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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
announced by Mr. Justice Fortas.
In Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 403, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is a “fundamental right . . . made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” The question presented in this case is whether Illinois denied that right to the petitioner, Fleming Smith. He was convicted in a criminal court of Cook County, Illinois, upon a charge of illegal sale of narcotics, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. We granted certiorari to consider his constitutional claim.
At the trial the principal witness against the petitioner was a man who identified himself on direct examination as “James Jordan.” This witness testified that he had purchased a bag of heroin from the petitioner in a restaurant with marked money provided by two Chicago police officers. The officers corroborated part of this testimony, but only this witness and the petitioner testified to the crucial events inside the restaurant, and the petitioner’s version of those events was entirely different. The only real question at the trial, therefore, was the relative credibility of the petitioner and this prosecution witness.
On cross-examination this witness was asked whether “James Jordan” was his real name. He admitted, over the prosecutor’s objection, that it was not. He was then asked what his correct name was, and the court sustained the prosecutor’s objection to the question. Later the witness was asked where he lived, and again the court sustained the prosecutor’s objection to the question.'
As the Court said in Pointer, “It cannot seriously be doubted at this late date that the right of cross-examination is included in the right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him.” 380 U. S., at 404. Even more recently we have repeated that “a denial of cross-examination without waiver . . . would be constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.” Brookhart v. Jams, 384 U. S. 1, 3.
In the present case there was not, to be sure, a complete denial of all right of cross-examination. But the petitioner was denied the right to ask the principal prosecution witness either his name or where he lived, although the witness admitted that the name he had first given was false. Yet when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the very starting point in “exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth” through cross-examination must necessarily be to ask the witness who he is and where he lives. The witness’ name and address open countless avenues of in-court examination and out-of-court investigation. To forbid this most rudimentary inquiry at the threshold is effectively to emasculate the right of cross-examination itself.
In Alford v. United States, 282 U. S. 687, this Court almost 40 years ago unanimously reversed a federal conviction because the trial judge had sustained objections to questions by the defense seeking to elicit the “place of residence” of a prosecution witness over the insistence of defense counsel that “the jury was entitled to know 'who the witness is, where he lives and what his business is.’ ” 282 U. S., at 688-689. What the Court said in reversing that conviction is fully applicable here:
“It is the essence of a fair trial that reasonable latitude be given the cross-examiner, even though he is unable to state to the court what facts a reasonable cross-examination might develop. Prejudice ensues from a denial of the opportunity to place the witness in his proper setting and put the weight of his testimony and his credibility to a test, without which the jury cannot fairly appraise them. ... To say that prejudice can be established only by showing that the cross-examination, if pursued, would necessarily have brought out facts tending to discredit the testimony in chief, is to deny a substantial right and withdraw one of the safeguards essential to a fair trial. . . .
"... The question 'Where do you live?’ was not only an appropriate preliminary to the cross-examination of the witness, but on its face, without any such declaration of purpose as was made by counsel here, was an essential step in identifying the witness with his environment, to which cross-examination may always be directed. . . .
“The extent of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial court. It may exercise a reasonable judgment in determining when the subject is exhausted. . . . But no obligation is imposed on the court, such as that suggested below, to protect a witness from being discredited on cross-examination, short of an attempted invasion of his constitutional protection from self incrimination, properly invoked. There is a duty to protect him from questions which go beyond the bounds of proper cross-examination merely to harass, annoy or humiliate him. . . . But no such case is presented here. . . 282 U. S., at 692-694.
In Pointer v. Texas, supra, the Court made clear that “the right of an accused to be confronted with the witnesses against him must be determined by the same standards whether the right is denied in a federal or state proceeding.” 380 U. S., at 407-408. In this state case we follow the standard of Alford and hold that the petitioner was deprived of a right guaranteed to him under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
D , Reversed.
70 Ill. App. 2d 289, 217 N. E. 2d 546.
387 U. S. 904.
The officers testified that the witness had entered the restaurant with the marked money and without narcotics, and that he had emerged with a bag of heroin. They also testified that they had found some of the marked money in the petitioner’s possession when they arrested him.
The petitioner testified that he had refused to sell the witness narcotics but had directed him to another man in the restaurant from whom he believed a purchase had been made. The petitioner also testified that he used a $5 bill to purchase a cup of coffee, and must have received the marked money in his change.
“MR. PRide: Is James Jordan your correct name?
“Mr. Martwick: Object.
“Mr. Pride.* I have a right to know if it is his correct name.
“The Court: He may answer if it is his correct name or not.
“Mr. Pride: Is that your correct name?
“A. No, it is not.
“Q. What is your correct name?
“Mr. Martwick: Object.
“The Court: I won’t have him answer that.”
“Q. Now, where do you live now?
“Mr. Martwick: Objection.
“Mr. Pride: This is material.
“Mr. Martwick: Objection, Judge.
“The Court: Yes, objection allowed.”
The record shows that in fact the petitioner and his lawyer knew “Jordan” and that the lawyer had once represented him. However, there is no evidence in the record that either the petitioner or his lawyer knew “Jordan’s” correct name or where he was living at the time of this trial.
See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S., at 404.
It is to be noted that no claim of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was asserted by “James Jordan.” Cf. United States v. Cardillo, 316 F. 2d 606. Nor are this Court’s decisions in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, and Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53, relevant here. In neither of those cases was the informer a witness for the prosecution. Another recent Illinois decision seems to have recognized that the state evidentiary informer privilege is not involved when the informer is himself a witness at the trial. People v. Smith, 69 Ill. App. 2d 83, 89, 216 N. E. 2d 520, 523. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence §2374, n. 6 (McNaughton rev. 1961).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider two questions: first, whether a federal court is bound by the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling that United States courts must reconsider petitioner José Medellin’s claim for relief under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, [1970] 21 U. S. T. 77, 100-101, T. I. A. S. No. 6820, without regard to procedural default doctrines; and second, whether a federal court should give effect, as a matter of judicial comity and uniform treaty interpretation, to the ICJ’s judgment. 543 U. S. 1032 (2004). After we granted certiorari, Medellin filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, relying in part upon a memorandum from President George W. Bush that was issued after we granted certiorari. This state-court proceeding may provide Medellin with the very reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim that he now seeks in the present proceeding. The merits briefing in this case also has revealed a number of hurdles Medellin must surmount before qualifying for federal habeas relief in this proceeding, based on the resolution of the questions he has presented here. For these reasons we dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. See Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Brown, 511 U. S. 117, 121-122 (1994) (per curiam); The Monrosa v. Carbon Black Export, Inc., 359 U. S. 180, 183-184 (1959); Goins v. United States, 306 U. S. 622 (1939).
Medellin, a Mexican national, confessed to participating in the gang rape and murder of two girls in 1993. He was convicted and sentenced to death, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on direct appeal. Medellin then filed a state habeas corpus action, claiming for the first time that Texas failed to notify him of his right to consular access as required by the Vienna Convention. The state trial court rejected this claim, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals summarily affirmed.
Medellin then filed this federal habeas corpus petition, again raising the Vienna Convention claim. The District Court denied the petition. Subsequently, while Medellin’s application to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for a certificate of appealability was pending, see 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c), the ICJ issued its decision in Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. No. 128 (Judgment of Mar. 31), in which the Republic of Mexico had alleged violations of the Vienna Convention with respect to Medellin and other Mexican nationals facing the death penalty in the United States. The ICJ determined that the Vienna Convention guaranteed individually enforceable rights, that the United States had violated those rights, and that the United States must “provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the [affected] Mexican nationals” to determine whether the. violations “caused actual prejudice,” without allowing procedural default rules to bar such review. Id., ¶¶ 121-122, 153(a).
The Court of Appeals denied Medellin’s application for a certificate of appealability. It did so based on Medellin’s procedural default, see Breard v. Greene, 523 U. S. 371, 375 (1998) (per curiam), and its prior holdings that the Vienna Convention did not create an individually enforceable right, see, e. g., United States v. Jimenez-Nava, 243 F. 3d 192, 195 (CA5 2001). 371 F. 3d 270 (CA5 2004). While acknowledging the existence of the ICJ’s Avena judgment, the court gave no dispositive effect to that judgment.
More than two months after we granted certiorari, and a month before oral argument in this case, President Bush issued a memorandum that stated the United States would discharge its international obligations under the Avena judgment by “having State courts give effect to the [ICJ] decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.” George W. Bush, Memorandum for the Attorney General (Feb. 28, 2005), App. 2 to Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9a. Relying on this memorandum and the Avena judgment as separate bases for relief that were not available at the time of his first state habeas corpus action, Medellin .filed a successive state application for a writ of habeas corpus just four days before oral argument here. That state proceeding may provide Medellin with the review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim that the ICJ required, and that Medellin now seeks in this proceeding. This new development, as well as the factors discussed below, leads us to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
There are several threshold issues that could independently preclude federal habeas relief for Medellin, and thus render advisory or academic our consideration of the questions presented. These issues are not free from doubt.
First, even accepting, arguendo, the ICJ’s construction of the Vienna Convention’s consular access provisions, a violation of those provisions may not be cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. In Reed v. Farley, 512 U. S. 339 (1994), this Court recognized that a violation of federal statutory rights ranked among the “nonconstitutional lapses we have held not cognizable in a postconviction proceeding” unless they meet the “fundamental defect” test announced in our decision in Hill v. United States, 368 U. S. 424, 428 (1962). 512 U. S., at 349 (plurality opinion); see also id., at 355-356 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). In order for Medellin to obtain federal habeas relief, Medellin must therefore establish that Reed does not bar his treaty claim.
Second, with respect to any claim the state court “adjudicated on the merits,” habeas relief in federal court is available only if such adjudication “was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1); see Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 22-27 (2002) (per curiam). The state habeas court, which disposed of the case before the ICJ rendered its judgment in Avena, arguably “adjudicated on the merits” three claims. It found that the Vienna Convention did not create individual, judicially enforceable rights and that state procedural default rules barred Medellin’s consular access claim. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the state trial court found that Medellin “fail[ed] to show that he was harmed by any lack of notification to the Mexican consulate concerning his arrest for capital murder; [Medellin] was provided with effective legal representation upon [his] request; and [his] constitutional rights were safeguarded.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 56a. Medellin would have to overcome the deferential standard with regard to all of these findings before obtaining federal habeas relief on his Vienna Convention claim.
Third, a habeas corpus petitioner generally cannot enforce a “new rule” of law. Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). Before relief could be granted, then, we would be obliged to decide whether or how the Avena judgment bears on our ordinary “new rule” jurisprudence.
Fourth, Medellin requires a certificate of appealability in order to pursue the merits of his claim on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c)(1). A certificate of appealability may be granted only where there is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2) (emphasis added). To obtain the necessary certificate of appealability to proceed in the Court of Appeals, Medellin must demonstrate that his allegation of a treaty violation could satisfy this standard. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 483 (2000).
Fifth, Medellin can seek federal habeas relief only on claims that have been exhausted in state court. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 2254(b)(1)(A), (b)(3). To gain relief based on the President’s memorandum or IC J judgments, Medellin would have to show that he exhausted all available state-court remedies.
In light of the possibility that the Texas courts will provide Medellin with the review he seeks pursuant to the Avena judgment and the President’s memorandum, and the potential for review in this Court once the Texas courts have heard and decided Medellin’s pending action, we think it would be unwise to reach and resolve the multiple hindrances to dispositive answers to the questions here presented. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Of course Medellin, or the State of Texas, can seek certiorari in this Court from the Texas courts’ disposition of the state habeas corpus application. In that instance, this Court would in all likelihood have an opportunity to review the Texas courts’ treatment of the President’s memorandum and Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. No. 128 (Judgment of Mar. 31), unencumbered by the issues that arise from the procedural posture of this action.
The Federal District Court reviewing that finding observed:
“Medellin’s allegations of prejudice are speculative. The police officers informed Medellin of his right to legal representation before he confessed to involvement in the murders. Medellin waived his right to advisement by an attorney. Medellin does not challenge the voluntary nature of his confession. There is no indication that, if informed of his consular rights, Medellin would not have waived those rights as he did his right to counsel. Medellin fails to establish a ‘causal connection between the [Vienna Convention] violation and [his] statements.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 84a-85a (brackets in original).
In Breard v. Greene, 523 U. S. 371 (1998) (per curiam), we addressed the claim that Virginia failed to notify a Paraguayan national of his Vienna Convention right to consular access. In denying various writs, motions, and stay applications, we noted that the Vienna Convention “arguably confers on an individual the right to consular assistance following arrest”; that Virginia’s procedural default doctrine applied to the Vienna Convention claim; and that a successful Vienna Convention claimant likely must demonstrate prejudice. Id., at 375-377. At the time of our Breard decision, however, we confronted no final ICJ adjudication.
On March 8, 2005, Medellin filed a successive state habeas action based on Tex. Code Crim. Proe. Ann., Art. 11.071, § 5(a)(1) (Vernon 2005), claiming that both the President’s memorandum and the Avena judgment independently require the Texas court to grant review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim. See Subsequent Application for Post-Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus in Ex Parte Medellin, Trial Cause Nos. 67,5429 and 67,5480 (Tex. Crim. App.), p. 6 (filed Mar. 24,2005) (“First, the President’s determination requires this Court to comply with the Avena Judgment and remand Mr. Medellin’s case for the mandated review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim. Second, the Avena Judgment on its own terms provides the rule of decision in Mr. Medellin’s case and should be given direct effect by this Court”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we must determine whether 40 U. S. C. § 13k, which prohibits, among other things, the “display [of] any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into pub-he notice any party, organization, or movement” in the United States Supreme Court building and on its grounds, violates the First Amendment.
HH
In May 1978 appellee Thaddeus Zywicki, standing on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building, distributed leaflets to passersby. The leaflets were reprints of a letter to the editor of the Washington Post from a United States Senator concerning the removal of unfit judges from the bench. A Supreme Court police officer approached Zywicki and told him, accurately, that Title 40 of the United States Code prohibited the distribution of leaflets on the Supreme Court grounds, which includes the sidewalk. Zywicki left.
In January 1980 Zywicki again visited the sidewalk in front of the Court to distribute pamphlets containing information about forthcoming meetings and events concerning “the oppressed peoples of Central America.” Zywicki again was approached by a Court police officer and was informed that the distribution of leaflets on the Court grounds was prohibited by law. The officer indicated that Zywicki would be arrested if the leafletting continued. Zywicki left.
Zywicki reappeared in February 1980 on the sidewalk in front of the Court and distributed handbills concerning oppression in Guatemala. Zywicki had consulted with an attorney concerning the legality of his activities and had been informed that the Superior Court for the District of Columbia had construed the statute that prohibited leafletting, 40 U. S. C. § 13k, to prohibit only conduct done with the specific intent to influence, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice. Zywicki again was told by a Court police officer that he would be subject to arrest if he persisted in his leafletting. Zywicki complained that he was being denied a right that others were granted, referring to the newspaper vending machines located on the sidewalk. Nonetheless, Zywicki left the grounds.
Around noon on March 17, 1980, appellee Mary Grace entered upon the sidewalk in front of the Court and began to display a four foot by two and a half foot sign on which was inscribed the verbatim text of the First Amendment. A Court police officer approached Grace and informed her that she would have to go across the street if she wished to display the sign. Grace was informed that Title 40 of the United States Code prohibited her conduct and that if she did not cease she would be arrested. Grace left the grounds.
On May 13, 1980, Zywicki and Grace filed the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They sought an injunction against continued enforcement of 40 U. S. C. § 13k and a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. On August 7, 1980, the District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellees took an appeal, arguing that the District Court’s action was improper and that the Court of Appeals should grant the relief requested in the complaint.
The Court of Appeals determined that the District Court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was erroneous and went on to strike down § 13k on its face as an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment rights in a public place. Grace v. Burger, 214 U. S. App. D. C. 375, 665 F. 2d 1193 (1981).
The Government appealed from the Court of Appeals’ judgment. We noted probable jurisdiction, 457 U. S. 1131 (1982).
II
Section 13k prohibits two distinct activities: it is unlawful either “to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds,” or “to display therein any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement.” Each appellee appeared individually on the public sidewalks to engage in expressive activity, and it goes without saying that the threat of arrest to which each appellee was subjected was for violating the prohibition against the display of a “banner or device.” Accordingly, our review is limited to the latter portion of the statute. Likewise, the controversy presented by appellees concerned their right to use the public sidewalks surrounding the Court building for the communicative activities they sought to carry out, and we shall address only whether the proscriptions of § 13k are constitutional as applied to the public sidewalks.
Our normal course is first to “ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided.” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). See New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 769, n. 24 (1982). Appellees did not make a statutory construction argument before the lower courts, but at oral argument, the question was raised whether § 13k reached the types of conduct in which appellees engaged, and we should answer it. We agree with the United States that the statute covers the particular conduct of Zywicki or Grace and that it is therefore proper to reach the constitutional question involved in this case.
The statutory ban is on the display of a “flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement.” 40 U. S. C. § 13k. It is undisputed that Grace’s picket sign containing the text of the First Amendment falls within the description of a “flag, banner, or device.” Although it is less obvious, it is equally uncontested that Zywicki’s leaflets fall within the proscription as well.
We also accept the Government’s contention, not contested by appellees, that almost any sign or leaflet carrying a communication, including Grace’s picket sign and Zywicki’s leaflets, would be “designed or adapted to bring into public notice [a] party, organization or movement.” Such a construction brings some certainty to the reach of the statute and hence avoids what might be other challenges to its validity.
HH hH I — I
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” There is no doubt that as a general matter peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving “speech” protected by the First Amendment. E.g., Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 460 (1980); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111, 112 (1969); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413 (1943); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939).
It is also true that “public places” historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be “public forums.” See Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983); Carey v. Brown, supra, at 460; Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507, 515 (1976); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 574 (1941); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939). In such places, the government’s ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited: the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations as long as the restrictions “are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Perry Education Assn., supra, at 45. See, e. g., Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640, 647, 654 (1981); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 115 (1972); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965) (Cox II). Additional restrictions such as an absolute prohibition on a particular type of expression will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling governmental interest. See, e. g., Perry Education Assn., supra, at 46; Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981).
Publicly owned or operated property does not become a “public forum” simply because members of the public are permitted to come and go at will. See Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 836 (1976). Although whether the property has been “generally opened to the public” is a factor to consider in determining whether the government has opened its property to the use of the people for communicative purposes, it is not determinative of the question. We have regularly rejected the assertion that people who wish “to propagandize protests or views have a constitutional right to do so whenever and however and wherever they please.” Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39, 47-48 (1966). See, e. g., Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554-555 (1965) (Cox I); Cox II, supra, at 563-564. There is little doubt that in some circumstances the government may ban the entry on to public property that is not a “public forum” of all persons except those who have legitimate business on the premises. The government, “no less than a private owner of property, has the power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.” Adderley v. Florida, supra, at 47. See Cox II, supra, at 563-564.
IV
It is argued that the Supreme Court building and grounds fit neatly within the description of nonpublic forum property. Although the property is publicly owned, it has not been traditionally held open for the use of the public for expressive activities. As Greer v. Spock, supra, teaches, the property is not transformed into “public forum” property merely because the public is permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically all times and the public is admitted to the building during specified hours. Under this view it would be necessary only to determine that the restrictions imposed by § 13k are reasonable in light of the use to which the building and grounds are dedicated and that there is no discrimination on the basis of content. We need not make that judgment at this time, however, because § 13k covers the public sidewalks as well as the building and grounds inside the sidewalks. As will become evident, we hold that § 13k may not be applied to the public sidewalks.
The prohibitions imposed by § 13k technically cover the entire grounds of the Supreme Court as defined in 40 U. S. C. § 13p. That section describes the Court grounds as extending to the curb of each of the four streets enclosing the block on which the building is located. Included within this small geographical area, therefore, are not only the building, the plaza and surrounding promenade, lawn area, and steps, but also the sidewalks. The sidewalks comprising the outer boundaries of the Court grounds are indistinguishable from any other sidewalks in Washington, D. C., and we can discern no reason why they should be treated any differently. Sidewalks, of course, are among those areas of public property that traditionally have been held open to the public for expressive activities and are clearly within those areas of public property that may be considered, generally without further inquiry, to be public forum property. In this respect, the present case differs from Greer v. Spock, supra. In Greer, the streets and sidewalks at issue were located within an enclosed military reservation, Fort Dix, N. J., and were thus separated from the streets and sidewalks of any municipality. That is not true of the sidewalks surrounding the Court. There is no separation, no fence, and no indication whatever to persons stepping from the street to the curb and sidewalks that serve as the perimeter of the Court grounds that they have entered some special type of enclave. In United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U. S. 114, 133 (1981), we stated that “Congress . . . may not by its own ipse dixit destroy the ‘public forum’ status of streets and parks which have historically been public forums . . . .” The inclusion of the public sidewalks within the scope of § 13k’s prohibition, however, results in the destruction of public forum status that is at least presumptively impermissible. Traditional public forum property occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection and will not lose its historically recognized character for the reason that it abuts government property that has been dedicated to a use other than as a forum for public expression. Nor may the government transform the character of the property by the expedient of including it within the statutory definition of what might be considered a nonpublic forum parcel of property. The public sidewalks forming the perimeter of the Supreme Court grounds, in our view, are public forums and should be treated as such for First Amendment purposes.
V
The Government submits that § 13k qualifies as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction which may be imposed to restrict communicative activities on public forum property such as sidewalks. The argument is that the inquiry should not be confined to the Supreme Court grounds but should focus on “the vicinity of the Supreme Court” or “the public places of Washington, D. C.” Brief for Appellants 16, n. 5. Viewed in this light, the Government contends that there are sufficient alternative areas within the relevant forum, such as the streets around the Court or the sidewalks across those streets to permit § 13k to be considered a reasonable “place” restriction having only a minimal impact on expressive activity. We are convinced, however, that the section, which totally bans the specified communicative activity on the public sidewalks around the Court grounds, cannot be justified as a reasonable place restriction primarily because it has an insufficient nexus with any of the public interests that may be thought to undergird §13k. Our reasons for this conclusion will become apparent below, where we decide that § 13k, insofar as its prohibitions reach to the public sidewalks, is unconstitutional because it does not sufficiently serve those public interests that are urged as its justification.
Section 13k was part of an 11-section statute, enacted in 1949, “[r]elating to the policing of the building and grounds of the Supreme Court of the United States.” 63 Stat. 616, 40 U. S. C. §§ 13f-13p. The occasion for its passage was the termination of the practice by District of Columbia authorities of appointing Supreme Court guards as special policemen for the District. This action left the Supreme Court police force without authority to make arrests and enforce the law in the building and on the grounds of the Court. The Act, which was soon forthcoming, was modeled on the legislation relating to the Capitol grounds, 60 Stat. 718, 40 U. S. C. §§ 193a-193m. It authorizes the appointment by the Marshal of special officers “for duty in connection with the policing of the Supreme Court Building and grounds and adjacent streets.” Sections 2-6 of the Act prohibit certain kinds of conduct in the building or grounds. Section 6, codified as 40 U. S. C. § 13k, is at issue here. Other sections authorize the Marshal to issue regulations, provide penalties for violations of the Act or regulations, and authorize the Court’s special police to make arrests for violation of the Act’s prohibitions or of any law of the United States occurring within the building and grounds and on the adjacent streets. Section 11 of the Act, 13 U. S. C. § 13p, defines the limits of the Court’s grounds as including the sidewalks surrounding the building.
Based on its provisions and legislative history, it is fair to say that the purpose of the Act was to provide for the protection of the building and grounds and of the persons and property therein, as well as the maintenance of proper order and decorum. Section 6, 40 U. S. C. § 13k, was one of the provisions apparently designed for these purposes. At least, no special reason was stated for its enactment.
We do not denigrate the necessity to protect persons and property or to maintain proper order and decorum within the Supreme Court grounds, but we do question whether a total ban on carrying a flag, banner, or device on the public sidewalks substantially serves these purposes. There is no suggestion, for example, that appellees’ activities in any way obstructed the sidewalks or access to the building, threatened injury to any person or property, or in any way interfered with the orderly administration of the building or other parts of the grounds. As we have said, the building’s perimeter sidewalks are indistinguishable from other public sidewalks in the city that are normally open to the conduct that is at issue here and that § 13k forbids. A total ban on that conduct is no more necessary for the maintenance of peace and tranquility on the public sidewalks surrounding the building than on any other sidewalks in the city. Accordingly, § 13k cannot be justified on this basis.
The United States offers another justification for § 13k that deserves our attention. It is said that the federal courts represent an independent branch of the Government and that their decisionmaking processes are different from those of the other branches. Court decisions are made on the record before them and in accordance with the applicable law. The views of the parties and of others are to be presented by briefs and oral argument. Courts are not subject to lobbying, judges do not entertain visitors in their chambers for the purpose of urging that cases be resolved one way or another, and they do not and should not respond to parades, picketing, or pressure groups. Neither, the Government urges, should it appear to the public that the Supreme Court is subject to outside influence or that picketing or marching, singly or in groups, is an acceptable or proper way of appealing to or influencing the Supreme Court. Hence, we are asked to hold that Congress was quite justified in preventing the conduct in dispute here from occurring on the sidewalks at the edge of the Court grounds.
As was the case- with the maintenance of law and order on the Court grounds, we do not discount the importance of this proffered purpose for § 13k. But, again, we are unconvinced that the prohibitions of §13k that are at issue here sufficiently serve that purpose to sustain its validity insofar as the public sidewalks on the perimeter of the grounds are concerned. Those sidewalks are used by the public like other public sidewalks. There is nothing to indicate to the public that these sidewalks are part of the Supreme Court grounds or are in any way different from other public sidewalks in the city. We seriously doubt that the public would draw a different inference from a lone picketer carrying a sign on the sidewalks around the building than it would from a similar picket on the sidewalks across the street.
We thus perceive insufficient justification for § 13k’s prohibition of carrying signs, banners, or devices on the public sidewalks surrounding the building. We hold that under the First Amendment the section is unconstitutional as applied to those sidewalks. Of course, this is not to say that those sidewalks, like other sidewalks, are not subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, either by statute or by regulations issued pursuant to 40 U. S. C. § 13l.
The judgment below is accordingly affirmed to the extent indicated by this opinion and is otherwise vacated.
So ordered.
The provision at issue in this case is part of a statutory scheme enacted in 1949 to govern the protection, care, and policing of the Supreme Court grounds. In its entirety § 13k provides:
“It shall be unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display therein any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement.” 63 Stat. 617.
The case Zywicki’s counsel referred to is United States v. Ebner, No. M-12487-79 (D. C. Super. Ct., Jan. 22, 1980). The ease is currently on appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals; that court has postponed decision pending the outcome of the present appeal.
Grace v. Burger, 524 F. Supp. 815 (1980).
The court justified its action in this regard by relying primarily on the fact that the ease presented a pure question of law that had been fully briefed and argued by the parties both in the District Court and in the
Court of Appeals. Because the appellants do not take issue with the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ action in addressing the merits rather than remanding to the District Court, we will assume that such action was proper without deciding that question. Cf. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106 (1976).
Although the Court of Appeals opinion purports to hold § 13k unconstitutional on its face without any indication that the holding is limited to that portion of the statute that deals with the display of a “flag, banner, or device,” the decision must be read as limited to that prohibition.
The First Amendment provides in full:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The limitation on the hours during which the public is permitted in the Supreme Court building is the only regulation promulgated under 40 U. S. C. § 131. The regulation provides:
“The Supreme Court Building at 1 First Street, N. E., Washington, D. C. 20548, is open to the public Monday through Friday, from 9 a. m. to 4:30 p. m., except on Federal holidays. The building is closed at all other times, although persons having legitimate business may be admitted at other times when so authorized by responsible officials.”
Section 13p provides:
“For the purposes of sections 13f to 13p of this title the Supreme Court grounds shall be held to extend to the line of the face of the east curb of First Street Northeast, between Maryland Avenue Northeast and East Capitol Street; to the line of the face of the south curb of Maryland Avenue Northeast, between First Street Northeast and Second Street Northeast; to the line of the face of the west curb of Second Street Northeast, between Maryland Avenue Northeast and East Capitol Street; and to the line of the face of the north curb of East Capitol Street between First Street Northeast and Second Street Northeast.”
Because the prohibitions of § 13k are expressly made applicable to the entire grounds under § 13p, the statute cannot be construed to exclude the sidewalks. Thus we must consider Congress’ extension of § 13k’s prohibitions to the sidewalks to be a reasoned choice.
Section 13k does not prohibit all expressive conduct: it does not, for example, purport to prohibit any oral expression, on any subject. It is unnecessary, however, to determine what conduct other than the picketing and leafletting at issue here may be fairly within the terms of the statute because the statute at least prohibits the conduct at issue here. We do note that the current Marshal of the Court has interpreted and applied the statute to prohibit picketing and leafletting, but not other expressive conduct. See Grace v. Burger, 214 U. S. App. D. C. 375, 378, n. 7, 665 F. 2d 1193, 1196, n. 7 (1981). Interpreted and applied as an absolute ban on these two types of expressive conduct, it is clear that the prohibition is facially content-neutral.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents an important problem under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to the extent to which a party may inquire into oral and written statements of witnesses, or other information, secured by an adverse party’s counsel in the course of preparation for possible litigation after a claim has arisen. Examination into a person’s files and records, including those resulting from the professional activities of an attorney, must be judged with care. It is not without reason that various safeguards have been established to preclude unwarranted excursions into the privacy of a man’s work. At the same time, public policy supports reasonable and necessary inquiries. Properly to balance these competing interests is a delicate and difficult task.
On February 7, 1943, the tug “J. M. Taylor” sank while engaged in helping to tow a car float of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad across the Delaware River at Philadelphia. The accident was apparently unusual in nature, the cause of it still being unknown. Five of the nine crew members were drowned. Three days later the tug owners and the underwriters employed a law firm, of which respondent Fortenbaugh is a member, to defend them against potential suits by representatives of the deceased crew members and to sue the railroad for damages to the tug.
A public hearing was held on March 4, 1943, before the United States Steamboat Inspectors, at which the four survivors were examined. This testimony was recorded and made available to all interested parties. Shortly thereafter, Fortenbaugh privately interviewed the survivors and took statements from them with an eye toward the anticipated litigation; the survivors signed these statements on March 29. Fortenbaugh also interviewed other persons believed to have some information relating to the accident and in some cases he made memoranda of what they told him. At the time when Fortenbaugh secured the statements of the survivors, representatives of two of the deceased crew members had been in communication with him. Ultimately claims were presented by representatives of all five of the deceased; four of the claims, however, were settled without litigation: The fifth claimant, petitioner herein, brought suit in a federal court under the Jones Act on November 26,1943, naming as defendants the two tug owners, individually and as partners, and the railroad.
One year later, petitioner filed 39 interrogatories directed to the tug owners. The 38th interrogatory read: “State whether any statements of the members of the crews of the Tugs ‘J. M. Taylor’ and ‘Philadelphia’ or of any other vessel were taken in connection with the towing of the car float and the sinking of the Tug ‘John M. Taylor.’ Attach hereto exact copies of all such statements if in writing, and if oral, set forth in detail the exact provisions of any such oral statements or reports.”
Supplemental interrogatories asked whether any oral or written statements, records, reports or other memoranda had been made concerning any matter relative to the towing operation, the sinking of the tug, the salvaging and repair of the tug, and the death of the deceased. If the answer was in the affirmative, the tug owners were then requested to set forth the nature of all such records, reports, statements or other memoranda.
The tug owners, through Fortenbaugh, answered all of the interrogatories except No. 38 and the supplemental ones just described. While admitting that statements of the survivors had been taken, they declined to summarize or set forth the contents. They did so on the ground that such requests called “for privileged matter obtained in preparation for litigation” and constituted “an attempt to obtain indirectly counsel’s private files.” It was claimed that answering these requests “would involve practically turning over not only the complete files, but also the telephone records and, almost, the thoughts of counsel.”
In connection with the hearing on these objections, Fortenbaugh made a written statement and gave an informal oral deposition explaining the circumstances under which he had taken the statements. But he was not expressly asked in the deposition to produce the statements. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting en banc, held that the requested matters were not privileged. 4 F. R. D. 479. The court then decreed that the tug owners and Fortenbaugh, as counsel and agent for the tug owners, forthwith “answer Plaintiff’s 38th interrogatory and supplementary interrogatories; produce all written statements of witnesses obtained by Mr. Fortenbaugh, as counsel and agent for Defendants; state in substance any fact concerning this case which Defendants learned through oral statements made by witnesses to Mr. Fortenbaugh whether or not included in his private memoranda and produce Mr. Fortenbaugh's mem-oranda containing statements of fact by witnesses or to submit these memoranda to the Court for determination of those portions which should be revealed to Plaintiff.” Upon their refusal, the court adjudged them in contempt and ordered them imprisoned until they complied.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, also sitting en banc, reversed the judgment of the District Court. 153 F. 2d 212. It held that the information here sought was part of the “work product of the lawyer” and hence privileged from discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The importance of the problem, which has engendered a great divergence of views among district courts, led us to grant certiorari. 328 U. S. 876.
The pre-trial deposition-discovery mechanism established by Rules 26 to 37 is one of the most significant innovations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the prior federal practice, the pre-trial functions of notice-giving, issue-formulation and fact-revelation were performed primarily and inadequately by the pleadings. Inquiry into the issues and the facts before trial was narrowly confined and was often cumbersome in method. The new rules, however, restrict the pleadings to the task of general notice-giving and invest the deposition-discovery process with a vital role in the preparation for trial. The various instruments of discovery now serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 16, to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts, or information as to the existence or whereabouts of facts, relative to those issues. Thus civil trials in the federal courts no longer need be carried on in the dark. The way is now clear, consistent with recognized privileges, for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.
There is an initial question as to which of the deposition-discovery rules is involved in this case. Petitioner, in filing his interrogatories, thought that he was proceeding under Rule 33. That rule provides that a party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served. The District Court proceeded on the same assumption in its opinion, although its order to produce and its contempt order stated that both Rules 33 and 34 were involved. Rule 34 establishes a procedure whereby, upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, the court may order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any designated documents, etc., not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control.
The Circuit Court of Appeals, however, felt that Rule 26 was the crucial one. Petitioner, it said, was proceeding by interrogatories and, in connection with those interrogatories, wanted copies of memoranda and statements secured from witnesses. While the court believed that Rule 33 was involved, at least as to the defending tug owners, it stated that this rule could not be used as the basis for condemning Fortenbaugh’s failure to disclose or produce the memoranda and statements, since the rule applies only to interrogatories addressed to adverse parties, not to their agents or counsel. And Rule 34 was said to be inapplicable since petitioner was not trying to see an original document and to copy or photograph it, within the scope of that rule. The court then concluded that Rule 26 must be the one really involved. That provides that the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken by any party by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories for the purpose of discovery or for use as evidence; and that the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of the examining party or of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things.
The matter is not without difficulty in light of the events that transpired below. We believe, however, that petitioner was proceeding primarily under Rule 33. He addressed simple interrogatories solely to the individual tug owners, the adverse parties, as contemplated by that rule. He did not, and could not under Rule 33, address such interrogatories to their counsel, Fortenbaugh. Nor did he direct these interrogatories either to the tug owners or to Fortenbaugh by way of deposition; Rule 26 thus could not come into operation. And it does not appear from the record that petitioner filed a motion under Rule 34 for a court order directing the production of the documents in question. Indeed, such an order could not have been entered as to Fortenbaugh since Rule 34, like Rule 33, is limited to parties to the proceeding, thereby excluding their counsel or agents.
Thus to the extent that petitioner was seeking the production of the memoranda and statements gathered by Fortenbaugh in the course of his activities as counsel, petitioner misconceived his remedy. Rule 33 did not permit him to obtain such memoranda and statements as adjuncts to the interrogatories addressed to the individual tug owners. A party clearly cannot refuse to answer interrogatories on the ground that the information sought is solely within the knowledge of his attorney. But that is not this case. Here production was sought of documents prepared by a party's attorney after the claim has arisen. Rule 33 does not make provision for such production, even when sought in connection with permissible interrogatories. Moreover, since petitioner was also foreclosed from securing them through an order under Rule 34, his only recourse was to take Fortenbaugh’s deposition under Rule 26 and to attempt to force Fortenbaugh to produce the materials by use of a subpoena duces tecum, in accordance with Rule 45. Holtzoff, “Instruments of Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” 41 Mich. L. Rev. 205, 220. But despite petitioner’s faulty-choice of action, the District Court entered an order, apparently under Rule 34, commanding the tug owners and Fortenbaugh, as their agent and counsel, to produce the materials in question. Their refusal led to the anomalous result of holding the tug owners in contempt for failure to produce that which was in the possession of their counsel and of holding Fortenbaugh in contempt for failure to produce that which he could not be compelled to produce under either Rule 33 or Rule 34.
But, under the circumstances, we deem it unnecessary and unwise to rest our decision upon this procedural irregularity, an irregularity which is not strongly urged upon us and which was disregarded in the two courts below. It matters little at this late stage whether Fortenbaugh fails to answer interrogatories filed under Rule 26 or under Rule 33 or whether he refuses to produce the memoranda and statements pursuant to a subpoena under Rule 45 or a court order under Rule 34. The deposition-discovery rules create integrated procedural devices. And the basic question at stake is whether any of those devices may be used to inquire into materials collected by an adverse party’s counsel in the course of preparation for possible litigation. The fact that the petitioner may have used the wrong method does not destroy the main thrust of his attempt. Nor does it relieve us of the responsibility of dealing with the problem raised by that attempt. It would be inconsistent with the liberal atmosphere surrounding these rules to insist that petitioner now go through the empty formality of pursuing the right procedural device only to reestablish precisely the same basic problem now confronting us. We do not mean to say, however, that there may not be situations in which the failure to proceed in accordance with a specific rule would be important or decisive. But in the present circumstances, for the purposes of this decision, the procedural irregularity is not material. Having noted the proper procedure, we may accordingly turn our attention to the substance of the underlying problem.
In urging that he has a right to inquire into the materials secured and prepared by Fortenbaugh, petitioner emphasizes that the deposition-discovery portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to enable the parties to discover the true facts and to compel their disclosure wherever they may be found. It is said that inquiry may be made under these rules, epitomized by Rule 26, as to any relevant matter which is not privileged ; and since the discovery provisions are to be applied as broadly and liberally as possible, the privilege limitation must be restricted to its narrowest bounds. On the premise that the attorney-client privilege is the one involved in this case, petitioner argues that it must be strictly confined to confidential communications made by a client to his attorney. And since the materials here in issue were secured by Fortenbaugh from third persons rather than from his clients, the tug owners, the conclusion is reached that these materials are proper subjects for discovery under Rule 26.
As additional support for this result, petitioner claims that to prohibit discovery under these circumstances would give a corporate defendant a tremendous advantage in a suit by an individual plaintiff. Thus in a suit by an injured employee against a railroad or in a suit by an insured person against an insurance company the corporate defendant could pull a dark veil of secrecy over all the pertinent facts it can collect after the claim arises merely on the assertion that such facts were gathered by its large staff of attorneys and claim agents. At the same time, the individual plaintiff, who often has direct knowledge of the matter in issue and has’no counsel until some time after his claim arises could be compelled to disclose all the intimate details of his case. By endowing with immunity from disclosure all that á lawyer discovers in the course of his duties, it is said, the rights of individual litigants in such cases are drained of vitality and the lawsuit becomes more of a battle of deception than a search for truth.
But framing the problem in terms of assisting individual plaintiffs in their suits against corporate defendants is unsatisfactory. Discovery concededly may work to the disadvantage as well as to the advantage of individual plaintiffs. Discovery, in other words, is not a one-way proposition. It is available in all types of cases at the behest of any party, individual or corporate, plaintiff or defendant. The problem thus far transcends the situation confronting- this petitioner. And we must view that problem in light of the limitless situations where the particular kind of discovery sought by petitioner might be used.
We agree, of course, that the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored cry of “fishing expedition” serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent’s case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility of surprise. But discovery, like all matters of procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries. As indicated by Rules 30 (b) and (d) and 31 (d), limitations inevitably arise when it can be shown that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass or oppress the person subject to the inquiry. And as Rule 26 (b) provides, further limitations come into existence when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege.
We also agree that the memoranda, statements and mental impressions in issue in this case fall outside the scope of the attorney-client privilege and hence are not protected from discovery on that basis. It is unnecessary here to delineate the content and scope of that privilege as recognized in the federal courts. For present purposes, it suffices to note that the protective cloak of this privilege does not extend to information which an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation. Nor does this privilege concern the memo-randa, briefs, communications and other writings prepared by counsel for his own use in prosecuting his client’s case; and it is equally unrelated to writings which reflect an attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories.
But the impropriety of invoking that privilege does not provide an answer to the problem before us. Petitioner has made more than an ordinary request for relevant, non-privileged facts in the possession of his adversaries or their counsel. He has sought discovery as of right of oral and written statements of witnesses whose identity is well known and whose availability to petitioner appears unimpaired. He has sought production of these matters after making the most searching inquiries of his opponents as to the circumstances surrounding the fatal accident, which inquiries were sworn to have been answered to the best of their information and belief. Interrogatories were directed toward all the events prior to, during and subsequent to the sinking of the tug. Full and honest answers to such broad inquiries would necessarily have included all pertinent information gleaned by Fortenbaugh through his interviews with the witnesses. Petitioner makes no suggestion, and we cannot assume, that the tug owners or Fortenbaugh were incomplete or dishonest in the framing of their answers. In addition, petitioner was free to examine the public testimony of the witnesses taken before the United States Steamboat Inspectors. We are thus dealing with an attempt to secure the production of written statements and mental impressions contained in the files and the mind of the attorney Fortenbaugh without any showing of necessity or any indication or claim that denial of such production would unduly prejudice the preparation of petitioner’s case or cause him any hardship or injustice. For aught that appears, the essence of what petitioner seeks either has been revealed to him already through the interrogatories or is readily available to him direct from the witnesses for the asking.
The District Court, after hearing objections to petitioner’s request, commanded Fortenbaugh to produce all written statements of witnesses and to state in substance any facts learned through oral statements of witnesses to him. Fortenbaugh was to submit any memoranda he had made of the oral statements so that the court might determine what portions should be revealed to petitioner. All of this was ordered without any showing by petitioner, or any requirement that he make a proper showing, of the necessity for the production of any of this material or any demonstration that denial of production would cause hardship or injustice. The court simply ordered production on the theory that the facts sought were material and were not privileged as constituting attorney-client communications.
In our opinion, neither Rule 26 nor any other rule dealing with discovery contemplates production under such circumstances. That is not because the subject matter is privileged or irrelevant, as those concepts are used in these rules. Here is simply an attempt, without purported necessity or justification, to secure written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party’s counsel in the course of his legal duties. As such, it falls outside the arena of discovery and contravenes the public policy underlying the orderly prosecution and defense of legal claims. Not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney.
Historically, a lawyer is an officer of the court and is bound to work for the advancement of justice while faithfully protecting the rightful interests of his clients. In performing his various duties, however, it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation of a client’s case demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference. That is the historical and the necessary way in which lawyers act within the framework of our system of jurisprudence to promote justice and to protect their clients’ interests. This work is reflected, of course, in interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways — aptly though roughly termed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case as the “work product of the lawyer.” Were such materials open to opposing counsel on mere demand, much of what is now put down in writing would remain unwritten. An attorney’s thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would not be his own. Inefficiency, unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably develop in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial. The effect on the legal profession would be demoralizing. And the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served.
We do not mean to say that all written materials obtained or prepared by an adversary’s counsel with an eye toward litigation are necessarily free from discovery in all cases. Where relevant and non-privileged facts remain hidden in an attorney’s file and where production of those facts is essential to the preparation of one’s case, discovery may properly be had. Such written statements and documents might, under certain circumstances, be admissible in evidence or give clues as to the existence or location of relevant facts. Or they might be useful for purposes of impeachment or corroboration. And production might be justified where the witnesses are no longer available or can be reached only with difficulty. Were production of written statements and documents to be precluded under such circumstances, the liberal ideals of the deposition-discovery portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would be stripped of much of their meaning. But the general policy against invading the privacy of an attorney’s course of preparation is so well recognized and so essential to an orderly working of our system of legal procedure that a burden rests on the one who would invade that privacy to establish adequate reasons to justify production through a subpoena or court order. That burden, we believe, is necessarily implicit in the rules as now constituted.
Rule 30 (b), as presently written, gives the trial judge the requisite discretion to make a judgment as to whether discovery should be allowed as to written statements secured from witnesses. But in the instant case there was no room for that discretion to operate in favor of the petitioner. No attempt was made to establish any reason why Fortenbaugh should be forced to produce the written statements. There was only a naked, general demand for these materials as of right and a finding by the District Court that no recognizable privilege was involved. That was insufficient to justify discovery under these circumstances and the court should have sustained the refusal of the tug owners and Fortenbaugh to produce.
But as to oral statements made by witnesses to Forten-baugh, whether presently in the form of his mental impressions or memoranda, we do not believe that any showing of necessity can be made under the circumstances of this case so as to justify production. Under ordinary conditions, forcing an attorney to repeat or write out all that witnesses have told him and to deliver the account to his adversary gives rise to grave dangers of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness. No legitimate purpose is served by such production. The practice forces the attorney to testify as to what he remembers or what he saw fit to write down regarding witnesses’ remarks. Such testimony could not qualify as evidence; and to use it for impeachment or corroborative purposes would make the attorney much less an officer of the court and much more an ordinary witness. The standards of the profession would thereby suffer.
Denial of production of this nature does not mean that any material, non-privileged facts can be hidden from the petitioner in this case. He need not be unduly hindered in the preparation of his case, in the discovery of facts or in his anticipation of his opponents’ position. Searching interrogatories directed to Fortenbaugh and the tug owners, production of written documents and statements upon a proper showing and direct interviews with the witnesses themselves all serve to reveal the facts in Fortenbaugh’s possession to the fullest possible extent consistent with public policy. Petitioner’s counsel frankly admits that he wants the oral statements only to help prepare himself to examine witnesses and to make sure that he has overlooked nothing. That is insufficient under the circumstances to permit him an exception to the policy underlying the privacy of Fortenbaugh’s professional activities. If there should be a rare situation justifying production of these matters, petitioner’s case is not of that type.
We fully appreciate the wide-spread controversy among the members of the legal profession over the problem raised by this case. It is a problem that rests on what has been one of the most hazy frontiers of the discovery process. But until some rule or statute definitely prescribes otherwise, we are not justified in permitting discovery in a situation of this nature as a matter of unqualified right. When Rule 26 and the other discovery rules were adopted, this Court and the members of the bar in general certainly did not believe or contemplate that all the files and mental processes of lawyers were thereby opened to the free scrutiny of their adversaries. And we refuse to interpret the rules at this time so as to reach so harsh and unwarranted a result.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
See cases collected by Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure in its Report of Proposed Amendments (June, 1946), pp. 40-47 ; 5 F. R. D. 433, 457-460. See also 2 Moore’s Federal Practice (1945 Cum. Supp.), §26.12, pp. 155-159; Holtzoff, “Instruments of Discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” 41 Mich. L. Rev. 205, 210-212; Pike and Willis, “Federal Discovery in Operation,” 7 Univ. of Chicago L. Rev. 297, 301-307'.
“The great weakness of pleading as a means for developing and presenting issues of fact for trial lay in its total lack of any means for testing the factual basis for the pleader’s allegations and denials.” Sunderland, “The Theory and Practice of Pre-Trial Procedure,” 36 Mich. L. Rev. 215, 216. See also Ragland, Discovery Before Trial (1932), ch. I.
2 Moore’s Federal Practice (1938), § 26.02, pp. 2445-2455.
Pike and Willis, “The New Federal Deposition-Discovery Procedure,” 38 Col. L. Rev. 1179,1436; Pike, “The New Federal Deposition-Discovery Procedure and the Rules of Evidence,” 34 Ill. L. Rev. 1.
Rule 33 reads: “Any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf. The interrogatories shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. The answers shall be signed by the person making them; and the party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the interrogatories within 15 days after the delivery of the interrogatories, unless the court, on motion and notice and for good cause shown, enlarges or shortens the time. Objections to any interrogatories may be presented to the court within 10 days after service thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and answers shall be deferred until the objections are determined, which shall be at as early a time as is practicable. No party may, without leave of court, serve more than one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same party.”
Rule 34 provides: “Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, the court in which an action is pending may (1) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody, or control; or (2) order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. The order shall specify the time, place, and manner of making the inspection and taking the copies and photographs and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.”
The relevant portions of Rule 26 provide as follows:
“(a) When Depositions May Be Taken. By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken at the instance of any party by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories for the purpose of discovery or for use as evidence in the action or for both purposes. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of subpoena as provided in Rule 45. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these rules. The deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes.
“(b) Scope of Examination. Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by Rule 30 (b) or (d), the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.”
“One of the chief arguments against the 'fishing expedition’ objection is the idea that discovery is mutual — that while a party may have to disclose his case, he can at the same time tie his opponent down to a definite position.” Pike and Willis, “Federal Discovery in Operation,” 7 Univ. of Chicago L. Rev. 297, 303.
The English courts have developed the concept of privilege to include all documents prepared by or for counsel with a view to litigation. “All documents which are called into existence for the purpose — but not necessarily the sole purpose — of assisting the deponent or his legal advisers in any actual or anticipated litigation are privileged from production. . . . Thus all proofs, briefs, draft pleadings, etc., are privileged; but not counsel’s indorsement on the outside of his brief . . ., nor any deposition or notes of evidence given publicly in open Court. ... So are all papers prepared by any agent of the party bona fide for the use of his solicitor for the purposes of the action, whether in fact so used or not. . . . Reports by a company’s servant, if made in the ordinary course of routine, are not privileged, even though it is desirable that the solicitor should have them and they are subsequently sent to him; but if the solicitor has requested that such documents shall always be prepared for his use and this was one of the reasons why they were prepared, they need not be disclosed." Odgers on Pleading and Practice (12th ed., 1939), p. 264.
See Order 31, rule.l, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, set forth in The Annual Practice, 1945, p. 519, and the discussion following that rule. For a compilation of the English cases on the matter see 8 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed., 1940), 8 2319, pp. 618-622, notes.
Rule 34 is explicit in its requirements that a party show good cause before obtaining a court order directing another party to produce documents. See Report of Proposed Amendments by Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure (June, 1946); 6 F. R. D. 433.
See Report of Proposed Amendments by Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure (June, 1946), pp. 44r-47; 5 F. R. D. 433, 459-460; Discovery Procedure Symposium before the 1946 Conference of the Third United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 5 F. R. D. 403; Armstrong, “Report of the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Recommending Amendments,” 5 F. R. D. 339, 353-357.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Only two Terms ago, this Court observed that the “presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.” Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501, 503 (1976). In this felony case, the trial court instructed the jury as to the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but refused petitioner’s timely request for instructions on the presumption of innocence and the indictment’s lack of evidentiary value. We are asked to decide whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that either or both instructions be given upon timely defense motions.
I
Petitioner was tried for robbery in 1976, allegedly having forced his way into the home of James Maddox and stolen a house key and a billfold containing $10 to $15. During voir dire of the jury, defense counsel questioned the panel about their understanding of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that an indictment is not evidence. The prosecutor then read the indictment to the jury.
The Commonwealth's only witness was Maddox. He testified that he had known petitioner for several years and had entertained petitioner at his home on several occasions. According to Maddox, petitioner and a friend knocked on his door on the evening of February 16, 1976, asking to be admitted. Maddox refused, saying he had to go to bed. The two left, but returned 15 minutes later. They forced their way in, hit Maddox over the head, and fled with his billfold and house key, which were never recovered.
Petitioner then took the stand as the only witness for the defense. He admitted having been at Maddox’s home on other occasions, but denied going there on February 16 or participating in the robbery. He stated that he had spent that night with two friends sitting in a parked car, watching a rainstorm and a power failure. Defense counsel requested the trial court to instruct the jury that “[t]he law presumes a defendant to be innocent of a crime,” and that the indict-merit, previously read to the jury, was not evidence to be considered against the defendant. The court declined to give either instruction, and did not convey their substance in its charge to the jury. It did instruct the jury as to the Commonwealth’s burden of proving petitioner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to five years of imprisonment.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. 551 S. W. 2d 813 (1977). Petitioner argued — and the Commonwealth denied — that he was entitled as a matter of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to instructions that he was presumed to be innocent and that his indictment was not evidence of guilt. Both sides briefed federal decisions at some length. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s presumption-of-innocence contention by citing Kentucky case law for the proposition “that as long as the trial court instructs the jury on reasonable doubt an instruction on the presumption of innocence is not necessary.” Id., at 814. Without citing any authority, the court also declared that there was no merit in the position “that failure to give ... an instruction [on the indictment’s lack of evidentiary value] denies the defendant due process of the law.” Ibid. Because petitioner had not made a contemporaneous objection, the court refused to consider petitioner’s additional contention that the prosecutor’s closing argument had been improper. The Supreme Court of Kentucky denied discretionary review, and we granted certiorari, 434 U. S. 964 (1977). We now reverse.
II
“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432, 453 (1895). The Coffin Court traced the venerable history of the presumption from Deuteronomy through Roman law, English common law, and the common law of the United States. While Coffin held that the presumption of innocence and the equally fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt were logically separate and distinct, id., at 458-461, sharp scholarly criticism demonstrated the error of that view, see, e. g., J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence 551-576 (1898) (hereafter Thayer); 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2511 (3d ed. 1940) (hereafter Wigmore); C. McCormick, Evidence 805-806 (2d ed. 1972) (hereafter McCormick).
Nevertheless, these same scholars advise against abandoning the instruction on the presumption of innocence, even when a complete explanation of the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is provided. Thayer 571-572; Wigmore 407; McCormick 806. See also ALI, Model Penal Code § 1.12 (1) (Proposed Off. Draft 1962). This admonition derives from a perceived salutary effect upon lay jurors. While the legal scholar may understand that the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proof are logically similar, the ordinary citizen well may draw significant additional guidance from an instruction on the presumption of innocence. Wig-more described this effect as follows:
“[I]n a criminal case the term [presumption of innocence] does convey a special and perhaps useful hint over and above the other form of the rule about the burden of proof, in that it cautions the jury to put away from their minds all the suspicion that arises from the arrest, the indictment, and the arraignment, and to reach their conclusion solely from the legal evidence adduced. In other words, the rule about burden of proof requires the prosecution by evidence to convince the jury of the accused's guilt; while the presumption of innocence, too, requires this, but conveys for the jury a special and additional caution (which is perhaps only an implied corollary to the other) to consider, in the material for their belief, nothing but the evidence, i. e., no surmises based on the present situation of the accused. This caution is indeed particularly needed in criminal cases.” Wigmore 407.
This Court has declared that one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial. See, e. g., Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501 (1976). And it long has been recognized that an instruction on the presumption is one way of impressing upon the jury the importance of that right. See, e. g., United States v. Thaxton, 483 F. 2d 1071, 1073 (CA5 1973); Reynolds v. United States, 238 F. 2d 460, 463, and n. 4 (CA9 1956); People v. Hill, 182 Colo. 253, 257-258, 512 P. 2d 257, 259 (1973); Carr v. State, 192 Miss. 152, 157, 4 So. 2d 887, 888 (1941); State v. Rivers, 206 Minn. 85, 93, 287 N. W. 790, 794 (1939); Commonwealth v. Madeiros, 255 Mass. 304, 316, 151 N. E. 297, 300 (1926); Reeves v. State, 29 Fla. 527, 542, 10 So. 901, 905 (1892). See also Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 253-254 (1910); Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36, 51-52 (1897). While use of the particular phrase “presumption of innocence” — or any other form of words — may not be constitutionally mandated, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be held to safeguard “against dilution of the principle that guilt is to be established by probative evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.” Estelle v. Williams, supra, at 503. The “purging” effect of an instruction on the presumption of innocence, Thaxton, supra, at 1073, simply represents one means of protecting the accused’s constitutional right to be judged solely on the basis of proof adduced at trial.
Ill
Petitioner argues that in the circumstances of this case, the purging effect of an instruction on the presumption of innocence was essential to a fair trial. He points out that the trial court’s instructions were themselves skeletal, placing little emphasis on the prosecution’s duty to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and none at all on the jury’s duty to judge petitioner only on the basis of the testimony heard at trial.
Against the background of the court’s rather Spartan instructions, the prosecutor’s closing argument ranged far and wide, asking the jury to draw inferences about petitioner’s conduct from “facts” not in evidence, but propounded by the prosecutor. For example, he described the reasonable-doubt standard by declaring that petitioner, “like every other defendant who’s ever been tried who’s in the penitentiary or in the reformatory today, has this presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” App. 45 (emphasis added). This statement linked petitioner to every defendant who turned out to be guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment. It could be viewed as an invitation to the jury to consider petitioner’s status as a defendant as evidence tending to prove his guilt. Similarly, in responding to defense counsel’s rhetorical query as to the whereabouts of the items stolen from Maddox, the prosecutor declared that “[o]ne of the first things defendants do after they rip someone off, they get rid of the evidence as fast and as quickly as they can.” Ibid, (emphasis added). This statement also implied that all defendants are guilty and invited the jury to consider that proposition in determining petitioner’s guilt or innocence.
Additionally, the prosecutor observed in his opening statement that Maddox “took out” a warrant against petitioner and that the grand jury had returned an indictment, which the prosecutor read to the jury. Thus, the jury not only was invited to consider the petitioner’s status as a defendant, but also was permitted to draw inferences of guilt from the fact of arrest and indictment. The prosecutor’s description of those events was not necessarily improper, but the combination of the skeletal instructions, the possible harmful inferences from the references to the indictment, and the repeated suggestions that petitioner’s status as a defendant tended to establish his guilt created a genuine danger that the jury would convict petitioner on the basis of those extraneous considerations, rather than on the evidence introduced at trial. That risk was heightened because the trial essentially was a swearing contest between victim and accused.
IV
Against the need for a presumption-of-innocence instruction, the Commonwealth argues first that such an instruction is not required where, as here, the jury is instructed as to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s truncated discussion of reasonable doubt, however, was hardly a model of clarity. It defined reasonable doubt as “a substantial doubt, a real doubt.” Id., at 40. This definition, though perhaps not in itself reversible error, often has been criticized as confusing. See, e. g., United States v. Muckenstrum, 515 F. 2d 568, 571 (CA5), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1032 (1975); United States v. Christy, 444 F. 2d 448, 450 (CA6), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 949 (1971). And even if the instruction on reasonable doubt had been more clearly stated, the Commonwealth’s argument ignores both the special purpose of a presumption-of-innocence instruction and the particular need for such an instruction in this case.
The Commonwealth also contends that no additional instructions were required, because defense counsel argued the presumption of innocence in both his opening and closing statements. But arguments of counsel cannot substitute for instructions by the court. United States v. Nelson, 498 F. 2d 1247 (CA5 1974). Petitioner’s right to have the jury deliberate solely on the basis of the evidence cannot be permitted to hinge upon a hope that defense counsel will be a more effective advocate for that proposition than the prosecutor will be in implying that extraneous circumstances may be considered. It was the duty of the court to safeguard petitioner’s rights, a duty only it could have performed reliably. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S., at 503.
Finally, the Commonwealth argues that Howard v. Fleming, 191 U. S. 126 (1903), established that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require instructions on the presumption of innocence. In Howard, however, the trial court had instructed the jury to consider only the evidence and the law as received from the court. The argument in Howard was not that failure to give an explicit instruction on the presumption of innocence raised a danger that the jury might judge defendants on matters other than the evidence. Instead, plaintiffs-in-error relied on Coffin for the erroneous proposition that the presumption of innocence is “evidence” to be weighed in the accused’s favor. Brief for Appellants in Howard v. Fleming, O. T. 1903, Nos. 44 and 45, pp. 111-113. The Court had discarded this view some years before. See n. 12, supra. Thus, Howard held only that the accused is not entitled to an instruction that the presumption of innocence is “evidence.” It did not east doubt upon the additional function of the presumption as an admonition to consider only the evidence actually introduced, since such an instruction had been given.
Y
We hold that on the facts of this case the trial court’s refusal to give petitioner’s requested instruction on the presumption of innocence resulted in a violation of his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
App. 19, 21.
Id., at 19-21.
Id., at 17.
Id., at 23.
Petitioner’s requested instruction on this point read as follows:
“The law presumes a defendant to be innocent of a crime. Thus a defendant, although accused, begins the trial with a 'clean slate.’ That is, with no evidence against him. The law permits nothing but legal evidence presented before a jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a defendant, unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.” Id., at 53.
This instruction is nearly identical to one contained in 1 E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 11.14, p. 310 (3d ed. 1977). See also United, States v. Alston, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 129, 132-133, 551 F. 2d 315, 318-319 (1976); United States v. Cummings, 468 F. 2d 274, 280 (CA9 1972).
Petitioner's proposed instruction on this point read as follows:
“The jury is instructed that an indictment is in no way any evidence against the defendant and no adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant from a finding of the indictment. The indictment is merely a written accusation charging the defendant with the commission of a crime. It has no probative force and carries with it no implication of guilt.”
App. 53.
The trial court’s instructions, in their entirety, were as follows:
“All right. These are your instructions as to the law applicable to the facts you’ve heard in evidence from the witness stand in this case.
“Number one, you will find the defendant guilty under this instruction if and only if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following: A. That in this county on or about February 16, 1976 and before the finding of the indictment herein, he the defendant stole a sum of money and a house key from James Maddox, 249 Rosewood, Frankfort, Kentucky; and B. in the course of so doing he used physical force on James Maddox. If you find the defendant guilty under this instruction you will fix his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for not less than five nor more than ten years in your discretion.
“Number two, if upon the whole case you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt you will find him not guilty. The term ‘reasonable doubt’ as used in these instructions means a substantial doubt, a real doubt, in that you must ask yourself not whether a better case might have been proved but whether after hearing all the evidence you actually doubt that the defendant is guilty.
"Number three, the verdict of the jury must be unanimous and be signed by one of you as foreman. You may use the form provided at the end of these instructions for writing your verdict.
“There is appended to these instructions a form with alternate verdicts, one of which you will use: A. We the jury find the defendant not guilty; B. We the jury find the defendant guilty under instruction number one and fix his punishment at blank years in the penitentiary.” Id., at 40-41.
E. g., 3 Record 15, 86-87.
E. g., id., at 56.
Although the Commonwealth does not challenge our jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claims, we have examined the record and satisfied ourselves that jurisdiction exists. Petitioner’s "contemporaneous objection to the refusal of his request for an instruction on the presumption of innocence invoked "fundamental principlefs] of judicial fair play.” App. 51. This should have sufficed to alert the trial judge to petitioner’s reliance on due process principles. And in the face of petitioner’s exclusive, explicit reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the Commonwealth has not argued that he has forfeited his right to raise federal claims.
The short opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals did not discuss federal decisions, relying instead on Kentucky authority. 551 S. W. 2d, at 813-814. This reliance on state law apparently was due to the fact that the highest court of Kentucky settled the issue for that State almost 50 years ago. See, e. g., Mink v. Commonwealth, 228 Ky. 674, 15 S. W. 2d 463 (1929). By way of contrast, the Court of Appeals quite explicitly refused to consider petitioner’s argument that he was prejudiced by improper prosecutorial comments, on the ground that petitioner’s failure to make a contemporaneous objection operated as a bar to appellate review. Thus, the Court of Appeals clearly denoted the one issue it refused to consider because of a procedural default. In view of both petitioner’s contemporaneous objection to the failure to give the presumption-of-innocence charge, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ apparent consideration of petitioner’s federal claim, we will not strain the record in an effort to divest petitioner of his federal forum at this late date. See Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U. S. 504, 507-508, n. 2 (1958).
The Kentucky court remanded for resentencing because of the trial court’s failure to order a statutorily required presentencing investigation. 551 S. W. 2d, at 814.
The Coffin Court viewed the presumption of innocence as “an instrument of proof created by the law in favor of one accused, whereby his innocence is established until sufficient evidence is introduced to overcome the proof which the law has created.” 156 U. S., at 459. As actual “evidence in favor of the accused,” id., at 460, it was distinguished from the reasonable-doubt standard, which merely described “the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause.” Ibid. Professor Thayer ably demonstrated the error of this distinction, pointing out that the so-called “presumption” is not evidence — not even an inference drawn from a fact in evidence — but instead is a way of describing the prosecution’s duty both to produce evidence of guilt and to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Thayer 560-563. Shortly after the appearance of Thayer’s criticism, the Court, in a case in which the presumption-of-innocence instruction was given, retreated from its conclusion that the presumption of innocence is evidence to be weighed by the jury. See Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36, 51-52 (1897).
It is now generally recognized that the “presumption of innocence” is an inaccurate, shorthand description of the right of the accused to ^remain inactive and secure, until the prosecution has taken up its burden and produced evidence and effected persuasion | i. e., to say in this case, as in any other, that the opponent of a claim or charge is presumed not to be guilty is to say in another form that the proponent of the claim or charge must evidence it.” Wigmore 407. The principal inaccuracy is the fact that it is not technically a “presumption” — a mandatory inference drawn from a fact in evidence. Instead, it is better characterized as an “assumption” that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence. Carr v. State, 192 Miss. 152, 156, 4 So. 2d 887, 888 (1941); accord, McCormick 806.
Estelle v. Williams quite clearly relates the concept of presumption of innocence to the cognate requirements of finding guilt only on the basis of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. 425 U. S., at 503. In this sense, it is possible to interpret the extended historical discussion of the presumption of innocence in Coffin v. United, States, 156 U. S. 432, 453-460 (1895), as supporting the conclusion that an instruction emphasizing for the jury the first of those two requirements is an element of Fourteenth Amendment due process, an essential of a civilized system of criminal procedure. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 360 n. 2 (1972).
We do not suggest that such prosecutorial comments, standing alone, would rise to the level of reversible error, an issue not raised in this case. But they are relevant to the need for carefully framed instructions designed to assure that the accused be judged only on the evidence.
As noted above, see supra, at 480-481, the trial court also refused petitioner’s request for an instruction that the indictment was not evidence. This permitted the prosecutor’s reference to the indictment to serve as one more extraneous, negative circumstance which may have influenced the jury’s deliberations. Because of our conclusion that the cumulative effect of the potential!}' damaging circumstances of this case violated the due process guarantee of fundamental fairness in the absence of an instruction as to the presumption of innocence, we do not reach petitioner’s further claim that the refusal to instruct that an indictment is not evidence independently constituted reversible error.
While we do not necessarily approve of the presumption-of-innocence instruction requested by petitioner, it appears to have been well suited to forestalling the jury’s consideration of extraneous matters, that is, to performing the purging function described in Part II, above. The requested instruction noted that petitioner, "although accused, [began] the trial with a ‘clean slate.’ ” It emphasized that the law would permit "nothing but legal evidence presented before a jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused.”
See ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Function of the Trial Judge § 1.1 (a) (App. Draft 1972):
“The trial judge has the responsibility for safeguarding both the rights of the accused and the interests of the public in the administration of criminal justice. The adversary nature of the proceedings does not relieve the trial judge of the obligation of raising on his own initiative, at all appropriate times and in an appropriate manner, matters which may significantly promote a just determination of the trial. The only purpose of a criminal trial is to determine whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused as required by law, and the trial judge should not allow the proceedings to be used for any other purpose.”
The trial court had given the following instructions:
“Now, gentlemen, in the trial of this cause the court admonishes you to divest yourselves of any possible feeling or prejudice which you might have against the defendants as well as any sympathy that you might entertain for them on account of their misfortune, and try this case upon the law and the evidence as the court has endeavored to lay it down to you. When you do this you have responded to the high responsibilities which rest upon you as jurors. It matters not whether your verdict accords with public sentiment or not. You are supposed to be indifferent to any such influences and for such to influence you would be a failure to perform your duty. I need not say to you that the offense with which the defendants are charged is a grave one under the law, and if guilty they should be convicted, but while this is true they are entitled under the constitution and laws of your State to a fair and honest trial at your hands, and I feel sure that you will give them such." Record in Howard v. Fleming, O. T. 1903, Nos. 44 and 45, p. 120.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves two proceedings, one pending in state court, the other in federal court. Each seeks review of an Iowa Utilities Board (IUB or Board) order. And each presents the question whether Windstream Iowa Communications, Inc. (Windstream), a local telecommunications carrier, may impose on Sprint Communications, Inc. (Sprint), intrastate access charges for telephone calls transported via the Internet. Federal-court jurisdiction over controversies of this kind was confirmed in Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002). Invoking Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa abstained from adjudicating Sprint's complaint in deference to the parallel state-court proceeding, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's abstention decision.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. In the main, federal courts are obliged to decide cases within the scope of federal jurisdiction. Abstention is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 373, 109 S.Ct. 2506, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989)( NOPSI ) ("[T]here is no doctrine that ... pendency of state judicial proceedings excludes the federal courts."). This Court has recognized, however, certain instances in which the prospect of undue interference with state proceedings counsels against federal relief. See id., at 368, 109 S.Ct. 2506.
Younger exemplifies one class of cases in which federal-court abstention is required: When there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution. This Court has extended Younger abstention to particular state civil proceedings that are akin to criminal prosecutions, see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975), or that implicate a State's interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, see Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 107 S.Ct. 1519, 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987). We have cautioned, however, that federal courts ordinarily should entertain and resolve on the merits an action within the scope of a jurisdictional grant, and should not "refus[e] to decide a case in deference to the States." NOPSI, 491 U.S., at 368, 109 S.Ct. 2506.
Circumstances fitting within the Younger doctrine, we have stressed, are "exceptional"; they include, as catalogued in NOPSI, "state criminal prosecutions," "civil enforcement proceedings," and "civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts' ability to perform their judicial functions." Id., at 367-368, 109 S.Ct. 2506. Because this case presents none of the circumstances the Court has ranked as "exceptional," the general rule governs: "[T]he pendency of an action in [a] state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction." Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) (quoting McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 282, 30 S.Ct. 501, 54 L.Ed. 762 (1910)).
I
Sprint, a national telecommunications service provider, has long paid intercarrier access fees to the Iowa communications company Windstream (formerly Iowa Telecom) for certain long distance calls placed by Sprint customers to Windstream's in-state customers. In 2009, however, Sprint decided to withhold payment for a subset of those calls, classified as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), after concluding that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempted intrastate regulation of VoIP traffic.1 In response, Windstream threatened to block all calls to and from Sprint customers.
Sprint filed a complaint against Windstream with the IUB asking the Board to enjoin Windstream from discontinuing service to Sprint. In Sprint's view, Iowa law entitled it to withhold payment while it contested the access charges and prohibited Windstream from carrying out its disconnection threat. In answer to Sprint's complaint, Windstream retracted its threat to discontinue serving Sprint, and Sprint moved, successfully, to withdraw its complaint. Because the conflict between Sprint and Windstream over VoIP calls was "likely to recur," however, the IUB decided to continue the proceedings to resolve the underlying legal question, i.e., whether VoIP calls are subject to intrastate regulation. Order in Sprint Communications Co. v. Iowa Telecommunications Servs., Inc., No. FCU-2010-0001, 2010 WL 421105 (IUB, Feb. 1, 2010), p. 6 (IUB Order). The question retained by the IUB, Sprint argued, was governed by federal law, and was not within the IUB's adjudicative jurisdiction. The IUB disagreed, ruling that the intrastate fees applied to VoIP calls.2
Seeking to overturn the Board's ruling, Sprint commenced two lawsuits. First, Sprint sued the members of the IUB (respondents here) 3 in their official capacities in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. In its federal-court complaint, Sprint sought a declaration that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempted the IUB's decision; as relief, Sprint requested an injunction against enforcement of the IUB's order. Second, Sprint petitioned for review of the IUB's order in Iowa state court. The state petition reiterated the preemption argument Sprint made in its federal-court complaint; in addition, Sprint asserted state law and procedural due process claims. Because Eighth Circuit precedent effectively required a plaintiff to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal court, see Alleghany Corp. v. McCartney, 896 F.2d 1138 (1990), Sprint urges that it filed the state suit as a protective measure. Failing to do so, Sprint explains, risked losing the opportunity to obtain any review, federal or state, should the federal court decide to abstain after the expiration of the Iowa statute of limitations. See Brief for Petitioner 7-8.4
As Sprint anticipated, the IUB filed a motion asking the Federal District Court to abstain in light of the state suit, citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). The District Court granted the IUB's motion and dismissed the suit. The IUB's decision, and the pending state-court review of it, the District Court said, composed one "uninterruptible process" implicating important state interests. On that ground, the court ruled, Younger abstention was in order. Sprint Communications Co. v. Berntsen, No. 4:11-cv-00183-JAJ (S.D.Iowa, Aug. 1, 2011), App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a.
For the most part, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the District Court's judgment. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument, accepted by several of its sister courts, that Younger abstention is appropriate only when the parallel state proceedings are "coercive," rather than "remedial," in nature. 690 F.3d 864, 868 (2012); cf. Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gómez, 585 F.3d 508, 522 (C.A.1 2009) ("[P]roceedings must be coercive, and in most cases, state-initiated, in order to warrant abstention."). Instead, the Eighth Circuit read this Court's precedent to require Younger abstention whenever "an ongoing state judicial proceeding ... implicates important state interests, and ... the state proceedings provide adequate opportunity to raise [federal] challenges." 690 F.3d, at 867 (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982)). Those criteria were satisfied here, the appeals court held, because the ongoing state-court review of the IUB's decision concerned Iowa's "important state interest in regulating and enforcing its intrastate utility rates." 690 F.3d, at 868. Recognizing the "possibility that the parties [might] return to federal court," however, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment dismissing Sprint's complaint. In lieu of dismissal, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case, instructing the District Court to enter a stay during the pendency of the state-court action. Id., at 869.
We granted certiorari to decide whether, consistent with our delineation of cases encompassed by the Younger doctrine, abstention was appropriate here. 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1805, 185 L.Ed.2d 810 (2013).5
II
A
Neither party has questioned the District Court's jurisdiction to decide whether federal law preempted the IUB's decision, and rightly so. In Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002), we reviewed a similar federal-court challenge to a state administrative adjudication. In that case, as here, the party seeking federal-court review of a state agency's decision urged that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempted the state action. We had "no doubt that federal courts ha[d federal question] jurisdiction under [28 U.S.C.] § 1331 to entertain such a suit," id., at 642, 122 S.Ct. 1753, and nothing in the Telecommunications Act detracted from that conclusion, see id., at 643, 122 S.Ct. 1753.
Federal courts, it was early and famously said, have "no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given."
Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821). Jurisdiction existing, this Court has cautioned, a federal court's "obligation" to hear and decide a case is "virtually unflagging." Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). Parallel state-court proceedings do not detract from that obligation. See ibid.
In Younger, we recognized a "far-from-novel" exception to this general rule. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 364, 109 S.Ct. 2506, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989)( NOPSI ). The plaintiff in Younger sought federal-court adjudication of the constitutionality of the California Criminal Syndicalism Act. Requesting an injunction against the Act's enforcement, the federal-court plaintiff was at the time the defendant in a pending state criminal prosecution under the Act. In those circumstances, we said, the federal court should decline to enjoin the prosecution, absent bad faith, harassment, or a patently invalid state statute. See 401 U.S., at 53-54, 91 S.Ct. 746. Abstention was in order, we explained, under "the basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act ... to restrain a criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparably injury if denied equitable relief." Id., at 43-44, 91 S.Ct. 746. "[R]estraining equity jurisdiction within narrow limits," the Court observed, would "prevent erosion of the role of the jury and avoid a duplication of legal proceedings and legal sanctions." Id., at 44, 91 S.Ct. 746. We explained as well that this doctrine was "reinforced" by the notion of " 'comity,' that is, a proper respect for state functions." Ibid.
We have since applied Younger to bar federal relief in certain civil actions. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975), is the pathmarking decision. There, Ohio officials brought a civil action in state court to abate the showing of obscene movies in Pursue's theater. Because the State was a party and the proceeding was "in aid of and closely related to [the State's] criminal statutes," the Court held Younger abstention appropriate. Id., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 1200.
More recently, in NOPSI, 491 U.S., at 368, 109 S.Ct. 2506, the Court had occasion to review and restate our Younger jurisprudence. NOPSI addressed and rejected an argument that a federal court should refuse to exercise jurisdiction to review a state council's ratemaking decision. "[O]nly exceptional circumstances," we reaffirmed, "justify a federal court's refusal to decide a case in deference to the States." Ibid. Those "exceptional circumstances" exist, the Court determined after surveying prior decisions, in three types of proceedings. First, Younger precluded federal intrusion into ongoing state criminal prosecutions. See ibid. Second, certain "civil enforcement proceedings" warranted abstention. Ibid. (citing, e.g., Huffman, 420 U.S., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 1200). Finally, federal courts refrained from interfering with pending "civil proceedings involving certain orders ... uniquely in furtherance of the state courts' ability to perform their judicial functions." 491 U.S., at 368, 109 S.Ct. 2506 (citing Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 336, n. 12, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977), and Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13, 107 S.Ct. 1519, 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987)). We have not applied Younger outside these three "exceptional" categories, and today hold, in accord with NOPSI, that they define Younger 's scope.
B
The IUB does not assert that the Iowa state court's review of the Board decision, considered alone, implicates Younger. Rather, the initial administrative proceeding justifies staying any action in federal court, the IUB contends, until the state review process has concluded. The same argument was advanced in NOPSI, 491 U.S., at 368, 109 S.Ct. 2506 .We will assume without deciding, as the Court did in NOPSI, that an administrative adjudication and the subsequent state court's review of it count as a "unitary process" for Younger purposes. Id., at 369, 109 S.Ct. 2506. The question remains, however, whether the initial IUB proceeding is of the "sort ... entitled to Younger treatment." Ibid.
The IUB proceeding, we conclude, does not fall within any of the three exceptional categories described in NOPSI and therefore does not trigger Younger abstention. The first and third categories plainly do not accommodate the IUB's proceeding. That proceeding was civil, not criminal in character, and it did not touch on a state court's ability to perform its judicial function. Cf. Juidice, 430 U.S., at 336, n. 12, 97 S.Ct. 1211 (civil contempt order); Pennzoil, 481 U.S., at 13, 107 S.Ct. 1519 (requirement for posting bond pending appeal).
Nor does the IUB's order rank as an act of civil enforcement of the kind to which Younger has been extended . Our decisions applying Younger to instances of civil enforcement have generally concerned state proceedings "akin to a criminal prosecution" in "important respects." Huffman, 420 U.S., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 1200. See also Middlesex, 457 U.S., at 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515 (Younger abstention appropriate where "noncriminal proceedings bear a close relationship to proceedings criminal in nature"). Such enforcement actions are characteristically initiated to sanction the federal plaintiff, i.e., the party challenging the state action, for some wrongful act. See, e.g.,Middlesex, 457 U.S., at 433-434, 102 S.Ct. 2515 (state-initiated disciplinary proceedings against lawyer for violation of state ethics rules). In cases of this genre, a state actor is routinely a party to the state proceeding and often initiates the action. See, e.g.,Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 106 S.Ct. 2718, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986) (state-initiated administrative proceedings to enforce state civil rights laws); Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 419-420, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979) (state-initiated proceeding to gain custody of children allegedly abused by their parents); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 444, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977) (civil proceeding "brought by the State in its sovereign capacity" to recover welfare payments defendants had allegedly obtained by fraud); Huffman, 420 U.S., at 598, 95 S.Ct. 1200 (state-initiated proceeding to enforce obscenity laws). Investigations are commonly involved, often culminating in the filing of a formal complaint or charges. See, e.g.,Dayton, 477 U.S., at 624, 106 S.Ct. 2718 (noting preliminary investigation and complaint); Middlesex, 457 U.S., at 433, 102 S.Ct. 2515 (same).
The IUB proceeding does not resemble the state enforcement actions this Court has found appropriate for Younger abstention. It is not "akin to a criminal prosecution." Huffman, 420 U.S., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 1200. Nor was it initiated by "the State in its sovereign capacity." Trainor, 431 U.S., at 444, 97 S.Ct. 1911. A private corporation, Sprint, initiated the action. No state authority conducted an investigation into Sprint's activities, and no state actor lodged a formal complaint against Sprint.
In its brief, the IUB emphasizes Sprint's decision to withdraw the complaint that commenced proceedings before the Board. At that point, the IUB argues, Sprint was no longer a willing participant, and the proceedings became, essentially, a civil enforcement action. See Brief for Respondents 31. 6 The IUB's adjudicative authority, however, was invoked to settle a civil dispute between two private parties, not to sanction Sprint for commission of a wrongful act. Although Sprint withdrew its complaint, administrative efficiency, not misconduct by Sprint, prompted the IUB to answer the underlying federal question. By determining the intercarrier compensation regime applicable to VoIP calls, the IUB sought to avoid renewed litigation of the parties' dispute. Because the underlying legal question remained unsettled, the Board observed, the controversy was "likely to recur." IUB Order 6. Nothing here suggests that the IUB proceeding was "more akin to a criminal prosecution than are most civil cases." Huffman, 420 U.S., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 1200 .
In holding that abstention was the proper course, the Eighth Circuit relied heavily on this Court's decision in Middlesex.Younger abstention was warranted, the Court of Appeals read Middlesex to say, whenever three conditions are met: There is (1) "an ongoing state judicial proceeding, which (2) implicates important state interests, and (3) ... provide[s] an adequate opportunity to raise [federal] challenges." 690 F.3d, at 867 (citing Middlesex, 457 U.S., at 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515). Before this Court, the IUB has endorsed the Eighth Circuit's approach. Brief for Respondents 13.
The Court of Appeals and the IUB attribute to this Court's decision in Middlesex extraordinary breadth. We invoked Younger in Middlesex to bar a federal court from entertaining a lawyer's challenge to a New Jersey state ethics committee's pending investigation of the lawyer. Unlike the IUB proceeding here, the state ethics committee's hearing in Middlesex was indeed "akin to a criminal proceeding." As we noted, an investigation and formal complaint preceded the hearing, an agency of the State's Supreme Court initiated the hearing, and the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the lawyer should be disciplined for his failure to meet the State's standards of professional conduct. 457 U.S., at 433-435, 102 S.Ct. 2515. See also id., at 438, 102 S.Ct. 2515 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (noting the "quasi-criminal nature of bar disciplinary proceedings"). The three Middlesex conditions recited above were not dispositive; they were, instead, additional factors appropriately considered by the federal court before invoking Younger.
