed that the investment banking firm of Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill, Noyes had rendered a favorable opinion on the fairness to TSC shareholders of the terms for the exchange of TSC shares for National securities. In that opinion, the proxy statement explained, the firm had considered, “among other things, the current market prices of the securities of both corporations, the high redemption price of the National Series B preferred stock, the dividend and debt service requirements of both corporations, the substantial premium over current market values represented by the securities being offered to TSC stockholders, and the increased dividend income.” App. 267.
The Court of Appeals focused upon the reference to the “substantial premium over current market values represented by the securities being offered to TSC stockholders,” and noted that any TSC shareholder could calculate the apparent premium by reference to the table of current market prices that appeared four pages later in the proxy statement. Id., at 271. On the basis of the recited closing prices for November 7, 1969, five days before the issuance of the proxy statement, the apparent premiums were as follows. Each share of TSC Series 1 preferred, which closed at $12, would bring National Series B preferred stock and National warrants worth $15.23 — for a premium of $3.23, or 27% of the market value of the TSC Series 1 preferred. Each share of TSC common stock, which closed at $13.25, would bring National Series B preferred stock and National warrants worth $16.19 — for a premium of $2.94, or 22% of the market value of TSC common.
The closing price of the National warrants on November 7, 1969, was, as indicated in the proxy statement, $5.25. The TSC shareholders were misled, the Court of Appeals concluded, by the proxy statement’s failure to disclose that in a communication two weeks after its favorable opinion letter, the Hornblower firm revealed that its determination of the fairness of the offer to TSC was based on the conclusion that the value of the warrants involved in the transaction would not be their current market price, but approximately $3.50. If the warrants were valued at $3.50 rather than $5.25, and the other securities valued at the November 7 closing price, the court figured, the apparent premium would be substantially reduced — from $3.23 (27%) to $1.48 (12%) in the case of the TSC preferred, and from $2.94 (22%) to $0.31 (2%) in the case of TSC common. “In simple terms,” the court concluded: “TSC and National had received some good news and some bad news from the Hornblower firm. They chose to publish the good news and omit the bad news.” 512 F. 2d, at 335.
It would appear, however, that the subsequent communication from the Hornblower firm, which the Court of Appeals felt contained “bad news,” contained nothing new at all. At the TSC board of directors meeting held on October 16, 1969, the date of the initial Hornblower opinion letter, Blancke Noyes, a TSC director and a partner in the Hornblower firm, had pointed out the likelihood of a decline in the market price of National warrants with the issuance of the additional warrants involved in the exchange, and reaffirmed his conclusion that the exchange offer was a fair one nevertheless. The subsequent Hornblower letter, signed by Mr. Noyes, purported merely to explain the basis of the calculations underlying the favorable opinion rendered in the October 16 letter. “In advising TSC as to the fairness of the offer from [National],” Mr. Noyes wrote, “we concluded that the warrants in question had a value of approximately $3.50.” On its face, then, the subsequent letter from Hornblower does not appear to have contained anything to alter the favorable opinion rendered in the October 16 letter — including the conclusion that the securities being offered to TSC shareholders represented a “substantial premium over current market values.”
The real question, though, is not whether the subsequent Hornblower letter contained anything that altered the Hornblower opinion in any way. It is, rather, whether the advice given at the October 16 meeting, and reduced to more precise terms in the subsequent Hornblower letter — that there might be a decline in the market price of the National warrants — had to be disclosed in order to clarify the import of the proxy statement’s reference to “the substantial premium over current market values represented by the securities being offered to TSC stockholders.” We note initially that the proxy statement referred to the substantial premium as but one of several factors considered by Hornblower in rendering its favorable opinion of the terms of exchange. Still, we cannot assume that a TSC shareholder would focus only on the “bottom line” of the opinion to the exclusion of the considerations that produced it.
TSC and National insist that the reference to a substantial premium required no clarification or supplementation, for the reason that there was a substantial premium even if the National warrants are assumed to have been worth $3.50. In reaching the contrary conclusion, the Court of Appeals, they contend, ignored the rise in price of TSC securities between early October 1969, when the exchange ratio was set, and November 7, 1969 — a rise in price that they suggest was a result of the favorable exchange ratio’s becoming public knowledge. When the proxy statement was mailed, TSC and National contend, the market price of TSC securities already reflected a portion of the premium to which Hornblower had referred in rendering its favorable opinion of the terms of exchange. Thus, they note that Hornblower assessed the fairness of the proposed transaction by reference to early October market prices of TSC preferred, TSC common, and National preferred. On the basis of those prices and a $3.50 value for the National warrants involved in the exchange, TSC and National contend that the premium was substantial. Each share of TSC preferred, selling in early October at $11, would bring National preferred stock and warrants worth $13.10 — for a premium of $2.10, or 19%. And each share of TSC common, selling in early October at $11.63, would bring National preferred stock and warrants worth $13.25 — for a premium of $1.62, or 14%. We certainly cannot say as a matter of law that these premiums were not substantial. And if, as we must assume in considering the appropriateness of summary judgment, the increase in price of TSC’s securities from early October to November 7 reflected in large part the market’s reaction to the terms of the proposed exchange, it was not materially misleading as a matter of law for the proxy statement to refer to the existence of a substantial premium.
There remains the possibility, however, that although TSC and National may be correct in urging the existence of a substantial premium based upon a $3.50 value for the National warrants and the early October market prices of the other securities involved in the transaction, the proxy statement misled the TSC shareholder to calculate a premium substantially in excess of that premium. The premiums apparent from early October market prices and a $3.50 value for the National warrants — 19% on TSC preferred and 14% on TSC common — -are certainly less than those that would be derived through use of the November 7 closing prices listed in the proxy statement — 27% on TSC preferred and 22% on TSC common. But we are unwilling to sustain a grant of summary judgment to North way on that basis. To do so we would have to conclude as a matter of law, first, that the proxy statement would have misled the TSC shareholder to calculate his premium on the basis of November 7 market prices, and second, that the difference between that premium and that which would be apparent from early October prices and a $3.50 value for the National warrants was material. These are questions we think best left to the trier of fact.
2
The final omission that concerns us relates to purchases of National common stock by National and by Madison Fund, Inc., a mutual fund. Northway notes that National’s board chairman was a director of Madison, and that Madison’s president and chief executive, Edward Merkle, was employed by National pursuant to •an agreement obligating him to provide at least one day per month for such duties as National might request. Northway contends that the proxy statement, having called the TSC shareholders’ attention to the market prices of the securities involved in the proposed transaction, should have revealed substantial purchases of National common stock made by National and Madison during the two years prior to the issuance of the proxy statement. In particular, North way contends that the TSC shareholders should, as a matter of law, have been informed that National and Madison purchases accounted for 8.5% of all reported transactions in National common stock during the period between National’s acquisition of the Schmidt interests and the proxy solicitation. The theory behind Northway’s contention is that disclosure of these purchases would have pointed to the existence, or at least the possible existence, of conspiratorial manipulation of the price of National common stock, which would have had an effect on the market price of the National preferred stock and warrants involved in the proposed transaction.
Before the District Court, Northway attempted to demonstrate that the National and Madison purchases were coordinated. The District Court concluded, however, that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether there was coordination. Finding that a showing of coordination was essential to Northway’s theory, the District Court denied summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that “collusion is not conclusively established.” 512 F. 2d, at 336. But observing that “it is certainly suggested,” ibid., the court concluded that the failure to disclose the purchases was materially misleading as a matter of law. The court explained:
“Stockholders contemplating an offer involving preferred shares convertible to common stock and warrants for the purchase of common stock must be informed of circumstances which tend to indicate that the current selling price of the common stock involved may be affected by apparent market manipulations. It was for the shareholders to determine whether the market price of the common shares was relevant to their evaluation of the convertible preferred shares and warrants, or whether the activities of Madison and National actually amounted to manipulation at all.” Ibid.
In short, while the Court of Appeals viewed the purchases as significant only insofar as they suggested manipulation of the price of National securities, and acknowledged the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether there was any manipulation, the court nevertheless required disclosure to enable the shareholders to decide whether there was manipulation or not.
The Court of Appeals’ approach would sanction the imposition of civil liability on a theory that undisclosed information may suggest the existence of market manipulation, even if the responsible corporate officials knew that there was in fact no market manipulation. We do not agree that Rule 14a-9 requires such a result. Rule 14a-9 is concerned only with whether a proxy statement is misleading with respect to its presentation of material facts. If, as we must assume on a motion for summary judgment, there was no collusion or manipulation whatsoever in the National and Madison purchases — that is, if the purchases were made wholly independently for proper corporate and investment purposes, then by Northway’s implicit acknowledgment they had no bearing on the soundness and reliability of the market prices listed in the proxy statement, and it cannot have been materially misleading to fail to disclose them.
That is not to say, of course, that the SEC could not enact a rule specifically requiring the disclosure of purchases such as were involved in this case, without regard to whether the purchases can be shown to have been collusive or manipulative. We simply hold that if liability is to be imposed in this case upon a theory that it was misleading to fail to disclose purchases suggestive of market manipulation, there must be some showing that there was in fact market manipulation.
IV
In summary, none of the omissions claimed to have been in violation of Rule 14a-9 were, so far as the record reveals, materially misleading as a matter of law, and Northway was not entitled to partial summary judgment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Each share of TSC common stock brought.5 share of National Series B preferred stock and 1% National warrants. Each share of TSC Series 1 preferred stock brought.6 share of National Series B preferred stock and one National warrant. National Series B preferred stock is convertible into.75 share of National common stock. A National warrant entitles the holder to purchase one share of National common stock at a fixed price until October 1978.
Section 14 (a) provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, by the use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of any facility of a national securities exchange or otherwise, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, to solicit or to permit the use of his name to solicit any proxy or consent or authorization in respect of any security (other than an exempted security) registered pursuant to section 781 of this title.”
Northway also alleged in its complaint that National pursued a fraudulent plan to acquire TSC for less than its fair value in violation of § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (1975), promulgated thereunder. Northway has not pursued this claim in the proceedings that we are called upon to review. North way also brought suit against Charles Schmidt and his family, charging them with aiding and abetting the corporate defendants in violation of § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Schmidt defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. That aspect of the original suit is not before us.
Rule 14a-3 (a) provides:
“No solicitation subject to this regulation shall be made unless each person solicited is concurrently furnished or has previously been furnished with a written proxy statement containing the information specified in Schedule 14A.”
Schedule 14A, Item 5 (e), requires:
“If to the knowledge of the persons on whose behalf the solicitation is made a change in control of the issuer has occurred since the beginning of its last fiscal year, state the name of the person or persons who acquired such control, the basis of such control, the date and a description of the transaction or transactions in which control was acquired and the percentage of voting securities of the issuer now owned by such person or persons.” 17 CFR § 240.14a-101, Item 5 (e) (1975).
Northway also asserted a claim under Rule 14a-9 that the proxy statement was materially misleading in its assertion that the TSC board of directors had approved the proposed transaction. It contended, first, that the proposal was never legally approved under applicable state law; and, second, that the statement should have in any event disclosed that the proposal received only four affirmative votes, and that the National nominees were cautioned against voting by their legal advisers. The Court of Appeals did not reach the first contention, and it found summary judgment inappropriate on the second. Neither contention is before us.