Divorced from their quasi-criminal context, the three Middlesex conditions would extend Younger to virtually all parallel state and federal proceedings, at least where a party could identify a plausibly important state interest. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35-36. That result is irreconcilable with our dominant instruction that, even in the presence of parallel state proceedings, abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the "exception, not the rule." Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 236, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S., at 813, 96 S.Ct. 1236). In short, to guide other federal courts, we today clarify and affirm that Younger extends to the three "exceptional circumstances" identified in NOPSI, but no further.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is
Reversed.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
The Federal Communications Commission has yet to provide its view on whether the Telecommunications Act categorically preempts intrastate access charges for VoIP calls. See In re Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd. 17663, 18002, ¶ 934 (2011) (reserving the question whether all VoIP calls "must be subject exclusively to federal regulation").
At the conclusion of the IUB proceedings, Sprint paid Windstream all contested fees.
For convenience, we refer to respondents collectively as the IUB.
Since we granted certiorari, the Iowa state court issued an opinion rejecting Sprint's preemption claim on the merits. Sprint Communications Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., No. CV-8638, App. to Joint Supp. Brief 20a-36a (Iowa Dist.Ct., Sept. 16, 2013). The Iowa court decision does not, in the parties' view, moot this case, see Joint Supp. Brief 1, and we agree. Because Sprint intends to appeal the state-court decision, the "controversy ... remains live." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005).
The IUB agrees with Sprint that our decision in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943), cannot independently sustain the Eighth Circuit's abstention analysis. See Brief for Respondents 9; cf. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 359, 109 S.Ct. 2506, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is the constitutionality of Georgia's adoption laws as applied to deny an unwed father authority to prevent adoption of his illegitimate child. The child was born in December 1964 and has been in the custody and control of his mother, appellee Ardell Williams Walcott, for his entire life. The mother and the child's natural father, appellant Leon Webster Quilloin, never married each other or established a home together, and in September 1967 the mother married appellee Randall Walcott. In March 1976, she consented to adoption of the child by her husband, who immediately filed a petition for adoption. Appellant attempted to block the adoption and to secure visitation rights, but he did not seek custody or object to the child's continuing to live with appellees. Although appellant was not found to be an unfit parent, the adoption was granted over his objection.
In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972), this Court held that the State of Illinois was barred, as a matter of both due process and equal protection, from taking custody of the children of an unwed father, absent a hearing and a particularized finding that the father was an unfit parent. The Court concluded, on the one hand, that a father's interest in the “companionship, care, custody, and management” of his children is “cognizable and substantial,” id., at 651-652, and, on the other hand, that the State's interest in caring for the children is “de minimis” if the father is in fact a fit parent, id., at 657-658. Stanley left unresolved the degree of protection a State must afford to the rights of an unwed father in a situation, such as that presented here, in which the countervailing interests are more substantial.
I
Generally speaking, under Georgia law a child born in wedlock .cannot be adopted without the consent of each living parent who has not voluntarily surrendered rights in the child or been adjudicated an unfit parent. Even where the child's parents are divorced or separated at the time of the adoption proceedings, either parent may veto the adoption. In contrast, only the consent of the mother is required for adoption of an illegitimate child. Ga. Code § 74-403 (3) (1975). To acquire the same’ veto authority possessed by other parents, the father of a child born out of wedlock must legitimate his offspring, either by marrying the mother and acknowledging the child as his own, § 74-101, or by obtaining a court order declaring the child legitimate and capable of inheriting from the father, § 74-103. But unless and until the child is legitimated, the mother is the only recognized parent and is given exclusive authority to exercise all parental prerogatives, § 74-203, including the power to veto adoption of the child.
Appellant did not petition for legitimation of his child at any time during the 11 years between the child's birth and the filing of Randall Walcott’s adoption petition. However, in response to Walcott's petition, appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking visitation rights, a petition for legitimation, and an objection to the adoption. Shortly thereafter, appellant amended his pleadings by adding the claim that §§ 74-203 and 74-403 (3) were unconstitutional as applied to his case, insofar as they denied him the rights granted to married parents, and presumed unwed fathers to be unfit as a matter of law.
The petitions for adoption, legitimation, and writ of habeas corpus were consolidated for trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Ga. The court expressly stated that these matters were being tried on the basis of a consolidated record to allow “the biological father ... a right to be heard with respect to any issue or other thing upon which he desire [s] to be heard, including his fitness as a parent . After receiving extensive testimony from the parties and other witnesses, the trial court found that, although the child had never been abandoned or deprived, appellant had provided support only on an irregular basis. Moreover, while the child previously had visited with appellant on “many occasions,” and had been given toys and gifts by appellant “from time to time,” the mother had recently concluded that these contacts were having a disruptive effect on the child and on appellees’ entire family. The child himself expressed a desire to be adopted by Randall Walcott and to take on Walcott’s name, and the court found Walcott to be a fit and proper person to adopt the child.
On the basis of these findings, as well as findings relating to appellees’ marriage and the mother’s custody of the child for all of the child’s life, the trial court determined that the proposed adoption was in the “best interests of [the] child.” The court concluded, further, that granting either the legitimation or the visitation rights requested by appellant would not be in the “best interests of the child,” and that both should consequently be denied. The court then applied §§ 74-203 and 74M03 (3) to the situation at hand, and, since appellant had failed to obtain a court order granting legitimation, he was found to lack standing to object to the adoption. Ruling that appellant’s constitutional claims were without merit, the court granted the adoption petition and denied the legitimation and visitation petitions.
Appellant took an appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, claiming that §§ 74-203 and 74-403 (3), as applied by the trial court to his case, violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Claused of the Fourteenth Amendment. In particular, appellant contended that he was entitled to the same power to veto an adoption as is provided under Georgia law to married or divorced parents and to unwed mothers, and, since the trial court did not make a finding of abandonment or other unfitness on the part of appellant, see n. 2, supra, the adoption of his child should not have been allowed.
Over a dissent which urged that § 74-403 (3) was invalid under Stanley v. Illinois, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. 238 Ga. 230, 232 S. E. 2d 246 (1977). The majority relied generally on the strong state policy of rearing children in a family setting, a policy which in the court’s view might be thwarted if unwed fathers were required to consent to adoptions. The court also emphasized the special force of this policy under the facts of this case, pointing out that the adoption was sought by the child’s stepfather, who was part of the family unit in which the child was in fact living, and that the child’s natural father had not taken steps to support or legitimate the child over a period of more than 11 years. The court noted in addition that, unlike the father in Stanley, appellant had never been a de facto member of the child’s family unit.
Appellant brought this appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), continuing to challenge the constitutionality of §§ 74-203 and 74-403 (3) as applied to his case, and claiming that he was entitled as a matter of due process and equal protection to an absolute veto over adoption of his child, absent a finding of his unfitness as a parent. In contrast to appellant’s somewhat broader statement of the issue in the Georgia Supreme Court, on this appeal he focused his equal protection claim solely on the disparate statutory treatment of his case and that of a married father. We noted probable jurisdiction, 431 U. S. 937 (1977), and we now affirm.
h — < I — I
At the outset, we observe that appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the notice he received with respect to the adoption proceeding, see n. 7, supra, nor can he claim that he was deprived of a right to a hearing on his individualized interests in his child, prior to entry of the order of adoption. Although the trial court’s ultimate conclusion was that appellant lacked standing to object to the adoption, this conclusion was reached only after appellant had been afforded a full hearing on his legitimation petition, at which he was given the opportunity to offer evidence on any matter he thought relevant, including his fitness as a parent. Had the trial court granted legitimation, appellant would have acquired the veto authority he is now seeking.
The fact that appellant was provided with a hearing on his legitimation petition is not, however, a complete answer to his attack on the constitutionality of §§ 74-203 and 74-403 (3). The trial court denied appellant’s petition, and thereby precluded him from gaining veto authority, on the ground that legitimation was not in the “best interests of the child”; appellant contends that he was entitled to recognition and preservation of his parental rights absent a showing of his “unfitness.” Thus, the underlying issue is whether, in the circumstances of this case and in light of the authority granted by Georgia law to married fathers, appellant’s interests were adequately protected by a “best interests of the child” standard. We examine this issue first under the Due Process Clause and then under the Equal Protection Clause.
A
Appellees suggest that due process was not violated, regardless of the standard applied by the trial court, since any constitutionally protected interest appellant might have had was lost by his failure to petition for legitimation during the 11 years prior to filing of Randall Walcott’s adoption petition. We would hesitate to rest decision on this ground, in light of the evidence in the record that appellant was not aware of the legitimation procedure until after the adoption petition was filed. But in any event we need not go that far, since under the circumstances of this case appellant’s substantive rights were not violated by application of a “best interests of the child” standard.
We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected. See, e. g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 231-233 (1972) Stanley v. Illinois, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399-401 (1923). “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944). And it is now firmly established that “freedom of personal choice in matters of . . . family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639-640 (1974).
We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended “ [i] f a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.” Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 862-863 (1977) (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). But this is not a case in which the unwed father at any time had, or sought, actual or legal custody of his-child. Nor is this a case in which the proposed adoption would place the child with a new set of parents with whom the child had never before lived. Rather, the result of the adoption in this case is to give full recognition to a family unit already in existence, a result desired by all concerned, except appellant. Whatever might be required in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of legitimation, were in the “best interests of the child.”
B
Appellant contends that even if he is not entitled to prevail as a matter of due process, principles of equal protection require that his authority to veto an adoption be measured by the same standard that would have been applied to a married father. In particular, appellant asserts that his interests are indistinguishable from those of a married father who is separated or divorced from the mother and is no longer living with his child, and therefore the State acted impermissibly in treating his case differently. We think appellant's interests are readily distinguishable from those of a separated or divorced father, and accordingly believe that the State could permissibly give appellant less veto authority than it provides to a married father.
Although appellant was subject, for the years prior to these proceedings, to essentially the same child-support obligation as a married father would have had, compare § 74-202 with § 74-105 and § 30-301, he has never exercised actual or legal custody over his child, and thus has never shouldered any significant responsibility with respect to the daily supervision, education, protection, or care of the child. Appellant does not complain of his exemption from these responsibilities and, indeed, he does' not even now seek custody of his child. In contrast, legal custody of children is, of course, a central aspect of the marital relationship, and even a father whose marriage has broken apart will have borne full responsibility for the rearing of his children during the period of the marriage. Under any standard of review, the State was not foreclosed from recognizing this difference in the extent of commitment to the welfare of the child.
For these reasons, we conclude that §§ 74-203 and 74-403 (3), as applied in this case, did not deprive appellant of his asserted rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is, accordingly,
Affirmed.
The child lived with his maternal grandmother for the initial period of the marriage, but moved in with appellees in 1969 and lived with them thereafter.
See Ga. Code §§74-403 (1), (2) (1975). Section 74^403 (1) sets forth the general rule that “no adoption shall be permitted except with the written consent of the living parents of a child.” Section 74-403 (2) provides that consent is not required from a parent who (1) has surrendered rights in the child to a child-placing agency or to the adoption court; (2) is found by the adoption court to have abandoned the child, or to have willfully failed for a year or longer to comply with a court-imposed support order with respect to the child; (3) has had his or her parental rights terminated by court order, see Ga. Code § 24A-3201; (4) is insane or otherwise incapacitated from giving consent; or (5) cannot be found after a diligent search has been made.
Section 74r-403 (3), which operates as an exception to the rule stated in § 74r-403 (1), seen. 2, supra, provides:
“Illegitimate children. — If the child be illegitimate, the consent of the mother alone shall suffice. Such consent, however, shall not be required if the mother has surrendered all of her rights to said child to a licensed child-placing agency, or to the State Department of Family and Children Services.”
Sections of Ga. Code (1975) will hereinafter be referred to merely by their numbers.
Section 74-103 provides in full:
“A father of an illegitimate child may render the same legitimate by petitioning the superior court of the county of his residence, setting forth the name, age, and sex of such child, and also the name of the mother; and if he desires the name changed, stating the new name, and praying the legitimation of such child. Of this application the mother, if alive, shall have notice. Upon such application, presented and filed, the court may pass an order declaring said child to be legitimate, and capable of inheriting from the father in the same manner as if bom in lawful wedlock, and the name by which he or she shall be known.”
Section 74-203 states:
“The mother of an illegitimate child shall be entitled to the possession of the child, unless the father shall legitimate him as before provided. Being the only recognized parent, she may exercise all the paternal power.” In its opinion in this case, the Georgia Supreme Court indicated that the word “paternal” in the second sentence of this provision is the result of a misprint, and was instead intended to read “parental.” See 238 Ga. 230, 231, 232 S. E. 2d 246, 247 (1977).
It does appear that appellant consented to entry of his name on the child’s birth certificate. See § 88-1709 (d) (2). The adoption petition gave the name of the child as “Darrell Webster Quilloin,” and appellant alleges in Ms brief that the child has always been known by that name, see Brief for Appellant 11.
Appellant had been notified by the State’s Department of Human Resources that an adoption petition had been filed.
In re: Application of Randall Walcott for Adoption of Child, Adoption Case No. 8466 (Ga. Super. Ct., July 12, 1976), App. 70.
Sections 74-103, 74-203, and 744403 (3) are silent as to the appropriate procedure in the event that a petition for legitimation is filed after an adoption proceeding has already been initiated. Prior to this Court’s-decision in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972), and without consideration of potential constitutional problems, the Georgia Supreme Court had concluded that an unwed father could not petition for legitimation after the mother had consented to an adoption. Smith v. Smith, 224 Ga. 442, 445-446, 162 S. E. 2d 379, 383-384 (1968). But cf. Clark v. Buttry, 226 Ga. 687, 177 S. E. 2d 89 (1970), aff’g 121 Ga. App. 492, 174 S. E. 2d 356. However, the Georgia Supreme Court had not had occasion to reconsider this conclusion in light of Stanley, and, in the face of appellant’s constitutional challenge to §§ 74-203, 74-403 (3), the trial court evidently concluded that concurrent consideration of the legitimation and adoption petitions was consistent with the statutory provisions. See also Tr. of Hearing before Superior Court, App. 34, 51; n. 12, infra.
Under § 74-202, appellant had a duty to support his child, but for reasons not appearing in the record the mother never brought an action to enforce this duty. Since no court ever ordered appellant to support his child, denial of veto authority over the adoption could not have been justified on the ground of willful failure to comply with a support order. See n. 2, supra.
In addition to Darrell, appellees’ family included a son bom several years after appellees were married. The mother testified that Darrell’s visits with appellant were having unhealthy effects on both children.
The child also expressed a desire to continue to visit with appellant on occasion after the adoption. The child’s desire to be adopted, however, could not be given effect under Georgia law without divesting appellant of any parental rights he might otherwise have or acquire, including visitation rights. See § 74-414.
The Supreme Court addressed itself only to the constitutionality of the statutes as applied by the trial court and thus, at least for purposes of this ease, accepted the trial court’s construction of §§ 74-203 and 74-403 (3) as allowing concurrent consideration of the adoption and legitimation petitions. See n. 8, supra.
Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, the Georgia Legislature enacted a comprehensive revision of the State’s adoption laws, which became effective January 1, 1978. 1977 Ga. Laws 201. The new law expressly gives an unwed father the right to petition for legitimation subsequent to the filing of an adoption petition concerning his child. See Ga. Code § 74-406 (1977 Supp.). The revision also leaves intact §§ 74-103 and 74-203, and carries forward the substance of §74-403 (3), and thus appellant would not have received any greater protection under the new law than he was actually afforded by the trial court.
In the last paragraph of his brief, appellant raises the claim that the statutes make gender-based distinctions that violate the Equal Protection Clause. Since this claim was not presented in appellant’s jurisdictional statement, we do not consider it. This Court’s Rule 15 (1) (c); see, e. g., Phillips Chem. Co. v. Dumas School Dist., 361 U. S. 376, 386, and n. 12 (1960).
At the hearing in the trial court, the following colloquy took place between appellees’ counsel and appellant:
“Q Had you made any effort prior to this time [prior to the instant proceedings], during the eleven years of Darrell’s life to legitimate him?
“A ... I didn’t know that was process even you went through [sic].” App. 58.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, various organizations and individuals resident in the Rochester, N. Y., metropolitan area, brought this action in the District Court for the Western District of New York against the town of Penfield, an incorporated municipality adjacent to Rochester, and against members of Penfield’s Zoning, Planning, and Town Boards. Petitioners claimed that the town’s zoning ordinance, by its terms and as enforced by the defendant board members, respondents here, effectively excluded persons of low and moderate income from living in the town, in contravention of petitioners’ First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and in violation of 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1983. The District Court dismissed the complaint and denied a motion to add petitioner Housing Council in the Monroe County Area, Inc., as party-plaintiff and also a motion by petitioner Rochester Home Builders Association, Inc., for leave to intervene as party-plaintiff. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that none of the plaintiffs, and neither Housing Council nor Home Builders Association, had standing to prosecute the action. 495 F. 2d 1187 (1974). We granted the petition for certiorari. 419 U. S. 823 (1974). For reasons that differ in certain respects from those upon which the Court of Appeals relied, we affirm.
I.
Petitioners Metro-Act of Rochester, Inc., and eight individual plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, filed this action on January 24, 1972, averring jurisdiction in the District Court under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The complaint identified Metro-Act as a not-for-profit New York corporation, the purposes of which are “to alert ordinary citizens to problems of social concern;... to inquire into the reasons for the critical housing shortage for low and moderate income persons in the Rochester area and to urge action on the part of citizens to alleviate the general housing shortage for low and moderate income persons.” Plaintiffs Vinkey, Reichert, Warth, and Harris were described as residents of the city of Rochester, all of whom owned real property in and paid property taxes to that city. Plaintiff Ortiz, “a citizen of Spanish/Puerto Rican extraction,” App. 7, also owned real property in and paid taxes to Rochester. Ortiz, however, resided in Wayland, N. Y., some 42 miles from Penfield where he was employed. The complaint described plaintiffs Broadnax, Reyes, and Sinkler as residents of Rochester and “persons fitting within the classification of low and moderate income as hereinafter defined....” Ibid. Although the complaint does not expressly so state, the record shows that Broadnax, Reyes, and Sinkler are members of ethnic or racial minority groups: Reyes is of Puerto Rican ancestry; Broadnax and Sinkler are Negroes.
Petitioners’ complaint alleged that Penfield’s zoning ordinance, adopted in 1962, has the purpose and effect of excluding persons of low and moderate income from residing in the town. In particular, the ordinance allocates 98% of the town’s vacant land to single-family detached housing, and allegedly by imposing unreasonable requirements relating to lot size, setback, floor area, and habitable space, the ordinance increases the cost of single-family detached housing beyond the means of persons of low and moderate income. Moreover, according to petitioners, only 0.3% of the land available for residential construction is allocated to multifamily structures (apartments, townhouses, and the like), and even on this limited space, housing for low- and moderate-income persons is not economically feasible because of low density and other requirements. Petitioners also alleged that “in furtherance of a policy of exclusionary zoning,” id., at 22, the defendant members of Penfield’s Town, Zoning, and Planning Boards had acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner: they had delayed action on proposals for low- and moderate-cost housing for inordinate periods of time; denied such proposals for arbitrary and insubstantial reasons; refused to grant necessary variances and permits, or to allow tax abatements; failed to provide necessary support services for low- and moderate-cost housing projects; and had amended the ordinance to make approval of such projects virtually impossible.
In sum, petitioners alleged that, in violation of their “rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States,” id., at 17, the town and its officials had made “practically and economically impossible the construction of sufficient numbers of low and moderate income... housing in the Town of Pen-field to satisfy the minimum housing requirements of both the Town of Penfield and the metropolitan Rochester area....” Petitioners alleged, moreover, that by precluding low- and moderate-cost housing, the town’s zoning practices also had the effect of excluding persons of minority racial and ethnic groups, since most such persons have only low or moderate incomes.
Petitioners further alleged certain harm to themselves. The Rochester property owners and taxpayers — Vinkey, Reichert, Warth, Harris, and Ortiz — claimed that because of Penfield’s exclusionary practices, the city of Rochester had been forced to impose higher tax rates on them and others similarly situated than would otherwise have been necessary. The low- and moderate-income, minority plaintiffs — Ortiz, Broadnax, Reyes, and Sinkler — claimed that Penfield’s zoning practices had prevented them from acquiring, by lease or purchase, residential property in the town, and thus had forced them and their families to reside in less attractive environments. To relieve these various harms, petitioners asked the District Court to declare the Pen-field ordinance unconstitutional, to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the ordinance, to order the defendants to enact and administer a new ordinance designed to alleviate the effects of their past actions, and to award $750,-000 in actual and exemplary damages.
On May 2, 1972, petitioner Rochester Home Builders Association, an association of firms engaged in residential construction in the Rochester metropolitan area, moved the District Court for leave to intervene as a party-plaintiff. In essence, Home Builders’ intervenor complaint repeated the allegations of exclusionary zoning practices made by the original plaintiffs. It claimed that these practices arbitrarily and capriciously had prevented its member firms from building low- and moderate-cost housing in Penfield, and thereby had deprived them of potential profits. Home Builders prayed for equitable relief identical in substance to that requested by the original plaintiffs, and also for $750,000 in damages. On June 7, 1972, Metro-Act and the other original plaintiffs moved to join petitioner Housing Council in the Monroe County Area, Inc., as a party plaintiff. Housing Council is a not-for-profit New York corporation, its membership comprising some 71 public and private organizations interested in housing problems. An affidavit accompanying the motion stated that 17 of Housing Council’s member groups were or hoped to be involved in the development of low- and moderate-cost housing, and that one of its members — the Penfield Better Homes Corp. — “is and has been actively attempting to develop moderate income housing” in Penfield, “but has been stymied by its inability to secure the necessary approvals....”
Upon consideration of the complaints and of extensive supportive materials submitted by petitioners, the District Court held that the original plaintiffs, Home Builders, and Housing Council lacked standing to prosecute the action, that the original complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that the suit should not proceed as a class action, and that, in the exercise of discretion, Home Builders should not be permitted to intervene. The court accordingly denied the motion to add Housing Council as a party-plaintiff, denied Home Builders’ motion to intervene, and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reaching only the standing questions.
II
We address first the principles of standing relevant to the claims asserted by the several categories of petitioners in this case. In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues. This inquiry involves both constitutional limitations on federal-court jurisdiction and prudential limitations on its exercise. E. g., Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249, 255-256 (1953). In both dimensions it is founded in concern about the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society. See Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 221-227 (1974); United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166, 188-197 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring).
In its constitutional dimension, standing imports justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a “case or controversy” between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III. This is the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit. As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has “alleged such a- personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers on his behalf. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). The Art. Ill judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others collaterally. A federal court’s jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered “some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action....” Linda R. S. v. Richard, D., 410 U. S. 614, 617 (1973). See Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 151-154 (1970).
Apart from this minimum constitutional mandate, this Court has recognized other limits on the class of persons who may invoke the courts’ decisional and remedial powers. First, the Court has held that when the asserted harm is a “generalized grievance” shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. E. g., Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, supra; United States v. Richardson, supra; Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633, 634 (1937). Second, even when the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to meet the “case or controversy” requirement, this Court has held that the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. E. g., Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44 (1943). See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17 (1960); Barrows v. Jackson, supra. Without such limitations — closely related to Art. Ill concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governance — the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights. See, e. g., Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U. S., at 222.
Although standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff's contention that particular conduct is illegal, e. g., Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 99 (1968), it often turns on the nature and source of the claim asserted. The actual or threatened injury required by Art. Ill may exist solely by virtue of “statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing....'' See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., supra, at 617 n. 3; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 732 (1972). Moreover, the source of the plaintiff's claim to relief assumes critical importance with respect to the prudential rules of standing that, apart from Art. Ill's minimum requirements, serve to limit the role of the courts in resolving public disputes. Essentially, the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff's position a right to judicial relief. In some circumstances, countervailing considerations may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluctance to exert judicial power when the plaintiff’s claim to relief rests on the legal rights of third parties. See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S., at 22-23. In such instances, the Court has found, in effect, that the constitutional or statutory provision in question implies a right of action in the plaintiff. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229, 237 (1969). See generally Part IV, infra. Moreover, Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules. Of course, Art. Ill’s requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself, even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants. E. g., United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669 (1973). But so long as this requirement is satisfied, persons to whom Congress has granted a right of action, either expressly or by clear implication, may have standing to seek relief on the basis of the legal rights and interests of others, and, indeed, may invoke the general public interest in support of their claim. E. g., Sierra Club v. Morton, supra, at 737; FCC v. Sanders Radio Station, 309 U. S. 470, 477 (1940).
One further preliminary matter requires discussion. For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party. E. g., Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 421-422 (1969). At the same time, it is within the trial court’s power to allow or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of plaintiff’s standing. If, after this opportunity, the plaintiff’s standing does not adequately appear from all materials of record, the complaint must be dismissed.
Ill
With these general considerations in mind, we turn first to the claims of petitioners Ortiz, Reyes, Sinkler, and Broadnax, each of whom asserts standing as a person of low or moderate income and, coincidentally, as a member of a minority racial or ethnic group. We must assume, taking the allegations of the complaint as true, that Penfield’s zoning ordinance and the pattern of enforcement by respondent officials have had the purpose and effect of excluding persons of low and moderate income, many of whom are members of racial or ethnic minority groups. We also assume, for purposes here, that such intentional exclusionary practices, if proved in a proper case, would be adjudged violative of the constitutional and statutory rights of the persons excluded.
But the fact that these petitioners share attributes common to persons who may have been excluded from residence in the town is an insufficient predicate for the conclusion that petitioners themselves have been excluded, or that the respondents’ assertedly illegal actions have violated their rights. Petitioners must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent. Unless these petitioners can thus demonstrate the requisite case or controversy between themselves personally and respondents, “none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 494 (1974). See, e. g., Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 32-33 (1962).
In their complaint, petitioners Ortiz, Reyes, Sinkler, and Broadnax alleged in conclusory terms that they are among the persons excluded by respondents’ actions. None of them has ever resided in Penfield; each claims at least implicitly that he desires, or has desired, to do so. Each asserts, moreover, that he made some effort, at some time, to locate housing in Penfield that was at once within his means and adequate for his family’s needs. Each claims that his efforts proved fruitless. We may assume, as petitioners allege, that respondents’ actions have contributed, perhaps substantially, to the cost of housing in Penfield. But there remains the question whether petitioners’ inability to locate suitable housing in Penfield reasonably can be said to have resulted, in any concretely demonstrable way, from respondents’ alleged constitutional and statutory infractions. Petitioners must allege facts from which it reasonably could be inferred that, absent the respondents’ restrictive zoning practices, there is a substantial probability that they would have been able to purchase or lease in Penfield and that, if the court affords the relief requested, the asserted inability of petitioners will be removed. Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614 (1973).
We find the record devoid of the necessary allegations. As the Court of Appeals noted, none of these petitioners has a present interest in any Penfield property; none is himself subject to the ordinance’s strictures; and none has ever been denied a variance or permit by respondent officials. 495 F. 2d, at 1191. Instead, petitioners claim that respondents’ enforcement of the ordinance against third parties — developers, builders, and the like — has had the consequence of precluding the construction of housing suitable to their needs at prices they might be able to afford. The fact that the harm to petitioners may have resulted indirectly does not in itself preclude standing. When a governmental prohibition or restriction imposed on one party causes specific harm to a third party, harm that a constitutional provision or statute was intended to prevent, the indirectness of the injury does not necessarily deprive the person harmed of standing to vindicate his rights. E. g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 124 (1973). But it may make it substantially more difficult to meet the minimum requirement of Art. Ill: to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants’ actions, or that prospective relief will remove the harm.
Here, by their own admission, realization of petitioners’ desire to live in Penfield always has depended on the efforts and willingness of third parties to build low- and moderate-cost housing. The record specifically refers to only two such efforts: that of Penfield Better Homes Corp., in late 1969, to obtain the rezoning of certain land in Penfield to allow the construction of subsidized cooperative townhouses that could be purchased by persons of moderate income; and a'similar effort by O’Brien Homes, Inc., in late 1971. But the record is devoid of any indication that these projects, or other like projects; would have satisfied petitioners’ needs at prices they could afford, or that, were the court to remove the obstructions attributable to respondents, such relief would benefit petitioners. Indeed, petitioners’ descriptions of their individual financial situations and housing needs suggest precisely the contrary— that their inability to reside in Penfield is the consequence of the economics of the area housing market, rather than of respondents’ assertedly illegal acts. In short, the facts alleged fail to support an actionable causal relationship between Penfield’s zoning practices and petitioners’ asserted injury.
In support of their position, petitioners refer to several decisions in the District Courts and Courts of Appeals, acknowledging standing in low-income, minority-group plaintiffs to challenge exclusionary zoning practices. In those cases, however, the plaintiffs challenged zoning restrictions as applied to particular projects that would supply housing within their means, and of which they were intended residents. The plaintiffs thus were able to demonstrate that unless relief from assertedly illegal actions was forthcoming, their immediate and personal interests would be harmed. Petitioners here assert no like circumstances. Instead, they rely on little more than the remote possibility, unsubstantiated by allegations of fact, that their situation might have been better had respondents acted otherwise, and might improve were the court to afford relief.
We hold only that a plaintiff who seeks to challenge exclusionary zoning practices must allege specific, concrete facts demonstrating that the challenged practices harm him, and that he personally would benefit in a tangible way from the court’s intervention. Absent the necessary allegations of demonstrable, particularized injury, there can be no confidence of “a real need to exercise the power of judicial review” or that relief can be framed “no broader than required by the precise facts to which the court’s ruling would be applied.” Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U. S., at 221-222.
IV
The petitioners who assert standing on the basis of their status as taxpayers of the city of Rochester present a different set of problems. These “taxpayer-petitioners” claim that they are suffering economic injury consequent to Penfield’s allegedly discriminatory and exclusionary zoning practices. Their argument, in brief, is that Penfield’s persistent refusal to allow or to facilitate construction of low- and moderate-cost housing forces the city of Rochester to provide more such housing than it otherwise would do; that to provide such housing, Rochester must allow certain tax abatements; and that as the amount of tax-abated property increases, Rochester taxpayers are forced to assume an increased tax burden in order to finance essential public services.
“Of course, pleadings must be something more than an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable.” United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S., at 688. We think the complaint of the taxpayer-petitioners is little more than such an exercise. Apart from the conjectural nature of the asserted injury, the line of causation between Pen-field’s actions and such injury is not apparent from the complaint. Whatever may occur in Penfield, the injury complained of — increases in taxation — results only from decisions made by the appropriate Rochester authorities, who are not. parties to this case.
But even if we assume that the taxpayer-petitioners could establish that Penfield’s zoning practices harm them, their complaint nonetheless was properly dismissed. Petitioners do not, even if they could, assert any personal right under the Constitution or any statute to be free of action by a neighboring municipality that may have some incidental adverse effect on Rochester. On the contrary, the only basis of the taxpayer-petitioners’ claim is that Penfield’s zoning ordinance and practices violate the constitutional and statutory rights of third parties, namely, persons of low and moderate income who are said to be excluded from Penfield. In short the claim of these petitioners falls squarely within the prudential standing rule that normally bars litigants from asserting the rights or legal interests of others in order to obtain relief from injury to themselves. As we have observed above, this rule of judicial self-governance is subject to exceptions, the most prominent of which is that Congress may remove it by statute. Here, however, no statute expressly or by clear implication grants a right of action, and thus standing to seek relief, to persons in petitioners’ position. In several cases, this Court has allowed standing to litigate the rights of third parties when enforcement of the challenged restriction against the litigant would result indirectly in the violation of third parties’ rights. See, e. g., Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179, 188 (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 481 (1965); Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953). But the taxpayer-petitioners are not themselves subject to Penfield’s zoning practices. Nor dó they allege that the challenged zoning ordinance and practices preclude or otherwise adversely affect a relationship existing between them and the persons whose rights assertedly are violated. E. g., Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S., at 237; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 458-460 (1958); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S., at 534-536. No relationship, other than an incidental congruity of interest, is alleged to exist between the Rochester taxpayers and persons who have been precluded from living in Penfield. Nor do the taxpayer-petitioners show that their prosecution of the suit is necessary to insure protection of the rights asserted, as there is no indication that persons who in fact have been excluded from Penfield are disabled from asserting their own right in a proper case. In sum, we discern no justification for recognizing in the Rochester taxpayers a right of action on the asserted claim.
V
We turn next to the standing problems presented by the petitioner associations — Metro-Act of Rochester, Inc., one of the original plaintiffs; Housing Council in the Monroe County Area, Inc., which the original plaintiffs sought to join as a party-plaintiff; and Rochester Home Builders Association, Inc., which moved in the District Court for leave to intervene as plaintiff. There is no question that an association may have standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy. Moreover, in attempting to secure relief from injury to itself the association may assert the rights of its members, at least so long as the challenged infractions adversely affect its members’ associational ties. E. g., NAACP v. Alabama, supra, at 458-460; Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 183-187 (1951) (Jackson, J., concurring). With the limited exception of Metro-Act, however, none of the associational petitioners here has asserted injury to itself.
Even in the absence of injury to itself, an association''may have standing solely as the representative of its members. E. g., National Motor Freight Assn. v. United States, 372 U. S. 246 (1963). The possibility of such representational standing, however, does not eliminate or attenuate the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727 (1972). The association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit. Id., at 734 — 741. So long as this can be established, and so long as the nature of the claim and of the relief sought does not make the individual participation of each injured party indispensable to proper resolution of the cause, the association may be an appropriate representative of its members, entitled to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
A
Petitioner Metro-Act’s claims to standing on its own behalf as a Rochester taxpayer, and on behalf of its members who are Rochester taxpayers or persons of low or moderate income, are precluded by our holdings in Parts III and IV, supra, as to the individual petitioners, and require no further discussion. Metro-Act also alleges, however, that 9%' of its membership is composed of present residents of Penfield. It claims that, as a result of the persistent pattern of exclusionary zoning practiced by respondents and the consequent exclusion of persons of low and moderate income, those of its members who are Penfield residents- are deprived of the benefits of living in a racially and ethnically integrated community. Referring to our decision in Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205 (1972), Metro-Act argues that such deprivation is a sufficiently palpable injury to satisfy the Art. Ill case-or-controversy requirement, and that it has standing as the representative of its members to seek redress.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that Trafficante is not controlling here. In that case, two residents of an apartment complex alleged that the owner had discriminated against rental applicants on the basis of race, in violation of § 804 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 83, 42 U. S. C. § 3604. They claimed that, as a result of such discrimination, “they had been injured in that (1) they had lost the social benefits of living in an integrated community; (2) they had missed business and professional advantages which would have accrued if they had lived with members of minority groups; (3) they had suffered embarrassment and economic damage in social, business, and professional activities from being'stigmatized’ as residents of a 'white ghetto.’ ” 409 U. S., at 208. In light of the clear congressional purpose in enacting the 1968 Act, and the broad definition of “person aggrieved” in § 810 (a), 42 U. S. C. § 3610 (a), we held that petitioners, as “person [s] who claim[ed] to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice,” had standing to litigate violations of the Act. We concluded that Congress had given residents of housing facilities covered by the statute an actionable right to be free from the adverse consequences to them of racially discriminatory practices directed at and immediately harmful to others. 409 U. S., at 212.
Metro-Act does not assert on behalf of its members any right of action under the 1968 Civil Rights Act, nor can the complaint fairly be read to make out any such claim. In this, we think, lies the critical distinction between Traficante and the situation here. As we have observed above, Congress may create a statutory right or entitlement the alleged deprivation of which can confer standing to sue even where the plaintiff would have suffered no judicially cognizable injury in the absence of statute. Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S., at 617 n. 3, citing Traficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins., Co., supra, at 212 (White, J., concurring). No such statute is applicable here.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that apart from any statutorily created right the asserted harm to Metro-Act’s Penfield members is sufficiently direct and personal to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Art. Ill, prudential considerations strongly counsel against according them or Metro-Act standing to prosecute this action. We do not understand Metro-Act to argue that Penfield residents themselves have been denied any constitutional rights, affording them a cause of action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Instead, their complaint is that they have been harmed indirectly by the exclusion of others. This is an attempt to raise putative rights of third parties, and none of the exceptions that allow such claims is present here. In these circumstances, we conclude that it is inappropriate to allow Metro-Act to invoke the judicial process.
B
Petitioner Home Builders, in its intervenor-complaint, asserted standing to represent its member firms engaged in the development and construction of residential housing in the Rochester area, including Penfield. Home Builders alleged that the Penfield zoning restrictions, together with refusals by the town officials to grant variances and permits for the construction of low- and moderate-cost housing, had deprived some of its members of “substantial business opportunities and profits.” App. 156. Home Builders claimed damages of $750,000 and also joined in the original plaintiffs’ prayer for declaratory and injunctive relief.
As noted above, to justify any relief the association must show that it has suffered harm, or that one or more of its members are injured. E. g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727 (1972). But, apart from this, whether an association has standing to invoke the court’s remedial powers on behalf of its members depends in substantial measure on the nature of the relief sought. If in a proper case the association seeks a declaration, injunction, or some other form of prospective relief, it can reasonably be supposed that the remedy, if granted, will inure to the benefit of those members of the association actually injured. Indeed, in all cases in which we have expressly recognized standing in associations to represent their members, the relief sought has been of this kind. E.g., National Motor Freight Assn. v. United States, 372 U. S. 246 (1963). See Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (b)(2).
The present case, however, differs significantly as here an association seeks relief in damages for alleged injuries to its members. Home Builders alleges no monetary injury to itself, nor any assignment of the damages claims of its members. No award therefore can be made to the association as such. Moreover, in the circumstances of this case, the damages claims are not common to the entire membership, nor shared by all in equal degree. To the contrary, whatever injury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual member concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury would require individualized proof. Thus, to obtain relief in damages, each member of Home Builders who claims injury as a result of respondents’ practices must be a party to the suit, and Home Builders has no standing to claim damages on his behalf.
Home Builders’ prayer for prospective relief fails for a different reason. It can have standing as the representative of its members only if it has alleged facts sufficient to make out a case or controversy had the members themselves brought suit. No such allegations were made. The complaint refers to no specific project of any of its members that is currently precluded either by the ordinance or by respondents’ action in enforcing it. There is no averment that any member has applied to respondents for a building permit or a variance with respect to any current project. Indeed, there is no indication that respondents have delayed or thwarted any project currently proposed by Home Builders’ members, or that any of its members has taken advantage of the remedial processes available under the ordinance. In short, insofar as the complaint seeks prospective relief, Home Builders has failed to show the existence of any injury to its members of sufficient immediacy and ripeness to warrant judicial intervention. See, e. g., United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 86-91 (1947); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941).
A like problem is presented with respect to petitioner Housing Council. The affidavit accompanying the motion to join it as plaintiff states that the Council includes in its membership “at least seventeen” groups that have been, are, or will be involved in the development of low- and moderate-cost housing. But, with one exception, the complaint does not suggest that any of these groups has focused its efforts on Penfield or has any specific plan to do so. Again with the same exception, neither the complaint nor any materials of record indicate that any member of Housing Council has taken any step toward building housing in Penfield, or has had dealings of any nature with respondents. The exception is the Penfield Better Homes Corp. As we have observed above, it applied to respondents in late 1969 for a zoning variance to allow construction of a housing project designed for persons of moderate income. The affidavit in support of the motion to join Housing Council refers specifically to this effort, and the supporting materials detail at some length the circumstances surrounding the rejection of Better Homes’ application. It is therefore possible that in 1969, or within a reasonable time thereafter, Better Homes itself and possibly Housing Council as its representative would have had standing to seek review of respondents’ action. The complaint, however, does not allege that the Penfield Better Homes project remained viable in 1972 when this complaint was filed, or that respondents’ actions continued to block a then-current construction project. In short
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of Eddie Thomas et al. for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.
In November 1970, the Board of Supervisors of Warren County, Miss., submitted a county redistricting plan to the Attorney General for his approval under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The new plan was to replace a plan in effect since 1929. After requesting and receiving additional information, the Attorney General entered an objection to the plan. Despite this objection, the Board held elections in 1971 pursuant to the 1970 plan. After the elections, the Board sought reconsideration of the objection. The Attorney General refused to withdraw the objection and in 1973 .filed a complaint, pursuant to § 5, in the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The complaint alleged that the Attorney General’s objection to the 1970 redistricting plan rendered that plan unenforceable under § 5, and that the election districts in effect prior to the 1970 redistricting were malapportioned under the Fourteenth Amendment. Three forms of relief were requested: (1) a declaration that implementation of the 1970 plan violated § 5; (2) an injunction against implementing the 1970 plan or any other new plan until there had been compliance with one of the two procedures required by § 5; and (3) an order that a new redistricting plan be developed and implemented after being found acceptable under § 5.
A properly convened three-judge court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment. In its later order implementing that judgment, the court found that because the upcoming 1975 County elections could not be held as scheduled “without abridging rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution,” the elections had to be stayed subject to compliance with the procedure set out in the court’s order. The order provided that the County submit a redistricting plan to the Attorney General for § 5 review and, if no objection were interposed, that elections then be held in accordance with a stipulated schedule. In the event that the County submitted no plan by a stated deadline, or that the Attorney General objected to a submitted plan, or that a submitted plan contained infirmities with respect to the one-person-one-vote requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court would consider plans prepared by both parties and adopt an appropriate redistricting plan to be used in elections held according to the ordered schedule.
The County then informally submitted two plans to the Attorney General for comment and the Attorney General indicated his reservations concerning the validity of the plans. This impasse continued until the deadline in the court’s order, after which time the court directed the parties to file their proposed plans for its consideration. After a hearing, the court adopted one of the plans prepared by the County despite the fact that the plan had not been approved pursuant to § 5 procedures. The court found that the adopted plan “neither ■ dilutes black voting strength nor is deficient in one-man, one-vote considerations.” It ordered that the county’s districts be reorganized according to the plan and that elections be held. The United States appealed. This Court has jurisdiction under 42 U. S. C. § 1973c and 28 U. S. C. § 1253.
Section 5 provides for two alternative methods by which a State or political subdivision covered by the Act may satisfy the requirement of federal scrutiny of changes in voting procedures. First, the State or political subdivision may institute an action in the District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of abridging the right to vote on account of race; second, it may submit the proposed change to the Attorney General. No new voting practice or procedure may.be enforced unless the State or political subdivision has succeeded in its declaratory judgment action or the Attorney General has declined to object to a proposal submitted to him. See n. 1, supra. Attempts to enforce changes that have not been subjected to § 5 scrutiny may be enjoined by any three-judge district court in a suit brought by a voter, Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 554-563 (1969), or by the Attorney General on behalf of the United States, Voting Rights Act of 1965, §§12 (d), (f), 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973j (d), (f).
In Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971), this Court held that the separate procedures of § 5 imposed a limitation on the determinations that may be made by district courts entertaining actions brought to enjoin § 5 violations:
“What is foreclosed to such district court is what Congress expressly reserved for consideration by the District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General — the determination whether a covered change does or does not have the purpose or effect 'of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color/ ” 400 U. S., at 385.
Adhering to Allen, the Court held that the inquiry of a local district court in a § 5 action against a State or political subdivision is “limited to the determination whether 'a [voting] requirement is covered by § 5, but has not been subjected to the required federal scrutiny.’ ” 400 U. S., at 383, quoting Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 561. This holding was subsequently reaffirmed in Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975).
■ Allen, Perkins, and Connor involved private suits by voters claiming noncompliance with § 5 procedures; we now hold that the same limitations on the inquiry of local district courts apply in § 5 actions brought by the Attorney General. The limitation inheres in Congress’ determination that only the District Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether a proposed change actually discriminates on account of race and that other district courts may consider § 5 “coverage” questions. See Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 558-559.
The District Court in this case twice exceeded the permissible scope of its § 5 inquiry. In the order implementing its summary judgment for the United States, the court apparently decided that the 1970 redistricting plan did not comply with the Fifteenth Amendment. In its later Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law approving a plan submitted to the court by Warren County, the court “proceeded on the premise that if . . . Fifteenth Amendment protections had not been accorded by any plan proposed, the court could have instituted its own plan,” and then determined that the County plan “will not lessen the opportunity of black citizens of Warren County to participate in the political process and elect officials of their choice.” In both instances the court below erred in deciding the questions of constitutional law; it should have determined only whether Warren County could be enjoined from holding elections under a new redistricting plan because such plan had not been cleared under § 5. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Section 5 requires, in relevant part, that whenever a State or political subdivision covered by the Act seeks to administer “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964,” it may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that “such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” Until the District of Columbia court enters a declaratory judgment to that effect, no person may be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with the new practice or procedure. As an alternative to the requirement of a declaratory judgment, § 5 permits the State or political subdivision to enforce a new voting procedure if the procedure has been first submitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorney General has not, within 60 days, interposed an objection to the proposed change. All actions under § 5 are required to be heard by a three-judge court. Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 5, 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c.
There is no dispute in this case that Warren County is a political subdivision covered by the Act, that realignment of election districts is a voting practice or procedure, and that Warren County has not instituted a declaratory judgment action in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
The court’s order enjoined the holding of the 1975 elections because they could not be held without abridging Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights. The court did not elaborate, but it appears to have held that Fourteenth Amendment, one-person-one-vote rights would be abridged if the election were conducted under the old districting plan and the Fifteenth Amendment rights of black voters would be violated if the 1970 redistricting plan were used.
Although the record is not clear, the source of the confusion concerning the power of the District Court in this case seems to have arisen from the fact that the Attorney General did not seek merely to enjoin implementation of the 1970 redistricting plan, but also asked the court to enjoin any election until the County had been redistricted in a manner that both met the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and eliminated the malapportionment of the old districts. The malapportionment of the old plan could not, however, be made the subject of a Government suit brought under § 5. The section is addressed only to voting procedures that were not in effect on November 1, 1964. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 138-139 (1976). The ahegedly malapportioned districts had existed long before 1964 and were,- therefore, not properly before the court in the § 5 action.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
This Court, on its own motion, hereby certifies to the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pursuant to Rule 3:21 of the Rules of that court, the question of law hereinafter set forth.
Statement of Facts
On March 29, 1976, a three-judge Federal District Court in the District of Massachusetts, after dismissing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its Division of Civil Service as parties defendant, entered a judgment for Helen B. Feeney against the Massachusetts Director of Civil Service (now designated “Personnel Administrator of the Commonwealth”) and members of the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission, declaring unconstitutional the Massachusetts veterans’ preference statute, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 31, § 23, and enjoining its enforcement by said state officers. 415 F. Supp. 485 (1976).
The Attorney General for the Commonwealth, who appeared for all parties defendant in the District Court, has filed a Jurisdictional Statement in this Court stating, at 1-2, that the same is filed “on behalf of the Personnel Administrator of the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission,” the state officers against whom the District Court judgment was entered. However, the Personnel Administrator of the Commonwealth and the members of the Civil Service Commission have advised the Clerk of this Court, by letter of September 1, 1976, that “the appeal is without our authorization,” that “each of us informed the Attorney General of our request that this matter not be appealed,” and that “we request that the Court dismiss the appeal.” A stipulation filed' in the District Court dated June 21, 1976, signed by the Attorney General and the attorney for appellee, confirms these statements in the letter, and states further that the Governor of the Commonwealth has also requested the Attorney General not to prosecute an appeal.
The Attorney General, on October 8, 1976, filed a brief in this Court supporting his authority under state law to docket the appeal.
It therefore appears that there are involved in the proceeding before this Court questions of Massachusetts law which may be determinative of such cause, with respect to which there seem to be no clearly controlling precedents in the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Accordingly, this Court desires to certify to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, pursuant to Rule 3:21 of its Rules, the following question:
Question Certified
Under the circumstances herein presented, does Massachusetts law authorize the Attorney General of the Commonwealth to prosecute an appeal to this Court from the judgment of the District Court without the consent and over the expressed objections of the state officers against whom the judgment of the District Court was entered?
Me. Justice Blackmun would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Section 5 (e) of the Hawaii Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, 48 U. S. C. (Supp. II, 1960), pp. 1257-1261, provides that within five years from the date Hawaii is admitted to the Union federal agencies having control over land or properties retained by the United States under § 5 (c) and (d) of the Act shall report, to the President-as to the “continued need for such land or property, and if the President determines that the land or property is no' longer needed by the United States it shall be conveyed to the State of Hawaii.” The President designated the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to perform his functions thereunder. The Director thereafter, pursuant to an opinion of the Attorney General, 42 Op. Atty. Gen. (No. 4), concluded, and so advised federal agencies, that the lands referred to in ■§ 5 (e) do not include lands obtained by the United States through purchase, condemnation or gift but are limited to lands which at one time belonged to Hawaii and were ceded to the United States or acquired in exchange therefor.
Hawaii filed this original action against the Director, under Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, seeking to obtain ah order requiring him to withdraw this advice to the federal agencies, determine, whether a certain 203 acres of land in Hawaii acquired by the United States through condemnation was land or properties “needed by the United States” and, if not needed, to convey this land to- Hawaii. We have concluded that this is a suit against the United States and, absent its consent, cannot be maintained by the State. The general rule is that relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter. E. g., Dugan v. Rank, 372 U. S. 609 (1963); Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U. S. 643 (1962); Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Corp., 337 U. S. 682 (1949). Here the order requésted would require the Director’s official affirmative action, affect the public administration of government agencies and causé as well the disposition of property admittedly belonging to the United States. .The complaint' is therefore dismissed. Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 60 (1906).
Dismissed.
Mb. Justice White, took no part in the consideration or-decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is the power of a state to fix prices at the wellhead on natural gas produced within its borders and sold interstate. It originates from proceedings before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission which terminated with the promulgation of two orders. The first order set a minimum wellhead price on all gas taken from the Guymon-Hugoton Field, located in Texas County, Oklahoma. The second directed Cities Service, a producer in this field and operator of an interstate gas pipe-line system, to take gas ratably from Peerless, another producer in the same field, at the price incorporated in the first order. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma upheld both orders against contentions that they contravened the constitution and statutes of Oklahoma and the Fourteenth Amendment and Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States. 203 Okla. 35, 220 P. 2d 279 (1950). From this judgment Cities Service appealed to this Court. A substantial federal claim having been duly raised and necessarily denied by the highest state court, we noted probable jurisdiction. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
I.
The case may be summarized as follows. The Hugoton Gas Field, 120 miles long and 40 miles wide, lies in the States of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The Oklahoma portion, known as the Guymon-Hugoton Field, has approximately 1,062,000 proven acres with some 300 wells, of which 240 are producing. About 90 percent of Guy-mon-Hugoton’s production is ultimately consumed outside the State. Cities Service, operator of a pipe line connected with the field, owns about 300,000 acres and 123 wells. In addition, it has 94 wells dedicated to it by lease for the life of the field and some 19 wells under term lease, giving it control over 236 of the 300 wells. Aside from the holdings of a few small tract owners and the acreages held in trust by the Oklahoma Land Office — some 49,600 acres — the only reserves in the field not owned by or affiliated with a pipe line are those of Harrington-Marsh with some 75,000 acres and Peerless with about 100,000 acres. Under prevailing market conditions, wellhead prices range from 3.6 to 5 cents per thousand cubic feet, varying prices being paid to different producers at the same time. In contrast, there is evidence that the “commercial heat value” of natural gas, in terms of competitive fuel equivalents, is in excess of 10 cents per thousand cubic feet at the wellhead.
While the Guymon-Hugoton Field has three principal production horizons, they are so interconnected as to make in effect one large reservoir of gas. Cities’ wells are located in an area in which the gas pressure is considerably lower than that found beneath the wells of Peerless. As a result, production from Cities’ wells was causing drainage from the Peerless section of the field, and Peerless was losing gas even though its wells were not producing.
Having no pipe-line outlet of its own, Peerless offered to sell the potential output of its wells to Cities Service. Cities refused except on the condition that Peerless dedicate all gas from its acreage, at a price of 4 cents per thousand cubic feet, for the life of the leases. Dissatisfied with the price and the other terms, Peerless requested the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (a) to order Cities to make a connection with a Peerless well and purchase the output of that well ratably at a price fixed by the Commission, and (b) to fix the price to be paid by all purchasers of natural gas in the Guymon-Hugoton Field. Shortly thereafter, the Oklahoma Land Office intervened as owner in trust of large acreages in the field. The Land Office alleged that no fair, adequate price for natural gas existed in the field; that existing prices were discriminatory, unjust and arbitrary and if continued would deplete, destroy and exhaust the field within a few years. It joined Peerless’ prayer for relief. The Commission thereupon, by written notice, invited all producers and purchasers of gas in the field to appear and participate in the proceedings.
The Commission heard testimony to the effect that the field price of gas has a direct bearing on conservation. Witnesses testified that low prices make enforcement of conservation more difficult, retard exploration and development, and result in abandonment of wells long before all recoverable gas has been extracted. They also testified that low prices contribute to an uneconomic rate of depletion and economic waste of gas by promoting “inferior” uses.
At the end of the hearings, the Commission concluded that there was no competitive market for gas in the Guymon-Hugoton Field, that the integrated well and pipe-line owners were able to dictate the prices paid to producers without pipe-line outlets, and that as a result gas was being taken from the field at a price below its economic value. It further concluded that the taking of gas at the prevailing prices resulted in both economic and physical waste of gas, loss to producer and royalty owners, loss to the State in gross production taxes, inequitable taking of gas from the common source of supply, and discrimination against various producers in the field. On the basis of these findings, the Commission issued the two orders challenged here. The first provided “that no natural gas shall be taken out of the producing structures or formations in the Guymon-Hugoton field ... at a price, at the wellhead, of less than 7‡ per thousand cubic feet of natural gas measured at a pressure of 14.65 pounds absolute pressure per square inch.” The second directed Cities Service “to take natural gas ratably from . . . [Peerless'] well ... in accordance with the formula for ratable taking prescribed in Order No. 17867 of this Commission” (a provision not under attack here), and at the same price and pressure terms indicated in the general field-price order.
On appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Cities Service attacked the orders on the following grounds: (1) that the Commission acted beyond its authority in that Oklahoma statutes did not permit general price-fixing or specific price-fixing at a figure in excess of the prevailing market price, and in that the statutes did not contemplate the prevention of economic, as distinct from physical, waste; (2) that if construed to permit such price-fixing, the statutes and orders thereunder violated the state constitution; (3) that if so construed, the statutes and orders violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, in that (a) there was no evidence of physical waste in the Guymon-Hugoton Field and the price order cannot be reasonably related to the prevention of waste, (b) the statutes contain no adequate standards governing the Commission’s price-fixing powers, (c) the orders are too vague, (d) the proceedings lacked procedural due process, and (e) the specific order discriminates against Cities Service, and the general order, applying only to the Guymon-Hugoton Field, discriminates against those producing or purchasing in that field; (4) that the orders violate the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, in that they cast an undue burden on, and discriminate against, interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma rejected these claims. It found that the Oklahoma statutes fully empowered the Commission to take the action which it took. The Oklahoma legislature, as early as 1913, declared that gas underlying land is the property of the land owner or his lessee; that gas may be taken from a common source of supply proportionately to the natural flow of the well and that the drilling of a well by an owner or lessee shall be regarded as reducing to possession his share of the gas; that any person taking gas from the field, except in cases not here pertinent, shall take ratably from each owner in proportion to his interest and upon such terms as may be agreed upon; that if no agreement can be reached then the price and terms shall be such as may be fixed by the Corporation Commission after notice and hearing. 52 Okla. Stats. § § 23-25,231-233 (1941). These sections explicitly authorize the order requiring Cities to take gas ratably from Peerless and at a specific price. In 1915, Oklahoma strengthened its gas conservation laws by authorizing regulation of production of gas from a common source when production is in excess of market demand. 52 Okla. Stats. §§ 239-240 (1941). The Commission was authorized to limit the gas taken by any producer to “such proportion of the natural gas that may be marketed without waste” as the natural flow of gas at the wells of such producer bears to the total natural flow of the common source. In authorizing such regulation, the legislature declared that it acted “so as to prevent waste, protect the interests of the public, and of all those having a right to produce therefrom, and to prevent unreasonable discrimination in favor of any one such common source of supply as against another.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court construed the 1915 Act to permit the general order setting a minimum price in the field. It further ruled that economic waste was within the contemplation of the statute. Finally, with regard to state questions, it held that the orders did not violate the Oklahoma Constitution.
The Oklahoma court also concluded that the statutes so construed and the orders made thereunder do not violate the Federal Constitution on the grounds relied on by Cities Service. We agree.
II.
The Due Process and Equal Protection issues raised by appellant are virtually without substance. It is now undeniable that a state may adopt reasonable regulations to prevent economic and physical waste of natural gas. This Court has upheld numerous kinds of state legislation designed to curb waste of natural resources and to protect the correlative rights of owners through ratable taking, Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U. S. 210 (1932), or to protect the economy of the state. Railroad Commission v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U. S. 573 (1940). These ends have been held to justify control over production even though the uses to which property may profitably be put are restricted. Walls v. Midland Carbon Co., 254 U. S. 300 (1920).
Like any other regulation, a price-fixing order is lawful if substantially related to a legitimate end sought to be attained. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502 (1934) and cases therein cited. In the proceedings before the Commission in this case, there was ample evidence to sustain its finding that existing low field prices were resulting in economic waste and conducive to physical waste. That is a sufficient basis for the orders issued. It is no concern of ours that other regulatory devices might be more appropriate, or that less extensive measures might suffice. Such matters are the province of the legislature and the Commission.
We have considered the other arguments raised by appellant concerning Due Process and Equal Protection and find them similarly lacking in merit.
III.
The Commerce Clause gives to the Congress a power over interstate commerce which is both paramount and broad in scope. But due regard for state legislative functions has long required that this power be treated as not exclusive. Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. 299 (1851). It is now well settled that a state may regulate matters of local concern over which federal authority has not been exercised, even though the regulation has some impact on interstate commerce. Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943); Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U. S. 346 (1939); South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177 (1938). The only requirements consistently recognized have been that the regulation not discriminate against or place an embargo on interstate commerce, that it safeguard an obvious state interest, and that the local interest at stake outweigh whatever national interest there might be in the prevention of state restrictions. Nor should we lightly translate the quiescence of federal power into an affirmation that the national interest lies in complete freedom from regulation. South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., supra. Compare Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100 (1890), decided prior to the Wilson Act, 26 Stat. 313, with In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545 (1891), decided thereafter.
That a legitimate local interest is at stake in this case is clear. A state is justifiably concerned with preventing rapid and uneconomic dissipation of one of its chief natural resources. The contention urged by appellant that a group of private producers and royalty owners derive substantial gain from the regulations does not contradict the established connection between the orders and a statewide interest in conservation. Cf. Thompson v. Consolidated Cas Corp., 300 U. S. 55 (1937).
We recognize that there is also a strong national interest in natural gas problems. But it is far from clear that on balance such interest is harmed by the state regulations under attack here. Presumably all consumers, domestic and industrial alike, want to obtain natural gas as cheaply as possible. On the other hand, groups connected with the production and transportation of competing fuels complain of the competition of cheap gas. Moreover, the wellhead price of gas is but a fraction of the price paid by domestic consumers at the burner-tip, so that the field price as herein set may have little or no effect on the domestic delivered price. Some industrial consumers, who get bargain rates on gas for “inferior” uses, may suffer. But strong arguments have been made that the national interest lies in preserving this limited resource for domestic and industrial uses for which natural gas has no completely satisfactory substitute. See generally, Federal Power Commission, Natural Gas Investigation (1948); Federal Power Comm’n v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 657-660 (1944) (dissenting opinion). Insofar as conservation is concerned, the national interest and the interest of producing states may well tend to coincide. In any event, in a field of this complexity with such diverse interests involved, we cannot say that there is a clear national interest so harmed that the state price-fixing orders here employed fall within the ban of the Commerce Clause. Parker v. Brown, supra; Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg Farm Products, supra. Nor is it for us to consider whether Oklahoma’s unilateral efforts to conserve gas will be fully effective. See South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., supra at 190-191.
Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525 (1949), is not inconsistent with this result. The Hood case specifically excepted from consideration the question here raised, whether price-fixing was forbidden as an undue burden on interstate commerce. Moreover, the Court carefully distinguished Eisenberg, which approved price regulations even though applied to a producer whose entire purchases of milk went directly, without processing, into interstate commerce. The vice in the regulation invalidated by Hood was solely that it denied facilities to a company in interstate commerce on the articulated ground that such facilities would divert milk supplies needed by local consumers; in other words,. the regulation discriminated against interstate commerce. There is no such problem here. The price regulation applies to all gas taken from the field, whether destined for interstate or intrastate consumers.
Appellant does not contend that the orders conflict with the federal authority asserted by the Natural Gas Act, 52 Stat. 821 (1938), 15 U. S. C. §§ 717 et seq. (1948). The Federal Power Commission has not participated in these proceedings. Whether the Gas Act authorizes the Power Commission to set field prices on sales by independent producers, or leaves that function to the states, is not before this Court.
We hold that on this record the Oklahoma Corporation Commission issued valid orders, and that the decision of the court below should be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that the alleged federal constitutional questions are frivolous and that the appeal therefore should be dismissed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1963, the Holy Assembly of Bishops and the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church (Mother Church) suspended and ultimately removed respondent Dionisije Milivojevich (Dionisije) as Bishop of the American-Canadian Diocese of that Church, and appointed petitioner Bishop Firmilian Ocokoljich (Firmilian) as Administrator of the Diocese, which the Mother Church then reorganized into three Dioceses. In 1964 the Holy Assembly and Holy Synod defrocked Dionisije as a Bishop and cleric of the Mother Church. In this civil action brought by Dionisije and the other respondents in Illinois Circuit Court, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the proceedings of the Mother Church respecting Dionisije were procedurally and substantively defective under the internal regulations of the Mother Church and were therefore arbitrary and invalid. The State Supreme Court also invalidated the Diocesan reorganization into three Dioceses. 60 Ill. 2d 477, 328 N. E. 2d 268 (1975), We granted certiorari to determine whether the actions of the Illinois Supreme Court constituted improper judicial interference with decisions of the highest authorities of a hierarchical church in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 423 U. S. 911 (1975). We hold that the inquiries made by the Illinois Supreme Court into matters of ecclesiastical cognizance and polity and the court’s actions pursuant thereto contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We therefore reverse.
I
The basic dispute is over control of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada (American-Canadian Diocese), its property and assets. Petitioners are Bishops Firmilian, Gregory Udicki, and Sava Yukovich, and the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada (the religious body in this country). Respondents are Bishop Dionisije, the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava, and the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada, an Illinois religious corporation. A proper perspective on the relationship of these parties and the nature of this dispute requires some background discussion.
The Serbian Orthodox Church, one of the 14 auto-cephalous, hierarchical churches which came into existence following the schism of the universal Christian church in 1054, is an episcopal church whose seat is the Patriarchate in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Its highest legislative, judicial, ecclesiastical, and administrative authority resides in the Holy Assembly of Bishops, a body composed of all Diocesan Bishops presided over by a Bishop designated by the Assembly to be Patriarch. The Church’s highest executive body, the Holy Synod of Bishops, is composed of the Patriarch and four Diocesan Bishops selected by the Holy Assembly. The Holy Synod and the Holy Assembly have the exclusive power to remove, suspend, defrock, or appoint Diocesan Bishops. The Mother Church is governed according to the Holy Scriptures, Holy Tradition, Rules of the Ecumenical Councils, the Holy Apostles, the Holy Faiths of the Church, the Mother Church Constitution adopted in 1931, and a “penal code” adopted in. 1961. These sources of law are sometimes ambiguous and seemingly inconsistent. Pertinent provisions of the Mother Church Constitution provide that the Church’s “main administrative division is composed of dioceses, both in regard to church hierarchical and church administrative aspect,” Art. 12, and that “[djecisions of establishing, naming, liquidating, reorganizing, and the seat of the dioceses, and establishing or eliminating of position of vicar bishops, is decided upon by the [Holy Assembly], in agreement with the Patriarchal Council,” Art. 16.
During the late 19th century, migrants to North America of Serbian descent formed autonomous religious congregations throughout this country and Canada. These congregations were then under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, but that Church was unable to care for their needs and the congregations sought permission to bring themselves under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
In 1913 and 1916, Serbian priests and laymen organized a Serbian Orthodox Church in North America. The 32 Serbian Orthodox congregations were divided into 4 presbyteries, each presided over by a Bishop's Aide, and constitutions were adopted. In 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church commissioned a Serbian priest, Father Mardary, to organize an independent Serbian Diocese in America. Four years later, as a result of Father Mard-ary’s efforts, the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Mother Church created the Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada and designated a Serbian Bishop to complete the formal organization of a Diocese. From that time until 1963, each Bishop who governed the American-Canadian Diocese was a Yugoslav citizen appointed by the Mother Church without consultation with Diocesan officials.
In 1927, Father Mardary called a Church National Assembly embracing all of the known Serbian Orthodox congregations in the United States and Canada. The Assembly drafted and adopted the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada, and submitted the constitution to the Mother Church for approval. The Holy Assembly made changes to provide for appointment of the Diocesan Bishop by the Holy Assembly and to require Holy Assembly approval for any amendments to the constitution, and with these changes approved the constitution. The American-Canadian Diocese was the only diocese of the Mother Church with its own constitution.
Article 1 of the constitution provides that the American-Canadian Diocese “is considered ecclesiastically-judicially as an organic part of the Serbian Patriarchate in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia,” and Art. 2 provides that all “statutes and rules which regulate the ecclesiastical-canonical authority and position of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia are also compulsory for” the American-Canadian Diocese. Article 3 states that the “jurisdiction of the... Diocese... includes the entire political territory of the United States of America and Canada, which as such by its geographical location enjoys full administrative freedom and accordingly, it can independently regulate and rule the activities of its church, school and other diocesan institutions and all funds and beneficiencies, through its organs....” Article 9 provides that the Bishop of the Diocese “is appointed by the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Patriarchate”; various provisions of the constitution accord that Bishop extensive powers with respect to both religious matters and control of Diocesan property. The constitution also provides for such Diocesan organs as a Diocesan National Assembly, which exercises considerable legislative and administrative authority within the Diocese.
In 1927, Father Mardary also organized a not-for-profit corporation, the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Council for the United States and Canada, under the laws of Illinois. The corporation was to hold title to 30 acres of land in Libertyville, Ill., that Father Mardary had personally purchased in 1924. The charter of that corporation was allowed to lapse, and Father Mardary organized another Illinois not-for-profit corporation, respondent Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States and Canada, under Illinois laws governing incorporation of hierarchical religious' organizations. In 1945, respondent not-for-profit monastery corporation, the Monastery of St. Sava, was organized under these same Illinois laws, and title to the Libertyville property was transferred to it. Similar secular property-holding corporations were subsequently organized in New York, California, and Pennsylvania.
Respondent Bishop Dionisije was elected Bishop of the American-Canadian Diocese by the Holy Assembly of Bishops in 1939. He became a controversial figure; during the years before 1963, the Holy Assembly received numerous complaints challenging his fitness to serve as Bishop and his administration of the Diocese.
During his tenure, however, the Diocese grew so substantially that Dionisije requested that the Patriarch and Holy Assembly appoint bishops to assist him but to serve under his supervision. Eventually, the Diocese sought its elevation by the Holy Assembly to the rank of Metropolia, that South America be added to the Diocese, and that several assistant bishops be appointed under Dionisije. Dionisije specifically recommended that petitioners Pirmilian and Gregory Udicki, and one Stefan Lastavica be named assistant bishops. A delegation from the Diocese was sent to the May 1962 meeting of the Holy Assembly in Belgrade to urge adoption of these reorganization proposals, and on June 12, 1962, the Holy Synod appointed a delegation to visit the United States and study the proposals. The delegation was also directed to confer with Dionisije concerning the complaints made against him and his administration over the years.
The delegation remained in the United States for three months, visiting parishes throughout the Diocese and discussing both the reorganization proposals and the complaints against Dionisije. After completion of its survey, the delegation suggested to the Holy Synod the assignment of vicar bishops to the Diocese and recommended that a commission be appointed to conduct a thorough investigation into the complaints against Dionisije. However, the Holy Assembly on May 10, 1963, instead recommended that the Holy Synod institute disciplinary proceedings against Dionisije. The Holy Synod thereupon met immediately and suspended Dionisije pending investigation and disposition of the complaints. The Holy Synod appointed petitioner Fir-milian, Dionisije’s chief episcopal deputy since 1955 and one of Dionisije’s candidates for assistant bishop, as Administrator of the Diocese pending completion of the proceedings.
The Holy Assembly thereafter reconvened and, acting under Art. 16 of the constitution of the Mother Church, reorganized the American-Canadian Diocese into three new dioceses — the Middle Western, the Western, and the Eastern — whose boundaries were roughly those of the episcopal districts previously created by Dionisije. The final fixing of boundaries for the new dioceses and all other organizational and administrative matters were left to be determined by the officials of the old American-Canadian Diocese. Dionisije was appointed Bishop of the Middle Western Diocese and, seven days later, petitioners Archimandrites Firmilian, Gregory, and Stefan were appointed temporary administrators for the new Dioceses.
Dionisije’s immediate reaction to these decisions of the Mother Church was to refuse to accept the reorganization on the ground that it contravened the administrative autonomy of the Diocese guaranteed by the Diocesan constitution, and to refuse to accept his suspension on the ground that it was not effectuated in compliance with the constitution and laws of the Mother Church. On May 25, 1963, he prepared and mailed a circular to all American-Canadian parishes stating his refusal to recognize these actions, and on May 27 he issued a press release stating his refusal to recognize his suspension and his intent to litigate it in the civil courts. This refusal to recognize the Diocesan reorganization and his suspension as Bishop was again stated by Dionisije in a circular issued on June 3 and addressed to the Patriarch, the Holy Assembly, the Holy Synod, all clergy, congregations, Diocesan committees, and all Serbians in North America. He also continued to officiate as Bishop-, refusing to turn administration of the Diocese over to Firmilian; in a May 30 letter to Firmilian, Dionisije repeated this refusal, asserted that he no longer recognized the decisions of the Holy Assembly and Holy Synod, and charged those bodies with being “communistic.”
The Diocesan Council met on June 6, and Dionisije reaffirmed his refusal to turn over administration of the Diocese to Firmilian; he also announced that he had discharged two of his vicars general because of their loyalty to the Mother Church. The Council resolved at the meeting to advise the Holy Synod that the proposal to reorganize the Diocese into three dioceses would be submitted to the Diocesan National Assembly in August for acceptance or rejection. The Council also requested that the Holy Assembly promptly send a committee to investigate the complaints against Dionisije.
On June 13, the Holy Synod appointed such a commission, composed of two Bishops and the Secretary of the Holy Synod. On July 5, the commission met with Dio-nisije, who reiterated his refusal to recognize his suspension or the Diocesan reorganization, and who demanded all accusations in writing. The commission refused to give Dionisije the written accusations on the ground that defiance of decisions of higher church authorities itself established wrongful conduct, and advised him that the Holy Synod would appoint a Bishop as court prosecutor to prepare an indictment against him.
On the basis of the commission's report and recommendations, which recited Dionisije's refusal to accept the decisions of the Holy Synod and Holy Assembly and his refusal to recognize the court of the Holy Synod or its competence to try him, the Holy Assembly met on July 27, 1963, and voted to remove Dionisije as Bishop. The minutes of the Holy Assembly meeting and the Patriarch's letter to Dionisije informing him of the Holy Assembly’s actions made clear that the removal was based solely on his acts of defiance subsequent to his May 10, 1963, suspension, and his violation of his oath and loss of certain qualifications for Bishop under Art. 104 of the constitution of the Mother Church.
The Diocesan National Assembly, with Dionisije presiding despite his removal, met in August 1963 and issued a resolution repudiating the division of the Diocese into three Dioceses and demanding a revocation by the Mother Church of the decisions concerning that division. When the Holy Assembly refused to reconsider, the Diocesan National Assembly in November 1963 declared the Diocese completely autonomous and reinstated the provisions of the Diocesan constitution that provided for election of the Bishop of the Diocese itself and for amendments without the approval of the Holy Assembly.
Meanwhile, the Holy Synod in October 1963 forwarded to Dionisije a formal written indictment based on the charges of canonical misconduct. In November 1963, Dionisije responded with a demand for the verified reports and complaints referred to in the indictment and for a six-month extension to answer the indictment. The Holy Assembly granted a 30-day extension in which to answer, but declined to furnish verified charges on the grounds that they were described in the indictment, that additional details would be evidentiary in nature, and that there was no legal or canonical basis for forwarding such material to an accused Bishop.
Dionisije returned the indictment in January, refusing to answer without the verified charges, denouncing the Holy Assembly and Holy Synod as schismatic and pro-Communist, and asserting that the Mother Church was proceeding in violation of its penal code and constitution.
The Holy Synod, on February 25, 1964, declared that it could not proceed further without Dionisije and referred the matter to the Holy Assembly, which tried Dionisije as a default case on March 5, 1964, because of his refusal to participate. The indictment was also amended at that time to include charges based on Dionisije’s acts of rebellion such as those committed at the November meeting of the National Assembly which had declared the Diocese separate from the Mother Church. Considering the original and amended indictments, the Holy Assembly unanimously found Dionisije guilty of all charges and divested him of his episcopal and monastic ranks.
Even before the Holy Assembly had removed Dionisije as Bishop, he had commenced what eventually became this protracted litigation, now carried on for almost 13 years. Acting upon the threat contained in his May 27, 1963, press release, Dionisije filed suit in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Ill., on July 26, 1963, seeking to enjoin petitioners from interfering with the assets of respondent corporations and to have himself declared the true Diocesan Bishop. Petitioners countered with a separate complaint, which was consolidated with the original action, seeking declaratory relief that Dionisije had been removed as Bishop of the Diocese and that the Diocese had been properly reorganized into three Dioceses, and injunctive relief granting petitioner Bishops control of the reorganized Dioceses and their property. After the trial court granted summary judgment for respondents and dismissed petitioners’ counter-complaint, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed and remanded for a hearing on the merits. Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Ocokoljich, 72 Ill. App. 2d 444, 219 N. E. 2d 343, appeal denied, 34 Ill. 2d 631 (1966).
Following a lengthy trial, the trial court filed an unreported memorandum opinion and entered a final decree which concluded that “no substantial evidence was produced... that fraud, collusion or arbitrariness existed in any of the actions or decisions preliminary to or during the final proceedings of the decision to defrock Bishop Dionisije made by the highest Hierarchical bodies of the Mother Church,” Pet. for Cert., App. 44; that the property held by respondent corporations is held in trust for all members of the American-Canadian Diocese; that it was “improper and beyond the power of the Mother Church to take its action in dividing the whole American Diocese into three new Dioceses, changing its boundaries, and in appointing new bishops for said so-called new Dioceses/’ id., at 46; and that “Firmilian was validly appointed by the Holy Episcopal Synod as temporary Administrator of the whole American Diocese in place of the defrocked Bishop Dionisije,” ibid.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed in part and reversed in part, essentially holding that Dionisije’s removal and defrockment had to be set aside as “arbitrary” because the proceedings resulting in those actions were not conducted according to the Illinois Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Church’s constitution and penal code, and that the Diocesan reorganization was invalid because it was beyond the scope of the Mother Church’s authority to effectuate such changes without Diocesan approval. 60 Ill. 2d 477, 328 N. E. 2d 268 (1975). Although the court denied rehearing, it amended its original opinion to hold that, although Dionisije had been properly suspended, that suspension terminated by operation of church law when he was not validly tried within one year of his indictment. Thus, the court purported in effect to reinstate Dionisije as Diocesan Bishop.
II
The fallacy fatal to the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is that it rests upon an impermissible rejection of the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunals of this hierarchical church upon the issues in dispute, and impermissibly substitutes its own inquiry into church polity and resolutions based thereon of those disputes. Consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments “civil courts do not inquire whether the relevant [hierarchical] church governing body has power under religious law [to decide such disputes].... Such a determination... frequently necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage. To permit civil courts to probe deeply enough into the allocation of power within a [hierarchical] church so as to decide... religious law [governing church polity]... would violate the First Amendment in much the same manner as civil determination of religious doctrine.” Md. & Va. Churches v. Sharpsburg Church, 396 U. S. 367, 369 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). For where resolution of the disputes cannot be made without extensive inquiry by civil courts into religious law and polity, the First and Fourteenth Amendments mandate that civil courts shall not disturb the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal within a church of hierarchical polity, but must accept such decisions as binding on them, in their application to the religious issues of doctrine or polity before them. Ibid.
Resolution of the religious disputes at issue here affects the control of church property in addition to the structure and administration of the American-Canadian Diocese. This is because the Diocesan Bishop controls respondent Monastery of St. Sava and is the principal officer of respondent property-holding corporations. Resolution of the religious dispute over Dionisije’s de-frockment therefore determines control of the property. Thus, this case essentially involves not a church property dispute, but a religious dispute the resolution of which under our cases is for ecclesiastical and not civil tribunals. Even when rival church factions seek resolution of a church property dispute in the civil courts there is substantial danger that the State will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrinal beliefs. Because of this danger, “the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.” Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U. S. 440, 449 (1969). “First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern.... [T]he [First] Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decide church property disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Ibid. This principle applies with equal force to church disputes over church polity and church administration.
The principles limiting the role of civil courts in the resolution of religious controversies that incidentally affect civil rights were initially fashioned in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872), a diversity case decided before the First Amendment had been rendered applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to hierarchical churches, Watson held:
“[T]he rule of action which should govern the civil courts... is, that, whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them.” Id., at 727.
In language having “a clear constitutional ring,” Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, supra, at 446, Watson reasoned:
“The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.” 13 Wall., at 728-729 (emphasis supplied).
Gonzalez v. Archbishop, 280 U. S. 1 (1929), applied this principle in a case involving dispute over entitlement to certain income under a will that turned upon an ecclesiastical determination as to whether an individual would be appointed to a chaplaincy in the Roman Catholic Church. The Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brandéis, observed:
“Because the appointment [to the chaplaincy] is a canonical act, it is the function of the church authorities to determine what the essential qualifications of a chaplain are and whether the candidate possesses them. In the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, the decisions of the proper church tribunals on matters purely ecclesiastical, although affecting civil rights, are accepted in litigation before the secular courts as conclusive, because the parties in interest made them so by contract or otherwise.” Id., at 16.
Thus, although Watson had left civil courts no role to play in reviewing ecclesiastical decisions during the course of resolving church property disputes, Gonzalez first adverted to the possibility of “marginal civil court review,” Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, supra, at 447, in cases challenging decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals as products of “fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness.” However, since there was “not even a suggestion that [the Archbishop] exercised his authority [in making the chaplaincy decision] arbitrarily,” 280 U. S., at 18, the suggested “fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness” exception to the Watson rule was dictum only. And although references to the suggested exception appear in opinions in cases decided since the Watson rule has been held to be mandated by the First Amendment, no decision of this Court has given concrete content to or applied the “exception.” However, it was the predicate for the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in this case, and we therefore turn to the question whether reliance upon it in the circumstances of this case was consistent with the prohibition of the First and Fourteenth Amendments against rejection of the decisions of the Mother Church upon the religious disputes in issue.
The conclusion of the Illinois Supreme Court that the decisions of the Mother Church were “arbitrary” was grounded upon an inquiry that persuaded the Illinois Supreme Court that the Mother Church had not followed its own laws and procedures in arriving at those decisions. We have concluded that whether or not there is room for “marginal civil court review” under the narrow rubrics of “fraud” or “collusion” when church tribunals act in bad faith for secular purposes, no “arbitrariness” exception— in the sense of an inquiry whether the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of a hierarchical church complied with church laws and regulations — is consistent with the constitutional mandate that civil courts are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law. For civil courts to analyze whether the ecclesiastical actions of a church judicatory are in that sense “arbitrary” must inherently entail inquiry into the procedures that canon or ecclesiastical law supposedly requires the church judicatory to follow, or else into the substantive criteria by which they are supposedly to decide the ecclesiastical question. But this is exactly the inquiry that the First Amendment prohibits; recognition of such an exception would undermine the general rule that religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry, and that a civil court must accept the ecclesiastical decisions of church tribunals as it finds them. Watson itself requires our conclusion in its rejection of the analogous argument that ecclesiastical decisions of the highest church judicatories need only be accepted if the subject matter of the dispute is within their “jurisdiction.”
“But it is a very different thing where a subject-matter of dispute, strictly and purely ecclesiastical in its character, — a matter over which the civil courts exercise no jurisdiction, — a matter which concerns theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them, — becomes the subject of its action. It may be said here, also, that no jurisdiction has been conferred on the tribunal to try the particular case before it, or that, in its judgment, it exceeds the powers conferred upon it, or that the laws of the church do not authorize the particular form of proceeding adopted; and, in a sense often used in the courts, all of those may be said to be questions of jurisdiction. But it is easy to see that if the civil courts are to inquire into all these matters, the whole subject of the doctrinal theology, the usages and customs, the written laws, and fundamental organization of every religious denomination may, and must, be examined into with minuteness and care, for they would become, in almost every case, the criteria by which the validity of the ecclesiastical decree would be determined in the civil court. This principle would deprive these bodies of the right of construing their own church laws, would open the way to all the evils which we have depicted as attendant upon the doctrine of Lord Eldon, and would, in effect, transfer to the civil courts where property rights were concerned the decision of all ecclesiastical questions.” 13 Wall., at 733-734. (Emphasis supplied.)
Indeed, it is the essence of religious faith that ecclesiastical decisions are reached and are to be accepted as matters of faith whether or not rational or measurable by objective criteria. Constitutional concepts of due process, involving secular notions of “fundamental fairness” or impermissible objectives, are therefore hardly relevant to such matters of ecclesiastical cognizance.
The constitutional evils that attend upon any “arbitrariness” exception in the sense applied by the Illinois Supreme Court to justify civil court review of ecclesiastical decisions of final church tribunals are manifest in the instant case. The Supreme Court of Illinois recognized that all parties agree that the Serbian Orthodox Church is a hierarchical church, and that the sole power to appoint and remove Bishops of the Church resides in its highest ranking organs, the Holy Assembly and the Holy Synod. Indeed, final authority with respect to the promulgation, and interpretation of all matters of church discipline and internal organization rests with the Holy-Assembly, and even the written constitution of the Mother Church expressly provides:
“The Holy Assembly of Bishops, as the highest hierarchical body, is legislative authority in the matters of faith, officiation, church order (discipline) and internal organization of the Church, as well as the highest church juridical authority within its jurisdiction (Article 69 sec. 28).” Art. 57.
“All the decisions of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and of the Holy Synod of Bishops of canonical and church nature, in regard to faith, officiation, church order and internal organization of the church, are valid and final.” Art. 64.
“The Holy Assembly of Bishops, whose purpose is noted in Article 57 of this Constitution:
“9) interprets canonical-ecclesiastical rules, those which are general and obligatory, and particular ones, and publishes their collections;
“12) prescribes the ecclesiastical-judicial procedure for all Ecclesiastical Courts;
“26) settles disputes of jurisdiction between hierarchical and church-self governing organs;
“27) ADJUDGES:
“A) In first and in final instances:
“a) disagreements between bishops and the Holy Synod, and between the bishops and the Patriarch;
“b) canonical offenses of the Patriarch;
“B) In the second and final instance:
“All matters which the Holy Synod of Bishops judged in the first instance.” Art. 69.
Nor is there any dispute that questions of church discipline and the composition of the church hierarchy are at the core of ecclesiastical concern; the bishop of a church is clearly one of the central figures in such a hierarchy and the embodiment of the church within his Diocese, and the Mother Church constitution states that “[h]e is, according to the church canonical regulations, chief representative and guiding leader of all church spiritual life and church order in the diocese.” Art. 13.
Yet having recognized that the Serbian Orthodox Church is hierarchical and that the decisions to suspend and defrock respondent Dionisije were made by the religious bodies in whose sole discretion the authority to make those ecclesiastical decisions was vested, the Supreme Court of Illinois nevertheless invalidated the decision to defrock Dionisije on the ground that it was “arbitrary” because a “detailed review of the evidence discloses that the proceedings resulting in Bishop Dionisije's removal and defrockment were not in accordance with the prescribed procedure of the constitution and the penal code of the Serbian Orthodox Church.” 60 Ill. 2d, at 503, 328 N. E. 2d, at 281. Not only was this “detailed review” impermissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but in reaching this conclusion, the court evaluated conflicting testimony concerning internal church procedures and rejected the interpretations of relevant procedural provisions by the Mother Church’s highest tribunals. Id., at 492-500, 328 N. E. 2d, at 276-280. The court also failed to take cognizance of the fact that the church judicatories were also guided by other sources of law, such as canon law, which are admittedly not always consistent, and it rejected the testimony of petitioners’ five expert witnesses that church procedures were properly followed, denigrating the testimony of one witness as “contradictory” and discounting that of another on the ground that it was “premised upon an assumption which did not consider the penal code,” even though there was some question whether that code even applied to discipline of Bishops. The court accepted, on the other hand, the testimony of respondents’ sole expert witness that the Church’s procedures had been contravened in various specifics. We need not, and under the First Amendment cannot, demonstrate the propriety or impropriety of each of Dionisije’s procedural claims, but we can note that the state court even rejected petitioners’ contention that Dionisije’s failure to participate in the proceedings undermined all procedural contentions because Arts. 66 and 70 of the penal code specify that if a person charged with a violation fails to participate or answer the indictment, the allegations are admitted and due process will be concluded without his participation; the court merely asserted that “application of this provision... must be viewed from the perspective that Bishop Dionisije refused to participate because he maintained that the proceedings against him were in violation of the constitution and the penal code of the Serbian Orthodox Church.” 60 Ill. 2d, at 502, 328 N. E. 2d, at 281. The court found no support in any church dogma for this judicial rewriting of church law, and compounded further the error of this intrusion into a religious thicket by declaring that although Dionisije had, even under the court’s analysis,, been properly suspended and replaced by Firmilian as temporary administrator, he had to be reinstated as Bishop because church law mandated a trial on ecclesiastical charges within one year of the indictment. Yet the only reason more time than that had expired was due to Dionisije’s decision to resort to the civil courts for redress without attempting to vindicate himself by pursuing available remedies within the church. Indeed, the Illinois Supreme Court overlooked the clear substantive canonical violations for which the Church disciplined Dionisije, violations based on Dionisije’s conceded open defiance and rebellion against the church hierarchy immediately after the Holy Assembly’s decision to suspend' him (a decision which even the Illinois courts deemed to be proper) and Dionisije’s decision to litigate the Mother Church’s authority in the civil courts rather than participate in the disciplinary proceedings before the Holy Synod and the Holy Assembly. Instead, the Illinois Supreme Court would sanction this circumvention of the tribunals set up to resolve internal church disputes and has ordered the Mother Church to reinstate as Bishop one who espoused views regarded by the church hierarchy to be schismatic and which the proper church tribunals have already determined merit severe sanctions. In short, under the guise of “minimal” review under the umbrella of “arbitrariness,” the Illinois Supreme Court has unconstitutionally undertaken the resolution of quintessentially religious controversies whose resolution the First Amendment commits exclusively to the highest ecclesiastical tribunals of this hierarchical church. And although the Diocesan Bishop controls respondent Monastery of St. Sava and is the principal officer of respondent property-holding corporations, the civil courts must accept that consequence as the incidental effect of an ecclesiastical determination that is not subject to judicial abrogation, having been reached by the final church judicatory in which authority to make the decision resides.
Ill
Similar considerations inform our resolution of the second question we
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens joined.
The question presented is whether the assignment by Congress to bankruptcy judges of the jurisdiction granted in 28 U. S. C. § 1471 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) by § 241(a) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 violates Art. Ill of the Constitution.
I
A
In 1978, after almost 10 years of study and investigation, Congress enacted a comprehensive revision of the bankruptcy laws. The Bankruptcy Act of 1978 (Act) made significant changes in both the substantive and procedural law of bankruptcy. It is the changes in the latter that are at issue in this case.
Before the Act, federal district courts served as bankruptcy courts and employed a “referee” system. Bankruptcy proceedings were generally conducted before referees, except in those instances in which the district court elected to withdraw a case from a referee. See Bkrtcy. Rule 102. The referee’s final order was appealable to the district court. Bkrtcy. Rule 801. The bankruptcy courts were vested with “summary jurisdiction” — that is, with jurisdiction over controversies involving property in the actual or constructive possession of the court. And, with consent, the bankruptcy court also had jurisdiction over some “plenary” matters — such as disputes involving property in the possession of a third person.
The Act eliminates the referee system and establishes “in each judicial district, as an adjunct to the district court for such district, a bankruptcy court which shall be a court of record known as the United States Bankruptcy Court for the district.” 28 U. S. C. § 151(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). The judges of these courts are appointed to office for 14-year terms by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. §§152, 153(a) (1976 ed., Supp IV). They are subject to removal by the “judicial council of the circuit” on account of “incompetency, misconduct, neglect of duty or physical or mental disability.” § 153(b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). In addition, the salaries of the bankruptcy judges are set by statute and are subject to adjustment under the Federal Salary Act, 2 U. S. C. §§351-361 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). 28 U. S. C. §154 (1976 ed., Supp. IV).
The jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts created by the Act is much broader than that exercised under the former referee system. Eliminating the distinction between “summary” and “plenary” jurisdiction, the Act grants the new courts jurisdiction over all “civil proceedings arising under title 11 [the Bankruptcy title] or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” 28 U. S. C. § 1471(b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added). This jurisdictional grant empowers bankruptcy courts to entertain a wide variety of cases involving claims that may affect the property of the estate once a petition has been filed under Title 11. Included within the bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction are suits to recover accounts, controversies involving exempt property, actions to avoid transfers and payments as preferences or fraudulent conveyances, and causes of action owned by the debtor at the time of the petition for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy courts can hear claims based on state law as well as those based on federal law. See 1 W. Collier, Bankruptcy ¶3.01, pp. 3-47 to 3-48 (15th ed. 1982).
The judges of the bankruptcy courts are vested with all of the “powers of a court of equity, law, and admiralty,” except that they “may not enjoin another court or punish a criminal contempt not committed in the presence of the judge of the court or warranting a punishment of imprisonment.” 28 U. S. C. § 1481 (1976 ed., Supp. IV). In addition to this broad grant of power, Congress has allowed bankruptcy judges the power to hold jury trials, § 1480; to issue declaratory judgments, § 2201; to issue writs of habeas corpus under certain circumstances, §2256; to issue all writs necessary in aid of the bankruptcy court’s expanded jurisdiction, §451 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV); see 28 U. S. C. §1651; and to issue any order, process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of Title 11, 11 U. S. C. § 105(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV).
The Act also establishes a special procedure for appeals from orders of bankruptcy courts. The circuit council is empowered to direct the chief judge of the circuit to designate panels of three bankruptcy judges to hear appeals. 28 U. S. C. §160 (1976 ed., Supp. IV). These panels have jurisdiction of all appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees of bankruptcy courts, and, with leave of the panel, of interlocutory appeals. § 1482. If no such appeals panel is designated, the district court is empowered to exercise appellate jurisdiction. § 1334. The court of appeals is given jurisdiction over appeals from the appellate panels or from the district court. § 1293. If the parties agree, a direct appeal to the court of appeals may be taken from a final judgment of a bankruptcy court. § 1293(b).
The Act provides for a transition period before the new provisions take full effect in April 1984. §§ 401-411, 92 Stat. 2682-2688. During the transition period, previously existing bankruptcy courts continue in existence. § 404(a), 92 Stat. 2683. Incumbent bankruptcy referees, who served 6-year terms for compensation subject to adjustment by Congress, are to serve as bankruptcy judges until March 31, 1984, or until their successors take office. § 404(b), 92 Stat. 2683. During this period they are empowered to exercise essentially all of the jurisdiction and powers discussed above. See §§ 404, 405, 92 Stat. 2683-2685. See generally 1 Collier, supra, ¶¶ 7.04-7.05, pp. 7-23 to 7-65. The procedure for taking appeals is similar to that provided after the transition period. See § 405(c)(1), 92 Stat. 2685.
B
This case arises out of proceedings initiated in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota after appellant Northern Pipeline Construction Co. (Northern) filed a petition for reorganization in January 1980. In March 1980 Northern, pursuant to the Act, filed in that court a suit against appellee Marathon Pipe Line Co. (Marathon). Appellant sought damages for alleged breaches of contract and warranty, as well as for alleged misrepresentation, coercion, and duress. Marathon sought dismissal of the suit, on the ground that the Act unconstitutionally conferred Art. Ill judicial power upon judges who lacked life tenure and protection against salary diminution. The United States intervened to defend the validity of the statute.
The Bankruptcy Judge denied the motion to dismiss. 6 B. R. 928 (1980). But on appeal the District Court entered an order granting the motion, on the ground that “the delegation of authority in 28 U. S. C. § 1471 to the Bankruptcy Judges to try cases which are otherwise relegated under the Constitution to Article III judges” was unconstitutional. Both the United States and Northern filed notices of appeal in this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction. 454 U. S. 1029 (1981).
II
A
Basic to the constitutional structure established by the Framers was their recognition that “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 47, p. 300 (H. Lodge ed. 1888) (J. Madison). To ensure against such tyranny, the Framers provided that the Federal Government would consist of three distinct Branches, each to exercise one of the governmental powers recognized by the Framers as inherently distinct. “The Framers regarded the checks and balances that they had built into the tripartite Federal Government as a self-executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 122 (1976) (per curiam).
The Federal Judiciary was therefore designed by the Framers to stand independent of the Executive and Legislature — to maintain the checks and balances of the constitutional structure, and also to guarantee that the process of adjudication itself remained impartial. Hamilton explained the importance of an independent Judiciary:
“Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to [the courts’] necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 489 (H. Lodge ed. 1888).
The Court has only recently reaffirmed the significance of this feature of the Framers’ design: “A Judiciary free from control by the Executive and Legislature is essential if there is a right to have claims decided by judges who are free from potential domination by other branches of government.” United States v. Will, 449 U. S. 200, 217-218 (1980).
As an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances, and as a guarantee of judicial impartiality, Art. Ill both defines the power and protects the independence of the Judicial Branch. It provides that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Art. Ill, § 1. The inexorable command of this provision is clear and definite: The judicial power of the United States must be exercised by courts having the attributes prescribed in Art. III. Those attributes are also clearly set forth:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” Art. Ill, §1.
The “good Behaviour” Clause guarantees that Art. Ill judges shall enjoy life tenure, subject only to removal by impeachment. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 16 (1955). The Compensation Clause guarantees Art. Ill judges a fixed and irreducible compensation for their services. United States v. Will, supra, at 218-221. Both of these provisions were incorporated into the Constitution to ensure the independence of the Judiciary from the control of the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. As we have only recently emphasized, “[t]he Compensation Clause has its roots in the longstanding Anglo-American tradition of an independent Judiciary,” 449 U. S., at 217, while the principle of life tenure can be traced back at least as far as the Act of Settlement in 1701, id., at 218. To be sure, both principles were eroded during the late colonial period, but that departure did not escape notice and indignant rejection by the Revolutionary generation. Indeed, the guarantees eventually included in Art. Ill were clearly foreshadowed in the Declaration of Independence, “which, among the injuries and usurpations recited against the King of Great Britain, declared that he had ‘made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.’” O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516, 531 (1933). The Framers thus recognized:
“Next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support.... In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” The Federalist No. 79, p. 491 (H. Lodge ed. 1888) (A. Hamilton) (emphasis in original).
In sum, our Constitution unambiguously enunciates a fundamental principle — that the “judicial Power of the United States” must be reposed in an independent Judiciary. It commands that the independence of the Judiciary be jealously guarded, and it provides clear institutional protections for that independence.
B
It is undisputed that the bankruptcy judges whose offices were created by the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 do not enjoy the protections constitutionally afforded to Art. Ill judges. The bankruptcy judges do not serve for life subject to their continued “good Behaviour.” Rather, they are appointed for 14-year terms, and can be removed by the judicial council of the circuit in which they serve on grounds of “incompetency, misconduct, neglect of duty, or physical or mental disability.” Second, the salaries of the bankruptcy judges are not immune from diminution by Congress. See supra, at 53. In short, there is no doubt that the bankruptcy judges created by the Act are not Art. Ill judges.
That Congress chose to vest such broad jurisdiction in non-Art. Ill bankruptcy courts, after giving substantial consideration to the constitutionality of the Act, is of course reason to respect the congressional conclusion. See Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448, 472-473 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C. J.); Palmore v. United States, 411 U. S. 389, 409 (1973). See also National Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Co., 337 U. S. 582, 655 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). But at the same time,
“[deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 211 (1962).
With these principles in mind, we turn to the question presented for decision: whether the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 violates the command of Art. Ill that the judicial power of the United States must be vested in courts whose judges enjoy the protections and safeguards specified in that Article.
Appellants suggest two grounds for upholding the Act’s conferral of broad adjudicative powers upon judges unprotected by Art. III. First, it is urged that “pursuant to its enumerated Article I powers, Congress may establish legislative courts that have jurisdiction to decide cases to which the Article III judicial power of the United States extends.” Brief for United States 9. Referring to our precedents upholding the validity of “legislative courts,” appellants suggest that “the plenary grants of power in Article I permit Congress to establish non-Article III tribunals in ‘specialized areas having particularized needs and warranting distinctive treatment,’” such as the area of bankruptcy law. Ibid., quoting Palmore v. United States, supra, at 408. Second, appellants contend that even if the Constitution does require that this bankruptcy-related action be adjudicated in an Art. Ill court, the Act in fact satisfies that requirement. “Bankruptcy jurisdiction was vested in the district court” of the judicial district in which the bankruptcy court is located, “and the exercise of that jurisdiction by the adjunct bankruptcy court was made subject to appeal as of right to an Article III court.” Brief for United States 12. Analogizing the role of the bankruptcy court to that of a special master, appellants urge us to conclude that this “adjunct” system established by Congress satisfies the requirements of Art. III. We consider these arguments in turn.
Ill
Congress did not constitute the bankruptcy courts as legislative courts. Appellants contend, however, that the bankruptcy courts could have been so constituted, and that as a result the “adjunct” system in fact chosen by Congress does not impermissibly encroach upon the judicial power. In advancing this argument, appellants rely upon cases in which we have identified certain matters that “congress may or may not bring within the cognizance of [Art. Ill courts], as it may deem proper.” Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284 (1856). But when properly understood, these precedents represent no broad departure from the constitutional command that the judicial power of the United States must be vested in Art. III courts. Rather, they reduce to three narrow situations not subject to that command, each recognizing a circumstance in which the grant of power to the Legislative and Executive Branches was historically and constitutionally so exceptional that the congressional assertion of a power to create legislative courts was consistent with, rather than threatening to, the constitutional mandate of separation of powers. These precedents simply acknowledge that the literal command of Art. Ill, assigning the judicial power of the United States to courts insulated from Legislative or Executive interference, must be interpreted in light of the historical context in which the Constitution was written, and of the structural imperatives of the Constitution as a whole.
Appellants first rely upon a series of cases in which this Court has upheld the creation by Congress of non-Art. Ill “territorial courts.” This exception from the general prescription of Art. Ill dates from the earliest days of the Republic, when it was perceived that the Framers intended that as to certain geographical areas, in which no State operated as sovereign, Congress was to exercise the general powers of government. For example, in American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), the Court observed that Art. IV bestowed upon Congress alone a complete power of government over territories not within the States that constituted the United States. The Court then acknowledged Congress’ authority to create courts for those territories that were not in conformity with Art. III. Such courts were
“created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested... is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the states in those Courts, only, which are established in pursuance of the third article of the Constitution; the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general, and of a state government.” 1 Pet., at 546.
The Court followed the same reasoning when it reviewed Congress’ creation of non-Art. Ill courts in the District of Columbia. It noted that there was in the District
“no division of powers between the general and state governments. Congress has the entire control over the district for every purpose of government; and it is reasonable to suppose, that in organizing a judicial department here, all judicial power necessary for the purposes of government would be vested in the courts of justice.” Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524, 619 (1838).
Appellants next advert to a second class of cases — those in which this Court has sustained the exercise by Congress and the Executive of the power to establish and administer courts-martial. The situation in these cases strongly resembles the situation with respect to territorial courts: It too involves a constitutional grant of power that has been historically understood as giving the political Branches of Government extraordinary control over the precise subject matter at issue. Article I, § 8, els. 13, 14, confer upon Congress the power “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy,” and “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” The Fifth Amendment, which requires a presentment or indictment of a grand jury before a person may be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, contains an express exception for “cases arising in the land or naval forces.” And Art. II, §2, cl. 1, provides that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Noting these constitutional directives, the Court in Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65 (1857), explained:
“These provisions show that Congress has the power to provide for the trial and punishment of military and naval offences in the manner then and now practiced by civilized nations; and that the power to do so is given without any connection between it and the 3d article of the Constitution defining the judicial power of the United States; indeed, that the two powers are entirely independent of each other.” Id., at 79.
Finally, appellants rely on a third group of cases, in which this Court has upheld the constitutionality of legislative courts and administrative agencies created by Congress to adjudicate cases involving “public rights.” The “public rights” doctrine was first set forth in Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272 (1856):
“[W]e do not consider congress can either withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty; nor, on the other hand, can it bring under the judicial power a matter which, from its nature, is not a subject for judicial determination. At the same time there are matters, involving public rights, which may be presented in such form that the judicial power is capable of acting on them, and which are susceptible of judicial determination, but which congress may or may not bring within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, as it may deem proper.” Id., at 284 (emphasis added).
This doctrine may be explained in part by reference to the traditional principle of sovereign immunity, which recognizes that the Government may attach conditions to its consent to be sued. See id., at 283-285; see also Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438, 452 (1929). But the public-rights doctrine also draws upon the principle of separation of powers, and a historical understanding that certain prerogatives were reserved to the political Branches of Government. The doctrine extends only to matters arising “between the Government and persons subject to its authority in connection with the performance of the constitutional functions of the executive or legislative departments,” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 50 (1932), and only to matters that historically could have been determined exclusively by those departments, see Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 458. The understanding of these cases is that the Framers expected that Congress would be free to commit such matters completely to nonjudicial executive determination, and that as a result there can be no constitutional objection to Congress’ employing the less drastic expedient of committing their determination to a legislative court or an administrative agency. Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 50.
The public-rights doctrine is grounded in a historically recognized distinction between matters that could be conclusively determined by the Executive and Legislative Branches and matters that are “inherently... judicial.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 458. See Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How., at 280-282. For example, the Court in Murray’s Lessee looked to the law of England and the States at the time the Constitution was adopted, in order to determine whether the issue presented was customarily cognizable in the courts. Ibid. Concluding that the matter had not traditionally been one for judicial determination, the Court perceived no bar to Congress’ establishment of summary procedures, outside of Art. Ill courts, to collect a debt due to the Government from one of its customs agents. On the same premise, the Court in Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, held that the Court of Customs Appeals had been properly constituted by Congress as a legislative court:
“The full province of the court under the act creating it is that of determining matters arising between the Government and others in the executive administration and application of the customs laws.... The appeals include nothing which inherently or necessarily requires judicial determination, but only matters the determination of which may be, and at times has been, committed exclusively to executive officers.” 279 U. S., at 458 (emphasis added).
The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents. Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise “between the government and others.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 451. In contrast, “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined,” Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 51, is a matter of private rights. Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. Ill courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U. S. 442, 450, n. 7 (1977); Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 50-51. See also Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930). Private-rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power.
In sum, this Court has identified three situations in which Art. Ill does not bar the creation of legislative courts. In each of these situations, the Court has recognized certain exceptional powers bestowed upon Congress by the Constitution or by historical consensus. Only in the face of such an exceptional grant of power has the Court declined to hold the authority of Congress subject to the general prescriptions of Art. III.
We discern no such exceptional grant of power applicable in the cases before us. The courts created by the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 do not lie exclusively outside the States of the Federal Union, like those in the District of Columbia and the Territories. Nor do the bankruptcy courts bear any resemblance to courts-martial, which are founded upon the Constitution’s grant of plenary authority over the Nation’s military forces to the Legislative and Executive Branches. Finally, the substantive legal rights at issue in the present action cannot be deemed “public rights.” Appellants argue that a discharge in bankruptcy is indeed a “public right,” similar to such congressionally created benefits as “radio station licenses, pilot licenses, or certificates for common carriers” granted by administrative agencies. See Brief for United States 34. But the restructuring of debtor-creditor relations, which is at the core of the federal bankruptcy power, must be distinguished from the adjudication of state-created private rights, such as the right to recover contract damages that is at issue in this case. The former may well be a “public right,” but the latter obviously is not. Appellant Northern’s right to recover contract damages to augment its estate is “one of private right, that is, of the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined.” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S., at 51.
Recognizing that the present cases may not fall within the scope of any of our prior cases permitting the establishment of legislative courts, appellants argue that we should recognize an additional situation beyond the command of Art. Ill, sufficiently broad to sustain the Act. Appellants contend that Congress’ constitutional authority to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, carries with it an inherent power to establish legislative courts capable of adjudicating “bankruptcy-related controversies.” Brief for United States 14. In support of this argument, appellants rely primarily upon a quotation from the opinion in Palmore v. United States, 411 U. S. 389 (1973), in which we stated that
“both Congress and this Court have recognized that... the requirements of Art. Ill, which are applicable where laws of national applicability and affairs of national concern are at stake, must in proper circumstances give way to accommodate plenary grants of power to Congress to legislate with respect to specialized areas having particularized needs and warranting distinctive treatment.” Id., 407-408.
Appellants cite this language to support their proposition that a bankruptcy court created by Congress under its Art. I powers is constitutional, because the law of bankruptcy is a “specialized area,” and Congress has found a “particularized need” that warrants “distinctive treatment.” Brief for United States 20-33.
Appellants’ contention, in essence, is that pursuant to any of its Art. I powers, Congress may create courts free of Art. Ill’s requirements whenever it finds that course expedient. This contention has been rejected in previous cases. See, e. g., Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U. S., at 450, n. 7; United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11 (1955). Although the cases relied upon by appellants demonstrate that independent courts are not required for all federal adjudications, those cases also make it clear that where Art. Ill does apply, all of the legislative powers specified in Art. I and elsewhere are subject to it. See, e. g., Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S., at 449; United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, supra; American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet., at 546; Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 284. Cf. Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 51.
The flaw in appellants’ analysis is that it provides no limiting principle. It thus threatens to supplant completely our system of adjudication in independent Art. Ill tribunals and replace it with a system of “specialized” legislative courts. True, appellants argue that under their analysis Congress could create legislative courts pursuant only to some “specific” Art. I power, and “only when there is a particularized need for distinctive treatment.” Brief for United States 22-23. They therefore assert that their analysis would not permit Congress to replace the independent Art. Ill Judiciary through a “wholesale assignment of federal judicial business to legislative courts.” Ibid. But these “limitations” are wholly illusory. For example, Art. I, § 8, empowers Congress to enact laws, inter alia, regulating interstate commerce and punishing certain crimes. Art. I, § 8, els. 3, 6. On appellants’ reasoning Congress could provide for the adjudication of these and “related” matters by judges and courts within Congress’ exclusive control. The potential for encroachment upon powers reserved to the Judicial Branch through the device of “specialized” legislative courts is dramatically evidenced in the jurisdiction granted to the courts created by the Act before us. The broad range of questions that can be brought into a bankruptcy court because they are “related to cases under title 11,” 28 U. S. C. § 1471(b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), see supra, at 54, is the clearest proof that even when Congress acts through a “specialized” court, and pursuant to only one of its many Art. I powers, appellants’ analysis fails to provide any real protection against the erosion of Art. Ill jurisdiction by the unilateral action of the political Branches. In short, to accept appellants’ reasoning, would require that we replace the principles delineated in our precedents, rooted in history and the Constitution, with a rule of broad legislative discretion that could effectively eviscerate the constitutional guarantee of an independent Judicial Branch of the Federal Government.
Appellants’ reliance upon Palmore for such broad legislative discretion is misplaced. In the context of the issue decided in that case, the language quoted from the Palmore opinion, supra, at 72, offers no substantial support for appellants’ argument. Palmore was concerned with the courts of the District of Columbia, a unique federal enclave over which “Congress has... entire control... for every purpose of government.” Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet., at 619. The “plenary authority” under the District of Columbia Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 17, was the subject of the quoted passage and the powers granted under that Clause are obviously different in kind from the other broad powers conferred on Congress: Congress’ power over the District of Columbia encompasses the full authority of government, and thus, necessarily, the Executive and Judicial powers as well as the Legislative. This is a power that is clearly possessed by Congress only in limited geographic areas. Palmore itself makes this limitation clear. The quoted passage distinguishes the congressional powers at issue in Palmore from those in which the Art. Ill command of an independent Judiciary must be honored: where “laws of national applicability and affairs of national concern are at stake.” 411 U. S., at 408. Laws respecting bankruptcy, like most laws enacted pursuant to the national powers cataloged in Art. I, § 8, are clearly laws of national applicability and affairs of national concern. Thus our reference in Palmore to “specialized areas having particularized needs” referred only to geographic areas, such as the District of Columbia or territories outside the States of the Federal Union. In light of the clear commands of Art. Ill, nothing held or said in Palmore can be taken to mean that in every area in which Congress may legislate, it may also create non-Art. Ill courts with Art. Ill powers.
In sum, Art. Ill bars Congress from establishing legislative courts to exercise jurisdiction over all matters related to those arising under the bankruptcy laws. The establishment of such courts does not fall within any of the historically recognized situations in which the general principle of independent adjudication commanded by Art. Ill does not apply. Nor can we discern any persuasive reason, in logic, history, or the Constitution, why the bankruptcy courts here established lie beyond the reach of Art. III.
IV
Appellants advance a second argument for upholding the constitutionality of the Act: that “viewed within the entire judicial framework set up by Congress,” the bankruptcy court is merely an “adjunct” to the district court, and that the delegation of certain adjudicative functions to the bankruptcy court is accordingly consistent with the principle that the judicial power of the United States must be vested in Art. Ill courts. See Brief for United States 11-13, 37-45. As support for their argument, appellants rely principally upon Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22 (1932), and United States v. Raddatz, 447 U. S. 667 (1980), cases in which we approved the use of administrative agencies and magistrates as adjuncts to Art. Ill courts. Brief for United States 40-42. The question to which we turn, therefore, is whether the Act has retained “the essential attributes of the judicial power,” Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 51, in Art. III tribunals.
The essential premise underlying appellants’ argument is that even where the Constitution denies Congress the power to establish legislative courts, Congress possesses the authority to assign certain factfinding functions to adjunct tribunals. It is, of course, true that while the power to adjudicate “private rights”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case raises a constitutional and a prudential question concerning the Office of the President of the United States. Respondent, a private citizen, seeks to recover damages from the current occupant of that office based on actions allegedly taken before his term began. The President submits that in all but the most exceptional cases the Constitution requires federal courts to defer such litigation until his term ends and that, in any event, respect for the office warrants such a stay. Despite the force of the arguments supporting the President’s submissions, we conclude that they must be rejected.
I
Petitioner, William Jefferson Clinton, was elected to the Presidency in 1992, and reelected in 1996. His term of office expires on January 20, 2001. In 1991 he was the Governor of the State of Arkansas. Respondent, Paula Corbin Jones, is a resident of California. In 1991 she lived in Arkansas, and was an employee of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission.
On May 6, 1994, she commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by filing a complaint naming petitioner and Danny Ferguson, a former Arkansas State Police officer, as defendants. The complaint alleges two federal claims, and two state-law claims over which the federal court has jurisdiction because of the diverse citizenship of the parties. As the case comes to us, we are required to assume the truth of the detailed— but as yet untested — factual allegations in the complaint.
Those allegations principally describe events that are said to have occurred on the afternoon of May 8, 1991, during an official conference held at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Governor delivered a speech at the conference; respondent — working as a state employee — staffed the registration desk. She alleges that Ferguson persuaded her to leave her desk and to visit the Governor in a business suite at the hotel, where he made “abhorrent” sexual advances that she vehemently rejected. She further claims that her superiors at work subsequently dealt with her in a hostile and rude manner, and changed her duties to punish her for rejecting those advances. Finally, she alleges that after petitioner was elected President, Ferguson defamed her by making a statement to a reporter that implied she had accepted petitioner’s alleged overtures, and that various persons authorized to speak for the President publicly branded her a liar by denying that the incident had occurred.
Respondent seeks actual damages of $75,000 and punitive damages of $100,000. Her complaint contains four counts. The first charges that petitioner, acting under color of state law, deprived her of rights protected by the Constitution, in violation of Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The second charges that petitioner and Ferguson engaged in a conspiracy to violate her federal rights, also actionable under federal law. See Rev. Stat. § 1980, 42 U. S. C. § 1985. The third is a state common-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, grounded primarily on the incident at the hotel. The fourth count, also based on state law, is for defamation, embracing both the comments allegedly made to the press by Ferguson and the statements of petitioner’s agents. Inasmuch as the legal sufficiency of the claims has not yet been challenged, we assume, without deciding, that each of the four counts states a cause of action as a matter of law. With the exception of the last charge, which arguably may involve conduct within the outer perimeter of the President’s official responsibilities, it is perfectly clear that the alleged misconduct of petitioner was unrelated to any of his official duties as President of the United States and, indeed, occurred before he was elected to that office.
II
In response to the complaint, petitioner promptly advised the District Court that he intended to file a motion to dismiss on grounds of Presidential immunity, and requested the court to defer all other pleadings and motions until after the immunity issue was resolved. Relying on our cases holding that immunity questions should be decided at the earliest possible stage of the litigation, 858 F. Supp. 902, 905 (ED Ark. 1994), our recognition of the “‘singular importance of the President’s duties,’ ” id., at 904 (quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 751 (1982)), and the fact that the question did not require any analysis of the allegations of the complaint, 858 F. Supp., at 905, the court granted the request. Petitioner thereupon filed a motion “to dismiss... without prejudice and to toll any statutes of limitation [that may be applicable] until he is no longer President, at which time the plaintiff may refile the instant suit.” Record, Doc. No. 17. Extensive submissions were made to the District Court by the parties and the Department of Justice.
The District Judge denied the motion to dismiss on immunity grounds and ruled that discovery in the case could go forward, but ordered any trial stayed until the end of petitioner’s Presidency. 869 F. Supp. 690 (ED Ark. 1994). Although she recognized that a “thin majority” in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982), had held that “the President has absolute immunity from civil damage actions arising out of the execution of official duties of office,” she was not convinced that “a President has absolute immunity from civil causes of action arising prior to assuming the office.” She was, however, persuaded by some of the reasoning in our opinion in Fitzgerald that deferring the trial if one were required would be appropriate. 869 F. Supp., at 699-700. Relying in part on the fact that respondent had failed to bring her complaint until two days before the 3-year period of limitations expired, she concluded that the public interest in avoiding litigation that might hamper the President in conducting the duties of his office outweighed any demonstrated need for an immediate trial. Id., at 698-699.
Both parties appealed. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, but because it regarded the order postponing the trial until the President leaves office as the “functional equivalent” of a grant of temporary immunity, it reversed that order. 72 F. 3d 1354, 1361, n. 9, 1363 (CA8 1996). Writing for the majority, Judge Bowman explained that “the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society,” id., at 1358, that he could find no “case in which any public official ever has been granted any immunity from suit for his unofficial acts,” ibid., and that the rationale for official immunity “is inappo-site where only personal, private conduct by a President is at issue,” id., at 1360. The majority specifically rejected the argument that, unless immunity is available, the threat of judicial interference with the Executive Branch through scheduling orders, potential contempt citations, and sanctions would violate separation-of-powers principles. Judge Bowman suggested that “judicial case management sensitive to the burdens of the presidency and the demands of the President’s schedule” would avoid the perceived danger. Id., at 1361.
In dissent, Judge Ross submitted that even though the holding in Fitzgerald involved official acts, the logic of the opinion, which “placed primary reliance on the prospect that the President’s discharge of his constitutional powers and duties would be impaired if he were subject to suits for damages,” applies with equal force to this case. 72 F. 3d, at 1367. In his view, “unless exigent circumstances can be shown,” all private actions for damages against a sitting President must be stayed until the completion of his term. Ibid. In this case, Judge Ross saw no reason why the stay would prevent respondent from ultimately obtaining an adjudication of her claims.
In response to the dissent, Judge Beam wrote a separate concurrence. He suggested that a prolonged delay may well create a significant risk of irreparable harm to respondent because of an unforeseeable loss of evidence or the possible death of a party. Id., at 1363-1364. Moreover, he argued that in civil rights cases brought under § 1983 there is a “public interest in an ordinary citizen’s timely vindication of... her most fundamental right against alleged abuse of power by government officials.” Id., at 1365. In his view, the dissent’s concern about judicial interference with the functioning of the Presidency was “greatly overstated.” Ibid. Neither the involvement of prior Presidents in litigation, either as parties or as witnesses, nor the character of this “relatively uncomplicated civil litigation,” indicated that the threat was serious. Id., at 1365-1366. Finally, he saw “no basis for staying discovery or trial of the claims against Trooper Ferguson.” Id., at 1366.
III
The President, represented by private counsel, filed a petition for certiorari. The Acting Solicitor General, representing the United States, supported the petition, arguing that the decision of the Court of Appeals was “fundamentally mistaken” and created “serious risks for the institution of the Presidency.” In her brief in opposition to certiorari, respondent argued that this “one-of-a-kind case is singularly inappropriate” for the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction because it did not créate any conflict among the Courts of Appeals, it “does not pose any conceivable threat to the functioning of the Executive Branch,” and there is no precedent supporting the President’s position.
While our decision to grant the petition, 518 U. S. 1016 (1996), expressed no judgment concerning the merits of the case, it does reflect our appraisal of its importance. The representations made on behalf of the Executive Branch as to the potential impact of the precedent established by the Court of Appeals merit our respectful and deliberate consideration.
It is true that we have often stressed the importance of avoiding the premature adjudication of constitutional questions. That doctrine of avoidance, however, is applicable to the entire Federal Judiciary, not just to this Court, cf. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, ante, p. 43, and comes into play after the court has acquired jurisdiction of a case. It does not dictate a discretionary denial of every certiorari petition raising a novel constitutional question. It does, however, make it appropriate to identify two important constitutional issues not encompassed within the questions presented by the petition for certiorari that we need not address today.
First, because the claim of immunity is asserted in a federal court and relies heavily on the doctrine of separation of powers that restrains each of the three branches of the Federal Government from encroaching on the domain of the other two, see, e. g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 122 (1976) (per curiam), it is not necessary to consider or decide whether a comparable claim might succeed in a state tribunal. If this case were being heard in a state forum, instead of advancing a separation-of-powers argument, petitioner would presumably rely on federalism and comity concerns, as well as the interest in protecting federal officials from possible local prejudice that underlies the authority to remove certain cases brought against federal officers from a state to a federal court, see 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a); Mesa v. California, 489 U. S. 121, 125-126 (1989). Whether those concerns would present a more compelling case for immunity is a question that is not before us.
Second, our decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place. We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so.
IV
Petitioner’s principal submission — that in all but the most exceptional cases,” Brief for Petitioner i, the Constitution affords the President temporary immunity from civil damages litigation arising out of events that occurred before he took office — cannot be sustained on the basis of precedent.
Only three sitting Presidents have been defendants in civil litigation involving their actions prior to taking office. Complaints against Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman had been dismissed before they took office; the dismissals were affirmed after their respective inaugurations. Two companion cases arising out of an automobile accident were filed against John F. Kennedy in 1960 during the Presidential campaign. After taking office, he unsuccessfully argued that his status as Commander in Chief gave him a right to a stay under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 U. S. C. App. §§501-525. The motion for a stay was denied by the District Court, and the matter was settled out of court. Thus, none of those cases sheds any light on the constitutional issue before us.
The principal rationale for affording certain public servants immunity from suits for money damages arising out of their official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct. In cases involving prosecutors, legislators, and judges we have repeatedly explained that the immunity serves the public interest in enabling such officials to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability. We explained in Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U. S. 193 (1979):
“As public servants, the prosecutor and the judge represent the interest of society as a whole. The conduct of their official duties may adversely affect a wide variety of different individuals, each of whom may be a potential source of future controversy. The societal interest in providing such public officials with the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public at large has long been recognized as an acceptable justification for official immunity. The point of immunity for such officials is to forestall an atmosphere of intimidation that would conflict with their resolve to perform their designated functions in a principled fashion.” Id., at 202-204.
That rationale provided the principal basis for our holding that a former President of the United States was “entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts,” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749. See id., at 752 (citing Ferri v. Ackerman). Our central concern was to avoid rendering the President “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” 457 U. S., at 752, n. 32.
This reasoning provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct. As we explained in Fitzgerald, “the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity’s justifying purposes.” Id., at 755. Because of the President’s broad responsibilities, we recognized in that case an immunity from damages claims arising out of official acts extending to the “outer perimeter of his authority.” Id., at 757. But we have never suggested that the President, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity. See id., at 759 (Burger, C. J., concurring) (noting that “a President, like Members of Congress, judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides — all having absolute immunity — are not immune for acts outside official duties”); see also id., at 761, n. 4.
Moreover, when defining the scope of an immunity for acts clearly taken within an official capacity, we have applied a functional approach. “Frequently our decisions have held that an official’s absolute immunity should extend only to acts in performance of particular functions of his office.” Id., at 755. Hence, for example, a judge’s absolute immunity does not extend to actions performed in a purely administrative capacity. See Forrester v. White, 484 U. S. 219, 229-230 (1988). As our opinions have made clear, immunities are grounded in “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Id., at 229.
Petitioner’s effort to construct an immunity from suit for unofficial acts grounded purely in the identity of his office is unsupported by precedent.
V
We are also unpersuaded by the evidence from the historical record to which petitioner has called our attention. He points to a comment by Thomas Jefferson protesting the subpoena duces tecum Chief Justice Marshall directed to him in the Burr trial, a statement in the diaries kept by Senator William Maclay of the first Senate debates, in which then-Vice President John Adams and Senator Oliver Ellsworth are recorded as having said that “the President personally [is] not... subject to any process whatever,” lest it be “put... in the power of a common Justice to exercise any Authority over him and Stop the Whole Machine of Government,” and to a quotation from Justice Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution. None of these sources sheds much light on the question at hand.
Respondent, in turn, has called our attention to conflicting historical evidence. Speaking in favor of the Constitution’s adoption at the Pennsylvania Convention, James Wilson— who had participated in the Philadelphia Convention at which the document was drafted — explained that, although the President “is placed [on] high,” “not a single privilege is annexed to his character; far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.” 2 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 480 (2d ed. 1863) (emphasis deleted). This description is consistent with both the doctrine of Presidential immunity as set forth in Fitzgerald and rejection of the immunity claim in this case. With respect to acts taken in his “public character” — that is, official acts— the President may be disciplined principally by impeachment, not by private lawsuits for damages. But he is otherwise subject to the laws for his purely private acts.
In the end, as applied to the particular question before us, we reach the same conclusion about these historical materials that Justice Jackson described when confronted with an issue concerning the dimensions of the President’s power. “Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharoah. A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side.... They largely cancel each other.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 634-635 (1952) (concurring opinion).
VI
Petitioner’s strongest argument supporting his immunity claim is based on the text and structure of the Constitution. He does not contend that the occupant of the Office of the President is “above the law,” in the sense that his conduct is entirely immune from judicial scrutiny. The President argues merely for a postponement of the judicial proceedings that will determine whether he violated any law. His argument is grounded in the character of the office that was created by Article II of the Constitution, and relies on separation-of-powers principles that have structured our constitutional arrangement since the founding.
As a starting premise, petitioner contends that he occupies a unique office with powers and responsibilities so vast and important that the public interest demands that he devote his undivided time and attention to his public duties. He submits that — given the nature of the office — the doctrine of separation of powers places limits on the authority of the Federal Judiciary to interfere with the Executive Branch that would be transgressed by allowing this action to proceed.
We have no dispute with the initial premise of the argument. Former Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, have consistently endorsed petitioner’s characterization of the office. After serving his term, Lyndon Johnson observed: “Of all the 1,886 nights I was President, there were not many when I got to sleep before 1 or 2 a.m., and there were few mornings when I didn’t wake up by 6 or 6:30.” In 1967, the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted to ensure continuity in the performance of the powers and duties of the office; one of the sponsors of that Amendment stressed the importance of providing that “at all times” there be a President “who has complete control and will be able to perform” those duties. As Justice Jackson has pointed out, the Presidency concentrates executive authority “in a single head in whose choice the whole Nation has a part, making him the focus of public hopes and expectations. In drama, magnitude and finality his decisions so far overshadow any others that almost alone he fills the public eye and ear.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S., at 663 (concurring opinion). We have, in short, long recognized the “unique position in the constitutional scheme” that this office occupies. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749. Thus, while we suspect that even in our modern era there remains some truth to Chief Justice Marshall’s suggestion that the duties of the Presidency are not entirely “unremitting,” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807), we accept the initial premise of the Executive’s argument.
It does not follow, however, that separation-of-powers principles would be violated by allowing this action to proceed. The doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with the allocation of official power among the three coequal branches of our Government. 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, Thus, for example, the Congress may not exercise the judicial power to revise final judgments, Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211 (1995), or the executive power to manage an airport, see Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U. S. 252, 276 (1991) (holding that “[i]f the power is executive, the Constitution does not permit an agent of Congress to exercise it”). See J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 406 (1928) (Congress may not “invest itself or its members with either executive power or judicial power”). Similarly, the President may not exercise the legislative power to authorize the seizure of private property for public use. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 588. And, the judicial power to decide cases and controversies does not include the provision of purely advisory opinions to the Executive, or permit the federal courts to resolve nonjusticiable questions.
Of course the lines between the powers of the three branches are not always neatly defined. See Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 380-381 (1989). But in this case there is no suggestion that the Federal Judiciary is being asked to perform any function that might in some way be described as “executive.” Respondent is merely asking the courts to exercise their core Article III jurisdiction to decide cases and controversies. Whatever the outcome of this case, there is no possibility that the decision will curtail the scope of the official powers of the Executive Branch. The litigation of questions that relate entirely to the unofficial conduct of the individual who happens to be the President poses no perceptible risk of misallocation of either judicial power or executive power.
Rather than arguing that the decision of the case will produce either an aggrandizement of judicial power or a narrowing of executive power, petitioner contends that — as a byproduct of an otherwise traditional exercise of judicial power — burdens will be placed on the President that will hamper the performance of his official duties. We have recognized that “[e]ven when a branch does not arrogate power to itself... the separation-of-powers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties.” Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 757 (1996); see also Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 443 (1977). As a factual matter, petitioner contends that this particular case — as well as the potential additional litigation that an affirmance of the Court of Appeals judgment might spawn — may impose an unacceptable burden on the President’s time and energy, and thereby impair the effective performance of his office.
Petitioner’s predictive judgment finds little support in either history or the relatively narrow compass of the issues raised in this particular case. As we have already noted, in the more than 200-year history of the Republic, only three sitting Presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions. See supra, at 692. If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the Presidency. As for the case at hand, if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time.
Of greater significance, petitioner errs by presuming that interactions between the Judicial Branch and the Executive, even quite burdensome’ interactions, necessarily rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the Executive’s ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. “[Ojur... system imposes upon the Branches a degree 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.’ ” Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 381 (quoting Buck ley, 424 U. S., at 121). As Madison explained, separation of powers does not mean that the branches “ought to have no partial agency in, or no controul over the acts of each other.” The fact that a federal court’s exercise of its traditional Article III jurisdiction may significantly burden the time and attention of the Chief Executive is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Constitution. Two long-settled propositions, first announced by Chief Justice Marshall, support that conclusion.
First, we have long held that when the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law. Perhaps the most dramatic example of such a case is our holding that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation’s steel mills in order to avert a national catastrophe. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952). Despite the serious impact of that decision on the ability of the Executive Branch to accomplish its assigned mission, and the substantial time that the President must necessarily have devoted to the matter as a result of judicial involvement, we exercised our Article III jurisdiction to decide whether his official conduct conformed to the law. Our holding was an application of the principle established in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Id., at 177.
Second, it is also settled that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances. Although Thomas Jefferson apparently thought otherwise, Chief Justice Marshall, when presiding in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, ruled that a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the President. United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807). We unequivocally and emphatically endorsed Marshall’s position when we held that President Nixon was obligated to comply with a subpoena commanding him to produce certain tape recordings of his conversations with his aides. United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974). As we explained, “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” Id., at 706.
Sitting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought a novelty. President Monroe responded to written interrogatories, see Rotunda, Presidents and Ex-Presidents as Witnesses: A Brief Historical Footnote, 1975 U. Ill. L. Forum 1, 5-6, President Nixon—as noted above—produced tapes in response to a subpoena duces tecum, see United States v. Nixon, President Ford complied with an order to give a deposition in a criminal trial, United States v. Fromme, 405 F. Supp. 578 (ED Cal. 1975), and President Clinton has twice given videotaped testimony in criminal proceedings, see United States v. McDougal, 934 F. Supp. 296 (ED Ark. 1996); United States v. Branscum, No. LRP-CR-96-49 (ED Ark., June 7, 1996). Moreover, sitting Presidents have also voluntarily complied with judicial requests for testimony. President Grant gave a lengthy deposition in a criminal case under such circumstances, 1 R. Rotunda & J. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law § 7.1 (2d ed. 1992), and President Carter similarly gave videotaped testimony for use at a criminal trial, id., § 7.1(b) (Supp. 1997).
In sum, “[i]t is settled law that the separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 753-754. If the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President’s official conduct, and if it may direct appropriate process to the President himself, it must follow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of his unofficial conduct. The burden on the President’s time and energy that is a mere byproduct of such review surely cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and the occasional invalidation of his official actions. We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.
The reasons for rejecting such a categorical rule apply as well to a rule that would require a stay “in all but the most exceptional cases.” Brief for Petitioner i. Indeed, if the Framers of the Constitution had thought it necessary to protect the President from the burdens of private litigation, we think it far more likely that they would have adopted a categorical rule than a rule that required the President to litigate the question whether a specific case belonged in the “exceptional case” subcategory. In all events, the question whether a specific case should receive exceptional treatment is more appropriately the subject of the exercise of judicial discretion than an interpretation of the Constitution. Accordingly, we turn to the question whether the District Court’s decision to stay the trial until after petitioner leaves office was an abuse of discretion.
VII
The Court of Appeals described the District Court’s discretionary decision to stay the trial as the “functional equivalent” of a grant of temporary immunity. 72 F. 3d, at 1361, n. 9. Concluding that petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to such an immunity, the court held that it was error to grant the stay. Ibid. Although we ultimately conclude that the stay should not have been granted, we think the issue is more difficult than the opinion of the Court of Appeals suggests.
Strictly speaking the stay was not the functional equivalent of the constitutional immunity that petitioner claimed, because the District Court ordered discovery to proceed. Moreover, a stay of either the trial or discovery might be justified by considerations that do not require the recognition of any constitutional immunity. The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. See, e. g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248, 254 (1936). As we have explained, “[especially in cases of extraordinary public moment, [a plaintiff] may be required to submit to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be promoted.” Id., at 256. Although we have rejected the argument that the potential burdens on the President violate separation-of-powers principles, those burdens are appropriate matters for the District Court to evaluate in its management of the case. The high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive, though not justifying a rule of categorical immunity, is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery.
Nevertheless, we are persuaded that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to defer the trial until after the President leaves office. Such a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account whatever of the respondent’s interest in bringing the case to trial. The complaint was filed within the statutory limitations period — albeit near the end of that period — and delaying trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.
The decision to postpone the trial was, furthermore, premature. The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need. Id., at 255. In this case, at the stage at which the District Court made its ruling, there was no way to assess whether a stay of trial after the completion of discovery would be warranted. Other than the fact that a trial may consume some of the President’s time and attention, there is nothing in the record to enable a judge to assess the potential harm that may ensue from scheduling the trial promptly after discovery is concluded. We think the District Court may have given undue weight to the concern that a trial might generate unrelated civil actions that could conceivably hamper the President in conducting the duties of his office. If and when that should occur, the court’s discretion would permit it to manage those actions in such fashion (including deferral of trial) that interference with the President’s duties would not occur. But no such impingement upon the President’s conduct of his office was shown here.
VIII
We add a final comment on two matters that are discussed at length in the briefs: the risk that our decision will generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation, and the danger that national security concerns might prevent the President from explaining a legitimate need for a continuance.
We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious. Most frivolous and vexatious litigation is terminated at the pleading stage or on summary judgment, with little if any personal involvement by the defendant. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12, 56. Moreover, the availability of sanctions provides a significant deterrent to litigation directed at the President in his unofficial capacity for purposes of political gain or harassment. History indicates that the likelihood that a significant number of such cases will be-filed is remote. Although scheduling problems may arise, there is no reason to assume that the district courts will be either unable to accommodate the President’s needs or unfaithful to the tradition — especially in matters involving national security— of giving “the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities.” Several Presidents, including petitioner, have given testimony without jeopardizing the Nation’s security. See supra, at 704-705. In short, we have confidence in the ability of our federal judges to deal with both of these concerns.
If Congress deems it appropriate to afford the President stronger protection, it may respond with appropriate legislation. As petitioner notes in his brief, Congress has enacted more than one statute providing for the deferral of civil litigation to accommodate important public interests. Brief for Petitioner 34-36. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. §362 (litigation against debtor stayed upon filing of bankruptcy petition); Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 U. S. C. App. §§501-525 (provisions governing, inter alia, tolling or stay of civil claims by. or against military personnel during course of active duty). If the Constitution embodied the rule that the President advocates, Congress, of course,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The sole question in this case is whether the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum directing a New York City prison official to deliver petitioner, a prisoner of that City, to California for trial on an indictment pending in the California court. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have held that such jurisdiction does exist. 277 F. 2d 433. Recognizing that the effective administration of criminal justice required our decision on the point, we granted certiorari, 363 U. S. 802. We affirm the judgment.
Petitioner, one of five defendants indicted on September 22, 1959, in the District Court for the Southern District of California on charges of extortion and conspiracy, was arrested in Baltimore, Maryland, where he posted bond returnable to the California court. Before appearing in California pursuant to his obligation under the bond, petitioner pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor charges in New York City and was sentenced to serve a two-year term in the New York City Prison, in addition to payment of a fine. Pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prose-quendum, issuing from the California court to the New York City prison authorities, the petitioner appeared in custody before that court, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the indictment. Upon petitioner’s request the court ordered that he be returned to the New York City Prison in custody in order to obtain counsel and that he thereafter be returned to California in time for trial on the indictment set for March 29, 1960. In order that petitioner might meet the obligation of his bond, as well as that of the latter order, the court, on March 16, 1960, again issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to the New York City prison official directing the return of the petitioner for trial on March 29, 1960. On the same date and before it could be served, the petitioner moved to quash the writ. His sole ground of objection was that the United States District Court for the Southern District of California had no power to issue the writ to an officer located outside of its territorial limits. The contention is bottomed on the language of 28 U. S. C. § 2241 as codified in 1948. We have concluded that the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was within the jurisdiction of the court as authorized by the Congress in § 2241.
This is the first time this Court has undertaken a construction of the statutory authority for the issuance of writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum since Chief Justice Marshall, in Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75 (1807), interpreted the language of the First Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 81-82 (1789). It seems, therefore, both appropriate and in our view necessary to first trace the course followed by congressional action granting judicial power to issue writs of habeas corpus generally.
Section 14 of the First Judiciary Act gave authority to
“all the . . . courts of the United States ... to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And . . . either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment. — Provided, That writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol, unless where they are in custody, under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify.” 1 Stat. 81-82 (1789).
We are indeed fortunate to have the benefit of the close scrutiny to which Chief Justice John Marshall subjected § 14 in Ex parte BoLlman, supra. Initially, the Chief Justice observed that “for the meaning of the term habeas corpus, resort may unquestionably be had to the common law; but the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law.” 4 Cranch, at 93-94. Mindful perhaps of his own observation the preceding year that “There is some obscurity in the act of congress,” Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch 448, at 449, he then proceeded to analyze the meaning of the writ as described in § 14. He recognized that the term habeas corpus “is a generic term” including many species of that writ. It encompassed, he concluded, in addition to the Great Writ (habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, for an inquiry into the cause of restraint) the writ habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The “Great Chief Justice” noted, however, that when used in the Constitution, that is, “when used singly — when we say the writ of habeas corpus, without addition, we most generally mean that great writ” traditionally used to test restraint of liberty. Ex parte Bollman, supra, at 95.
The Chief Justice, following the English practice, particularly 3 Blackstone, Commentaries *129, noted that the writ ad prosequendum was necessary to remove a prisoner in order to prosecute him in the proper jurisdiction wherein the offense was committed. In his discussion of the common usage of the various writs, he recognized in Ex parte Boilman, supra, that the Congress had without qualification authorized the customary issuance of the writ ad prosequendum by a jurisdiction not the same as that wherein the prisoner was confined.
Following the Judiciary Act of 1789, there came a series of legislative amendments dealing with habeas corpus, but, significantly, all related solely to the usages of the Great Writ. Simultaneously with the expansion of the Great Writ, there developed from the common source, § 14 of the first Judiciary Act, a second line of statutes — the “All writs” portion of § 14, in large measure the first sentence of that section, devolved by a process of addition along a course parallel to but separate from the habeas corpus provisions. Upon revision of the federal statutes in 1874, the general power of courts to issue writs of habeas corpus, which was a part of the express grant in the first sentence of § 14, disappeared from the language of the statutes-derivative from the all writs portion of the first sentence, R. S. § 716 (1875), which, after further amendment, is known today as 28 U. S. C. § 1651. This general power was, however, retained in the first of the three-reorganized sections of the Revised Statutes dealing with habeas corpus, R. S. § 751 (1875), and served as the modern version of the authority for writs ad prose-quendum upon which Marshall had relied in Ex parte Bollman.
The second section in the 1875 Revision of the laws on habeas corpus, R. S. § 752, authorizing issuance of the Great Writ by justices and judges, included the jurisdictional limitation which had been imposed for the first time in 1867, 14 Stat. 385. The motive for that limitation can be traced to the position reportedly taken by Chief Justice Chase in rejecting an application for the Great Writ from a prisoner on the ground that he was incarcerated outside his circuit. Mindful of the position taken by the Chief Justice, the Senate amended the first draft of the bill expanding once again the usage of the Great Writ and inserted the phrase “within their respective jurisdictions” — an obvious limitation upon the action of individual judges and justices in exercising their power to issue the Great Writ. The debates in Congress indicate that it was thought inconvenient, potentially embarrassing, certainly expensive and on the whole quite unnecessary to provide every judge anywhere with authority to issue the Great Writ on behalf of applicants far distantly removed from the courts whereon they sat.
The third section in the revised arrangement, R. S. § 753, collected all the instances in which the Great Writ might issue on behalf of imprisoned applicants.
From this history it becomes obvious that the Congress had continual concern for the Great Writ — habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Exclusively to it did it give attention, and only upon its issuance did it impose a limitation. The other species of the writ, including that involved here— habeas corpus ad prosequenduip — continued to derive authority for their issuance from what had been the first sentence of § 14 of the First Judiciary Act, which was not repealed until the 1875 Revision of the Statutes at Large, when it was re-enacted as two separate and distinct sections, R. S. § 716 (all-writs) and R. S. § 751 (general habeas corpus).
The Congress had obviously made an attempt to completely separate the habeas corpus provisions from those concerning other writs. However, just as in 1789 Marshall had found authority for the writ ad prosequendum in the reference to habeas corpus in the first sentence of § 14, so too in 1875 its authority was constituted in the lineal derivative of that sentence, R. S. § 751, which gave courts without jurisdictional limitation, as distinguished from individual judges, R. S. § 752, the power to issue writs of habeas corpus generally. State v. Sullivan, 50 F. 593, 598. Clearly, the use of the phrase in § 751 was generic, whereas the grant of authority to judges “within their respective jurisdictions” in R. S. §752 was specific, meaning only the Great Writ.
Thus, the ad prosequendum writ, necessary as a tool for jurisdictional potency as well as administrative efficiency, extended to the entire country. The Great Writ, however, designed to relieve an individual from oppressive confinement, could well have been and properly was, at least as early as 1842, issuable only in the district of confinement. This was in consonance with convenience, necessity and avoidance of inordinate expense — considerations remarkably unpersuasive when viewed in light of the role of the writ ad prosequendum.
This same trichotomy of sections in the revised statutes, setting out the statutory authority for habeas corpus, was continued through the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code which did not affect by repeal or significant amendment the existing law on the writs. In 1925, when the Judicial Code was amended, 43 Stat. 940, some attention was again paid to habeas corpus, but only to assign to individual judges of the Courts of Appeals the same power within their circuits as District Court judges had within their districts — an obvious adherence to the tradition embodied in R. S. § 752 which dealt only with the Great Writ and imposed the jurisdictional limitations on its issuance. In 1948, when further clarification of the United States Code was thought desirable, the statute took its present form, and for the first time in the legislative history of the writ of habeas corpus there was made explicit reference to the writ ad prosequendum in a statute. Although the three sections were merged into one, it was done only “with changes in phraseology necessary to effect the consolidation.” Specifically disclaimed was any intent to change the existing law on habeas corpus. That the Revisor considered the new section to deal almost exclusively with the Great Writ, in spite of its authorization of writs ad testificandum and ad prosequen-dum, is obvious from his own note: “Words ‘for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty’ . . . were omitted as merely descriptive of the writ.” However, as reconstructed in § 2241, the authority of courts, as well as of individual justices and judges, was now provided in a single sentence which ostensibly imposed upon all the same jurisdictional limitation previously imposed only as to the Great Writ’s issuance by individual judges.
Since from its first usage the limiting phrase had always been a qualification of the authority of individual judges to issue the Great Writ, we see no reason to read into the new codification a change of meaning specifically disclaimed by the Revisor. It is our conclusion, therefore, that the territorial limitation refers solely to issuance of the Great Writ with which the bulk of the section is concerned.
We feel that there is no indication that there is required today a more restricted view of the writ habeas corpus ad prosequendum, than was necessary in 1807 when Chief Justice Marshall considered it. Cases reported from at least three Circuit Courts of Appeals, involving extraterritorial writs ad prosequendum issued both before and after the 1948 revision, Taylor v. United States, 238 F. 2d 259 (C. A. D. C. Cir.); United States ex rel. Moses v. Kipp, 232 F. 2d 147 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Hill v. United States, 186 F. 2d 669 (C. A. 10th Cir.); and perhaps four, cf. Vanover v. Cox, 136 F. 2d 442 (C. A. 8th Cir.), indicate as an accepted, or at least there unchallenged, interpretation of the statutes, that the writ suffers no geographical limitations in its use.
Moreover, this construction appears neither strained nor anomalous. Much was borrowed from our English brethren. Although our own practice has limited the jurisdiction of courts and justices to issue the Great Writ, we have never abandoned the English system as to the ad prosequendum writ. Cf. 1 Chitty’s Criminal Law 132 (1847), and 4 Bacon’s Abridgment 566 (1856) for discussion of similar process. After almost two hundred years, we cannot now say it has been abandoned by a Congress which expressly said it intended to make no substantive changes. The more strongly are we led to this construction by recognition of the continually increasing importance assigned to authorizing extraterritorial process where patently desirable. Cf. Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., 4 (c)(2) and 17 (e)(1). And it is the more so here where an accommodation is so important between the federal and state authorities. Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 315-316 (1926). That comity is necessary between sovereignties in the administration of criminal justice in our federal-state system is given full recognition by affording through the use of the writ both respect and courtesy to the laws of the respective jurisdictions.
Viewed in light of this history, petitioner’s reliance upon cases dealing solely with territorial limitations upon issuance of the Great Writ and the criminal process authorized by 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a), unrelated to habeas corpus, is misplaced. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188 (1948), is clearly inapposite as is also United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205 (1952), in which habeas corpus was not even involved. To the extent that lower court decisions have relied upon a contrary construction of § 2241, we disapprove of their conclusions.
Even were we to have agreed with petitioner’s argument, we would nonetheless be constrained to recognize that, within the modern attitude adopted in Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283 (1944), rigid formulae, even as to the issuance of the Great Writ, may be tempered by factual considerations requiring the decision that its “objective may be in no way impaired or defeated by the removal of the prisoner from the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court” after the suit is begun. At 307. Such facts are present here. Petitioner Carbo filed an appearance bond, and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the District Court by his personal appearance and plea of not guilty upon arraignment. Permission for his return to New York before trial was granted only upon his promise to return and the condition that he do so. Implicit in his request for the order of return to New York was his consent to the obligation imposed upon his custodians to return him to California promptly. The second writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, the only writ here involved, served only as assurance to petitioner and to the court that he would not suffer default in the obligation of his bail. Just as the mere subsequent removal of the prisoner in Endo failed to render that application beyond the court’s power to consider, so too here, in a similar vein, we cannot say that these factors have fastened onto petitioner so unsecure a leash as to suffer his escape from the jurisdiction of the California court. We must, therefore, in any event, affirm on these facts.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Whittaker,
believing that, on the peculiar facts here involved, the writ, though denominated “Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum,” had the effect of and properly should be regarded as a subpoena issued under Paragraph (a) and properly served under Paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 17 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, concurs in the result of the Court’s opinion.
The Government has raised the question of petitioner’s standing to challenge the writ (cf. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U. S. 254), which point it waived by stipulation in the Court of Appeals. In light of the circumstances under which the case reaches us we do not believe that the point is well taken.
18 U. S. C. §§ 875,1951.
The order was as follows:
“Defendant appears without counsel and requests permission to enter his plea and be permitted to return to New York and obtain counsel there and return here for trial.
“Defendant Carbo pleads not guilty ....
“Court Orders cause as to Defendant Carbo set for trial with co-defendants on March 29, 1960, 9:30 AM, and directs that Defendant Carbo be returned to New York for the purpose of obtaining counsel and be returned here in time for trial.”
28 U. S. C. § 2241 provides:
“(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. The order of a circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had.
“(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless—
“(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
“ (2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
“(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
“ (4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right'... ; or
“(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial.”
Art. I, § 9, cl. 2.
The habeas corpus provisions of § 14 of the original Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 81 (1789), were amended by 4 Stat. 634 (1833), 5 Stat. 539 (1842), 14 Stat. 385 (1867), R. S. §§752-753 (1875), and 43 Stat. 940 (1925).
R. S. § 716 (1875): “The Supreme Court and the circuit and district courts shall have power to issue writs of scire facias. They shall also have.power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
R. S. § 751 (1875): “The Supreme Court and the circuit and district courts shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus.”
R. S. § 752 (1875): “The several justices and judges of the said courts, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty.”
Actually, the 1842 extension of the Great Writ’s availability to imprisoned applicants, 5 Stat. 539, had imposed a jurisdictional limitation upon its issuance — power to grant applications by foreign citizens was given only to Justices of the Supreme Court, and to judges of the District Court in the district of confinement.
This decision, unreported, would appear consonant with a legitimate inference drawn from the jurisdictional limitation expressed in 1842, cf. note 10, supra, that Justices of the Supreme Court should limit their considerations to applications from within their assigned circuits, just as district judges were limited to their district.
Cong. Globe, Part 1, p. 730; Part 2, pp. 790, 899, 39th Cong., 2d Sess.
We do not decide whether the writ habeas corpus ad testificandum was intended by Congress to be subject to the 1867 jurisdictional limitation. Cf. Edgerly v. Kennelly, 215 F. 2d 420.
See note 10, supra.
36 Stat. 1167.
R. S. §§ 751-753 (1875) were at that time included as §§ 451-453 of 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.).
See note 4, supra.
H. R. Rep. No. 2646, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. A169; H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. A177-A178.
We are not unmindful of the terse Third Circuit dictum to the contrary in Yodock v. United States, 196 F. 2d 1018, and the divergent view of at least two District Courts. However, Phillips v. Hiatt, 83 F. Supp. 935, considered § 2241 as derived solely from R. S. § 752 (1875); and In the Matter of Karol Van Collins, 160 F. Supp. 165, relied, without distinction, upon Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188, which dealt only with the Great Writ.
In view of the cooperation extended by the New York authorities in honoring the writ, it is unnecessary to decide what would be the effect of a similar writ absent such cooperation.
That case, as well as Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, dealt with process in the nature of habeas corpus, the authority for which was not derived from the habeas corpus statutes.
See note 19, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
After a full criminal trial, petitioner Ferris J. Alexander, owner of more than a dozen stores and theaters dealing in sexually explicit materials, was convicted on, inter alia, 17 obscenity counts and 3 counts of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The obscenity convictions, based on the jury’s findings that four magazines and three videotapes sold at several of petitioner’s stores were obscene, served as the predicates for his three RICO convictions. In addition to imposing a prison term and fine, the District Court ordered petitioner to forfeit, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 1963 (1988 ed. and Supp. Ill), certain assets that were directly related to his racketeering activity as punishment for his RICO violations. Petitioner argues that this forfeiture violated the First and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. We reject petitioner’s claims under the First Amendment but remand for reconsideration of his Eighth Amendment challenge.
Petitioner was in the so-called “adult entertainment” business for more than 30 years, selling pornographic magazines and sexual paraphernalia, showing sexually explicit movies, and eventually selling and renting videotapes of a similar nature. He received shipments of these materials at a warehouse in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where they were wrapped in plastic, priced, and boxed. He then sold his products through some 13 retail stores in several different Minnesota cities, generating millions of dollars in annual revenues. In 1989, federal authorities filed a 41-count indictment against petitioner and others, alleging, inter alia, operation of a racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO. The indictment charged 34 obscenity counts and 3 RICO counts, the racketeering counts being predicated on the obscenity charges. The indictment also charged numerous counts of tax evasion and related offenses that are not relevant to the questions before us.
Following a 4-month jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, petitioner was convicted of 17 substantive obscenity offenses: 12 counts of transporting obscene material in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1465; and 5 counts of engaging in the business of selling obscene material, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1466 (1988 ed. and Supp. III). He also was convicted of 3 RICO offenses that were predicated on the obscenity convictions: one count of receiving and using income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1962(a); one count of conducting a RICO enterprise, in violation of § 1962(c); and one count of conspiring to conduct a RICO enterprise, in violation of § 1962(d). As a basis for the obscenity and RICO convictions, the jury determined that four magazines and three videotapes were obscene. Multiple copies of these magazines and videos, which graphically depicted a variety of “hard core” sexual acts, were distributed throughout petitioner’s adult entertainment empire.
Petitioner was sentenced to a total of six years in prison, fined $100,000, and ordered to pay the cost of prosecution, incarceration, and supervised release. In addition to these punishments, the District Court reconvened the same jury and conducted a forfeiture proceeding pursuant to § 1963(a)(2). At this proceeding, the Government sought forfeiture of the businesses and real estate that represented petitioner’s interest in the racketeering enterprise, § 1963(a) (2)(A), the property that afforded petitioner influence over that enterprise, § 1963(a)(2)(D), and the assets and proceeds petitioner had obtained from his racketeering offenses, §§ 1963(a)(1), (3). The jury found that petitioner had an interest in 10 pieces of commercial real estate and 31 current or former businesses, all of which had been used to conduct his racketeering enterprise. Sitting without the jury, the District Court then found that petitioner had acquired a variety of assets as a result of his racketeering activities. The court ultimately ordered petitioner to forfeit his wholesale and retail businesses (including all the assets of those businesses) and almost $9 million in moneys acquired through racketeering activity.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s forfeiture order. Alexander v. Thornburgh, 943 F. 2d 825 (CA8 1991). It rejected petitioner’s argument that the application of RICO’s forfeiture provisions constituted a prior restraint on speech and hence violated the First Amendment. Recognizing the well-established distinction between prior restraints and subsequent criminal punishments, the Court of Appeals found that the forfeiture here was “a criminal penalty imposed following a conviction for conducting an enterprise engaged in racketeering activities,” and not a prior restraint on speech. Id., at 834. The court also rejected petitioner’s claim that RICO’s forfeiture provisions are constitutionally overbroad, pointing out that the forfeiture order was properly limited to assets linked to petitioner’s past racketeering offenses. Id., at 835. Lastly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the forfeiture order does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” and “excessive fines.” In so ruling, however, the court did not consider whether the forfeiture in this case was grossly disproportionate or excessive, believing that the Eighth Amendment “ ‘does not require a proportionality review of any sentence less than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.’” Id., at 836 (quoting United States v. Pryba, 900 F. 2d 748, 757 (CA4), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 924 (1990)). We granted certiorari, 505 U. S. 1217 (1992).
Petitioner first contends that the forfeiture in this case, which effectively shut down his adult entertainment business, constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, rather than a permissible criminal punishment. According to petitioner, forfeiture of expressive materials and the assets of businesses engaged in expressive activity, when predicated solely upon previous obscenity violations, operates as a prior restraint because it prohibits future presumptively protected, expression in retaliation for prior unprotected speech. Practically speaking, petitioner argues, the effect of the RICO forfeiture order here was no different from the injunction prohibiting the publication of expressive material found to be a prior restraint in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). As petitioner puts it, see Brief for Petitioner 25, the forfeiture order imposed a complete ban on his future expression because of previous unprotected speech. We disagree. By lumping the forfeiture imposed in this case after a full criminal trial with an injunction enjoining future speech, petitioner stretches the term “prior restraint” well beyond the limits established by our cases. To accept petitioner’s argument would virtually obliterate the distinction, solidly grounded in our cases, between prior restraints and subsequent punishments.
The term “prior restraint” is used “to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.” M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 4.03, p. 4-14 (1984) (emphasis added). Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions — i. e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities — are classic examples of prior restraints. See id., §4.03, at 4-16. This understanding of what constitutes a prior restraint is borne out by our cases, even those on which petitioner relies. In Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, supra, we invalidated a court order that perpetually enjoined the named party, who had published a newspaper containing articles found to violate a state nuisance statute, from producing any future “malicious, scandalous or defamatory” publication. Id., at 706. Near, therefore, involved a true restraint on future speech — a permanent injunction. So, too, did Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415 (1971), and Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U. S. 308 (1980) (per curiam), two other cases cited by petitioner. In Keefe, we vacated an order “enjoining petitioners from distributing leaflets anywhere in the town of Westchester, Illinois.” 402 U. S., at 415 (emphasis added). And in Vance, we struck down a Texas statute that authorized courts, upon a showing that obscene films had been shown in the past, to issue an injunction of indefinite duration prohibiting the future exhibition of films that have not yet been found to be obscene. 445 U. S., at 311. See also New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 714 (1971) (per curiam) (Government sought to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers).
By contrast, the RICO forfeiture order in this case does not forbid petitioner to engage in any expressive activities in the future, nor does it require him to obtain prior approval for any expressive activities. It only deprives him of specific assets that were found to be related to his previous racketeering violations. Assuming, of course, that he has sufficient untainted assets to open new stores, restock his inventory, and hire staff, petitioner can go back into the adult entertainment business tomorrow, and sell as many sexually explicit magazines and videotapes as he likes, without any risk of being held in contempt for violating a court order. Unlike the injunctions in Near, Keefe, and Vance, the forfeiture order in this case imposes no legal impediment to — no prior restraint on — petitioner’s ability to engage in any expressive activity he chooses. He is perfectly free to open an adult bookstore or otherwise engage in the production and distribution of erotic materials; he just cannot finance these enterprises with assets derived from his prior racketeering offenses.
The constitutional infirmity in nearly all of our prior restraint cases involving obscene material, including those on which petitioner and the dissent rely, see post, at 570-571, 577, was that the government had seized or otherwise restrained materials suspected of being obscene without a prior judicial determination that they were in fact so. See, e. g., Marcus v. Search Warrant of Kansas City, Mo., Property, 367 U. S. 717 (1961); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58 (1963); Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964); Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496 (1973); Vance, supra. In this case, however, the assets in question were ordered forfeited not because they were believed to be obscene, but because they were directly related to petitioner’s past racketeering violations. The RICO forfeiture statute calls for the forfeiture of assets because of the financial role they play in the operation of the racketeering enterprise. The statute is oblivious to the expressive or nonexpressive nature of the assets forfeited; books, sports cars, narcotics, and cash are all forfeitable alike under RICO. Indeed, a contrary scheme would be disastrous from a policy standpoint, enabling racketeers to evade forfeiture by investing the proceeds of their crimes in businesses engaging in expressive activity.
Nor were the assets in question ordered forfeited without according petitioner the requisite procedural safeguards, another recurring theme in our prior restraint cases. Contrasting this case with Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U. S. 46 (1989), aptly illustrates this point. In Fort Wayne Books, we rejected on constitutional grounds the pretrial seizure of certain expressive material that was based upon a finding of “no more than probable cause to believe that a RICO violation had occurred.” Id., at 66 (emphasis in original). In so holding, we emphasized that there had been no prior judicial “determination that the seized items were ‘obscene’ or that a RICO violation ha[d] occurred.” Ibid, (emphasis in original). “[M]ere probable cause to believe a legal violation ha[d] transpired,” we said, “is not adequate to remove books or films from circulation.” Ibid. Here, by contrast, the seizure was not premature, because the Government established beyond a reasonable doubt the basis for the forfeiture. Petitioner had a full criminal trial on the merits of the obscenity and RICO charges during which the Government proved that four magazines and three videotapes were obscene and that the other forfeited assets were directly linked to petitioner’s commission of racketeering offenses.
Petitioner’s claim that the RICO forfeiture statute operated as an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case is also inconsistent with our decision in Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U. S. 697 (1986). In that case, we sustained a court order, issued under a general nuisance statute, that closed down an adult bookstore that was being used as a place of prostitution and lewdness. In rejecting out-of-hand a claim that the closure order amounted to an improper prior restraint on speech, we stated:
“The closure order sought in this case differs from a prior restraint in two significant respects. First, the order would impose no restraint at all on the dissemination of particular materials, since respondents are free to carry on their bookselling business at another location, even if such locations are difficult to find. Second, the closure order sought would not be imposed on the basis of an advance determination that the distribution of particular materials is prohibited — indeed, the imposition of the closure order has nothing to do with any expressive conduct at all.” Id., at 705-706, n. 2.
This reasoning applies with equal force to this case, and thus confirms that the RICO forfeiture order was not a prior restraint on speech, but a punishment for past criminal conduct. Petitioner attempts to distinguish Arcara on the ground that obscenity, unlike prostitution or lewdness, has “ ‘a significant expressive element.’ ” Brief for Petitioner 16 (quoting Arcara, supra, at 706). But that distinction has no bearing on the question whether the forfeiture order in this case was an impermissible prior restraint.
Finally, petitioner’s proposed definition of the term “prior restraint” would undermine the time-honored distinction between barring speech in the future and penalizing past speech. The doctrine of prior restraint originated in the common law of England, where prior restraints of the press were not permitted, but punishment after publication was. This very limited application of the principle of freedom of speech was held inconsistent with our First Amendment as long ago as Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 246 (1936). While we may have given a broader definition to the term “prior restraint” than was given to it in English common law, our decisions have steadfastly preserved the distinction between prior restraints and subsequent punishments. Though petitioner tries to dismiss this distinction as “neither meaningful nor useful,” Brief for Petitioner 29, we think it is critical to our First Amendment jurisprudence. Because we have interpreted the First Amendment as providing greater protection from prior restraints than from subsequent punishments, see Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 558-559 (1975), it is important for us to delineate with some precision the defining characteristics of a prior restraint. To hold that the forfeiture order in this case constituted a prior restraint would have the exact opposite effect: It would blur the line separating prior restraints from subsequent punishments to such a degree that it would be impossible to determine with any certainty whether a particular measure is a prior restraint or not.
In sum, we think that fidelity to our cases requires us to analyze the forfeiture here not as a prior restraint, but under normal First Amendment standards. So analyzing it, we find that petitioner’s claim falls well short of the mark. He does not challenge either his 6-year jail sentence or his $100,000 fine as violative of the First Amendment. The first inquiry that comes to mind, then, is why, if incarceration for six years and a fine of $100,000 are permissible forms of punishment under the RICO statute, the challenged forfeiture of certain assets directly related to petitioner’s racketeering activity is not. Our cases support the instinct from which this question arises; they establish quite clearly that the First Amendment does not prohibit either stringent criminal sanctions for obscenity offenses or forfeiture of expressive materials as punishment for criminal conduct.
We have in the past rejected First Amendment challenges to statutes that impose severe prison sentences and fines as punishment for obscenity offenses. See, e. g., Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 464-465, n. 2 (1966); Smith v. United States, 431 U. S. 291, 296, n. 3 (1977); Fort Wayne, Books, 489 U. S., at 59, n. 8. Petitioner does not question the holding of those cases; he instead argues that RICO’s forfeiture provisions are constitutionally overbroad because they are not limited solely to obscene materials and the proceeds from the sale of such materials. Petitioner acknowledges that this is an unprecedented use of the overbreadth principle. See Brief for Petitioner 36. The “overbreadth” doctrine, which is a departure from traditional rules of standing, permits a defendant to make a facial challenge to an overly broad statute restricting speech, even if he himself has engaged in speech that could be regulated under a more narrowly drawn statute. See, e. g., Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 612-613 (1973); City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 798-801 (1984). But the RICO statute does not criminalize constitutionally protected speech and therefore is materially different from the statutes at issue in our overbreadth cases. Cf., e. g., Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U. S. 569, 574-575 (1987).
Petitioner’s real complaint is not that the RICO statute is overbroad, but that applying RICO’s forfeiture provisions to businesses dealing in expressive materials may have an improper “chilling” effect on free expression by deterring others from engaging in protected speech. No doubt the monetarily large forfeiture in this case may induce cautious booksellers to practice self-censorship and remove marginally protected materials from their shelves out of fear that those materials could be found obscene and thus subject them to forfeiture. But the defendant in Fort Wayne Books made a similar argument, which was rejected by the Court in this language:
“[D]eterrence of the sale of obscene materials is a legitimate end of state antiobscenity laws, and our cases have long recognized the practical reality that ‘any form of criminal obscenity statute applicable to a bookseller will induce some tendency to self-censorship and have some inhibitory effect on the dissemination of material not obscene.’” 489 U. S., at 60 (quoting Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 154-155 (1959)).
Fort Wayne Books is dispositive of any chilling argument here, since the threat of forfeiture has no more of a chilling effect on free expression than the threat of a prison term or a large fine. Each racketeering charge exposes a defendant to a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000. 18 U. S. C. § 1963(a) (1988 ed. and Supp. III). See Brief for United States 19. Needless to say, the prospect of such a lengthy prison sentence would have a far more powerful deterrent effect on protected speech than the prospect of any sort of forfeiture. Cf. Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U. S. 538, 542 (1989) (loss of liberty is a more severe form of punishment than any monetary sanction). Similarly, a fine of several hundred thousand dollars would certainly be just as fatal to most businesses — and, as such, would result in the same degree of self-censorship — as a forfeiture of assets. Yet these penalties are clearly constitutional under Fort Wayne Books.
We also have rejected a First Amendment challenge to a court order closing down an entire business that was engaged in expressive activity as punishment for criminal conduct. See Arcara, 478 U. S., at 707. Once again, petitioner does not question the holding of that case; in fact, he concedes that expressive businesses and assets can be forfeited under RICO as punishment for, say, narcotic offenses. See Brief for Petitioner 11 (“[F]orfeiture of a media business purchased by a drug cartel would be constitutionally permissible”). Petitioner instead insists that the result here should be different because the RICO predicate acts were obscenity offenses. In Arcara, we held that criminal and civil sanctions having some incidental effect on First Amendment activities are subject to First Amendment scrutiny “only where it was conduct with a significant expressive element that drew the legal remedy in the first place, as in [United States v.] O’Brien, [391 U. S. 367 (1968),] or where a statute based on a nonexpressive activity has the inevitable effect of singling out those engaged in expressive activity, as in Minneapolis Star [& Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575 (1983)].” 478 U. S., at 706-707 (footnote omitted). Applying that standard, we held that prostitution and lewdness, the criminal conduct at issue in Arcara, involve neither situation, and thus concluded that the First Amendment was not implicated by the enforcement of a general health regulation resulting in the closure of an adult bookstore. Id., at 707. Under our analysis in Arcara, the forfeiture in this case cannot be said to offend the First Amendment. To be sure, the conduct that “drew the legal remedy” here — racketeering committed through obscenity violations — may be “expressive,” see R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 385 (1992), but our cases clearly hold that “obscenity” can be regulated or actually proscribed consistent with the First Amendment, see, e. g., Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 485 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 23 (1973).