Rule 14a-9 (a) provides:
“No solicitation subject to this regulation shall be made by means of any proxy statement, form of proxy, notice of meeting or other communication, written or oral, containing any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, 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 or necessary to correct any statement in any earlier communication with respect to the solicitation of a proxy for the same meeting or subject matter which has become false or misleading.”
Our cases have not considered, and we have no occasion in this case to consider, what showing of culpability is required to establish the liability under § 14 (a) of a corporation issuing a materially misleading proxy statement, or of a person involved in the preparation of a materially misleading proxy statement. See Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 478 F. 2d 1281, 1298-1301 (CA2 1973); Richland v. Crandall, 262 F. Supp. 538, 553 n. 12 (SDNY 1967); R. Jennings & H. Marsh, Securities Regulation: Cases and Materials 1358-1359 (3d ed. 1972). See also Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 209 n. 28 (1976).
This standard, or a close approximation, has been widely recited in cases involving various sections of the securities laws. See, e. g., Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 480 F. 2d 341, 363 (CA2 1973) (§ 14
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 1981, in the course of a burglary, Fernando Belmontes bludgeoned Steacy McConnell to death, striking her in the head 15 to 20 times with a steel dumbbell bar. See People v. Belmontes, 45 Cal. 3d 744, 759-761, 755 P. 2d 310, 315-316 (1988). After the murder, Belmontes and his accomplices stole McConnell’s stereo, sold it for $100, and used the money to buy beer and drugs for the night. Id., at 764-765, 755 P. 2d, at 318-319.
Belmontes was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in state court. Unsuccessful on direct appeal and state collateral review, Belmontes sought federal habeas relief, which the District Court denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding instructional error, but we overturned that decision. Ayers v. Belmontes, 549 U. S. 7 (2006); see also Brown v. Belmontes, 544 U. S. 945 (2005).
On remand, the Court of Appeals again ruled for Belmontes, this time finding that Belmontes suffered ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his trial. The District Court had previously denied relief on that ground, finding that counsel for Belmontes had performed deficiently under Ninth Circuit precedent, but that Belmontes could not establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). Belmontes v. Calderon, Civ. S-89-0736 DFL JFM (ED Cal., Aug. 15, 2000), App. to Pet. for Cert. 140a, 179a, 183a. The Court of Appeals agreed that counsel’s performance was deficient, but disagreed with the District Court with respect to prejudice, determining that counsel’s errors undermined confidence in the penalty phase verdict. Belmontes v. Ayers, 529 F. 3d 834, 859-863, 874 (CA9 2008). We disagree with the Court of Appeals as to prejudice, grant the State’s petition for certiorari, and reverse.
I
Belmontes argues that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present sufficient mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of his trial. To prevail on this claim, Belmontes must meet both the deficient performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland, 466 U. S., at 687. To show deficient performance, Belmontes must establish that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id., at 688. In light of “the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel [and] the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant,” the performance inquiry necessarily turns on “whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.” Id., at 688-689. At all points, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Id., at 689.
The challenge confronting Belmontes’ lawyer, John Schick, was very specific. Substantial evidence indicated that Belmontes had committed a prior murder, and the prosecution was eager to introduce that evidence during the penalty phase of the McConnell trial. The evidence of the prior murder was extensive, including eyewitness testimony, Belmontes’ own admissions, and Belmontes’ possession of the murder weapon and the same type of ammunition used to kill the victim. Record 2239-2250, 2261; Deposition of John Schick, Exhs. 62, 63, 64 (Sept. 26, 1995).
The evidence, furthermore, was potentially devastating. It would have shown that two years before Steacy McConnell’s death, police found Jerry Howard’s body in a secluded area. Howard had been killed execution style, with a bullet to the back of the head. The authorities suspected Belmontes, but on the eve of trial the State’s witnesses refused to cooperate (Belmontes’ mother had begged one not to testify). The prosecution therefore believed it could not prove Belmontes guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. What the prosecution could prove, even without the recalcitrant witnesses, was that Belmontes possessed the gun used to murder Howard. So the State offered, and Belmontes accepted, a no-eontest plea to accessory after the fact to voluntary manslaughter. Record 2239-2243; Deposition of John Schick, Exhs. 62, 63, 64.
But Belmontes had not been shy about discussing the murder, boasting to several people that he had killed Howard. Steven Cartwright informed the district attorney that Belmontes had confessed to the murder. A police informant told detectives that Belmontes “bragged” about the murder, stating that he was “mad” at Howard because “the night before, he had quite a [lot] of dope and wouldn’t share it with him.” After double jeopardy protection set in and he had been released on parole, Belmontes admitted his responsibility for the murder to his counselor at the California Youth Authority, Charles Sapien. During his time in confinement, Belmontes had “always denied that he was the [one] who shot Jerry Howard.” But because Sapien “had been square with [Belmontes],” Belmontes decided to level with Sapien upon his release, telling Sapien that he had “‘wasted’ that guy.” Record 2240; Deposition of John Schick, Exhs. 62, 63, 64.
Schick understood the gravity of this aggravating evidence, and he built his mitigation strategy around the overriding need to exclude it. California evidentiary rules, Schick knew, offered him an argument to exclude the evidence, but those same rules made clear that the evidence would come in for rebuttal if Schick opened the door. Record 2256; see also People v. Rodriguez, 42 Cal. 3d 730, 791-792, 726 P. 2d 113, 153 (1986); People v. Harris, 28 Cal. 3d 935, 960-962, 623 P 2d 240, 254 (1981). Schick thus had “grave concerns” that, even if he succeeded initially in excluding the prior murder evidence, it would still be admitted if his mitigation case swept too broadly. Accordingly, Schick decided to proceed cautiously, structuring his mitigation arguments and witnesses to limit that possibility. Deposition of John Schick 301, 309-310; see Strickland, supra, at 699 (“Restricting testimony on respondent’s character to what had come in at the plea colloquy ensured that contrary character and psychological evidence and respondent’s criminal history, which counsel had successfully moved to exclude, would not come in”).
As Schick expected, the prosecution was ready to admit this evidence during the sentencing phase. Schick moved to exclude the evidence, arguing that the State should be allowed to tell the jury only that Belmontes had been convicted of being an accessory after the fact to voluntary manslaughter — nothing more. Record 2240-2254. Schick succeeded in keeping the prosecution from presenting the damaging evidence in its sentencing case in chief, but his client remained at risk: The trial court indicated the evidence would come in for rebuttal or impeachment if Schick opened the door. Id., at 2256.
This was not an empty threat. In one instance, Schick elicited testimony that Belmontes was not a violent person. The State objected and, out of earshot of the jury, argued that it should be able to rebut the testimony with the Howard murder evidence. Id., at 2332-2334. The court warned Schick that it was “going to have to allow [the prosecution] to go into the whole background” if Schick continued his line of questioning. Id., at 2334. Schick acquiesced, and the court struck the testimony. Ibid.
The court’s warning reinforced Schick’s understanding that he would have to tailor his mitigation case carefully to preserve his success in excluding the Howard murder evidence. With that cautionary note in mind, Schick put on nine witnesses he thought could advance a case for mitigation, without opening the door to the prior murder evidence. See id., at 2312-2417.
The Court of Appeals determined that in spite of these efforts, Schick’s performance was constitutionally deficient under Circuit precedent. 529 F. 3d, at 862-863. The State challenges that conclusion, but we need not resolve the point, because we agree with the District Court that Belmontes cannot establish prejudice.
II
To establish prejudice, Belmontes must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U. S., at 694. That showing requires Belmontes to establish “a reasonable probability that a competent attorney, aware of [the available mitigating evidence], would have introduced it at sentencing,” and “that had the jury been confronted with this ... mitigating evidence, there is a reasonable probability that it would have returned with a different sentence.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 535, 536 (2003).
The Ninth Circuit determined that a reasonably competent lawyer would have introduced more mitigation evidence, on top of what Schick had already presented. For purposes of our prejudice analysis, we accept that conclusion and proceed to consider whether there is a reasonable probability that a jury presented with this additional mitigation evidence would have returned a different verdict.
In evaluating that question, it is necessary to consider all the relevant evidence that the jury would have had before it if Schick had pursued the different path — not just the mitigation evidence Schick could have presented, but also the Howard murder evidence that almost certainly would have come in with it. See Strickland, supra, at 695-696, 700. Thus, to establish prejudice, Belmontes must show a reasonable probability that the jury would have rejected a capital sentence after it weighed the entire body of mitigating evidence (including the additional testimony Schick could have presented) against the entire body of aggravating evidence (including the Howard murder evidence). Belmontes cannot meet this burden.
We begin with the mitigating evidence Schick did present during the sentencing phase. That evidence was substantial. The same Ninth Circuit panel addressing the same record in Belmontes’ first habeas appeal agreed, recognizing “the substantial nature of the mitigating evidence” Schick presented. Belmontes v. Woodford, 350 F. 3d 861, 907 (2003). It reiterated the point several times. See id., at 874, 901, 908.
All told, Schick put nine witnesses on the stand over a span of two days, and elicited a range of testimony on Belmontes’ behalf. A number of those witnesses highlighted Belmontes’ “terrible” childhood. They testified that his father was an alcoholic and extremely abusive. Belmontes’ grandfather described the one-bedroom house where Belmontes spent much of his childhood as a “chicken coop.” Belmontes did not do well in school; he dropped out in the ninth grade. His younger sister died when she was only 10 months old. And his grandmother died tragically when she drowned in her swimming pool. See Record 2314-2319, 2324-2325, 2344.
Family members also testified that, despite these difficulties, Belmontes maintained strong relationships with his grandfather, grandmother, mother, and sister. Id., at 2317-2318, 2325-2326. And Belmontes’ best friend offered the insights of a close friend and confidant. Id., at 2329-2332.
Schick also called witnesses who detailed Belmontes’ religious conversion while in state custody on the accessory charge. These witnesses told stories about Belmontes’ efforts advising other inmates in his detention center’s religious program, to illustrate that he could live a productive and meaningful life in prison. They described his success working as part of a firefighting crew, detailing his rise from lowest man on the team to second in command. Belmontes’ assistant chaplain even said that he would use Belmontes as a regular part of his prison counseling program if the jury handed down a life sentence. Id., at 2379-2384, 2396-2398, 2400-2407.
Belmontes himself bolstered these accounts by testifying about his childhood and religious conversion, both at sentencing and during allocution. Belmontes described his childhood as “pretty hard,” but took responsibility for his actions, telling the jury that he did not want to use his background “as a crutch!,] to say I am in a situation right now ... because of that.” Id., at 2343.
On remand from this Court, the Court of Appeals — addressing Belmontes’ ineffective assistance claim for the first time — changed its view of this evidence. Instead of finding Schick’s mitigation ease “substantial,” as it previously had, Belmontes, 350 F. 3d, at 907, the Ninth Circuit this time around labeled it “cursory,” 529 F. 3d, at 841, 861, n. 14, 866. Compare also Belmontes, 350 F. 3d, at 874, 901, 907 (labeling the mitigation evidence Schick presented “substantial”), with 529 F. 3d, at 847, n. 3, 874 (labeling the same evidence “insubstantial”). More evidence, the Court of Appeals now concluded, would have made a difference; in particular, more evidence to “humanize” Belmontes, as that court put it no fewer than 11 times in its opinion. Id., at 850, 859, 860, 862, 863, 864, 865, and n. 18, 869, 872, 874. The court determined that the failure to put on this evidence prejudiced Belmontes.