Confronted with our decisions in Fort Wayne Books and Arcara — neither of which he challenges — petitioner’s position boils down to this: Stiff criminal penalties for obscenity offenses are consistent with the First Amendment; so is the forfeiture of expressive materials as punishment for criminal conduct; but the combination of the two somehow results in a violation of the First Amendment. We reject this counterintuitive conclusion, which in effect would say that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Petitioner also argues that the forfeiture order in this case — considered atop his 6-year prison term and $100,000 fine — is disproportionate to the gravity of his offenses and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment, either as a “cruel and unusual punishment” or as an “excessive fine.” Brief for Petitioner 40. The Court of Appeals, though, failed to distinguish between these two components of petitioner’s Eighth Amendment challenge. Instead, the court lumped the two together, disposing of them both with the general statement that the Eighth Amendment does not require any proportionality review of a sentence less than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. 943 F. 2d, at 836. But that statement has relevance only to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Unlike the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, which is concerned with matters such as the duration or conditions of confinement, “[t]he Excessive Fines Clause limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense.” Austin v. United States, post, at 609-610 (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted); accord, Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257, 265 (1989) (“[A]t the time of the drafting and ratification of the [Eighth] Amendment, the word ‘fine’ was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense”); id., at 265, n. 6. The in personam criminal forfeiture at issue here is clearly a form of monetary punishment no different, for Eighth Amendment purposes, from a traditional “fine.” Accord, Austin, supra Accordingly, the forfeiture in this case should be analyzed under the Excessive Fines Clause.
Petitioner contends that forfeiture of his entire business was an “excessive” penalty for the Government to exact “[o]n the basis of a few materials the jury ultimately decided were obscene.” Brief for Petitioner 40. It is somewhat misleading, we think, to characterize the racketeering crimes for which petitioner was convicted as involving just a few materials ultimately found to be obscene. Petitioner was convicted of creating and managing what the District Court described as “an enormous racketeering enterprise.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 160. It is in the light of the extensive criminal activities which petitioner apparently conducted through this racketeering enterprise over a substantial period of time that the question whether the forfeiture was “excessive” must be considered. We think it preferable that this question be addressed by the Court of Appeals in the first instance.
For these reasons, we hold that RICO’s forfeiture provisions, as applied in this case, did not violate the First Amendment, but that the Court of Appeals should have considered whether they resulted in an “excessive” penalty within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Not wishing to go into the business of selling pornographic materials— regardless of whether they were legally obscene — the Government decided that it would be better to destroy the forfeited expressive materials than sell them to members of the public. See Brief for United States 26-27, n. 11.
The doctrine of prior restraint has its roots in the 16th- and 17th-century English system of censorship. Under that system, all printing presses and printers were licensed by the government, and nothing could lawfully be published without the prior approval of a government or church censor. See generally T. Emerson, System of Freedom of Expression 504 (1970). Beginning with Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931), we expanded this doctrine to include not only licensing schemes requiring speech to be submitted to an administrative censor for prepublication review, but also injunctions against future speech issued by judges. See Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 389-390 (1973) (“[T]he protection against prior restraint at common law barred only a system of administrative censorship.... [T]he Court boldly stepped beyond this narrow doctrine in Near”). Quite obviously, however, we have never before countenanced the essentially limitless expansion of the term that petitioner proposes.
This sense of disproportionality animates much of petitioner’s First Amendment arguments as well. Questions of proportionality, however, should be dealt with directly and forthrightly under the Eighth Amendment and not be allowed to influence sub silentio courts’ First Amendment analysis.
Unlike Austin, this ease involves in personam criminal forfeiture not in rem civil forfeiture, so there was no threshold question concerning the applicability of the Eighth Amendment. unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962.” 18 U. S. C. §§ 1963(a)(1) — (3).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide whether a federal habeas court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the “substantial and injurious effect” standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrakamson, 507 U. S. 619 (1993), when the state appellate court failed to recognize the error and did not review it for harmlessness under the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967).
I
After two mistrials on account of hung juries, a third jury convicted petitioner of the 1992 murders of James and Cynthia Bell. At trial, petitioner sought to attribute the murders to one or more other persons. To that end, he offered testimony of several witnesses who linked one Anthony Hurtz to the killings. But the trial court excluded the testimony of one additional witness, Pamela Maples, who was prepared to testify that she had heard Hurtz discussing homicides bearing some resemblance to the murder of the Bells. In the trial court’s view, the defense had provided insufficient evidence to link the incidents described by Hurtz to the murders for which petitioner was charged.
Following his conviction, petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, arguing (among other things) that the trial court’s exclusion of Maples’ testimony deprived him of a fair opportunity to defend himself, in violation of Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284 (1973) (holding that a combination of erroneous evidentiary rulings rose to the level of a due process violation). Without explicitly addressing petitioner’s Chambers argument, the state appellate court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in excluding Maples’ testimony under California’s evidentiary rules, adding that “no possible prejudice” could have resulted in light of the “merely cumulative” nature of the testimony. People v. Fry, No. A072396 (Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Mar. 30, 2000), App. 97, n. 17. The court did not specify which harmless-error standard it was applying in concluding that petitioner suffered “no possible prejudice.” The Supreme Court of California denied discretionary review, and petitioner did not then seek a writ of certiorari from this Court.
Petitioner next filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, raising the aforementioned due process claim (among others). The case was initially assigned to a Magistrate Judge, who ultimately recommended denying relief. He found the state appellate court’s failure to recognize error under Chambers to be “an unreasonable application of clearly established law as set forth by the Supreme Court,” App. 180, and disagreed with the state appellate court’s finding of “no possible prejudice.” But he nevertheless concluded that “there ha[d] been an insufficient showing that the improper exclusion of the testimony of Ms. Maples had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict” under the standard set forth in Brecht. App. 181-182. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in full, and a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. We granted certiorari. 549 U. S. 1092 (2006).
II
A
In Chapman, supra, a case that reached this Court on direct review of a state-court criminal judgment, we held that a federal constitutional error can be considered harmless only if a court is “able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 24. In Brecht, supra, we considered whether the Chapman standard of review applies on collateral review of a state-court criminal judgment under 28 U. S. C. § 2254. Citing concerns about finality, comity, and federalism, we rejected the Chapman standard in favor of the more forgiving standard of review applied to nonconstitutional errors on direct appeal from federal convictions. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750 (1946). Under that standard, an error is harmless unless it “‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Brecht, supra, at 631 (quoting Kotteakos, supra, at 776). The question in this case is whether a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of the unconstitutional exclusion of evidence during a state-court criminal trial under Brecht even if the state appellate court has not found, as the state appellate court in Brecht had found, that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman.
We begin with the Court’s opinion in Brecht The primary reasons it gave for adopting a less onerous standard on collateral review of state-court criminal judgments did not turn on whether the state court itself conducted Chapman review. The opinion explained that application of Chapman would “underminfe] the States’ interest in finality,” 507 U. S., at 637; would “infring[e] upon [the States’] sovereignty over criminal matters,” ibid.; would undercut the historic limitation of habeas relief to those “ ‘grievously wronged,’ ” ibid.; and would “impos[e] significant ‘social costs,’ ” ibid. (quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475 U. S. 66, 72 (1986)). Since each of these concerns applies with equal force whether or not the state court reaches the Chapman question, it would be illogical to make the standard of review turn upon that contingency.
The opinion in Brecht clearly assumed that the Kotteakos standard would apply in virtually all §2254 cases. It suggested an exception only for the “unusual case” in which “a deliberate and especially egregious error of the trial type, or one that is combined with a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, . . . infect[s] the integrity of the proceeding.” 507 U. S., at 638, n. 9. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether the state court conducted harmless-error review. The concurring and dissenting opinions shared the assumption that Kotteakos would almost always be the standard on collateral review. The former stated in categorical terms that the “Kotteakos standard” “will now apply on collateral review” of state convictions, 507 U. S., at 643 (Stevens, J., concurring). Justice White’s dissent complained that under the Court’s opinion Kotteakos would apply even where (as in this case) the state court found that “no violation had occurred,” 507 U. S., at 644; and Justice O’Connor’s dissent stated that Chapman would “no longer appl[y] to any trial error asserted on habeas,” 507 U. S., at 651. Later cases also assumed that Brechfs applicability does not turn on whether the state appellate court recognized the constitutional error and reached the Chapman question. See Penry v. Johnson, 532 U. S. 782, 795 (2001); Calderon v. Coleman, 525 U. S. 141, 145 (1998) (per curiam).
Petitioner’s contrary position misreads (or at least exaggerates the significance of) a lone passage from our Brecht opinion. In that passage, the Court explained:
“State courts are fully qualified to identify constitutional error and evaluate its prejudicial effect on the trial process under Chapman, and state courts often occupy a superior vantage point from which to evaluate the effect of trial error. For these reasons, it scarcely seems logical to require federal habeas courts to engage in the identical approach to harmless-error review that Chapman requires state courts to engage in on direct review.” 507 U. S., at 636 (citation omitted).
But the quoted passage does little to advance petitioner’s position. To say (a) that since state courts are required to evaluate constitutional error under Chapman it makes no sense to establish Chapman as the standard for federal habeas review is not at all to say (b) that whenever a state court fails in its responsibility to apply Chapman the federal habeas standard must change. It would be foolish to equate the two, in view of the other weighty reasons given in Brecht for applying a less onerous standard on collateral review— reasons having nothing to do with whether the state court actually applied Chapman.
Petitioner argues that, if Brecht applies whether or not the state appellate court conducted Chapman review, then Brecht would apply even if a State eliminated appellate review altogether. That is not necessarily so. The federal habeas review rule applied to the class of case in which state appellate review is available does not have to be the same rule applied to the class of case where it is not. We have no occasion to resolve that hypothetical (and highly unrealistic) question now. In the case before us petitioner did obtain appellate review of his constitutional claim; the state court simply found the underlying claim weak and therefore did not measure its prejudicial impact under Chapman. The attempted analogy — between (1) eliminating appellate review altogether and (2) providing appellate review but rejecting a constitutional claim without assessing its prejudicial impact under Chapman — is a false one.
Petitioner contends that, even if Brecht adopted a categorical rule, post-Brecht developments require a different standard of review. Three years after we decided Brecht, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), under which a habeas petition may not be granted unless the state court’s adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). In Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U. S. 12 (2003) (per curiam), we held that, when a state court determines that a constitutional violation is harmless, a federal court may not award habeas relief under §2254 unless the harmlessness determination itself was unreasonable. Petitioner contends that § 2254(d)(1), as interpreted in Esparza, eliminates the requirement that a petitioner also satisfy Brechts standard. We think not. That conclusion is not suggested by Esparza, which had no reason to decide the point. Nor is it suggested by the text of AEDPA, which sets forth a precondition to the grant of habeas relief (“a writ of habeas corpus ... shall not be granted” unless the conditions of § 2254(d) are met), not an entitlement to it. Given our frequent recognition that AEDPA limited rather than expanded the availability of habeas relief, see, e. g., Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412 (2000), it is implausible that, without saying so, AEDPA replaced the Brecht standard of “‘actual prejudice,”’ 507 U. S., at 637 (quoting United States v. Lane, 474 U. S. 438, 449 (1986)), with the more liberal AEDPA /Chapman standard which requires only that the state court’s harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt determination be unreasonable. That said, it certainly makes no sense to require formal application of both tests (AEUTA/Chapman and Brecht) when the latter obviously subsumes the former. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit was correct to apply the Brecht standard of review in assessing the prejudicial impact of federal constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial.
B
Petitioner argues that, even if Brecht provides the standard of review, we must still reverse the judgment below because the exclusion of Maples’ testimony substantially and injuriously affected the jury’s verdict in this case. That argument, however, is not fairly encompassed within the question presented. We granted certiorari to decide a question that has divided the Courts of Appeals — whether Brecht or Chapman provides the appropriate standard of review when constitutional error in a state-court trial is first recognized by a federal court. Compare, e. g., Bains v. Cambra, 204 F. 3d 964, 976-977 (CA9 2000), with Orndorff v. Lockhart, 998 F. 2d 1426, 1429-1430 (CA8 1993). It is true that the second sentence of the question presented asks: “Does it matter which harmless error standard is employed?” Pet. for Cert. I. But to ask whether Brecht makes any real difference is not to ask whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied Brecht in this particular case. Petitioner seems to have understood this. Only in a brief footnote of his petition did he hint that the Ninth Circuit erred in its application of the Brecht standard. Pet. for Cert. 23, n. 19. Indeed, if application of the Brecht standard to the facts of this case were encompassed within the question presented, so too would be the question of whether there was constitutional error in the first place. After all, it would not “matter which harmless error standard is employed” if there were no underlying constitutional error. Unlike the dissenting Justices, some of whom would reverse the decision below on the ground that the error was harmful under Brecht, and one of whom would vacate the decision below on the ground that it is unclear whether there was constitutional error in the first instance, we read the question presented to avoid these tangential and factbound questions, and limit our review to the question whether Chapman or Brecht provides the governing standard.
* * *
We hold that in §2254 proceedings a court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the “substantial and injurious effect” standard set forth in Brecht, supra, whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness under the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard set forth in Chapman, 386 U. S. 18. Since the Ninth Circuit correctly applied the Brecht standard rather than the Chapman standard, we affirm the judgment below.
It is so ordered.
As this case comes to the Court, we assume (without deciding) that the state appellate court’s decision affirming the exclusion of Maples’ testimony was an unreasonable application of Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284, 302 (1973). We also assume that the state appellate court did not determine the harmlessness of the error under the Chapman standard, notwithstanding its ambiguous conclusion that the exclusion of Maples’ testimony resulted in “no possible prejudice.”
We do not agree with petitioner’s amicus that Brecht’s concerns regarding the finality of state-court criminal judgments and the difficulty of retrying a defendant years after the crime “have been largely alleviated by [AEDPA],” which “sets strict time limitations on habeas petitions and limits second or successive petitions as well.” Brief for Innocence Network 7. Even cases governed by AEDPA can span a decade, as the nearly 12-year gap between petitioner’s conviction and the issuance of this decision illustrates.
The question presented included one additional issue: “[I]f the Brecht standard applies, does the petitioner or the State bear the burden of persuasion on the question of prejudice?” Pet. for Cert. I. We have previously held that, when a court is “in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error” under the Brecht standard, the court should “treat the error ... as if it affected the verdict . . . .” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U. S. 432, 435 (1995). The majority opinion below did not refer to O’Neal, presumably because the majority harbored no grave doubt as to the harmlessness of the error. Neither did the dissenting judge refer to O’Neal, presumably because she did not think the majority harbored grave doubt as to the harmlessness of the error. Moreover, the State has conceded throughout this §2254 proceeding that it bears the burden of persuasion. Thus, there is no basis on which to conclude that the court below ignored O’Neal.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this suit the Attorney General of the United States as successor to the Alien Property Custodian seeks payment by petitioners of two 5% gold debentures of the face value of $1,000 each and payable to bearer. Petitioner Cities Service Company is obligor on the debentures and petitioner Chase National Bank of New York is the indenture trustee, v The obligations represented by these debentures had previously been vested, under provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act, upon a finding that the obligations were owned by a resident and national of Germany. Neither of the debentures is or ever has been in the possession of respondent. One of the debentures, although not maturing until 1969, was presented for redemption at Chase’s offices in New York City on January 5, 1950, subsequent to the date of the vesting order. A legend was then typed on the debenture reciting the issuance of the vesting order and the claims of respondent thereunder. This debenture is at present in the possession of a brokerage house in New York City. The other debenture matured in 1950 but has never been presented for payment. Its whereabouts are unknown but it was last reported to be in Berlin in the hands of the Russians.
The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners on the ground that the Attorney General, in issuing the vesting order in question, had exceeded his authority to vest property “within the United States.” 93 F. Supp. 408. The Court felt that the obligations represented by the debentures were inseparable from the certificates themselves, which, insofar as is known, were' outside this country, at the time of vesting. The Court of Appeals reversed and directed summary judgment for respondent, holding that the Act authorized the seizure and enforcement of obligations evidenced by debentures outside the country so' long as the obligor is within the. United States. 189 F. 2d 744. In reaching this result, the Court of Appeals indicated that petitioners would have a “claim against the Treasury for recoupment” in the event of a subsequent recovery against them in a foreign court by a bona fide holder of the debentures. Otherwise, the Court felt, the vesting order would take petitioners’ property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Id., at 747-749. We granted certiorari, 342 U. S. 865.
We believe that the Trading with the Enemy Act grants the.authority necessary to vest obligations evidenced by domestic negotiable bearer debentures even though the debentures themselves are outside the United States. By § 7 .(c) of the Act, enacted during World War I, the President is given the. authority to seize all enemy property, “including . , . choses in action, and rights and claims of every character and description owing or belonging to ... an enemy . . . .” At the beginning of World. War II, Congress made an even broader grant of authority to the Executive through an amendment to § 5 (b), providing that “any property dr interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President . . . .” See Markham v. Cabell, 326 U. S. 404, 411 (1945); Silesian-American Corp. v. Clark, 332 U. S. 469, 479 (1947); Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., 332 U.S. 480, 485-486 (1947). That the obligations represented by. negotiable bear.er debentures come within these broad terms is beyond question.
Petitioners urge, however, that the debentures themselves constitute the .debt, and since the debentures were located outside of the United States at the time of vesting, the debts did hot have a situs within the United States and therefore were not proper subjects of seizure. To apply this fiction here would not only provide a sanctuary for enemy investments and defeat the recovéry of American securities looted by conquering forces; it would also restrict the exercise of the war powers of the United States. Congress did not so intend. The Custodian’s authority to reach a debenture or bonded indebtedness without seizure of the instrument itself is explicitly recognized by § 9 (n) of the Act, which provides that “[i]n the case of property consisting ... of bonded or other indebtedness , . ., evidenced ... by bonds or by other certificates of interest ... or indebtedness . . ., where the right, title, and interest in the property (but not the actual . . . bond or other certificate of interest or indebtedness) was, conveyed; transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian, or seized by him . . .,” then the President may, in proper' cases, order return of 80% of the property. Moreover, in giving the Custodian this power to seize an interest represented by a bond or debenture without seizure of the actual instrument, Congress transgressed, no constitutional limitations on its jurisdiction. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, the obligor, Cities Service Company, is within the United States and the obligation of which the debenture is evidence can be effectively dealt with through the exercise of jurisdiction over that petitioner. See Standard Oil Co. v. New Jersey, 341 U. S. 428, 438-439 (1951).
A more serious question is whether application of the seizure provisions of the Act to petitioners will take their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, unless they have á remedy against the United States in the event a foreign court holds them liable to a holder in due course of the debentures. While petitioners concede that the Act discharges them from liability in any court in the United States, they contend that they have extensive properties over the world which subject them to foreign -suits from which the Act affords no certain protection. Petitioners readily admit that the court of the country in which suit is brought may apply the laws of the United States and recognize their prior payment to ttíe Attorney General as a complete defense; and that the holder, if qualified, might file a claim under the Act. Nevertheless, they insist, there remains gt least the possibility that they will be exposed to liability in a foreign court. While their defense to such litigation seems adequate and, final payment by them improbable, we agree that petitioners . might suffer judgment the payment of which would effect a double recovery against them. In that event, petitioners. will have the right to Recoup from the United Státes, for a, “taking” of their property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, “just coihpensatión” to the extent of their double liability. Such cause of action will accrue when, as, and if a foreign court forced petitioners to pay a holder in due course of the debentures. .' We, agree, with the Court of Appeals that only with this assurance against double liability can it fairly be said that the present seizure is not itself an unconstitutional taking of petitioners’ property.
Affirmed.
The powers and functions Oi the Alien Property Custodian were transferred to the Attorney General by Exec. Order No. 9788 (Oct. 14, 1946), 11 Fed. Reg. 11981. The terms “Custodian”’ and “Attorney General” are used interchangeably in this opinion.
40 Stat. 411, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1 et seq.
Vesting Order No. 12960 (March 11, 1949), 14 Fed. Reg. 1405. The vesting order recited that the obligations were “owned or controlled by, payable or deliverable to, held on behalf of or on account of, or owing to, or [were] evidence of ownership or control by,” the specified resident and national of Germany.
'With respect to this debenture, the Attorney General seeks payment by petitioners of the proceeds of redemption plus -accrued interest; or, in the alternative,' the'issuance to him of a new debenture of the same series, and for the same face value, and with the same number of unpaid interest coupons attached.
With respect to this debenture, the Attorney General seeks payment of the redemption proceeds plus accrued interest.
By § 2 (c) of Exec. Order No. 9095 (March 11, 1942), 7 Fed. Reg. 1971, as amended by Exec. Order No. 9193 (July 6, 1942), 7 Fed. Reg. 5205, and Exec. Order No. 9567 (June 8, 1945), 10 Fed. Reg. 6917, the President, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, delegated to the Attorney General authority to vest property “within the United States” owned by a designated enemy country or national thereof, with specified exceptions not relevant here. Assuming, without deciding, that this, language is narrower' than the language of §§ 5 (b) and 7 (c) of the Act, as amended, we need not decide which language is contrdlling. For, as indicated below, we believe that in anyi event the obligations vested here were “within the United States” and thus come within the presumably narrower terms of the Executive Order.
Section 9 (n) was added in 1928 by the Settlement of War Claims Act, 45 Stat. 254, which provided in general for the return of 80% of all seized property. The purpose of § 9 (n) was to authorize the President, where he had seized a stock or bond interest .without seizing the instrument itself, to make such 80% return to the current holder of the .instrument. See H. R. Rep. No. 17, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 21; S. Rep. No. 273, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 30.
See §§ 5 (b) (2) and 7 (e).
Such recovery will not be prevented.by § 7 (c) of the Act. That subsection provides in part:
“The sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any money or other property heretofore 6r hereafter conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Cus-' todian, or required so to be, or seized by him shall be that provided by the, terms of this Act
Petitioners^ however, will not be claiming “any money, or other property . . . conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian, or required so to be, or seized by him . . . .” father they will be claiming just compensation under the. Fifth Amendment for a taking of their property. ' Therefore >the provision quoted abpve will not apply to them. -
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
When it comes to remedies for trademark infringement, the Lanham Act authorizes many. A district court may award a winning plaintiff injunctive relief, damages, or the defendant's ill-gotten profits. Without question, a defendant's state of mind may have a bearing on what relief a plaintiff should receive. An innocent trademark violator often stands in very different shoes than an intentional one. But some circuits have gone further. These courts hold a plaintiff can win a profits remedy, in particular, only after showing the defendant willfully infringed its trademark. The question before us is whether that categorical rule can be reconciled with the statute's plain language.
The question comes to us in a case involving handbag fasteners. Romag sells magnetic snap fasteners for use in leather goods. Fossil designs, markets, and distributes a wide range of fashion accessories. Years ago, the pair signed an agreement allowing Fossil to use Romag's fasteners in Fossil's handbags and other products. Initially, both sides seemed content with the arrangement. But in time Romag discovered that the factories Fossil hired in China to make its products were using counterfeit Romag fasteners-and that Fossil was doing little to guard against the practice. Unable to resolve its concerns amicably, Romag sued. The company alleged that Fossil had infringed its trademark and falsely represented that its fasteners came from Romag. After trial, a jury agreed with Romag, and found that Fossil had acted "in callous disregard" of Romag's rights. At the same time, however, the jury rejected Romag's accusation that Fossil had acted willfully, as that term was defined by the district court.
For our purposes, the last finding is the important one. By way of relief for Fossil's trademark violation, Romag sought (among other things) an order requiring Fossil to hand over the profits it had earned thanks to its trademark violation. But the district court refused this request. The court pointed out that controlling Second Circuit precedent requires a plaintiff seeking a profits award to prove that the defendant's violation was willful. Not all circuits, however, agree with the Second Circuit's rule. We took this case to resolve that dispute over the law's demands. 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2778, 204 L.Ed.2d 1157 (2019).
Where does Fossil's proposed willfulness rule come from? The relevant section of the Lanham Act governing remedies for trademark violations, § 35, 60 Stat. 439-440, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), says this:
"When a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, a violation under section 1125(a) or (d) of this title, or a willful violation under section 1125(c) of this title, shall have been established ..., the plaintiff shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of sections 1111 and 1114 of this title, and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant's profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action."
Immediately, this language spells trouble for Fossil and the circuit precedent on which it relies. The statute does make a showing of willfulness a precondition to a profits award when the plaintiff proceeds under § 1125(c). That section, added to the Lanham Act some years after its initial adoption, creates a cause of action for trademark dilution-conduct that lessens the association consumers have with a trademark. But Romag alleged and proved a violation of § 1125(a), a provision establishing a cause of action for the false or misleading use of trademarks. And in cases like that, the statutory language has never required a showing of willfulness to win a defendant's profits. Yes, the law tells us that a profits award is subject to limitations found in §§ 1111 and 1114. But no one suggests those cross-referenced sections contain the rule Fossil seeks. Nor does this Court usually read into statutes words that aren't there. It's a temptation we are doubly careful to avoid when Congress has (as here) included the term in question elsewhere in the very same statutory provision.
A wider look at the statute's structure gives us even more reason for pause. The Lanham Act speaks often and expressly about mental states. Section 1117(b) requires courts to treble profits or damages and award attorney's fees when a defendant engages in certain acts intentionally and with specified knowledge . Section 1117(c) increases the cap on statutory damages from $200,000 to $2,000,000 for certain willful violations. Section 1118 permits courts to order the infringing items be destroyed if a plaintiff proves any violation of § 1125(a) or a willful violation of § 1125(c). Section 1114 makes certain innocent infringers subject only to injunctions. Elsewhere, the statute specifies certain mens rea standards needed to establish liability, before even getting to the question of remedies. See, e.g., §§ 1125(d)(1)(A)(i), (B)(i) (prohibiting certain conduct only if undertaken with "bad faith intent" and listing nine factors relevant to ascertaining bad faith intent). Without doubt, the Lanham Act exhibits considerable care with mens rea standards. The absence of any such standard in the provision before us, thus, seems all the more telling.
So how exactly does Fossil seek to conjure a willfulness requirement out of § 1117(a) ? Lacking any more obvious statutory hook, the company points to the language indicating that a violation under § 1125(a) can trigger an award of the defendant's profits "subject to the principles of equity." In Fossil's telling, equity courts historically required a showing of willfulness before authorizing a profits remedy in trademark disputes. Admittedly, equity courts didn't require so much in patent infringement cases and other arguably analogous suits. See, e.g., Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co. , 235 U.S. 641, 644, 650-651, 35 S.Ct. 221, 59 L.Ed. 398 (1915). But, Fossil says, trademark is different. There alone, a willfulness requirement was so long and universally recognized that today it rises to the level of a "principle of equity" the Lanham Act carries forward.
It's a curious suggestion. Fossil's contention that the term "principles of equity" includes a willfulness requirement would not directly contradict the statute's other, express mens rea provisions or render them wholly superfluous. But it would require us to assume that Congress intended to incorporate a willfulness requirement here obliquely while it prescribed mens rea conditions expressly elsewhere throughout the Lanham Act. That might be possible, but on first blush it isn't exactly an obvious construction of the statute.
Nor do matters improve with a second look. The phrase "principles of equity" doesn't readily bring to mind a substantive rule about mens rea from a discrete domain like trademark law. In the context of this statute, it more naturally suggests fundamental rules that apply more systematically across claims and practice areas. A principle is a "fundamental truth or doctrine, as of law; a comprehensive rule or doctrine which furnishes a basis or origin for others." Black's Law Dictionary 1417 (3d ed. 1933); Black's Law Dictionary 1357 (4th ed. 1951). And treatises and handbooks on the "principles of equity" generally contain transsubstantive guidance on broad and fundamental questions about matters like parties, modes of proof, defenses, and remedies. See, e.g. , E. Merwin, Principles of Equity and Equity Pleading (1895); J. Indermaur & C. Thwaites, Manual of the Principles of Equity (7th ed. 1913); H. Smith, Practical Exposition of the Principles of Equity (5th ed. 1914); R. Megarry, Snell's Principles of Equity (23d ed. 1947). Our precedent, too, has used the term "principles of equity" to refer to just such transsubstantive topics. See, e.g., eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C. , 547 U.S. 388, 391, 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) ; Holmberg v. Armbrecht , 327 U.S. 392, 395, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946). Congress itself has elsewhere used "equitable principles" in just this way: An amendment to a different section of the Lanham Act lists "laches, estoppel, and acquiescence" as examples of "equitable principles." 15 U.S.C. § 1069. Given all this, it seems a little unlikely Congress meant "principles of equity" to direct us to a narrow rule about a profits remedy within trademark law.
But even if we were to spot Fossil that first essential premise of its argument, the next has problems too. From the record the parties have put before us, it's far from clear whether trademark law historically required a showing of willfulness before allowing a profits remedy. The Trademark Act of 1905-the Lanham Act's statutory predecessor which many earlier cases interpreted and applied-did not mention such a requirement. It's true, as Fossil notes, that some courts proceeding before the 1905 Act, and even some later cases following that Act, did treat willfulness or something like it as a prerequisite for a profits award and rarely authorized profits for purely good-faith infringement. See, e.g., Horlick's Malted Milk Corp. v. Horluck's, Inc. , 51 F.2d 357, 359 (W.D. Wash. 1931) (explaining that the plaintiff "cannot recover defendant's profits unless it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of willful fraud in the use of the enjoined trade-name"); see also Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co. , 179 U.S. 42, 42-43, 21 S.Ct. 16, 45 L.Ed. 77 (1900) (holding that one defendant "should not be required to account for gains and profits" when it "appear[ed] to have acted in good faith"). But Romag cites other cases that expressly rejected any such rule. See, e.g., Oakes v. Tonsmierre , 49 F. 447, 453 (C.C.S.D. Ala. 1883) ; see also Stonebraker v. Stonebraker , 33 Md. 252, 268 (1870) ; Lawrence-Williams Co. v. Societe Enfants Gombault et Cie , 52 F.2d 774, 778 (C.A.6 1931).
The confusion doesn't end there. Other authorities advanced still different understandings about the relationship between mens rea and profits awards in trademark cases. See, e.g., H. Nims, Law of Unfair Competition and Trade-Marks § 424 (2d ed. 1917) ("An accounting will not be ordered where the infringing party acted innocently and in ignorance of the plaintiff's rights"); N. Hesseltine, Digest of the Law of Trade-Marks and Unfair Trade 305 (1906) (contrasting a case holding "[n]o account as to profits allowed except as to user after knowledge of plaintiff's right to trademark" and one permitting profits "although defendant did not know of infringement" (emphasis added)). And the vast majority of the cases both Romag and Fossil cite simply failed to speak clearly to the issue one way or another. See, e.g., Hostetter v. Vowinkle , 12 F.Cas. 546, 547 (No. 6,714) (C.C.D. Neb. 1871) ; Graham v. Plate , 40 Cal. 593, 597-599 (1871) ; Hemmeter Cigar Co. v. Congress Cigar Co. , 118 F.2d 64, 71-72 (C.A.6 1941).
At the end of it all, the most we can say with certainty is this. Mens rea figured as an important consideration in awarding profits in pre-Lanham Act cases. This reflects the ordinary, transsubstantive principle that a defendant's mental state is relevant to assigning an appropriate remedy. That principle arises not only in equity, but across many legal contexts. See, e.g., Smith v. Wade , 461 U.S. 30, 38-51, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); Morissette v. United States , 342 U.S. 246, 250-263, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952) (criminal law); Wooden-Ware Co. v. United States , 106 U.S. 432, 434-435, 1 S.Ct. 398, 27 L.Ed. 230 (1882) (common law trespass). It's a principle reflected in the Lanham Act's text, too, which permits greater statutory damages for certain willful violations than for other violations. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). And it is a principle long reflected in equity practice where district courts have often considered a defendant's mental state, among other factors, when exercising their discretion in choosing a fitting remedy. See, e.g., L. P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co. , 277 U.S. 97, 99-100, 48 S.Ct. 449, 72 L.Ed. 800 (1928) ; Lander v. Lujan , 888 F.2d 153, 155-156 (C.A.D.C. 1989) ; United States v. Klimek , 952 F.Supp. 1100, 1117 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Given these traditional principles, we do not doubt that a trademark defendant's mental state is a highly important consideration in determining whether an award of profits is appropriate. But acknowledging that much is a far cry from insisting on the inflexible precondition to recovery Fossil advances.
With little to work with in the statute's language, structure, and history, Fossil ultimately rests on an appeal to policy. The company tells us that stouter restraints on profits awards are needed to deter "baseless" trademark suits. Meanwhile, Romag insists that its reading of the statute will promote greater respect for trademarks in the "modern global economy." As these things go, amici amplify both sides' policy arguments. Maybe, too, each side has a point. But the place for reconciling competing and incommensurable policy goals like these is before policymakers. This Court's limited role is to read and apply the law those policymakers have ordained, and here our task is clear. The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice BREYER and Justice KAGAN join, concurring.
We took this case to decide whether willful infringement is a prerequisite to an award of profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The decision below held that willfulness is such a prerequisite. App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a. That is incorrect. The relevant authorities, particularly pre-Lanham Act case law, show that willfulness is a highly important consideration in awarding profits under § 1117(a), but not an absolute precondition. I would so hold and concur on that ground.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, concurring in the judgment.
I agree that 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) does not impose a "willfulness" prerequisite for awarding profits in trademark infringement actions. Courts of equity, however, defined "willfulness" to encompass a range of culpable mental states-including the equivalent of recklessness, but excluding "good faith" or negligence. See 5 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 30:62 (5th ed. 2019) (explaining that "willfulness" ranged from fraudulent and knowing to reckless and indifferent behavior); see also, e.g., Lawrence-Williams Co. v. Societe Enfants Gombault et Cie , 52 F.2d 774, 778 (C.A.6 1931) ; Regis v. Jaynes , 191 Mass. 245, 248-249, 77 N.E. 774, 776 (1906).
The majority suggests that courts of equity were just as likely to award profits for such "willful" infringement as they were for "innocent" infringement. Ante , at 1496 - 1497. But that does not reflect the weight of authority, which indicates that profits were hardly, if ever, awarded for innocent infringement. See, e.g., Wood v. Peffer , 55 Cal.App.2d 116, 125, 130 P.2d 220 (1942) (explaining that "equity constantly refuses, for want of fraudulent intent, the prayer for an accounting of profits"); Globe-Wernicke Co. v. Safe-Cabinet Co. , 110 Ohio St. 609, 617, 144 N.E. 711, 713 (1924) ("By the great weight of authority, particularly where the infringement ... was deliberate and willful, it is held that the wrongdoer is required to account for all profits realized by him as a result of his wrongful acts"); Dickey v. Mutual Film Corp. , 186 A.D. 701, 702, 174 N.Y.S. 784 (1919) (declining to award profits because there was "no proof of any fraudulent intent upon the part of the defendant"); Standard Cigar Co. v. Goldsmith , 58 Pa.Super. 33, 37 (1914) (reasoning that a defendant "should be compelled to account for ... profits" where "the infringement complained of was not the result of mistake or ignorance of the plaintiff 's right"). Nor would doing so seem to be consistent with longstanding equitable principles which, after all, seek to deprive only wrongdoers of their gains from misconduct. Cf. Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co. , 298 U.S. 448, 456-457, 56 S.Ct. 792, 80 L.Ed. 1274 (1936). Thus, a district court's award of profits for innocent or good-faith trademark infringement would not be consonant with the "principles of equity" referenced in § 1117(a) and reflected in the cases the majority cites. Ante at 1496 - 1497.
Because the majority is agnostic about awarding profits for both "willful" and innocent infringement as those terms have been understood, I concur in the judgment only.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice joins.
There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U. S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.
The petitioner in this case challenges the constitutionality of the statutory provisions governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth by children born out of wedlock and outside of the United States. The specific challenge is to the distinction drawn by §309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 238, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1409, between the child of an alien father and a citizen mother, on the one hand, and the child of an alien mother and a citizen father, on the other. Subject to residence requirements for the citizen parent, the citizenship of the former is established at birth; the citizenship of the latter is not established unless and until either the father or his child takes certain affirmative steps to create or confirm their relationship. Petitioner contends that the statutory requirement that those steps be taken while the child is a minor violates the Fifth Amendment because the statute contains no limitation on the time within which the child of a citizen mother may prove that she became a citizen at birth.
We find no merit in the challenge because the statute does not impose any limitation on the time within which the members of either class of children may prove that they qualify for citizenship. It does establish different qualifications for citizenship for the two classes of children, but we are persuaded that the qualifications for the members of each of those classes, so far as they are implicated by the facts of this case, are well supported by valid governmental interests. We therefore conclude that the statutory distinction is neither arbitrary nor invidious.
I
Petitioner was born on June 20,1970, in Angeles City, Republic of the Philippines. The records of the Local Civil Registrar disclose that her birth was registered 10 days later, that she was named Lorena Peñero, that her mother was Luz Peñero, a Filipino national, and that her birth was “illegitimate.” Spaces on the form referring to the name and the nationality of the father are blank.
Petitioner grew up and received her high school and college education in the Philippines. At least until after her 21st birthday, she never lived in the United States. App. 19. There is no evidence that either she or her mother ever resided outside of the Philippines.
Petitioner’s father, Charlie Miller, is an American citizen residing in Texas. He apparently served in the United States Air Force and was stationed in the Philippines at the time of petitioner’s conception. Id., at 21. He never married petitioner’s mother, and there is no evidence that he was in the Philippines at the time of petitioner’s birth or that he ever returned there after completing his tour of duty. In 1992, Miller filed a petition in a Texas court to establish his relationship with petitioner. The petition was unopposed and the court entered a “Voluntary Paternity Decree” finding him “to be the biological and legal father of Lorelyn Pe-ñero Miller.” The decree provided that “[t]he parent-child relationship is created between the father and the child as if the child were born to the father and mother during marriage.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 38.
In November 1991, petitioner filed an application for registration as a United States citizen with the State Department. The application was denied in March 1992, and petitioner reapplied after her father obtained the paternity decree in Texas in July 1992. The reapplication was also denied on the ground that the Texas decree did not satisfy “the requirements of Section 309(a)(4) INA, which requires that a child born out of wedlock be legitimated before age eighteen in order to acquire U. S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA (formerly Section 301(a)(7) INA).” Id., at 33. In further explanation of its reliance on § 309(a)(4), the denial letter added: “Without such legitimation before age eighteen, there is no legally recognized relationship under the INA and the child acquires no rights of citizenship through an American citizen parent.” Ibid.
II
In 1993, petitioner and her father filed an amended complaint against the Secretary of State in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking a judgment declaring that petitioner is a citizen of the United States and that she therefore has the right to possess an American passport. They alleged that the INA’s different treatment of citizen mothers and citizen fathers violated Mr. Miller’s “right to equal protection under the laws by utilizing the suspect classification of gender without justification.” App. 11. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by the Government, the District Court concluded that Mr. Miller did not have standing and dismissed him as a party. Because venue in Texas was therefore improper, see 28 U. S. C. § 1391(e), the court transferred the case to the District Court for the District of Columbia, the site of the Secretary’s residence. The Government renewed its motion in that forum, and that court concluded that even though petitioner had suffered an injury caused by the Secretary’s refusal to register her as a citizen, the injury was not “redressable” because federal courts do not have the power to “grant citizenship.” 870 F. Supp. 1, 3 (1994) (citing INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U. S. 875, 884 (1988)).
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds. It first held that petitioner does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of 8 U. S. C. § 1409(a). If her challenge should succeed, the court could enter a judgment declaring that she was already a citizen pursuant to other provisions of the INA. 96 F. 3d 1467, 1470 (1996)..On the merits, however, the court concluded that the requirements imposed on the “illegitimate” child of an American citizen father, but not on the child of a citizen mother, were justified by the interest in fostering the child’s ties with this country. It explained:
“[W]e conclude, as did the Ninth Circuit, that ‘a desire to promote early ties to this country and to those relatives who are citizens of this country is not a[n irrational basis for the requirements made by5 sections 1409(a)(3) and (4). Ablang [v. Reno], 52 F. 3d at 806. Furthermore, we find it entirely reasonable for Congress to require special evidence of such ties between an illegitimate child and its father. A mother is far less likely to ignore the child she has carried in her womb than is the natural father, who may not even be aware of its existence. As the Court has recognized,'mothers and fathers of illegitimate children are not similarly situated.’ Parham v. Hughes, 441 U. S. 347, 355 (1979).
'The putative father often goes his way unconscious of the birth of the child. Even if conscious, he is very often totally unconcerned because of the absence of any ties to the mother.’ Id. at 355 n. 7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This sex-based distinction seems especially warranted where, as here, the applicant for citizenship was fathered by a U. S. serviceman while serving a tom' of duty overseas.” Id., at 1472.
Judge Wald concurred in the judgment despite her opinion that there is “no rational basis for a law that requires a U. S. citizen fathei’, but not a U. S. citizen mother, to formally legitimate a child before she reaches majority as well as agree in writing to provide financial support until that date or forever forfeit the right to transmit citizenship.” Id., at 1473. While she agreed that “requiring some sort of minimal 'family ties’ between parent and child, as well as fostering an early connection between child and country, is rational government policy,” she did not agree that those goals justify “a set of procedural hurdles for men — and only men — who wish to confer citizenship on their children.” Id., at 1474. She nevertheless regretfully concurred in the judgment because she believed that our decision in Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787 (1977), required the court to uphold the constitutionality of. § 1409. 96 F. 3d, at 1473.
We granted certiorari to address the following question:
“Is the distinction in 8 U. S. C. § 1409 between ‘illegitimate’ children of United States citizen mothers and ‘illegitimate’ children of United States citizen fathers a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution?” 520 U. S. 1208 (1997).
III
Before explaining our answer to the single question that we agreed to address, it is useful to put to one side certain issues that need not be resolved. First, we need not decide whether Fiallo v. Bell dictates the outcome of this case, because that case involved the claims of several aliens to a special immigration preference, whereas here petitioner claims that she is, and for years has been, an American citizen. Additionally, Fiallo involved challenges to the statutory distinctions between “illegitimate” and “legitimate” children, which are not encompassed in the question presented in this ease and which we therefore do not consider.
The statutory provision at issue in this case, 8 U. S. C. § 1409, draws two types of distinctions between citizen fathers and citizen mothers of children born out of wedlock. The first relates to the class of unmarried persons who may transmit citizenship at birth to their offspring, and the second defines the affirmative steps that are required to transmit such citizenship.
With respect to the eligible class of parents, an unmarried father may not transmit his citizenship to a child born abroad to an alien mother unless he satisfies the residency requirement in § 1401(g) that applies to a citizen parent who is married to an alien. Under that provision, the citizen parent must have resided in the United States for a total of at least five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of 14 years. If the citizen parent is an unmarried mother, however, § 1409(c) rather than § 1401(g) applies; under that subsection she need only have had one year of continuous residence in the United States in order to confer citizenship on her offspring. Since petitioner’s father satisfied the residency requirement in § 1401(g), the validity of the distinction between that requirement and the unusually generous provision in § 1409(c) is not at issue.
As for affirmative steps, § 1409(a), as amended in 1986, imposes four requirements concerning unmarried citizen fathers that must be satisfied to confer citizenship “as of the date of birth” on a person born out of wedlock to an alien mother in another country. Citizenship for such persons is established if:
“(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,
“(2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,
“(3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
“(4) while the person is under the age of 18 years—
“(A) the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
“(B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
“(C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.” 8 U. S. C. § 1409(a).
Only the second of these four requirements is expressly included in § 1409(c), the provision applicable to unwed citizen mothers. See n. 7, supra. Petitioner, relying heavily on Judge Wald’s separate opinion below, argues that there is no rational basis for imposing the other three requirements on children of citizen fathers but not citizen mothers. The first requirement is not at issue here, however, because the Government does not question Mr. Miller’s blood relationship with petitioner.
Moreover, even though the parties have disputed the validity of the third condition — and even though that condition is repeatedly targeted in Justice Breyer’s dissent — we need not resolve that debate because it is unclear whether the requirement even applies in petitioner’s case; it was added in 1986, after her birth, and she falls within a special interim provision that allows her to elect application of the preamendment § 1409(a), which required only legitimation before age 21. See n. 3, swpra. And even if the condition did apply to her claim of citizenship, the State Department’s refusal to register petitioner as a citizen was expressly based on § 1409(a)(4). Indeed, since that subsection is written in the disjunctive, it is only necessary to uphold the least onerous of the three alternative methods of compliance to sustain the Government’s position. Thus, the only issue presented by the facts of this ease is whether the requirement in § 1409(a)(4) — that children born out of wedlock to citizen fathers, but not citizen mothers, obtain formal proof of paternity by age 18, either through legitimation, written acknowledgment by the father under oath, or adjudication by a competent court — violates the Fifth Amendment.
It is of significance that the petitioner in this ease, unlike the petitioners in Fiallo, see 430 U. S., at 790, and n. 3, is not challenging the denial of an application for special status. She is contesting the Government’s refusal to register and treat her as a citizen. If she were to prevail, the judgment in her favor would confirm her pre-existing citizenship rather than grant her rights that she does not now possess. We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that she has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See 96 F. 3d, at 1469-1470 (distinguishing INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U. S. 875 (1988)). Moreover, because her claim relies heavily on the proposition that her citizen father should have the same right to transmit citizenship as would a citizen mother, we shall evaluate the alleged discrimination against him as well as its impact on her. See, e. g., Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 193-197 (1976).
IV
Under the terms of the INA, the joint conduct of a citizen and an alien that results in conception is not sufficient to produce an American citizen, regardless of whether the citizen parent is the male or the female partner. If the two parties engage in a second joint act — if they agree to marry one another — citizenship will follow. The provision at issue in this ease, however, deals only with cases in which no relevant joint conduct occurs after conception; it determines the ability of each of those parties, acting separately, to confer citizenship on a child born outside of the United States.
If the citizen is the unmarried female, she must first choose to carry the pregnancy to term and reject the alternative of abortion — an alternative that is available by law to many, and in reality to most, women around the world. She must then actually give birth to the child. Section 1409(e) rewards that choice and that labor by conferring citizenship on her child.
If the citizen is the unmarried male, he need not participate in the decision to give birth rather than to choose an abortion; he need not be present at the birth; and for at least 17 years thereafter he need not provide any parental support, either moral or financial, to either the mother or the child, in order to preserve his right to confer citizenship on the child pursuant to § 1409(a). In order retroactively to transmit his citizenship to the child as of the date of the child’s birth, all that § 1409(a)(4) requires is that he be willing and able to acknowledge his paternity in writing under oath while the child is still a minor. 8 U. S. C. § 1409(a)(4)(B). In fact, § 1409(a)(4) requires even less of the unmarried father— that provision is alternatively satisfied if, before the child turns 18, its paternity “is established by adjudication of a competent court.” § 1409(a)(4)(C). It would appear that the child could obtain such an adjudication absent any affirmative act by the father, and perhaps even over his express objection.
There is thus a vast difference between the burdens imposed on the respective parents of potential citizens born out of wedlock in a foreign land. It seems obvious that the burdens imposed on the female citizen are more severe than those imposed on the male citizen by § 1409(a)(4), the only provision at issue in this case. It is nevertheless argued that the male citizen and his offspring are the victims of irrational discrimination because § 1409(a)(4) is the product of “ ‘overbroad stereotypes about the relative abilities of men and women.’” Brief for Petitioner 8. We find the argument singularly unpersuasive.
Insofar as the argument rests on the fact that the male citizen parent will "forever forfeit the right to transmit citizenship” if he does not come forward while the child is a minor, whereas there is no limit on the time within which the citizen mother may prove her blood relationship, the argument overlooks the difference between a substantive condition and a procedural limitation. The substantive conduct of the unmarried citizen mother that qualifies her child for citizenship is completed at the moment of birth; the relevant conduct of the unmarried citizen father or his child may occur at any time within 18 years thereafter. There is, however, no procedural hurdle that limits the time or the method by which either parent (or the child) may provide the State Department with evidence that the necessary steps were taken to transmit citizenship to the child.
The substantive requirement embodied in § 1409(a)(4) serves, at least in part, to ensure that a person born out of wedlock who claims citizenship by birth actually shares a blood relationship with an American citizen. As originally enacted in 1952, § 1409(a) required simply that “the paternity of such child [born out of wedlock] is established while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.” 66 Stat. 238. The section offered no other means of proving a biological relationship. In 1986, at the same time that it modified the INA provisions at issue in Fiallo in favor of unmarried fathers and their out-of-wedlock children, see n. 4, supra, Congress expanded § 1409(a) to allow the two other alternatives now found in subsections (4)(B) and (4)(C). Pub. L. 99-653, § 13, 100 Stat. 3657. The purpose of the amendment was to “simplify and facilitate determinations of acquisition of citizenship by children born out of wedlock to an American citizen father, by eliminating the necessity of determining the father’s residence or domicile and establishing satisfaction of the legitimation provisions of the jurisdiction.” Hearings, at 150. The 1986 amendment also added § 1409(a)(1), which requires paternity to be established by clear and convincing evidence, in order to deter fraudulent claims; but that standard of proof was viewed as an ancillary measure, not a replacement for proof of paternity by legitimation or a formal alternative. See id., at 150, 155.
There is no doubt that ensuring reliable proof of a biological relationship between the potential citizen and its citizen parent is an important governmental objective. See Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 770-771 (1977); Fiallo, 430 U. S., at 799, n. 8. Nor can it be denied that the male and female parents are differently situated in this respect. The blood relationship to the birth mother is immediately obvious and is typically established by hospital records and birth certificates; the relationship to the unmarried father may often be undisclosed and unrecorded in any contemporary public record. Thus, the requirement that the father make a timely written acknowledgment under oath, or that the child obtain a court adjudication of paternity, produces the rough equivalent of the documentation that is already available to evidence the blood relationship between the mother and the child. If the statute had required the citizen parent, whether male or female, to obtain appropriate formal documentation within 30 days after birth, it would have been “gender-neutral” on its face, even though in practical operation it would disfavor unmarried males because in virtually every case such a requirement would be superfluous for the mother. Surely the fact that the statute allows 18 years in which to provide evidence that is comparable to what the mother provides immediately after birth cannot be viewed as discriminating against the father or his child.
Nevertheless, petitioner reiterates the suggestion that it is irrational to require a formal act such as a written acknowledgment or a court adjudication because the advent of reliable genetic testing folly addresses the problem of proving paternity, and subsection (a)(1) already requires proof of paternity by clear and convincing evidence. See 96 P. 3d, at 1474. We respectfully disagree. Nothing in subsection (a)(1) requires the citizen father or his child to obtain a genetic paternity test. It is difficult, moreover, to understand why signing a paternity acknowledgment under oath prior to the child’s 18th birthday is more burdensome than obtaining a genetic test, which is relatively expensive, normally requires physical intrusion for both the putative father and child, and often is not available in foreign countries. Congress could fairly conclude that despite recent scientific advances, it still remains preferable to require some formal legal act to establish paternity, coupled with a clear-and-eonvincing evidence standard to deter fraud. The time limitation, in turn, provides assurance that the formal act is based upon reliable evidence, and also deters fraud. Congress is of course free to revise its collective judgment and permit genetic proof of paternity rather than requiring some formal legal act by the father or a court, but the Constitution does not now require any such change.
Section 1409 also serves two other important purposes that are unrelated to the determination of paternity: the interest in encouraging the development of a healthy relationship between the citizen parent and the child while the child is a minor; and the related interest in fostering ties between the foreign-born child and the United States. When a child is born out of wedlock outside of the United States, the citizen mother, unlike the citizen father, certainly knows of her child’s existence and typically will have custody of the child immediately after the birth. Such a child thus has the opportunity to develop ties with its citizen mother at an early age, and may even grow up in the United States if the mother returns. By contrast, due to the normal interval of nine months between conception and birth, the unmarried father may not even know that his child exists, and the child may not know the father’s identity. Section 1409(a)(4) requires a relatively easy, formal step by either the citizen father or his child that shows beyond doubt that at least one of the two knows of their blood relationship, thus assuring at least the opportunity for them to develop a personal relationship.
The facts of this very ease provide a ready example of the concern. Mr. Miller and petitioner both failed to take any steps to establish a legal relationship with each other before petitioner’s 21st birthday, and there is no indication in the record that they had any contact whatsoever before she applied fór a United States passport. Given the size of the American military establishment that has been stationed in various parts of the world for the past half century, it is reasonable to assume that this case is not unusual. In 1970, when petitioner was born, about 683,000 service personnel were stationed in the Far East, 24,000 of whom were in the Philippines. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 381 (99th ed. 1978). Of all Americans in the military at that time, only one percent were female. These figures, coupled with the interval between conception and birth and the fact that military personnel regularly return to the United States when a tour of duty ends, suggest that Congress had legitimate concerns about a class of children born abroad out of wedlock to alien mothers and to American servicemen who would not necessarily know about, or be known by, their children. It was surely reasonable when the INA was enacted in 1952, and remains equally reasonable today, for Congress to condition the award of citizenship to such children on an act that demonstrates, at a minimum, the possibility that those who become citizens will develop ties with this country — a requirement that performs a meaningful purpose for citizen fathers but normally would be superfluous for citizen mothers.
It is of course possible that any child born in a foreign country may ultimately fail to establish ties with its citizen parent and with this country, even though the child’s citizen parent has engaged in the conduct that qualifies the child for citizenship. A citizen mother may abandon her child before returning to the States, and a citizen father, even after acknowledging paternity, may die or abscond before his child has an opportunity to bond with him or visit this country. The fact that the interest in fostering ties with this country may not be fully achieved for either class of children does not qualify the legitimacy or the importance of that interest. If, as Congress reasonably may have assumed, the formal requirements in § 1409(a)(4) tend to make it just as likely that fathers will have the opportunity to develop a meaningful relationship with their children as does the fact that the mother knows of her baby’s existence and often has custody at birth, the statute’s effect will reduce, rather than aggravate, the disparity between the two classes of children.
We are convinced not only that strong governmental interests justify the additional requirement imposed on children of citizen fathers, but also that the particular means used in § 1409(a)(4) are well tailored to serve those interests. It is perfectly appropriate to require some formal act, not just any evidence that the father or his child know of the other’s existence. Such a formal act, whether legitimation, written acknowledgment by the father, or a court adjudication, lessens the risk of fraudulent claims made years after the relevant conduct was required. As for the requirement that the formal act take place while the child is a minor, Congress obviously has a powerful interest in fostering ties with the child’s citizen parent and the United States during his or her formative years. If there is no reliable, contemporaneous proof that the child and the citizen father had the opportunity to form familial bonds before the child turned 18, Congress reasonably may demand that the child show sufficient ties to this country on its own rather than through its citizen parent in order to be a citizen.
Our conclusion that Congress may require an affirmative act by unmarried fathers and their children, but not mothers and their children, is directly supported by our decision in Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U. S. 248 (1983). That case involved a New York law that automatically provided mothers of “illegitimate” children with prior notice of an adoption proceeding and the right to veto an adoption, but only extended those rights to unmarried fathers whose claim of paternity was supported by some formal public act, such as a court adjudication, the filing of a notice of intent to claim paternity, or written acknowledgment by the mother. Id., at 251-252, n. 5, 266. The petitioner in Lehr, an unmarried putative father, need only have mailed a postcard to the State’s “putative father registry” to enjoy the same rights as the child’s undisputed mother, id., at 264, yet he argued that this gender-based requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause. We rejected that argument, and we find the comparable claim in this case, if anything, even less persuasive. Whereas the putative father in Lehr was deprived of certain rights because he failed to take some affirmative step within about two years of the child’s birth (when the adoption proceeding took place), here the unfavorable gender-based treatment was attributable to Mr. Miller’s failure to take appropriate action within 21 years of petitioner’s birth and petitioner’s own failure to obtain a paternity adjudication by a “competent court” before she turned 18.
Even though the rule applicable to each class of children born abroad is eminently reasonable and justified by important Government policies, petitioner and her amici argue that § 1409 is unconstitutional because it is a “gender-based classification.” We shall comment briefly on that argument.
V
The words “stereotype,” “stereotyping,” and “stereotypical” are used repeatedly in petitioner’s and her amici's briefs. They note that we have condemned statutory classifications that rest on the assumption that gender may serve as a proxy for relevant qualifications to serve as the administrator of an estate, Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), to engage in professional nursing, Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718 (1982), or to train for military service, United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515 (1996), to name a few examples. Moreover, we have' expressly repudiated cases that rested on the assumption that only the members of one sex could suitably practice law or tend bar. See Hogan, 458 U. S., at 725, n. 10 (commenting on Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873), and Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U. S. 464 (1948)). Discrimination that “is merely the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about females” is unacceptable. Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 223 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).
The gender equality principle that was implicated in those cases is only indirectly involved in this case for two reasons. First, the conclusion that petitioner is not a citizen rests on several coinciding factors, not just the gender of her citizen parent. On the facts of this case, even if petitioner’s mother had been a citizen and her father had been the alien, petitioner would not qualify for citizenship because her mother has never been to the United States. Alternatively, if her citizen parent had been a female member of the Air Force and, like Mr. Miller, had returned to the States at the end of her tour of duty, § 1409 quite probably would have been irrelevant and petitioner would have become a citizen at birth by force of the Constitution itself. Second, it is not merely the sex of the citizen parent that determines whether the child is a citizen under the terms of the statute; rather, it is an event creating a legal relationship between parent and child — the birth itself for citizen mothers, but postbirth conduct for citizen fathers and their offspring. Nevertheless, we may assume that if the classification in § 1409 were merely the product of an outmoded stereotype, it would be invalid.
The “gender stereotypes” on which §1409 is supposedly premised are (1) “that the American father is never anything more than the proverbial breadwinner who remains aloof from day-to-day child rearing duties,” and (2) “that a mother will be closer to her child born out of wedlock than a father will be to his.” Even disregarding the statute’s separate, nonstereotypieal purpose of ensuring reliable proof of a blood relationship, neither of those propositions fairly reflects the justifications for the classification actually at issue.
Section 1409(a)(4) is not concerned with either the average father or even the average father of a child born out of wedlock. It is concerned with a father (a) whose child was born in a foreign country, and (b) who is unwilling or unable to acknowledge his paternity, and whose child is unable or unwilling to obtain a court paternity adjudication. A congressional assumption that such a father and his child are especially unlikely to develop a relationship, and thus to foster the child’s ties with this country, has a solid basis even if we assume that all fathers who have made some effort to become acquainted with their children are as good, if not better, parents than members of the opposite sex.
Nor does the statute assume that all mothers of illegitimate children will necessarily have a closer relationship with their children than will fathers. It does assume that all of them will be present at the event that transmits their citizenship to the child, that hospital records and birth certificates will normally make a further acknowledgment and formal proof of parentage unnecessary, and that their initial custody will at least give them the opportunity to develop a caring relationship with the child. Section 1409(a)(4) — the only provision that we need consider — is therefore supported by the undisputed assumption that fathers are less likely than mothers to have the opportunity to develop relationships, not simply, as Justice Breyer contends, post, at 482-483, that they are less likely to take advantage of that opportunity when it exists. These assumptions are firmly grounded and adequately explain why Congress found it unnecessary to impose requirements on the mother that were entirely appropriate for the father.
None of the premises on which the statutory classification is grounded can be fairly characterized as an accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about the members of either sex. The biological differences between single men and single women provide a relevant basis for differing rules governing their ability to confer citizenship on children born in foreign lands. Indeed, it is the suggestion that simply because Congress has authorized citizenship at birth for children born abroad to unmarried mothers, it cannot impose any postbirth conditions upon the granting of citizenship to the foreign-born children of citizen fathers, that might be characterized as merely a byproduct of the strong presumption that gender-based legal distinctions are suspect. An impartial analysis of the relevant differences between citizen mothers and citizen fathers plainly rebuts that presumption.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Her mother was bom in Leyte. Several years after petitioner's birth, her mother married a man named Prank Raspotnik and raised a family in Angeles aty. App. 22.
Although there is no formal finding that his paternity has been established by dear and convincing evidence, it is undisputed. In a letter to petitioner’s attorney, the State Department acknowledged that it was “satisfied that Mr. Charlie R. Miller, the putative father, is a U. S. citizen, that he possesses suffident physical presence in the United States to transmit dtizenship, and that there is suffident evidence that he had access to the applicant's mother at the probable time of conception.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 32-33.
The comment, of coarse, related only to cases in which the child horn out of wedlock claims citizenship through her father. Moreover, the reference to age 18 was inaccurate; petitioner was born prior to 1986, when § 309(a) was amended to change the relevant age from 21 to 18, see Pub. L. 99-653, § 13, 100 Stat. 3657, and she falls within a narrow age bracket whose members may elect to have the preamendment law apply, see note following 8 U. S. C. § 1409 (Effective Date of 1986 Amendment) (quoting § 23(e), as added, Pub. L. 100-525, §8(r), 102 Stat. 2619). This oversight does not affect her case, however, because she was over 21 when the Texas decree was entered.
The sections of the INA challenged in Fiallo defined the terms “child” and “parent,”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fourth Amendment protects the right, to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” but it is silent about how this right is to be enforced. To supplement the bare text, this Court created the exclusionary rule, a deterrent sanction that bars the prosecution from introducing evidence obtained by way of a Fourth Amendment violation. The question here is whether to apply this sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance with binding precedent that is later overruled. Because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.
> — Í
The question presented arises in this case as a result of a shift in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence on searches of automobiles incident to arrests of recent occupants.
A
Under this Court’s decision in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), a police officer who makes a lawful arrest may conduct a warrantless search of the arrestee’s person and the area “within his immediate control.” Id., at 763 (internal quotation marks omitted). This rule “may be stated clearly enough,” but in the early going after Chimel it proved difficult to apply, particularly in cases that involved searches “inside [of] automobile[s] after the arrestees [we]re no longer in [them].” See New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 458-459 (1981). A number of courts upheld the constitutionality of vehicle searches that were “substantially contemporaneous” with occupants’ arrests. Other courts disapproved of automobile searches incident to arrests, at least absent some continuing threat that the arrestee might gain access to the vehicle and “destroy evidence or grab a weapon.” In New York v. Belton, this Court granted cer-tiorari to resolve the conflict. See id., at 459-460.
In Belton, a police officer conducting a traffic stop lawfully-arrested four occupants of a vehicle and ordered the arrest-ees to line up, unhandcuffed, along the side of the thruway. Id., at 456; see Brief for Petitioner in New York v. Belton, O. T. 1980, No. 80-328, p. 3. The officer then searched the vehicle’s passenger compartment and found cocaine inside a jacket that lay on the backseat. Belton, 453 U. S., at 456. This Court upheld the search as reasonable incident to the occupants’ arrests. In an opinion that repeatedly stressed the need for a “straightforward,” “workable rule” to guide police conduct, the Court announced “that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.” Id., at 459-460 (footnote omitted).
For years, Belton was widely -understood to have set down a simple, bright-line rule. Numerous courts read the decision to authorize automobile searches incident to arrests of recent occupants, regardless of whether the arrestee in any particular ease was within reaching distance of the vehicle at the time of the search. See Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615, 628 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (collecting cases). Even after the arrestee had stepped out of the vehicle and had been subdued by police, the prevailing understanding was that Belton still authorized a substantially contemporaneous search of the automobile’s passenger compartment.
Not every court, however, agreed with this reading of Bel-ton. In State v. Gant, 216 Ariz. 1, 162 P. 3d 640 (2007), the Arizona Supreme Court considered an automobile search conducted after the vehicle’s occupant had been arrested, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car. The court distinguished Belton as a case in which “four unsecured” arrestees "presented an immediate risk of loss of evidence and an obvious threat to [a] lone officer’s safety.” 216 Ariz., at 4, 162 P. 3d, at 643. The court held that where no such “exigencies exis[t]” — where the arrestee has been subdued and the scene secured — the rule of Belton does not apply. 216 Ariz., at 4, 162 P. 3d, at 643.
This Court granted certiorari in Gant, see 552 U. S. 1230 (2008), and affirmed in a 5-to-4 decision. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U. S. 332 (2009). Four of the Justices in the majority agreed with the Arizona Supreme Court that Belton's holding applies only where “the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.” 556 U. S., at 343. The four dissenting Justices, by contrast, understood Belton to have explicitly adopted the simple, bright-line rule stated in the Belton Court’s opinion. 556 ü. S., at 357-358 (opinion of Alito, J.); see Belton, supra, at 460 (“[W]e hold that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile” (footnote omitted)). To limit Belton to cases involving unsecured arrestees, the dissenters thought, was to overrule the decision’s clear holding. Gant, supra, at 357-358. Justice Scalia, who provided the fifth vote to affirm in Gant, agreed with the dissenters’ understanding of Belton’s holding. 556 U. S., at 351-352 (concurring opinion). Justice Scalia favored a more explicit and complete overruling of Belton, but he joined what became the majority opinion to avoid “a 4-to-l-to-4” disposition. 556 U. S., at 354. As a result, the Court adopted a new, two-part rule under which an automobile search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest is constitutional (1) if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle during the search, or (2) if the police have reason to believe that the vehicle contains “evidence relevant to the crime of arrest.” Id., at 343 (citing Thornton, supra, at 632 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); internal quotation marks omitted).
B
The search at issue in this case took place a full two years before this Court announced its new rule in Gant On an April evening in 2007, police officers in Greenville, Alabama, conducted a routine traffic stop that eventually resulted in the arrests of driver Stella Owens (for driving while intoxicated) and passenger Willie Davis (for giving a false name to police). The police handcuffed both Owens and Davis, and they placed the arrestees in the back of separate patrol cars. The police then searched the passenger compartment of Owens’ vehicle and found a revolver inside Davis’ jacket pocket.
Davis was indicted in the Middle District of Alabama on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1). In his motion to suppress the revolver, Davis acknowledged that the officers’ search fully complied with “existing Eleventh Circuit precedent.” App. 13-15. Like most courts, the Eleventh Circuit had long read Belton to establish a bright-line rule authorizing substantially contemporaneous vehicle searches incident to arrests of recent occupants. See United States v. Gonzalez, 71 F. 3d 819, 822, 824-827 (CA11 1996) (upholding automobile search conducted after the defendant had been “pulled from the vehicle, handcuffed, laid on the ground, and placed under arrest”). Davis recognized that the District Court was obligated to follow this precedent, but he raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to preserve “the issue for review” on appeal. App. 15. The District Court denied the motion, and Davis was convicted on the firearms charge.
While Davis’ appeal was pending, this Court decided Gant. The Eleventh Circuit, in the opinion below, applied Ganfs new rule and held that the vehicle search incident to Davis’ arrest “violated [his] Fourth Amendment rights.” 598 F. 3d 1259, 1263 (CA11 2010). As for whether this constitutional violation warranted suppression, the Eleventh Circuit viewed that as a separate issue that turned on “the potential of exclusion to deter wrongful police conduct.” Id., at 1265 (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U. S. 135, 137 (2009); internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that “penalizing the [arresting] officer” for following binding appellate precedent would do nothing to “dete[r]... Fourth Amendment violations.” 598 F. 3d, at 1265-1266 (bracketing and internal quotation marks omitted). It therefore declined to apply the exclusionary rule and affirmed Davis’ conviction. We granted certiorari. 562 U. S. 1002 (2010).
II
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Amendment says nothing about suppressing evidence obtained in violation of this command. That rule — the exclusionary rule — is a “prudential” doctrine, Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357, 363 (1998), created by this Court to “compel respect for the constitutional guaranty.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 217 (1960); see Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). Exclusion is “not a personal constitutional right,” nor is it designed to “redress the injury” occasioned by an unconstitutional search. Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 486 (1976); see United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 454, n. 29 (1976) (exclusionary rule “unsupportable as reparation or compensatory dispensation to the injured criminal” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The rule’s sole purpose, we have repeatedly held, is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations. E. g., Herring, supra, at 141, and n. 2; United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 909, 921, n. 22 (1984); Elkins, supra, at 217 (“calculated to prevent, not to repair”). Our cases have thus limited the rule’s operation to situations in which this purpose is “thought most efficaciously served.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 (1974). Where suppression fails to yield “appreciable deterrence,” exclusion is “clearly... unwarranted.” Janis, supra, at 454.
Real deterrent value is a “necessary condition for exclusion,” but it is not “a sufficient” one. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 596 (2006). The analysis must also account for the “substantial social costs” generated by the rule. Leon, supra, at 907. Exclusion exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large. Stone, 428 U. S., at 490-491. It almost always requires courts to ignore reliable, trustworthy evidence bearing on guilt or innocence. Ibid. And its bottom-line effect, in many cases, is to suppress the truth and set the criminal loose in the community without punishment. See Herring, supra, at 141. Orn-eases hold that society must swallow this bitter pill when necessary, but only as a “last resort.” Hudson, supra, at 591. For exclusion to be appropriate, the deterrence benefits of suppression must outweigh its heavy costs. See Herring, supra, at 141; Leon, supra, at 910.
Admittedly, there was a time when our exclusionary-rule cases were not nearly so discriminating in their approach to the doctrine. “Expansive dicta” in several decisions, see Hudson, supra, at 591, suggested that the rule was a self-executing mandate implicit in the Fourth Amendment itself. See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 462 (1928) (remarking on the “striking outcome of the Weeks case” that “the Fourth Amendment, although not referring to or limiting the use of evidence in courts, really forbade its introduction”); Mapp, supra, at 655 ("[A]ll evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court”). As late as our 1971 decision in Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U. S. 560, 568-569, the Court “treated identification of a Fourth Amendment violation as synonymous with application of the exclusionary rule.” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 13 (1995). In time, however, we came to acknowledge the exclusionary rule for what it undoubtedly is— a “judicially created remedy” of this Court’s own making. Calandra, supra, at 348. We abandoned the old, “reflexive” application of the doctrine, and imposed a more rigorous weighing of its costs and deterrence benefits. Evans, supra, at 13; see, e. g., Calandra, supra; Janis, supra; Stone, supra; INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032 (1984); United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620 (1980). In a line of cases beginning with Leon, 468 U. S. 897, we also recalibrated our cost-benefit analysis in exclusion cases to focus the inquiry on the “flagrancy of the police misconduct” at issue. Id., at 909, 911.
The basic insight of the Leon line of cases is that the deterrence benefits of exclusion “var[y] with the culpability of the law enforcement conduct” at issue. Herring, 555 U. S., at 143. When the police exhibit “deliberate,” “reckless,” or “grossly negligent” disregard for Fourth Amendment rights, the deterrent value of exclusion is strong and tends to outweigh the resulting costs. Id., at 144. But when the police act with an objectively “reasonable good-faith belief” that their conduct is lawful, Leon, supra, at 909 (internal quotation marks omitted), or when their conduct involves only simple, “isolated” negligence, Herring, supra, at 137, the “'deterrence rationale loses much of its force,”’ and exclusion cannot “pay its way,” Leon, supra, at 919, 908, n. 6 (quoting United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531, 539 (1975)).
The Court has over time applied this “good-faith” exception across a range of cases. Leon itself, for example, held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in “objectively reasonable reliance” on a warrant later held invalid. 468 U. S., at 922. The error in such a case rests with the issuing magistrate, not the police officer, and “punish[ing] the errors of judges” is not the office of the exclusionary rule. Id., at 916; see also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U. S. 981, 990 (1984) (companion case declining to apply exclusionary rule where warrant held invalid as a result of judge’s clerical error).
Other good-faith eases have sounded a similar theme. Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340 (1987), extended the good-faith exception to searches conducted in reasonable reliance on subsequently invalidated statutes. Id., at 349-350 (“legislators, like judicial officers, are not the focus of the rule”). In Evans, supra, the Court applied the good-faith exception in a case where the police reasonably relied on erroneous information concerning an arrest warrant in a database maintained by judicial employees. Id., at 14. Most recently, in Herring, supra, we extended Evans in a case where police employees erred in maintaining records in a warrant database. “[IJsolated,” “nonrecurring” police negligence, we determined, lacks the culpability required to justify the harsh sanction of exclusion. 555 U. S., at 137, 144.
1 — I I — i ) — I
The question in this ease is whether to apply the exclusionary rule when the police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on binding judicial precedent. At the time of the search at issue here, we had not yet decided Gant, 556 U. S. 332, and the Eleventh Circuit had interpreted our decision in Belton, 453 U. S. 454, to establish a bright-line rule authorizing the search of a vehicle’s passenger compartment incident to a recent occupant’s arrest. Gonzalez, 71 F. 3d, at 825. The search incident to Davis’ arrest in this case followed the Eleventh Circuit’s Gonzalez precedent to the letter. Although the search turned out to be unconstitutional under Gant, all agree that the officers’ conduct was in strict compliance with then-binding Circuit law and was not culpable in any way. See Brief for Petitioner 49 (“suppression” in this case would “impl[y] no assignment of blame”).
Under our exclusionary-rule precedents, this acknowledged absence of police culpability dooms Davis’ claim. Police practices trigger the harsh sanction of exclusion only when they are deliberate enough to yield “meaningful 1]” deterrence, and culpable enough to be “worth the price paid by the justice system.” Herring, 555 U. S., at 144. The conduct of the officers here was neither of these things. The officers who conducted the search did not violate Davis’ Fourth Amendment rights deliberately, recklessly, or with gross negligence. See ibid. Nor does this case involve any “recurring or systemic negligence” on the part of law enforcement. Ibid. The police acted in strict compliance with binding precedent, and their behavior was not wrongful. Unless the exclusionary rule is to become a strict-liability regime, it can have no application in this case.
Indeed, in 27 years of practice under Leon’s good-faith exception, we have “never applied” the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained as a result of noneulpable, innocent police conduct. Herring, supra, at 144. If the police in this case had reasonably relied on a warrant in conducting their search, see Leon, supra, or on an erroneous warrant record in a government database, Herring, supra, the exclusionary rule would not apply. And if Congress or the Alabama Legislature had enacted a statute codifying the precise holding of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Gonzalez,, we would swiftly conclude that “ ‘[penalizing the officer for the [legislature’s] error... cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.’” Krull, 480 U. S., at 350. The same should be true of Davis’ attempt here to “ ‘[p]enaliz[e] the officer for the [appellate judges’] error.’” Ibid.
About all that exclusion would deter in this case is conscientious police work. Responsible law enforcement officers will take care to learn “what is required of them” under Fourth Amendment precedent and will conform their conduct to these rules. Hudson, 547 U. S., at 599. But by the same token, when binding appellate precedent specifically authorizes a particular police practice, well-trained officers will and should use that tool to fulfill their crime-detection and public-safety responsibilities. An officer who conducts a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent does no more than ‘“ac[t] as a reasonable officer would and should act’ ” under the circumstances. Leon, 468 U. S., at 920 (quoting Stone, 428 U. S., at 539-540 (White, J., dissenting)). The deterrent effect of exclusion in such a case can only be to discourage the officer from ‘“do[ing] his duty.’” 468 U. S., at 920.
That is not the kind of deterrence the exclusionary rule seeks to foster. We have stated before, and we reaffirm today, that the harsh sanction of exclusion “should not be applied to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity.” Id., at 919. Evidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to the exclusionary rule.
IV
Justice Breyer’s dissent and Davis argue that, although the police conduct in this case was in no way culpable, other considerations should prevent the good-faith exception from applying. We are not persuaded.
A
1
The principal argument of both the dissent and Davis is that the exclusionary rule’s availability to enforce new Fourth Amendment precedent is a retroactivity issue, see Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314 (1987), not a good-faith issue. They contend that applying the good-faith exception where police have relied on overruled precedent effectively revives the discarded retroactivity regime of Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965). See post, at 254-256.
In Linkletter, we held that the retroactive effect of a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure should be determined on a case-by-case weighing of interests. For each new rule, Linkletter required courts to consider a three-faetor balancing test that looked to the “purpose” of the new rule, “reliance” on the old rule by law enforcement and others, and the effect retroactivity would have “on the administration of justice.” 381 U. S., at 636. After “weighting] the merits and demerits in each case,” courts decided whether and to what extent a new rule should be given retroactive effect. Id., at 629. In Linkletter itself, the balance of interests prompted this Court to conclude that Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643—which incorporated the exclusionary rule against the States — should not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. 381 U. S., at 639-640. The next year, we extended Linkletter to retroactivity determinations in eases on direct review. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 733 (1966) (holding that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), applied retroactively only to trials commenced after the decisions were released).
Over time, Linkletter proved difficult to apply in a consistent, coherent way. Individual applications of the standard “produced strikingly divergent results,” Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U. S. 264, 273 (2008), that many saw as “incompatible” and “inconsistent,” Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 258 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Justice Harlan in particular, who had endorsed the Linkletter standard early on, offered a strong critique in which he argued that “basic judicial” norms required full retroactive application of new rules to all eases still subject to direct review. 394 U. S., at 258-259.; see also Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667, 675-702 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Eventually, and after more than 20 years of toil under Link-letter, the Court adopted Justice Harlan’s view and held that newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply “retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception.” Griffith, supra, at 328.
2
The dissent and Davis argue that applying the good-faith exception in this case is “incompatible” with our retroactivity precedent under Griffith. See post, at 254; Reply Brief for Petitioner 3-7. We think this argument conflates what are two distinct doctrines.
Our retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief. Retroactive application under Griffith lifts what would otherwise be a categorical bar to obtaining redress for the government's violation of a newly announced constitutional rule. See Dan-forth, supra, at 271, n. 5 (noting that it may “make more sense to speak in terms of the ‘redressability’ of violations of new rules, rather than the ‘retroactivity’ of such new rules”). Retroactive application does not, however, determine what “appropriate remedy” (if any) the defendant should obtain. See Powell v. Nevada, 511 U. S. 79, 84 (1994) (noting that it “does not necessarily follow” from retroactive application of a new rule that the defendant will “gain... relief”). Remedy is a separate, analytically distinct issue. Cf. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U. S. 167, 189 (1990) (plurality opinion) (“[T]he Court has never equated its retroac-tivity principles with remedial principles”). As a result, the retroactive application of a new rule of substantive Fourth Amendment law raises the question whether a suppression remedy applies; it does not answer that question. See Leon, 468 U. S., at 906 (‘Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case... is ‘an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct’ ”).
When this Court announced its decision in Gant, Davis’ conviction had not yet become final on direct review. Gant therefore applies retroactively to this case. Davis may invoke its newly announced rule of substantive Fourth Amendment law as a basis for seeking relief. See Griffith, supra, at 326, 328. The question, then, becomes one of remedy, and on that issue Davis seeks application of the exclusionary rule. But exclusion of evidence does not automatically follow from the fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. See Evans, 514 U. S., at 13-14. The remedy is subject to exceptions and applies only where its “purpose is effectively advanced.” Krull, 480 U. S., at 347.
The dissent and Davis recognize that at least some of the established exceptions to the exclusionary rule limit its availability in cases involving new Fourth Amendment rules. Suppression would thus be inappropriate, the dissent and Davis acknowledge, if the inevitable-discovery exception were applicable in this case. See post, at 254; Reply Brief for Petitioner 22 (“Doctrines such as inevitable discovery, independent source, attenuated basis, [and] standing... sharply limit the impact of newly-announced rules”). The good-faith exception, however, is no less an established limit on the remedy of exclusion than is inevitable discovery. Its application here neither contravenes Griffith nor denies retroactive effect to Gant.
It is true that, under the old retroactivity regime of Link-letter, the Court's decisions on the “retroactivity problem in the context of the exclusionary rule” did take into account whether “law enforcement officers reasonably believed in good faith” that their conduct was in compliance with governing law. Peltier, 422 U. S., at 535-537. As a matter of retroactivity analysis, that approach is no longer applicable. See Griffith, 479 U. S. 314. It does not follow, however, that reliance on binding precedent is irrelevant in applying the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. When this Court adopted the good-faith exception in Leon, the Court’s opinion explicitly relied on Peltier and imported its reasoning into the good-faith inquiry. See 468 U. S., at 918-919. That reasonable reliance by police was once a factor in our retroactivity cases does not make it any less relevant under our Leon line of eases.
B
Davis also contends that applying the good-faith exception to searches conducted in reliance on binding precedent will stunt the development of Fourth Amendment law. With no possibility of suppression, criminal defendants will have no incentive, Davis maintains, to request that courts overrule precedent.
1
This argument is difficult to reconcile with our modern understanding of the role of the exclusionary rule. We have never held that facilitating the overruling of precedent is a relevant consideration in an exclusionary-rule case. Rather, we have said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement. See, e. g., Sheppard, 468 U. S., at 990 (“ 'adopted to deter unlawful searches by police’ ”); Evans, supra, at 14 (“historically designed as a means of deterring police misconduct”).
We have also repeatedly rejected efforts to expand the focus of the exclusionary rule beyond deterrence of culpable police conduct. In Leon, for example, we made clear that “the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges.” 468 U. S., at 916; see id., at 918 (“If exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a subsequently invalidated warrant is to have any deterrent effect... it must alter the behavior of individual law enforcement officers or the policies of their departments”). Krull too noted that “legislators, like judicial officers, are not the focus” of the exclusionary.rule. 480 U. S., at 850. And in Evans, we said that the exclusionary rule was aimed at deterring “police misconduct, not mistakes by court employees.” 514 U. S., at 14. These cases do not suggest that the exclusionary rule should be modified to serve a purpose other than deterrence of culpable law enforcement conduct.
2
And in any event, applying the good-faith exception in this context will not prevent judicial reconsideration of prior Fourth Amendment precedents. In most instances, as in this case, the precedent sought to be challenged will be a decision of a federal court of appeals or state supreme court. But a good-faith exception for objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent will not prevent review and correction of such decisions. This Court reviews criminal convictions from 12 Federal Courts of Appeals, 50 state courts of last resort, and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. If one or even many of these courts uphold a particular type of search or seizure, defendants in jurisdictions in which the question remains open will still have an undiminished incentive to litigate the issue. This Court can then grant certio-rari, and the development of Fourth Amendment law will in no way be stunted.
Davis argues that Fourth Amendment precedents of this Court will be effectively insulated from challenge under a good-faith exception for reliance on appellate precedent. But this argumentas overblown. For one thing, it is important to keep in mind that this argument applies to an exceedingly small set of cases. Decisions overruling this Court's Fourth Amendment precedents are rare. Indeed, it has been more than 40 years since the Court last handed down a decision of the type to which Davis refers. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (overruling United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56 (1950), and Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145 (1947)). And even in those cases, Davis points out that no fewer than eight separate doctrines may preclude a defendant who successfully challenges an existing precedent from getting any relief. Brief for Petitioner 50. Moreover, as a practical matter, defense counsel in many cases will test this Cuurt’s Fourth Amendment precedents in the same way that Belton was tested in Gant — by arguing that the precedent is distinguishable. See Brief for Respondent in Arizona v. Gant, O. T. 2008, No. 07-542, pp. 22-29.