There are two problems with this conclusion: Some of the evidence was merely cumulative of the humanizing evidence Schick actually presented; adding it to what was already there would have made little difference. Other evidence proposed by the Ninth Circuit would have put into play aspects of Belmontes’ character that would have triggered admission of the powerful Howard evidence in rebuttal. This evidence would have made a difference, but in the wrong direction for Belmontes. In either event, Belmontes cannot establish Strickland prejudice.
First, the cumulative evidence. In the Court of Appeals’ view, Belmontes should have presented more humanizing evidence about Belmontes’ “difficult childhood” and highlighted his “positive attributes.” 529 F. 3d, at 864. As for his difficult childhood, Schick should have called witnesses to testify that “when Belmontes was five years old, his 10-month-old sister died of a brain tumor,” that he “exhibited symptoms of depression” after her death, that his grandmother suffered from “alcoholism and prescription drug addiction,” and that both his immediate and extended family lived in a state of “constant strife.” Ibid. As for his positive attributes, Schick should have produced testimony about Belmontes’ “strong character as a child in the face of adversity.” Ibid. Schick should have illustrated that Belmontes was “kind, responsible, and likeable”; that he “got along well with his siblings” and was “respectful towards his grandparents despite their disapproval of his mixed racial background”; and that he “participated in community activities, kept up in school and got along with his teachers before [an] illness, and made friends easily.” Ibid.
But as recounted above and recognized by the state courts and, originally, this very panel, Schick did put on substantial mitigation evidence, much of it targeting the same “humanizing” theme the Ninth Circuit highlighted. Compare, e. g., ibid, with Record 2317 (death of 10-month-old sister); id., at 2319, 2325 (difficult childhood); id., at 2314-2315 (family member’s addictions); id., at 2314-2315, 2324-2325 (family strife and abuse); id., at 2317, 2319, 2347-2348, 2397 (strong character as a child); id., at 2326-2327 (close relationship with siblings); id., at 2317-2319 (close relationship with grandparents); id., at 2348-2351 (participation in community religious events); see also, e. g., Belmontes’ Traverse to Respondent’s Return to Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus in No. S-89-0736-EJG-JFM (ED Cal.), p. 64 (“[Counsel's presentation was arguably adequate only with respect to [evidence] of 'humanizing’ petitioner”). The sentencing jury was thus “well acquainted” with Belmontes’ background and potential humanizing features. Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465, 481 (2007). Additional evidence on these points would have offered an insignificant benefit, if any at all.
The Ninth Circuit also determined that both the evidence Schick presented and the additional evidence it proposed would have carried greater weight if Schick had submitted expert testimony. Such testimony could “make connections between the various themes in the mitigation case and explain to the jury how they could have contributed to Belmontes’s involvement in criminal activity.” 529 F. 3d, at 853. See also ibid, (discussing expert’s federal habeas testimony on importance of expert testimony). But the body of mitigating evidence the Ninth Circuit would have required Schick to present was neither complex nor technical. It required only that the jury make logical connections of the kind a layperson is well equipped to make. The jury simply did not need expert testimony to understand the “humanizing” evidence; it could use its common sense or own sense of mercy.
What is more, expert testimony discussing Belmontes’ mental state, seeking to explain his behavior, or putting it in some favorable context would have exposed Belmontes to the Howard evidence. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 168, 186 (1986) (“Any attempt to portray petitioner as a nonviolent man would have opened the door for the State to rebut with evidence of petitioner’s prior convictions.... Similarly, if defense counsel had attempted to put on evidence that petitioner was a family man, they would have been faced with his admission at trial that, although still married, he was spending the weekend furlough with a girlfriend”).
If, for example, an expert had testified that Belmontes had a “ ‘high likelihood of a... nonviolent adjustment to a prison setting,’ ” as Belmontes suggested an expert might, see Brief for Appellant in No. 01-99018 (CA9), p. 34, the question would have immediately arisen: “What was his propensity toward violence to begin with? Does evidence of another murder alter your view?” Expert testimony explaining why the jury should feel sympathy, as opposed simply to facts that might elicit that response, would have led to a similar rejoinder: “Is such sympathy equally appropriate for someone who committed a second murder?” Any of this testimony from an expert’s perspective would have made the Howard evidence fair game.
Many of Belmontes’ other arguments fail for the same reason. He argues that the jury should have been told that he suffered an “extended bout with rheumatic fever,” which led to “emotional instability, impulsivity, and impairment of the neurophysiological mechanisms for planning and reasoning.” Amended Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus in No. CIVS89-0736-EJG-JFM (ED Cal.), p. 120. But the cold, calculated nature of the Howard murder and Belmontes’ subsequent bragging about it would have served as a powerful counterpoint.
The type of “more-evidence-is-better” approach advocated by Belmontes and the Court of Appeals might seem appealing — after all, what is there to lose? But here there was a lot to lose. A heavyhanded case to portray Belmontes in a positive light, with or without experts, would have invited the strongest possible evidence in rebuttal — the evidence that Belmontes was responsible for not one but two murders.
Belmontes counters that some of the potential mitigating evidence might not have opened the door to the prior murder evidence. The Court of Appeals went so far as to state, without citation, that “[t]here would be no basis for suggesting that [expert testimony] would be any different if the expert were informed that Belmontes committed two murders rather than one.” 529 F. 3d, at 869, n. 20. But it is surely pertinent in assessing expert testimony “explain[ing] . . . involvement in criminal activity,” id., at 853, to know what criminal activity was at issue. And even if the number of murders were as irrelevant as the Ninth Circuit asserted, the fact that these two murders were so different in character made each of them highly pertinent in evaluating expert testimony of the sort envisioned by the Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit noted that the trial court retained discretion to exclude the Howard evidence even if Schick opened the door. Id., at 869-870, n. 20. If Schick had doubts, the Court of Appeals contended, he could have secured an answer in advance through a motion in limine. Ibid. The trial judge, however, left little doubt where he stood. While ruling that the prosecution could not present the evidence in its case in chief, Record 2254, the judge made clear that it would come in for certain rebuttal purposes, id., at 2256,2332-2334. When Schick elicited testimony that Belmontes was not violent, for example, the judge ordered it stricken and warned Schick that he would admit the Howard murder evidence — to let the prosecution “go into the whole background” — if Schick pressed forward. Id., at 2334.
In balancing the mitigating factors against the aggravators, the Court of Appeals repeatedly referred to the aggravating evidence the State presented as “scant.” 529 F. 3d, at 870, 873, 874, 875, 878. That characterization misses Strickland’s point that the reviewing court must consider all the evidence — the good and the bad — when evaluating prejudice. See Strickland, 466 U. S., at 695-696, 700. Here, the worst kind of bad evidence would have come in with the good. The only reason it did not was because Schick was careful in his mitigation case. The State’s aggravation evidence could only be characterized as “scant” if one ignores the “elephant in the courtroom” — Belmontes’ role in the Howard murder — that would have been presented had Schick submitted the additional mitigation evidence. Belmontes v. Ayers, 551 F. 3d 864, 867 (CA9 2008) (Callahan, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
Even on the record before it — which did not include the Howard murder — the state court determined that Belmontes “was convicted on extremely strong evidence that he committed an intentional murder of extraordinary brutality.” Belmontes, 45 Cal. 3d, at 819, 755 P. 2d, at 354. That court also noted that “[t]he properly admitted aggravating evidence in this case — in particular, the circumstances of the crime — was simply overwhelming.” Id., at 809, 755 P. 2d, at 348 (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit saw the murder differently. It viewed the circumstances of the crime as only “conceivably significant” as an aggravating factor. 529 F. 3d, at 871. In particular, the Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]he crime here did not involve . .. needless suffering on the part of the victim.” Ibid.
We agree with the state court’s characterization of the murder, and simply cannot comprehend the assertion by the Court of Appeals that this ease did not involve “needless suffering.” The jury saw autopsy photographs showing Steacy McConnell’s mangled head, her skull crushed by 15 to 20 blows from a steel dumbbell bar the jury found to have been wielded by Belmontes. McConnell’s corpse showed numerous “defensive bruises and contusions on [her] hands, arms, and feet,” id., at 839, which “plainly evidenced a desperate struggle for life at [Belmontes’] hands,” Belmontes, supra, at 819, 755 P. 2d, at 354. Belmontes left McConnell to die, but officers found her still fighting for her life before ultimately succumbing to the injuries caused by the blows from Belmontes. Record 3. The jury also heard that this savage murder was committed solely to prevent interference with a burglary that netted Belmontes $100 he used to buy beer and drugs for the night. McConnell suffered, and it was clearly needless.
Some of the error below may be traced to confusion about the appropriate standard and burden of proof. While the Court of Appeals quoted the pertinent language from Strickland, that court elsewhere suggested it might have applied something different. In explaining its prejudice determination, the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[t]he aggravating evidence, even with the addition of evidence that Belmontes murdered Howard, is not strong enough, in light of the mitigating evidence that could have been adduced, to rule out a sentence of life in prison.” 529 F. 3d, at 875. But Strickland does not require the State to “rule out” a sentence of life in prison to prevail. Rather, Strickland places the burden on the defendant, not the State, to show a “reasonable probability” that the result would have been different. 466 U. S., at 694. Under a proper application of the Strickland standard, Belmontes cannot carry this burden.
It is hard to imagine expert testimony and additional facts about Belmontes’ difficult childhood outweighing the facts of McConnell’s murder. It becomes even harder to envision such a result when the evidence that Belmontes had committed another murder — “the most powerful imaginable aggravating evidence,” as Judge Levi put it, Belmontes, S-89-0736, App. to Pet. for Cert. 183a — is added to the mix. Schick’s mitigation strategy failed, but the notion that the result could have been different if only Schick had put on more than the nine witnesses he did, or called expert witnesses to bolster his case, is fanciful.
The petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pawperis are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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: | 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.
In this case we must decide whether a Mississippi statute imposing a 15% penalty on parties who appeal unsuccessfully from a money judgment violates the Equal Protection Clause.
I
This action grows out of allegations that appellant Bankers Life and Casualty Company refused in bad faith to pay appel-lee Lloyd Crenshaw’s insurance claim for loss of a limb. According to testimony at trial, appellee was injured on January 6, 1979, when a car alternator he was repairing rolled off his workbench and landed on his foot. Three days later, after the injury had not responded to home treatment, appellee went to the emergency room of the local Air Force base hospital. Hospital doctors prescribed a splint, crutches, and pain medication, and told appellee to return in a week. Ap-pellee revisited the hospital three times over the next five days, each time complaining of continuing pain in his foot. By the last visit, appellee’s foot had swollen and begun to turn blue, and the examining doctor recommended a surgery consultation. Appellee was admitted to the hospital, where, on January 17, an Air Force general surgeon determined that a surgical amputation was necessary. The following day, ap-pellee’s leg was amputated below the knee.
At the time of the amputation, appellee was insured under a group policy issued by appellant. The policy provided a $20,000 benefit for loss of limb due to accidental bodily injury. In April 1979, appellee submitted a claim under the policy. Appellant denied the claim. The apparent basis for the denial was an opinion of appellant’s Medical Director, Dr. Nathaniel McParland, that the cause of the amputation was not appellee’s accident but a pre-existing condition of arteriosclerosis, a degenerative vascular disease. Appellee responded to the company’s denial by furnishing a statement signed by three doctors who treated him at the hospital. They stated that appellee’s arteriosclerosis was “ ‘an underlying condition and not the immediate cause of the gangrenous necrosis. The precipating [sic] event must be considered to be the trauma which initially brought him to the Emergency Room on 9 January.’” 483 So. 2d 254, 261 (Miss. 1985). Dr. McParland and a company analyst concluded that this statement was inconsequential, and appellant adhered to its position that the arteriosclerosis was responsible for the loss of limb.
Appellee persisted in his efforts to recover under the policy, eventually hiring an attorney, and appellant persisted in its intransigence. In its correspondence with appellee and his attorney, appellant repeatedly asserted that appellee had not suffered an injury as defined in the policy, that is, a “‘bodily injury, causing the loss while this policy is in force, directly and independently of all other causes and effected solely through an accidental bodily injury to the insured person.’” Id., at 262, quoting letter of Apr. 8, 1980, from Wm. Herzau to appellee. In contemporaneous internal memoranda, however, appellant noted that notwithstanding the policy language, appellee was entitled to recovery under Mississippi law if his injury had “‘“aggravate^], rendered] active, or set in motion a latent or dormant pre-existing physical condition or disease.”’” Id., at 262, 263. The memo-randa also demonstrated that appellant knew its flies were incomplete yet never attempted to obtain appellee’s medical records, most notably his emergency room report, even though Mississippi law and internal company procedures required such efforts.
After appellant again denied the claim on the ground that there was no evidence that appellee’s “ ‘injury caused this loss “directly and independently of all other causes,””’ see id., at 263, appellee brought this suit in Mississippi state court. His complaint requested $20,000 in actual damages, and, as amended, $1,635,000 in punitive damages for the tort of bad-faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. The jury awarded appellee the $20,000 provided by the policy and punitive damages of $1.6 million.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict without modification. It concluded that the punitive damages award was not excessive in light of appellant’s financial worth and the degree of its wrongdoing. See id., at 279. Because the money judgment was affirmed without modification, a penalty of $243,000, or 15% of the judgment, was assessed against appellant and added to appellee’s recovery in accordance with Mississippi’s penalty statute. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-3-23 (Supp. 1987). In its appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court, appellant did not raise a federal constitutional challenge to the size of the punitive damages award. Following the affirmance of the jury verdict, appellant filed a petition for rehearing. Appellant argued in the petition that “[t]he punitive damage verdict was clearly excessive, not reasonably related to any legitimate purpose, constitutes excessive fine, and violates constitutional principles.” App. to Juris. Statement 139a. An accompanying brief asserted that the punitive damages award violated “due process, equal protection, and other constitutional standards.” Id., at 151a. Appellant also filed a Motion to Correct Judgment in which it alleged that the 15% penalty under § 11-3-23 “violated] the rights of equal protection and due process of Bankers Life” guaranteed in the Federal and State Constitutions. App. to Juris. Statement 106a-107a. The Mississippi Supreme Court, without opinion, denied the petition for rehearing and overruled the Motion to Correct Judgment.
II
Appellant focuses most of its efforts in this appeal to challenging the punitive damages award of $1.6 million. It contends foremost that the award violates the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee that “excessive fines [shall not be] imposed.” Appellant argues first, that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to punitive damages awards rendered in civil cases, and second, that the particular award in this case was constitutionally excessive. In addition to its excessive fines claim, appellant challenges the punitive damages award in this case on the grounds that it violates the Due Process Clause and the Contract Clause. Although we noted probable jurisdiction as to all of the questions presented in appellant’s jurisdictional statement, appellant’s challenges to the size of the punitive damages award do not fall within our appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U. S. C. §1257(2). We therefore treat them as if contained in a petition-for a writ of cer-tiorari, and our unrestricted notation of probable jurisdiction of the appeal is to be understood as a grant of the writ as to these claims. See Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 512 (1966). We conclude, however, that these claims were not raised and passed upon in state court, and we decline to reach them here. See ibid. (“The issue thus remains within our certiorari jurisdiction, and we may, for good reason, even at this stage, decline to decide the merits of the issue, much as we would dismiss a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted”).
Appellant maintains that it raised its various challenges to the size of the punitive damages award in its petition for rehearing before the Mississippi Supreme Court. In urging us to entertain the claims, appellant relies on our decision in Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U. S. 255, 262-265 (1982), in which we accepted certiorari jurisdiction of claims that were raised, but not passed upon, in the Mississippi Supreme Court on petition for rehearing. Hathom would be apposite were we to conclude that appellant had adequately raised its claims on rehearing. But appellant’s petition for rehearing alleged only that the punitive damages award “was clearly excessive, not reasonably related to any legitimate purpose, constitutes excessive fine, and violates constitutional principles.” App. to Juris. Statement 139a. The vague appeal to constitutional principles does not preserve appellant’s Contract Clause or due process claims. A party may not preserve a constitutional challenge by generally invoking the Constitution in state court and awaiting review in this Court to specify the constitutional provision it is relying upon. Cf. Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400, 407, n. 9 (1988) (“A generic reference to the Fourteenth Amendment is not sufficient to preserve a constitutional claim based on an unidentified provision of the Bill of Rights . . .”).
Appellant’s reference to the excessiveness of the punitive damages award more colorably raises a cognizable constitutional challenge to the size of the award, one based on the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. But this language as well is too oblique to allow us to conclude that appellant raised before the Mississippi Supreme Court the federal claim it now urges us to resolve. As this Court stated in Webb v. Webb, 451 U. S. 493, 501 (1981), “[a]t the minimum. . . there should be no doubt from the record that a claim under & federal statute or the Federal Constitution was presented in the state courts and that those courts were apprised of the nature or substance of the federal claim at the time and in the manner required by the state law.” Although the petition for rehearing alleges that the fine is excessive, it does not indicate that the fine is excessive as a constitutional matter, be it state or federal. It certainly does not identify the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as the source of appellant’s claim. Indeed, the crucial language from appellant’s petition contains no reference whatsoever to the Eighth Amendment, the Federal Constitution, or federal law. This failure to invoke the Federal Constitution is especially problematic in this case because the Mississippi Constitution contains its own Excessive Fines Clause. Miss. Const., Art. 3, §28. Thus, even if the Mississippi Supreme Court understood appellant to be offering a constitutional challenge, it may very well have taken that challenge to be anchored in the State Constitution. Cf. Webb, 451 U. S., at 496-498 (finding that party’s reference to “full faith and credit” in state-court proceedings had failed to raise a federal constitutional claim even though the State Constitution contained no full faith and credit clause); id., at 502-503 (Marshall, J., dissenting). We therefore conclude that appellant’s Eighth Amendment challenge, like its other challenges to the size of the punitive damages award, was not properly raised below.
Whether appellant’s failure to raise these claims in the Mississippi courts deprives us of all power to review them under our certiorari jurisdiction is an unsettled question. As then Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213 (1983), the cases have been somewhat inconsistent in their characterization of the “not pressed or passed upon below” rule. Early opinions seemed to treat the requirement as jurisdictional, whereas more recent cases clearly view the rule as merely a prudential restriction that does not pose an insuperable bar to our review. See id., at 218-219 (discussing cases). We are not called on today to conclusively characterize the “not pressed or passed upon below” rule, however, because assuming that the rule is merely prudential, we believe that the more prudent course in this case is to decline to review appellant’s claims.
In determining whether to exercise jurisdiction over ques-. tions not properly raised below, the Court has focused on the policies that animate the “not pressed or passed upon below” rule. These policies are first, comity to the States, and second, a constellation of practical considerations, chief among which is our own need for a properly developed record on appeal. See Webb v. Webb, supra, at 500-501. Because the chief issue appellant would have us resolve — whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause serves to limit punitive damages in state civil cases — is a question of some moment and difficulty, these policies apply with special force. See Illinois v. Gates, supra, at 224 (“Where difficult issues of great public importance are involved, there are strong reasons to adhere scrupulously to the customary limitations on our discretion”); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S., at 512-513 (“The far-reaching and important questions tendered by this claim are not presented by the record with sufficient clarity to require or justify their decision”). Our review of appellant’s claim now would short-circuit a number of less intrusive, and possibly more appropriate, resolutions: the Mississippi State Legislature might choose to enact legislation addressing punitive damages awards for bad-faith refusal to pay insurance claims; failing that,' the Mississippi state courts may choose to resolve the issue by relying on the State Constitution or on some other adequate and independent non-federal ground; and failing that, the Mississippi Supreme Court will have its opportunity to decide the question of federal law in the first instance, while any ultimate review of the question that we might undertake will gain the benefit of a well-developed record and a reasoned opinion on the merits. We think it unwise to foreclose these possibilities, and therefore decline to address appellant’s challenges to the size of the punitive damages award.
Ill
There remains appellant’s challenge to Mississippi’s “penalty statute,” which requires unsuccessful appellants from money judgments, as well as from several other categories of judgments whose value may readily be determined, to pay an additional assessment of 15% of the judgment. Appellant argues that the penalty statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it singles out appellants from money judgments, and because it penalizes all such appellants who are unsuccessful, regardless of the merit of their appeal. This claim is properly before us under our appellate jurisdiction because the Mississippi Supreme Court, in denying appellant’s Motion to Correct Judgment, upheld the validity of § 11-3-23 against appellant’s federal constitutional claim. See 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2).
Under this Court’s equal protection jurisprudence, Mississippi’s statute is “presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification ... is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 440 (1985). The state interests assertedly served by the Mississippi statute were detailed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Walters v. Inexco Oil Co., 440 So. 2d 268 (1983). The penalty statute, some version of which has been part of Mississippi law since 1857, “expresses the state’s interest in discouraging frivolous appeals. It likewise expresses a bona fide interest in providing a measure of compensation for the successful appellee, compensation for his having endured the slings and arrows of successful appellate litigation.” Id., at 274-275. In a similar vein, the statute protects the integrity of judgments by discouraging appellant-defendants from prolonging the litigation merely to “squeeze a favorable settlement out of an impecunious” appellee. Id., at 275. Also, the penalty statute “tells the litigants that the trial itself is a momentous event, the centerpiece of the litigation, not just a first step weighing station en route to endless rehearings and reconsiderations.” Ibid. Finally, in part because it serves these other goals, the penalty statute furthers the State’s interest in conserving judicial resources. Ibid.
The legitimacy of these state interests cannot seriously be doubted, and this Court has upheld statutes that serve similar interests. See, e. g., Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. McCray, 291 U. S. 566 (1934) (upholding additional assessment on insurance companies that wrongfully refuse to pay policy benefits); see also, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Stewart, 241 U. S. 261, 263 (1916) (State may make appeal “costly in cases where ultimately the judgment is upheld”) (Holmes, J.). Cf. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56, 78 (1972) (“We do not question here reasonable procedural provisions to safeguard litigated property ... or to discourage patently insubstantial appeals”) (citation omitted). The statute therefore offends the Equal Protection Clause only if the legislative means that Mississippi has chosen are not rationally related to these legitimate interests.