At most, Davis’ argument might suggest that — to prevent Fourth Amendment law from becoming ossified — the petitioner in a case that results in the overruling of one of this Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents should be given the benefit of the victory by permitting the suppression of evidence in that one case. Such a result would undoubtedly be a windfall to this one random litigant. But the exclusionary rule is “not a personal constitutional right.” Stone, 428 U. S., at 486. It is a “judicially created” sanction, Calandra, 414 TI. ñ., at 848, specifically designed as a “windfall” remedy to deter future Fourth Amendment violations. See Stone, supra, at 490. The good-faith exception is a judicially created exception to this judicially created rule. Therefore, in a future case, we could, if necessary, recognize a limited exception to the good-faith exception for a defendant who obtains a judgment overruling one of our Fourth Amendment precedents. Cf. Friendly, The Bill of Rights as a Code of Criminal Procedure, 53 Cal. L. Rev. 929, 952-953 (1965) (“[T]he same authority that empowered the Court to supplement the amendment by the exclusionary rule a hundred and twenty-five years after its adoption, likewise allows it to modify that rule as the lessons of experience may teach” (internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted)).
But this is not such a case. Davis did not secure a decision overturning a Supreme Court precedent; the police in his case reasonably relied on binding Circuit precedent. See Gonzalez, 71 F. 3d 819. That sort of blameless police conduct, we hold, comes within the good-faith exception and is not properly subject to the exclusionary rule.
* * *
It is one thing for the criminal “to go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Before, 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926) (Cardozo, J.). It is quite another to set the criminal free because the constable has scrupulously adhered to governing law. Excluding evidence in such cases deters no police misconduct and imposes substantial social costs. We therefore hold that when the police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent, the exclusionary rule does not apply. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is
Affirmed.
See, e. g., United States v. Sanders, 631 F. 2d 1309, 1313-1314 (CA8 1980); United States v. Dixon, 558 F. 2d 919, 922 (CA9 1977); United States v. Frick, 490 F. 2d 666, 668-669 (CA5 1973); Hinkel v. Anchorage, 618 P. 2d 1069, 1069-1071 (Alaska 1980).
See, e
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether a debtor can include a mortgage lien in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy reorganization plan once the personal obligation secured by the mortgaged property has been discharged in a Chapter 7 proceeding. We hold that the mortgage lien in such a circumstance remains a “claim” against the debtor that can be rescheduled under 13.
I
This case arises from the efforts of respondent Home State Bank (Bank) to foreclose a mortgage on the farm property of petitioner. Petitioner gave the mortgage to secure promissory notes to the Bank totaling approximately $470,000. When petitioner defaulted on these notes, the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings in state court. During the pendency of these proceedings, petitioner filed for a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 727, the Bankruptcy Court discharged petitioner from personal liability on his promissory notes to the Bank. Notwithstanding the discharge, the Bank’s right to proceed against petitioner in rem survived the Chapter 7 liquidation. After the Bankruptcy Court lifted the automatic stay protecting petitioner’s estate, see 11 U. S. C. §362, the Bank reinitiated the foreclosure proceedings. Ultimately, the state court entered an in rem judgment of approximately $200,000 for the Bank.
Before the foreclosure sale was scheduled to take place, petitioner filed the Chapter 13 petition at issue here. In his Chapter 13 plan, petitioner listed the Bank’s mortgage in the farm property as a claim against his estate and proposed to pay the Bank four annual installments and a final “balloon payment” equal in total value to the Bank’s in rem judgment. Over the Bank’s objection, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Chapter 13 plan. The Bank appealed to the District Court, arguing that the Code does not allow a debtor to include in a Chapter 13 plan a mortgage used to secure an obligation for which personal liability has been discharged in Chapter 7 proceedings; the Bank argued in the alternative that the Bankruptcy Court had erred in finding that petitioner had proposed the plan in good faith and that the plan was feasible. The District Court accepted the first of these arguments and disposed of the case on that ground. See In re Johnson, 96 B. R. 326, 328-330 (Kan. 1989).
The Court of Appeals affirmed. See 904 F. 2d 563 (CA10 1990). Emphasizing that petitioner’s personal liability on the promissory notes secured by the mortgage had been discharged in the Chapter 7 proceedings, the court reasoned that the Bank no longer had a “claim” against petitioner subject to rescheduling under Chapter 13. See id., at 565, 566. Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals disposed of the case without considering the Bank’s contentions that Johnson’s plan was not in good faith and was not feasible. See id., at 566.
In contrast to the decision of the Tenth Circuit in this case, two other Circuit Courts of Appeals have concluded that a debtor can include a mortgage lien in a Chapter 13 plan even after the debtor’s personal liability on the debt secured by the property has been discharged in a Chapter 7 liquidation. See In re Saylors, 869 F. 2d 1434, 1436 (CA11 1989); In re Metz, 820 F. 2d 1495, 1498 (CA9 1987). Having granted cer-tiorari to resolve this conflict, see 498 U. S. 1066 (1991), we now reverse.
M HH
Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a reorganization remedy for consumer debtors and proprietors with relatively small debts. See generally H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, pp. 116-119 (1977). So long as a debtor meets the eligibility requirements for relief under Chapter 13, see 11 U. S. C. § 109(e), he may submit for the bankruptcy court’s confirmation a plan that “modif [ies] the rights of holders of secured claims . . . or . . . unsecured claims,” § 1322(b)(2), and that “provide[s] for the payment of all or any part of any [allowed] claim,” § 1322(b)(6). The issue in this case is whether a mortgage lien that secures an obligation for which a debtor’s personal liability has been discharged in a Chapter 7 liquidation is a “claim” subject to inclusion in an approved Chapter 13 reorganization plan.
To put this question in context, we must say more about the nature of the mortgage interest that survives a Chapter 7 liquidation. A mortgage is an interest in real property that secures a creditor’s right to repayment. But unless the debtor and creditor have provided otherwise, the creditor ordinarily is not limited to foreclosure on the mortgaged property should the debtor default on his obligation; rather, the creditor may in addition sue to establish the debt- or’s in personam liability for any deficiency on the debt and may enforce any judgment against the debtor’s assets generally. See 3 R. Powell, The Law of Real Property ¶ 467 (1990). A defaulting debtor can protect himself from personal liability by obtaining a discharge in a Chapter 7 liquidation. See 11 U. S. C. § 727. However, such a discharge extinguishes only “the personal liability of the debtor.” 11 U. S. C. § 524(a)(1). Codifying the rule of Long v. Bullard, 117 U. S. 617 (1886), the Code provides that a creditor’s right to foreclose on the mortgage survives or passes through the bankruptcy. See 11 U. S. C. § 522(c)(2); Owen v. Owen, 500 U. S. 305, 308-309 (1991); Farrey v. Sanderfoot, 500 U. S. 291, 297 (1991); H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 361.
Whether this surviving mortgage interest is a “claim” subject to inclusion in a Chapter 13 reorganization plan is a straightforward issue of statutory construction to be resolved by reference to “the text, history, and purpose” of the Bankruptcy Code. Farrey v. Sanderfoot, supra, at 298. Under the Code,
“‘[CJlaim’ means—
“(A) right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured; or
“(B) right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U. S. C. § 101(5) (1988 ed., Supp. III).
We have previously explained that Congress intended by this language to adopt the broadest available definition of “claim.” See Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 558, 563-564 (1990); see also Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U. S. 274, 279 (1985). In Davenport, we concluded that “ ‘right to payment’ [means] nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation . . . .” 495 U. S., at 559.
Applying the teachings of Davenport, we have no trouble concluding that a mortgage interest that survives the discharge of a debtor’s personal liability is a "claim” within the terms of § 101(5). Even after the debtor’s personal obligations have been extinguished, the mortgage holder still retains a “right to payment” in the form of its right to the proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s property. Alternatively, the creditor’s surviving right to foreclose on the mortgage can be viewed as a “right to an equitable remedy” for the debtor’s default on the underlying obligation. Either way, there can be no doubt that the surviving mortgage interest corresponds to an “enforceable obligation” of the debtor.
The Court of Appeals thus erred in concluding charge of petitioner’s personal liability on his promissory notes constituted the complete termination of the Bank’s claim against petitioner. Rather, a bankruptcy discharge extinguishes only one mode of enforcing a claim — namely, an action against the debtor in personam — while leaving intact another — namely, an action against the debtor in rem. Indeed, but for the codification of the rule of Long v. Bullard, supra, there can be little question that a “discharge” under Chapter 7 would have the effect of extinguishing the in rem component as well as the in personam component of any claim against the debtor. And because only “claims” are discharged under the Code, the very need to codify Long v. Bullard presupposes that a mortgage interest is otherwise a “claim.”
The conclusion that a surviving mortgage interest is a “claim” under § 101(5) is consistent with other parts of the Code. Section 502(b)(1), for example, states that the bankruptcy court “shall determine the amount of [a disputed] claim . . . and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that. . . such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor” (emphasis added). In other words, the court must allow the claim if it is enforceable against either the debtor or his property. Thus, § 502(b)(1) contemplates circumstances in which a “claim,” like the mortgage lien that passes through a Chapter 7 proceeding, may consist of nothing more than an obligation enforceable against the debtor’s property. Similarly, § 102(2) establishes, as a “[r]ul[e] of construction,” that the phrase “ ‘claim against the debtor’ includes claim against property of the debtor.” A fair reading of § 102(2) is that a creditor who, like the Bank in this case, has a claim enforceable only against the debtor’s property nonetheless has a “claim against the debtor” for purposes of the Code.
The legislative background and history of the Code confirm this construction of “claim.” Although the pre-1978 Bankruptcy Act contained no single definition of “claim,” the Act did define “claim” as “including] all claims of whatever character against a debtor or its property” for purposes of Chapter X corporate reorganizations. See 11 U. S. C. § 506(1) (1976 ed.) (emphasis added). It is clear that Congress so defined “claim” in order to confirm that creditors with interests enforceable only against the property of the debtor had “claims” for purposes of Chapter X, see S. Rep. No. 1916, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 25 (1938); H. R. Rep. No. 1409, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 39 (1937), and such was the established understanding of the lower courts. See generally 6 J. Moore & L. King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 2.05, pp. 307-308 (14th ed. 1978) ("[I]t is to be noted that a claim against the debtor’s property alone is sufficient” for Chapter X). In fashioning a single definition of “claim” for the 1978 Bankruptcy Code, Congress intended to “adop[t] an even broader definition of claim than [was] found in the [pre-1978 Act’s] debtor rehabilitation chapters.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 309 (emphasis added); accord, S. Rep. No. 95-989, pp. 21-22 (1978); see also Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, supra, at 558, 563-564 (recognizing that Congress intended broadest available definition of claim). Presuming, as we must, that Congress was familiar with the prevailing understanding of “claim” under Chapter X of the Act, see Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, 499 U. S. 554, 562 (1991); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 698-699 (1979), we must infer that Congress fully expected that an obligation enforceable only against a debtor’s property would be a “claim” under § 101(5) of the Code.
The legislative history surrounding § 102(2) directly corroborates this inference. The Committee Reports accompanying § 102(2) explain that this rule of construction contemplates, inter alia, “nonrecourse loan agreements where the creditor’s only rights are against property of the debtor, and not against the debtor personally.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 315; accord, S. Rep. No. 95-989, supra, at 28. Insofar as the mortgage interest that passes through a Chapter 7 liquidation is enforceable only against the debtor’s property, this interest has the same properties as a nonrecourse loan. It is true, as the Court of Appeals noted, that the debtor and creditor in such a case did not conceive of their credit agreement as a nonrecourse loan when they entered it. See 904 F. 2d, at 566. However, insofar as Congress did not expressly limit § 102(2) to nonrecourse loans but rather chose general language broad enough to encompass such obligations, we understand Congress’ intent to be that § 102(2) extend to all interests having the relevant attributes of non-recourse obligations regardless of how these interests come into existence.
The Bank resists this analysis. It contends that even if an obligation enforceable only against the debtor’s property might normally be treated as a “claim” subject to inclusion in a Chapter 13 plan, such an obligation should not be deemed a claim against the debtor when it is merely the remainder of an obligation for which the debtor’s personal liability has been discharged in a Chapter 7 liquidation. Serial filings under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, respondent maintains, evade the limits that Congress intended to place on these remedies.
We disagree. Congress has expressly prohibited various forms of serial filings. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 109(g) (no filings within 180 days of dismissal); § 727(a)(8) (no Chapter 7 filing within six years of a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 filing); § 727(a)(9) (limitation on Chapter 7 filing within six years of Chapter 12 or Chapter 13 filing). The absence of a like prohibition on serial filings of Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 petitions, combined with the evident care with which Congress fashioned these express prohibitions, convinces us that Congress did not intend categorically to foreclose the benefit of Chapter 13 reorganization to a debtor who previously has filed for Chapter 7 relief. Cf. United States v. Smith, 499 U. S. 160, 167 (1991) (expressly enumerated exceptions presumed to be exclusive).
The Bank’s contention also fails to apprehend the significance of the full range of Code provisions designed to protect Chapter 13 creditors. A bankruptcy court is authorized to confirm a plan only if the court finds, inter alia, that “the plan has been proposed in good faith,” § 1325(a)(3); that the plan assures unsecured creditors a recovery as adequate as “if the estate of the debtor were liquidated under chapter 7,” § 1325(a)(4); that secured creditors either have “accepted the plan,” obtained the property securing their claims, or “re-tainted] the[ir] lien[s]” where “the value ... of property to be distributed under the plan ... is not less than the allowed amount of such claim[s],” § 1325(a)(5); and that “the debtor will be able to make all payments under the plan and to comply with the plan,” § 1325(a)(6). In addition, the bankruptcy court retains its broad equitable power to “issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the Code.]” § 105(a). Any or all of these provisions may be implicated when a debtor files serially under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. But given the availability of these provisions, and given Congress’ intent that “claim” be construed broadly, we do not believe that Congress intended the bankruptcy courts to use the Code’s definition of “claim” to police the Chapter 13 process for abuse.
f — I I — I
The Bank renews here its claim that the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding petitioner’s plan to be in good faith for purposes of § 1325(a)(3) and feasible for purposes of § 1325(a)(6) of the Code. Because the District Court and Court of Appeals disposed of this case on the ground that the Bank’s mortgage interest was not a “claim” subject to inclusion in a Chapter 13 plan, neither court addressed the issues of good faith or feasibility. We also decline to address these issues and instead leave them for consideration on remand.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
At the time at which the mortgage was executed, petitioner co-owned the property in question. However, by the time petitioner filed the Chapter 13 petition at issue in this case, he had acquired his wife’s interest in the property. In addition, although petitioner’s wife was a party in various of the proceedings surrounding disposition of the property, for simplicity we refer only to petitioner’s role in these proceedings.
During the course of the proceedings, the Bank acquired from another creditor a superior mortgage interest in petitioner’s property.
Section 109(e) states:
“Only an individual with regular income that owes, on the date of the filing of the petition, noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts of less than $100,000 and noncontingent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $350,000, or an individual with regular income and such individual’s spouse, except a stockbroker or a commodity broker, that owe, on the date of the filing of the petition, noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts that aggregate less than $100,000 and noncontingent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $350,000 may be a debtor under chapter 13 of this title.”
Using this definition, we held in Davenport that restitution orders imposed as a condition of probation in state criminal proceedings were “claims” dischargeable in a Chapter 13 reorganization. See 495 U. S., at 558-560. Congress subsequently overruled the result in Davenport. See Criminal Victims Protection Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-581, § 3, 104 Stat. 2865. It did so, however, by expressly withdrawing the Bankruptcy Court’s power to discharge restitution orders under 11 U. S. C. § 1328(a), not by restricting the scope of, or otherwise amending, the definition of “claim” under § 101(5). Consequently, we do not view the Criminal Victims Protection Act as disturbing our general conclusions on the breadth of the definition of “claim” under the Code.
A bankruptcy discharge extinguishes “the personal liability of the debtor with respect to any debt.” 11 U. S. C. § 524(a)(1) (emphasis added). As we explained in Davenport, “debt,” which is defined under the Code as “liability on a claim,” 11 U. S. C. § 101(12) (1988 ed., Supp. III), has a meaning coextensive with that of “claim” as defined in § 101(5). Pennsyl vania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, supra, at 558. Hence, a discharge under the Code extinguishes the debtor’s personal liability on his creditor’s claims.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A motion by a federal prisoner for postconviction relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 is subject to a one-year time limitation that generally runs from “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” §2255, ¶ 6(1). This case concerns the starting date for the one-year limitation. It presents a narrow but recurring question on which courts of appeals have divided: When a defendant in a federal prosecution takes an unsuccessful direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, but does not next petition for a writ of certiorari from this Court, does the judgment become “final” for post-conviction relief purposes (1) when the appellate court issues its mandate affirming the conviction, or, instead, (2) on the date, ordinarily 69 days later, when the time for filing a petition for certiorari expires?
In accord with this Court’s consistent understanding of finality in the context of collateral review, and the weight of lower court authority, we reject the issuance of the appellate court mandate as the triggering date. For the purpose of starting the clock on §2255’s one-year limitation period, we hold, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a petition for certiorari contesting the appellate court’s affirmation of the conviction.
I
In 1997, petitioner Erick Cornell Clay was convicted of arson and distribution of cocaine base in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. On November 23, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions. That court’s mandate issued on December 15, 1998. See Fed. Rules App. Proc. 40(a)(1) and 41(b) (when no petition for rehearing is filed, a court of appeals’- mandate issues 21 days after entry of judgment). Clay did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The time in which he could have petitioned for certiorari expired on February 22, 1999, 90 days after entry of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, see this Court’s Rule 13(1), and 69 days after the issuance of the appellate court’s mandate.
On February 22, 2000 — one year and 69 days after the Court of Appeals issued its mandate and exactly one year after the time for seeking certiorari expired — Clay filed a motion in the District Court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Congress has prescribed “[a] 1-year period of limitation” for such motions “run[ning] from the latest of” four specified dates. §2255, ¶ 6. Of the four dates, the only one relevant in this case, as in the generality of cases, is the first: “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” § 2255, ¶ 6(1).
Relying on Gendron v. United States, 154 F. 3d 672, 674 (CA7 1998) (per curiam), the District Court stated that “when a federal prisoner in this circuit does not seek certiorari . . . , the conviction becomes 'final’ on the date the appellate court issues the mandate in the direct appeal.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 8a. Because Clay filed his § 2255 motion more than one year after that date, the court denied the motion as time barred.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. That court declined Clay’s “invitation to reconsider our holding in Gendron,” although it acknowledged that Gendron's “construction of section 2255 represents the minority view.” 30 Fed. Appx. 607, 609 (2002). “Bowing to stare decisis,” the court expressed “reluctance] to overrule [its own] recently-reaffirmed precedent without guidance from the Supreme Court.” Ibid.
The Fourth Circuit has agreed with Gendron’s interpretation of §2255. See United States v. Torres, 211 F. 3d 836, 838-842 (2000) (when a federal prisoner does not file a petition for certiorari, his judgment of conviction becomes final for §2255 purposes upon issuance of the court of appeals’ mandate). Six Courts of Appeals have parted ways with the Seventh and Fourth Circuits. These courts hold that, for federal prisoners like Clay who do not file petitions for certiorari following affirmance of their convictions, §2255’s one-year limitation period begins to run when the defendant’s time for seeking review by this Court expires. To secure uniformity in the application of § 2255’s time constraint, we granted certiorari, 536 U. S. 957 (2002), and now reverse the Seventh Circuit’s judgment.
II
Finality is variously defined; like many legal terms, its precise meaning depends on context. Typically, a federal judgment becomes final for appellate review and claim preclusion purposes when the district court disassociates itself from the case, leaving nothing to be done at the court of first instance save execution of the judgment. See, e. g., Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 712 (1996); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13, Comment b (1980). For other purposes, finality attaches at a different stage. For example, for certain determinations under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U. S. C. § 3161 et seq., and under a now-repealed version of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, several lower courts have held that finality attends issuance of the appellate court’s mandate. See Brief for Amicus Curiae by Invitation of the Court 22-28 (hereinafter DeBruin Brief) (citing cases). For the purpose of seeking review by this Court, in contrast, “[t]he time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari runs from the date of entry of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, and not from the issuance date of the mandate (or its equivalent under local practice).” This Court’s Rule 13(3).
Here, the relevant context is postconviction relief, a context in which finality has a long-recognized, clear meaning: Finality attaches when this Court affirms a conviction on the merits on direct review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, or when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires. See, e. g., Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U. S. 383, 390 (1994); Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 321, n. 6 (1987); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 887 (1983); United States v. Johnson, 457 U. S. 537, 542, n. 8 (1982); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 622, n. 5 (1965). Because “we presume that Congress expects its statutes to be read in conformity with this Court’s precedents,” United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 495 (1997), our unvarying understanding of finality for collateral review purposes would ordinarily determine the meaning of “becomes final” in § 2255.
Amicus urges a different determinant, relying on verbal differences between § 2255 and a parallel statutory provision, 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1), which governs petitions for federal habeas corpus by state prisoners. See DeBruin Brief 8-20. Sections 2255 and 2244(d)(1), as now formulated, were reshaped by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See §§ 101, 105, 110 Stat. 1217, 1220. Prior to that Act, no statute of limitations governed requests for federal habeas corpus or § 2255 habeas-like relief. See Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986); United States v. Nahodil, 36 F. 3d 323, 328 (CA3 1994). Like § 2255, § 2244(d)(1) establishes a one-year limitation period, running from the latest of four specified dates. Three of the four time triggers under § 2244(d)(1) closely track corresponding portions of §2255. Compare §§2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) with §2255, ¶¶6(2)-(4). But where § 2255, ¶ 6(1), refers simply to “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final,” § 2244(d)(1)(A) speaks of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”
When “Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act,” we have recognized, “it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972)). Invoking the maxim recited in Russello, amicus asserts that “becomes final” in §2255, ¶ 6(1), cannot mean the same thing as “became final” in § 2244(d)(1)(A); reading the two as synonymous, amicus maintains, would render superfluous the words “by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review” — words found only in the latter provision. DeBruin Brief 8-20. We can give effect to the discrete wording of the two prescriptions, amicus urges, if we adopt the following rule: When a convicted defendant does not seek certiorari on direct review, §2255’s limitation period starts to run on the date the court of appeals issues its mandate. Id., at 36.
Amicus would have a stronger argument if § 2255, ¶ 6(1), explicitly incorporated the first of § 2244(d)(1)(A)’s finality formulations but not the second, so that the § 2255 text read “becomes final by the conclusion of direct review.” Had § 2255 explicitly provided for the first of the two finality triggers set forth in § 2244(d)(1)(A), one might indeed question the soundness of interpreting § 2255 implicitly to incorporate § 2244(d)(1)(A)’s second trigger as well. As written, however, §2255 does not qualify “becomes final” at all. Using neither of the disjunctive phrases that follow the words “became final” in § 2244(d)(1)(A), §2255 simply leaves “becomes final” undefined.
Russello, we think it plain, hardly warrants the decision amicus urges, one that would hold the § 2255 petitioner to a tighter time constraint than the petitioner governed by § 2244(d)(1)(A). Russello concerned the meaning of a provision in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1961 et seq., that directed forfeiture to the United States of “any interest [a convicted defendant] has acquired ... in violation of [the Act].” § 1963(a)(1). The petitioner in Russello urged a narrow construction of the unqualified words “any interest . . . acquired.” Rejecting that argument, we observed that a succeeding subsection, § 1963(a)(2), reached “any interest in... any enterprise” the defendant conducted in violation of RICO’s proscriptions.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) At that point, we referred to the maxim invoked by amicus. See supra, at 528. The qualifying words “in . . . any enterprise” narrowed § 1963(a)(2), but in no way affected § 1963(a)(1). The comparison of the two subsections, we said, “fortified” the broad construction we approved for the unmodified words “any interest . . . acquired.” Russello, 464 U. S., at 22-23 (internal quotation marks omitted); see id., at 23 (“Had Congress intended to restrict § 1963(a)(1) to an interest in an enterprise, it presumably would have done so expressly as it did in the immediately following subsection (a)(2).”).
Far from supporting the Seventh Circuit’s constricted reading of § 2255, ¶ 6(1), Russello’s reasoning tends in Clay’s favor. An unqualified term — here “becomes final” — Russello indicates, calls for a reading surely no less broad than a pinpointed one — here, § 2244(d)(1)(A)’s specification “became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”
Moreover, as Clay and the Government urge, see Brief for Petitioner 22; Reply Brief for United States 7-8, one can readily comprehend why Congress might have found it appropriate to spell out the meaning of “final” in § 2244(d)(1)(A) but not in §2255. Section 2244(d)(1) governs petitions by state prisoners. In that context, a bare reference to “became final” might have suggested that finality assessments should be made by reference to state-law rules that may differ from the general federal rule and vary from State to State. Cf. Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U. S. 4, 8 (2000) (an application for state postconviction relief is “properly filed” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(2) “when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable [state] laws and rules governing filings”). The words “by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review” make it clear that finality for the purpose of § 2244(d)(1)(A) is to be determined by reference to a uniform federal rule. Section 2255, however, governs only petitions by federal prisoners; within the federal system there is no comparable risk of varying rules to guard against.
Amicus also submits that 28 U. S. C. § 2263 “reinforces” the Seventh Circuit’s understanding of §2255. DeBruin Brief 20; accord, Torres, 211 F. 3d, at 840. Chapter 154 of Title 28 governs certain habeas petitions filed by death-sentenced state prisoners. Section 2263(a) prescribes a 180-day limitation period for such petitions running from “final State court affirmance of the conviction and sentence on direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” That period is tolled, however, “from the date that a petition for certiorari is filed in the Supreme Court until the date of final disposition of the petition if a State prisoner files the petition to secure review by the Supreme Court of the affirmance of a capital sentence on direct review by the court of last resort of the State or other final State court decision on direct review.” § 2263(b)(1).
We do not find in § 2263 cause to alter our reading of § 2255. First, amicus’ reliance on §2263 encounters essentially the same problem as does his reliance on § 2244(d)(1)(A): Section 2255, ¶ 6(1), refers to neither of the two events that § 2263(a) identifies as possible starting points for the limitation period — “affirmance of the conviction and sentence on direct review” and “the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Thus, reasoning by negative implication from §2263 does not justify the conclusion that §2255, ¶6(1)’8 limitation period begins to run at one of those times rather than the other. Cf. supra, at 529-531. Second, § 2263(a) ties the applicable limitation period to “affirmance of the conviction and sentence,” while §2255, ¶ 6(1), ties the limitation period to the date when “the judgment of conviction becomes final.” See Torres, 211 F. 3d, at 845 (Hamilton, J., dissenting). “The Russello presumption — that the presence of a phrase in one provision and its absence in another reveals Congress’ design — grows weaker with each difference in the formulation of the provisions under inspection.” Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 U. S. 424, 435-436 (2002).
* * *
We hold that, for federal criminal defendants who do not file a petition for certiorari with this Court on direct review, §2255’s one-year limitation period starts to run when the time for seeking such review expires. Under this rule, Clay’s § 2255 petition was timely filed. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is therefore reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See Derman v. United States, 298 F. 3d 34, 39-42 (CA1 2002); Kapral v. United States, 166 F. 3d 565, 567-577 (CA3 1999); United States v. Gamble, 208 F. 3d 536, 537 (CA5 2000) (per curiam); United States v. Garcia, 210 F.3d 1058, 1059-1061 (CA9 2000); United States v. Burch, 202 F 3d 1274, 1275-1279 (CA10 2000); Kaufmann v. United States, 282 F. 3d 1336, 1337-1339 (CA11 2002).
Agreeing with the position advanced by the majority of the courts of appeals that have ruled on the question, the United States joins petitioner Clay in urging that Clay's §2255 motion was timely filed. We therefore invited David W. DeBruin to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the Seventh Circuit’s judgment. Mr. DeBruin’s able advocacy permits us to decide the case satisfied that the relevant issues have been fully aired.
The Courts of Appeals have uniformly interpreted “direct review” in § 2244(d)(1)(A) to encompass review of a state conviction by this Court. See Derman v. United States, 298 F. 3d, at 40-41; Williams v. Artuz, 237 F. 3d 147, 151 (CA2 2001); Kapral v. United States, 166 F. 3d, at 575; Hill v. Braxton, 277 F. 3d 701, 704 (CA4 2002); Ott v. Johnson, 192 F. 3d 510, 513 (CA5 1999); Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F. 3d 280, 283 (CA6 2000); Anderson v. Litscher, 281 F. 3d 672, 674-675 (CA7 2002); Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F. 3d 345, 347-348 (CA8 1998); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F. 3d 1157, 1159 (CA9 1999); Locke v. Saffle, 237 F. 3d 1269, 1273 (CA10 2001); Bond v. Moore, 309 F. 3d 770, 774 (CA11 2002).
Although recognizing that “the question is not presented in this case,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 27, amicus suggests that §2255’s limitation period starts to run upon issuance of the court of appeals’ mandate even in cases in which the defendant does petition for certiorari. Id., at 27-28, 36-38, 41-42. As amicus also recognizes, however, id., at 41, courts of appeals “have uniformly concluded that, if a prisoner petitions for certiorari, the contested conviction becomes final when the Supreme Court either denies the writ or issues a decision on the merits,” United States v. Hicks, 283 F. 3d 380, 387 (CADC 2002).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, commenced as a petition for an order to compel arbitration under § 4 of the United States Arbitration Act of 1925 (Arbitration Act or Act), 9 U. S. C. §4, presents the question whether, in light of the policies of the Act and of our decisions in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976), and Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U. S. 655 (1978), the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina properly stayed this diversity action pending resolution of a concurrent state-court suit. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the stay. 656 F. 2d 933, rehearing denied, 664 F. 2d 936 (1981). We granted certiorari. 455 U. S. 937 (1982). We affirm.
I
Petitioner Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital (Hospital) is located in Greensboro, N. C. Respondent Mercury Construction Corp. (Mercury), a construction contractor, has its principal place of business in Alabama. In July 1975, Mercury and the Hospital entered into a contract for the construction of additions to the Hospital building. The contract, drafted by representatives of the Hospital, included provisions for resolving disputes arising out of the contract or its breach. All disputes involving interpretation of the contract or performance of the construction work were to be referred in the first instance to J. N. Pease Associates (Architect), an independent architectural firm hired by the Hospital to design and oversee the construction project. With certain stated exceptions, any dispute decided by the Architect (or not decided by it within a stated time) could be submitted by either party to binding arbitration under a broad arbitration clause in the contract:
“All claims, disputes and other matters in question arising out of, or relating to, this Contract or the breach thereof,... shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. This agreement to arbitrate shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law. The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof.” App. 29-30.
The contract also specified the time limits for arbitration demands.
Construction on the project began in July 1975. Performance was to be completed by October 1979. In fact, construction was substantially completed in February 1979, and final inspections were made that June.
• At a meeting in October 1977 (during construction), attended by representatives of Mercury, the Hospital, and the Architect, Mercury agreed, at the Architect’s request, to withhold its claims for delay and impact costs (i. e., claims for extended overhead or increase in construction costs due to delay or inaction by the Hospital) until the work was substantially completed. On this record, the Hospital does not contest the existence of this agreement, although it asserts that the Architect lacked authority to agree to a delay in presentation of claims or to entertain claims after the contract work was completed.
In January 1980, Mercury submitted to the Architect its claims for delay and impact costs. Mercury and the Architect discussed the claims over several months, substantially reducing the amount of the claims. According to the Hospital, it first learned of the existence of Mercury’s claims in April 1980; its lawyers assumed active participation in the claim procedure in May. The parties differ in their characterizations of the events of the next few months — whether there were “ongoing negotiations,” or merely an “investigation” by the Hospital. In any event, it appears from the record that lawyers for the Hospital requested additional information concerning Mercury’s claims. As a result, on August 12, 1980, Mercury gave a detailed presentation of its claims at a meeting attended by Mercury’s representatives and lawyers, the Hospital’s representatives and lawyers, and representatives of the Architect. Mercury agreed to send copies of its files to an expert hired by the Hospital, and the parties agreed to meet again on October 13.
On October 6, Mercury’s counsel telephoned the Hospital’s counsel to confirm that the scheduled meeting would go forward. The Hospital’s counsel said he would call back the next day. When he did, he informed Mercury’s counsel that the Hospital would pay nothing on Mercury’s claim. He also said that the Hospital intended to file a declaratory judgment action in North Carolina state court.
True to its word, the Hospital filed an action on the morning of October 8 in the Superior Court of Guilford County, N. C., naming Mercury and the Architect as defendants. The complaint alleged that Mercury’s claim was without factual or legal basis and that it was barred by the statute of limitations. It alleged that Mercury had lost any right to arbitration under the contract due to waiver, laches, estoppel, and failure to make a timely demand for arbitration. The complaint also alleged various delinquencies on the part of the Architect. As relief, the Hospital sought a declaration that there was no right to arbitration; a stay of arbitration; a declaration that the Hospital bore no liability to Mercury; and a declaration that if the Hospital, should be found liable in any respect to Mercury, it would be entitled to indemnity from the Architect. The complaint was served on Mercury on October 9. On that same day, Mercury’s counsel mailed a demand for arbitration.
On October 15, without notice to Mercury, the Hospital obtained an ex parte injunction from the state court forbidding Mercury to take any steps directed toward arbitration. Mercury objected, and the stay was dissolved on October 27. As soon as the stay was lifted, Mercury filed the present action in the District Court, seeking an order compelling arbitration under § 4 of the Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 4. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. On the Hospital’s motion, the District Court stayed Mercury’s federal-court suit pending resolution of the state-court suit because the two suits involved the identical issue of the arbitrability of Mercury’s claims. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-38.
Mercury sought review of the District Court’s stay by both a notice of appeal and a petition for mandamus. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard argument in the case, but before the panel issued any decision, the court informed the parties that it would consider the case en banc. After reargument, the en banc court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over the case under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. It reversed the District Court’s stay order and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions for entry of an order to arbitrate.
II
Before we address the propriety of the District Judge’s stay order, we must first decide whether that order was ap-pealable to the Court of Appeals under 28 U. S. C. § 1291.
Mercury sought appellate review through two alternative routes — a notice of appeal under § 1291, and a petition for mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651. Mercury expressly stated that its appeal was based only on § 1291, and not on 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (relating to interlocutory appeals). The Hospital contends that the order appealed from was not a “final decisio[n]” within § 1291. We disagree and hold that the stay order was final for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.
Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713 (1962), is instructive in this regard. There the plaintiff brought a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of a state statute. The District Judge declined to convene a three-judge court and stayed the federal suit under the Pullman abstention doctrine. We held that the District Court’s action was final and therefore reviewable by the Court of Appeals, stating:
“The Court of Appeals properly rejected the argument that the order of the District Court ‘was not final and hence unappealable under 28 U. S. C. §§1291, 1292,’ pointing out that ‘[ajppellant was effectively out of court.’” 370 U. S., at 715, n. 2.
Here, the argument for finality of the District Court’s order is even clearer. A district court stay pursuant to Pullman abstention is entered with the expectation that the federal litigation will resume in the event that the plaintiff does not obtain relief in state court on state-law grounds. Here, by contrast, the District Court predicated its stay order on its conclusion that the federal and state actions involved “the identical issue of arbitrability of the claims of Mercury Construction Corp. against the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-38. That issue of arbitrability was the only substantive issue present in the federal suit. Hence, a stay of the federal suit pending resolution of the state suit meant that there would be no further litigation in the federal forum; the state court’s judgment on the issue would be res judicata. Thus, here, even more surely than in Idlewild, Mercury was “effectively out of court.” Hence, as the Court of Appeals held, this stay order amounts to a dismissal of the suit.
In any event, if the District Court order were not final for appealability purposes, it would nevertheless be appealable within the exception to the finality rule under Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). The factors required to show finality under this exception have been summarized as follows:
“To come within the ‘small class’ of decisions excepted from the final-judgment rule by Cohen, the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978) (footnote omitted).
There can be no dispute that this order meets the second and third of these criteria. An order that amounts to a refusal to adjudicate the merits plainly presents an important issue separate from the merits. For the same reason, this order would be entirely unreviewable if not appealed now. Once the state court decided the issue of arbitrability, the federal court would be bound to honor that determination as res judicata.
The Hospital contends nevertheless that the District Court’s stay order did not meet the first of the criteria, namely that it “conclusively determine the disputed question.” But this is true only in the technical sense that every order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge. In this case, however, there is no basis to suppose that the District Judge contemplated any reconsideration of his decision to defer to the parallel state-court suit. He surely would not have made that decision in the first instance unless he had expected the state court to resolve all relevant issues adequately. See Part IV-E, infra. It is not clear why the judge chose to stay the case rather than to dismiss it outright; for all that the record shows, there was no reason other than the form of the Hospital’s motion. Whatever the reason, however, the practical effect of his order was entirely the same for present purposes, and the order was appealable.
hH I — I
We turn now to the principal issue to be addressed, namely, the propriety of the District Court’s decision to stay this federal suit out of deference to the parallel litigation brought in state court. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976), provides persuasive guidance in deciding this question.
A
Colorado River involved the effect of the McCarran Amendment, 66 Stat. 560, 43 U. S. C. § 666, on the existence and exercise of federal-court jurisdiction to adjudicate federal water rights, 28 U. S. C. § 1345. The Amendment waives the Government’s sovereign immunity to permit the joinder of the United States in some state-court suits for the adjudication of water rights. In Colorado River, however, the Government proceeded in Federal District Court, bringing suit against some 1,000 nonfederal water users, seeking a declaration of the water rights of certain federal entities and Indian tribes. Shortly thereafter, a defendant in that suit sought to join the United States in a state-court proceeding for the comprehensive adjudication and administration of all water rights within the river system that was the subject of the federal-court suit. The District Court dismissed the federal suit, holding that the abstention doctrine required deference to the state-court proceedings. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the suit of the United States was within the District Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1345 and that abstention was inappropriate. We reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint.
We began our analysis by examining the abstention doctrine in its various forms. We noted:
“Abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule. ‘The doctrine of abstention, under which a District Court may decline to exercise or postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction, is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified under this doctrine only in the exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to repair to the State court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.’ ”
After canvassing the three categories of abstention, we concluded that none of them applied to the case at hand. 424 U. S., at 813-817.
Nevertheless, we held that the District Court’s dismissal was proper on another ground — one resting not on considerations of state-federal comity or on avoidance of constitutional decisions, as does abstention, but on “considerations of ‘[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” We noted that “‘the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction,”’ and that the federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation... to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” We continued:
“Given this obligation, and the absence of weightier considerations of constitutional adjudication and state-federal relations, the circumstances permitting the dismissal of a federal suit due to the presence of a concurrent state proceeding for reasons of wise judicial administration are considerably more limited than the circumstances appropriate for abstention. The former circumstances, though exceptional, do nevertheless exist.” Id., at 818.
We declined to prescribe a hard-and-fast rule for dismissals of this type, but instead described some of the factors relevant to the decision.
“It has been held, for example, that the court first assuming jurisdiction over property may exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.... In assessing the appropriateness of dismissal in the event of an exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, a federal court may also consider such factors as the inconvenience of the federal forum; the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; and the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums. No one factor is necessarily determinative; a carefully considered judgment taking into account both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counselling against that exercise is required. Only the clearest of justifications will warrant dismissal.” Id., at 818-819 (emphasis added; citations omitted).
As this passage makes clear, the decision whether to dismiss a federal action because of parallel state-court litigation does not rest on a mechanical checklist, but on a careful balancing of the important factors as they apply in a given case, with the balance heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction. The weight to be given to any one factor may vary greatly from case to case, depending on the particular setting of the case. Colorado River itself illustrates this principle in operation. By far the most important factor in our decision to approve the dismissal there was the “clear federal policy... [of] avoidance of piecemeal adjudication of water rights in a river system,” id., at 819, as evinced in the McCarran Amendment. We recognized that the Amendment represents Congress’ judgment that the field of water rights is one peculiarly appropriate for comprehensive treatment in the forums having the greatest experience and expertise, assisted by state administrative officers acting under the state courts. Id., at 819-820. In addition, we noted that other factors in the case tended to support dismissal— the absence of any substantial progress in the federal-court litigation; the presence in the suit of extensive rights governed by state law; the geographical inconvenience of the federal forum; and the Government’s previous willingness to litigate similar suits in state court. Id., at 820.
B
Before discussing the application of Colorado River’s, exceptional-circumstances test, we must address the Hospital’s argument that that test was undermined by our subsequent decision in Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U. S. 655 (1978). We find no merit in this argument for at least two reasons.
The Hospital relies on the opinion of Justice Rehnquist, announcing the judgment of the Court. The Hospital argues that Justice Rehnquist’s opinion, if not expressly overruling Colorado River, at least modifies its holding substantially. But it is clear that a majority of the Court reaffirmed the Colorado River test in Calvert. Justice Rehnquist’s opinion commanded only four votes. It was opposed by the dissenting opinion, in which four Justices concluded that the Calvert District Court’s stay was impermissible under Colorado River. 437 U. S., at 668-669, 672-674 (Brennan, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Marshall and Powell, JJ., dissenting). Justice Blackmun, although concurring in the judgment, agreed with the dissent that Colorado River’s, exceptional-circumstances test was controlling; he voted to remand to permit the District Court to apply the Colorado River factors in the first instance. 437 U. S., at 667-668. On remand, the Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the four dissenting Justices and Justice Blackmun formed a majority to require application of the Colorado River test. Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. Will, 586 F. 2d 12 (CA7 1978).
Even on the basis of Justice Rehnquist’s opinion, however, there is an obvious distinction between Calvert and this case. The key to Calvert was the standard for issuance of a writ of mandamus under 28 U. S. C. § 1651. As Justice Rehnquist stressed, such extraordinary writs are used in aid of appellate jurisdiction only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed authority, or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. The movant must show that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. 437 U. S., at 661-662, 664, 665-666 (opinion of Rehnquist, J.). Justice Rehnquist concluded that the movant in Calvert had failed to meet this burden. At the same time, he noted that the movant might have succeeded on a proper appeal. Id., at 665. In this case we have held that the Court of Appeals did have appellate jurisdiction; it properly exercised that jurisdiction to find that the District Court’s stay was impermissible under Colorado River.
The Hospital further contends that Calvert requires reversal here because the opinions of Justice Rehnquist and Justice Blackmun require greater deference to the discretion of the District Court than was given by the Court of Appeals in this case. Under both Calvert and Colorado River, of course, the decision whether to defer to the state courts is necessarily left to the discretion of the district court in the first instance. Yet to say that the district court has discretion is not to say that its decision is unreviewable; such discretion must be exercised under the relevant standard prescribed by this Court. In this case, the relevant standard is Colorado River’s exceptional-circumstances test, as elucidated by the factors discussed in that case. As we shall now explain, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the District Court in this case abused its discretion in granting the stay.
HH <
Applying the Colorado River factors to this case, it is clear that there was no showing of the requisite exceptional circumstances to justify the District Court’s stay.
The Hospital concedes that the first two factors mentioned in Colorado River are not present here. There was no assumption by either court of jurisdiction over any res or property, nor is there any contention that the federal forum was any less convenient to the parties than the state forum. The remaining factors — avoidance of piecemeal litigation, and the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums — far from supporting the stay, actually counsel against it.
A
There is no force here to the consideration that was paramount in Colorado River itself — the danger of piecemeal litigation.
The Hospital points out that it has two substantive disputes here — one with Mercury, concerning Mercury’s claim for delay and impact costs, and the other with the Architect, concerning the Hospital’s claim for indemnity for any liability it may have to Mercury. The latter dispute cannot be sent to arbitration without the Architect’s consent, since there is no arbitration agreement between the Hospital and the Architect. It is true, therefore, that if Mercury obtains an arbitration order for its dispute, the Hospital will be forced to resolve these related disputes in different forums. That misfortune, however, is not the result of any choice between the federal and state courts; it occurs because the relevant federal law requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement. Under the Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement must be enforced notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement. If the dispute between Mercury and the Hospital is arbitrable under the Act, then the Hospital’s two disputes will be resolved separately — one in arbitration, and the other (if at all) in state-court litigation. Conversely, if the dispute between Mercury and the Hospital is not arbitrable, then both disputes will be resolved in state court. But neither of those two outcomes depends at all on which court decides the question of arbitrability. Hence, a decision to allow that issue to be decided in federal rather than state court does not cause piecemeal resolution of the parties’ underlying disputes. Although the Hospital will have to litigate the arbitrability issue in federal rather than state court, that dispute is easily severable from the merits of the underlying disputes.
B
The order in which the concurrent tribunals obtained and exercised jurisdiction cuts against, not for, the District Court’s stay in this case. The Hospital argues that the stay was proper because the state-court suit was filed some 19 days before the federal suit. In the first place, this argument disregards the obvious reason for the Hospital’s priority in filing. An indispensable element of Mercury’s cause of action under § 4 for an arbitration order is the Hospital’s refusal to arbitrate. See n. 27, infra. That refusal did not occur until less than a day before the Hospital filed its state suit. Hence, Mercury simply had no reasonable opportunity to file its §4 petition first. Moreover, the Hospital succeeded in obtaining an ex parte injunction from the state court forbidding Mercury to take any steps to secure arbitration. Mercury filed its §4 petition the same day that the injunction was dissolved.
That aside, the Hospital’s priority argument gives too mechanical a reading to the “priority” element of the Colorado River balance. This factor, as with the other Colorado River factors, is to be applied in a pragmatic, flexible manner with a view to the realities of the case at hand. Thus, priority should not be measured exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in terms of how much progress has been made in the two actions. Colorado River illustrates this point well. There, the federal suit was actually filed first. Nevertheless, we pointed out as a factor favoring dismissal “the apparent absence of any proceedings in the District Court, other than the filing of the complaint, prior to the motion to dismiss.” 424 U. S., at 820. Here, the opposite was true. It was the state-court suit in which no substantial proceedings (excepting only the abortive temporary injunction) had taken place at the time of the decision to stay. In the federal suit, by contrast, the parties had taken most of the steps necessary to a resolution of the arbitrability issue. In realistic terms, the federal suit was running well ahead of the state suit at the very time that the District Court decided to refuse to adjudicate the case.
This refusal to proceed was plainly erroneous in view of Congress’ clear intent, in the Arbitration Act, to move the parties to an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible. The Act provides two parallel devices for enforcing an arbitration agreement: a stay of litigation in any case raising a dispute referable to arbitration, 9 U. S. C. §3, and an affirmative order to engage in arbitration, § 4. Both of these sections call for an expeditious and summary hearing, with only restricted inquiry into factual issues. Assuming that the state court would have granted prompt relief to Mercury under the Act, there still would have been an inevitable delay as a result of the District Court’s stay. The stay thus frustrated the statutory policy of rapid and unobstructed enforcement of arbitration agreements.
C
Besides the four factors expressly discussed in Colorado River, there is another that emerges from Calvert — the fact that federal law provides the rule of decision on the merits. The state-versus-federal-law factor was of ambiguous relevance in Colorado River. In Calvert, however, both the four-vote dissenting opinion and Justice Blackmun’s opinion concurring in the judgment pointed out that the case involved issues of federal law. 437 U. S., at 667 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 668-677 (Brennan, J., dissenting). See also Colorado River, 424 U. S., at 815, n. 21. It is equally apparent that this case involves federal issues.
The basic issue presented in Mercury’s federal suit was the arbitrability of the dispute between Mercury and the Hospital. Federal law in the terms of the Arbitration Act governs that issue in either state or federal court. Section 2 is the primary substantive provision of the Act, declaring that a written agreement to arbitrate “in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce... 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. Section 2 is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary. The effect of the section is to create a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act. In Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Corp., 388 U. S. 395 (1967), for example, the parties had signed a contract containing an arbitration clause, but one party alleged that there had been fraud in the inducement of the entire contract (although the alleged fraud did not go to the arbitration clause in particular). The issue before us was whether the issue of fraud in the inducement was itself an ar-bitrable controversy. We held that the language and policies of the Act required the conclusion that the fraud issue was arbitrable. Id., at 402-404. Although our holding in Prima Paint extended only to the specific issue presented, the Courts of Appeals have since consistently concluded that questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration. We agree. The Arbitration Act establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.
To be sure, the source-of-law factor has less significance here than in Calvert, since the federal courts’ jurisdiction to enforce the Arbitration Act is concurrent with that of the state courts. But we emphasize that our task in cases such as this is not to find some substantial reason for the exercise of federal jurisdiction by the district court; rather, the task is to ascertain whether there exist “exceptional” circumstances, the “clearest of justifications,” that can suffice under Colo rado River to justify the surrender of that jurisdiction. Although in some rare circumstances the presence of state-law issues may weigh in favor of that surrender, see n. 29, supra, the presence of federal-law issues must always be a major consideration weighing against surrender.
D
Finally, in this case an important reason against allowing a stay is the probable inadequacy of the state-court proceeding to protect Mercury’s rights. We are not to be understood to impeach the competence or procedures of the North Carolina courts. Moreover, state courts, as much as federal courts, are obliged to grant stays of litigation under § 3 of the Arbitration Act. It is less clear, however, whether the same is true of an order to compel arbitration under § 4 of the Act. We need not resolve that question here; it suffices to say that there was, at a minimum, substantial room for doubt that Mercury could obtain from the state court an order compelling the Hospital to arbitrate. In many cases, no doubt, a § 3 stay is quite adequate to protect the right to arbitration. But in a case such as this, where the party opposing arbitration is the one from whom payment or performance is sought, a stay of litigation alone is not enough. It leaves the recalcitrant party free to sit and do nothing — neither to litigate nor to arbitrate. If the state court stayed litigation pending arbitration but declined to compel the Hospital to arbitrate, Mercury would have no sure way to proceed with its claims except to return to federal court to obtain a §4 order — a pointless and wasteful burden on the supposedly summary and speedy procedures prescribed by the Arbitration Act.
E
The Hospital argues that the Colorado River test is somehow inapplicable because in this case the District Court merely stayed the federal litigation rather than dismissing the suit outright, as in Colorado River. It contends that Mercury remains free to seek to reopen the federal suit on a showing that the state suit has failed to adjudicate its rights, and that a stay is less onerous than a dismissal. We have already rejected this distinction, for purposes of this case, in discussing appellate jurisdiction. Supra, at 12-13. We reject it in this context for the same reasons.
We have no occasion in this case to decide whether a dismissal or a stay should ordinarily be the preferred course of action when a district court properly finds that Colorado River counsels in favor of deferring to a parallel state-court suit. We can say, however, that a stay is as much a refusal to exercise federal jurisdiction as a dismissal. When a district court decides to dismiss or stay under Colorado River, it presumably concludes that the parallel state-court litigation will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues between the parties. If there is any substantial doubt as to this, it would be a serious abuse of discretion to grant the stay or dismissal at all. See Part IV-D, supra; McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, 674-676 (1963). Thus, the decision to invoke Colorado River necessarily contemplates that the federal court will have nothing further to do in resolving any substantive part of the case, whether it stays or dismisses. See 17 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §4247, pp. 517-519 (1978).
Moreover, assuming that for some unexpected reason the state forum does turn out to be inadequate in some respect, the Hospital’s argument fails to make out any genuine difference between a stay and a dismissal. It is true that Mercury could seek to return to federal court if it proved necessary; but that would be equally true if the District Court had dismissed the case. It is highly questionable whether this Court would have approved a dismissal of a federal suit in Colorado River (or in any of the abstention cases, see supra, at 14) if the federal courts did not remain open to a dismissed plaintiff who later demonstrated the inadequacy of the state forum.
V
In addition to reversing the District Court’s stay, the Court of Appeals decided that the underlying contractual dispute between Mercury and the Hospital is arbitrable under the Arbitration Act and the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. It reversed the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case “with directions to proceed in conformity herewith.” 656 F. 2d, at 946. In effect, the Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter a §4 order to arbitrate.
In this Court, the Hospital does not contest the substantive correctness of the Court of Appeals’ holding on arbitra-bility. It does raise several objections to the procedures the Court of Appeals used in considering and deciding this case. In particular, it points out that the only issue formally appealed to the Court of Appeals was the propriety of the District Court’s stay order. Ordinarily, we would not expect the Court of Appeals to pass on issues not decided in the District Court. In the present case, however, we are not disposed to disturb the court’s discretion in its handling of the case in view of the special interests at stake and the apparent lack of any prejudice to the parties. Title 28 U. S. C. § 2106 gives a court of appeals some latitude in entering an order to achieve justice in the circumstances. The Arbitration Act calls for a summary and speedy disposition of motions or petitions to enforce arbitration clauses. The Court of Appeals had in the record full briefs and evidentiary submissions from both parties on the merits of arbitrability, and held that there were no disputed issues of fact requiring a jury trial before a § 4 order could issue. Under these circumstances, the court acted within its authority in deciding the legal issues presented in order to facilitate the prompt arbitration that Congress envisaged.
Affirmed.
The Architect was given final say on “matters relating to artistic effect.” App. 28-29. The contract also excluded arbitration on any claim waived by the making or acceptance of final payment. Id., at 29. Neither of these exceptions is asserted to apply in this ease.
The contract provided that no demand for arbitration could be made later than 30 days after the Architect’s written final decision. In the ease of arbitrable disputes not subject to submission to the Architect, the demand was required to be made “within a reasonable time after the claim... has arisen,” and in no event after the applicable statute of limitations had run. Id., at 29-30.
The contract also set a starting time limit for arbitration demands. No demand could be made earlier than 10 days after presentation of evidence to the Architect, unless the Architect rendered a written decision before that time. Id., at 29.
The completion date, originally set as November 14, 1978, was extended to October 1979 by agreement of the parties.
Simultaneously, Mercury filed a petition for removal of the Hospital’s state-court action. The District Court remanded the removed case on the ground that, because the Hospital and the Architect are both North Carolina corporations, there was no complete diversity. The propriety of the removal or remand is not before this Court.
Section 1291 provides in relevant part:
“The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States,... except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”
The Hospital argues that because Mercury’s filing in the Court of Appeals was styled a petition for mandamus first and a notice of appeal only “in the alternative,” the Hospital was somehow entitled to have the Court of Appeals apply 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.
Per Curiam.
The petition for certiorari in this case raised solely a question regarding the bearing of the Railway Labor Act on the enforcement of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The petition was granted. 364 U. S. 869. After full argument and due consideration, it became manifest that the course of litigation and the decisions in the Florida courts did not turn on the issue on the basis of which certiorari was granted. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellees instituted this federal income tax refund suit, claiming that the 1976 amendments of the minimum tax provisions contained in § § 56 and 57 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §§ 56 and 57, could not be applied to a transaction that had taken place in 1976, prior to the enactment of the amendments, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Appellees prevailed in the District Court. The United States has taken an appeal to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252, which authorizes a direct appeal from the final judgment of a court of the United States holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in any civil action to which the United States is a party. And a direct appeal may be taken when, as here, a federal statute has been held unconstitutional as applied to a particular circumstance. Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 U. S. 100 (1947). See United States v. Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc., 404 U. S. 561, 563 (1972).
I
The appellees, E. M. Darusmont and B. L. Darusmont, are husband and wife. Mrs. Darusmont is a party to this action solely because she and her husband filed a joint federal income tax return for the calendar year 1976. We hereinafter sometimes refer to the appellees in the singular, either as “ap-pellee” or as “taxpayer.”
In April 1976, Mr. Darusmont was notified by his employer that he was to be transferred from Houston, Tex., to Bakersfield, Cal. Appellee, accordingly, undertook to dispose of his Houston home. That home was a triplex. One of the three units was occupied by the Darusmonts; taxpayer rented the other two. Appellee retained a real estate firm to list the property and to give him advice as to the most advantageous way to sell it. The firm suggested various alternatives (sale as separate condominium units, or as a whole, and either for cash or on the installment basis). The firm and appellee discussed the income tax consequences of each alternative, including the tax on capital gain, the installment method of reporting, and the possibility of deferring a portion of any capital gain by the timely purchase of a replacement home in California.
After considering the several possible methods of structuring the sale, and after computing the projected income tax consequences of each method, appellee decided on an outright sale. That sale was effected on July 15, 1976, for cash. This resulted in a long-term capital gain to the taxpayer. Because, however, appellee purchased a replacement residence in California, he was able, under § 1034 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 1034, to defer recognition of that portion of the gain attributable to the unit of the Texas house that the Darusmonts had occupied. Appellee’s recognized gain on the sale of the other two units was $51,332. After taking into account the deduction of 50% of net capital gain then permitted by § 1202 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 1202, appellee included the remainder of the gain in his reported taxable income. The Darusmonts timely filed their joint federal income tax return for the calendar year 1976. That return showed a tax of $25,384, which was paid.
The present controversy concerns $2,280, the portion of appellee’s 1976 income tax liability attributable to the minimum tax imposed by § 56 of the Code on items of tax preference as defined in § 57. These minimum tax provisions, which impose a tax in addition to the regular income tax, first appeared with the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-172, § 301, 83 Stat. 580. Originally, the minimum tax equaled 10% of the amount by which the aggregate of enumerated items of tax preference exceeded the sum of a $30,000 exemption plus the taxpayer’s regular income tax liability. For an individual, one of the items of tax preference was the deduction under § 1202 for net capital gain. See §57(a)(9)(A). Thus, appellee’s § 1202 deduction for 1976 for 50% of the capital gain recognized on the sale of the two units of the Texas triplex was an item of tax preference. If the statute’s original formulation, with its base of $30,000 plus the regular income tax liability, had been retained in the statute for 1976, appellee would not have owed any minimum tax as a result of the sale of the Houston house.
Oh October 4, 1976, however, the President signed the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94 — 455, 90 Stat. 1520. Section 301 of that Act, 90 Stat. 1549, amended § 56 (a) of the Code so as to increase the rate of the minimum tax and to reduce the amount of the exemption to $10,000 or one-half of the taxpayer’s regular income tax liability (with certain adjustments), whichever was the greater. Section 301 (g)(1), 90 Stat. 1553, with exceptions not pertinent here, then provided that “the amendments made by this section shall apply to items of tax preference for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1975.” It is this stated effective date that creates the issue now in controversy for, in a certain sense, the October 4, 1976, amendment of § 56 operated “retroactively” to cover the portion of 1976 prior to that date. A result of the statutory change of October 4 was that appellee was subjected to the now contested minimum tax of $2,280 on the sale of the Texas house the preceding July 15.
A proper claim for refund of the minimum tax so paid was duly filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Upon the denial of that claim, the Darusmonts instituted this refund suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Taxpayer argued that the 1976 amendments could not be applied constitutionally to a transaction fully consummated prior to their enactment. He further argued that had he known that the sale of the house would have resulted in liability for the minimum tax, he could have structured the sale so as to avoid the tax. He has conceded, however, that when he was considering the various ways in which he could dispose of the Texas property, he was not aware of the existence of the minimum tax.
The District Court entered judgment in favor of appellee. It held that the application of the 1976 amendments to a transaction consummated in 1976 prior to October 4 subjected appellee “to a new, separate and distinct tax,” and was “so arbitrary and oppressive as to be a denial of due process” guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. App. to Juris. Statement 3a; 80-2 USTC ¶ 9671, p. 85,208, 47 AFTR 2d ¶ 81-366, p. 81-519. We note that the District Court’s ruling is in conflict with the later decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Buttke v. Commissioner, 625 P. 2d 202 (1980), aff’g 72 T. C. 677 (1979).
II
In enacting general revenue statutes, Congress almost without exception has given each such statute an effective date prior to the date of actual enactment. This was true with respect to the income tax provisions of the Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, and the successive Revenue Acts of 1916 through 1938. It was also true with respect to the Internal Revenue Codes of 1939 and 1954. Usually the “retroactive” feature has application only to that portion of the current calendar year preceding the date of enactment, but each of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1926 was applicable to an entire calendar year that had expired preceding enactment. This “retroactive” application apparently has been confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation. We may safely say that it is a customary congressional practice.
The Court consistently has held that the application of an income tax statute to the entire calendar year in which enactment took place does not per se violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Stockdale v. Insurance Companies, 20 Wall. 323, 331, 332 (1874); id., at 341 (dissenting opinion); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 20 (1916); Cooper v. United States, 280 U. S. 409, 411 (1930); Milliken v. United States, 283 U. S. 15, 21 (1931); Reinecke v. Smith, 289 U. S. 172, 175 (1933); United States v. Hudson, 299 U. S. 498, 500-501 (1937); Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S. 134, 146, 148-150 (1938); Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U. S. 340, 355 (1945). See also Ballard, Retroactive Federal Taxation, 48 Harv. L. Rev. 592 (1935); Hochman, The Supreme Court and the Constitutionality of Retroactive Legislation, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 692, 706-711 (1960).
Justice Miller succinctly stated the principle a century ago in writing for the Court in Stockdale, supra:
“The right of Congress to have imposed this tax by a new statute, although the measure of it was governed by the income of the past year, cannot be doubted; much less can it be doubted that it could impose such a tax on the income of the current year, though part of that year had elapsed when the statute was passed.” 20 Wall., at 331.
Justice Van Devanter in writing for the Court in Hudson, supra, similarly approved the congressional practice:
“As respects income tax statutes it long has been the practice of Congress to make them retroactive for relatively short periods so as to include profits from transactions consummated while the statute was in process of enactment, or within so much of the calendar year as preceded the enactment; and repeated decisions of this Court have recognized this practice and sustained it as consistent with the due process clause of the Constitution” 299 U. S., at 500.
The Court has stated the underlying rationale for allowing this “retroactivity”:
“Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract. It is but a way of apportioning the cost of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its burdens. Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process, and to challenge the present tax it is not enough to point out that the taxable event, the receipt of income, antedated the statute.” Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S., at 146-147.
Judge Learned Hand also commented upon the point and set forth the answer to the constitutional argument:
“Nobody has a vested right in the rate of taxation, which may be retroactively changed at the will of Congress at least for periods of less than twelve months; Congress has done so from the outset. . . . The injustice is no greater than if a man chance to make a profitable sale in the months before the general rates are retroactively changed. Such a one may indeed complain that, could he have foreseen the increase, he would have kept the transaction unliquidated, but it will not avail him; he must be prepared for such possibilities, the system being already in operation. His is a different case from that of one who, when he takes action, has no reason to suppose that any transactions of the sort will be taxed at all.” Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F. 2d 540, 545 (CA2 1930).
Appellee concedes that the Court “has held that a retroactive income tax statute does not violate the 'due process’ clause of the Constitution per se.” Motion to Affirm 6. Appellee asserts, however, that three tests have been developed for determining whether a particular tax is so harsh and oppressive as to be a denial of due process, namely, whether the taxpayer could have altered his behavior to avoid the tax if it could have been anticipated by him at the time the transaction was effected; whether the taxpayer had notice of the tax when he engaged in the transaction; and whether the tax is a new tax and not merely an increase in the rate of an existing income tax. Appellee argues that the altered minimum tax fits within these three tests.
In support of the first proposition, appellee cites Blodgett v. Holden 275 U. S. 142 (1927), modified, 276 U. S. 594 (1928), and Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U. S. 440 (1928). These, however, are gift tax cases, and the gifts in question were made and completely vested before the enactment of the taxing statute. We do not regard them as controlling authority with respect to any retroactive feature of a federal income tax. See Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S., at 147-148.
Regarding his second test, appellee states that he had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the forthcoming October changes in the minimum tax when he sold the triplex in July and that, as a consequence, the retroactive imposition of the tax after the sale was arbitrary, harsh, and oppressive. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that personal notice is relevant, appellee is hardly in a position to claim surprise at the 1976 amendments to the minimum tax. The proposed increase in rate had been under public discussion for almost a year before its enactment. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-658, pp. 130-132 (1975); S. Rep. No. 94-938, pp. 108-114 (1976). The Tax Reform Act of 1976 reflected a compromise between the House and Senate proposals. Both bills, however, provided that the changes in the minimum tax were to be effective for taxable years beginning after 1975. Appellee, therefore, had ample advance notice of the increase in the- effective minimum rate.
Appellee’s “new tax” argument is answered completely by the fact that the 1976 amendments to the minimum tax did not create a new tax. To be sure, the minimum tax is described in the statute, § 56 (a), as one “[i]n addition to” the regular income tax. But the minimum tax provision was imposed in 1969, and one of the original items of tax preference subjected to the minimum tax was the untaxed portion of any net long-term capital gain. 83 Stat. 582.
Appellee’s position is far different, from that of the individual who, as Judge Hand stated in the language quoted above, “has no reason to suppose that any transactions of the sort will be taxed at all.” The 1976 changes affected appellee only by decreasing the allowable exemption and increasing the percentage rate of tax. “Congress intended these changes to raise the effective tax rate on tax preference items . . . .” Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 105 (Comm. Print 1976). Congress possessed ample authority to make this kind of change effective as of the beginning of the year of enactment. We are not persuaded by appel-lee’s proffered distinction between his case and Buttke v. Commissioner, 625 F. 2d 202 (CA8 1980), that the taxpayer in Buttke, unlike appellee, would have incurred a tax anyway under the prior form of the statute. See Estate of Lewis v. Commissioner, 40 TCM 78, ¶ 80,106 P-H Memo TC (1980) (appeal pending CA5).
We think Cooper v. United States, 280 U. S. 409 (1930), is particularly close to this case. There the taxpayer, on November 7, 1921, sold stock acquired by gift from her husband a week earlier. On November 23, however, the Revenue Act of 1921 was approved and became law. The new Act provided that the income tax basis of property received by gift after December 31, 1920, was the same as the donor’s basis, instead of being the fair market value of the property at the time of the gift, the rule which had theretofore prevailed. The taxpayer sought to avoid the lower carryover basis in computing her gain on the sale, and argued that the new provision should not be applied “to transactions fully completed before enactment of the statute.” Id., at 411. This Court, however, rejected that contention, saying, ibid.:
“That the questioned provision can not be declared in conflict with the Federal Constitution merely because it requires gains from prior but recent transactions to be treated as part of the taxpayer’s gross income has not been open to serious doubt since Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, and Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U. S. 339.”
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court with directions to enter judgment for the United States.
It is so ordered.
The Tax Court consistently has adhered to this position. See Estate of Kearns v. Commissioner, 73 T. C. 1223 (1980); Westwick v. Commissioner, 38 TCM 1269, ¶ 79,329 P-H Memo TC (1979) (appeal pending CA10); Estate of Lewis v. Commissioner, 40 TCM 78, ¶ 80,106 P-H Memo TC (1980) (appeal pending CA5); Schopp v. Commissioner, 40 TCM 276, ¶ 80,148 P-H Memo TC (1980); Witte v. Commissioner, 40 TCM 1259, ¶ 80,393 P-H Memo TC (1980).
Other rulings adverse to the taxpayer on this issue are Appendrodt v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 490 (WD Pa. 1980); Metzger v. United States, No. 78-0346-S (SD Cal. Feb. 16, 1979) (appeal pending CA9).
Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, §11, D, 38 Stat. 168; Revenue Act of 1916, §§ 8 (a) and (b), 13 (a) and (b), 39 Stat. 761,770, 771; War Revenue Act of 1917, §§ 1, 2, 4, 40 Stat. 300-302; Revenue Act of 1918, §200, 40 Stat. 1058; Revenue Act of 1921, §200(1), 42 Stat. 227; Revenue Act of 1924, § 200 (a), 43 Stat. 254; Revenue Act of 1926, § 200 (a), 44 Stat. (part 2) 10; Revenue Act of 1928, §§ 1, 48 (a), 45 Stat. 795, 807; Revenue Act of 1932, §§ 1, 48 (a), 47 Stat. 173, 187; Revenue Act of 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 683; Revenue Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 1014; Revenue Act of 1936, § 1, 49 Stat. 1652; Revenue Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 813; Revenue Act of 1938, § 1, 52 Stat. 452.
Internal Revenue Code of 1939, § 1, 53 Stat. 4; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, §7851 (a)(1)(A), 68A Stat. 919.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question to be decided in this case is whether a husband’s valid Florida divorce, obtained in a proceeding wherein his nonresident wife was served by publication only and did not make a personal appearance, unconstitutionally extinguished her dower right in his Florida estate.
The petitioner and Sol Simons were domiciled in New York when, in 1946, she obtained a New York separation decree that included an award of monthly alimony. Sol Simons moved to Florida in 1951 and, a year later, obtained there a divorce in an action of which petitioner had valid constructive notice but in which she did not enter a personal appearance. After Sol Simons’ death in Florida in 1960, respondent, the executor of his estate, offered his will for probate in the Probate Court of Dade County, Florida. Petitioner appeared in the proceeding and filed an election to take dower, under Florida law, rather than have her rights in the estate governed by the terms of the will, which made no provision for her. The respondent opposed the dower claim, asserting that since Sol Simons had divorced petitioner she had not been his wife at his death, and consequently was not entitled to dower under Florida law. Petitioner thereupon brought the instant action in the Circuit Court for Dade County in order to set aside the divorce decree and to obtain a declaration that the divorce, even if valid to alter her marital status, did not destroy or impair her claim to dower. The action was dismissed after trial, and the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Third District affirmed. 157 So. 2d 199. The Supreme Court of Florida declined to review the case, 166 So. 2d 151. We granted certiorari, 379 U. S. 877. We affirm.
Petitioner’s counsel advised us during oral argument that he no longer challenged the judgment below insofar as it embodied a holding that the 1952 Florida divorce was valid and terminated the marital status of the parties. We therefore proceed to the decision of the question whether the Florida courts unconstitutionally denied petitioner’s dower claim.
Petitioner argues that since she had not appeared in the Florida divorce action the Florida divorce court had no power to extinguish any right which she had acquired under the New York decree. She invokes the principle of Estin v. Estin, 334 U. S. 541, where this Court decided that a Nevada divorce court, which had no personal jurisdiction over the wife, had no power to terminate a husband’s obligation to provide the wife support as required by a pre-existing New York separation decree. As this was so, we there ruled that New York, in giving continued effect to the maintenance provisions of its separation decree, did not deny full faith and credit to the Nevada decree. See U. S. Const., Art. IV, § l. The application of the Estin principle to the instant case, petitioner contends, dictates that we hold the Florida courts to their constitutional duty to give effect to the New York decree, inherent in which is a preservation of her dower right.
The short answer to this contention is that the only obligation imposed on Sol Simons by the New York decree, and the only rights granted petitioner under it, concerned monthly alimony for petitioner’s support. Unlike the ex-husband in Estin, Sol Simons made the support payments called for by the separate maintenance decree notwithstanding his ex parte divorce. In making these payments until his death he complied with the full measure of the New York decree; when he died there was consequently nothing left of the New York decree for Florida to dishonor.
This conclusion embodies our judgment that there is nothing in the New York decree itself that can be construed as creating or preserving any interest in the nature of or in lieu of dower in any property of the decedent, wherever located. Petitioner refers us to no New York law that treats such a decree as having that effect, or, for that matter, to any New York law that has such an effect irrespective of the existence of the decree. We think it clear that the burden of showing this rested upon petitioner. Cf. State Farm Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U. S. 154, 160; Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U. S. 532, 547-548. It follows that insofar as petitioner’s argument rests on rights created by the New York decree or by New York law, the denial of her dower by the Florida courts was not a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Cf. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 350 U. S. 568.
Insofar as petitioner argues that since she was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida divorce court its decree could not extinguish any dower right existing under Florida law, Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U. S. 416, 418, the answer is that under Florida law no dower right survived the decree. The Supreme Court of Florida has said that dower rights in Florida property, being inchoate, are extinguished by a divorce decree predicated upon substituted or constructive service. Pawley v. Pawley, 46 So. 2d 464.
It follows that the Florida courts transgressed no constitutional bounds in denying petitioner dower in her ex-husband’s Florida estate.
Affirmed.
Petitioner was served by publication while still living in New York and received copies of the order for publication and the divorce complaint. She did not enter an appearance in the Florida proceeding on advice of counsel.
21 Fla. Stat. Ann. 1964, § 731.34 provides as follows:
“Whenever the widow of any decedent shall not be satisfied with the portion of the estate of her husband to which she is entitled under the law of descent and distribution or under the will of her husband, or both, she may elect in the manner provided by law to take dower, which dower shall be one third in fee simple of the real property which was owned by her husband at the time of his death or which he had before conveyed, whereof she had not relinquished her right of dower as provided by law, and one third part absolutely of the personal property owned by her husband at the time of his death ....”
Petitioner attacked the validity of the divorce on the grounds: (1) that- Sol Simons had defrauded the Florida courts by falsely claiming residence, (2) that the New York decree was a bar to the divorce suit and that Sol Simons had defrauded the court by failing to disclose the prior New York decree, (3) that the divorce decree on its face showed want of jurisdiction and (4) that after petitioner received notice of the divorce suit Sol Simons lulled her into inaction. The trial court made findings of fact adverse to petitioner on all points and dismissed the suit with prejudice. In affirming, the Florida District Court of Appeal held that “[t]he prior New York separate maintenance decree was not a bar to a divorce suit by the husband, and his failure to disclose it in his complaint was not a fraud on the court. . . . Any affirmative defense the prior suit may have afforded should have been presented in the divorce suit.” 157 So. 2d 199, at 200.
Neither the Florida trial court nor the District Court of Appeal expressly discussed the merits of petitioner’s claim that the divorce, even if valid, did not destroy or impair her dower rights. But since Florida law allows dower only to a decedent’s wife, see note 6, infra, we interpret the Florida courts’ decisions sustaining the validity of the divorce as also holding that the divorce extinguished petitioner’s dower rights.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. . . .”
In Pawley the Supreme Court of Florida distinguished the dower right from the right to support, saying at 46 So. 2d 464, 472-473, n. 2:
“In this, if not in every jurisdiction, right of dower can never be made the subject of a wholly independent issue in any divorce suit. It stands or falls as a result of the decree which denies or grants divorce. It arises upon marriage, as an institution of the law. The inchoate right of dower has some of the incidents of property. It pa-rtakes of the nature of a lien or encumbrance. It is not a right which is originated by or is derived from the husband; nor is it a personal obligation to be met or fulfilled by him, but it is a creature of the law, is born at the marriage altar, cradled in the bosom of the marital status as an integral and component part thereof, survives during the life of the wife as such and finds its sepulcher in divorce. Alimony too is an institution of the law but it is a personal obligation of the husband which is based upon the duty imposed upon him by the common law to support his wife and gives rise to a personal right of the wife to insist upon, if she be entitled to, it. It has none of the incidents of, and is in no sense a lien upon or interest in, property. Consequently, the right of the wife to be heard on the question of alimony should not, indeed lawfully it cannot, be destroyed by a divorce decree sought and secured by the husband in an action wherein only constructive service of process was effected.”
A petition for writ of certiorari to this Court alleged, “Petitioner is thus permitted to file another suit for alimony, but her contract of marriage is annulled and her inchoate dower rights destroyed without due process of law.” Brief for petitioner, p. 9, Pawley v. Pawley, No. 325, October Term, 1950. The petition was denied, 340 U. S. 866.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | K | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action by Local 37 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union and several of its alien members to enjoin the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at Seattle from so construing § 212 (d) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as to treat aliens domiciled in the continental United States returning from temporary work in Alaska as if they were aliens entering the United States for the first time. Declaratory relief to the same effect is also sought. Since petitioners asserted in the alternative that such a construction of the challenged statute would be unconstitutional, a three-judge district court was convened. The case came before it on stipulated facts and issues of law, from which it appeared that the union has over three thousand members who work every summer in the herring and salmon canneries of Alaska, that some of these are aliens, and that if alien workers going to Alaska for the 1953 canning season were excluded on their return, their “contract and property rights [would] be jeopardized and forfeited.” The District Court entertained the suit but dismissed it on the merits. 111 F. Supp. 802. In our order of October 12, 1953, we postponed the question of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 346 U. S. 804.
On this appeal, appellee contends that the District Court should not have reached the statutory and constitutional questions — that it should have dismissed the suit for want of a “case or controversy,” for lack of standing on the union’s part to bring this action, because the Attorney General was an indispensable party, and because habeas corpus is the exclusive method for judicial inquiry in deportation cases. Since the first objection is conclusive, there is an end of the matter.
Appellants in effect asked the District Court to rule that a statute the sanctions of which had not been set in motion against individuals on whose behalf relief was sought, because an occasion for doing so had not arisen, would not be applied to them if in the future such a contingency should arise. That is not a lawsuit to enforce a right; it is an endeavor to obtain a court’s assurance that a statute does not govern hypothetical situations that may or may not make the challenged statute applicable. Determination of the scope and constitutionality of legislation in advance of its immediate adverse effect in the context of a concrete case involves too remote and abstract an inquiry for the proper exercise of the judicial function. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75; see Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, and Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450. Since we do not have on the record before us a controversy appropriate for adjudication, the judgment of the District Court must be vacated, with directions to dismiss the complaint.
It is so ordered.
This section states that the exclusionary provisions of § 212 (a) shall, with exceptions not here relevant, “be applicable to any alien who shall leave Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands of the United States, and who seeks to enter the continental United States . . . 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (d) (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: | 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 writ is dismissed as improvidently granted because the judgment rests on an adequate state ground.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Thomas
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IV, an opinion with respect to Parts III-A, III-C, and III-D, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join, and an opinion with respect to Part III-B, in which The Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia join.
This case presents the narrow question whether the Child Online Protection Act’s (COPA or Act) use of “community standards” to identify “material that is harmful to minors” violates the First Amendment. We hold that this aspect of COPA does not render the statute facially unconstitutional.
I
“The Internet... offer[s] a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.” 47 U. S. C. § 230(a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. V). While “surfing” the World Wide Web, the primary method of remote information retrieval on the Internet today, see App. in No. 99-1324 (CA3), p. 180 (hereinafter App.), individuals can access material about topics ranging from aardvarks to Zoroastrianism. One can use the Web to read thousands of newspapers published around the globe, purchase tickets for a matinee at the neighborhood movie theater, or follow the progress of any Major League Baseball team on a pitch-by-pitch basis.
The Web also contains a wide array of sexually explicit material, including hardcore pornography. See, e. g., Amer ican Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d 473, 484 (ED Pa. 1999). In 1998, for instance, there were approximately 28,000 adult sites promoting pornography on the Web. See H. R. Rep. No. 105-775, p. 7 (1998). Because “[n]avigating the Web is relatively straightforward,” Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 852 (1997), and access to the Internet is widely available in homes, schools, and libraries across the country, see App. 177-178, children may discover this pornographic material either by deliberately accessing pornographic Web sites or by stumbling upon them. See 31 F. Supp. 2d, at 476 (“A child with minimal knowledge of a computer, the ability to operate a browser, and the skill to type a few simple words may be able to access sexual images and content over the World Wide Web”).
Congress first attempted to protect children from exposure to pornographic material on the Internet by enacting the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 110 Stat. 133. The CDA prohibited the knowing transmission over the Internet of obscene or indecent messages to any recipient under 18 years of age. See 47 U. S. C. § 223(a). It also forbade any individual from knowingly sending over or displaying on the Internet certain “patently offensive” material in a manner available to persons under 18 years of age. See § 223(d). The prohibition specifically extended to “any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depict[ed] or described], in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.” § 223(d)(1).
The CDA provided two affirmative defenses to those prosecuted under the statute. The first protected individuals who took “good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions” to restrict minors from accessing obscene, indecent, and patently offensive material over the Internet. See § 223(e)(5)(A). The second shielded those who restricted minors from accessing such material “by requiring use of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number.” § 223(e)(5)(B).
Notwithstanding these affirmative defenses, in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, we held that the CDA’s regulation of indecent transmissions, see § 223(a), and the display of patently offensive material, see § 223(d), ran afoul of the First Amendment. We concluded that “the CDA lack[ed] the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech” because, “[i]n order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppressed] a large amount of speech that adults ha[d] a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another.” 521 U. S., at 874.
Our holding was based on three crucial considerations. First, “existing technology did not include any effective method for a sender to prevent minors from obtaining access to its communications on the Internet without also denying access to adults.” Id., at 876. Second, “[t]he breadth of the CDA’s coverage [was] wholly unprecedented.” Id., at 877. “Its open-ended prohibitions embrace[d],” not only commercial speech or commercial entities, but also “all nonprofit entities and individuals posting indecent messages or displaying them on their own computers in the presence of minors.” Ibid. In addition, because the CDA did not define the terms “indecent” and “patently offensive,” the statute “cover[ed] large amounts of nonpornographie material with serious educational or other value.” Ibid. As a result, regulated subject matter under the CDA extended to “discussions about prison rape or safe sexual practices, artistic images that include nude subjects, and arguably the card catalog of the Carnegie Library.” Id., at 878. Third, we found that neither affirmative defense set forth in the CDA “constitute[d] the sort of ‘narrow tailoring’ that [would] save an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.” Id., at 882. Consequently, only the CDA’s ban on the knowing transmission of obscene messages survived scrutiny because obscene speech enjoys no First Amendment protection. See id., at 883.
After our decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, Congress explored other avenues for restricting minors’ access to pornographic material on the Internet. In particular, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Child Online Protection Act, 112 Stat. 2681-736 (codified in 47 U. S. C. § 231 (1994 ed., Supp. V)). COPA prohibits any person from “knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, mak[ing] any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors.” 47 U. S. C. § 231(a)(1).
Apparently responding to our objections to the breadth of the CDA’s coverage, Congress limited the scope of COPA’s coverage in at least three ways. First, while the CDA applied to communications over the Internet as a whole, including, for example, e-mail messages, COPA applies only to material displayed on the World Wide Web. Second, unlike the CDA, COPA covers only communications made “for commercial purposes.” Ibid. And third, while the CDA prohibited “indecent” and “patently offensive” communications, COPA restricts only the narrower category of “material that is harmful to minors.” Ibid.
Drawing on the three-part test for obscenity set forth in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), COPA defines “material that is harmful to minors” as
“any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that—
“(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
“(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and
“(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” 47 U. S. C. § 231(e)(6).
Like the CDA, COPA also provides affirmative defenses to those subject to prosecution under the statute. An individual may qualify for a defense if he, “in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors — (A) by requiring the use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number; (B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or (C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology.” § 231(c)(1). Persons violating COPA are subject to both civil and criminal sanctions. A civil penalty of up to $50,000 may be imposed for each violation of the statute. Criminal penalties consist of up to six months in prison and/or a maximum fine of $50,000. An additional fine of $50,000 may be imposed for any intentional violation of the statute. § 231(a).
One month before COPA was scheduled to go into effect, respondents filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statute in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Respondents are a diverse group of organizations, most of which maintain their own Web sites. While the vast majority of content on their Web sites is available for free, respondents all derive income from their sites. Some, for example, sell advertising that is displayed on their Web sites, while others either sell goods directly over their sites or charge artists for the privilege of posting material. 31 F. Supp. 2d, at 487. All respondents either post or have members that post sexually oriented material on the Web. Id., at 480. Respondents’ Web sites contain “resources on obstetrics, gynecology, and sexual health; visual art and poetry; resources designed for gays and lesbians; information about books and stock photographic images offered for sale; and online magazines.” Id., at 484.