In arguing that § 11-3-23 violates equal protection, appellant seeks to draw support from the Court’s opinion in Lindsey v. Normet, supra. Lindsey addressed the constitutionality of an Oregon statute that required tenants challenging eviction proceedings to post a bond of twice the amount of rent expected to accrue pending appellate review. The bond was forfeited to the landlord if the lower court decision was affirmed. We agreed with the appellants that the double-bond requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause. We noted that the requirement was “unrelated to actual rent accrued or to specific damage sustained by the landlord.” 405 U. S., at 77. Moreover, the requirement, which burdened only tenants, including tenants whose appeals were nonfrivolous, erected “a substantial barrier to appeal faced by no other civil litigant in Oregon.” Id., at 79. We therefore concluded that the requirement bore “no reasonable relationship to any valid state objective” and that it discriminated against the class of tenants appealing from adverse decisions in wrongful-detainer actions in an “arbitrary and irrational” fashion. Id., at 76-77, 79.
As Lindsey demonstrates, arbitrary and, irrational discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause under even our most deferential standard of review. Unlike the statute in Lindsey, however, Mississippi’s penalty statute does not single out a class of appellants in an arbitrary and irrational fashion. First, whereas the statute in Lindsey singled out the narrow class of defendant-tenants for discriminatory treatment, the sweep of § 11-3-23 is far broader: the penalty applies both to plaintiffs and defendants, and it also applies to all money judgments as well as to a long list of judgments whose money value may readily be determined. See n. 6, infra. Second, and more generally, there is a rational connection between the statute’s objective and Mississippi’s choice to impose a penalty only on appellants from money judgments or judgments the money value of which can readily be determined. If Mississippi wanted similarly to deter frivolous appeals from other kinds of judgments, it either would have to erect a fixed bond that bore no relation to the value of the underlying suit, or else it would have to set appropriate penalties in each case using some kind of individualized procedure, which would impose a considerable cost in judicial resources, exactly what the statute aims to avoid. Mississippi instead has chosen a partial solution that will deter many, though not all, frivolous appeals without requiring a significant commitment of governmental resources. Appellants from money judgments, and from the other types of judgments delineated in the statute, are a rational target of this scheme because the value of their claims, and thus of a proportional penalty, may be readily computed without substantial judicial intervention. Cf. Lindsey, supra, at 78 (“We discern nothing in the special purposes of the [wrongful detainer] statute or in the special characteristics of the landlord-tenant relationship to warrant this discrimination”). The Constitution does not prohibit Mississippi from singling out a group of litigants that it rationally concludes is most likely to be deterred from bringing meritless claims at the least cost to the State.
In addition, Mississippi’s statute is less likely than was the statute in Lindsey to discourage substantial appeals along with insubstantial ones. Because the penalty operates only after a judgment has been affirmed without modification, there is less risk than in Lindsey of discouraging appellants who believe they have meritorious appeals but simply lack the funds to post a substantial bond during the appellate process. And whereas the assessment in Lindsey “automatically doubled the stakes,” 405 U. S. at 79, the 15% penalty here is a relatively modest additional assessment. Cf. McCray, 291 U. S., at 571 (12% additional assessment not oppressive). Although Mississippi may not have succeeded in eliminating all danger of deterring meritorious claims, we cannot say that the residual danger is sufficient to render the statutory scheme irrational.
In short, unlike the double-bond provision condemned in Lindsey, the means chosen in § 11-3-23 are reasonably related to the achievement of the State’s objectives of discouraging frivolous appeals, compensating appellees for the intangible costs of litigation, and conserving judicial resources. See Lindsey, 405 U. S., at 70. It of course is possible that Mississippi might have enacted a statute that more precisely serves these goals and these goals only; as we frequently have explained, however, a state statute need not be so perfectly calibrated in order to pass muster under the rational-basis test. See, e. g., Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 108 (1979). We are satisfied that the means that the State has chosen are “reasonably tailored to achieve [the State’s legitimate] ends.” Lindsey, supra, at 78. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court denying appellant’s equal protection challenge to § 11-3-23.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Appellant did offer on appeal a federal due process challenge based on the alleged “chilling effect” of unrestricted punitive damages awards on the exercise of a litigant’s'right of access to the courts. See App. to Juris. Statement 135a. We read this attack on the alleged open-endedness of Mississippi’s punitive damages awards to be distinct from the attack on the size of the particular award that appellant has waged before this Court.
Similarly, appellant’s challenges in this Court to the size of the punitive damages award in no way qualify as “mere enlargements” of claims made before the Mississippi Supreme Court. Under the mere enlargement doctrine, “[p]arties are not confined here to the same arguments which were advanced in the courts below upon a Federal question there discussed.” Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 198 (1899). See also Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 658, n. 10 (1972). Dewey makes clear, however, that the federal question must be brought to the attention of the court below in some manner. “A claim or right which) has never been made or asserted cannot be said to have been denied by a judgment which does not refer to it.” 173 U. S., at 200.
Several States have enacted limits on punitive damages in specified types of causes of action. See, e. g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 713.31(2)(c) (1988) (fraudulent filing of mechanics’ lien); Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.080 (1987) (malicious harassment); Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 1787.3 (West 1985) (consumer credit denial).
Section 11-3-23 of Miss. Code Ann. (Supp. 1987) provides:
“In case the judgment or decree of the court below be affirmed, or the appellant fails to prosecute his appeal to effect, the supreme court shall render judgment against the appellant for damages, at the rate of fifteen percent (15%), as follows: If the judgment or decree affirmed be for a sum of money, the damages shall be upon such sum. If the judgment or decree be for the possession of real or personal property, the damages shall be assessed on the value of the property. If the judgment or decree be for the dissolution of an injunction or other restraining process at law or in chancery, the damages shall be computed on the amount due the appellee which was enjoined or restrained. If the judgment or decree be for the dissolution of an injunction or other restraining process as to certain property, real or personal, or a certain interest in property, or be a judgment or decree for the sale of property, or some interest in it, to satisfy a sum out of the proceeds of sale, or to enforce or establish a lien or charge or claim upon or some interest in property, and the only matter complained of on the appeal is the decree as to some particular property or claim on it, the damages shall be computed on the value of the property or the interest in it, if the value of the property or interest in it be less than the judgment or decree against it; but if the value of the property or interest in it be greater than the amount of the judgment or decree against it, the damages shall be upon the amount of the judgment or decree; provided, however, the above penalty shall not be assessed against any condemnee appealing from a special court of eminent domain in any circumstances.”
The penalty would appear to apply to both defendant-appellants, such as Bankers Life, and plaintiff-appellants, who might choose to challenge a recovery they view as too meager. See Eagle Lumber & Supply Co. v. Robertson, 161 Miss. 17, 135 So. 499 (1931) (applying former Mississippi penalty statute to unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant).
The appellants in Lindsey also attacked the constitutionality of provisions of the statute that required tenants challenging eviction proceedings to proceed to trial within six months and to bring only certain claims and defenses. The Court upheld these provisions against appellants’ facial challenge. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S., at 64-69.
Appellant argues that § 11-3-23 impermissibly burdens some litigants’ access to the State’s appellate system. Although the Court indicated in Lindsey that the effective foreclosure of a state right to appeal as to some litigants only — for example, indigent litigants — might well violate equal protection guarantees under even deferential scrutiny, see Lindsey, supra, at 77, 79, appellee rightly notes that appellant lacks standing to challenge § 11-3-23 on this basis, because appellant has not alleged that its own right to appeal has been foreclosed by the statute. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 610 (1973).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States Constitution requires that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the . . . judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The case before us presents questions arising under this constitutional provision and under the federal statute enacted to implement it.
In 1956 the petitioners brought an action against the respondent in a Nebraska court to quiet title to certain bottom land situated on the Missouri River. The main channel of that river forms the boundary between the States of Nebraska and Missouri. The Nebraska court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy only if the land in question was in Nebraska. Whether the land was Nebraska land depended entirely upon a factual question — whether a shift in the river’s course had been caused by avulsion or accretion. The respondent appeared in the Nebraska court and through counsel fully litigated the issues, explicitly contesting the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy. After a hearing the court found the issues in favor of the petitioners and ordered that title to the land be quieted in them. The respondent appealed, and the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the judgment after a trial de novo on the record made in the lower court. The State Supreme Court specifically found that the rule of avulsion was applicable, that the land in question was in Nebraska, that the Nebraska courts therefore had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the litigation, and that title to the land was in the petitioners. Durfee v. Keiffer, 168 Neb. 272, 95 N. W. 2d 618. The respondent did not petition this Court for a writ of certiorari to review that judgment.
Two months later the respondent filed- a suit against the petitioners in a Missouri court to quiet title to the same land. Her complaint alleged that the land was in Missouri. The suit was removed to a Federal District Court by reason of diversity of citizenship. The District Court after hearing evidence expressed the view that the land was in Missouri, but held that all the issues had been adjudicated and determined in the Nebraska litigation, and that the judgment of the Nebraska Supreme Court was res judicata and "is now binding upon this court.” The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Court was not required to give full faith and credit to the Nebraska judgment, and that normal res judicata principles were not applicable because the controversy involved land and a court in Missouri was therefore free to retry the question of the Nebraska court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter. 308 F. 2d 209. We granted certiorari to consider a question important to the administration of justice in our federal system. 371 U. S. 946. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment before us.
The constitutional command of full faith and credit, as implemented by Congress, requires that “judicial proceedings . . . shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . . . from which they are taken.” Full faith and credit thus generally requires every State to give to a judgment at least the res judicata effect which the judgment would be accorded in the State which rendered it. “By the Constitutional provision for full faith and credit, the local doctrines of res judicata, speaking generally, become a part of national jurisprudence, and therefore federal questions cognizable here.” Riley v. New York Trust Co., 315 U. S. 343, 349.
It is not questioned that the Nebraska courts would give full res judicata effect to the Nebraska judgment quieting title in the petitioners. It is the respondent’s position, however, that whatever effect the Nebraska courts might give to the Nebraska judgment, the federal court in Missouri was free independently to determine whether the Nebraska court in fact had jurisdiction over the subject matter, i. e., whether the land in question was actually in Nebraska.
In support of this position the respondent relies upon the many decisions of this Court which have held that a judgment of a court in one State is conclusive upon the merits in a court in another State only if the court in the first State had power to pass on the merits — had jurisdiction, that is, to render the judgment. As Mr. Justice Bradley stated the doctrine in the leading case of Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, “we think it clear that the jurisdiction of the court by which a judgment is rendered in any State may be questioned in a collateral proceeding in another State, notwithstanding the provision of the fourth article of the Constitution and the law of 1790, and notwithstanding the averments contained in the record of the judgment itself.” 18 Wall., at 469. The principle has been restated and applied in a variety of contexts.
However, while it is established that a court in one State, when asked to give effect to the judgment of a court in another State, may constitutionally inquire into the foreign court’s jurisdiction to render that judgment, the modern decisions of this Court have carefully delineated the permissible scope of such an inquiry. From these decisions there emerges the general rule that a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit — even as to questions of jurisdiction — when the second court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.
With respect to questions of jurisdiction over the person, this principle was unambiguously established in Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Assn., 283 U. S. 522. There it was held that a federal court in Iowa must give binding effect to .the judgment of a federal court in Missouri despite the claim that the original court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant’s person, once it was shown to the court in Iowa that that question had been fully litigated in the Missouri forum. “Public policy,” said the Court, “dictates that there be an end of litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled as between the parties. We see no reason why this doctrine should not apply in every case where one voluntarily appears, presents his case and is fully heard, and why he should not, in the absence of fraud, be thereafter concluded by the judgment of the tribunal to which he has submitted his cause.” 283 TJ. S., at 525-526.