In their complaint, respondents alleged that, although they believed that the material on their Web sites was valuable for adults, they feared that they would be prosecuted under COPA because some of that material “could be construed as ‘harmful to minors’ in some communities.” App. 63. Respondents’ facial challenge claimed, inter alia, that COPA violated adults’ right's under the First and Fifth Amendments because it (1) “create[d] an effective ban on constitutionally protected speech by and to adults”; (2) “[was] not the least restrictive means of accomplishing any compelling governmental purpose”; and (3) “[was] substantially over-broad.” Id., at 100-101.
The District Court granted respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, barring the Government from enforcing the Act until the merits of respondents’ claims could be adjudicated. 31 F. Supp. 2d, at 499. Focusing on respondents’ claim that COPA abridged the free speech rights of adults, the District Court concluded that respondents had established a likelihood of success on the merits. Id., at 498. The District Court reasoned that because COPA constitutes content-based regulation of sexual expression protected by the First Amendment, the statute, under this Court’s precedents, was “presumptively invalid” and “subject to strict scrutiny.” Id., at 493. The District Court then held that respondents were likely to establish at trial that COPA could not withstand such scrutiny because, among other reasons, it was not apparent that COPA was the least restrictive means of preventing minors from accessing “harmful to minors” material. Id., at 497.
The Attorney General of the United States appealed the District Court’s ruling. American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 217 F. 3d 162 (CA3 2000). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. Rather than reviewing the District Court’s “holding that COPA was not likely to succeed in surviving strict scrutiny analysis,” the Court of Appeals based its decision entirely on a ground that was not relied upon below and that was “virtually ignored by the parties and the amicus in their respective briefs.” Id., at 173-174. The Court of Appeals concluded that COPA’s use of “contemporary community standards” to identify material that is harmful to minors rendered the statute substantially overbroad. Because “Web publishers are without any means to limit access to their sites based on the geographic location of particular Internet users,” the Court of Appeals reasoned that COPA would require “any material that might be deemed harmful by the most puritan of communities in any state” to be placed behind an age or credit card verification system. Id., at 175. Hypothesizing that this step would require Web publishers to shield “vast amounts of material,” ibid., the Court of Appeals was “persuaded that this aspect of COPA, without reference to its other provisions, must lead inexorably to a holding of a likelihood of unconstitutionality of the entire COPA statute,” id., at 174.
We granted the Attorney General’s petition for certiorari, 532 U. S. 1037 (2001), to review the Court of Appeals’ determination that COPA likely violates the First Amendment because it relies, in part, on community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors, and now vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment.
II
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.” This provision embodies “[o]ur profound national commitment to the free exchange of ideas.” Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U. S. 657, 686 (1989). “[A]s a general matter, ‘the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’ ” Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 65. (1983) (quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95 (1972)). However, this principle, like other First Amendment principles, is not absolute. Cf. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 56 (1988).
Obscene speech, for example, has long been held to fall outside the purview of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Roth v. United States, 854 U. S. 476, 484-485 (1957). But this Court struggled in the past to define obscenity in a manner that did not impose an impermissible burden on protected speech. See Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U. S. 676, 704 (1968) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (referring to the “intractable obscenity problem”); see also Miller v. California, 413 U. S., at 20-23 (reviewing “the somewhat tortured history of th[is] Court’s obscenity decisions”). The difficulty resulted from the belief that “in the area of freedom of speech and press the courts must always remain sensitive to any infringement on genuinely serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific expression.” Id., at 22-23.
Ending over a decade of turmoil, this Court in Miller set forth the governing three-part test for assessing whether material is obscene and thus unprotected by the First Amendment: “(a) [W]hether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Id., at 24 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
Miller adopted the use of “community standards” from Roth, which repudiated an earlier approach for assessing objectionable material. Beginning in the 19th century, English courts and some American courts allowed material to be evaluated from the perspective of particularly sensitive persons. See, e.g., Queen v. Hicklin [1868] L. R. 3 Q. B. 360; see also Roth, 354 U. S., at 488-489, and n. 25 (listing relevant cases). But in Roth, this Court held that this sensitive person standard was “unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press” and approved a standard requiring that material be judged from the perspective of “the average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Id., at 489. The Court preserved the use of community standards in formulating the Miller test, explaining that they furnish a valuable First Amendment safeguard: “[T]he primary concern... is to be certain that... [material] will be judged by its impact on an average person, rather than a particularly susceptible or sensitive person — or indeed a totally insensitive one.” Miller, supra, at 33 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 107 (1974) (emphasizing that the principal purpose of the community standards criterion “is to assure that the material is judged neither on the basis of each juror’s personal opinion, nor by its effect on a particularly sensitive or insensitive person or group”).
Ill
The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that this Court’s prior community standards jurisprudence “has no applicability to the Internet and the Web” because “Web publishers are currently without the ability to control the geographic scope of the recipients of their communications.” 217 F. 3d, at 180. We therefore must decide whether this technological limitation renders COPA’s reliance on community standards constitutionally infirm.
A
In addressing this question, the parties first dispute the nature of the community standards that jurors will be instructed to apply when assessing, in prosecutions under COPA, whether works appeal to the prurient interest of minors and are patently offensive with respect to minors. Respondents contend that jurors will evaluate material using “local community standards,” Brief for Respondents 40, while petitioner maintains that jurors will not consider the community standards of any particular geographic area, but rather will be “instructed to consider the standards of the adult community as a whole, without geographic specification.” Brief for Petitioner 38.
In the context of this case, which involves a facial challenge to a statute that has never been enforced, we do not think it prudent to engage in speculation as to whether certain hypothetical jury instructions would or would not be consistent with COPA, and deciding this case does not require us to do so. It is sufficient to note that community standards need not be defined by reference to a precise geographic area. See Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153, 157 (1974) (“A State may choose to define an obscenity offense in terms of ‘contemporary community standards’ as defined in Miller without further specification... or it may choose to define the standards in more precise geographic terms, as was done by California in Miller”). Absent geographic specification, a juror applying community standards will inevitably draw upon personal “knowledge of the community or vicinage from which he comes.” Hamling, supra, at 105. Petitioner concedes the latter point, see Reply Brief for Petitioner 3-4, and admits that, even if jurors were instructed under COPA to apply the standards of the adult population as a whole, the variance in community standards across the country could still cause juries in different locations to reach inconsistent conclusions as to whether a particular work is “harmful to minors.” Brief for Petitioner 39.
B
Because juries would apply different standards across the country, and Web publishers currently lack the ability to limit access to their sites on a geographic basis, the Court of Appeals feared that COPA’s “community standards” component would effectively force all speakers on the Web to abide by the “most puritan” community’s standards. 217 F. 3d, at 175. And such a requirement, the Court of Appeals concluded, “imposes an overreaching burden and restriction on constitutionally protected speech.” Id., at 177.
In evaluating the constitutionality of the CDA, this Court expressed a similar concern over that statute’s use of community standards to identify patently offensive material on the Internet. We noted that “the ‘community standards’ criterion as applied to the Internet means that any communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message.” Reno, 521 U. S., at 877-878. The Court of Appeals below relied heavily on this observation, stating that it was “not persuaded that the Supreme Court’s concern with respect to the ‘community standards’ criterion has been sufficiently remedied by Congress in COPA.” 217 F. 3d, at 174.
The CDA’s use of community standards to identify patently offensive material, however, was particularly problematic in light of that statute’s unprecedented breadth and vagueness. The statute covered communications depicting or describing “sexual or excretory activities or organs” that were “patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards” — a standard somewhat similar to the second prong of Miller’s three-prong test. But the CDA did not include any limiting terms resembling Miller’s additional two prongs. See Reno, 521 U. S., at 873. It neither contained any requirement that restricted material appeal to the prurient interest nor excluded from the scope of its coverage works with serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Ibid. The tremendous breadth of the CDA magnified the impact caused by differences in community standards across the country, restricting Web publishers from openly displaying a significant amount of material that would have constituted protected speech in some communities across the country but run afoul of community standards in others.
COPA, by contrast, does not appear to suffer from the same flaw because it applies to significantly less material than did the CDA and defines the harmful-to-minors material restricted by the statute in a manner parallel to the Miller definition of obscenity. See supra, at 569-570, 574-575. To fall within the scope of COPA, works must not only “depic[t], describ[e], or represent], in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors,” particular sexual acts or parts of the anatomy, they must also be designed to appeal to the prurient interest of minors and, “taken as a whole, lac[k] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” 47 U. S. C. § 231(e)(6).
These additional two restrictions substantially limit the amount of material covered by the statute. Material appeals to the prurient interest, for instance, only if it is in some sense erotic. Cf. Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 213, and n. 10 (1975). Of even more significance, however, is COPA’s exclusion of material with serious value for minors. See 47 U. S. C. §231(e)(6)(C). In Reno, we emphasized that the serious value “requirement is particularly important because, unlike the ‘patently offensive’ and ‘prurient interest’ criteria, it is not judged by contemporary community standards.” 521 U. S., at 873 (citing Pope v. Illinois, 481 U. S. 497, 500 (1987)). This is because “the value of [a] work [does not] vary from community to community based on the degree of local acceptance it has won.” Ibid. Rather, the relevant question is “whether a reasonable person would find... value in the material, taken as a whole.” Id., at 501. Thus, the serious value requirement “allows appellate courts to impose some limitations and regularity on the definition by setting, as a matter of law, a national floor for socially redeeming value.” Reno, supra, at 873 (emphasis added), a safeguard nowhere present in the CDA.
C
When the scope of an obscenity statute’s coverage is sufficiently narrowed by a “serious value” prong and a “prurient interest” prong, we have held that requiring a speaker disseminating material to a national audience to observe varying community standards does not violate the First Amendment. In Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974), this Court considered the constitutionality of applying community standards to the determination of whether material is obscene under 18 U. S. C. § 1461, the federal statute prohibiting the mailing of obscene material. Although this statute does not define obscenity, the petitioners in Hamling were tried and convicted under the definition of obscenity set forth in Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U. S. 413 (1966), which included both a “prurient interest” requirement and a requirement that prohibited material be “‘utterly without redeeming social value.’” Hamling, supra, at 99 (quoting Memoirs, supra, at 418).
Like respondents here, the dissenting opinion in Hamling argued that it was unconstitutional for a federal statute to rely on community standards to regulate speech. Justice Brennan maintained that “[njational distributors choosing to send their products in interstate travels [would] be forced to cope with the community standards of every hamlet into which their goods [might] wander.” 418 U. S., at 144. As a result, he claimed that the inevitable result of this situation would be “debilitating self-censorship that abridges the First Amendment rights of the people.” Ibid.
This Court, however, rejected Justice Brennan’s argument that the federal mail statute unconstitutionally compelled speakers choosing to distribute materials on a national basis to tailor their messages to the least tolerant community: “The fact that distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be subjected to varying community standards in the various federal judicial districts into which they transmit the materials does not render a federal statute unconstitutional.” Id., at 106.
Fifteen years later, Hamling's holding was reaffirmed in Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989). Sable addressed the constitutionality of 47 U. S. C. § 223(b) (1982 ed., Supp. V), a statutory provision prohibiting the use of telephones to make obscene or indecent communications for commercial purposes. The petitioner in that case, a “dial-a-porn” operator, challenged, in part, that portion of the statute banning obscene phone messages. Like respondents here, the “dial-a-porn” operator argued that reliance on community standards to identify obscene material impermissibly compelled “message senders... to tailor all their messages to the least tolerant community.” 492 U. S., at 124. Relying on Hamling, however, this Court once again rebuffed this attack on the use of community standards in a federal statute of national scope: “There is no constitutional barrier under Miller to prohibiting communications that are obscene in some communities under local standards even though they are not obscene in others. If Sable's audience is comprised of different communities with different local standards, Sable ultimately bears the burden of complying with the prohibition on obscene messages." 492 U. S., at 125-126 (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals below concluded that Hamling and Sable “are easily distinguished from the present case” because in both of those cases “the defendants had the ability to control the distribution of controversial material with respect to the geographic communities into which they released it” whereas “Web publishers have no such comparable control.” 217 F. 3d, at 175-176. In neither Hamling nor Sable, however, was the speaker’s ability to target the release of material into particular geographic areas integral to the legal analysis. In Hamling, the ability to limit the distribution of material to targeted communities was not mentioned, let alone relied upon, and in Sable, a dial-a-porn operator’s ability to screen incoming calls from particular areas was referenced only as a supplemental point, see 492 U. S., at 125. In the latter case, this Court made no effort to evaluate how burdensome it would have been for dial-a-porn operators to tailor their messages to callers from thousands of different communities across the Nation, instead concluding that the burden of complying with the statute rested with those companies. See id,, at 126.
While Justice Kennedy and Justice Stevens question the applicability of this Court’s community standards jurisprudence to the Internet, we do not believe that the medium’s “unique characteristics” justify adopting a different approach than that set forth in Hamling and Sable. See post, at 594-595 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). If a publisher chooses to send its material into a particular community, this Court’s jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisher’s responsibility to abide by that community’s standards. The publisher’s burden does not change simply because it decides to distribute its material to every community in the Nation. See Sable, supra, at 125-126. Nor does it change because the publisher may wish to speak only to those in a “community where avant garde culture is the norm,” post, at 595 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment), but nonetheless utilizes a medium that transmits its speech from coast to coast. If a publisher wishes for its material to be judged only by the standards of particular communities, then it need only take the simple step of utilizing a medium that enables it to target the release of its material into those communities.
Respondents offer no other grounds upon which to distinguish this ease from Hamling and Sable. While those cases involved obscenity rather than material that is harmful to minors, we have no reason to believe that the practical effect of varying community standards under COPA, given the statute’s definition of “material that is harmful to minors,” is significantly greater than the practical effect of varying community standards under federal obscenity statutes. It is noteworthy, for example, that respondents fail to point out even a single exhibit in the record as to which coverage under COPA would depend upon which community in the country evaluated the material. As a result, if we were to hold COPA unconstitutional because of its use of community standards, federal obscenity statutes would likely also be unconstitutional as applied to the Web, a result in substantial tension with our prior suggestion that the application of the CDA to obscene speech was constitutional. See Reno, 521 U. S., at 877, n. 44, 882-883.
D
Respondents argue that COPA is “unconstitutionally over-broad” because it will require Web publishers to shield some material behind age verification screens that could be displayed openly in many communities across the Nation if Web speakers were able to limit access to their sites on a geographic basis. Brief for Respondents 33-34. “[T]o prevail in a facial challenge,” however, “it is not enough for a plaintiff to show ‘some’ overbreadth.” Reno, supra, at 896 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Rather, “the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 615 (1973). At this stage of the litigation, respondents have failed to satisfy this burden, at least solely as a result of COPA’s reliance on community standards. Because Congress has narrowed the range of content restricted by COPA in a manner analogous to Miller’s definition of obscenity, we conclude, consistent with our holdings in Hamling and Sable, that any variance caused by the statute’s reliance on community standards is not substantial enough to violate the First Amendment.
IV
The scope of our decision today is quite limited. We hold only that COPA’s reliance on community standards to identify “material that is harmful to minors” does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for purposes of the First Amendment. We do not express any view as to whether COPA suffers from substantial overbreadth for other reasons, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, or whether the District Court correctly concluded that the statute likely will not survive strict scrutiny analysis once adjudication of the case is completed below. While respondents urge us to resolve these questions at this time, prudence dictates allowing the Court of Appeals to first examine these difficult issues.
Petitioner does not ask us to vacate the preliminary injunction entered by the District Court, and in any event, we could not do so without addressing matters yet to be considered by the Court of Appeals. As a result, the Government remains enjoined from enforcing COPA absent further action by the Court of Appeals or the District Court..
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
For a thorough explanation of the history, structure, and operation of the Internet and World Wide Web, see Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,849-853 (1997).
When this litigation commenced in 1998, “[approximately 70.2 million people of all ages use[d] the Internet in the United States.” App. 171. It is now estimated that 115.2 million Americans use the Internet at least once a month and 176.5 million Americans have Internet access either at home or at work. See More Americans Online, New York Times, Nov. 19, 2001, p. C7.
The statute provides that “[a] person shall be considered to make a communication for commercial purposes only if such person is engaged in the business of making such communications.” 47 U. S. C. § 231(e)(2)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V). COPA then defines the term “engaged in the business” to mean a person:
“who makes a communication, or offers to make a communication, by means of the World Wide Web, that includes any material that is harmful to minors, devotes time, attention, or labor to such activities, as a regular course of such person’s trade or business, with the objective of earning a profit as a result of such activities (although it is not necessary that the person make a profit or that the making or offering to make such communications be the person's sole or principal business or source of income).” § 231(e)(2)(B).
Respondents include the American Civil Liberties Union, Androgony Books, Inc., d/b/a A Different Light Bookstores, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Artnet Worldwide Corporation, BlackStripe, Addazi Inc. d/b/a Condomania, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Free Speech Media, OBGYN.net, Philadelphia Gay News, PlanetOut Corporation, Powell’s Bookstore, Riotgrrl, Salon Internet, Inc., and West Stock, Inc., now known as ImageState North America, Inc.
In three other claims, which are not relevant to resolving the dispute at hand, respondents alleged that COPA infringed the free speech rights of older minors, violated the right to “communicate and access information anonymously,” and was “unconstitutionally vague.” App. 101-102.
While petitioner contends that a speaker on the Web possesses the ability to communicate only with individuals located in targeted geographic communities, Brief for Petitioner 29, n. 3, he stipulated below that “[ojnce a provider posts its content on the Internet and chooses to make it available to all, it generally cannot prevent that content from entering any geographic community.” App. 187. The District Court adopted this stipulation as a finding of fact, see. American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d 473, 484 (ED Pa. 1999), and petitioner points
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Reviewing courts normally disregard trial errors that are harmless. This case asks us to decide whether a federal ha-beas court should consider a trial error harmless when the court (1) reviews a state-court judgment from a criminal trial, (2) finds a constitutional error, and (3) is in grave doubt about whether or not that error is harmless. We recognize that this last mentioned circumstance, “grave doubt,” is unusual. Normally a record review will permit a judge to make up his or her mind about the matter. And indeed a judge has an obligation to do so. But we consider here the legal rule that governs the special circumstance in which record review leaves the conscientious judge in grave doubt about the likely effect of an error on the jury’s verdict. (By “grave doubt” we mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.) We conclude that the uncertain judge should treat the error, not as if it were harmless, but as if it affected the verdict (i. e., as if it had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”).
I
Robert O’Neal filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state-court convictions for murder and other crimes. The Federal District Court agreed with several of his claims of constitutional trial error. On appeal the Sixth Circuit disagreed with the District Court, with one important exception. That exception focused on possible jury “confusion” arising out of a trial court instruction about the state of mind necessary for conviction combined with a related statement by a prosecutor. The Sixth Circuit assumed, for argument’s sake, that the instruction (taken together with the prosecutor’s statement) had indeed violated the Federal Constitution by misleading the jury. Nonetheless, the court disregarded the error on the ground that it was “harmless.” O'Neal v. Morris, 3 F. 3d 143, 147 (1993).
The court’s opinion sets forth the standard normally applied by a federal habeas court in deciding whether or not this kind of constitutional “trial” error is harmless, namely, whether the error “ ‘ “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’”” Id., at 145 (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 627 (1993) (quoting, and adopting, standard set forth in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, 776 (1946))). But, rather than ask directly whether the record’s facts satisfied this standard, the court seemed to refer to a burden of proof. Its opinion says that the habeas petitioner must bear the “burden of establishing” whether the error was prejudicial. 3 F. 3d, at 145. As a practical matter, this statement apparently means that, if a judge is in grave doubt about the effect on the jury of this kind of error, the petitioner must lose. Thus, O’Neal might have lost in the Court of Appeals, not because the judges concluded that the error was harmless, but because the record of the trial left them in grave doubt about the effect of the error.
This Court granted certiorari to decide what the law requires in such circumstances. We repeat our conclusion: When a federal judge in a habeas proceeding is in grave doubt about whether a trial error of federal law had “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict,” that error is not harmless. And, the petitioner must win.
II
As an initial matter, we note that we deliberately phrase the issue in this case in terms of a judge’s grave doubt, instead of in terms of “burden of proof.” The case before us does not involve a judge who shifts a “burden” to help control the presentation of evidence at a trial, but rather involves a judge who applies a legal standard (harmlessness) to a record that the presentation of evidence is no longer likely to affect. In such a case, we think it conceptually clearer for the judge to ask directly, “Do I, the judge, think that the error substantially influenced the jury’s decision?” than for the judge to try to put the same question in terms of proof burdens (e. g., “Do I believe the party has borne its burden of showing...?”). As Chief Justice Traynor said:
“Whether or not counsel are helpful, it is still the responsibility of the... court, once it concludes there was error, to determine whether the error affected the judgment. It must do so without benefit of such aids as presumptions or allocated burdens of proof that expedite fact-finding at the trial.” R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 26 (1970) (hereinafter Traynor).
The case may sometimes arise, however, where the record is so evenly balanced that a conscientious judge is in grave doubt as to the harmlessness of an error. See id., at 22-23. This is the narrow circumstance we address here.
Ill
Our legal conclusion — that in cases of grave doubt as to harmlessness the petitioner must win — rests upon three considerations. First, precedent supports our conclusion. As this Court has stated, “the original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error [here, the State]... to prove that there was no injury....” Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967) (citing 1 J. Wigmore, Evidence §21 (3d ed. 1940)). When this Court considered the doubt-as-to-harmlessness question in the context of direct review of a ramconstitutional trial error, it applied the same rule. In Kotteakos v. United States, the Court wrote:
“If, when all is said and done, the [court’s] conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand.... But if one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected. The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 328 U. S., at 764-765 (emphasis added).
Id., at 776 (holding that error is not harmless if it had “substantial and injurious effect or influence” upon the jury). That is to say, if a judge has “grave doubt” about whether an error affected a jury in this way, the judge must treat the error as if it did so. See also United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 741 (1993) (stating that under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a) the Government bears the “burden of showing the absence of prejudice”); United States v. Lane, 474 U. S. 438, 449 (1986) (quoting Kotteakos as providing the proper harmless-error standard in cases of misjoinder and quoting “ ‘grave doubt’ ” language).
When this Court considered the same question in the context of direct review of a constitutional trial error, it applied the same rule. See Chapman, 386 U. S., at 24 (holding that error is harmless only if “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). Indeed, the Chapman Court wrote that “constitutional error... casts on someone other than the person prejudiced by it a burden to show that it was harmless.” Ibid.
We must concede that in Brecht v. Abrahamson this Court, in the course of holding that the more lenient Kot-teakos harmless-error standard, rather than the stricter Chapman standard, normally governs cases of habeas review of constitutional trial errors, stated that habeas petitioners “are not entitled to habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted in ‘actual prejudice.’” Brecht, 507 U. S., at 637 (emphasis added). This language, however, is not determinative. The issue in Brecht involved a choice of substantive harmless-error standards: the stricter Chapman, or the less strict Kotteakos, measure of harmlessness. Both of those cases had resolved the issue now before us the same way, placing the risk of doubt on the State. Moreover, the sentence from Brecht quoted above appears in a paragraph that adopts the very Kotteakos standard that we now apply. That paragraph does not explain why the Court would make an exception to the “grave doubt” portion of the Kotteakos standard. Furthermore, the Brecht opinion, in this respect, did not speak for a Court majority. Four Members of the Court, supporting application of Chapman’s standard, dissented. And Justice Stevens, while a Member of the majority, stated explicitly that the Kotteakos standard applied in its entirety. 507 U. S., at 640 (concurring opinion) (agreeing, in part, because that standard “places the burden on prosecutors to explain why those errors were harmless”).
We further acknowledge that this Court, in Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109 (1943), said:
“He who seeks to have a judgment set aside because of an erroneous ruling carries the burden of showing that prejudice resulted.” Id., at 116.
But this pre-Kotteakos language, in context, referred to what the preceding sentence in Palmer described as “[m]ere ‘technical errors.’” 318 U. S., at 116. Kotteakos itself makes clear that “technical errors” may be different. It quotes an excerpt from the House Report accompanying the harmless-error statute (then 28 U. S. C. § 391) that says the statute casts
“ ‘upon the party seeking a new trial the burden of showing that any technical errors that he may complain of have affected his substantial rights.’” Kotteakos, 328 U. S., at 760 (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 913, 65th Cong., 3d Sess., 1 (1919)).
The Report, however, (as Kotteakos immediately points out) goes on to say that if the error is not “technical,” if, instead,
“ ‘the error is of such a character that its natural effect is to prejudice a litigant’s substantial rights, [then] the burden of sustaining a verdict will, notwithstanding this legislation rest upon the one who claims under it.’” H. R. Rep. No. 913, swpra, at 1.
The “grave doubt” language of Kotteakos itself makes clear that important trial errors, including any “constitutional violation,... fall in” this last mentioned category, and not “in the ‘technical’ category” that the House Report described. Brecht, supra, at 641 (Stevens, J., concurring); see Bruno v. United States, 308 U. S. 287, 294 (1939) (Frankfurter, J.) (describing technical errors as those concerned with the “mere etiquette of trials and with the formalities and minutiae of procedure”).
We also have examined the precedent upon which the State relies to support its view that appellants bear a “burden” of showing “prejudice” in civil cases. See, e. g., Erskine v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 814 F. 2d 266 (CA6 1987); Flanigan v. Burlington Northern Inc., 632 F. 2d 880 (CA8 1980); Creekmore v. Crossno, 259 F. 2d 697 (CA10 1958). The State contends that, because a habeas proceeding, technically speaking, is a civil proceeding, see, e. g., Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U. S. 257, 269 (1978), this standard applies here. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 61.
One problem with this argument lies in its failure to take into account the stakes involved in a habeas proceeding. Unlike the civil cases cited by the State, the errors being considered by a habeas court occurred in a criminal proceeding, and therefore, although habeas is a civil proceeding, someone’s custody, rather than mere civil liability, is at stake. And, as we have explained, when reviewing errors from a criminal proceeding, this Court has consistently held that, if the harmlessness of the error is in grave doubt, relief must be granted. We hold the same here.
Moreover, precedent suggests that civil and criminal harmless-error standards do not differ in their treatment of grave doubt as to the harmlessness of errors affecting substantial rights. In Kotteakos, the Court interpreted the then-existing harmless-error statute, 28 U. S. C. §391, now codified with minor change at 28 U. S. C. § 2111. See Kotteakos, 328 U. S., at 759 (explaining that the statute “grew out of widespread and deep conviction” that appellate courts had become “ ‘impregnable citadels of technicality’ ”) (citation omitted). That statute, by its terms, applied to both civil and criminal cases, and Kotteakos made no distinction, at least with respect to the question at issue here, between the two types of cases. See id., at 757, n. 9; 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2883, p. 276 (1973) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). Similarly, the current harmless-error statute “traces its lineage” to §391, and applies in both civil and criminal proceedings. See McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U. S. 548, 554, n. 4 (1984). And, more important for present purposes, the current harmless-error sections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (which use nearly identical language) both refer to § 391 as their statutory source. Compare Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(a) (providing that “[a]ny error... which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded”) with Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 61 (providing that the court “must disregard any error... which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties”); see Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(a), 18 U. S. C. App., p. 833 (referring to former §391 as a source); Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 61, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 676 (same). In fact, in recent cases, we have interpreted the nearly identical language of Rule 52(a) as treating instances of grave doubt just as we treat them here. See Olano, 507 U. S., at 740-741, 743; Lane, 474 U. S., at 449 (quoting Kotteakos, supra, at 765). For these reasons, even if, for argument’s sake, we were to assume that the civil standard for judging harmlessness applies to habeas proceedings (despite the fact that they review errors in state criminal trials), it would make no difference with respect to the matter before us. For relevant authority rather clearly indicates that, either way, the courts should treat similarly the matter of “grave doubt” regarding the harmlessness of errors affecting substantial rights, and as Kotteakos provides.
Second, our conclusion is consistent with the basic purposes underlying the writ of habeas corpus. As we have said, we are dealing here with an error of constitutional dimension — the sort that risks an unreliable trial outcome and the consequent conviction of an innocent person. See Brecht, 507 U. S., at 654 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). We also are assuming that the judge's conscientious answer to the question, “But, did that error have a ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence’ on the jury’s decision?” is, “It is extremely difficult to say.” In such circumstances, a legal rule requiring issuance of the writ will, at least often, avoid a grievous wrong — holding a person “in custody in violation of the Constitution... of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §§ 2241(c)(8), 2254(a). Such a rule thereby both protects individuals from unconstitutional convictions and helps to guarantee the integrity of the criminal process by assuring that trials are fundamentally fair. See Traynor 23 (“In the long run there would be a closer guard against error at the trial, if... courts were alert to reverse, in case of doubt, for error that could have contaminated the judgment”). By way of contrast, the opposite rule, denying the writ in cases of grave uncertainty, would virtually guarantee that many, in fact, will be held in unlawful custody — contrary to the writ’s most basic traditions and purposes. And, it would tell judges who believe individuals are quite possibly being held “in custody in violation of the' Constitution” that they cannot grant relief.
We concede that this opposite rule (denying the writ) would help protect the State’s interest in the finality of its judgments and would promote federal-state comity. It would avoid retrials, some of which, held so late in the day, may lead to freedom for some petitioners whose initial convictions were in fact unaffected by the errors that took place at their initial trials. The State’s interest in avoiding retrial of this latter category of individuals is legitimate and important. But this interest is somewhat diminished by the legal circumstance that the State normally bears responsibility for the error that infected the initial trial. And, if one assumes (1) that in cases of grave doubt, the error is at least as likely to have been harmful in fact as not, and (2) that retrial will often (or even sometimes) lead to reconviction, then that state interest is further diminished by a factual circumstance: the number of acquittals wrongly caused by grant of the writ and delayed retrial (the most serious harm affecting the State’s legitimate interests) will be small when compared with the number of persons whom this opposite rule (denying the writ) would wrongly imprison or execute. On balance, we must doubt that the law of habeas corpus would hold many people in prison “in violation of the Constitution,” for fear that otherwise a smaller number, not so held, may eventually go free.
Third, our rule has certain administrative virtues. It is consistent with the way that courts have long treated important trial errors. See, e. g., Olano, supra; Lane, supra; Chapman, 386 U. S., at 24; Kotteakos, supra; see also 11 Wright & Miller §2883. In a highly technical area such as this one, consistency brings with it simplicity, a body of existing case law available for consultation, see Brecht, supra, at 638, and a consequently diminished risk of further, error-produced, proceedings. Moreover, our rule avoids the need for judges to read lengthy records to determine prejudice in every habeas case. These factors are not determinative, but offer a practical caution against a legal rule that, in respect to precedent and purpose, would run against the judicial grain.
IV
The State makes one additional argument. It points to language in the habeas corpus statute that says the federal courts
“shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus... only on the ground that [a petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a).
See § 2241(c)(3). If a “violation of the Constitution” is harmless, the State adds, then there is no causal connection between “violation” and “custody,” and the prisoner is not “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” And, by analogy to tort law, the State contends that, because the habeas petitioner is in the position of plaintiff, he must prove this causal connection. Whatever force there may be to this argument is countered by the equally persuasive analogy to affirmative defenses, on which the party in the position of defendant (here the State) bears the risk of equipoise. And, to read the statute as the State suggests would run counter to the principle of Kotteakos that when an error’s natural effect is to prejudice substantial rights and the court is in grave doubt about the harmlessness of that error, the error must be treated as if it had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the verdict. See Kotteakos, 328 U. S., at 764-765, 776.
We do not see what in the language of the statute tells a court that it should treat a violation as harmless when it is in grave doubt about its harmlessness. One might as easily infer the opposite — that the statute leaves the matter of harmlessness as a kind of affirmative defense — from the absence, in the Habeas Corpus Rules’ form petition, of any space for a “lack of harmlessness” allegation. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254 Rule 2(c) (providing in part that a habeas petition “shall be in substantially the form annexed to these rules”). Or, one might as easily infer neutrality on the point from the statute’s command that the court dispose of the petition “as law and justice require.” 28 U. S. C. §2243. Ultimately, we find no significant support for either side in any of this language. When faced with such gaps in the ha-beas statute, we have “look[ed] first to the considerations underlying our habeas jurisprudence, and then determined] whether the proposed rule would advance or inhibit these considerations by weighing the marginal costs and benefits of its application on collateral review.” Brecht, 507 U. S., at 633. We have done that in this case, and for the reasons set forth above, see supra, at 442-443, we conclude that, when a habeas court is in grave doubt as to the harmlessness of an error that affects substantial rights, it should grant relief.
V
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so. ordered.
Justice Thomas,
with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join,
dissenting.
In my view, a federal habeas court may not upset the results of a criminal trial unless it concludes both that the trial was marred by a violation of the Constitution or a federal statute and that this error was harmful. Because the Court concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
I
Though the majority begins with an examination of precedent construing the federal harmless-error statute, 28 U. S. C. §2111, the proper place to begin is with the statute governing habeas relief for prisoners in state custody. After all, the petitioner does not seek relief under the harmless-error statute.
Where a state prisoner is concerned, a writ of habeas corpus may issue only when that prisoner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). It is not enough that the habeas petitioner is in custody and that some violation of the Constitution or a federal statute occurred at trial; as amicus curiae the Solicitor General correctly argues, the statute requires a causal link between the violation and the custody. Quite obviously, a habeas petitioner who proves that a trivial (“harmless”) error occurred at trial will not secure habeas relief because such an error could not be said to have been a cause of the custody. Notwithstanding the error, the petitioner would have been in custody lawfully and thus relief is unwarranted. Even the majority implicitly agrees that causation is necessary, for otherwise it would have no need to discuss harmful errors as opposed to mere errors.
The habeas petitioner comes to federal court as a plaintiff. Because the plaintiff “seeks to change the present state of affairs,” he “naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion.” 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 337, p. 428 (4th ed. 1992). Part of that burden is the requirement that the plaintiff show that the defendant’s actions caused harm. In other areas of the law, the plaintiff almost invariably bears the burden of persuasion with respect to whether the defendant’s actions caused harm. See, e. g., Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U. S. 642, 669 (1989) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“In the ordinary civil trial, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant has harmed her”); 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts §433B(1), p. 441 (1965) (“[T]he burden of proof that the tortious conduct of the defendant has caused the harm to the plaintiff is upon the plaintiff”). Establishing causation is thus an essential element of the plaintiff’s case in chief. Under the majority’s rationale, however, the habeas petitioner need not prove causation at all; once a prisoner establishes error, the government must affirmatively persuade the court of the harmlessness of that error. Ante, at 444. Without explaining why it favors habeas plaintiffs over other plaintiffs, the Court thus treats the question of causation as an affirmative defense.
Requiring the habeas petitioner to bear the risk of non-persuasion not only accords with the usual rules of litigation, but also is compelled by what we have said about the nature of habeas relief. “When the process of direct review... comes to an end, a presumption of finality and legality attaches to the conviction and sentence.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 887 (1983). We have acknowledged that the “writ strikes at finality,” one of the “law’s very objects,” McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 491 (1991), and that when a habeas petitioner obtains a new trial, the government is put at a disadvantage “through the ‘erosion of memory’ and ‘dispersion of witnesses’ that occur with the passage of time,” Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436, 453 (1986) (plurality opinion) (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 127-128 (1982)). Our habeas cases indicate that upsetting the finality of judgments should be countenanced only in rare instances. See, e. g., Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 633 (1993) (noting that “the writ of habeas corpus has historically been regarded as an extraordinary remedy”).
We have ample cause to be wary of the writ. Our criminal law does not routinely punish the innocent. Instead, our Constitution requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). As a result, the overwhelming majority of the innocent will never reach the habeas stage, since they will not have been found guilty at trial. Appeals and possible state postconviction relief further reduce the possibility that an innocent is in custody. The presumption of finality that we apply in ha-beas proceedings is therefore well founded.
Our habeas jurisprudence has also been informed by a proper recognition of the affront to a State when federal courts conduct habeas review. Habeas review “‘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)). See also McCleskey, supra, at 491; Engle, supra, at 128. Where the habeas court cannot say that an error resulted in harm, it seems particularly disrespectful to resolve doubts against the propriety of state-court judgments.
Our “harmless-error” inquiry in the habeas context concerns whether an error “ ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Brecht, supra, at 627 (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, 776 (1946)). As alluded to earlier, supra, at 446, this test consists of a causation inquiry — was the error a cause of the conviction. Thus, like all plaintiffs, the habeas plaintiff must show causation if he is to succeed.
II
The Court derives its contrary rule from cases construing the harmless-error statute, the purposes underlying the writ of habeas corpus, and the virtue of administrative consistency that stems from following established precedent. The Court’s analysis is unpersuasive.
A
The Court begins by examining harmless-error practice in the context of direct criminal appeals. I do not quarrel with the majority’s conclusion that once an error has been shown on direct appeal, the government must demonstrate that it was harmless if the conviction is to stand. See ante, at 437-438 (citing Kotteakos, supra, at 764-765, 776; Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967); and United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 741 (1993)). Still, neither the harmless-error statute (which was the subject of Kotteakos) nor the rules governing harmless errors in district courts (discussed in Olano) apply to habeas review of errors that occurred in a prior ease. See 28 U. S. C. §2111; Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(a); see also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 61.
To be sure, we have borrowed the applicable standard for judging harmlessness in habeas from cases interpreting the federal harmless-error statute. See, e. g., Brecht, supra, at 631. Applying harmless-error analysis makes sense, because a trivial error could not be said to cause custody and thus warrant habeas relief. But the harmless-error statute and rules do not apply of their own force in the habeas cases, and so the harmless-error precedents relied upon by the majority are certainly not dispositive. Indeed, Brecht itself— despite adopting the standard for harmlessness set out in Kotteakos — departed from Kotteakos by placing the burden upon the habeas petitioner to “establish” that this standard has been met. See 507 U. S., at 637.
If we are to look at cases examining the harmless-error statute, I would think that civil cases would be of greater relevance. As the Court admits, habeas is a civil proceeding. See ante, at 440 (citing Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U. S. 257, 269 (1978)). Although the Court acknowledges that Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109 (1943), put the burden on the party claiming prejudice to demonstrate it, the Court dismisses Palmer as a preKotteakos case about technical errors. See ante, at 439. But Kotteakos did not purport to overrule Palmer. Nor is it true that the rule in Palmer is limited to cases involving technical errors. Palmer merely quoted former 28 U. S. C. §391 (the predecessor to the modern §2111, and the statute at issue in Kotteakos as well), which itself referred to “technical errors.” Palmer held that the party seeking relief from a judgment because of an erroneous ruling “carries the burden of showing that prejudice resulted”; it did not say that only those challenging “technically” erroneous rulings were so encumbered. See 318 U. S., at 116. Accordingly, most of the Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue place the burden of showing prejudice on the civil appellant, just as Palmer did. See, e. g., Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores (No. 471), 891 F. 2d 1177, 1180 (CA5 1990) (per curiam); United States v. Killough, 848 F. 2d 1523, 1527 (CA11 1988); United States v. Seaboard Surety Co., 817 F. 2d 956, 964 (CA2), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 855 (1987); see also ante, at 440 (citing cases from the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits). But see Barth v. Gelb, 2 F. 3d 1180, 1188 (CADC 1993) (quoting the “grave doubt” language of Kotteakos, supra, at 765).
The Court concludes that Palmer and these cases may be disregarded because the federal harmless-error statute, 28 U. S. C. §2111, makes no distinction between civil and criminal cases; since the rule in the criminal context places the burden of persuasion on the government, the Court decides that the same should be true in the civil context. Ante, at 441-442. But the majority’s syllogism could just as easily be turned against the result it reaches. Authority in the civil context assigns the risk of nonpersuasion to the party alleging error, and since the statute draws no distinction between civil and criminal cases, we might just as easily conclude that the civil rule should be followed in the criminal context. The Court’s reasoning yields no determinate answer.
As indicated above, however, the harmless-error provisions do not actually apply in habeas cases anyway. We have no occasion to harmonize the harmless-error cases by overruling Palmer and by rejecting the practice that prevails in the majority of the Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue, as the Court does today.
B
The Court’s second claim is that its “conclusion is consistent with the basic purposes underlying the writ of habeas corpus.” Ante, at 442. As part of its argument, the Court lays claim to the moral high ground: “[W]e are dealing here with an error of constitutional dimension — the sort that risks an unreliable trial outcome and the consequent conviction of an innocent person.” Ibid. The Court suggests that when there is a grave doubt about the harmfulness of an error, “a legal rule requiring issuance of the writ will, at least often, avoid a grievous wrong — holding a person ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution... of the United States.’” Ibid. (quoting 28 U. S. C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a)).
The Court concedes that there are other interests at stake — a State’s interest in the finality of its judgments and the promotion of federal-state comity, see ante, at 443 — but goes on to set these principles aside. The Court concludes that the State’s interest in finality, while “legitimate and important,” ibid., is diminished by the fact that “the number of acquittals wrongly caused by grant of the writ and delayed retrial... will be small when compared with the number of persons whom [the] opposite rule... would wrongly imprison or execute,” 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.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" from possessing a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). That phrase is defined to include any misdemeanor committed against a domestic relation that necessarily involves the "use... of physical force." § 921(a)(33)(A). The question presented here is whether misdemeanor assault convictions for reckless (as contrasted to knowing or intentional) conduct trigger the statutory firearms ban. We hold that they do.
I
Congress enacted § 922(g)(9) some 20 years ago to "close [a] dangerous loophole" in the gun control laws. United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1405, 1409, 188 L.Ed.2d 426 (2014) (quoting United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 426, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009) ). An existing provision already barred convicted felons from possessing firearms. See § 922(g)(1) (1994 ed.). But many perpetrators of domestic violence are charged with misdemeanors rather than felonies, notwithstanding the harmfulness of their conduct. See Castleman, 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1408-1409. And "[f]irearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination." Hayes, 555 U.S., at 427, 129 S.Ct. 1079. Accordingly, Congress added § 922(g)(9) to prohibit any person convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" from possessing any gun or ammunition with a connection to interstate commerce. And it defined that phrase, in § 921(a)(33)(A), to include a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law, committed by a person with a specified domestic relationship with the victim, that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force."
Two Terms ago, this Court considered the scope of that definition in a case involving a conviction for a knowing or intentional assault. See Castleman, 572 U.S., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1409-1415. In Castleman, we initially held that the word "force" in § 921(a)(33)(A) bears its common-law meaning, and so is broad enough to include offensive touching. See id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1409-1410. We then determined that "the knowing or intentional application of [such] force is a 'use' of force." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1415. But we expressly left open whether a reckless assault also qualifies as a "use" of force-so that a misdemeanor conviction for such conduct would trigger § 922(g)(9)'s firearms ban. See id., at ----, n. 8, 134 S.Ct., at 1413-1414, n. 8. The two cases before us now raise that issue.
Petitioner Stephen Voisine pleaded guilty in 2004 to assaulting his girlfriend in violation of § 207 of the Maine Criminal Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause[ ] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person." Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 207(1)(A). Several years later, Voisine again found himself in legal trouble, this time for killing a bald eagle. See 16 U.S.C. § 668(a). While investigating that crime, law enforcement officers learned that Voisine owned a rifle. When a background check turned up his prior misdemeanor conviction, the Government charged him with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
Petitioner William Armstrong pleaded guilty in 2008 to assaulting his wife in violation of a Maine domestic violence law making it a misdemeanor to commit an assault prohibited by § 207 (the general statute under which Voisine was convicted) against a family or household member. See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 207-A(1)(A). A few years later, law enforcement officers searched Armstrong's home as part of a narcotics investigation. They discovered six guns, plus a large quantity of ammunition. Like Voisine, Armstrong was charged under § 922(g)(9) for unlawfully possessing firearms.
Both men argued that they were not subject to § 922(g)(9)'s prohibition because their prior convictions (as the Government conceded) could have been based on reckless, rather than knowing or intentional, conduct. The District Court rejected those claims. Each petitioner then entered a guilty plea conditioned on the right to appeal the District Court's ruling.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the two convictions, holding that "an offense with a mens rea of recklessness may qualify as a'misdemeanor crime of violence' under § 922(g)(9)." United States v. Armstrong, 706 F.3d 1, 4 (2013) ; see United States v. Voisine, 495 Fed.Appx. 101, 102 (2013) (per curiam ). Voisine and Armstrong filed a joint petition for certiorari, and shortly after issuing Castleman, this Court (without opinion) vacated the First Circuit's judgments and remanded the cases for further consideration in light of that decision. See Armstrong v. United States, 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1759, 188 L.Ed.2d 590 (2014). On remand, the Court of Appeals again upheld the convictions, on the same ground. See 778 F.3d 176, 177 (2015).
We granted certiorari, 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 386, 193 L.Ed.2d 309 (2015), to resolve a Circuit split over whether a misdemeanor conviction for recklessly assaulting a domestic relation disqualifies an individual from possessing a gun under § 922(g)(9). We now affirm.
II
The issue before us is whether § 922(g)(9) applies to reckless assaults, as it does to knowing or intentional ones. To commit an assault recklessly is to take that action with a certain state of mind (or mens rea )-in the dominant formulation, to "consciously disregard[ ]" a substantial risk that the conduct will cause harm to another. ALI, Model Penal Code § 2.02(2)(c) (1962); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 35(3) (Supp. 2015) (adopting that definition); see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836-837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (noting that a person acts recklessly only when he disregards a substantial risk of harm "of which he is aware"). For purposes of comparison, to commit an assault knowingly or intentionally (the latter, to add yet another adverb, sometimes called "purposefully") is to act with another state of mind respecting that act's consequences-in the first case, to be "aware that [harm] is practically certain" and, in the second, to have that result as a "conscious object." Model Penal Code §§ 2.02(2)(a)-(b) ; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, §§ 35(1)-(2).
Statutory text and background alike lead us to conclude that a reckless domestic assault qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under § 922(g)(9). Congress defined that phrase to include crimes that necessarily involve the "use... of physical force." § 921(a)(33)(A). Reckless assaults, no less than the knowing or intentional ones we addressed in Castleman, satisfy that definition. Further, Congress enacted § 922(g)(9) in order to prohibit domestic abusers convicted under run-of-the-mill misdemeanor assault and battery laws from possessing guns. Because fully two-thirds of such state laws extend to recklessness, construing § 922(g)(9) to exclude crimes committed with that state of mind would substantially undermine the provision's design.
A
Nothing in the word "use"-which is the only statutory language either party thinks relevant-indicates that § 922(g)(9) applies exclusively to knowing or intentional domestic assaults. Recall that under § 921(a)(33)(A), an offense counts as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" only if it has, as an element, the "use" of force. Dictionaries consistently define the noun "use" to mean the "act of employing" something. Webster's New International Dictionary 2806 (2d ed. 1954) ("[a]ct of employing anything"); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 2097 (2d ed. 1987) ("act of employing, using, or putting into service"); Black's Law Dictionary 1541 (6th ed. 1990) ("[a]ct of employing," "application"). On that common understanding, the force involved in a qualifying assault must be volitional; an involuntary motion, even a powerful one, is not naturally described as an active employment of force. See Castleman, 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1415 ("[T]he word 'use' conveys the idea that the thing used (here, 'physical force') has been made the user's instrument" (some internal quotation marks omitted)). But the word "use" does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.
Consider a couple of examples to see the ordinary meaning of the word "use" in this context. If a person with soapy hands loses his grip on a plate, which then shatters and cuts his wife, the person has not "use[d]" physical force in common parlance. But now suppose a person throws a plate in anger against the wall near where his wife is standing. That hurl counts as a "use" of force even if the husband did not know for certain (or have as an object), but only recognized a substantial risk, that a shard from the plate would ricochet and injure his wife. Similarly, to spin out a scenario discussed at oral argument, if a person lets slip a door that he is trying to hold open for his girlfriend, he has not actively employed ("used") force even though the result is to hurt her. But if he slams the door shut with his girlfriend following close behind, then he has done so-regardless of whether he thinks it absolutely sure or only quite likely that he will catch her fingers in the jamb. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10-11 (counsel for petitioners acknowledging that this example involves "the use of physical force"). Once again, the word "use" does not exclude from § 922(g)(9)'s compass an act of force carried out in conscious disregard of its substantial risk of causing harm.
And contrary to petitioners' view, nothing in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004), suggests a different conclusion-i.e., that "use" marks a dividing line between reckless and knowing conduct. See Brief for Petitioners 18-22. In that decision, this Court addressed a statutory definition similar to § 921(a)(33)(A) : there, "the use... of physical force against the person or property of another." 18 U.S.C. § 16. That provision excludes "merely accidental" conduct, Leocal held, because "it is [not] natural to say that a person actively employs physical force against another person by accident." 543 U.S., at 9, 125 S.Ct. 377. For example, the Court stated, one "would not ordinarily say a person 'use[s]... physical force against' another by stumbling and falling into him." Ibid. That reasoning fully accords with our analysis here. Conduct like stumbling (or in our hypothetical, dropping a plate) is a true accident, and so too the injury arising from it; hence the difficulty of describing that conduct as the "active employment" of force. Ibid. But the same is not true of reckless behavior-acts undertaken with awareness of their substantial risk of causing injury (in our contrasting hypo, hurling the plate). The harm such conduct causes is the result of a deliberate decision to endanger another-no more an "accident" than if the "substantial risk" were "practically certain." See supra, at 2278 (comparing reckless and knowing acts). And indeed, Leocal itself recognized the distinction between accidents and recklessness, specifically reserving the issue whether the definition in § 16 embraces reckless conduct, see 543 U.S., at 13, 125 S.Ct. 377 -as we now hold § 921(a)(33)(A) does.
In sum, Congress's definition of a "misdemeanor crime of violence" contains no exclusion for convictions based on reckless behavior. A person who assaults another recklessly "use[s]" force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally. The relevant text thus supports prohibiting petitioners, and others with similar criminal records, from possessing firearms.
B
So too does the relevant history. As explained earlier, Congress enacted § 922(g)(9) in 1996 to bar those domestic abusers convicted of garden-variety assault or battery misdemeanors-just like those convicted of felonies-from owning guns. See supra, at 2276 - 2277; Castleman, 572 U.S., at ----, ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1408-1409, 1411 ; Hayes, 555 U.S., at 426-427, 129 S.Ct. 1079. Then, as now, a significant majority of jurisdictions-34 States plus the District of Columbia-defined such misdemeanor offenses to include the reckless infliction of bodily harm. See Brief for United States 7a-19a (collecting statutes). That agreement was no coincidence. Several decades earlier, the Model Penal Code had taken the position that a mens rea of recklessness should generally suffice to establish criminal liability, including for assault. See § 2.02(3), Comments 4-5, at 243-244 ("purpose, knowledge, and recklessness are properly the basis for" such liability); § 211.1 (defining assault to include "purposely, knowingly, or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury"). States quickly incorporated that view into their misdemeanor assault and battery statutes. So in linking § 922(g)(9) to those laws, Congress must have known it was sweeping in some persons who had engaged in reckless conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 238, 256, 9 L.Ed. 113 (1835) (Story, J.) ("Congress must be presumed to have legislated under this known state of the laws"). And indeed, that was part of the point: to apply firearms restrictions to those abusers, along with all others, whom the States' ordinary misdemeanor assault laws covered.
What is more, petitioners' reading risks rendering § 922(g)(9) broadly inoperative in the 35 jurisdictions with assault laws extending to recklessness-that is, inapplicable even to persons who commit that crime knowingly or intentionally. Consider Maine's statute, which (in typical fashion) makes it a misdemeanor to "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly" injure another. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 207(1)(A). Assuming that provision defines a single crime (which happens to list alternative mental states)-and accepting petitioners' view that § 921(a)(33)(A) requires at least a knowing mens rea -then, under Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), no conviction obtained under Maine's statute could qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." See id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2283 (If a state crime "sweeps more broadly" than the federally defined one, a conviction for the state offense "cannot count" as a predicate, no matter what mens rea the defendant actually had). So in the 35 jurisdictions like Maine, petitioners' reading risks allowing domestic abusers of all mental states to evade § 922(g)(9)'s firearms ban. In Castleman, we declined to construe § 921(a)(33)(A) so as to render § 922(g)(9) ineffective in 10 States. See 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1412-1413. All the more so here, where petitioners' view would jeopardize § 922(g)(9)'s force in several times that many.
Petitioners respond that we should ignore the assault and battery laws actually on the books when Congress enacted § 922(g)(9). In construing the statute, they urge, we should look instead to how the common law defined those crimes in an earlier age. See Brief for Petitioners 13-15. And that approach, petitioners claim, would necessitate reversing their convictions because the common law "required a mens rea greater than recklessness." Id., at 17.
But we see no reason to wind the clock back so far. Once again: Congress passed § 922(g)(9) to take guns out of the hands of abusers convicted under the misdemeanor assault laws then in general use in the States. See supra, at 2276 - 2277, 2280. And by that time, a substantial majority of jurisdictions, following the Model Penal Code's lead, had abandoned the common law's approach to mens rea in drafting and interpreting their assault and battery statutes. Indeed, most had gone down that road decades before. That was the backdrop against which Congress was legislating. Nothing suggests that, in enacting § 922(g)(9), Congress wished to look beyond that real world to a common-law precursor that had largely expired. To the contrary, such an approach would have undermined Congress's aim by tying the ban on firearms possession not to the laws under which abusers are prosecuted but instead to a legal anachronism.
And anyway, we would not know how to resolve whether recklessness sufficed for a battery conviction at common law. Recklessness was not a word in the common law's standard lexicon, nor an idea in its conceptual framework; only in the mid- to late-1800's did courts begin to address reckless behavior in those terms. See Hall, Assault and Battery by the Reckless Motorist, 31 J. Crim. L. & C. 133, 138-139 (1940). The common law traditionally used a variety of overlapping and, frankly, confusing phrases to describe culpable mental states-among them, specific intent, general intent, presumed intent, willfulness, and malice. See, e.g., Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 252, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952) ; Model Penal Code § 2.02, Comment 1, at 230. Whether and where conduct that we would today describe as reckless fits into that obscure scheme is anyone's guess: Neither petitioners' citations, nor the Government's competing ones, have succeeded in resolving that counterfactual question. And that indeterminacy confirms our conclusion that Congress had no thought of incorporating the common law's treatment of mens rea into § 921(a)(33)(A). That provision instead corresponds to the ordinary misdemeanor assault and battery laws used to prosecute domestic abuse, regardless of how their mental state requirements might-or, then again, might not-conform to the common law's.
III
The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the "use... of physical force" against a domestic relation. § 921(a)(33)(A). That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly-i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm. And the state-law backdrop to that provision, which included misdemeanor assault statutes covering reckless conduct in a significant majority of jurisdictions, indicates that Congress meant just what it said. Each petitioner's possession of a gun, following a conviction under Maine law for abusing a domestic partner, therefore violates § 922(g)(9). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice SOTOMAYOR joins as to Parts I and II, dissenting.
Federal law makes it a crime for anyone previously convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to possess a firearm "in or affecting commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). A "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" includes "an offense that... has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force... committed by [certain close family members] of the victim." § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii). In this case, petitioners were convicted under § 922(g)(9) because they possessed firearms and had prior convictions for assault under Maine's statute prohibiting "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person." Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 207(1)(A) (2006). The question presented is whether a prior conviction under § 207 has, as an element, the "use of physical force," such that the conviction can strip someone of his right to possess a firearm. In my view, § 207 does not qualify as such an offense, and the majority errs in holding otherwise. I respectfully dissent.
I
To qualify as a "'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,' " the Maine assault statute must have as an element the "use of physical force." § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii). Because mere recklessness is sufficient to sustain a conviction under § 207, a conviction does not necessarily involve the "use" of physical force, and thus, does not trigger § 922(g)(9)'s prohibition on firearm possession.
A
Three features of § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) establish that the "use of physical force" requires intentional conduct. First, the word "use" in that provision is best read to require intentional conduct. As the majority recognizes, the noun "use" means "the 'act of employing' something." Ante, at 2278 (quoting dictionaries). A "use" is "[t]he act of employing a thing for any... purpose." 19 Oxford English Dictionary 350 (2d ed. 1989). To "use" something, in other words, is to employ the thing for its instrumental value, i.e., to employ the thing to accomplish a further goal. See United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1405, 1414-1415, 188 L.Ed.2d 426 (2014). A "use," therefore, is an inherently intentional act-that is, an act done for the purpose of causing certain consequences or at least with knowledge that those consequences will ensue. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A, p. 15 (1965) (defining intentional acts).
We have routinely defined "use" in ways that make clear that the conduct must be intentional. In Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995), for example, we held that the phrase "[use of] a firearm" required "active employment" of the firearm, such as "brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and, most obviously, firing or attempting to fire a firearm." Id., at 143, 148, 116 S.Ct. 501 (emphasis deleted). We have similarly held that the use of force requires more than "negligent or merely accidental conduct." Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 9, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004). We concluded that "[w]hile one may, in theory, actively employ something in an accidental manner, it is much less natural to say that a person actively employs physical force against another person by accident." Ibid. Thus, shooting a gun would be using a firearm in relation to a crime. Bailey, supra, at 148, 116 S.Ct. 501. Recklessly leaving a loaded gun in one's trunk, which then discharges after being jostled during the car ride, would not. The person who placed that gun in the trunk might have acted recklessly or negligently, but he did not actively employ the gun in a crime.
Second, especially in a legal context, "force" generally connotes the use of violence against another. Black's Law Dictionary, for example, defines "force" to mean "[p]ower, violence, or pressure directed against a person or thing." Black's Law Dictionary 656 (7th ed. 1999). Other dictionaries offer similar definitions. E.g., Random House Dictionary of the English Language 748 (def. 5) (2d ed. 1987) ("force," when used in law, means "unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property"); 6 Oxford English Dictionary 34 (def. I(5)(c)) ("Unlawful violence offered to persons or things"). And "violence," when used in a legal context, also implies an intentional act. See Black's Law Dictionary 1564 ("violence" is the "[u]njust or unwarranted use of force, usu. accompanied by fury, vehemence, or outrage; physical force unlawfully exercised with the intent to harm").
When a person talks about "using force" against another, one thinks of intentional acts-punching, kicking, shoving, or using a weapon. Conversely, one would not naturally call a car accident a "use of force," even if people were injured by the force of the accident. As Justice Holmes observed, "[E]ven a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked." O. Holmes, The Common Law 3 (1881).
Third, context confirms that "use of physical force" connotes an intentional act. Section 921(a)(33)(A)(ii)'s prohibitions also include "the threatened use of a deadly weapon." In that neighboring prohibition, "use" most naturally means active employment of the weapon. And it would be odd to say that "use" in that provision refers to active employment (an intentional act) when threatening someone with a weapon, but "use" here is satisfied by merely reckless conduct. See Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860, 106 S.Ct. 1600, 89 L.Ed.2d 855 (1986) (the same words in a statute presumptively have the same meaning). Thus, the "use of physical force" against a family member refers to intentional acts of violence against a family member.
B
On this interpretation, Maine's assault statute likely does not qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" and thus does not trigger the prohibition on possessing firearms, § 922(g)(9). The Maine statute appears to lack, as a required element, the "use or attempted use of physical force." Maine's statute punishes at least some conduct that does not involve the "use of physical force." Section 207 criminalizes "recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person." By criminalizing all reckless conduct, the Maine statute captures conduct such as recklessly injuring a passenger by texting while driving resulting in a crash. Petitioners' charging documents generically recited the statutory language; they did not charge intentional, knowing, and reckless harm as alternative counts. Accordingly, Maine's statute appears to treat "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" causing bodily injury or an offensive touching as a single, indivisible offense that is satisfied by recklessness. See Mathis v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2243, ---- - ----, --- L.Ed.2d ----, 2016 WL 3434400 (2016). So petitioners' prior assault convictions do not necessarily have as an element the use of physical force against a family member. These prior convictions, therefore, do not qualify as a misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence under federal law, and petitioners' convictions accordingly should be reversed. At the very least, to the extent there remains uncertainty over whether Maine's assault statute is divisible, the Court should vacate and remand for the First Circuit to determine that statutory interpretation question in the first instance.
II
To illustrate where I part ways with the majority, consider different mental states with which a person could create and apply force. First, a person can create force intentionally or recklessly. For example, a person can intentionally throw a punch or a person can crash his car by driving recklessly. Second, a person can intentionally or recklessly harm a particular person or object as a result of that force. For example, a person could throw a punch at a particular person (thereby intentionally applying force to that person) or a person could swing a baseball bat too close to someone (thereby recklessly applying force to that person).
These different mental states give rise to three relevant categories of conduct. A person might intentionally create force and intentionally apply that force against an object (e.g., punching a punching bag). A person might also intentionally create force but recklessly apply that force against an object (e.g., practicing a kick in the air, but recklessly hitting a piece of furniture). Or a person could recklessly create force that results in damage, such as the car crash example.
The question before us is what mental state suffices for a "use of physical force" against a family member. In my view, a "use of physical force" most naturally refers to cases where a person intentionally creates force and intentionally applies that force against a family member. It also includes (at least some) cases where a person intentionally creates force but recklessly applies it to a family member. But I part ways with the majority's conclusion that purely reckless conduct-meaning, where a person recklessly creates force-constitutes a "use of physical force." In my view, it does not, and therefore, the "use of physical force" is narrower than most state assault statutes, which punish anyone who recklessly causes physical injury.
A
To identify the scope of the "use of physical force," consider three different types of intentional and reckless force resulting in physical injury.
1
The paradigmatic case of battery: A person intentionally unleashes force and intends that the force will harm a particular person. This might include, for example, punching or kicking someone. Both the majority and I agree that these cases constitute a "use of physical force" under § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii).
This first category includes all cases where a person intentionally creates force and desires or knows with a practical certainty that that force will cause harm. This is because the law traditionally treats conduct as intended in two circumstances. First, conduct is intentional when the actor desires to produce a specific result. 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.2(a), pp. 340-342 (2d ed. 2003). But conduct is also traditionally deemed intentional when a person acts "knowingly": that is, he knows with practical certainty that a result will follow from his conduct. Ibid. ; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A, Comment b, at 15 ("If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result").
To illustrate, suppose a person strikes his friend for the purpose of demonstrating a karate move. The person has no desire to injure his friend, but he knows that the move is so dangerous that he is practically certain his friend will be injured. Under the common law, the person intended to injure his friend, even though he acted only with knowledge that his friend would be injured rather than the desire to harm him. Thus, even when a person acts knowingly rather than purposefully, this type of conduct is still a "use of physical force."
2
The second category involves a person who intentionally unleashes force that recklessly causes injury. The majority gives two examples:
1. The Angry Plate Thrower: "[A] person throws a plate in anger against the wall near where his wife is standing." Ante, at 2279. The plate shatters, and a shard injures her. Ibid.
2. The Door Slammer: "[A person] slams the door shut with his girlfriend following close behind" with the effect of "catch[ing] her fingers in the jamb." Ibid.
The Angry Plate Thrower and the Door Slammer both intentionally unleashed physical force, but they did not intend to direct that force at those whom they harmed. Thus, they intentionally employed force, but recklessly caused physical injury with that force. The majority believes that these cases also constitute a "use of physical force," and I agree. The Angry Plate Thrower has used force against the plate, and the Door Slammer has used force against the door.
The more difficult question is whether this "use of physical force" comes within § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii), which requires that the "use of physical force" be committed by someone having a familial relationship with the victim. The natural reading of that provision is that the use of physical force must be against a family member. In some cases, the law readily transfers the intent to use force from the object to the actual victim. Take the Angry Plate Thrower: If a husband throws a plate at the wall near his wife to scare her, that is assault. If the plate breaks and cuts her, it becomes a battery, regardless of whether he intended the plate to make contact with her person. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owens, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 9, pp. 39-42 (5th ed. 1984) (Prosser and Keeton). Similarly, "if one person intends to harm a second person but instead unintentionally harms a third, the first person's criminal or tortious intent toward the second applies to the third as well." Black's Law Dictionary 1504 (defining transferred-intent doctrine); see also 1 LaFave, supra, § 5.2(c)(4), at 349-350. Thus, where a person acts in a violent and patently unjustified manner, the law will often impute that the actor intended to cause the injury resulting from his conduct, even if he actually intended to direct his use of force elsewhere. Because we presume that Congress legislates against the backdrop of the common law, see Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 108, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991), these cases would qualify as
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner brought this habeas corpus proceeding in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana under 28 U. S. C. § 2241, claiming that his conviction, for murder in the Circuit Court'of Gibson County, Indiana, was obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the writ, 153 F. Supp. 531, under the provision of 28 U. S. C. § 2254 that habeas corpus “shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the state . . . The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 251 F. 2d 548. We granted certiorari, 356 U: S. 948.
The constitutional claim arises in this way. Six murders were committed in the vicinity of Evansville, Indiana, two in December 1954, and four in March 1955. The crimes, extensively covered by' news media in the locality, aroused great excitement and indignation throughout Vanderburgh County, where Evansville is located, and'adjoining Gibson County, a rural county of approximately 30,000 inhabitants. The petitioner was arrested on April 8, 1955. Shortly thereafter, the Prosecutor of .Vanderburgh County and Evansville • police officials issued press releases, which were intensively-publicized, stating that the petitioner had confessed to the six murders. The Vanderburgh County Grand Jury soon indicted the petitioner for the murder which resulted in his conviction. This was the murder of Whitney Wesley Kerr allegedly committed in Vanderburgh County on December 23, 1954. Counsel appointed to defend petitioner immediately sought a change of venue from Van-derburgh County, which was granted, but to adjoining Gibson County. Alleging that the widespread and inflammatory publicity had also highly prejudiced the inhabitants of Gibson County against the petitioner, counsel, on October 29, 1955, sought another change of venue, from Gibson County to a county sufficiently removed from the Evansville locality that a fair trial would not be prejudiced. The motion was denied, apparently because the pertinent Indiana statute allows only a single change of. venue.
The voir dire examinations of prospective jurors began in Gibson County on November 14, 1955. The aver-ments as to the prejudice by which the trial was allegedly environed find corroboration in the fact that from the first day of the voir dire considerable difficulty was experienced in selecting jurors who did not have fixed opinions that the petitioner was guilty. The petitioner’s counsel therefore renewed his motion for a change of venue, which motion was denied. He renewed the motion a second time, on December .7, 1955, reciting in his moving papers: “in the voir dire examination of 355 jurors called in this case to qualify as jurors 233 have expressed and formed their opinion as stated in said voir dire, that the. defendant is guilty . . . Again the motion was denied. Alternatively, on each of eight days over the four weeks required to select a jury, counsel sought a continuance of the trial on the ground that a fair trial at that time was not possible in the prevailing atmosphere of hostility toward the petitioner. All of the motions for a continuance were denied. The State Prosecutor, in a radio broadcast during the second week of the voir dire examination, stated that “the unusual coverage given to the case by the newspapers and radio” caused “trouble in getting a jury of people who are not [sic] unbiased and unprejudiced in the case.”
■ The petitioner’s counsel exhausted all 20 of his peremptory challenges] and when 12 jurors were ultimately accepted by the court also unsuccessfully challenged all of them for alleged bias and prejudice against the petitioner, complaining particularly that four of the jurors,, in their voir dire examinations, stated that they had an opinion that.petitioner was guilty of the murder charged.
Also, at the trial, the State’s Prosecuting Attorney took the stand as part of his presentation of the State’s case, and over petitioner’s objection was allowed to testify that the petitioner, five days after his arrest, on April 13,1955, had orally confessed the murder of Kerr to him. The Prosecuting Attorney was also permitted in summation, again over petitioner’s objection, to vouch his own testimony by commenting to the jury, “I testified myself what was told me.”
The opinions of the Indiana Supreme Court and the District Court held the constitutional claim to be without merit. Irvin v. State, 236 Ind. 384, 392-394, 139 N. E. 2d 898, 902; Irvin v. Dowd, 153 F. Supp. 531, 535-539. On the other hand, Chief Judge Duffy of the Court of Appeals, concurring in the affirmance of the dismissal by the District Court, reached a contrary conclusion: “Irvin was not accorded due process of law in the trial which resulted in his conviction and death sentence. In my judgment, he. did not receive a fair trial because some of the jury had preconceived opinions as to defendant’s guilt, and also because of the conduct of the prosecuting attorney.” 251 F. 2d 548, 554.
The Gibson County jury returned its verdict on December 20, 1955, and assessed the death penalty. Indiana law allows 30 days from the date of the verdict within which to file a motion for a new trial in the trial court: Burns’ Ind. Stat. Ann., 1956 Replacement Vol., § 9-1903. The petitioner’s counsel, on January 19, 1956, the 30th day, filed such a motion specifying- 415 grounds of error constituting the- alleged denial of constitutional rights. However, the petitioner had escaped from custody the night before, January 18, 1956, and on January 23, 1956, the trial court overruled the motion, noting that the petitioner had been an escapee when the motion was filed'and was still at large. The petitioner was captured in California about three weeks later and, on February 17, 1956, was confined in the Indiana State Prison.
Under Indiana law the denial of the new trial was not appealable, but was reviewable by the Indiana Supreme Court only if assigned as error in the event of an appeal from the judgment of conviction., The State Supreme Court has held:
“The statute [providing for appeal] does not authorize an appeal from every ruling which a court may make against a defendant in a criminal action, but only authorizes an appeal ‘from any judgment . . . against him,’ and provides for review, upon such appeal, of decisions and rulings of the court made in the progress of the case. This court' has construed the statute as authorizing an appeal only from a final judgment in a criminal action. The action of a trial court in overruling a motion for a new trial may be reviewed upon an appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered against a defendant, but the overruling of a motion' for a new trial must be assigned as error. In such case the appeal is from the judgment of conviction and not from the ruling upon the motion for a new trial. The.overruling of a motion for a new trial does not constitute a judgment and an appeal does not lie from the court’s action in overruling such motion.” Selke v. State, 211 Ind. 232. 234. 6 N. E. 2d 570. 571.
The judgment of conviction imposing the death sentence was entered January 9,1956. The petitioner was entitled to appeal, as a matter of rights from that judgment, pro - vided, in compliance with % State Supreme Court rule, the appeal- was perfected by filing with the Clerk of. the Supreme Court a transcript of the trial record and an assignment of errors within 90 days of the judgment. The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, extend the time on proper motion made within the 90-day period. The questions before the Supreme Court are those raised by the appellant in his assignment of errors.
On March 22, 1956, the petitioner applied for an extension of time within which to file the trial transcript and his assignment of errors.. This was after he was returned to the custody of the State and well within 90 days from January 9, 1956, the date of the judgment of conviction. We were advised on oral argument that the State objected to this motion “because he [petitioner] had escaped,” and a hearing was held on the objection by the State Supreme Court. Petitioner’s motion was granted and the time was extended to Juné 1, 1956. The assignment of errors, timely filed with the trial transcript of some 5,000 pages, assigned only one . ground of error— that , “the [trial] Court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial.” The -petitioner’s brief of over 700 pages opened by advising the State Supreme Court that “Under this single assignment of error, the appellant has combined all errors alleged to have been committed prior to the filing of the motion for a new trial.” In short, the form of the assignment was a shorthand way of specifying the 415 grounds stated in the motion for new trial as constituting the claimed denial of constitutional rights. Indeed the only arguments made in the lengthy brief related to the constitutional claim. The State’s brief devoted some 70 pages to answering these contentions, and in 7 additional pages argued that in any event the Circuit Court had not erred in denying the motion for a new trial because the petitioner was an escapee at the time it was filed and decided.
The case before the Indiana Supreme Court was thus an appeal perfected in full compliance with Indiana procedure; therefore, the court was required under Indiana law to pass on the merits of the petitioner’s assignment of error. That the assignment of error was sufficient to present the constitutional claim is evident from the court’s acceptance of it as the basis for considering the 415 grounds of alleged error constituting that claim. However, under the single assignment of error, the judgment of conviction could be affirmed by the State Supreme Court if, for any reason finding support in the record, the motion for a new trial was properly overruled. The State argued that the overruling should be upheld on either of two grounds: one, because the petitioner was an escapee at the time the motion was made and decided, and, two, because the trial itself was fair and without error. Petitioner’s appeal clearly raised both of these issues and the Indiana Supreme Court discussed both in its opinion.
We think that the District Court and Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the State Supreme Court decision rested on the ground that the petitioner was an escapee when his motion for a new trial was made and decided. On the contrary, the opinion to us is more reasonably to be read as resting the judgment on the holding that the petitioner’s constitutional claim is without merit.' As we have shown, under the state procedure, the State Supreme Court could have rested its. decision solely on the federal constitutional claim. This, we think, is what the Indiana high court did. The opinion discusses both issues. ■ The discussion of the escape issue concludes with the statement, “No error could have , been committed' in. overruling the rhotion for a new trial under the circumstances.” 236 Ind., at 392, 139 N. E. 2d, at 902. But the opinion proceeds: “Our decision on the point under examination makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other contentions of the appellant; however, because of the finality of the sentence in the case we have reviewed the evidence to satisfy ourselves that there is no miscarriage of justice in the case.” 236 Ind., at 392-393, 139 N. E. 2d, at 902. The-conclusion reached after discussion of the merits is: “It does not appear from the record and argument had, that the appellant was denied due process of law under C Fourteenth Amendment . . . 236 Ind., at 394hiid9 N. E. 2d, at 902. The court’s statement that its conclusion on .the escape point made it “unnecessary” to consider the constitutional claim was not a holding that the judgment was rested on that ground. Rather the court proceeded to determine the merits “because of the finality of the sentence” and “to satisfy ourselves that there is no miscarriage of justice.” In this way, in our view, the State Supreme Court discharged the obligation which rests upon “the State courts, equally with the courts of the Union, . . . to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or' secured by the Constitution of the United States . . . .” Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637. We thus believe that the opinion is to be read as rested upon the State Supreme Court’s considered conclusion that the conviction resulting in the death sentence, was not obtained in disregard of the protections secured to the petitioner by the Constitution of the United States.
In this posture, 28 U. S. C. § 2254 does not bar the petitioner’s resort to federal habeas corpus. The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies in federal habeas corpus was judicially fashioned after the Congress, by the Act of February 5, 1867, greatly expanded the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the federal courts to embrace “all cases where any person may be restrained of his . . . liberty in violation of the constitution, or of .any treaty or law of the United States .• . . .” 14_Stat. 385. Although the statute has been re-enacted with minor changes at various times the sweep of the jurisdiction granted by this broad phrasing has remained unchanged. .
Since there inhered in this expanded grant of power, beside the added burden on the federal courts, the potentiality of conflict between federal and state courts, this Court, starting with the decision in Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, developed the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies, a “rule . . . that the . . . Courts of the United States, while they have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for" the purpose of inquiring into the cause of restraint of liberty of any person in custody under, the authority of a State in violation of the Constitution, . . . yet, except in cases of peculiar urgency, ought not to exercise that jurisdiction by a discharge of the person in advance of a final determination of his case in the courts of the State, . . .” Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 104-105. The principles are now reasonably clear. “Ordinarily an application for habeas corpus by one detained under a state court judgment of conviction for crime will be entertained by a federal court only after all state remedies available, including all appellate remédies in the state courts and in this Court by appeal or writ of cer-tiorari, have been exhausted.” Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114, 116-117. The principles of the doctrine have been embodied in 28 U. S. C. § 2254 which was enacted by Congress to codify the existing habeas corpus practice. See Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 210-214; Young v. Ragen, 337 U. S. 235, 238, note 1; Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 447-450. As is stated in the Reviser’s Note: “This new section is declaratory of existing law as affirmed by the Supreme Court.”
The petitioner in this case plainly invoked “all state remedies available” and obtained “a final determination” of his constitutional claim from the Indiana Supreme Court.’ Certainly Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, relied upon by the Court of Appeals, does not bear-on his situation. In that case the two petitioners in Daniels v. Allen had 60 days in which to make and serve a statement of the case on appeal from a conviction in the state trial court. Counsel failed to serve this statement until 61 days had expired, and the trial judge struck the appeal as out of time. The pertinent North Carolina rule provided that the time limitation was “mandatory,” and precluded an appeal to the State Supreme Court.. The State Supreme Court dismissed petitioners’ attempted appeal on the ground that no appeal had been filed. This Court held that under the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies habeas corpus ought not be granted since petitioners had sought too late'to invoke North Carolina’s “adequate and easily-complied-with method of appeal.” 344- U. S., at. 485. In contrast, the petitioner’s appeal from his judgment of conviction to the Indiana Supreme Court raising the constitutional claim was timely and was accepted by that court as fully complying with all pertinent procedural requirements. Furthermore, the State Supreme Court did reach and. decide petitioner’s federal constitutional claim.
We therefore hold that the case is governed by the principle that the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies embodied in 28 U. S. C. § ^254 does not bar resort to federal habeas corpus if the petitioner has obtained a decision on his coñstitutional claims from the highest court of the State, even though, as here, that court could have based its decision on another ground. Wade v. Mayo, 334 U. S. 672. In this view, we do not reach the question whether federal, habeas corpus would have been available to the petitioner had the Indiana Supreme Court rested its decision on the escape ground.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court. The Court of Appeals may decide the merits of petitioner’s constitutional claim, or remand to the District Court for further consideration of that claim, as the Court of Appeals may determine.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart concurs in the judgment and the opinion of the Court, with the understanding that the Court does not here depart from the principles announced in Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443.
Section 2241 provides in pertinent part:.
“(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the . . . district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions.
“(c) The writ of habeas corpus jshall not be extended to a prisoner unless ...
“(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws^ or treaties of the United States ....
The full text of § 2254 is as follows: ’
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the. applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights' of the .prisoner.
“An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.”
The case was here previously on Irvin’s petition seeking direct review on certiorari to the Indiana Supreme Court from that court’s decision in Irvin v. State, 236 Ind. 384, 139 N. E. 2d 898. Certiorari was denied “without prejudice to filing for federal habeas corpus after exhausting state remedies.” 353 U. S. 948. The Indiana Assistant Attorney General, on the oral argument here, advised that there was not then, nor is there now, any state procedure available for the petitioner to obtain a determination of his constitutional claim.
Burns’ Ind. Stat. Ann., 1956 Replacement Vol., § 9-1305, provides:
“When affidavits for a change of venue are founded upon excitement or prejudice in the county against the defendant, the court, in all cases not punishable by death, may, in its discretion, and in all cases punishable by death, shall grant a change of yenue to the most convenient county. The clerk must thereupon immediately make a transcript of the proceedings and orders of court, and, having sealed up the same with the original papers, shall deliver them to the sheriff, who must, without delay, deposit them in the clerk’s office of the proper county, and make his return accordingly: Provided, however, That only one [1] change of venue from the judge, and only one [1] change from the county shall be granted.”
The trial judge qualified the jurors in question under the authority of Burns’ Ind. St-at. Ann., 1956 Replacement Vol., §9-1504, which provides:
“The following shall be good causes for challenge to any person called as a juror in any criminal trial:
“Second. That he has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. But if' a person called as a juror states that he has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the court or the parties shall thereupon proceed to examine such juror on oath as to the ground of such opinion; and if it appears to have been founded upon reading newspaper statements, communications, comments or reports, or upon rumors or hearsay, and not upon conversation with witnesses of the transaction, or reading reports of their testimony, or hearing them testify, and the juror states on oath that he feels able, notwithstanding such opinion, to render an impartial verdict upon the law and evidence, the court, if satisfied that he is impartial and will render such verdict, may, in its discretion, admit him as competent to serve in such case.”
Rule 2-2 of the Supreme Court of Indiana, Burns’ Ind. Stat. Ann., 1946 Replacement Vol. 2; pt. I, p. 8, provides:
“Time for appeal or review. — In all appeals and reviews the assignment of errors and transcript of the record must be filed in the office of the .clerk of the Supremé Court within 90 days, from the date of the judgment or .the ruling on the motion for a new trial, unless the statute under which the appeal or review is taken fixes a shorter time, in which latter event the statute shall control. If within the time for filing the assignment of errors and transcript, as above provided, it is made to appear to the court to which an appeal or review is sought, notice having been given to the adverse parties, that notwithstanding due diligence on the part of ’ the parties seeking' an appeal or review, it has been-and will be impossible to procure a bill of exceptions or transcript to permit the filing of the transcript within the time allowed, the court to which the appeal or review is sought may, in its discretion, grant a reasonable extension of time within which to file such transcript and assignment of errors. When the appellant is under legal' disability at the time the judgment is rendered, he may file the transcript and assignment of errors within 90 days after the removal of the disability.”
The statutory provision for appeal is Burns’ Ind. Stat. Anni, 1956 Replacement Vol., §9-2301, which provider"
“Appeal by defendant — Decisions and orders reviewed. — An appeal to the Supreme Court . . . may be taken by the defendant as a matter of right, from any judgment in a criminal action against him, in the manner and in the cases prescribed herein; and, upon the appeal, any decision of the court or intermediate order made in the progress of the case may be reviewed.” ' • • •
This conclusion was also expressed on the oral argument in this Court by the State’s Assistant Attorney General.
The substance of the original Act of 1867 is now found in 28 U. S. C. § 2241, see note 1, supra.
For the legislative history, see H. R. Rep. No. 2646, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. A172; H. R. 3214, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. A180; S. Rep. No. 1559, 80th .Cong.,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), requires States to provide disabled children with a “free appropriate public education,” § 1401(a)(18). This case presents the question whether a court may order reimbursement for parents who unilaterally withdraw their child from a public school that provides an inappropriate education under IDEA and put the child in a private school that provides an education that is otherwise proper under IDEA, but does not meet all the requirements of § 1401(a)(18). We hold that the court may order such reimbursement, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Respondent Shannon Carter was classified as learning disabled in 1985, while a ninth grade student in a school operated by petitioner Florence County School District Four. School officials met with Shannon’s parents to formulate an individualized education program (IEP) for Shannon, as required under IDEA. 20 U. S. C. §§ 1401(a)(18) and (20), 1414(a)(5) (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). The IEP provided that Shannon would stay in regular classes except for three periods of individualized instruction per week, and established specific goals in reading and mathematics of four months’ progress for the entire school year. Shannon’s parents were dissatisfied, and requested a hearing to challenge the appropriateness of the IEP. See § 1415(b)(2). Both the local educational officer and the state educational agency hearing officer rejected Shannon’s parents’ claim and concluded that the IEP was adequate. In the meantime, Shannon’s parents had placed her in Trident Academy, a private school specializing in educating children with disabilities. Shannon began at Trident in September 1985 and graduated in the spring of 1988.
Shannon’s parents filed this suit in July 1986, claiming that the school district had breached its duty under IDEA to provide Shannon with a “free appropriate public education,” § 1401(a)(18), and seeking reimbursement for tuition and other costs incurred at Trident. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled in the parents’ favor. The court held that the school district’s proposed educational program and the achievement goals of the IEP “were wholly inadequate” and failed to satisfy the requirements of the Act. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a. The court further held that “[although [Trident Academy] did not comply with all of the procedures outlined in [IDEA],” the school “provided Shannon an excellent education in substantial compliance with all the substantive requirements” of the statute. Id., at 37a. The court found that Trident “evaluated Shannon quarterly, not yearly as mandated in [IDEA], it provided Shannon with low teacher-student ratios, and it developed a plan which allowed Shannon to receive passing marks and progress from grade to grade.” Ibid. The court also credited the findings of its own expert, who determined that Shannon had made “significant progress” at Trident and that her reading comprehension had risen three grade levels in her three years at the school. Id., at 29a. The District Court concluded that Shannon’s education was “appropriate” under IDEA, and that Shannon’s parents were entitled to reimbursement of tuition and other costs. Id., at 37a.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 950 F. 2d 156 (1991). The court agreed that the IEP proposed by the school district was inappropriate under IDEA. It also rejected the school district’s argument that reimbursement is never proper when the parents choose a private school that is not approved by the State or that does not comply with all the terms of IDEA. According to the Court of Appeals, neither the text of the Act nor its legislative history imposes a “requirement that the private school be approved by the state in parent-placement reimbursement cases.” Id., at 162. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals concluded, IDEA’S state-approval requirement applies only when a child is placed in a private school by public school officials. Accordingly, “when a public school system has defaulted on its obligations under the Act, a private school placement is 'proper under the Act’ if the education provided by the private school is 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’” Id., at 163, quoting Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 207 (1982).
The court below recognized that its holding conflicted with Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free School Dist, 873 F. 2d 563, 568 (1989), in which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that parental placement in a private school cannot be proper under the Act unless the private school in question meets the standards of the state education agency. We granted certiorari, 507 U. S. 907 (1993), to resolve this conflict among the Courts of Appeals.
II
In School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass., 471 U. S. 359, 369 (1985), we held that IDEA’S grant of equitable authority empowers a court “to order school authorities to reimburse parents for their expenditures on private special education for a child if the court ultimately determines that such placement, rather than a proposed IEP, is proper under the Act.” Congress intended that IDEA’S promise of a “free appropriate public education” for disabled children would normally be met by an IEP’s provision for education in the regular public schools or in private schools chosen jointly by school officials and parents. In cases where cooperation fails, however, “parents who disagree with the proposed IEP are faced with a choice: go along with the IEP to the detriment of their child if it turns out to be inappropriate or pay for what they consider to be the appropriate placement.” Id., at 370. For parents willing and able to make the latter choice, “it would be an empty victory to have a court tell them several years later that they were right but that these expenditures could not in a proper case be reimbursed by the school officials.” Ibid. Because such a result would be contrary to IDEA’S guarantee of a “free appropriate public education,” we held that “Congress meant to include retroactive reimbursement to parents as an available remedy in a proper case.” Ibid.
As this case comes to us, two issues are settled: (1) the school district’s proposed IEP was inappropriate under IDEA, and (2) although Trident did not meet the § 1401(a)(18) requirements, it provided an education otherwise proper under IDEA. This case presents the narrow question whether Shannon’s parents are barred from reimbursement because the private school in which Shannon enrolled did not meet the § 1401(a)(18) definition of a “free appropriate public education.” We hold that they are not, because § 1401(a)(18)’s requirements cannot be read as applying to parental placements.
Section 1401(a)(18)(A) requires that the education be “provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction.” Similarly, § 1401(a)(18)(D) requires schools to provide an IEP, which must be designed by “a representative of the local educational agency,” 20 U. S. C. § 1401(a)(20) (1988 ed., Supp. IV), and must be “established],” “revise[d],” and “reviewed]” by the agency, § 1414(a)(5). These requirements do not make sense in the context of a parental placement. In this case, as in all Burlington reimbursement cases, the parents’ rejection of the school district’s proposed IEP is the very reason for the parents’ decision to put their child in a private school. In such cases, where the private placement has necessarily been made over the school district’s objection, the private school education will not be under “public supervision and direction.” Accordingly, to read the §1401(a)(18) requirements as applying to parental placements would effectively eliminate the right of unilateral withdrawal recognized in Burlington. Moreover, IDEA was intended to ensure that children with disabilities receive an education that is both appropriate and free. Burlington, supra, at 373. To read the provisions of § 1401(a)(18) to bar reimbursement in the circumstances of this case would defeat this statutory purpose.
Nor do we believe that reimbursement is necessarily barred by a private school’s failure to meet state education standards. Trident’s deficiencies, according to the school district, were that it employed at least two faculty members who were not state certified and that it did not develop IEP’s. As we have noted, however, the §1401(a)(18) requirements — including the requirement that the school meet the standards of the state educational agency, § 1401(a) (18)(B) — do not apply to private parental placements. Indeed, the school district’s emphasis on state standards is somewhat ironic. As the Court of Appeals noted, “it hardly seems consistent with the Act’s goals to forbid parents from educating their child at a school that provides an appropriate education simply because that school lacks the stamp of approval of the same public school system that failed to meet the child’s needs in the first place. ” 950 F. 2d, at 164. Accordingly, we disagree with the Second Circuit’s theory that “a parent may not obtain reimbursement for a unilateral placement if that placement was in a school that was not on [the State’s] approved list of private” schools. Tucker, 873 F. 2d, at 568 (internal quotation marks omitted). Parents’ failure to select a program known to be approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement.
Furthermore, although the absence of an approved list of private schools is not essential to our holding, we note that parents in the position of Shannon’s have no way of knowing at the time they select a private school whether the school meets state standards. South Carolina keeps no publicly available list of approved private schools, but instead approves private school placements on a case-by-case basis. In fact, although public school officials had previously placed three children with disabilities at Trident, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a, Trident had not received blanket approval from the State. South Carolina’s case-by-case approval system meant that Shannon’s parents needed the cooperation of state officials before they could know whether Trident was state approved. As we recognized in Burlington, such cooperation is unlikely in cases where the school officials disagree with the need for the private placement. 471 U. S., at 372.
Ill
The school district also claims that allowing reimbursement for parents such as Shannon’s puts an unreasonable burden on financially strapped local educational authorities. The school district argues that requiring parents to choose a state-approved private school if they want reimbursement is the only meaningful way to allow States to control costs; otherwise States will have to reimburse dissatisfied parents for any private school that provides an education that is proper under the Act, no matter how expensive it may be.
There is no doubt that Congress has imposed a significant financial burden on States and school districts that participate in IDEA. Yet public educational authorities who want to avoid reimbursing parents for the private education of a disabled child can do one of two things: give the child a free appropriate public education in a public setting, or place the child in an appropriate private setting of the State’s choice. This is IDEA’S mandate, and school officials who conform to it need not worry about reimbursement claims.
Moreover, parents who, like Shannon’s, “unilaterally change their child’s placement during the pendency of review proceedings, without the consent of state or local school officials, do so at their own financial risk.” Burlington, supra, at 373-374. They are entitled to reimbursement only if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated IDEA and that the private school placement was proper under the Act.
Finally, we note that once a court holds that the public placement violated IDEA, it is authorized to “grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.” 20 U. S. C. § 1415(e)(2). Under this provision, “equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief,” Burlington, 471 U. S., at 374, and the court enjoys “broad discretion” in so doing, id., at 369. Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required. Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
So ordered.
Section 1401(a)(18) defines “free appropriate public education” as “special education and related services that—
“(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge,
“(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency,
“(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved, and “(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program ....”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Pub. L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1961-1968, provides a private civil action to recover treble damages for injury “by reason of a violation of” its substantive provisions. 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c). The initial dormancy of this provision and its recent greatly increased utilization are now familiar history. In response to what it perceived to be misuse of civil RICO by private plaintiffs, the court below construed § 1964(c) to permit private actions only against defendants who had been convicted on criminal charges, and only where there had occurred a “racketeering injury.” While we understand the court’s concern over the consequences of an unbridled reading of the statute, we reject both of its holdings.
I-H
RICO takes aim at “racketeering activity,” which it defines as any act “chargeable” under several generically described state criminal laws, any act “indictable” under numerous specific federal criminal provisions, including mail and wire fraud, and any “offense” involving bankruptcy or securities fraud or drug-related activities that is “punishable” under federal law. § 1961(1). Section 1962, entitled “Prohibited Activities,” outlaws the use of income derived from a “pattern of racketeering activity” to acquire an interest in or establish an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce; the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in an enterprise “through” a pattern of racketeering activity; conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity; and conspiring to violate any of these provisions.
Congress provided criminal penalties of imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture for violation of these provisions. § 1963. In addition, it set out a far-reaching civil enforcement scheme, § 1964, including the following provision for private suits:
“Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” § 1964(c).
In 1979, petitioner Sedima, a Belgian corporation, entered into a joint venture with respondent Imrex Co. to provide electronic components to a Belgian firm. The buyer was to order parts through Sedima; Imrex was to obtain the parts in this country and ship them to Europe. The agreement called for Sedima and Imrex to split the net proceeds. Imrex filled roughly $8 million in orders placed with it through Sedima. Sedima became convinced, however, that Imrex was presenting inflated bills, cheating Sedima out of a portion of its proceeds by collecting for nonexistent expenses.
In 1982, Sedima filed this action in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint set out common-law claims of unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and a constructive trust. In addition, it asserted RICO claims under § 1964(c) against Imrex and two of its officers. Two counts alleged violations of § 1962(c), based on predicate acts of mail and wire fraud. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1961(1)(B). A third count alleged a conspiracy to violate § 1962(c). Claiming injury of at least $175,000, the amount of the alleged over-billing, Sedima sought treble damages and attorney’s fees.
The District Court held that for an injury to be “by reason of a violation of section 1962,” as required, by § 1964(c), it must be somehow different in kind from the direct injury resulting from the predicate acts of racketeering activity. 574 F. Supp. 963 (1983). While not choosing a precise formulation, the District Court held that a complaint must allege a “RICO-type injury,” which was either some sort of distinct “racketeering injury,” or a “competitive injury.” It found “no allegation here of any injury apart from that which would result directly from the alleged predicate acts of'mail fraud and wire fraud,” id., at 965, and accordingly dismissed the RICO counts for failure to state a claim.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 741 F. 2d 482 (1984). After a lengthy review of the legislative history, it held that Sedima’s complaint was defective in two ways. First, it failed to allege an injury “by reason of a violation of section 1962.” In the court’s view, this language was a limitation on standing, reflecting Congress’ intent to compensate victims of “certain specific kinds of organized criminality,” not to provide additional remedies for already compensable injuries. Id., at 494. Analogizing to the Clayton Act, which had been the model for § 1964(c), the court concluded that just as an antitrust plaintiff must allege an “antitrust injury,” so a RICO plaintiff must allege a “racketeering injury” — an injury “different in kind from that occurring as a result of the predicate acts themselves, or not simply caused by the predicate acts, but also caused by an activity which RICO was designed to deter.” Id., at 496. Sedima had failed to allege such an injury.
The Court of Appeals also found the complaint defective for not alleging that the defendants had already been criminally convicted of the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, or of a RICO violation. This element of the civil cause of action was inferred from §1964(c)’s reference to a “violation” of § 1962, the court also observing that its prior-conviction requirement would avoid serious constitutional difficulties, the danger of unfair stigmatization, and problems regarding the standard by which the predicate acts were to be proved.
The decision below was one episode in a recent proliferation of civil RICO litigation within the Second Circuit and in other Courts of Appeals. In light of the variety of approaches taken by the lower courts and the importance of the issues, we granted certiorari. 469 U. S. 1157 (1984). We now reverse.
II
As a preliminary matter, it is worth briefly reviewing the legislative history of the private treble-damages action. RICO formed Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922. The civil remedies in the bill passed by the Senate, S. 30, were limited to injunctive actions by the United States and became §§ 1964(a), (b), and (d). Previous versions of the legislation, however, had provided for a private treble-damages action in exactly the terms ultimately adopted in § 1964(c). See S. 1623, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., §4(a) (1969); S. 2048 and S. 2049, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967).
During hearings on S. 30 before the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Steiger proposed the addition of a private treble-damages action “similar to the private damage remedy found in the anti-trust laws.... [T]hose who have been wronged by organized crime should at least be given access to a legal remedy. In addition, the availability of such a remedy would enhance the effectiveness of title IX’s prohibitions.” Hearings on S. 30, and Related Proposals, before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 520 (1970) (hereinafter House Hearings). The American Bar Association also proposed an amendment “based upon the concept of Section 4 of the Clayton Act.” Id., at 543-544, 548, 559; see 116 Cong. Rec. 25190-25191 (1970). See also H. R. 9327, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) (House counterpart to S. 1623).
Over the dissent of three members, who feared the treble-damages provision would be used for malicious harassment of business competitors, the Committee approved the amendment. H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, pp. 58, 187 (1970). In summarizing the bill on the House floor, its sponsor described the treble-damages provision as “another example of the antitrust remedy being adapted for use against organized criminality.” 116 Cong. Rec. 35295 (1970). The full House then rejected a proposal to create a complementary treble-damages remedy for those injured by being named as defendants in malicious private suits. Id., at 35342. Representative Steiger also offered an amendment that would have allowed private injunctive actions, fixed a statute of limitations, and clarified venue and process requirements. Id., at 35346; see id., at 35226-35227. The proposal was greeted with some hostility because it had not been reviewed in Committee, and Steiger withdrew it without a vote being taken. Id., at 35346-35347. The House then passed the bill, with the treble-damages provision in the form recommended by the Committee. Id., at 35363-35364.
The Senate did not seek a conference and adopted the bill as amended in the House. Id., at 36296. The treble-damages provision had been drawn to its attention while the legislation was still in the House, and had received the endorsement of Senator McClellan, the sponsor of S. 30, who was of the view that the provision would be “a major new tool in extirpating the baneful influence of organized crime in our economic life.” Id., at 25190.
r — I I — I HH
The language of RICO gives no obvious indication that a civil action can proceed only after a criminal conviction. The word “conviction” does not appear in any relevant portion of the statute. See §§1961, 1962, 1964(c). To the contrary, the predicate acts involve conduct that is “chargeable” or “indictable,” and “offense[s]” that are “punishable,” under various criminal statutes. § 1961(1). As defined in the statute, racketeering activity consists not of acts for which the defendant has been convicted, but of acts for which he could be. See also S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 158 (1969): “a racketeering activity... must be an act in itself subject to criminal sanction” (emphasis added). Thus, a prior-conviction requirement cannot be found in the definition of “racketeering activity.” Nor can it be found in § 1962, which sets out the statute’s substantive provisions. Indeed, if either § 1961 or §1962 did contain such a requirement, a prior conviction would also be a prerequisite, nonsensically, for a criminal prosecution, or for a civil action by the Government to enjoin violations that had not yet occurred.
The Court of Appeals purported to discover its prior-conviction requirement in the term “violation” in § 1964(c). 741 F. 2d, at 498-499. However, even if that term were read to refer to a criminal conviction, it would require a conviction under RICO, not of the predicate offenses. That aside, the term “violation” does not imply a criminal conviction. See United States v. Ward, 448 U. S. 242, 249-250 (1980). It refers only to a failure to adhere to legal requirements. This is its indisputable meaning elsewhere in the statute. Section 1962 renders certain conduct “unlawful”; § 1963 and § 1964 impose consequences, criminal and civil, for “violations” of § 1962. We should not lightly infer that Congress intended the term to have wholly different meanings in neighboring subsections.
The legislative history also undercuts the reading of the court below. The clearest current in that history is the reliance on the Clayton Act model, under which private and governmental actions are entirely distinct. E. g., United States v. Borden Co., 347 U. S. 514, 518-519 (1954). The only specific reference in the legislative history to prior convictions of which we are aware is an objection that the treble-damages provision is too broad precisely because “there need not be a conviction under any of these laws for it to be racketeering.” 116 Cong. Rec. 35342 (1970) (emphasis added). The history is otherwise silent on this point and contains nothing to contradict the import of the language appearing in the statute. Had Congress intended to impose this novel requirement, there would have been at least some mention of it in the legislative history, even if not in the statute.
The Court of Appeals was of the view that its narrow construction of the statute was essential to avoid intolerable practical consequences. First, without a prior conviction to rely on, the plaintiff would have to prove commission of the predicate acts beyond a reasonable doubt. This would require instructing the jury as to different standards of proof for different aspects of the case. To avoid this awkwardness, the court inferred that the criminality must already be established, so that the civil action could proceed smoothly under the usual preponderance standard.
We are not at all convinced that the predicate acts must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in a proceeding under § 1964(c). In a number of settings, conduct that can be punished as criminal only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt will support civil sanctions under a preponderance standard. See, e. g., United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U. S. 354 (1984); One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S. 232, 235 (1972); Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391, 397 (1938); United States v. Regan, 232 U. S. 37, 47-49 (1914). There is no indication that Congress sought to depart from this general principle here. See Measures Relating to Organized Crime, Hearings on S. 30 et al. before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 388 (1969) (statement of Assistant Attorney General Wilson); House Hearings, at 520 (statement of Rep. Steiger); id., at 664 (statement of Rep. Poff); 116 Cong. Rec. 35313 (1970) (statement of Rep. Minish). That the offending conduct is described by reference to criminal statutes does not mean that its occurrence must be established by criminal standards or that the consequences of a finding of liability in a private civil action are identical to the consequences of a criminal conviction. Cf. United States v. Ward, supra, at 248-251. But we need not decide the standard of proof issue today. For even if the stricter standard is applicable to a portion of the plaintiff’s proof, the resulting logistical difficulties, which are accepted in other contexts, would not be so great as to require invention of a requirement that cannot be found in the statute and that Congress, as even the Court of Appeals had to concede, 741 F. 2d, at 501, did not envision.
The court below also feared that any other construction would raise severe constitutional questions, as it “would provide civil remedies for offenses criminal in nature, stigmatize defendants with the appellation ‘racketeer,’ authorize the award of damages which are clearly punitive, including attorney’s fees, and constitute a civil remedy aimed in part to avoid the constitutional protections of the criminal law.” Id., at 500, n. 49. We do not view the statute as being so close to the constitutional edge. As noted above, the fact that conduct can result in both criminal liability and treble damages does not mean that there is not a bona fide civil action. The familiar provisions for both criminal liability and treble damages under the antitrust laws indicate as much. Nor are attorney’s fees “clearly punitive.” Cf. 42 U. S. C. § 1988. As for stigma, a civil RICO proceeding leaves no greater stain than do a number of other civil proceedings. Furthermore, requiring conviction of the predicate acts would not protect against an unfair imposition of the “racketeer” label. If there is a problem with thus stigmatizing a garden variety defrauder by means of a civil action, it is not reduced by making certain that the defendant is guilty of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, to the extent an action under § 1964(c) might be considered quasi-criminal, requiring protections normally applicable only to criminal proceedings, cf. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U. S. 693 (1965), the solution is to provide those protections, not to ensure that they were previously afforded by requiring prior convictions.
Finally, we note that a prior-conviction requirement would be inconsistent with Congress’ underlying policy concerns. Such a rule would severely handicap potential plaintiffs. A guilty party may escape conviction for any number of reasons — not least among them the possibility that the Government itself may choose to pursue only civil remedies. Private attorney general provisions such as § 1964(c) are in part designed to fill prosecutorial gaps. Cf. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 344 (1979). This purpose would be largely defeated, and the need for treble damages as an incentive to litigate unjustified, if private suits could be maintained only against those already brought to justice. See also n. 9, supra.
In sum, we can find no support in the statute’s history, its language, or considerations of policy for a requirement that a private treble-damages action under § 1964(c) can proceed only against a defendant who has already been criminally convicted. To the contrary, every indication is that no such requirement exists. Accordingly, the fact that Imrex and the individual defendants have not been convicted under RICO or the federal mail and wire fraud statutes does not bar Sedima’s action.
> l — l
In considering the Court of Appeals’ second prerequisite for a private civil RICO action — “injury... caused by an activity which RICO was designed to deter” — we are somewhat hampered by the vagueness of that concept. Apart from reliance on the general purposes of RICO and a reference to “mobsters,” the court provided scant indication of what the requirement of racketeering injury means. It emphasized Congress’ undeniable desire to strike at organized crime, but acknowledged and did not purport to overrule Second Circuit precedent rejecting a requirement of an organized crime nexus. 741 F. 2d, at 492; see Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc., 719 F. 2d 5, 21 (CA2 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Moss v. Newman, 465 U. S. 1025 (1984). The court also stopped short of adopting a “competitive injury” requirement; while insisting that the plaintiff show “the kind of economic injury which has an effect on competition,” it did not require “actual anticompetitive effect.” 741 F. 2d, at 496; see also id., at 495, n. 40.
The court’s statement that the plaintiff must seek redress for an injury caused by conduct that RICO was designed to deter is unhelpfully tautological. Nor is clarity furnished by a negative statement of its rule: standing is not provided by the injury resulting from the predicate acts themselves. That statement is itself apparently inaccurate when applied to those predicate acts that unmistakably constitute the kind of conduct Congress sought to deter. See id., at 496, n. 41. The opinion does not explain how to distinguish such crimes from the other predicate acts Congress has lumped together in § 1961(1). The court below is not alone in struggling to define “racketeering injury,” and the difficulty of that task itself cautions against imposing such a requirement.
We need not pinpoint the Second Circuit’s precise holding, for we perceive no distinct “racketeering injury” requirement. Given that “racketeering activity” consists of no more and no less than commission of a predicate act, § 1961(1), we are initially doubtful about a requirement of a “racketeering injury” separate from the harm from the predicate acts. A reading of the statute belies any such requirement. Section 1964(c) authorizes a private suit by “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of § 1962.” Section 1962 in turn makes it unlawful for “any person” — not just mobsters — to use money derived from a pattern of racketeering activity to invest in an enterprise, to acquire control of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, or to conduct an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. §§ 1962(a)-(c). If the defendant engages in a pattern of racketeering activity in a manner forbidden by these provisions, and the racketeering activities injure the plaintiff in his business or property, the plaintiff has a claim under § 1964(c). There is no room in the statutory language for an additional, amorphous “racketeering injury” requirement.
A violation of § 1962(c), the section on which Sedima relies, requires (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. The plaintiff must, of course, allege each of these elements to state a claim. Conducting an enterprise that affects interstate commerce is obviously not in itself a violation of § 1962, nor is mere commission of the predicate offenses. In addition, the plaintiff only has standing if, and can only recover to the extent that, he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the violation. As the Seventh Circuit has stated, “[a] defendant who violates section 1962 is not liable for treble damages to everyone he might have injured by other conduct, nor is the defendant liable to those who have not been injured.” Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F. 2d 384, 398 (1984), aff’d, post, p. 606.
But the statute requires no more than this. Where the plaintiff alleges each element of the violation, the compensa-ble injury necessarily is the harm caused by predicate acts sufficiently related to constitute a pattern, for the essence of the violation is the commission of those acts in connection with the conduct of an enterprise. Those acts are, when committed in the circumstances delineated in § 1962(c), “an activity which RICO was designed to deter.” Any recoverable damages occurring by reason of a violation of § 1962(c) will flow from the commission of the predicate acts.
This less restrictive reading is amply supported by our prior cases and the general principles surrounding this statute. RICO is to be read broadly. This is the lesson not only of Congress’ self-consciously expansive language and overall approach, see United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 586-587 (1981), but also of its express admonition that RICO is to “be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,” Pub. L. 91-452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947. The statute’s “remedial purposes” are nowhere more evident than in the provision of a private action for those injured by racketeering activity. See also n. 10, supra. Far from effectuating these purposes, the narrow readings offered by the dissenters and the court below would in effect eliminate § 1964(c) from the statute.
RICO was an aggressive initiative to supplement old remedies and develop new methods for fighting crime. See generally Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 26-29 (1983). While few of the legislative statements about novel remedies and attacking crime on all fronts, see ibid., were made with direct reference to § 1964(c), it is in this spirit that all of the Act’s provisions should be read. The specific references to § 1964(c) are consistent with this overall approach. Those supporting § 1964(c) hoped it would “enhance the effectiveness of title IX’s prohibitions,” House Hearings, at 520, and provide “a major new tool,” 116 Cong. Rec. 35227 (1970). See also id., at 25190; 115 Cong. Rec. 6993-6994 (1969). Its opponents, also recognizing the provision’s scope, complained that it provided too easy a weapon against “innocent businessmen,” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, p. 187 (1970), and would be prone to abuse, 116 Cong. Rec. 35342 (1970). It is also significant that a previous proposal to add RICO-like provisions to the Sherman Act had come to grief in part precisély because it “could create inappropriate and unnecessary obstacles in the way of... a private litigant [who] would have to contend with a body of precedent — appropriate in a purely antitrust context — setting strict requirements on questions such as ‘standing to sue’ and ‘proximate cause.’” 115 Cong. Rec. 6995 (1969) (ABA comments on S. 2048); see also id., at 6993 (S. 1623 proposed as an amendment to Title 18 to avoid these problems). In borrowing its “racketeering injury” requirement from antitrust standing principles, the court below created exactly the problems Congress sought to avoid.
Underlying the Court of Appeals’ holding was its distress at the “extraordinary, if not outrageous,” uses to which civil RICO has been put. 741 F. 2d, at 487. Instead of being used against mobsters and organized criminals, it has become a tool for everyday fraud cases brought against “respected and legitimate‘enterprises.’” Ibid. Yet Congress wanted to reach both “legitimate” and “illegitimate” enterprises. United States v. Turkette, supra. The former enjoy neither an inherent incapacity for criminal activity nor immunity from its consequences. The fact that § 1964(c) is used against respected businesses allegedly engaged in a pattern of specifically identified criminal conduct is hardly a sufficient reason for assuming that the provision is being misconstrued. Nor does it reveal the “ambiguity” discovered by the court below. “[T]he fact that RICO has been applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth.” Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, supra, at 398.
It is true that private civil actions under the statute are being brought almost solely against such defendants, rather than against the archetypal, intimidating mobster. Yet this defect — if defect it is — is inherent in the statute as written, and its correction must lie with Congress. It is not for the judiciary to eliminate the private action in situations where Congress has provided it simply because plaintiffs are not taking advantage of it in its more difficult applications.
We nonetheless recognize that, in its private civil version, RICO is evolving into something quite different from the original conception of its enactors. See generally ABA Report, at 55-69. Though sharing the doubts of the Court of Appeals about this increasing divergence, we cannot agree with either its diagnosis or its remedy. The “extraordinary” uses to which civil RICO has been put appear to be primarily the result of the breadth of the predicate offenses, in particular the inclusion of wire, mail, and securities fraud, and the failure of Congress and the courts to develop a meaningful concept of “pattern.” We do not believe that the amorphous standing requirement imposed by the Second Circuit effectively responds to these problems, or that it is a form of statutory amendment appropriately undertaken by the courts.
V
Sedima may maintain this action if the defendants conducted the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The questions whether the defendants committed the requisite predicate acts, and whether the commission of those acts fell into a pattern, are not before us. The complaint is not deficient for failure to allege either an injury separate from the financial loss stemming from the alleged acts of mail and wire fraud, or prior convictions of the defendants. The judgment below is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Of 270 District Court RICO decisions prior to this year, only 3% (nine cases) were decided throughout the 1970’s, 2% were decided in 1980, 7% in 1981, 13% in 1982, 33% in 1983, and 43% in 1984. Report of the Ad Hoc Civil RICO Task Force of the ABA Section of Corporation, Banking and Business Law 55 (1985) (hereinafter ABA Report); see also id., at 53a (table).
For a thorough bibliography of civil RICO decisions and commentary, see Milner, A Civil RICO Bibliography, 21 C. W. L. R. 409 (1985).
RICO defines “racketeering activity” to mean
“(A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnaping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341-2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421-2424 (relating to white slave traffic), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11, fraud in the sale of securities, or’ the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, punishable under any law of the United States, or (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act.” 18 U. S. C. § 1961(1) (1982 ed., Supp. III).
In relevant part, 18 U. S. C. § 1962 provides:
“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt... to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce....
“(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
“(e) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
“(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”
The day after the decision in this case, another divided panel of the Second Circuit reached a similar conclusion. Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 741 F. 2d 511 (1984), cert. pending, No. 84-657. It held that § 1964(c) allowed recovery only for injuries resulting not from the predicate acts, but from the fact that they were part of a pattern. “If a plaintiff’s injury is that caused by the predicate acts themselves, he is injured regardless of whether or not there is a pattern; hence he cannot be said to be injured by the pattern,” and cannot recover. Id., at 517 (emphasis in original).
The following day, a third panel of the same Circuit, this time unanimous, decided Furman v. Cirrito, 741 F. 2d 524 (1984), cert. pending, No. 84-604. In that case, the District Court had dismissed the complaint for failure to allege a distinct racketeering injury. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on the opinions in Sedima and Bankers Trust, but wrote at some length to record its disagreement with those decisions. The panel would have required no injury beyond that resulting from the predicate acts.
A month after the trio of Second Circuit opinions was released, the Eighth Circuit decided Alexander Grant & Co. v. Tiffany Industries, Inc., 742 F. 2d 408 (1984), cert. pending, Nos. 84-1084, 84-1222. Viewing its decision as contrary to Sedima but consistent with, though broader than, Bankers Trust, the court held that a RICO claim does require some unspecified element beyond the injury flowing directly from the predicate acts. At the same time, it stood by a prior decision that had rejected any requirement that the injury be solely commercial or competitive, or that the defendants be involved in organized crime. 742 F. 2d, at 413; see Bennett v. Berg, 685 F. 2d 1053, 1058-1059, 1063-1064 (CA8 1982), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 710 F. 2d 1361 (en banc
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that a district court "may ... award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party." 17 U.S.C. § 505. The question presented here is whether a court, in exercising that authority, should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party's position. The answer, as both decisions below held, is yes-the court should. But the court must also give due consideration to all other circumstances relevant to granting fees; and it retains discretion, in light of those factors, to make an award even when the losing party advanced a reasonable claim or defense. Because we are not certain that the lower courts here understood the full scope of that discretion, we return the case for further consideration of the prevailing party's fee application.
I
Petitioner Supap Kirtsaeng, a citizen of Thailand, came to the United States 20 years ago to study math at Cornell University. He quickly figured out that respondent John Wiley & Sons, an academic publishing company, sold virtually identical English-language textbooks in the two countries-but for far less in Thailand than in the United States. Seeing a ripe opportunity for arbitrage, Kirtsaeng asked family and friends to buy the foreign editions in Thai bookstores and ship them to him in New York. He then resold the textbooks to American students, reimbursed his Thai suppliers, and pocketed a tidy profit.
Wiley sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement, claiming that his activities violated its exclusive right to distribute the textbooks. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(3), 602(a)(1). Kirtsaeng invoked the "first-sale doctrine" as a defense. That doctrine typically enables the lawful owner of a book (or other work) to resell or otherwise dispose of it as he wishes. See § 109(a). But Wiley contended that the first-sale doctrine did not apply when a book (like those Kirtsaeng sold) was manufactured abroad.
At the time, courts were in conflict on that issue. Some thought, as Kirtsaeng did, that the first-sale doctrine permitted the resale of foreign-made books; others maintained, along with Wiley, that it did not. And this Court, in its first pass at the issue, divided 4 to 4. See Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., 562 U.S. 40, 131 S.Ct. 565, 178 L.Ed.2d 470 (2010) (per curiam ). In this case, the District Court sided with Wiley; so too did a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See 654 F.3d 210, 214, 222 (2011). To settle the continuing conflict, this Court granted Kirtsaeng's petition for certiorari and reversed the Second Circuit in a 6-to-3 decision, thus establishing that the first-sale doctrine allows the resale of foreign-made books, just as it does domestic ones. See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1351, 1355-1356, 185 L.Ed.2d 392 (2013).
Returning victorious to the District Court, Kirtsaeng invoked § 505 to seek more than $2 million in attorney's fees from Wiley. The court denied his motion. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court gave "substantial weight" to the "objective reasonableness" of Wiley's infringement claim. See No. 08-cv-07834 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2013), App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a, 2013 WL 6722887, *4. In explanation of that approach, the court stated that "the imposition of a fee award against a copyright holder with an objectively reasonable"-although unsuccessful-"litigation position will generally not promote the purposes of the Copyright Act." Id., at 11a (quoting Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 240 F.3d 116, 122 (C.A.2 2001) (emphasis deleted)). Here, Wiley's position was reasonable: After all, several Courts of Appeals and three Justices of the Supreme Court had agreed with it. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a. And according to the District Court, no other circumstance "overr[o]de" that objective reasonableness, so as to warrant fee-shifting. Id., at 22a. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding in a brief summary order that "the district court properly placed 'substantial weight' on the reasonableness of [Wiley's] position" and committed no abuse of discretion in deciding that other "factors did not outweigh" the reasonableness finding. 605 Fed.Appx. 48, 49, 50 (C.A.2 2015).
We granted certiorari, 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 890, 193 L.Ed.2d 783 (2016), to resolve disagreement in the lower courts about how to address an application for attorney's fees in a copyright case.
II
Section 505 states that a district court "may ... award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party." It thus authorizes fee-shifting, but without specifying standards that courts should adopt, or guideposts they should use, in determining when such awards are appropriate.
In Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994), this Court recognized the broad leeway § 505 gives to district courts-but also established several principles and criteria to guide their decisions. See id., at 519, 114 S.Ct. 1023 (asking "what standards should inform" the exercise of the trial court's authority). The statutory language, we stated, "clearly connotes discretion," and eschews any "precise rule or formula" for awarding fees. Id., at 533, 534, 114 S.Ct. 1023. Still, we established a pair of restrictions. First, a district court may not "award[ ] attorney's fees as a matter of course"; rather, a court must make a more particularized, case-by-case assessment. Id., at 533, 114 S.Ct. 1023. Second, a court may not treat prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants any differently; defendants should be "encouraged to litigate [meritorious copyright defenses] to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious claims of infringement." Id., at 527, 114 S.Ct. 1023. In addition, we noted with approval "several nonexclusive factors" to inform a court's fee-shifting decisions: "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness[,] and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence." Id., at 534, n. 19, 114 S.Ct. 1023. And we left open the possibility of providing further guidance in the future, in response to (and grounded on) lower courts' evolving experience. See id., at 534-535, 114 S.Ct. 1023 ; Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140, n., 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005) (noting that Fogerty was not intended to be the end of the matter).
The parties here, though sharing some common ground, now dispute what else we should say to district courts. Both Kirtsaeng and Wiley agree-as they must-that § 505 grants courts wide latitude to award attorney's fees based on the totality of circumstances in a case. See Brief for Petitioner 17; Brief for Respondent 35. Yet both reject the position, taken by some Courts of Appeals, see supra, at 1984, n. 1, that Fogerty spelled out the only appropriate limits on judicial discretion-in other words, that each district court should otherwise proceed as it sees fit, assigning whatever weight to whatever factors it chooses. Rather, Kirtsaeng and Wiley both call, in almost identical language, for "[c]hanneling district court discretion towards the purposes of the Copyright Act." Brief for Petitioner 16; see Brief for Respondent 21 ("[A]n appellate court [should] channel a district court's discretion so that it ... further[s] the goals of the Copyright Act"). (And indeed, as discussed later, both describe those purposes identically. See infra, at 1986.) But at that point, the two part ways. Wiley argues that giving substantial weight to the reasonableness of a losing party's position will best serve the Act's objectives. See Brief for Respondent 24-35. By contrast, Kirtsaeng favors giving special consideration to whether a lawsuit resolved an important and close legal issue and thus "meaningfully clarifie[d]" copyright law. Brief for Petitioner 36; see id., at 41-44.
We join both parties in seeing a need for some additional guidance respecting the application of § 505. In addressing other open-ended fee-shifting statutes, this Court has emphasized that "in a system of laws discretion is rarely without limits." Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 758, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) ; see Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1923, 1931, --- L.Ed.2d ----, 2016 WL 3221515 (2016)ante, at 8. Without governing standards or principles, such provisions threaten to condone judicial "whim" or predilection. Martin, 546 U.S., at 139, 126 S.Ct. 704 ; see also ibid. ("[A] motion to [a court's] discretion is a motion, not to its inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles" (quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (C.C.Va.1807) (Marshall, C. J.))). At the least, utterly freewheeling inquiries often deprive litigants of "the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike," Martin, 546 U.S., at 139, 126 S.Ct. 704 -as when, for example, one judge thinks the parties' "motivation [s]" determinative and another believes the need for "compensation" trumps all else, Fogerty, 510 U.S., at 534, n. 19, 114 S.Ct. 1023. And so too, such unconstrained discretion prevents individuals from predicting how fee decisions will turn out, and thus from making properly informed judgments about whether to litigate. For those reasons, when applying fee-shifting laws with "no explicit limit or condition," Halo, --- U.S. at, ----, --- S.Ct., at --- -, ante, at 8, we have nonetheless "found limits" in them-and we have done so, just as both parties urge, by looking to "the large objectives of the relevant Act," Zipes, 491 U.S., at 759, 109 S.Ct. 2732 (internal quotation marks omitted); see supra, at 1985 - 1986.
In accord with such precedents, we must consider if either Wiley's or Kirtsaeng's proposal well advances the Copyright Act's goals. Those objectives are well settled. As Fogerty explained, "copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works." 510 U.S., at 527, 114 S.Ct. 1023 ; see U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"). The statute achieves that end by striking a balance between two subsidiary aims: encouraging and rewarding authors' creations while also enabling others to build on that work. See Fogerty, 510 U.S., at 526, 114 S.Ct. 1023. Accordingly, fee awards under § 505 should encourage the types of lawsuits that promote those purposes. (That is why, for example, Fogerty insisted on treating prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants alike-because the one could "further the policies of the Copyright Act every bit as much as" the other. 510 U.S., at 527, 114 S.Ct. 1023. ) On that much, both parties agree. Brief for Petitioner 37; Brief for Respondent 29-30. The contested issue is whether giving substantial weight to the objective (un)reasonableness of a losing party's litigating position-or, alternatively, to a lawsuit's role in settling significant and uncertain legal issues-will predictably encourage such useful copyright litigation.
The objective-reasonableness approach that Wiley favors passes that test because it both encourages parties with strong legal positions to stand on their rights and deters those with weak ones from proceeding with litigation. When a litigant-whether plaintiff or defendant-is clearly correct, the likelihood that he will recover fees from the opposing (i.e., unreasonable) party gives him an incentive to litigate the case all the way to the end. The holder of a copyright that has obviously been infringed has good reason to bring and maintain a suit even if the damages at stake are small; and likewise, a person defending against a patently meritless copyright claim has every incentive to keep fighting, no matter that attorney's fees in a protracted suit might be as or more costly than a settlement. Conversely, when a person (again, whether plaintiff or defendant) has an unreasonable litigating position, the likelihood that he will have to pay two sets of fees discourages legal action. The copyright holder with no reasonable infringement claim has good reason not to bring suit in the first instance (knowing he cannot force a settlement and will have to proceed to judgment); and the infringer with no reasonable defense has every reason to give in quickly, before each side's litigation costs mount. All of those results promote the Copyright Act's purposes, by enhancing the probability that both creators and users (i.e., potential plaintiffs and defendants) will enjoy the substantive rights the statute provides.
By contrast, Kirtsaeng's proposal would not produce any sure benefits. We accept his premise that litigation of close cases can help ensure that "the boundaries of copyright law [are] demarcated as clearly as possible," thus advancing the public interest in creative work. Brief for Petitioner 19 (quoting Fogerty, 510 U.S., at 527, 114 S.Ct. 1023 ). But we cannot agree that fee-shifting will necessarily, or even usually, encourage parties to litigate those cases to judgment. Fee awards are a double-edged sword: They increase the reward for a victory-but also enhance the penalty for a defeat. And the hallmark of hard cases is that no party can be confident if he will win or lose. That means Kirtsaeng's approach could just as easily discourage as encourage parties to pursue the kinds of suits that "meaningfully clarif[y]" copyright law. Brief for Petitioner 36. It would (by definition) raise the stakes of such suits; but whether those higher stakes would provide an incentive-or instead a disincentive-to litigate hinges on a party's attitude toward risk. Is the person risk-preferring or risk-averse-a high-roller or a penny-ante type? Only the former would litigate more in Kirtsaeng's world. See Posner, An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration, 2 J. Legal Studies 399, 428 (1973) (fees "make[ ] the expected value of litigation less for risk-averse litigants, which will encourage [them to] settle[ ]"). And Kirtsaeng offers no reason to think that serious gamblers predominate. See, e.g., Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 636, n. 8, 101 S.Ct. 2061, 68 L.Ed.2d 500 (1981) ("Economists disagree over whether business decisionmakers[ ] are 'risk averse' "); CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 430, 131 S.Ct. 1866, 179 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011) ("[M]ost individuals are risk averse"). So the value of his standard, unlike Wiley's, is entirely speculative.
What is more, Wiley's approach is more administrable than Kirtsaeng's. A district court that has ruled on the merits of a copyright case can easily assess whether the losing party advanced an unreasonable claim or defense. That is closely related to what the court has already done: In deciding any case, a judge cannot help but consider the strength and weakness of each side's arguments. By contrast, a judge may not know at the conclusion of a suit whether a newly decided issue will have, as Kirtsaeng thinks critical, broad legal significance. The precedent-setting, law-clarifying value of a decision may become apparent only in retrospect-sometimes, not until many years later. And so too a decision's practical impact (to the extent Kirtsaeng would have courts separately consider that factor). District courts are not accustomed to evaluating in real time either the jurisprudential or the on-the-ground import of their rulings. Exactly how they would do so is uncertain (Kirtsaeng points to no other context in which courts undertake such an analysis), but we fear that the inquiry would implicate our oft-stated concern that an application for attorney's fees "should not result in a second major litigation." Zipes, 491 U.S., at 766, 109 S.Ct. 2732 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) ). And we suspect that even at the end of that post-lawsuit lawsuit, the results would typically reflect little more than educated guesses.
Contrary to Kirtsaeng's view, placing substantial weight on objective reasonableness also treats plaintiffs and defendants even-handedly, as Fogerty commands. No matter which side wins a case, the court must assess whether the other side's position was (un)reasonable. And of course, both plaintiffs and defendants can (and sometimes do) make unreasonable arguments. Kirtsaeng claims that the reasonableness inquiry systematically favors plaintiffs because a losing defendant "will virtually always be found to have done something culpable." Brief for Petitioner 29 (emphasis in original). But that conflates two different questions: whether a defendant in fact infringed a copyright and whether he made serious arguments in defense of his conduct. Courts every day see reasonable defenses that ultimately fail (just as they see reasonable claims that come to nothing); in this context, as in any other, they are capable of distinguishing between those defenses (or claims) and the objectively unreasonable variety. And if some court confuses the issue of liability with that of reasonableness, its fee award should be reversed for abuse of discretion.
All of that said, objective reasonableness can be only an important factor in assessing fee applications-not the controlling one. As we recognized in Fogerty, § 505 confers broad discretion on district courts and, in deciding whether to fee-shift, they must take into account a range of considerations beyond the reasonableness of litigating positions. See supra, at 1985. That means in any given case a court may award fees even though the losing party offered reasonable arguments (or, conversely, deny fees even though the losing party made unreasonable ones). For example, a court may order fee-shifting because of a party's litigation misconduct, whatever the reasonableness of his claims or defenses. See, e.g., Viva Video, Inc. v. Cabrera, 9 Fed.Appx. 77, 80 (C.A.2 2001). Or a court may do so to deter repeated instances of copyright infringement or overaggressive assertions of copyright claims, again even if the losing position was reasonable in a particular case. See, e.g., Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. WB Music Corp., 520 F.3d 588, 593-595 (C.A.6 2008) (awarding fees against a copyright holder who filed hundreds of suits on an overbroad legal theory, including in a subset of cases in which it was objectively reasonable). Although objective reasonableness carries significant weight, courts must view all the circumstances of a case on their own terms, in light of the Copyright Act's essential goals.
And on that score, Kirtsaeng has raised serious questions about how fee-shifting actually operates in the Second Circuit. To be sure, the Court of Appeals' framing of the inquiry resembles our own: It calls for a district court to give "substantial weight" to the reasonableness of a losing party's litigating positions while also considering other relevant circumstances. See 605 Fed.Appx., at 49-50 ; Matthew Bender, 240 F.3d, at 122. But the Court of Appeals' language at times suggests that a finding of reasonableness raises a presumption against granting fees, see ibid. ; supra, at 1983 - 1985-and that goes too far in cabining how a district court must structure its analysis and what it may conclude from its review of relevant factors. Still more, district courts in the Second Circuit appear to have overly learned the Court of Appeals' lesson, turning "substantial" into more nearly "dispositive" weight. As Kirtsaeng notes, hardly any decisions in that Circuit have granted fees when the losing party raised a reasonable argument (and none have denied fees when the losing party failed to do so). See Reply Brief 15. For these reasons, we vacate the decision below so that the District Court can take another look at Kirtsaeng's fee application. In sending back the case for this purpose, we do not at all intimate that the District Court should reach a different conclusion. Rather, we merely ensure that the court will evaluate the motion consistent with the analysis we have set out-giving substantial weight to the reasonableness of Wiley's litigating position, but also taking into account all other relevant factors.
* * *
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.
Compare, e.g., Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 240 F.3d 116, 122 (C.A.2 2001) (giving substantial weight to objective reasonableness), with, e.g., Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385, 397-398 (C.A.4 2003) (endorsing a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, without according special significance to any factor), and with, e.g., Hogan Systems, Inc. v. Cybresource Int'l, Inc., 158 F.3d 319, 325 (C.A.5 1998) (presuming that a prevailing party receives fees).
This case serves as a good illustration. Imagine you are Kirtsaeng at a key moment in his case-say, when deciding whether to petition this Court for certiorari. And suppose (as Kirtsaeng now wishes) that the prevailing party in a hard and important case-like this one-will probably get a fee award. Does that make you more likely to file, because you will recoup your own fees if you win? Or less likely to file, because you will foot Wiley's bills if you lose? Here are some answers to choose from (recalling that you cannot confidently predict which way the Court will rule): (A) Six of one, half a dozen of the other. (B) Depends if I'm feeling lucky that day. (C) Less likely-this is getting scary; who knows how much money Wiley will spend on Supreme Court lawyers? (D) More likely-the higher the stakes, the greater the rush. Only if lots of people answer (D) will Kirtsaeng's standard work in the way advertised. Maybe. But then again, maybe not.
Kirtsaeng also offers statistics meant to show that in practice, even if not in theory, the objective reasonableness inquiry unduly favors plaintiffs; but the Solicitor General as amicus curiae has cast significant doubt on that claim. According to Kirtsaeng, 86% of winning copyright holders, but only 45% of prevailing defendants, have received fee awards over the last 15 years in the Second Circuit (which, recall, gives substantial weight to objective reasonableness). See Reply Brief 17-18; supra, at 1983 - 1985. But first, the Solicitor General represents that the overall numbers are actually 77% and 53%, respectively. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 41. And second, the Solicitor General points out that all these percentages include default judgments, which almost invariably give rise to fee awards-but usually of a very small amount-because the defendant has not shown up to oppose either the suit or the fee application. When those cases are taken out, the statistics look fairly similar: 60% for plaintiffs versus 53% for defendants. See id., at 42. And of course, there may be good reasons why copyright plaintiffs and defendants do not make reasonable arguments in perfectly equal proportion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Per Curiam.
We previously remanded this case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, and the other cases relating to legislative reapportionment decided with Reynolds. 378 U. S. 553. The District Court deferred action until the conclusion of the legislative session which convened on April 6, 1965, stating that it would reconsider its decision should the Florida Legislature fail to effect a valid reapportionment by July 1, 1965.
A reapportionment law was passed by the legislature on June 29, 1965. On July 6 the appellants filed a joint petition asking the District Court to declare the newly enacted plan unconstitutional and proposing an alternative plan. The District Court did not take action until October 5 when it ordered oral argument for November 2, 1965. On December 23 the District Court concluded that the newly passed reapportionment plan failed to “meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution as construed and applied in Reynolds v. Sims . . . .”
Although the District Court concluded that the plan did not comport with constitutional requirements, it approved the plan (making only minor changes) on an interim basis. Its approval was limited to the period ending 60 days after the adjournment of the 1967 session of the Florida Legislature.
We have no occasion to review the District Court’s determination that the legislative reapportionment plan fails to meet constitutional standards. Indeed, Florida does not contend that the District Court erred in this regard, having conceded below that the plan was constitutionally deficient. We hold, however, that in approving the plan on an interim basis, the District Court erred. This litigation was commenced in 1962. The effect of the District Court’s decision is to delay effectuation of a valid apportionment in Florida until at least 1969. While recognizing the desirability of permitting the Florida Legislature itself to determine the course of reapportionment, we find no warrant for perpetuating what all concede to be an unconstitutional apportionment for another three years.
We reverse and remand to the District Court so that a valid reapportionment plan will be made effective for the 1966 elections.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the issue of the constitutionality of a federal-court-ordered reapportionment of the North Dakota Legislature, called in that State the Legislative Assembly. That State, like many others, has struggled to satisfy constitutional requirements for legislative apportionment delineated in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1962); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964); WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633 (1964); Maryland Committee v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656 (1964); Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678 (1964); Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695 (1964); Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, 377 U. S. 713 (1964), and other cases. This litigation is the culmination of that struggle, totally ineffectual on the legislative side, during the past decade.
I
The State’s Constitution and Its Statutes
North Dakota's original Constitution, adopted at the State’s admission into the Union in 1889, is still in effect. It has been amended, of course, from time to time. Since 1918, §25 thereof has read: “The legislative power of this state shall be vested in a legislature consisting of a senate and a house of representatives.” N. D. Const. Art. II, § 25. That legislative power for 70 years has been subject to the initiative and the referendum. Ibid. The Constitution has further provided that the State’s senate “shall be composed of forty-nine members,” § 26, elected for a four-year term, § 27, with one-half thereof elected every two years, § 30, and that no one shall be a senator unless he is a qualified elector of the senatorial district, has attained the age of 25 years, and has been a resident of the State for the two years next preceding the election, § 28. Since 1960, § 29 has read:
“Each existing senatorial district as provided by law at the effective date of this amendment shall permanently constitute a senatorial district. Each senatorial district shall be represented by one senator and no more.” Laws 1969, c. 438; Laws 1961, c. 405.
The document also states that the house of representatives “shall be composed of not less than sixty, nor more than one hundred forty members,” § 32, elected for a two-year term, § 33, and that no one shall be a representative unless he is a qualified elector of the district, has attained the age of 21 years, and has been a resident of the State for the two years next preceding the election, § 34. Section 35 provides for at least one representative for each senatorial district and for as many representatives as there are counties in the district; states that the Legislative Assembly, after each federal decennial census, shall apportion “the balance of the members of the House of Representatives,” and, if the Legislative Assembly fails in its apportionment duty, places the task of apportioning the house in a designated group of officials of the State.
There have been complementary statutory provisions. An apportionment effected by Laws 1931, c. 7, N. D. Cent. Code §54-03-01 (1960), was in effect for over 30 years despite the mandate of § 35 of the Constitution that apportionment be effected after each federal census.
II
Prior Litigation
A. Things began to stir in North Dakota even prior to this Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr in 1962. The State’s Legislative Assembly of 1961 had failed to apportion the house following the 1960 census. After Baker had been decided at the District Court level, 179 F. Supp. 824 (MD Tenn. 1959), and between the argument and reargument of the case here, the Supreme Court of North Dakota dismissed an original action for a prerogative writ to enjoin its Chief Justice from issuing the apportionment proclamation which would have announced the conclusions of the statutorily designated “apportionment group” that were then anticipated. The petition asserted that the group's plan would apportion the house in an unconstitutional manner and not according to population. The Supreme Court ruled that the function of the group was legislative; that it had not yet completed its work; that it was performing a function the Legislative Assembly should have performed; and that, until the proclamation was issued, the group's action was not subject to challenge in the courts. State ex rel. Aamoth v. Sathre, 110 N. W. 2d 228 (1961).
B. Citizens of North Dakota then sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court under the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1988. By this time the State's Chief Justice had issued the proclamation. A three-judge District Court held that the presence of the proclamation eliminated the aspect of prematurity that had characterized the earlier challenge in the state court. But the “basic issues,” the court concluded with one dissent, had not been presented to the Supreme Court of North Dakota. “We believe that court should have the opportunity of passing on all questions herein.” The court, accordingly, abstained from passing upon those issues; it stayed further proceedings before it, but did not dismiss the action. Lein v. Sathre, 201 F. Supp. 535, 542 (ND 1962).
C. The plaintiffs in the federal case promptly took to the Supreme Court of North Dakota their attack upon the plan adopted by the apportionment group. That court assumed jurisdiction. State ex rel. Lein v. Sathre, 113 N. W. 2d 679, 681 (1962). It noted that no question arising under the United States Constitution was presented, id., at 681-682, and that it was not concerned with the validity of the allotment of one representative to each senatorial district, as prescribed by the first sentence of § 35 of the Constitution, id., at 683. The court recognized that there was inherent in a constitutional direction to apportion according to population “a limited discretion to make the apportionment that will approach, as nearly as is reasonably possible, a mathematical equality.” Id., at 685. It then went on to hold that the apportionment made by the group “violates the constitutional mandate of apportionment according to the population of the several districts and is void,” id., at 687, and that the apportionment effected by the 1931 statute continued to be the law until superseded by an apportionment valid under § 35 or under a further amendment of the Constitution. Id., at 687-688.
D. The same plaintiffs then turned again to the federal court. The three-judge court, with one judge dissenting, denied the request for injunctive relief on the ground that the only challenge before it was to the apportionment group’s plan, and that the 1931 apportionment was not challenged. Lein v. Sathre, 205 F. Supp. 536 (ND 1962). It noted that the Legislative Assembly would meet the following January, that it had “the mandatory duty” to apportion the house, and that the court would not presume that it would not perform that duty. Jurisdiction was retained, with the observation that if the Legislative Assembly failed to act, the plaintiffs, upon appropriate amendment of their complaint, might further petition the court for relief. Id., at 540.
E. The 1963 Legislative Assembly did reapportion. Laws 1963, c. 345.
F. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, and its companion cases were decided in June 1964. A new suit then was instituted in federal court to invalidate North Dakota's entire apportionment system on federal constitutional grounds. Sections 26, 29, and 35 of the Constitution and the 1963 statute were challenged. 'I&e three-judge court held that these constitutional and statutory provisions were violative of the Equal Protection Clause. Paulson v. Meier, 232 F. Supp. 183 (ND 1964). It went oh to hold that the 1931 apportionment, being “the last valid apportionment,” as described by the North Dakota Supreme Court, and by which the 1963 legislators had been elected, was also invalid. Thus, “there is no constitutionally valid legislative apportionment law in existence in the State of North Dakota at this time.” Id., at 187. The court encountered difficulty as to an appropriate remedy. It concluded, one judge dissenting, that adequate time was not available within which to formulate a proper plan for the then forthcoming 1964 elections, id., at 188; that the 1965 Legislative Assembly would have a de jacto status; and that that Assembly should promptly devise a constitutional system. In-junctive relief was denied. Id., at 190.
G. The 1965 Legislative Assembly produced a reapportionment act although it was not approved or disapproved by the Governor. Laws 1965, c. 338.
H. The North Dakota Secretary of State, defendant in the federal court, then moved to dismiss the federal action on the ground that the 1965 act met constitutional requirements. The three-judge court, however, ruled otherwise. Paulson v. Meier, 246 F. Supp. 36, 43 (ND 1965). It turned to the question of remedy and concluded that the Legislative Assembly had had its opportunity and that the court now had the duty itself to take affirmative action. Id., at 43-44. It considered several plans that had been introduced in the Assembly and centered its attention on the Smith plan. Although the court found the plan “not perfect” (five multimember senatorial districts, and county lines violated in 12 instances), it concluded that the plan, if “slightly” modified, would meet constitutional standards (“impressive mathematical exactness,” namely, 25 of 39 districts within 5% of the average population, four slightly over 5%, and only two exceeding 9%). Id., at 44 — 45. The “slight” modification was made and reapportionment, really the first to be finally effected since 1931, was therefore accomplished in North Dakota by federal-court intervention.
I. Still another original proceeding in the State's Supreme Court was instituted. This one challenged the right of senators from the multimember districts to hold office. It was claimed that this multiple membership violated § 29 of the North Dakota Constitution which provided that each senatorial district “shall be represented by one senator and no more.” The state court held that the 1965 judgment of the federal court was not res judicata as to the then plaintiffs; that the initial or “freezing” portion of §29 was clearly invalid; that the concluding portion, restricting representation of a district to one senator, would not have been desired by the people without the “balance” of the freezing portion; and that § 29 as a unit must fall as violative of equal protection. State ex rel. Stockman v. Anderson, 184 N. W. 2d 53 (1971). The result was that multi-member senatorial districts were not held illegal by the state court.
Ill
The Present Litigation
The 1970 federal census was taken in due course. The 1971 Legislative Assembly failed to reapportion. The present federal action was instituted the following November. The plaintiffs alleged that substantial shifts in population had taken place, and that the court-ordered plan of 1965 no longer complied with the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. The relief requested was that the court order apportionment upon the 1970 census figures and also provide for single-member districts; that the 1965 plan be declared invalid; and that the Secretary of State be restrained from administering the election laws under that plan.
On May 22, 1972, the three-judge court entered an order to the effect that the existing North Dakota apportionment failed to meet federal constitutional standards and that the court would attempt to reapportion. Jurisdictional Statement A-54. It appointed a commission to formulate and present a plan within 30 days, and it submitted guidelines to the commission. With respect to multimember districts, the order provided:
“We have considered the matter of ‘multi-member’ districts and conclude there is insufficient time prior to the 1972 elections to fully explore and resolve the issues involved. The matter of ‘multi-member’ districts will be studied in depth by the Commission, and the results of that study be made available to us.” Id., at A-55.
An opinion was filed on June 30. 372 F. Supp. 363 (ND). This recited that the commission had presented eight separate plans to the court; that shifts in population since 1960 had resulted in constitutionally impermissible population variations among existing districts; that a plan submitted by Commissioner Dobson substantially reduced the disproportionate representation, although it decreased the number of districts by one and increased the number of senators by two and the number of representatives by four. “[C]ertain weaknesses” in the plan were recognized, including “some variance in population... which, in a few instances, seems substantial,” and a continuation of multimember districts. Id., at 366. These districts included the State’s five largest cities. The court noted that the districts had been created, not by enactment of the Legislative Assembly, but by the federal court in the 1965 Paulson decision, and observed, ibid.: “In light of subsequent [United States] Supreme Court pronouncements, we believe it would be improper for this Court to permit their continuation in a court-fashioned plan.” Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690 (1971), and Connor v. Williams, 404 U. S. 549, 551 (1972), were cited. The court, however, felt
“constrained to permit multi-member districts to continue during the 1972 elections... to avoid extreme disruptions in the elective processes.... We feel that the electorate will be better served by minimizing the confusion surrounding the impending elections, than it would be by the abolition of multi-member districts at this eleventh hour.” 372 P. Supp., at 366.
The Dobson plan was therefore approved “for the 1972 election only.” Id., at 367. An alternative, the Osten-son plan, was commended to the commission for “further study,” with a direction to modify it “so as to eliminate the existing multi-member senate districts.” Id., at 367-368. Chief District Judge Benson dissented as to the limitation of the Dobson plan to the 1972 election; for him, the Connor litigation was distinguishable on racial grounds and the desirability of multimember districts was a question for the Legislative Assembly and not for the court. Id., at 368-369. Jurisdiction was retained.
On November 8, 1972, immediately after the election that year, the three-judge court suspended its June 30 order until further notice and directed the State’s Attorney General promptly to report any action taken by the 1973 Legislative Assembly.
That Assembly not only passed an apportionment Act but overrode its veto by the Governor. Laws 1973, c. 411, and Note, at 1178. The Act provided for 37 legislative districts, each having one senator and two representatives, except for five multimember senatorial districts. Section 3 thereof specifically recited the population of each district and the population variance (plus 3.3% to minus 3.5%, a total of 6.8%; or plus 408 persons to minus 432 persons, a total of 840 persons) from the average of 12,355 per senator.
The effectiveness of the legislative plan, however, promptly was suspended by a referendum petition. See Laws 1973, p. 1549. By a companion initiative petition, an amendment to the State’s Constitution was proposed ; this would have created a commission to reapportion the State and, in addition, would have mandated single-member senatorial districts. A special election on these took place December 4, 1973. Both were defeated. The Legislative Assembly’s work to reapportion was thus nullified by the people. It could be suggested, and apparently was, that the people also reacted against the elimination of the five multimember districts. In any event, the defendant thereupon moved the federal court to readopt the plan temporarily approved by its order of June 1972. The plaintiffs resisted.
The three-judge District Court, with Circuit Judge Bright dissenting, then made “permanent” the 1972 Dob-son plan, with its five multimember districts providing 18 senators out of a statewide total of 51. 372 F. Supp. 371, 379 (ND 1974). We noted probable jurisdiction. 416 U. S. 966 (1974).
IV
Jurisdiction
We are met at the threshold with a mild question of jurisdiction not pressed by the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 only if a three-judge court was required by 28 U. S. C. § 2281.
It might be suggested that the three-judge court here did not restrain the enforcement of a statute but, instead, the enforcement of the court-ordered plan of 1965 which had become unconstitutional in the circumstances of 1972, and, hence, that the provisions of § 2281 were not satisfied. The argument is less than persuasive and we conclude that it is without merit. Although the reapportionment now under attack was indeed court ordered, its enforcement is doubly based on the State’s Constitution and statutes. Its effectuation directly depends on the state election law machinery and, in addition, the plan itself is a court-imposed replacement of the North Dakota constitutional provisions and the 1931, 1963, and 1965 reapportionment statutes. It is these that are, and have been, the primary objects of attack. It would be highly anomalous if jurisdiction were not here, for then it would follow that a single judge could invalidate a reapportionment plan that had been evolved or approved, and was required so to be, by a three-judge court some time before. Subject matter of this kind is regular grist for the three-judge court, and that route typically has been employed under conditions similar to those present here. See, e. g., Skolnick v. State Electoral Board of Illinois, 336 F. Supp. 839 (ND Ill. 1971). We think this is correct procedure and we conclude that we have jurisdiction.
V
The Multimember Districts
From the above review of the North Dakota constitutional and statutory provisions and of the litigation of the past 12 years, two significant facts emerge: The first is that some multimembership on the house side of the Legislative Assembly traditionally has existed. This plainly qualifies as established state policy. The second is that, in contrast, multimembership on the senate side, even as to the five districts, has never existed except as imposed (a) by the three-judge federal court by its 1965 Paulson decision; (b) by a majority of the three-judge court as a temporary expedient for the 1972 election only; (c) by the provisions of the 1973 act immediately nullified by referendum; and (d) by a different majority of the three-judge court as a “permanent” solution in the judgment under review. Thus only once has the Legislative Assembly provided for multimember senate representation and that effort was promptly aborted. Every other such provision in North Dakota’s history has been court imposed. Multimember senate representation, therefore, obviously does not qualify as established state policy.
This Court has refrained from holding that multi-member districts in apportionment plans adopted by States for their legislatures are per se unconstitutional. White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765 (1973), and cases cited therein. On the contrary, the Court has upheld numerous state-initiated apportionment schemes utilizing multimember districts. See, e. g., Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U. S. 120 (1967); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73 (1966); Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U. S. 433 (1965). And, beginning with Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S., at 577, the Court has indicated that a State might devise an apportionment plan for a bicameral legislature with one body composed of at least some multimember districts, as long as substantial equality of population per representative is maintained.
Notwithstanding this past acceptance of multimember districting plans, we recognize that there are practical weaknesses inherent in such schemes. First, as the number of legislative seats within the district increases, the difficulty for the voter in making intelligent choices among candidates also increases. See Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, 377 U. S., at 731. Ballots tend to become unwieldy, confusing, and too lengthy to allow thoughtful consideration. Second, when candidates are elected at large, residents of particular areas within the district may feel that they have no representative specially responsible to them. Ibid. Third, it is possible that bloc voting by delegates from a multimember district may result in undue representation of residents of these districts relative to voters in single-member districts. This possibility, however, was rejected, absent concrete proof, in Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 147 (1971). Criticism of multimember districts has been frequent and widespread. Id., at 157-160, and articles cited therein. See generally Carpeneti, Legislative Apportionment : Multimember Districts and Fair Representation, 120 U. Pa. L. Rev. 666 (1972); Banzhaf, Multi-Member Electoral Districts — Do They Violate the “One Man, One Vote” Principle, 75 Yale L. J. 1309 (1966).
In Fortson v. Dorsey, supra, we held that the mere assertion of such possible weaknesses in a legislature's multimember districting plan was insufficient to establish a denial of equal protection. Rather, it must be shown that
“designedly or otherwise, a multi-member constituency apportionment scheme, under the circumstances of a particular case, would operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population.” 379 U. S., at 439.
Further, there must be more evidence than a simple dis-proportionality between the voting potential and the legislative seats won by a racial or political group. There must be evidence that the group has been denied access to the political process equal to the access of other groups. White v. Regester, 412 U. S., at 765-766. Such evidence may be more easily developed where the multi-member districts compose a large part of the legislature, where both bodies in a bicameral legislature utilize multi-member districts, or where the members’ residences are concentrated in one part of the district. Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S., at 88. Whether such factors are present or not, proof of lessening or cancellation of voting strength must be offered.
This requirement that one challenging a multimember districting plan must prove that the plan minimizes or cancels out the voting power of a racial or political group has been applied in cases involving apportionment schemes adopted by state legislatures. In Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690 (1971), however, which came to us on an application for a stay, we were presented with a court-ordered reapportionment scheme having some multimember districts in both bodies of the state legislature. We stated explicitly that “when district courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a general matter.” Id., at 692. Exercising our supervisory power, we directed the District Court to devise a single-member districting plan, “absent insurmountable difficulties.” Ibid. This preference for and emphasis upon single-member districts in court-ordered plans was reaffirmed in Connor v. Williams, 404 U. S., at 551, and again in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315, 333 (1973). In the latter case a District Court was held to have acted within its discretion in forming a multimember district as an interim remedy in order to alleviate substantial underrepresentation of military personnel in an impending election.
The standards for evaluating the use of multimember districts thus clearly differ depending on whether a federal court or a state legislature has initiated the use. The practical simultaneity of decision in Connor v. Johnson and in Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra, so demonstrates. When the plan is court ordered, there often is no state policy of multimember districting which might deserve respect or deference. Indeed, if the court is imposing multimember districts upon a State which always has employed single-member districts, there is special reason to follow the Connor rule favoring the latter type of districting.
Appellants do not contend that any racial or political group has been discriminated against by the multi-member districting ordered by the District Court. They only suggest that the District Court has not followed our mandate in Connor v. Johnson, and that the court has failed to articulate any reasons for this departure. We agree. Absent particularly pressing features calling for multimember districts, a United States district court should refrain from imposing them upon a State.
The District Court cannot avoid the multimember issue by labeling it, see 372 F. Supp., at 377, a political issue to be resolved by the State. The District Court itself created multimember districting in North Dakota, and it might be said to be disingenuous to suggest that the judicial creation became a political question simply by the passage of nine 'years. The District Court’s treatment of this issue directly conflicts with its prior opinion in this case, where it allowed continuation of the multimember districts first established in the Paulson decision in 1965 only as an interim remedy. 372 F. Supp., at 367. The court there noted that in the largest multimember district, a voter would be asked to evaluate the qualifications of at least 30 candidates for the state legislature, a “most formidable” task. Id., at 366. Taking note of Connor v. Johnson, the court held in 1972 that it would be improper to permit multimember districts to remain permanently, and allowed continued use only for the impending election because of the great confusion that otherwise would result. The court appears now to have abandoned that position, with no suggestion of reasons for the abrupt change. It is especially anomalous that the court would continue with the multimem-ber districting plan, when the Special Master who initially proposed it has disavowed use of permanent multimem-ber districts. Dobson, Reapportionment Problems, 48 N. D. L. Rev. 281,289 (1972).
In contrast, the dissent in the District Court suggests a wide range of attributes of single-member districts. 372 F. Supp., at 391. One advantage is obvious: confusion engendered by multiple offices will be removed. Other advantages perhaps are more speculative: single-member districts may prevent domination of an entire slate by a narrow majority, may ease direct communication with one’s senator, may reduce campaign costs, and may avoid bloc voting. Of course, these are general virtues of single-member districts, and there is no guarantee that any particular feature will be found in a specific plan. Neither the District Court majority nor appellee, however, has provided us with any suggestion of a legitimate state interest supporting the abandonment of the general preference for single-member districts in court-ordered plans which we recognized in Connor v. Johnson. The fact that no allegation of minority group discrimination is raised by appellants here does hot make Connor inapplicable.
It is true that in 1973 the voters of North Dakota voted down a proposed constitutional amendment which would have re-established the State's tradition of single-member senatorial districts. At the same time the voters also rejected by referendum the Legislative Assembly’s 1973 Act which would have continued the multimember format for five districts. We are unable to infer from these simultaneous actions of the electorate any particular attitude toward multimember districts. It simply appears that North Dakota’s voters have not been satisfied with any reapportionment proposal, and that they are frustrated by the years of confusion since the obviously impermissible apportionment provisions of the State’s Constitution were invalidated.
We are confident that the District Court, with perhaps the aid of its Special Masters, will be able to reinsti-tute the use of single-member districts while also attaining the necessary goal of substantial population equality. Special Master Ostenson had indicated that it “ 'would not be terribly difficult to adopt single-member districts.’ ” See 372 F. Supp., at 392. Unless the District Court can articulate such a “singular combination of unique factors” as was found to exist in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S., at 333, or unless the 1975 Legislative Assembly appropriately acts, the court should proceed expeditiously to reinstate single-member senatorial districts in North Dakota.
VI
The Population Variance
The second aspect of the court-ordered reapportionment plan that is challenged by the appellants is the population divergence in the various senatorial districts. Since the population of the State under the 1970 census was 617,761, and the number of senators provided for by the court’s plan was 51, each senatorial district would contain 12,112 persons if population equality were achieved. In fant, however, one district under the plan has 13,176 persons, and thus is underrepresented by 8.71%, while another district has 10,728 persons, and is overrepresented by 11.43%. The total variance between the largest and smallest districts consequently is 20.14%, and the ratio of the population of the largest to the smallest is 1.23 to 1.
Reynolds v. Sims, supra, established that both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned so that districts are “as nearly of equal population as is practicable.” 377 U. S., at 577. While “ [mathematical exactness or precision” is not required, there must be substantial compliance with the goal of population equality. Ibid. Reynolds v. Sims, of course, involved gross population disparity among districts.
Since Reynolds, we have had the opportunity to observe attempts in many state legislative reapportionment plans to achieve the goal of population equality. Although each case must be evaluated on its own facts, and a particular population deviation from the ideal may be permissible in some cases but not in others, Swann v. Adams, 385 U. S. 440, 445 (1967), certain guidelines have been developed for determining compliance with the basic goal of one person, one vote. In Swann we held that a variance of 25.65% in one house and 33.55% in the other was impermissible absent “a satisfactory explanation grounded on acceptable state policy.” Id., at 444. See also Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U. S., at 123-124. In Swann, no justification of the divergences had been attempted. Possible justifications, each requiring adequate proof, were suggested by the Court. Among these were “such state policy considerations as the integrity of political subdivisions, the maintenance of compactness and contiguity in legislative districts or the recognition of natural or historical boundary lines.” 385 U. S., at 444. See also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S., at 578-581.
On the other hand, we have acknowledged that some leeway in the equal-population requirement should be afforded States in devising their legislative reapportionment plans. As contrasted with congressional districting, where population equality appears now to be the preeminent, if not the sole, criterion on which to adjudge constitutionality, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S. 526 (1969); Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542 (1969); White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783 (1973), when state legislative districts are at issue we have held that minor population deviations do not establish a prima facie constitutional violation. For example, in Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735 (1973), we permitted a deviation of 7.83% with no showing of invidious discrimination. In White v. Regester, supra, a variation of 9.9% was likewise permitted.
The treatment of the reapportionment plan in Mahan v. Howell, supra, is illustrative of our approach in this area. There the Virginia Legislature had fashioned a plan providing a total population variance of 16.4% among house districts. This disparity was of sufficient magnitude to require an analysis of the state policies asserted in justification. We found that the deviations from the average were caused by the attempt of the legislature to fulfill the rational state policy of refraining from splitting political subdivisions between house districts, and we accepted the policy as legitimate notwithstanding the fact that subdivision splits were permitted in senatorial districts. Since the population divergences in the Virginia plan were “based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy,” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S., at 579, we held that the plan met constitutional standards.
It is to be observed that this measure of acceptable deviation from population equality has been developed in cases that concerned apportionment plans enacted by state legislatures. In the present North Dakota case, however, the 20% variance is in the plan formulated by the federal court. We believe that a population deviation of that magnitude in a court-ordered plan is constitutionally impermissible in the absence of significant state policies or other acceptable considerations that require adoption of a plan with so great a variance. The burden is on the District Court to elucidate the reasons necessitating any departure from the goal of population equality, and to articulate clearly the relationship between the variance and the state policy furthered.
The basis for the District Court’s allowance of the 20% variance is claimed to lie in the absence of “electorally victimized minorities,” in the fact that North Dakota is sparsely populated, in the division of the State caused by the Missouri River, and in the goal of observing geographical boundaries and existing political subdivisions. We find none of these factors persuasive here, and none of them has been explicitly shown to necessitate the substantial population deviation embraced by the plan.
First, a variance of this degree cannot be justified simply because there is no particular racial or political group whose voting power is minimized or canceled. All citizens are affected when an apportionment plan provides disproportionate voting strength, and citizens in districts that are underrepresented lose something even if they do not belong to a specific minority group.
Second, sparse population is not a legitimate basis for a departure from the goal of equality. A State with a sparse population may face problems different from those faced by one with a concentrated population, but that, without more, does not permit a substantial deviation from the average. Indeed, in a State with a small population, each individual vote may be more important to the result of an election than in a highly populated State. Thus, particular emphasis should be placed on establishing districts with as exact population equality as possible. The District Court’s bare statement that North Dakota’s sparse population permitted or perhaps caused the 20% deviation is inadequate justification.
Third, the suggestion that the division of the State caused by the Missouri River and the asserted state policy of observing existing geographical and political subdivision boundaries warrant departure from population equality is also not persuasive. It is far from apparent that North Dakota policy currently requires or favors strict adherence to political lines. As the dissenting judge in
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor brought this action to enjoin the Rutherford Food Corporation and the Kaiser Packing Company from further violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Administrator alleged that the defendants had repeatedly failed to keep proper records and to pay certain of its employees overtime as required by § 7 of the Act. The District Court refused to grant the injunction. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on appeal, and directed the entry of the judgment substantially as prayed for. Walling v. Rutherford Food Corporation, 156 F. 2d 513. We brought the case here because of the importance of the issues presented by the petition for certiorari to the administration of the Act.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, enacted June 25, 1938, is a part of the social legislation of the 1930’s of the same general character as the National Labor Relations Act of July 5, 1935, 49 Stat. 449, and the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, 49 Stat. 620. Decisions that define the coverage of the employer-employee relationship under the Labor and Social Security acts are persuasive in the consideration of a similar coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Labor Board v. Hearst Pub lications, 322 U. S. 111; United States v. Silk, ante, p. 704, decided today.
The petitioners are corporations of Missouri authorized to do business in Kansas. The slaughterhouse of the Kaiser Packing Company, the place of the alleged violations with which we are concerned, and the principal place of business of that company, is in Kansas City, Kansas, from which it ships meat in interstate commerce. Since 1942 most of its product has been boned beef. The petitioner, Rutherford Food Corporation, has its principal place of business and its plant for processing meat products in Kansas City, Missouri. In 1943, Rutherford bought 51% of the stock of Kaiser in order to assure itself of a constant supply of boned beef for contracts it had with the U. S. Army. Kaiser had been operating and continued to operate at a loss, and Rutherford advanced more than $50,000 to Kaiser between March, when Rutherford bought the Kaiser stock, and July, 1943. To assure itself of a continued supply of meat, Rutherford leased Kaiser’s facilities and took over operation of the slaughterhouse in July. In May, 1944, the lease was terminated and Rutherford’s stock interest in Kaiser sold, so that Kaiser might qualify for subsidies granted by the Defense Supplies Corporation to unaffiliated nonprocess-ing slaughterers under its Regulation No. 3.
Prior to 1942 Kaiser had one hourly paid employee who acted as a combined butcher, beef boner and order filler. During 1942, in order to be able to furnish beef boned to Army specifications to the Army under contract, Kaiser entered into a written contract with one Reed, an experienced boner, which provided that Reed should assemble a group of skilled boners to do the boning at the slaughterhouse. The terms of the contract were that Reed should be paid for the work of boning an amount per hundredweight of boned beef, that he would have complete control over the other boners, who would be his employees, that Kaiser would furnish a room in its plant for the work, known as the boning vestibule, into which the carcasses of cattle slaughtered by Kaiser would be moved on overhead rails by Kaiser employees, that Kaiser would also furnish barrels for the boned meat which would be washed and moved out of the vestibule by Kaiser’s employees. Reed abandoned the work in February, 1943, and the work was taken over under an oral contract by one of the boners who had worked with him. This boner, Schindel, also abandoned the work in May, 1944, and an oral contract was then made by the company with Hooper and Deere, who had workéd with Schindel. After a few months Deere left, at which time Hooper entered into a written contract substantially like the one between Kaiser and Reed, save that it provided for rent to be paid by Hooper for the boning room, although as a matter of fact no rent was ever paid. The District Court found that since the boning work had started in 1942, the money paid by Kaiser had been shared equally among all the boners, except for a short time after Hooper took over the work when he paid some of the boners by the hour. It was stipulated further that the boners owned their own tools, although these consisted merely of a hook to hold the meat, a knife to cut it, a sharpener for the knife, and a leather belt (apron). Although the C. I. 0. union which was the representative of the workers of the company insisted that the boners be members, and although the written contracts provided that they should join, it was stipulated that the union dues of the boners were not checked off and that the boners were not subject to the authority of the union steward at the plant.
The slaughterhouse operations, of which the boning is a part, are carried on in a series of interdependent steps. The cattle are slaughtered, skinned and dressed in the killing room, and the carcasses are moved thence on overhead rails into an overnight cooler by employees of Kaiser. The next day they are moved into another cooler and then into the boning vestibule, on the same overhead rail. They move around the boning room on the rail, each boner cutting off a section for boning. The boneless meat is put into barrels, or passed to a trimmer, an employee of Kaiser, who trims waste matter from the boned meat. Waste is put into other barrels. The barrels are moved from the boning room by employees of Kaiser into another room, called the dock, where the meat is weighed and put on trucks. Kaiser has never attempted to control the hours of the boners, but they must “keep the work current and the hours they work depend in large measure upon the number of cattle slaughtered.” 156 F. 2d 513, 515. It is undisputed that the president and manager of Kaiser goes through the boning vestibule many times a day and “is after the boners frequently about their failure to cut all of the meat off the bones.”
The Administrator thought these facts brought the boners within the classification of employees, as that term is used in the Act. But the District Court thought that they were independent contractors, and denied the injunction sought by the Administrator. The Circuit Court of Appeals, however, said: “The operations at the slaughterhouse constitute an integrated economic unit devoted primarily to the production of boneless beef. Practically all of the work entering into the unit is done at one place and under one roof. . . . The boners work alongside admitted employees of the plant operator at their tasks. The task of each is performed in its natural order as a contribution to the accomplishment of a common objective.” In its view the test for determining who was an employee under the Act was not the common law test of control, “as the Act concerns itself with the correction of economic evils through remedies which were unknown at common law . . . It concluded that the “underlying economic realities . . . lead to the conclusion that the boners were and are employees of Kaiser . . . 156 F. 2d 513, 516-17.
The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed by Congress to lessen, so far as seemed then practicable, the distribution in commerce of goods produced under subnormal labor conditions. An effort to eliminate low wages and long hours was the method chosen to free commerce from the interferences arising from production of goods under conditions that were detrimental to the health and well-being of workers. It was sought to accomplish this purpose by the minimum pay and maximum hour provisions and the requirement that records of employees’ services be kept by the employer. To make the method effective, the Act contains a section granting to the district courts of the United States jurisdiction to enjoin certain violations of the Act here involved, relating to the keeping of records of employment and the paying of overtime. Whether or not the acts charged in this complaint violate the Act depends, so far as the meat boners are concerned, upon a determination as to whether either or both respondents are employers of the boners. As our conclusion requires further action in the trial court to frame the injunction, we shall treat only the question of the relationship of the boners to the alleged employers. We shall not in our consideration undertake to reach any conclusion as to the appropriate form of an injunction. We pass only upon the question whether the boners were employees of the operator of the Kansas plant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
As in the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act, there is in the Fair Labor Standards Act no definition that solves problems as to the limits of the employer-employee relationship under the Act. Provisions which have some bearing appear in the margin. The definition of “employ” is broad. It evidently derives from the child labor statutes and it should be noted that this definition applies to the child labor provisions of this Act, § 12. We have decided that it is not so broad as to include those “who, without any express or implied compensation agreement, might work for their own advantage on the premises of another.” Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U. S. 148, 152, decided February 17, 1947. In the same opinion, however, we pointed out that “This Act contains its own definitions, comprehensive enough to require its application to many persons and working relationships which, prior to this Act, were not deemed to fall within an employer-employee category.” 330 U. S. 148, 150. We have said that the Act included those who are compensated on a piece rate basis. United States v. Rosenwasser, 323 U. S. 360. We have accepted a stipulation that station “redcaps” were railroad employees. Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U. S. 386, 391. There may be independent contractors who take part in production or distribution who would alone be responsible for the wages and hours of their own employees. See United States v. Silk, supra; compare Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, 326 U. S. 657; Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 327 U. S. 173. We conclude, however, that these meat boners are not independent contractors. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals, quoted above, in its characterization of their work as a part of the integrated unit of production under such circumstances that the workers performing the task were employees of the establishment. Where the work done, in its essence, follows the usual path of an employee, putting on an “independent contractor” label does not take the worker from the protection of the Act.