Following the Baldwin case, this Court soon made clear in a series of decisions that the general rule is no different when the claim is made that the original forum did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Davis v. Davis, 305 U. S. 32; Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U. S. 165; Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U. S. 66; Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U. S. 343. In each of these cases the claim was made that a court, when asked to enforce the judgment of another forum, was free to retry the question of that forum’s jurisdiction over the subject matter. In each case this Court held that since the question of subject-matter jurisdiction had been fully litigated in the original forum, the issue could not be retried in a subsequent action between the parties.
In the Davis case it was held that the courts of the District of Columbia were required to give full faith and credit to a decree of absolute divorce rendered in Virginia, despite the claim that the Virginia court had lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff in the Virginia proceedings had not been domiciled in that State. In the course of the opinion the Court stated:
“As to petitioner’s domicil for divorce and his standing to invoke jurisdiction of the Virginia court, its finding that he was a bona fide resident of that State for the required time is binding upon respondent in the courts of the District. She may not say that he was not entitled to sue for divorce in the state court, for she appeared there and by plea put in issue his allegation as to domicil, introduced evidence to show it false, took exceptions to the commissioner’s report, and sought to have the court sustain them and uphold her plea. Plainly, the determination of the decree upon that point is effective for all purposes in this litigation.” 305 U. S., at 40.
This doctrine of jurisdictional finality was applied even more unequivocally in Treinies, supra, involving title to personal property, and in Sherrer, supra, involving, like Davis, recognition of a foreign divorce decree. In Trein-ies, the rule was succinctly stated: “One trial of an issue is enough. ‘The principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction as well as to other issues,’ as well to jurisdiction of the subject matter as of the parties.” 308 U. S., at 78.
The reasons for such a rule are apparent. In the words of the Court’s opinion in Stoll v. Gottlieb, supra, “We see no reason why a court, in the absence of an allegation of fraud in obtaining the judgment, should examine again the question whether the court making the earlier determination on an actual contest over jurisdiction between the parties, did have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the litigation. . . . Courts to determine the rights of parties are an integral part of our system of government. It is just as important that there should be a place to end as that there should be a place to begin litigation. After a party has his day in court, with opportunity to present his evidence and his view of the law, a collateral attack upon the decision as to jurisdiction there rendered merely retries the issue previously determined. There is no reason to expect that the second decision will be more satisfactory than the first.” 305 U. S., at 172.
To be sure, the general rule of finality of jurisdictional determinations is not without exceptions. Doctrines of federal pre-emption or sovereign immunity may in some contexts be controlling. Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433; United States v. United States Fidelity Co., 309 U. S. 506. But no such overriding considerations are present here. While this Court has not before had occasion to consider the applicability of the rule of Davis, Stoll, Treinies, and Sherrer to a case involving real property, we can discern no reason why the rule should not be fully applicable.
It is argued that an exception to this rule of jurisdictional finality should be made with respect to cases involving real property because of this Court’s emphatic expressions of the doctrine that courts of one State are completely without jurisdiction directly to affect title to land in other States. This argument is wide of the mark. Courts of one State are equally without jurisdiction to dissolve the marriages of those domiciled in other States. But the location of land, like the domicile of a party to a divorce action, is a matter “to be resolved by judicial determination.” Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U. S., at 349. The question remains whether, once the matter has been fully litigated and judicially determined, it can be retried in another State in litigation between the same parties. Upon the reason and authority of the cases we have discussed, it is clear that the answer must be in the negative.
It is to be emphasized that all that was ultimately determined in the Nebraska litigation was title to the land in question as between the parties to the litigation there. Nothing there decided, and nothing that could be decided in litigation between the same parties or their privies in Missouri, could bind either Missouri or Nebraska with respect to any controversy they might have, now or in the future, as to the location of the boundary between them, or as to their respective sovereignty over the land in question. Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411; New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1; Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731, 736-737. Either State may at any time protect its interest by initiating independent judicial proceedings here. Cf. Missouri v. Nebraska, 196 U. S. 23.
For the reasons stated, we hold in this case that the federal court in Missouri had the power and, upon proper averments, the duty to inquire into the jurisdiction of the Nebraska courts to render the decree quieting title to the land in the petitioners. We further hold that when that inquiry disclosed, as it' did, that the jurisdictional issues had been fully and fairly litigated by the parties and finally determined in the Nebraska courts, the federal court in Missouri was correct in ruling that further inquiry was precluded. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and that of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
“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.” U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 1.
“The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
“The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
“Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.” Act of June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 947, 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
The progenitor of the present statute was enacted by the First Congress in 1790. 1 Stat. 122.
“The Act extended the rule of the Constitution to all courts, federal as well as state. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cr. 481, 485.” Davis v. Davis, 305 U. S. 32, 40.
Throughout this litigation there has been no dispute as to the controlling effect of this factual issue. See Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359, 370.
This is, therefore, not a case in which a party, although afforded an opportunity to contest subject-matter jurisdiction, did not litigate the issue. Cf. Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371.
See note 2, supra.
The Nebraska Supreme Court has clearly postulated the relevant law of the State: “This court adheres to the rule that if a court is one competent to decide whether or not the facts in any given pro-eeeding confer jurisdiction, decides that it has jurisdiction, then its judgments entered within the scope of the subject matter over which its authority extends in proceedings following the lawful allegation of circumstances requiring the exercise of its jurisdiction, are not subject to collateral attack but conclusive against all the world unless reversed' on appeal or avoided for error or fraud.in a direct proceeding. Brandeen v. Lau, 113 Neb. 34, 201 N. W. 665; County of Douglas v. Feenan, 146 Neb. 156, 18 N. W. 2d 740, 159 A. L. R. 569.” Gergen v. Western Union Life Ins. Co., 149 Neb. 203, 210; 30 N. W. 2d 558, 562.
See, e. g., D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165; Knowles v. Gaslight & Coke Co., 19 Wall. 58; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160; Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107; Grover & Baker Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U. S. 287; Thormann v. Frame, 176 U. S. 350; Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14; National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U. S. 257; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 244 U. S. 25; Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U. S. 348; Grubb v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 281 U. S. 470.
It is not disputed in the present case that the Nebraska courts had jurisdiction over the respondent’s person. She entered a general appearance in the trial court, and initiated the appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
This decision was adhered to the following year in American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U. S. 156. In his opinion for a unanimous Court in that case, Mr. Justice Brandéis said: “The principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction as well as to other issues.” 287 U. S., at 166.
The question in Stoll was what effect the courts of Illinois must give to the judgment of a federal court sitting in that State. • The case, therefore, did not directly involve the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, but, like the present case, it involved the federal statute enacted to implement the constitutional provision. 305 U. S., at 170, n. 5. See note 2, supra.
See also Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381, 403; Jackson v. Irving Trust Co., 311 U. S. 494.
It is to be noted, however, that in neither of these eases had the jurisdictional issues actually been litigated in the first forum.
The Restatement of Conflict of Laws recognizes the possibility of such exceptions:
“Where a court has jurisdiction over the parties and determines that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties cannot collaterally attack the judgment on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter, unless the policy underlying the doctrine of res judicata is outweighed bji- the policy against permitting the court to act beyond its jurisdiction. Among the factors appropriate to be considered in determining that collateral attack should be permitted are that
“(a) the lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter was clear;
“(b) the determination as to jurisdiction depended upon a question of law rather than of fact;
“(c) the court was one of limited and not of general jurisdiction;
“(d) the question of jurisdiction was not actually litigated;
“ (e) the policy against the court’s acting beyond its jurisdiction is strong.” Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §451(2) (Supp. 1948). See Restatement, Judgments, § 10 (1942).
In two previous cases the Court has expressly left open the question of the applicability of the rule of jurisdictional finality to cases involving real property. See Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U. S., at 176; United States v. United States Fidelity Co., 309 U. S., at 514.
See Fall v. Eastin, 215 U. S. 1; Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. S. 87, 105-106; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U. S. 386.
The alternative of a negotiated settlement of any dispute between the States over the location of the boundary would also always be available. See U. S. Const., Art. I, § 10.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In January 1999, the Attorney General of Massachusetts promulgated comprehensive regulations governing the advertising and sale of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and cigars. 940 Code of Mass. Regs. §§21.01-21.07, 22.01-22.09 (2000). Petitioners, a group of cigarette, smokeless tobacco, and cigar manufacturers and retailers, filed suit in Federal District Court claiming that the regulations violate federal law and the United States Constitution. In large measure, the District Court determined that the regulations are valid and enforceable. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the regulations are not pre-empted by federal law and do not violate the First Amendment. The first question presented for our review is whether certain cigarette advertising regulations are pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), 79 Stat. 282, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq. The second question presented is whether certain regulations governing the advertising and sale of tobacco products violate the First Amendment.
hH
In November 1998, Massachusetts, along with over 40 other States, reached a landmark agreement with major manufacturers in the cigarette industry. The signatory States settled their claims against these companies in exchange for monetary payments and permanent injunctive relief. See App. 253-258 (Outline of Terms for Massachusetts in National Tobacco Settlement); Master Settlement Agreement (Nov. 23, 1998), http://www.naag.org. At the press conference covering Massachusetts’ decision to sign the agreement, then-Attorney General Scott Harshbarger announced that as one of his last acts in office, he would create consumer protection regulations to restrict advertising and sales practices for tobacco products. He explained that the regulations were necessary in order to “close holes” in the settlement agreement and “to stop Big Tobacco from recruiting new customers among the children of Massachusetts.” App. 251.
In January 1999, pursuant to his authority to prevent unfair or deceptive practices in trade, Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 93A, § 2 (1997), the Massachusetts Attorney General (Attorney General) promulgated regulations governing the sale and advertisement of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and cigars. The purpose of the cigarette and smokeless tobacco regulations is “to eliminate deception and unfairness in the way cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are marketed, sold and distributed in Massachusetts in order to address the incidence of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use by children under legal age... [and] in order to prevent access to such products by underage consumers.” 940 Code of Mass. Regs. §21.01 (2000). The similar purpose of the cigar regulations is “to eliminate deception and unfairness in the way cigars and little cigars are packaged, marketed, sold and distributed in Massachusetts [so that]... consumers may be adequately informed about the health risks associated with cigar smoking, its addictive properties, and the false perception that cigars are a safe alternative to cigarettes... [and so that] the incidence of cigar use by children under legal age is addressed... in order to prevent access to such products by underage consumers.” Ibid. The regulations have a broader scope than the master settlement agreement, reaching advertising, sales practices, and members of the tobacco industry not covered by the agreement. The regulations place a variety of restrictions on outdoor advertising, point-of-sale advertising, retail sales transactions, transactions by mail, promotions, sampling of products, and labels for cigars.
The cigarette and smokeless tobacco regulations being challenged before this Court provide:
“(2) Retail Outlet Sales Practices. Except as otherwise provided in [§21.04(4)], it shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products through a retail outlet located within Massachusetts to engage in any of the following retail outlet sales practices:
“(c) Using self-service displays of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products;
“(d) Failing to place cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products out of the reach of all consumers, and in a location accessible only to outlet personnel.” §§ 21.04(2)(c)-(d).
“(5) Advertising Restrictions. Except as provided in [§ 21.04(6)], it shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for any manufacturer, distributor or retailer to engage in any of the following practices:
“(a) Outdoor advertising, including advertising in enclosed stadiums and advertising from within a retail establishment that is directed toward or visible from the outside of the establishment, in any location that is within a 1,000 foot radius of any public playground, playground area in a public park, elementary school or secondary school;
“(b) Point-of-sale advertising of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products any portion of which is placed lower than five feet from the floor of any retail establishment which is located within a one thousand foot radius of any public playground, playground area in a public park, elementary school or secondary school, and which is not an adult-only retail establishment.” §§21.04(5)(a)-(b).
The cigar regulations that are still at issue provide:
“(1) Retail Sales Practices. Except as otherwise provided in [§22.06(4)], it shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for any person who sells or distributes cigars or little cigars directly to consumers within Massachusetts to engage in any of the following practices:
“(a) sampling of cigars or little cigars or promotional give-aways of cigars or little cigars.” §21.06(l)(a).
“(2) Retail Outlet Sales Practices. Except as otherwise provided in [§ 22.06(4)], it shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for any person who sells or distributes cigars or little cigars through a retail outlet located within Massachusetts to engage in any of the following retail outlet sales practices:
“(c) Using self-service displays of cigars or little cigars;
“(d) Failing to place cigars and little cigars out of the reach of all consumers, and in a location accessible only to outlet personnel.” §§22.06(2)(c)-(d).
“(5) Advertising Restrictions. Except as provided in [§ 22.06(6)], it shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for any manufacturer, distributor or retailer to engage in any of the following practices:
“(a) Outdoor advertising of cigars or little cigars, including advertising in enclosed stadiums and advertising from within a retail establishment that is directed toward or visible from the outside of the establishment, in any location within a 1,000 foot radius of any public playground, playground area in a public park, elementary school or secondary school;
“(b) Point-of-sale advertising of cigars or little cigars any portion of which is placed low;er than five feet from the floor of any retail establishment which is located within a one thousand foot radius of any public playground, playground area in a public park, elementary school or secondary school, and which is not an adult-only retail establishment.” §§22.06(5)(a)-(b).
The term “advertisement” is defined as:
“any oral, written, graphic, or pictorial statement or representation, made by, or on behalf of, any person who manufactures, packages, imports for sale, distributes or sells within Massachusetts [tobacco products], the purpose or effect of which is to promote the use or sale of the product. Advertisement includes, without limitation, any picture, logo, symbol, motto, selling message, graphic display, visual image, recognizable color or pattern of colors, or any other indicia of product identification identical or similar to, or identifiable with, those used for any brand of [tobacco product]. This includes, without limitation, utilitarian items and permanent or semi-permanent fixtures with such indicia of product identification such as lighting fixtures, awnings, display cases, clocks and door mats, but does not include utilitarian items with a volume of 200 cubic inches or less.” §§21.03, 22.03.
Before the effective date of the regulations, February 1, 2000, members of the tobacco industry sued the Attorney General in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Four cigarette manufacturers (Lorillard Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and Philip Morris Incorporated), a maker of smokeless tobacco products (U. S. Smokeless Tobacco Company), and several cigar manufacturers and retailers claimed that many of the regulations violate the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983. The parties sought summary judgment. 76 F. Supp. 2d 124, 127 (1999); 84 F. Supp. 2d 180,183 (2000).
In its first ruling, the District Court considered the Supremacy Clause claim that the FCLAA, 15 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq., pre-empts the cigarette advertising regulations. 76 F. Supp. 2d, at 128-134. The FCLAA prescribes the health warnings that must appear on packaging and in advertisements for cigarettes. The FCLAA contains a pre-emption provision that prohibits a State from imposing any “requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health... with respect to the advertising or promotion of... cigarettes.” § 1334(b). The FCLAA’s pre-emption provision does not cover smokeless tobacco or cigars.
The District Court explained that the central question for purposes of pre-emption is whether the regulations create a predicate legal duty based on smoking and health. The court reasoned that to read the pre-emption provision to proscribe any state advertising regulation enacted due to health concerns about smoking would expand Congress’ purpose beyond a reasonable scope and leave States powerless to regulate in the area. The court concluded that restrictions on the location of advertising are not based on smoking and health and thus are not pre-empted by the FCLAA. The District Court also concluded that a provision that permitted retailers to display a black and white “tombstone” sign reading “Tobacco Products Sold Here,” 940 Code of Mass. Regs. § 21.04(6) (2000), was pre-empted by the FCLAA.
In a separate ruling, the District Court considered the claim that the Attorney General’s regulations violate the First Amendment. 84 F. Supp. 2d, at 183-196. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that strict scrutiny should apply, the court applied the four-part test of Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y, 447 U. S. 557 (1980), for commercial speech. The court reasoned that the Attorney General had provided an adequate basis for regulating cigars and smokeless tobacco as well as cigarettes because of the similarities among the products. The court held that the outdoor advertising regulations, which prohibit outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground, do not violate the First Amendment because they advance a substantial government interest and are narrowly tailored to suppress no more speech than necessary. The court concluded that the sales practices regulations, which restrict the location and distribution of tobacco products, survive scrutiny because they do not implicate a significant speech interest. The court invalidated the point-of-sale advertising regulations, which require that indoor advertising be placed no lower than five feet from the floor, finding that the Attorney General had not provided sufficient justification for that restriction. The District Court’s ruling with respect to the cigar warning requirements and the Commerce Clause is not before this Court.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a stay pending appeal, App. 8-9, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s judgment, Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. Reilly, 218 F. 3d 30 (2000). With respect to the Supremacy Clause, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the Attorney General’s cigarette. advertising regulations are not preempted by the FCLAA. The First Circuit was persuaded by the reasoning of the Second and Seventh Circuits, which had concluded that the FCLAA’s pre-emption provision is ambiguous, and held that the provision pre-empts regulations of the content, but not the location, of cigarette advertising. See Greater New York Metropolitan Food Council, Inc. v. Giuliani, 195 F. 3d 100, 104-110 (CA2 1999); Federation of Advertising Industry Representatives, Inc. v. Chicago, 189 F. 3d 633, 636-640 (CA7 1999).
With respect to the First Amendment, the Court of Appeals applied the Central Hudson test. 447 U. S. 557 (1980). The court held that the outdoor advertising regulations do not violate the First Amendment. The court concluded that the restriction on outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground directly advances the State’s substantial interest in preventing tobacco use by minors. The court also found that the outdoor advertising regulations restrict no more speech than necessary, reasoning that the distance chosen by the Attorney General is the sort of determination better suited for legislative and executive decisionmakers than courts. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s invalidation of the point-of-sale advertising regulations, again concluding that the Attorney General is better suited to determine what restrictions are necessary. The Court of Appeals also held that the sales practices regulations are valid under the First Amendment. The court found that the regulations directly advance the State’s interest in preventing minors’ access to tobacco products and that the regulations are narrowly tailored because retailers have a variety of other means to present the packaging of their products and to allow customers to examine the products.
As for the argument that smokeless tobacco and cigars are different from cigarettes, the court expressed some misgivings about equating all tobacco products, but ultimately decided that the Attorney General had presented sufficient evidence with respect to all three products to regulate them similarly. The Court of Appeals’ decision with respect to the cigar warning requirements and the Commerce Clause is not before this Court.
The Court of Appeals stayed its mandate pending disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. App. 13. The cigarette manufacturers and U. S. Smokeless Tobacco Company filed a petition, challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision with respect to the outdoor and point-of-sale advertising regulations on pre-emption and First Amendment grounds, and the sales practices regulations on First Amendment grounds. The cigar companies filed a separate petition, again raising a First Amendment challenge to the outdoor advertising, point-of-sale advertising, and sales practices regulations. We granted both petitions, 531 U. S. 1068 (2001), to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals with respect to whether the FCLAA pre-empts cigarette advertising regulations like those at issue here, cf. Lindsey v. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Dept., 195 F. 3d 1065 (CA9 1999), and to decide the important First Amendment issues presented in these cases.
II
Before reaching the First Amendment issues, we must decide to what extent federal law pre-empts the Attorney General’s regulations. The cigarette petitioners contend that the FCLAA, 15 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq., pre-empts the Attorney General’s cigarette advertising regulations.
A
Article VI, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution commands that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land;... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” See also McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 427 (1819) (“It is of the very essence of supremacy, to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments”). This relatively clear and simple mandate has generated considerable discussion in cases where we have had to discern whether Congress has pre-empted state action in a particular area. State action may be foreclosed by express language in a congressional enactment, see, e. g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, 517 (1992), by implication from the depth and breadth of a congressional scheme that occupies the legislative field, see, e. g., Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 153 (1982), or by implication because of a conflict with a congressional enactment, see, e. g., Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861, 869-874 (2000).
In the FCLAA, Congress has crafted a comprehensive federal scheme governing the advertising and promotion of cigarettes. The FCLAAs pre-emption provision provides:
“(a) Additional statements
“No statement relating to smoking and health, other than the statement required by section 1333 of this title, shall be required on any cigarette package.
“(b) State regulations
“No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.” 15 U. S. C. § 1334.
The FCLAAs pre-emption provision does not cover smokeless tobacco or cigars.
In these cases, our task is to identify the domain expressly pre-empted, see Cipollone, supra, at 517, because “an express definition of the pre-emptive reach of a statute... supports a reasonable inference... that Congress did not intend to pre-empt other matters,” Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U. S. 280, 288 (1995). Congressional purpose is the “ultimate touchstone” of our inquiry. Cipollone, supra, at 516 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because “federal law is said to bar state action in [a] fiel[d] of traditional state regulation,” namely, advertising, see Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U. S. 105, 108 (1932), we “wor[k] on the assumption that the historic police powers of the States [a]re not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N. A., Inc., 519 U. S. 316, 325 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 475 (1996).
Our analysis begins with the language of the statute. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 438 (1999). In the pre-emption provision, Congress unequivocally precludes the requirement of any additional statements on cigarette packages beyond those provided in § 1333. 15 U. S. C. § 1334(a). Congress further precludes States or localities from imposing any requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes. § 1334(b). Without question, the second clause is more expansive than the first; it employs far more sweeping language to describe the state action that is pre-empted. We must give meaning to each element of the pre-emption provision. We are aided in our interpretation by considering the predecessor pre-emption provision and the circumstances in which the current language was adopted. See Medtronic, supra, at 486; McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U. S. 136, 139 (1991); K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U. S. 281, 291 (1988).
In 1964, the groundbreaking Report of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health concluded that “[c]igarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action.” Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U. S. Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee, Smoking and Health 33. In 1965, Congress enacted the FCLAA as a proactive measure in the face of impending regulation by federal agencies and the States. Pub. L. 89-92,79 Stat. 282. See also Cipollone, supra, at 513-515. The purpose of the FCLAA was twofold: to inform the public adequately about the hazards of cigarette smoking, and to protect the national economy from interference due to diverse, nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising regulations with respect to the relationship between smoking and health. Pub. L. 89-92, § 2. The FCLAA prescribed a label for cigarette packages: “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health.” §4. The FCLAA also required the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to report annually to Congress about the health consequences of smoking and the advertising and promotion of cigarettes. § 5.
Section 5 of the FCLAA included a pre-emption provision in which “Congress spoke precisely and narrowly.” Cipol-lone, supra, at 518. Subsection (a) prohibited any requirement of additional statements on cigarette packaging. Subsection (b) provided that “[n]o statement relating to smoking and health shall be required in the advertising of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act.” Section 10 of the FCLAA set a termination date of July 1, 1969, for these provisions. As we have previously explained, “on their face, [the preemption] provisions merely prohibited state and federal rulemaking bodies from mandating particular cautionary statements on cigarette labels [subsection (a)] or in cigarette advertisements [subsection (b)].” Cipollone, supra, at 518.
The FCLAA was enacted with the expectation that Congress would reexamine it in 1969 in light of the developing information about cigarette smoking and health. H. R. Rep. No. 586, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1965); 111 Cong. Rec. 16541 (1965). In the intervening years, Congress received reports and recommendations from the HEW Secretary and the FTC. S. Rep. No. 91-566, pp. 2-6 (1969). The HEW Secretary recommended that Congress strengthen the warning, require the warning on all packages and in advertisements, and publish tar and nicotine levels on packages and in advertisements. Id., at 4. The FTC made similar and additional recommendations. The FTC sought a complete ban on radio and television advertising, a requirement that broadcasters devote time for health hazard announcements concerning smoking, and increased funding for public education and research about smoking. Id., at 6. The FTC urged Congress not to continue to prevent federal agencies from regulating cigarette advertising. Id., at 10. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had concluded that advertising which promoted the use of cigarettes created a duty in broadcast stations to provide information about the hazards of cigarette smoking. Id., at 6-7.
In 1969, House and Senate committees held hearings about the health effects of cigarette smoking and advertising by the cigarette industry. The bill that emerged from the House of Representatives strengthened the warning and maintained the pre-emption provision. The Senate amended that bill, adding the ban on radio and television advertising, and changing the pre-emption language to its present form. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-897, pp. 4-5 (1970).
The final result was the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, in which Congress, following the Senate’s amendments, made three significant changes to the FCLAA. Pub. L. 91-222, §2, 84 Stat. 87. First, Congress drafted a new label that read: “Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health.” FCLAA, §4. Second, Congress declared it unlawful to advertise cigarettes on any medium off electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the FCCr-J6. Finally, Congress enacted the current pre-emption provision, which proscribes any “requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health... imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion” of cigarettes. § 5(b). The new subsection (b) did not pre-empt regulation by federal agencies, freeing the FTC to impose warning requirements in cigarette advertising. See Cipollone, 505 U. S., at 515. The new pre-emption provision, like its predecessor, only applied to cigarettes, and not other tobacco products.
In 1984, Congress again amended the FCLAA in the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act. Pub. L. 98-474, 98 Stat. 2200. The purpose of the Act was to “provide a new strategy for making Americans more aware of any adverse health effects of smoking, to assure the timely and widespread dissemination of research findings and to enable individuals to make informed decisions about smoking.” §2. The Act established a series of warnings to appear on a rotating basis on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertising, § 4, and directed the Health and Human Services Secretary to create and implement an educational program about the health effects of cigarette smoking, §3.
The FTC has continued to report on trade practices in the cigarette industry. In 1999, the first year since the master settlement agreement, the FTC reported that the cigarette industry expended $8.24 billion on advertising and promotions, the largest expenditure ever. FTC, Cigarette Report for 1999, p. 1 (2000). Substantial increases were found in point-of-sale promotions, payments made to retailers to facilitate sales, and retail offers such as buy one, get one free, or product giveaways. Id., at 4-5. Substantial decreases, however, were reported for outdoor advertising and transit advertising. Id., at 2. Congress and federal agencies continue to monitor advertising and promotion practices in the cigarette industry.
The scope and meaning of the current pre-emption provision become clearer once we consider the original preemption language and the amendments to the FCLAA. Without question, “the plain language of the pre-emption provision in the 1969 Act is much broader.” Cipollone, 505 U. S., at 520. Rather than preventing only “statements,” the amended provision reaches all “requirement^] or prohibition^]... imposed under State law.” And, although the former statute reached only statements “in the advertising,” the current provision governs “with respect to the advertising or promotion” of cigarettes. See ibid. Congress expanded the pre-emption provision with respect to the States, and at the same time, it allowed the FTC to regulate cigarette advertising. Congress also prohibited cigarette advertising in electronic media altogether. Viewed in light of the context in which the current pre-emption provision was adopted, we must determine whether the FCLAA preempts Massachusetts’ regulations governing outdoor and point-of-sale advertising of cigarettes.
B
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the FCLAA pre-empts any “requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health... with respect to the advertising or promotion of... cigarettes,” 15 U. S. C. § 1334(b), but concluded that the FCLAA does not nullify Massachusetts’ cigarette advertising regulations. The court concentrated its analysis on whether the regulations are “with respect to” advertising and promotion, relying on two of its sister Circuits to conclude that the FCLAA only pre-empts regulations of the content of cigarette advertising. The Court of Appeals also reasoned that the Attorney General’s regulations are a form of zoning, a traditional area of state power; therefore the presumption against pre-emption applied.
The cigarette petitioners maintain that the Court of Appeals’ “with respect to” analysis is inconsistent with the FCLAA’s statutory text and legislative history, and gives the States license to prohibit almost all cigarette advertising. Petitioners also maintain that there is no basis for construing the pre-emption provision to prohibit only content-based advertising regulations.
Although they support the Court of Appeals’ result, the Attorney General and United States as amicus curiae do not fully endorse that court’s textual analysis of the pre-emption provision. Instead, they assert that the cigarette advertising regulations are not pre-empted because they are not “based on smoking and health.” The Attorney General and the United States also contend that the regulations are not pre-empted because they do not prescribe the content of cigarette advertising and they fall squarely within the State’s traditional powers to control the location of advertising and to protect the welfare of children.
Turning first to the language in the pre-emption provision relied upon by the Court of Appeals, we reject the notion that the Attorney General’s cigarette advertising regulations are not “with respect to” advertising and promotion. We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ analogy to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In some cases concerning ERISA’s pre-emption of state law, the Court has had to decide whether a particular state law “relates to” an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA even though the state law makes no express reference to such a plan. See, e.g., California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N. A., Inc., 519 U. S., at 324-325. Here, however, there is no question about an indirect relationship between the regulations and cigarette advertising because the regulations expressly target cigarette advertising. 940 Code of Mass. Regs. § 21.04(5) (2000).
Before this Court, the Attorney General focuses on a different phrase in the pre-emption provision: “based on smoking and health.” The Attorney General argues that the cigarette advertising regulations are not “based on smoking and health,” because they do not involve health-related content in cigarette advertising but instead target youth exposure to cigarette advertising. To be sure, Members of this Court have debated the precise meaning of “based on smoking and health,” see Cipollone, supra, at 529, n. 7 (plurality opinion), but we cannot agree with the Attorney General’s narrow construction of the phrase.
As Congress enacted the current pre-emption provision, Congress did not concern itself solely with health warnings for cigarettes. In the 1969 amendments, Congress not only enhanced its scheme,to warn the public about the hazards of cigarette smoking, but also sought to protect the public, including youth, from being inundated with images of cigarette smoking in advertising. In pursuit of the latter goal, Congress banned electronic media advertising of cigarettes. And to the extent that Congress contemplated additional targeted regulation of cigarette advertising, it vested that authority in the FTC.
The context in which Congress crafted the current preemption provision leads us to conclude that Congress prohibited state cigarette advertising regulations motivated by concerns about smoking and health. Massachusetts has attempted to address the incidence of underage cigarette smoking by regulating advertising, see 940 Code of Mass. Regs. §21.01 (2000), much like Congress’ ban on cigarette advertising in electronic media. At bottom, the concern about youth exposure to cigarette advertising is intertwined with the concern about cigarette smoking and health. Thus the Attorney General’s attempt to distinguish one concern from the other must be rejected.
The Attorney General next claims that the State’s outdoor and point-of-sale advertising regulations for cigarettes are not pre-empted because they govern the location, and not the content, of advertising. This is also Justice Stevens’ main point with respect to pre-emption. Post,' at 595 (opinion concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part).
The content versus location distinction has some surface appeal. The pre-emption provision immediately follows the section of the FCLAA that prescribes warnings. See 15 U. S. C. §§ 1333, 1334. The pre-emption provision itself refers to cigarettes “labeled in conformity with” the statute. § 1334(b). But the content/location distinction cannot be squared with the language of the pre-emption provision, which reaches all “requirements” and “prohibitions” “imposed under State law.” A distinction between the content of advertising and the location of advertising in the FCLAA also cannot be reconciled with Congress’ own location-based restriction, which bans advertising in electronic media, but not elsewhere. See § 1335. We are not at liberty to pick and choose which provisions in the legislative scheme we will consider, see post, at 596, n. 5 (opinion of Stevens, J.), but must examine the FCLAA as a whole.
Moreover, any distinction between the content and location of cigarette advertising collapses once the implications of that approach are fully considered. At oral argument, the Attorney General was pressed to explain what types of state regulations of cigarette advertising, in his view, are preempted by the FCLAA. The Attorney General maintained that a state law that required cigarette retailers to remove the word “tobacco” from advertisements, or required cigarette billboards to be blank, would be pre-empted if it were a regulation of “health-related content.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 41, 42. The Attorney General also maintained, however, that a complete ban on all cigarette advertising would not be preempted because Congress did not intend to invade local control over zoning. Id., at 42-44. The latter position clearly follows from the factual distinction between content and location, but it finds no support in the text of the FCLAA’s pre-emption provision. We believe that Congress wished to ensure that “a State could not do through negative mandate (e. g., banning all cigarette advertising) that which it already was forbidden to do through positive mandate (e. g., mandating particular cautionary statements).” Cipollone, 505 U. S., at 539 (Blackmun, J., joined by Kennedy and Souter, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part). See also Vango Media, Inc. v. New York, 34 F. 3d 68 (CA2 1994) (holding pre-empted a regulation that required one public health message for every four cigarette advertisements).
Justice Stevens, post, at 595-598, maintains that Congress did not intend to displace state regulation of the location of cigarette advertising. There is a critical distinction, however, between generally applicable zoning regulations, see infra, at 551-552, and regulations targeting cigarette advertising. The latter type of regulation, which is inevitably motivated by concerns about smoking and health, squarely contradicts the FCLAA. The FCLAA's comprehensive warnings, advertising restrictions, and pre-emption provision would make little sense if a State or locality could simply target and ban all cigarette advertising.
Justice Stevens finds it ironic that we conclude that “federal law precludes States and localities from protecting children from dangerous products within 1,000 feet of a school,” in light of our prior conclusion that the “Federal Government lacks the constitutional authority to impose a similarly motivated ban” in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995). Post, at 598-599, n. 8. Our holding is not as broad as Justice Stevens states; we hold only that the FCLAA pre-empts state regulations targeting cigarette advertising. States remain free to enact generally applicable zoning regulations, and to regulate conduct with respect to cigarette use and sales. Infra, at 552. The reference to Lopez is also inapposite. In Lopez, we held that Congress exceeded the limits of its Commerce Clause power in the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. 514 U. S., at 558-568. These cases, by contrast, concern the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of pre-emption as applied in a case where Congress expressly precluded certain state regulations of cigarette advertising. Massachusetts did not raise a constitutional challenge to the FCLAA, and we are not confronted with whether Congress exceeded its constitutionally delegated authority in enacting the FCLAA.
In sum, we fail to see how the FCLAA
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.