The District Court was of the view that:
“The right to contract is not only an inherent right but a constitutional right, and independent contracts, as a method of quantity production of boned beef, have not been uncommon in the packing business, generally. . . . The plan under which boners share equally in the boning money is commonly employed in Kansas City and elsewhere, and most of the boners who have worked in the Kaiser plant have worked at various times and in various plants under independent contractors. There is nothing inequitable in the sharing method under which compensation is divided equally among the group. It gives each man an interest in the amount of work being done by the other members of the group. It also gives no advantage to the man who is boning the fleshier parts of the carcass. Under this plan beginners and casual boners can be equitably taken care of by payment on an hourly basis out of the boning money.”
We think, however, that the determination of the relationship does not depend on such isolated factors but rather upon the circumstances of the whole activity. Viewed in this way, the workers did a specialty job on the production line. The responsibility under the boning contracts without material changes passed from one boner to another. The premises and equipment of Kaiser were used for the work. The group had no business organization that could or did shift as a unit from one slaughterhouse to another. The managing official of the plant kept close touch on the operation. While profits to the boners depended upon the efficiency of their work, it was more like piecework than an enterprise that actually depended for success upon the initiative, judgment or foresight of the typical independent contractor. Upon the whole, we must conclude that these meat boners were employees of the slaughtering plant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
We therefore affirm the conclusion to that effect of the Circuit Court of Appeals and modify the direction of the judgment of that court “for the entry of a judgment substantially as prayed,” so as to leave the District Court free to frame its decree in accordance with this decision.
It is so ordered.
52 Stat. 1060.
29 U.S. C. § 207.
8 F. R. 10826; 8 F. R. 14641; 9 F. R. 1820.
52 Stat. 1060, §§ 2, 6, 7, 11 (c). United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 125; Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U. S. 572, 577-78.
52 Stat. 1060, §§ 17,15,7 (a), 11 (c).
52 Stat. 1060, §3:
“As used in this Act—
“(d) ‘Employer’ includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee ....
“(e) ‘Employee’ includes any individual employed by an employer.
“ (g) ‘Employ’ includes to suffer or permit to work.”
Note 11 in the brief for the United States summarizes the relevant data:
“At the time of the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the phrase ‘employed, permitted or suffered to work’ was contained in the child labor statutes of thirty-two States and the District of Columbia. The same phraseology appeared in the Uniform Child Labor Laws recommended in 1911 and in 1930 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (Child Labor Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 2, August 1912; Proceedings of the National Conference, 1930), in the Standard Child Labor Law recommended in the Child Labor Legislation Handbook compiled by Josephine C. Goldmark (See e. g., issue of 1904, p. 11), and in the Standards Recommended for Child Labor Legislation by the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials. The phrase 'employed or permitted to work’ was found in seventeen State statutes as well as in the Federal statutes held unconstitutional in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, and Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20. The statutes are cited in the Appendix to this brief, infra, pp. 58-60.”
See Walling v. American Needlecrafts, 139 F. 2d 60; United States v. Vogue, Inc., 145 F. 2d 609; Walling v. Twyeffort, Inc., 158 F. 2d 944.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 340 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 260, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1451 (a), requires revocation of United States citizenship that was “illegally procured or... procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” The Government brought this denaturalization action, alleging that petitioner procured his citizenship illegally or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact. The District Court entered judgment for petitioner, but the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered entry of a judgment of denaturalization. We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 1070, to resolve two questions: whether petitioner’s failure to disclose, in his application for a visa to come to this country, that he had served during the Second World War as an armed guard at the Nazi concentration camp at Treblinka, Poland, rendered his citizenship revocable as “illegally procured” or procured by willful misrepresentation of a material fact, and if so, whether the District Court nonetheless possessed equitable discretion to refrain from entering judgment in favor of the Government under these circumstances.
I
A
Petitioner was born in the Ukraine in 1907. He was drafted into the Russian Army in June 1941, but was captured by the Germans shortly thereafter. After being held in a series of prisoner-of-war camps, petitioner was selected to go to the German camp at Travnicki in Poland, where he received training as a concentration camp guard. In September 1942, he was assigned to the Nazi concentration camp at Treblinka in Poland, where he was issued a uniform and rifle and where he served as a guard during 1942 and 1943. The infamous Treblinka concentration camp was described by the District Court as a “human abattoir” at which several hundred thousand Jewish civilians were murdered. After an armed uprising by the inmates at Treblinka led to the closure of the camp in August 1943, petitioner was transferred to a German labor camp at Danzig and then to the German prisoner-of-war camp at Poelitz, where he continued to serve as an armed guard. Petitioner was eventually transferred to Hamburg where he served as a warehouse guard. Shortly before the British forces entered that city in 1945, petitioner discarded his uniform and was able to pass as a civilian. For the next four years, he worked in Germany as a laborer.
B
In 1948, Congress enacted the Displaced Persons Act (DPA or Act), 62 Stat. 1009, to enable European refugees driven from their homelands by the war to emigrate to the United States without regard to traditional immigration quotas. The Act’s definition of “displaced persons” eligible for immigration to this country specifically excluded individuals who had “assisted the enemy in persecuting civil [ians]” or had “voluntarily assisted the enemy forces... in their operations....” Section 10 of the DPA, 62 Stat. 1013, placed the burden of proving eligibility under the Act on the person seeking admission and provided that “[a]ny person who shall willfully make a misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States as an eligible displaced person shall thereafter not be admissible into the United States.” The Act established an elaborate system for determining eligibility for displaced person status. Each applicant was first interviewed by representatives of the International Refugee Organization of the United Nations (IRO) who ascertained that the person was a refugee or displaced person. The applicant was then interviewed by an official of the Displaced Persons Commission, who made a preliminary determination about his eligibility under the DPA. The final decision was made by one of several State Department vice consuls, who were specially trained for the task and sent to Europe to administer the Act. Thereafter, the application was reviewed by officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to make sure that the applicant was admissible into the United States under the standard immigration laws.
In October 1949, petitioner applied for admission to the United States as a displaced person. Petitioner falsified his visa application by lying about his wartime activities. He told the investigators from the Displaced Persons Commission that he had been a farmer in Sarny, Poland, from 1937 until March 1942, and that he had then been deported to Germany and forced to work in a factory in Poelitz until the end of the war, when he fled to Hamburg. Petitioner told the same story to the vice consul who reviewed his case and he signed a sworn statement containing these false representations as part of his application for a DPA visa. Petitioner’s false statements were not discovered at the time and he was issued a DPA visa, and sailed to the United States where he was admitted for permanent residence. He took up residence in Connecticut and for three decades led an uneventful and law-abiding life as a factory worker.
In 1969, petitioner applied for naturalization at the INS office in Hartford, Conn. Petitioner did not disclose his wartime service as a concentration camp armed guard in his application, and he did not mention it in his sworn testimony to INS naturalization examiners. The INS examiners took petitioner’s visa papers at face value and recommended that his citizenship application be granted. On this recommendation, the Superior Court of New Haven County granted his petition for naturalization and he became an American citizen on April 23,1970.
C
Seven years later, after petitioner had moved to Miami Beach and become a resident of Florida, the Government filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to revoke petitioner’s citizenship. The complaint alleged that petitioner should have been deemed ineligible for a DPA visa because he had served as an armed guard at Treblinka and had committed crimes or atrocities against inmates of the camp because they were Jewish. The Government charged that petitioner had willfully concealed this information both in applying for a DPA visa and in applying for citizenship, and that therefore petitioner had procured his naturalization illegally or by willfully misrepresenting material facts.
The Government’s witnesses at trial included six survivors of Treblinka who claimed that they had seen petitioner commit specific acts of violence against inmates of the camp. Each witness made a pretrial identification of petitioner from a photo array that included his 1949 visa photograph, and three of the witnesses made courtroom identifications. The Government also called as a witness Kempton Jenkins, a career foreign service officer who served in Germany after the war as one of the vice consuls who administered the DPA. Jenkins had been trained to administer the Act and had reviewed some 5,000 visa applications during his tour of duty. Record 711-714, 720-722. Without objection from petitioner, Jenkins was proffered by the Government and accepted by the court, as an expert witness on the interpretation and application of the DPA. Id., at 719-721, 726-727, 734.
Jenkins testified that the vice consuls made the final decision about an applicant’s eligibility for displaced person status. He indicated that if there had been any suggestion that an applicant “had served or been involved in” a concentration camp, processing of his application would have been suspended to permit a thorough investigation. Id., at 766. If it were then determined that the applicant had been an armed guard at the camp, he would have been found ineligible for a visa as a matter of law. Id., at 767-768, 822. Jenkins explained that service as an armed guard at a concentration camp brought the applicant under the statutory exclusion of persons who “assisted the enemy in persecuting civil [ians],” regardless of whether the applicant had not volunteered for service or had not committed atrocities against inmates. Id., at 768, 797-798. Jenkins emphasized that this interpretation of the Act was “uniformly” accepted by the vice consuls, and that furthermore, he knew of no case in which a known concentration camp guard was found eligible for a DPA visa. Id., at 767. Jenkins also described the elaborate system that was used to screen visa applicants and he testified that in interviewing applicants, the vice consuls bent over backwards in interrogating each person to make sure the applicant understood what he was doing. Id., at 746.
Petitioner took the stand in his own behalf. He admitted his service as an armed guard at Treblinka and that he had known that thousands of Jewish inmates were being murdered there. Id., at 1442, 1461-1452, 1465. Petitioner claimed that he was forced to serve as a guard and denied any personal involvement in the atrocities committed at the camp, id., at 1276, 1297-1298, 1539-1540; he insisted that he had merely been a perimeter guard. Petitioner admitted, however, that he had followed orders and shot in the general direction of escaping inmates during the August 1943 uprising that led to closure of the camp. Id., at 1507-1509, 1546, 1564. Petitioner maintained that he was a prisoner of war at Treblinka, id., at 1495, although he admitted that the Russian armed guards significantly outnumbered the German soldiers at the camp, that he was paid a stipend and received a good service stripe from the Germans, and that he was allowed to leave the camp regularly but never tried to escape. Id., at 1467-1471, 1489-1494, 1497, 1508. Finally, petitioner conceded that he deliberately gave false statements about his wartime activities to the investigators from the Displaced Persons Commission and to the vice consul who reviewed his visa application. Id., at 1518-1524.
The District Court entered judgment in favor of petitioner. 455 F. Supp. 893 (1978). The court found that petitioner had served as an armed guard at Treblinka and that he lied about his wartime activities when he applied for a DPA visa in 1949. The court, found, however, that petitioner was forced to serve as a guard. The court concluded that it could credit neither the Treblinka survivors’ identification of petitioner nor their testimony, and it held that the Government had not met its burden of proving that petitioner committed war crimes or atrocities at Treblinka.
Turning to the question whether petitioner’s false statements about his activities during the war were misrepresentations of “material” facts, the District Court, relying on our decision in Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350 (1960), held that the Government had to prove
“that either (1) facts were suppressed ‘which, if known, would have warranted denial of citizenship’ or (2) that their disclosure ‘might have been useful in an investigation possibly leading to the discovery of other facts warranting denial of citizenship.’ ” 455 F. Supp., at 915 (quoting 364 U. S., at 355).
The District Court rejected the Government’s claim that disclosure of petitioner’s service as a concentration camp armed guard would have been grounds for denial of citizenship. The court therefore ruled that the withheld facts were not material under the first Chaunt test. The Government argued, however, that the second Chaunt test did not require proof that the concealed facts prevented an investigation that would have revealed facts warranting denial of citizenship. The Government contended instead that the second test merely required proof that an investigation might have uncovered such facts and it argued that petitioner’s concealment of his service at Treblinka fell within this test. The District Court conceded that the language of Chaunt was ambiguous enough to support the Government’s interpretation of the second test. But relying on decisions-by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits, the District Court rejected the Government’s position and interpreted both Chaunt tests as requiring proof that “the true facts would have warranted denial of citizenship.” 455 F. Supp., at 916. Applying this test, the court ruled that petitioner’s false statements were not “material” within the meaning of the denaturalization statute. In doing so, the court first rejected Jenkins’ testimony and held that petitioner was not ineligible for a DPA visa. The court concluded that petitioner did not come under the DPA’s exclusion of persons who had assisted in the persecution of civilians because he had served involuntarily. Second, the court found that although disclosure of petitioner’s service as a Treblinka guard “certainly would” have prompted an investigation into his activities, the Government had failed to prove that such an inquiry would have uncovered any additional facts warranting denial of petitioner’s application for a visa.. Id., at 916.
As an alternative basis for its decision, the District Court held that even assuming that petitioner had misrepresented “material” facts, equitable and mitigating circumstances required that petitioner be permitted to retain his citizenship. Specifically, the court relied on its finding that the evidence that petitioner had committed any war crimes or atrocities at Treblinka was inconclusive, as well as the uncontroverted evidence that he had been responsible and law-abiding since coming to the United States. The District Court suggested that this Court had not previously considered the question whether a district court has discretion to consider the equities in a denaturalization'case. The court reasoned that since naturalization courts have considered the equities in determining whether citizenship should be granted, similar discretion should also be available in denaturalization proceedings.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for the Government and to cancel petitioner’s certificate of citizenship. 597 F. 2d 946 (1979). Although the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that Chaunt was controlling on the question of the materiality of petitioner’s false statements, it disagreed with the District Court’s interpretation of the second Chaunt test as requiring proof of ultimate facts warranting denial of citizenship. Instead, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Government that the second Chaunt test requires only clear and convincing proof that (a) disclosure of the true facts would have led to an investigation and (b) the investigation might have uncovered other facts warranting denial of citizenship.
In applying its formulation of the second Chaunt test to the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals concluded that one part of the test was satisfied by the District Court’s finding that the American authorities would have conducted an investigation if petitioner had disclosed that he had served as an armed guard at Treblinka. The Court of Appeals then found that Jenkins’ testimony and other evidence before the District Court clearly and convincingly proved that the investigation might have resulted in denial of petitioner’s application for a visa and the Court of Appeals held that petitioner procured his naturalization “by misrepresentation and concealment of his whereabouts during the war years and his service as a concentration camp guard.” 597 F. 2d, at 953. The Court of Appeals further held that the District Court had erred in supposing that it had discretion to enter judgment in favor of petitioner notwithstanding a finding that petitioner had procured his naturalization by willfully concealing material facts. The Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]he denaturalization statute... does not accord the district courts any authority to excuse the fraudulent procurement of citizenship.” Id., at 954. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner’s citizenship must be revoked. We affirm, but for reasons which differ from those stated by the Court of Appeals.
II
Our examination of the questions presented by this case must proceed within the framework established by two lines of prior decisions of this Court that may, at first blush, appear to point in different directions.
On the one hand, our decisions have recognized that the right to acquire American citizenship is a precious one, and that once citizenship has been acquired, its loss can have severe and unsettling consequences. See Costello v. United States, 365 U. S. 265, 269 (1961); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S., at 353; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 675-676 (1944); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 122 (1943). For these reasons, we have held that the Government “carries a heavy burden of proof in a proceeding to divest a naturalized citizen of his citizenship.” Costello v. United States, supra, at 269. The evidence justifying revocation of citizenship must be “ 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing’ ” and not leave “ 'the issue in doubt.’ ” Schneiderman v. United States, supra, at 125 (quoting Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325, 381 (1887)). Any less exacting standard would be inconsistent with the importance of the right that is at stake in a denaturalization proceeding. And in reviewing denaturalization cases, we have carefully examined the record ourselves. See, e. g., Costello v. United States, supra; Chaunt v. United States, supra; Nowak v. United States, 356 U. S. 660 (1958); Baumgartner v. United States, supra.
At the same time, our cases have also recognized that there must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship. Failure to comply with any of these conditions renders the cértificate of citizenship “illegally procured,” and naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be set aside. 8 U. S. C. § 1451 (a); Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253, 267, n. 23 (1967). See Maney v. United States, 278 U. S. 17 (1928); United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319 (1917); United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472 (1917). As we explained in one of these prior decisions:
“An alien who seeks political rights as a member of this Nation can rightfully obtain them only upon terms and conditions specified by Congress....
“No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with; and every certificate of citizenship must be treated as granted upon condition that the government may challenge it... and demand its cancellation unless issued in accordance with such requirements.” United States v. Ginsberg, supra, at 474-475.
This judicial insistence on strict compliance with the statutory conditions precedent to naturalization is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that Congress alone has the constitutional authority to prescribe rules for naturalization, and the courts’ task is to assure compliance with the particular prerequisites to the acquisition of United States citizenship by naturalization legislated to safeguard the integrity of this “priceless treasure.” Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763, 791 (1950) (Black, J., dissenting).
Thus, what may at first glance appear to be two inconsistent lines of cases actually reflect our consistent recognition of the importance of the issues that are at stake — for the citizen as well as the Government — in a denaturalization proceeding. With this in mind, we turn to petitioner’s contention that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the District Court.
Ill
Petitioner does not and, indeed, cannot challenge the Government’s contention that he willfully misrepresented facts about his wartime activities when he applied for a DPA visa in 1949. Petitioner admitted at trial that he “willingly” gave false information in connection with his application for a DPA visa so as to avoid the possibility of repatriation to the Soviet Union. Record 1520. The District Court specifically noted that there was no dispute that petitioner “lied” in his application. 455 F. Supp., at 914. Thus, petitioner falls within the plain language of the DPA’s admonition that “[a]ny person who shall willfully make a misrepresentation for the purposes of gaining admission into the United States as an eligible displaced person shall thereafter not be admissible into the United States.” 62 Stat. 1013. This does not, however, end our inquiry, because we agree with the Government that this provision only applies to willful misrepresentations about “material” facts. The first issue we must examine then, is whether petitioner’s false statements about his activities during the war, particularly the concealment of his Treblinka service, were "material.”
A
At the outset, we must determine the proper standard to be applied in judging whether petitioner’s false statements were material. Both petitioner and the Government have assumed, as did the District Court and the Court of Appeals, that materiality under the above-quoted provision of the DP A is governed by the standard announced in Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350 (1960). But we do not find it so obvious that the Chaunt test is applicable here. In that case, the Government charged that Chaunt had procured his citizenship by concealing and misrepresenting his record of arrests in the United States in his application for citizenship, and that the arrest record was a “material” fact within the meaning of the denaturalization statute. Thus, the materiality standard announced in that case pertained to false statements in applications for citizenship, and the arrests that Chaunt failed to disclose all took place after he came to this country. The case presented no question concerning the lawfulness of his initial entry into the United States.
In the instant case, however, the events on which the Government relies in seeking to revoke petitioner’s citizenship took place before he came to this country and the Government is seeking to revoke petitioner’s citizenship because of the alleged unlawfulness of his initial entry into the United States. Although the complaint charged that petitioner misrepresented facts about his wartime activities in both his application for a visa and his application for naturalization, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals focused on the false statements in petitioner’s application for a visa. Thus, under the analysis of both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the misrepresentation that raises the ma-terality issue in this case was contained in petitioner’s application for a visa. These distinctions plainly raise the important question whether the Chaunt test for materiality of misrepresentations in applications for citizenship also applies to false statements in visa applications.
It is, of course, clear that the materiality of a false statement in a visa application must be measured in terms of its effect on the applicant’s admissibility into this country. See United States v. Rossi, 299 F. 2d 650, 652 (CA9 1962). At the very least, a misrepresentation must be considered material if disclosure of the true facts would have made the applicant ineligible for a visa. Because we conclude that disclosure of the true facts about petitioner’s service as an armed guard at Treblinka would, as a matter of law, have made him ineligible for a visa under the DP A, we find it unnecessary to resolve the question whether Chaunt’s materiality test also governs false statements in visa applications.
Section 2 (b) of the DPA, 62 Stat. 1009, by incorporating the definition of “[p]ersons who will not be [considered displaced persons]” contained in the Constitution of the IR.O, see n. 3, supra, specifically provided that individuals who “assisted the enemy in persecuting civil [ians]” were ineligible for visas under the Act. Jenkins testified that petitioner’s service as an armed guard at a concentration camp — whether voluntary or not — made him ineligible for a visa under this provision. Jenkins’ testimony was based on his firsthand experience as a vice consul in Germany after the war reviewing DPA visa applications. Jenkins also testified that the practice of the vice consuls was to circulate among the other vice consuls the case files of any visa applicant who was shown to have been a concentration camp armed guard. Record 826. Thus, Jenkins and the other vice consuls were particularly well informed about the practice concerning the eligibility of former camp guards for DPA visas. The District Court evidently agreed that a literal interpretation of the statute would confirm the accuracy of Jenkins’ testimony. 455 F. Supp., at 913. But by construing § 2 (a) as only excluding individuals who voluntarily assisted in the persecution of civilians, the District Court was able to ignore Jenkins’ uncontroverted testimony about how the Act was interpreted by the officials who administered it.
The Court of Appeals evidently accepted the District Court’s construction of the Act since it agreed that the Government had failed to show that petitioner was ineligible for a DP A visa. 597 F. 2d, at 953. Because we are unable to find any basis for an “involuntary assistance” exception in the language of § 2 (a), we conclude that the District Court’s construction of the Act was incorrect. The plain language of the Act mandates precisely the literal interpretation that the District Court rejected: an individual’s service as a concentration camp armed guard — whether voluntary or involuntary- — made him ineligible for a visa. That Congress was perfectly capable of adopting a “voluntariness” limitation where it felt that one was necessary is plain from comparing § 2 (a) with § 2 (b), which excludes only those individuals who “voluntarily assisted the enemy forces... in their operations....” Under traditional principles of statutory construction, the deliberate omission of the word “voluntary” from § 2 (a) compels the conclusion that the statute made all those who assisted in the persecution of civilians ineligible for visas. See National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Assn, of Railroad Passengers, 414 U. S. 453, 458 (1974); Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U. S. 282, 289 (1929). As this Court has previously stated: “We are not at liberty to imply a condition which is opposed to the explicit terms of the statute.... To [so] hold... is not to construe the Act but to amend it.” Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Barium, 293 U. S. 21, 38 (1934). See FTC v. Sun Oil Co., 371 U. S. 505, 514-515 (1963). Thus, the plain language of the statute and Jenkins’ uncontradicted and unequivocal testimony leave no room for doubt that if petitioner had disclosed the fact that he had been an armed guard at Treblinka, he would have been found ineligible for a visa under the DPA. This being so, we must conclude that petitioner’s false statements about his wartime activities were “willfu[l] [and material] misrepresentation [s] [made] for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States as an eligible displaced person.” 62 Stat. 1013. Under the express terms of the statute, petitioner was “thereafter not... admissible into the United States.” Ibid.
Our conclusion that petitioner was, as a matter of law, ineligible for a visa under the DPA makes the resolution of this case fairly straightforward. As noted, supra, at 506-507, our cases have established that a naturalized citizen’s failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites for naturalization renders his certificate of citizenship revocable as “illegally procured” under 8 U. S. C. § 1451 (a). In 1970, when petitioner filed his application for and was admitted to citizenship, §§ 316 (a) and 318 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U. S. C. §§ 1427 (a) and 1429, required an applicant for citizenship to be lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Lawful admission for permanent residence in turn required that the individual possess a valid unexpired immigrant visa. At the time of petitioner’s initial entry into this country, § 13 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924, ch. 190, 43 Stat. 153, 161 (repealed in 1952), provided that “[n]o immigrant shall be admitted to the United States unless he (1) has an unexpired immigration visa....” The courts at that time consistently held that § 13 (a) required a valid visa and that a visa obtained through a material misrepresentation was not valid. See, e. g., Ablett v. Brownell, 99 U. S. App. D. C. 387, 391, 240 F. 2d 625, 629 (1957); United States ex rel. Jankowski v. Shaughnessy, 186 F. 2d 580, 582 (CA2 1951). Section 10 of the DP A, 62 Stat. 1013, provided that “all immigration laws,... shall be applicable to... eligible displaced... persons who apply to be or who are admitted into the United States pursuant to this Act.” And as previously noted, petitioner was inadmissible into this country under the express terms of the DPA. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner failed to satisfy a statutory requirement which Congress has imposed as a prerequisite to the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization, we must agree with the Government that petitioner’s citizenship must be revoked because it was “illegally procured.” See Polites v. United States, 364 U. S. 426, 436-437 (1960); Schwinn v. United States, 311 U. S. 616 (1940); Money v. United States, 278 U. S., at 22-23; United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S., at 475; Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 17 (1913); Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227, 240 (1912). Cf. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S., at 163 (Douglas, J., concurring). In the lexicon of our cases, one of the “jurisdictional facts upon which the grant [of citizenship] is predicated,” Johannessen v. United States, supra, at 240, was missing at the time petitioner became a citizen.
B
This conclusion would lead us to affirm on statutory grounds (and not on the basis of our decision in Chaunt), the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner argues, however, that in a denaturalization proceeding, a district court has discretion to consider the equities in determining whether citizenship should be revoked. This is the view adopted by the District Court but rejected by the Court of Appeals. It is true, as petitioner notes, that this Cburt has held that a denaturalization action is a suit in equity. Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 671 (1946); Luria v. United States, supra, at 27-28. Petitioner further points to numerous cases in which the courts have exercised discretion in determining whether citizenship should be granted. See, e. g., In re Iwanenko’s Petition, 145 F. Supp. 838 (ND Ill. 1956); Petition of R., 56 F. Supp. 969 (Mass. 1944). Petitioner would therefore have us conclude that similar discretion should be available to a denaturalization court to weigh the equities in light of all the circumstances in order to arrive at a solution that is just and fair. He then argues that if such power exists, the facts of this case, particularly his record of good conduct over the past 29 years and the reasonable doubts about some of the allegations in the Government’s complaint, all weigh in favor of permitting him to retain his citizenship. Although petitioner presents this argument with respect to revocation of citizenship procured through willful misrepresentation of material facts, we assume that petitioner believes that courts should also be allowed to weigh the equities in deciding whether to revoke citizenship that was “illegally procured,” which is our holding in this case.
We agree with the Court, of Appeals that district courts lack equitable discretion to refrain from entering a judgment of denaturalization against a naturalized citizen whose citizenship was procured illegally or by willful misrepresentation of material facts. Petitioner is correct in noting that courts necessarily and properly exercise discretion in characterizing certain facts while determining whether an applicant for citizenship meets some of the requirements for naturalization. But that limited discretion does not include the authority to excuse illegal or fraudulent procurement of citizenship. As the Court of Appeals stated: “Once it has been determined that a person does not qualify for citizenship,... the district court has no discretion to ignore the defect and grant citizenship.” 597 F. 2d, at 954. By the same token, once a district court determines that the Government has met its burden of proving that a naturalized citizen obtained his citizenship illegally or by willful misrepresentation, it has no discretion to excuse the conduct. Indeed, contrary to the District Court's suggestion, see supra, at 503, this issue had been settled by prior decisions of this Court. In case after case, we have rejected lower court efforts to moderate or otherwise avoid the statutory mandate of Congress in denaturalization proceedings. For example, in United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319 (1917), we ordered the denaturalization of an individual who “possessed the personal qualifications which entitle aliens to admission and to citizenship,” id., at 321, but who had failed to file a certificate of arrival as required by statute. We explained that there was “no power... vested in the naturalization court to dispense with” this requirement. Id., at 324. We repeat here what we said in one of these earlier cases:
“An alien who seeks, political rights as a member of this Nation can rightfully obtain them only upon the terms and conditions specified by Congress. Courts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications; their duty is rigidly to enforce the legislative will in respect of a matter so vital to the public welfare. United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S., at 474-475.
See Maney v. United States, 278 U. S., at 22-23; Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S., at 241-242.
In sum, we hold that petitioner’s citizenship must be revoked under 8 U. S. C. § 1451 (a) because it was illegally procured. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
So ordered.
The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.
Title 8 U. S. C. § 1451 (a) provides in pertinent part:
“It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys... to institute proceedings... in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation....”
Historians estimate that some 800,000 people were murdered at Treblinka. See L. Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, p. 149 (1975); R. Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews 572 (1978).
The District Court described Treblinka in this manner:
“It contained only living facilities for the SS and the persons working there. The thousands who arrived daily on the trains had no need for barracks or mess halls: they would be dead before nightfall. It was operated with a barbarous methodology — brutally efficient — and such camps surely fill one of the darkest chapters in the annals of human existence, certainly the darkest in that which we call Western civilization.” 455 F. Supp. 893, 901, n. 12 (SD Fla. 1978).
The DPA incorporated the definition of “refugees or displaced persons” contained in Annex I to the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization of the United Nations (IRO). See §2 (b
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, six young Negroes, were convicted of breach of the peace for peacefully playing basketball in a public park in Savannah, Georgia, on the early afternoon of Monday, January 23,1961. The record is devoid of evidence of any activity which a breach of the peace statute might be thought to punish. Finding that there is no adequate state ground to bar review by this Court and that the convictions are-violative of due process of láw secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, we hold that the judgments below must be reversed.
Only four witnesses testified at petitioners’ trial: the two arresting officers, the city recreational superintendent, and a sergeant of police. All were prosecution witnesses. No witness contradicted any testimony given by any other witnesses. On the day in question the petitioners were playing in a basketball court at Daffin Park, Savannah, Georgia. The park is owned and operated by' the city for recreational purposes, is about 50 acres in area, and is customarily used only by whites. A white woman notified the two police officer witnesses of the presence of petitioners in the park. They investigated, according to one officer, “because some colored people were playing in the park. I did not ask this white lady how old these people were. As soon as I found out these were colored people I immediately went there.” The officer also conceded that “I have never made previous arrests in Daffin Park because people played basketball there .... I arrested these people for playing basketball in Daffin Park. One reason was because they were negroes. I observed the conduct of these people, when they were on the basketball Court and they were doing nothing besides playing basketball, they were just normally playing basketball, and none of the children from the schools were there at that particular time.” The other officer ad7 mitted that petitioners “were not necessarily creating ány disorder, they were just 'shooting at the goal/ that’s all they were.doing, they wasn’t disturbing anything.” ' Petitioners were neat and well dressed. Nevertheless, the officers ordered the petitioners to leave the park. One petitioner asked one of the officers “by what authority” he asked them to leave; the officer responded that he “didn’t need any orders to come out there . . . .” But he admitted that “it is [not] unusual for one to inquire ‘why’ they are being arrested.” When arrested the petitioners obeyed the police'orders and without disturbance entered the cruiser to be transported to police headquarters. No crowd assembled.
The recreational superintendent’s testimony was confused and contradictory. In essence he testified that school children had preference, in the use of the park’s playground facilities but that there was no objection to use by older persons if children were not there at the time. No children were present at this time. The arrests were made at about 2 p. m. The schools released their students at 2:30 and, according to one officer, it would have been at least 30 minutes before any children could have reached the playground. The officer also stated that he did not know whether the basketball court was reserved for a particular age group and did not know the rules of the City Recreational Department. It was conceded at the trial that no signs were posted in the park indicating what areas, if any, were reserved for younger children at particular hours. In oral argument before this Court it was conceded that the regulations of the park were not printed.
The accusation charged petitioners with assembling “for the purpose of disturbing the public peace . . . .” and not dispersing at the command of the officers. The jury was charged, with respect to the offense itself, only in terms of the accusation and the statute. Upon conviction five petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of .$100 or to serve five months in prison. Petitioner Wright was sentenced to pay a fine of $125 or to serve six months in prison.
Petitioners’ principal contention in this Court is that the breach of the peace statute did not give adequate warning that their conduct violated that enactment in derogation of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This contention was-plainly raised at the trial, both in a demurrer to the accusation and in motions for a new trial, and was pressed on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Both the demurrer and new trial motions raised a number of other issues. The Georgia Supreme Court held that error in the denial of the motions for a new trial could not be considered because it was not properly briefed on the appeal. But the court nevertheless seemed to pass upon- the claim because it had been raised in the demurrer, and affirmed the convictions. 217 Ga. 453, 122 S. E. 2d 737. Certiorari was granted. 370 U. S. 935.
Since there is some question as to whether the' Georgia Supreme Court considered petitioners’ claim of vagueness to have been properly raised in the demurrer, we prefer to rest our jurisdiction upon a firmer foundation. We hold, for the reasons set forth hereinafter, that there was no adequate state ground for the Georgia court’s refusal to consider error in the denial of petitioners’ motions for a new trial.
I.
A commentator on Georgia procedure has concluded that “[pjrobably no phase of pleading in Georgia is fraught with more technicalities than with respect to raising constitutional issues.” Examination of the Georgia cases bears out this assertion. In an extraordinary number an attempt to raise constitutional issues has been frustrated by a holding that the question was not properly raised or pursued. But “[wjhatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24. See also Love v. Griffith, 266 U. S. 32; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359; Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449.
In this case the Georgia Supreme Court held that error in the denial of the motions for a new trial,could not be considered because “[t]here was no argument, citation of authority, or statement that [the grounds for reversal stated in the new trial motions] . . . were still relied upon.” The. court found “the applicable rule, as laid down in Henderson v. Lott, 163 Ga. 326 (2) (136 SE 403), [to be] . . . : 'Assignments of error not insisted upon by counsel in their briefs or otherwise will be treated by this court as abandoned. A mere recital in briefs of the existence of an assignment of error, without argument of citation of authorities in its support, and without a statement that it is insisted upon by counsel, is insufficient to save it from being treatéd as abandoned.' ” 217 Ga., at 454-455, 122 S. E. 2d, at 740. Presumably the court was restating the requirements of § 6-1308 of the Georgia Annotated Code of 1935. That section provides: “All questions raised in the motiqn for new trial shall be considered by the appellate court except where questions so raised are expressly or impliedly abandoned by counsel either in the brief or upon oral argument. A general insistence upon all the grounds of the motion shall be held to be sufficient.”
To ascertain the precise holding of the Georgia court we must examine the brief which the petitioners submitted in connection with their appeal. It specifically assigned as error the overruling of their motions for a new trial. And in the section of the brief devoted to argument it was stated:
“Plaintiffs-in-Error had assembled for the purpose of playing basketball and were in fact only playing basketball in a municipally owned park, according to the State’s own evidence.' Nevertheless, they were arrested and convicted under the said statute which prohibited assemblies for the purpose of ‘disturbing the public peace or committing any unlawful act.’ Where a statute is so vague as to make criminal an innocent act, a conviction under it cannot be sustained. Murray Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507. . . . Plaintiffs-in-Error could not possibly have predetermined from the wording of the statute- that it would have punished as a misdemeanor an assembly for the purpose of playing basketball.”
Obviously petitioners did-in fact argue the-point which they press in this Court. Thus the holding of the Georgia court must not have been that the petitioners abandoned their argument but rather that the argument could not be considered because it was not explicitly identified in the brief with the motions for a new trial. In short the Georgia court would require the petitioners to say something like the following at the end of the paragraph quoted above: “A fortiori it was error for the trial court to overrule the motions for a new trial.” As was said in a similar case coming to us from the Georgia courts, this “would be to force resort to an arid ritual of meaningless form.” Staub v. City of Baxley, supra, at 320. The State may not do that here any more than it could in Staub. Here, as in Staub, the state ground is inadequate. Its inadequacy is especially apparent because no prior Georgia case which respondent has cited nor which we have found gives notice of the existence of any requirement that an argument in a brief be specifically identified with a motion made in the trial court. “[A] local procedural rule, although it may now appear in retrospect to form part of a consistent pattern of procedures . . . , cannot avail the State here, because petitioners] could not fairly be deemed to have been apprised of its existence. Novelty in procedural requirements cannot be permitted to thwart review in this Court . . . .” N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, supra, at 457. We proceed to a consideration of the merits of petitioners’ constitutional claim.
II.
Three possible bases for petitioners’ convictions are suggested. First, it is said that failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that ' command is itself violative of the Constitution. • The command of the officers in this case was doubly a violation of petitioners’ .constitutional rights. It was obviously based, according to the testimony of the arresting officers themselves, upon their intention to enforce racial diserim- . ination in the park. For this reason the order violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See New Orleans Park Improvement Assn. v. Detiege, 358 U. S. 54, affirming 252 F. 2d 122. The command was also violative of petitioners’ rights because, as will be seen, the other asserted basis for the order — the possibility of disorder by others — could not justify exclusion , of the petitioners from the park. Thus petitioners could not constitutionally be convicted for refusing to obey the officers. If petitioners were held guilty of violating the Georgia statute because they disobeyed the officers, this case falls within the rule that a generally worded statute which is construed to punish conduct which cannot ■constitutionally be punished is unconstitutionálly vague to the extent that it fails to give adequate warning of the boundary between the constitutionally permissible and constitutionally impermissible applications of the statute. Cf. Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359; see also Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196.
Second, it is argued that petitioners were guilty of a breach of the peace because their activity was likely to cause a breach of the peace by others. The only evidence to support this contention is testimony of one of the police officers that “The purpose of asking them to leave was to keep down trouble, which looked like to me might start — there were five or six cars driving around the park at the time, white people.” But that officer also stated that this “was [not] unusual traffic for that time of day.” And the park was 50 acrés in area. Respondent contends the petitioners were forewarned that their conduct would be held to violate the statute. See Samuels v. State, 103 Ga. App. 66, 118 S. E. 2d 231. But it is sufficient to say again that a generally worded statute, when construed to punish conduct which cannot be constitutionally punished, is unconstitutionally vague. And the possibility of disorder by others cannot justify exclusion of persons from a place if they otherwise have a constitutional right (founded upon the Equal Protection Clause) to be present. Taylor v. Louisiana, 370 U. S. 154; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, 174; see also Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 80-81.
Third, it is said that the petitioners were guilty of a breach of the peace because a park rule reserved the playground for the use of younger people at the time. However, neither the existence nor the posting of any such rule has been proved. Cf. Lambert v. California, 355 U. S. 225, 228. The pólice officers did not inform them of it because they had no knowledge of any such rule themselves. Furthermore', it is conceded that there was no sign or printed regulation'which would give notice, of any such rule.
Under any view of the facts alleged to constitute the. violation it cannot be maintained that petitioners had adequate notice that their conduct was prohibited by the breach of the peace statute. It is well established that a conviction under a criminal enactment which does not give adequate notice that the conduct charged is prohibited is violative of due process. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451; Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385; United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81; see also United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29.
Reversed.
The statute, Ga. Code Ann., 1953, § 26-5301, provides:
“Unlawful assemblies. — Any two or more persons who shall assemble for the purpose of disturbing the public peace or committing any unlawful act, and shall not disperse on being commanded to do so by a judge, justice, sheriff, constable, coroner, or other peace officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
The Georgia court refused to consider two of the constitutional claims asserted in the demurrer. But these allegations charged only unconstitutional administration of the statute. It is well settled in' Georgia that the constitutionality of the statute upon which the charge is based may be attacked by demurrer. The Georgia Supreme Court, over 65 years ago, held that “[u]nder the general demurrer [to the accusation] the constitutionality of the law under which the accused was arraigned is brought.in question.” Newman v. State, 101 Ga. 534, 536, 28 S. E. 1005 (1897). This rule was later qualified to require the defendant to set out the ground of his attack, with particularity in the demurrer. See, e. g., Henderson v. Georgia, 123 Ga. 465, 466, 51 S. E. 385, 386. In numerous cases it has been assumed that a constitutional objection on the ground of vagueness may properly be made by demurrer. Teague v. Keith, 214 Ga. 853, 108 S. E. 2d 489; Harris v. State, 191 Ga. 243, 12 S. E. 2d 64; Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 747, 169 S. E. 201; Dalton v. State, 176 Ga. 645, 169 S. E. 198; Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 55, 166 S. E. 827, 167 S. E. 103; Hughes v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 162 Ga. 246, 134 S. E. 42. See also Henderson v. State, 113 Ga. 1148, 39 S. E. 446. In other cases the Georgia Supreme Court has held that certain procedures, other than a demurrer, do not constitute the proper method to attack the constitutionality of the statute upon which the charge or claim was based. In each of these cases the Georgia court specifically stated that a demurrer would constitute a proper procedural device. Eaves v. State, 113 Ga. 749, 758, 39 S. E. 318, 321; Boswell v. State, 114 Ga. 40, 41, 39 S. E. 897; Hendry v. State, 147 Ga. 260, 265, 93 S. E. 413, 415; Starling v. State, 149 Ga. 172, 99 S. E. 619; Savannah Elec. Co. v. Thomas, 154 Ga. 258, 113 S. E. 806; Moore v. State, 194 Ga. 672, 22 S. E. 2d 510; Stone v. State, 202 Ga. 203, 42 S. E. 2d 727; Loomis v. State, 203 Ga. 394, 405, 47 S. E. 2d 58, 64; Flynt v. Dumas, 205 Ga. 702, 54 S. E. 2d 429; Corbin v. State, 212 Ga. 231, 91 S. E. 2d 764; Renfroe v. Wallace, 214 Ga. 685, 107 S. E. 2d 225.
Respondent does not argue that an adequate state ground exists insofar as petitioners’ claim of vagueness was raised in the demurrer.
The question arises because of the Georgia rule against speaking demurrers, i. e., demurrers which rely upon facts not stated in the accusation. Though the demurrer itself (in stating the claim of vagueness) did not set forth new facts, petitioners’ constitutional claim is established only by considering the State’s evidence in connection with the accusation and the statute.
Leverett, Hall, Christopher, Davis and Shulman, Georgia Procedure and Practice (1957), 38.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether the Controlled Substances Act allows the United States Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, notwithstanding a state law permitting the procedure. As the Court has observed, “Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted suicide.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 735 (1997). The dispute before us is in part a product of this political and moral debate, but its resolution requires an inquiry familiar to the courts: interpreting a federal statute to determine whether executive action is authorized by, or otherwise consistent with, the enactment.
In 1994, Oregon became the first State to legalize assisted suicide when voters approved a ballot measure enacting the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA). Ore. Rev. Stat. § 127.800 et seq. (2003). ODWDA, which survived a 1997 ballot measure seeking its repeal, exempts from civil or criminal liability state-licensed physicians who, in compliance with the specific safeguards in ODWDA, dispense or prescribe a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of a terminally' ill patient.
The drugs Oregon physicians prescribe under ODWDA are regulated under a federal statute, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA or Act). 84 Stat. 1242, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq. The CSA allows these particular drugs to be available only by a written prescription from a registered physician. In the ordinary course the same drugs are prescribed in smaller doses for pain alleviation.
A November 9, 2001, Interpretive Rule issued by the Attorney General «addresses the implementation and enforcement of the CSA with respect to ODWDA. It determines that using controlled substances to assist suicide is not a legitimate medical practice and that dispensing or prescribing them for this purpose is unlawful under the CSA. The Interpretive Rule’s validity under the CSA is the issue before us.
I
A
We turn first to the text and structure of the CSA. Enacted in 1970 with the main objectives of combating drug abusé and controlling the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances, the CSA creates a comprehensive, closed regulatory regime criminalizing the unauthorized manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of substances classified in any of the Act’s five schedules. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 12-13 (2005); 21 U. S. C. §841 (2000 ed. and Supp. II); 21 U. S. C. §844. The Act places substances in one of five schedules based on their potential for abuse or dependence, their accepted medical use, and their accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Schedule I contains the most severe restrictions on access and use, and Schedule V the least. Raich, supra, at 14; 21 U. S. C. §812. Congress classified a host of substances when it enacted the CSA, but the statute permits the Attorney General to add, remove, or reschedule substances. He may do so, however, only after making particular findings, and on scientific and medical matters he is required to accept the findings of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). These proceedings must be on the record after an opportunity for comment. See 21U. S. C. § 811 (2000 ed. and Supp. V).
The present dispute involves controlled substances listed in Schedule II, substances generally available only pursuant to a written, nonrefillable prescription by a physician. 21 U. S. C. § 829(a). A 1971 regulation promulgated by the Attorney General requires that every prescription for a controlled substance “be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR § 1306.04(a) (2005).
To prevent diversion of controlled substances with medical uses, the CSA regulates the activity of physicians. To issue lawful prescriptions of Schedule II drugs, physicians must “obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by him.” 21 U. S. C. § 822(a)(2). The Attorney General may deny, suspend, or revoke this registration if, as relevant here, the physician’s registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” § 824(a)(4); § 822(a)(2). When deciding whether a practitioner’s registration is in the public interest, the Attorney General “shall” consider:
“(1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
“(2) The applicant’s experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
“(3) The applicant’s conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
“(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
“(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.” § 823(f).
The CSA explicitly contemplates a role for the States in regulating controlled substances, as evidenced by its preemption provision.
“No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates... to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision... and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.” §903.
B
Oregon voters enacted ODWDA in 1994. For Oregon residents to be eligible to request a prescription under ODWDA, they must receive a diagnosis from their attending physician that they have an incurable and irreversible disease that, within reasonable medical judgment, will cause death within six months. Ore. Rev. Stat. §§127.815, 127.800(12) (2008). Attending physicians must also determine whether a patient has made a voluntary request, ensure a patient’s choice is informed, and refer patients to counseling if they might be suffering from a psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment. §§ 127.815, 127.825. A second “consulting” physician must examine the patient and the medical record and confirm the attending physician’s conclusions. § 127.800(8). Oregon physicians may dispense or issue a prescription for the requested drug, but may not administer it. §§ 127.815(1)(L), 127.880.
The reviewing physicians must keep detailed medical records of the process leading to the final prescription, § 127.855, records that Oregon’s Department of Human Services reviews, §127.865. Physicians who dispense medication pursuant to ODWDA must also be registered with both the State’s Board of Medical Examiners and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). § 127.815(1)(L). In 2004, 37 patients ended their lives by ingesting a lethal dose of medication prescribed under ODWDA. Oregon Dept, of Human Servs., Seventh Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act 20 (Mar. 10, 2005).
C
In 1997, Members of Congress concerned about ODWDA invited the DEA to prosecute or revoke the CSA registration of Oregon physicians who assist suicide. They contended that hastening a patient’s death is not legitimate medical practice, so prescribing controlled substances for that purpose violates the CSA. Letter from Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Henry Hyde to Thomas A. Constantine (July 25, 1997), reprinted in Hearing on S. 2151 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1999) (hereinafter Hearing). The letter received an initial, favorable response from the director of the DEA, see Letter from Thomas A. Constantine to Sen. Orrin Hatch (Nov. 5, 1997), Hearing 4-5, but Attorney General Reno considered the matter and concluded that the DEA could not take the proposed action because the CSA did not authorize it to “displace the states as the primary regulators of the medical profession, or to override a state’s determination’ as to what constitutes legitimate medical practice,” Letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to Sen. Orrin Hatch, on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (June 5,1998), Hearing 5-6. Legislation was then introduced to grant the explicit authority Attorney General Reno found lacking; but it failed to pass. See H. R. 4006,105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998); H. R. 2260, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999).
In 2001, John Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General. Perhaps because Mr. Ashcroft had supported efforts to curtail assisted suicide while serving as a Senator, see, e. g., 143 Cong. Rec. 5589-5590 (1997) (remarks of Sen. Ashcroft), Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers wrote him to request a meeting with Department of Justice officials should the Department decide to revisit the application of the CSA to assisted suicide. Letter of Feb. 2, 2001, App. to Brief for Patient-Respondents in Opposition 55a. Attorney General Myers received a reply letter from one of Attorney General Ashcroft’s advisers writing on his behalf, which stated:
“I am aware of no pending legislation in Congress that would prompt a review of the Department’s interpretation of the CSA as it relates to physician-assisted suicide. Should such a review be commenced in the future, we would be happy to include your views in that review.” Letter from Lori Sharpe (Apr. 17, 2001), id., at 58a.
On November 9,2001, without consulting Oregon or apparently anyone outside his Department, the Attorney General issued an Interpretive Rule announcing his intent to restrict the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide. Incorporating the legal analysis of a memorandum he had solicited from his Office of Legal Counsel, the Attorney General ruled:
“[Assisting suicide is not a ‘legitimate medical purpose’ within the meaning of 21 CFR 1306.04 (2001), and that prescribing, dispensing, or administering federally controlled substances to assist suicide violates the Controlled Substances Act. Such conduct by a physician registered to dispense controlled substances may ‘render his registration... inconsistent with the public interest’ and therefore subject to possible suspension or revocation under 21 U. S. C. 824(a)(4). The Attorney General’s conclusion applies regardless of whether state law authorizes or permits such conduct by practitioners or others and regardless of the condition of the person whose suicide is assisted.” 66 Fed. Reg. 56608 (2001).
There is little dispute that the Interpretive Rule would substantially disrupt the ODWDA regime. Respondents contend, and petitioners do not dispute, that every prescription filled under ODWDA has specified drugs classified under Schedule II. A physician cannot prescribe the substances without DEA registration, and revocation or suspension of the registration would be a severe restriction on medical practice. Dispensing controlled substances without a valid prescription, furthermore, is a federal crime. See, e. g., 21 U. S. C. § 841(a)(1); United States v. Moore, 423 U. S. 122 (1975).
In response the State of Oregon, joined by a physician, a pharmacist, and some terminally ill patients, all from Oregon, challenged the Interpretive Rule in federal court. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon entered a permanent injunction against the Interpretive Rule’s enforcement.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the petitions for review and held the Interpretive Rule invalid. Oregon v. Ashcroft, 368 F. 3d 1118 (2004). It reasoned that, by making a medical procedure authorized under Oregon law a federal offense, the Interpretive Rule altered the “‘“usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government” ’ ” without the requisite clear statement that the CSA authorized such action. Id., at 1124-1125 (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 460 (1991), in turn quoting Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 242 (1985)). The Court of Appeals held in the alternative that the Interpretive Rule could not be squared with the plain language of the CSA, which targets only conventional drug abuse and excludes the Attorney General from decisions on medical policy. 368 F. 3d, at 1125-1129.
We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. 543 U. S: 1145 (2005).
II
Executive actors often must interpret the enactments Congress has charged them with enforcing and implementing. The parties before us are in sharp disagreement both as to the degree of deference we must accord the Interpretive Rule’s substantive conclusions and whether the Rule is authorized by the statutory text at all. Although balancing the necessary respect for an agency’s knowledge, expertise, and constitutional office with the courts’ role as interpreter of laws can be a delicate matter, familiar principles guide us. An administrative rule may receive substantial deference if it interprets the issuing agency’s own ambiguous regulation. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461-463 (1997). An interpretation of an ambiguous statute may also receive substantial deference. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-845 (1984). Deference in accordance with Chevron, however, is warranted only “when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 226-227 (2001). Otherwise, the interpretation is “entitled to respect” only to the extent it has the “power to persuade.” Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944).
A
The Government first argues that the Interpretive Rule is an elaboration of one of the Attorney General’s own regulations, 21 CFR §1306.04 (2005), which requires all prescriptions be issued “for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” As such, the Government says, the Interpretive Rule is entitled to considerable deference in accordance with Auer.
In our view Auer and the standard of deference it accords to an agency are inapplicable here. Auer involved a disputed interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as applied to a class of law enforcement officers. Under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, an exemption from overtime pay depended, in part, on whether the employees met the “salary basis” test. 519 U. S., at 454-455. In this Court the Secretary of Labor filed an amicus brief explaining why, in his view, the regulations gave exempt status to the officers. Id., at 461. We gave weight to that interpretation, holding that because the applicable test was “a creature of the Secretary’s own regulations, his interpretation of it is, under our jurisprudence, controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Auer, the underlying regulations gave specificity to a statutory scheme the Secretary of Labor was charged with enforcing and reflected the considerable experience and expertise the Department of Labor had acquired over time with respect to the complexities of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Here, on the other hand, the underlying regulation does little more than restate the terms of the statute itself. The language the Interpretive Rule addresses comes from Congress, not the Attorney General, and the near equivalence of the statute and regulation belies the Government’s argument for Auer deference.
The Government does not suggest that its interpretation turns on any difference between the statutory and regulatory language. The CSA allows prescription of drugs only if they have a “currently accepted medical use,” 21 U. S. C. § 812(b); requires a “medical purpose” for dispensing the least controlled substances of those on the schedules, § 829(c); and, in its reporting provision, defines a “valid prescription” as one “issued for a legitimate medical purpose,” §830(b)(3)(A)(ii).. Similarly, physicians are considered to be acting as practitioners under the statute if they dispense controlled substances “in the course of professional practice.” §802(21). The regulation uses the terms “legitimate medical purpose” and “the course of professional practice,” ibid., but this just repeats two statutory phrases and attempts to summarize the others. It gives little or no instruction on a central issue in this case: Who decides whether a particular activity is in “the course of professional practice” or done for a “legitimate medical purpose”? Since the regulation gives no indication how to decide this issue, the Attorney General’s effort to decide it now cannot be considered an interpretation of the regulation. Simply put, the existence of a parroting regulation does not change the fact that the question here is not the meaning of the regulation but the meaning of the statute. An agency does not acquire special authority to interpret its own words when, instead of using its expertise and experience to formulate a regulation, it has elected merely to paraphrase the statutory language.
Furthermore, as explained below, if there is statutory authority to issue the Interpretive Rule it comes from the 1984 amendments to the CSA that gave the Attorney General authority to register and deregister physicians based on the public interest. The regulation was enacted before those amendments, so the Interpretive Rule cannot be justified as indicative of some intent the Attorney General had in 1971. That the current interpretation runs counter to the “intent at the time of the regulation’s promulgation” is an additional reason why Auer deference is unwarranted. Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 512 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Deference under Auer being inappropriate, we turn to the question whether the Interpretive Rule, on its own terms, is a permissible interpretation of the CSA.
B
Just as the Interpretive Rule receives no deference under. Auer, neither does it receive deference under Chevron. If a statute is ambiguous, judicial review of administrative rulemaking often demands Chevron deference; and the rule is judged accordingly. All would agree, we should think, that the statutory phrase “legitimate medical purpose” is a generality, susceptible to more precise definition and open to varying constructions, and thus ambiguous in the relevant sense. Chevron deference, however, is not accorded merely because the statute is ambiguous and an administrative official is involved. To begin with, the rule must be promulgated pursuant to authority Congress has delegated to the official. Mead, supra, at 226-227.
The Attorney General has rulemaking power to fulfill his duties under the CSA. The specific respects in which he is authorized to make rules, however, instruct us that he is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law.
'Die starting point for this inquiry is, of course, the language of the delegation provision itself. In many cases authority is clear because the statute gives an agency broad power to enforce all provisions of the statute. See, e. g., Na tional Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 980 (2005) (explaining that a Federal Communications Commission regulation received Chevron deference because “Congress has delegated to the Commission the authority to... ‘prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions’ of the Act” (quoting 47 U. S. C. § 201(b))); Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig, 541 U. S. 232, 238 (2004) (giving Chevron deference to a Federal Reserve Board regulation where “Congress has expressly delegated to the Board the authority to prescribe regulations... as, in the judgment of the Board, ‘are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of’” the statute (quoting 15 U. S. C. § 1604(a))). The CSA does not grant the Attorney General this broad authority to promulgate rules.
The CSA gives the Attorney General limited powers, to be exercised in specific ways. His rulemaking authority under the CSA is described in two provisions: (1) “The Attorney General is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations and to charge reasonable fees relating to the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of controlled substances and to listed chemicals,” 21 U. S. C. §821 (2000 ed., Supp. V); and (2) “The Attorney General may promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures which he may deem necessary and appropriate for the efficient execution of his functions under this subchapter,” 21 U. S. C. § 871(b). As is evident from these sections, Congress did not delegate to the Attorney General authority to carry out or effect all provisions of the CSA. Rather, he can promulgate rules relating only to “registration” and “control,” and “for the efficient execution of his functions” under the statute.
Turning first to the Attorney General’s authority to make regulations for the “control” of drugs, this delegation cannot sustain the Interpretive Rule’s attempt to define standards of medical practice. Control is a term of art in the CSA. “As used in this subchapter,” §802 — the subchapter that includes §821—
“The term ‘control’ means to add a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, to a schedule under part B of this subchapter, whether by transfer from another schedule or otherwise.” §802(5).
To exercise his scheduling power, the Attorney General must follow a detailed set of procedures, including requesting a scientific and medical evaluation from the Secretary. See 21 U. S. C. §§811, 812 (2000 ed. and Supp. V). The statute is also specific as to the manner in which the Attorney General must exercise this authority: “Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection [regarding scheduling] shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by [the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 553].” 21 U. S. C. § 811(a). The Interpretive Rule now under consideration does not concern the scheduling of substances and was not issued after the required procedures for rules regarding scheduling, so it cannot fall under the Attorney General’s “control” authority.
Even if “control” in §821 were understood to signify something other than its statutory definition, it would not support the Interpretive Rule. The statutory references to “control” outside the scheduling context make clear that the Attorney General can establish controls “against diversion,” e. g., § 828(a)(1), but do not give him authority to define diversion based on his view of legitimate medical practice. As explained below, the CSA’s express limitations on the Attorney General’s authority, and other indications from the statutory scheme, belie any notion that the Attorney General has been granted this implicit authority. Indeed, if “control” were given the expansive meaning required to sustain the Interpretive Rule, it would transform the carefully described limits on the Attorney General’s authority over registration and scheduling into mere suggestions.
We turn, next, to the registration provisions of the CSA. Before 1984, the Attorney General was required to register any physician who was authorized by his State. The Attorney General could only deregister a physician who falsified his application, was convicted of a felony relating to controlled substances, or had his state license or registration revoked. See 84 Stat. 1255. The CSA was amended in 1984 to allow the Attorney General to deny registration to an applicant “if he determines that the issuance of such registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U. S. C. § 823(f). Registration may also be revoked or suspended by the Attorney General on the same grounds. § 824(a)(4). In determining consistency with the public interest, the Attorney General must, as discussed above, consider five factors, including: the State’s recommendation; compliance with state, federal, and local laws regarding controlled substances; and public health and safety. § 823(f).
The Interpretive Rule cannot be justified under this part of the statute. It does not undertake the five-factor analysis and concerns much more than registration. Nor does the Interpretive Rule on its face purport to be an application of the registration provision in § 823(f). It is, instead, an interpretation of the substantive federal law requirements (under 21 CFR § 1306.04 (2005)) for a valid prescription. It begins by announcing that assisting suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose” under § 1306.04, and that dispensing controlled substances to assist a suicide violates the CSA. 66 Fed. Reg. 56608. Violation is a criminal offense, and often a felony, under 21 U. S. C. §841 (2000 ed. and Supp. II). The Interpretive Rule thus purports to declare that using controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide is a crime, an authority that goes well beyond the Attorney General’s statutory power to register or deregister.
The Attorney General’s deregistration power, of course, may carry implications for criminal enforcement because if a physician dispenses a controlled substance after he is dereg-istered, he violates §841. The Interpretive Rule works in the opposite direction, however: It declares certain conduct criminal, placing in jeopardy the registration of any physician who engages in that conduct. To the extent the Interpretive Rule concerns registration, it simply states the obvious because one of the five factors the Attorney General must consider in deciding the “public interest” is “[cjompliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.” 21 U. S. C. § 823(f)(4). The problem with the design of the Interpretive Rule is that it cannot, and does not, explain why the Attorney General has the authority to decide what constitutes an underlying violation of the CSA in the first place. The explanation the Government seems to advance is that the Attorney General’s authority to decide whether a physician’s actions are inconsistent with the “public interest” provides the basis for the Interpretive Rule.
By this logic, however, the Attorney General claims extraordinary authority. If the Attorney General’s argument were correct, his power to deregister necessarily would include the greater power to criminalize even the actions of registered physicians, whenever they engage in conduct he deems illegitimate. This power to criminalize — unlike his power over registration, which must be exercised only after considering five express statutory factors — would be unrestrained. It would be anomalous for Congress to have so painstakingly described the Attorney General’s limited authority to deregister a single physician or schedule a single drug, but to have given him, just by implication, authority to declare an entire class of activity outside “the course of professional practice,” and therefore a criminal violation of the CSA. See Federal Maritime Comm’n v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U. S. 726, 744 (1973) (“In light of these specific grants of... authority, we are unwilling to construe the ambiguous provisions... to serve this purpose [of creating further authority] — a purpose for which it obviously was not intended”).
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U. S. 471 (1999), is instructive. The statute at issue was the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which, like the CSA, divides interpretive authority among various executive actors. The Court relied on “the terms and structure of the ADA” to decide that neither the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), nor any other agency, had authority to define “disability” in the ADA. Id., at 479. Specifically, the delegating provision stated that the EEOC “shall issue regulations... to carry out this subchapter,” 42 U. S. C. § 12116, and the section of the statute defining “disability” was in a different subchapter. The Court did not accept the idea that because “the employment subchapter, i. e., ‘this subchapter,’ includes other provisions that use the defined terms,... [t]he EEOC might elaborate, through regulations, on the meaning of ‘disability’... if elaboration is needed in order to ‘carry out’ the substantive provisions of ‘this sub-chapter.’” 527 U. S., at 514 (Breyer, J., dissenting). See also Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U. S. 638, 649-650 (1990) (holding that a delegation of authority to promulgate motor vehicle safety “standards” did not include the authority to decide the pre-emptive scope of the federal statute because “[n]o such delegation regarding [the statute’s] enforcement provisions is evident in the statute”).
The same principle controls here. It is not enough that the terms “public interest,” “public health and safety,” and “Federal law” are used in the part of the statute over which the Attorney General has authority. The statutory terms “public interest” and “public health” do not call on the Attorney General, or any other executive official, to make an independent assessment of the meaning-of federal law. The Attorney General did not base the Interpretive Rule on an application of the five-factor test generally, or the “public health and safety” factor, specifically. Even if he had, it is doubtful the Attorney General could cite the “public interest” or “public health” to deregister a physician simply because he deemed a controversial practice permitted by state law to have an illegitimate medical purpose.
As for the federal-law factor, though it does require the Attorney General to decide “Compliance” with the law, it does not suggest that he may decide what the law says. Were it otherwise, the Attorney General could authoritatively interpret “State” and “local laws,” which are also included in 21 U. S. C. § 823(f), despite the obvious constitutional problems in his doing so. Just as he must evaluate compliance with federal law in deciding about registration, the Attorney General must as surely evaluate compliance with federal law in deciding whether to prosecute; but this does not entitle him to Chevron deference. See Crandon v. United States, 494 U. S. 152, 177 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (“The Justice Department, of course, has a very specific responsibility to determine for itself what this statute means, in order to decide when to prosecute; but we have never thought that the interpretation of those charged with prosecuting criminal statutes is entitled to deference”).
The limits on the Attorney General’s authority to define medical standards for the care and treatment of patients bear also on the proper interpretation of § 871(b). This section allows the Attorney General to best determine how to execute “his functions.” It is quite a different matter, however, to say that the Attorney General can define the substantive standards of medical practice as part of his authority. To find a delegation of this extent in §871 would put that part of the statute in considerable tension with the narrowly defined delegation concerning control and registration. It would go, moreover, against the plain language of the text to treat a delegation for the “execution” of his functions as a further delegation to define other functions well beyond the statute’s specific grants of authority. When Congress chooses to delegate a power of this extent, it does so not by referring back to the administrator’s functions but by giving authority over the provisions of the statute he is to interpret. See, e. g., National Cable & Telecommunications Assn., 545 U. S. 967; Household Credit Services, 541 U. S. 232.
The authority desired by the Government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects. The Attorney General does not have the sole delegated authority under the CSA. He must instead share it with, and. in some respects defer to, the Secretary, whose functions are likewise delineated and confined by the statute. The CSA allocates decisionmaking powers among statutory actors so that medical judgments, if they are to be decided at the federal level and for the limited objects of the statute, are placed in the hands of the Secretary. In the scheduling context, for example, the Secretary’s recommendations on scientific and medical matters bind the Attorney General. The Attorney General cannot control a substance if the Secretary disagrees. 21 U. S. C. § 811(b). See H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, pt. 1, p. 33 (1970) (the section “is not intended to authorize the Attorney General to undertake or support medical and scientific research [for the purpose of scheduling], which is within the competence of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare”).
In a similar vein the 1970 Act’s regulation of medical practice with respect to drug rehabilitation gives the Attorney General a limited role; for it is the Secretary who, after consultation with the Attorney General and national medical groups, “determine[s] the appropriate methods of professional practice in the medical treatment of... narcotic addiction.” 42 U. S. C. § 290bb-2a; see 21 U. S. C. § 823(g) (2000 ed. and Supp. II) (stating that the Attorney General shall register practitioners who dispense drugs for narcotics treatment when the Secretary has determined the applicant is qualified to treat addicts and the Attorney General has con-eluded the applicant will comply with recordkeeping and security regulations); Moore, 423 U. S., at 144 (noting that in enacting the addiction-treatment provisions, Congress sought to change the fact “that ‘criminal prosecutions’ in the past had turned on the opinions of federal prosecutors”); H. R. Rep. No. 93-884, p. 6 (1974) (“This section preserves the distinctions found in the [CSA] between the functions of the Attorney General and the Secretary.... All decisions of a medical nature are to be made by the Secretary.... Law enforcement decisions respecting the security of stocks of narcotic drugs and the maintenance of records on such drugs are to be made by the Attorney General”).
Postenactment congressional commentary on the CSA’s regulation of medical practice is also at odds with the Attorney General’s claimed authority to determine appropriate medical standards. In 1978, in preparation for ratification of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Feb. 21,1971, [1979-1980] 32 U. S. T. 543, T. I. A. S. No. 9725, Congress decided it would implement the United States’ compliance through “the framework of the procedures and criteria for classification of substances provided in the” CSA. 21 U. S. C. §801a(3). It did so to ensure that “nothing in the Convention will interfere with ethical medical practice in this country as determined by [the Secretary] on the basis of a consensus of the views of the American medical and scientific community.” Ibid.
The structure of the CSA, then, conveys unwillingness to cede medical judgments to an executive official who lacks medical expertise. In interpreting statutes that divide authority, the Court has recognized: “Because historical familiarity and policymaking expertise account in the first instance for the presumption that Congress delegates interpretive lawmaking power to the agency rather than to the reviewing court, we presume here that Congress intended to invest interpretive power in the administrative actor in the best position to develop these attributes.” Mar tin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S. 144, 153 (1991) (citations omitted). This presumption works against a conclusion that 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: | 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.
Me. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, Negro residents of Little Rock, Arkansas, brought this class action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to enjoin respondent from denying them admission to a recreational facility called Lake Nixon Club owned and operated by respondent, Euell Paul, and his wife. The complaint alleged that Lake Nixon Club was a “public accommodation” subject to the provisions of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a et seq., and that respondent violated the Act in refusing petitioners admission solely on racial grounds. After trial, the District Court, although finding that respondent had refused petitioners admission solely because they were Negroes, dismissed the complaint on the ground that Lake Nixon Club was not within any of the categories of “public accommodations” covered by the 1964 Act. 263 F. Supp. 412 (1967). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. 395 F. 2d 118 (1968). We granted certiorari. 393 U. S. 975 (1968). We reverse.
Lake Nixon Club, located 12 miles west of Little Rock, is a 232-acre amusement area with swimming, boating, sun bathing, picnicking, miniature golf, dancing facilities, and a snack bar. The Pauls purchased the Lake Nixon site in 1962 and subsequently operated this amusement business there in a racially segregated manner.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted a sweeping prohibition of discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin at places of public accommodation whose operations affect commerce. This prohibition does not extend to discrimination or segregation at private clubs. But, as both courts below properly found, Lake Nixon is not a private club. It is simply a business operated for a profit with none of the attributes of self-government and member-ownership traditionally associated with private clubs. It is true that following enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pauls began to refer to the establishment as a private club. They even began to require patrons to pay a 25-cent “membership” fee, which gains a purchaser a “membership” card entitling him to enter the Club’s premises for an entire season and, on payment of specified additional fees, to use the swimming, boating, and miniature golf facilities. But this “membership” device seems no more than a subterfuge designed to avoid coverage of the 1964 Act. White persons are routinely provided “membership” cards, and some 100,000 whites visit the establishment each season. As the District Court found, Lake Nixon is “open in general to all of the public who are members of the white race.” 263 F. Supp., at 418. Negroes, on the other hand, are uniformly denied “membership” cards, and thus admission, because of the Pauls’ fear that integration would “ruin” the “business.” The conclusion of the courts below that Lake Nixon is not a private club is plainly correct— indeed, respondent does not challenge that conclusion here.
We therefore turn to the question whether Lake Nixon Club is “a place of public accommodation” as defined by § 201 (b) of the 1964 Act, and, if so, whether its operations “affect commerce” within the meaning of § 201 (c) of that Act.
Section 201 (b) defines four categories of establishments as covered public accommodations. Three of these categories are relevant here:
“Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce ....
“(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
“(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
“(4) any establishment (A) . . . (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.”
Section 201 (c) sets forth standards for determining whether the operations of an establishment in any of these categories affect commerce within the meaning of Title II:
“The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if . . . (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) [set out supra] ... , it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) [set out supra] ... , it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) [set out supra] . . . , there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, ‘commerce’ means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States . . . .”
Petitioners argue first that Lake Nixon’s snack bar is a covered public accommodation under §§ 201 (b) (2) and 201 (c) (2), and that as such it brings the entire establishment within the coverage of Title II under §§ 201 (b)(4) and 201 (c)(4). Clearly, the snack bar is “principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises.” Thus, it is a covered public accommodation if “it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves . . . has moved in commerce.” We find that the snack bar is a covered public accommodation under either of these standards.
The Pauls advertise the Lake Nixon Club in a monthly magazine called “Little Rock Today,” which is distributed to guests at Little Rock hotels, motels, and restaurants, to acquaint them with available tourist attractions in the area. Regular advertisements for Lake Nixon were also broadcast over two area radio stations. In addition, Lake Nixon has advertised in the “Little Rock Air Force Base,” a monthly newspaper published at the Little Rock Air Force Base, in Jacksonville, Arkansas. This choice of advertising media leaves no doubt that the Pauls were seeking broad-based patronage from an audience which they knew to include interstate travelers. Thus, the Láke Nixon Club unquestionably offered to serve out-of-state visitors to the Little Rock area. And it would be unrealistic to assume that none of the 100,000 patrons actually served by the Club each season was an interstate traveler. Since the Lake Nixon Club offered to serve and served out-of-state persons, and since the Club’s snack bar was established to serve all patrons of the entire facility, we must conclude that the snack bar offered to serve and served out-of-state persons. See Hamm v. Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, 309 (1964); see also Wooten v. Moore, 400 F. 2d 239 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1968).
The record, although not as complete on this point as might be desired, also demonstrates that a “substantial portion of the food” served by the Lake Nixon Club snack bar has moved in interstate commerce. The snack bar serves a limited fare — hot dogs and hamburgers on buns, soft drinks, and milk. The District Court took judicial notice of the fact that the “principal ingredients going into the bread were produced and processed in other States” and that “certain ingredients [of the soft drinks] were probably obtained . . . from out-of-State sources.” 263 F. Supp., at 418. Thus, at the very least, three of the four food items sold at the snack bar contain ingredients originating outside of the State. There can be no serious doubt that a “substantial portion of the food” served at the snack bar has moved in interstate commerce. See Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 296-297 (1964); Gregory v. Meyer, 376 F. 2d 509, 511, n. 1 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1967).
The snack bar’s status as a covered establishment automatically brings the entire Lake Nixon facility within the ambit of Title II. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 201 (b)(4) and 201 (c)(4), set out supra; see H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 20; Fazzio Real Estate Co. v. Adams, 396 F. 2d 146 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1968).
Petitioners also argue that the Lake Nixon Club is a covered public accommodation under §§201 (b)(3) and 201 (c)(3) of the 1964 Act. These sections proscribe discrimination by “any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment” which “customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce.” Under any accepted definition of “entertainment,” the Lake Nixon Club would surely qualify as a “place of entertainment.” And indeed it advertises itself as such. Respondent argues, however, that in the context of § 201 (b) (3) “place of entertainment” refers only to establishments where patrons are entertained as spectators or listeners rather than those where entertainment takes the form of direct participation in some sport or activity. We find no support in the legislative history for respondent’s reading of the statute. The few indications of legislative intent are to the contrary.
President Kennedy, in submitting to Congress the public accommodations provisions of the proposed Civil Rights Act, emphasized that “no action is more contrary to the spirit of our democracy and Constitution— or more rightfully resented by a Negro citizen who seeks only equal treatment — than the barring of that citizen from restaurants, hotels, theatres, recreational areas and other public accommodations and facilities.” (Emphasis added.) While Title II was being considered by the Senate, a civil rights demonstration occurred at a Maryland amusement park. The then Assistant Majority Leader of the Senate, Hubert Humphrey, took note of the demonstration and opined that such an amusement park would be covered by the provisions which were eventually enacted as Title II:
“In this particular instance, I am confident that merchandise and facilities used in the park were transported across State lines.
“The spectacle of national church leaders being hauled off to jail in a paddy wagon demonstrates the absurdity of the present situation regarding equal access to public facilities in Maryland and the absurdity of the arguments of those who oppose title II of the President’s omnibus civil rights bill.” 109 Cong. Rec. 12276 (1963).
Senator Magnuson, floor manager of Title II, spoke in a similar vein.
Admittedly, most of the discussion in Congress regarding the coverage of Title II focused on places of spectator entertainment rather than recreational areas. But it does not follow that the scope of § 201 (b) (3) should be restricted to the primary objects of Congress’ concern when a natural reading of its language would call for broader coverage. In light of the overriding purpose of Title II “to remove the daily affront and humiliation involved in discriminatory denials of access to facilities ostensibly open to the general public,” H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 18, we agree with the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 394 F. 2d 342 (1968), that the statutory language “place of entertainment” should be given full effect according to its generally accepted meaning and applied to recreational areas.
The remaining question is whether the operations of the Lake Nixon Club “affect commerce” within the meaning of § 201 (c)(3). We conclude that they do. Lake Nixon’s customary “sources of entertainment . . . move in commerce.” The Club leases 15 paddle boats on a royalty basis from an Oklahoma company. Another boat was purchased from the same company. The Club’s juke box was manufactured outside Arkansas and plays records manufactured outside the State. The legislative history indicates that mechanical sources of entertainment such as these were considered by Congress to be “sources of entertainment” within the meaning of §201 (c)(3).
Reversed.
Petitioners alleged that the denial of admission also constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 14 Stat. 27, now 42 U. S. C. § 1981. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals passed on this contention. Our conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider the question.
Respondent at trial answered affirmatively a question of the trial judge whether Negroes were denied admission “simply . . . because they were Negroes.” Respondent’s answer to an interrogatory why Negroes were refused admission was: “[w]e refused admission to them because white people in our community would not patronize us if we admitted Negroes to the swimming pool. Our business would be ruined and we have our entire life savings in it.”
Section 201 (a) of the Act provides:
“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
Section 201 (e) of the Act provides:
“The provisions of this title 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).”
The District Court, which did not find it necessary to decide whether the snack bar served or offered to serve interstate travelers, conceded that: “It is probably true that some out-of-State people spending time in or around Little Rock have utilized [Lake Nixon’s] facilities.” 263 F. Supp., at 418.
Accord: Evans v. Laurel Links, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 474 (D. C. E. D. Va. 1966); United States v. Fraley, 282 F. Supp. 948 (D. C. M. D. N. C. 1968); United States v. All Star Triangle Bowl, Inc., 283 F. Supp. 300 (D. C. S. C. 1968).
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, at 757, defines “entertainment” as “the act of diverting, amusing, or causing someone’s time to pass agreeably: [synonymous with] amusement.”
Respondent advertised over a local radio station that “Lake Nixon continues their policy of offering you year-round entertainment.”
Special Message to the Congress on Civil Rights and Job Opportunities, June 19, 1963, in Public Papers of the Presidents, John F. Kennedy, 1963, at 485. This statement was originally made in a Special Message to the Congress on Civil Rights, Feb. 28, 1963, in Public Papers, supra, at 228.
“Motion picture theaters which refuse to admit Negroes will obviously draw patrons from a narrower segment of the market than if they were open to patrons of all races. . . . Thus, the demand for films from out of State, and the royalties from such films, will be less.
“These principles are applicable not merely to motion picture theaters but to other establishments which receive supplies, equipment, or goods through the channels of interstate commerce. If these establishments narrow their potential markets by artificially restricting their patrons to non-Negroes, the volume of sales and, therefore, the volume of interstate purchases will be less.” (Emphasis added.) 110 Cong. Rec. 7402 (1964).
The Senate rejected an amendment which would have ruled out most mechanical sources by requiring that the source of entertainment be one which has “not come to rest within a State.” 110 Cong. Rec. 13915-13921 (1964). See also the remarks of Senator Mag-nuson, supra, n. 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: | 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.
This case involves death on the high seas. The question is whether, in addition to the damages authorized by federal statute, a decedent’s survivors may also recover damages under general maritime law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, disagreeing with the First Circuit, held that survivors may recover for their “loss of society,” as well as for their pecuniary loss. We reverse.
Petitioner used a helicopter in connection with its oil drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico about 100 miles from the Louisiana shore. On August 15, 1967, the helicopter crashed outside Louisiana’s territorial waters, killing the pilot and three passengers. In a suit brought by the passengers’ widows, in their representative capacities, the District Court accepted admiralty jurisdiction and found that the deaths were caused by petitioner’s negligence. The court awarded damages equal to the pecuniary losses suffered by the families of two passengers. Although the court valued the two families’ loss of society at $100,000 and $155,000, it held that the law did not authorize recovery for this loss. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages for loss of society. We granted certiorari limited to this issue. 434 U. S. 816.
I
In 1877, the steamer Harrisburg collided with a schooner in Massachusetts coastal waters. The schooner sank, and its first officer drowned. Some five years later, his widow brought a wrongful-death action against the Harrisburg. This Court held that admiralty afforded no remedy for wrongful death in the absence of an applicable state or federal statute. The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199. Thereafter, suits arising out of maritime fatalities were founded by necessity on state wrongful-death statutes. See, e. g., The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398.
In 1920, Congress repudiated the rule of The Harrisburg for maritime deaths occurring beyond the territorial waters of any State. It passed the Death on the High Seas Act (hereinafter sometimes DOHSA), creating a remedy in admiralty for wrongful deaths more than three miles from shore. This Act limits the class of beneficiaries to the decedent’s “wife, husband, parent, child, or dependent relative,” establishes a two-year period of limitations, allows suits filed by the victim to continue as wrongful-death actions if the victim dies of his injuries while suit is pending, and provides that contributory negligence will not bar recovery. With respect to damages, the statute declares: “The recovery . . . shall be a fair and just compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by the persons for whose benefit the suit is brought . . . .”
In the half century between 1920 and 1970, deaths on the high seas gave rise to federal suits under DOHSA, while those in territorial waters were largely governed by state wrongful-death statutes. DOHSA brought a measure of uniformity and predictability to the law on the high seas, but in territorial waters, where The Harrisburg made state law the only source of a wrongful-death remedy, the continuing impact of that decision produced uncertainty and incongruity. The reasoning of The Harrisburg, which was dubious at best in 1886, became less and less satisfactory as the years passed.
In 1970, therefore, the Court overruled The Harrisburg. In Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U. S. 375, the Court held that a federal remedy for wrongful death does exist under general maritime law. The case concerned a death in Florida’s territorial waters. The defendant argued that Congress, by limiting DOHSA to the high seas, had evidenced an intent to preclude federal judicial remedies in territorial waters. The Court concluded, however, that the reason Congress confined DOHSA to the high seas was to prevent the Act from abrogating, by its own force, the state remedies then available in state waters. Id., at 400.
In Moragne the Court left various subsidiary questions concerning the nonstatutory death remedy — such as the schedule of beneficiaries and the limitations period — for “further sifting through the lower courts in future litigation.” Id., at 408. A few years later, in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S. 573, the Court confronted some of these questions. Among the issues addressed in Gaudet was the measure of survivors' damages. The Court held that awards could include compensation for loss of support and services, for funeral expenses, and for loss of society, but not for mental anguish or grief. Id., at 583-591. The Court recognized that DOHSA, which compensates only for pecuniary losses, did not allow awards for loss of society. But the accident in Gaudet, like that in Moragne, took place in territorial waters, where DOHSA does not apply. The Court chose not to adopt DOHSA’s pecuniary-loss standard; instead it followed the “clear majority of States” and “the humanitarian policy of the maritime law,” both of which favored recovery for loss of society. 414 U. S., at 587-588. In sum, the Court made a policy determination in.Gaudet which differed from the choice made by Congress when it enacted the Death on the High Seas Act.
II
The Gaudet opinion was broadly written. It did not state that the place where death occurred had an influence on its analysis. Gaudet may be read, as it has been, to replace entirely the Death on the High Seas Act. Its holding, however, applies only to coastal waters. We therefore must now decide which measure of damages to apply in a death action arising on the high seas — the rule chosen by Congress in 1920 or the rule chosen by this Court in Gaudet.
As the divergence of views among the States discloses, there are valid arguments both for and against allowing recovery for loss of society. Courts denying recovery cite two reasons; (1) that the loss is “not capable of measurement by any material or pecuniary standard,” and (2) that an award for the loss “would obviously include elements of passion, sympathy and similar matters of improper character.” 1 S. Speiser, Recovery for Wrongful Death § 3:49 (2d ed. 1974). Courts allowing the award counter: (1) that the loss is real, however intangible it may be, and (2) that problems of measurement should not justify denying all relief. See generally Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, supra, at 588-590.
In this case, however, we need not pause to evaluate the opposing policy arguments. Congress has struck the balance for us. It has limited survivors to recovery of their pecuniary losses. Respondents argue that Congress does not have the last word on this issue — that admiralty courts have traditionally undertaken to supplement maritime statutes and that such a step is necessary iii this case to preserve the uniformity of maritime law. Neither argument is decisive.
We recognize today, as we did in Moragne, the value of uniformity, but a ruling that DOHSA governs wrongful-death recoveries on the high seas poses only a minor threat to the uniformity of maritime law. Damages aside, none of the issues on which DOHSA is explicit have been settled to the contrary by this Court in either Moragne or Gaudet. Nor are other disparities likely to develop. As Moragne itself implied, DOHSA should be the courts’ primary guide as they refine the nonstatutory death remedy, both because of the interest in uniformity and because Congress’ considered judgment has great force in its own right. It is true that the measure of damages in coastal waters will differ from that on the high seas, but even if this difference proves significant, a desire for uniformity cannot override the statute.
We realize that, because Congress has never enacted a comprehensive maritime code, admiralty courts have often been called upon to supplement maritime statutes. The Death on the High Seas Act, however, announces Congress’ considered judgment on such issues as .the beneficiaries, the limitations period, contributory negligence, survival, and damages. See nn. 6-10, supra. The Act does not address every issue of wrongful-death law, see, e. g., n. 15, supra, but when it does speak directly to a question, the courts are not free to “supplement” Congress’ answer so thoroughly that the Act becomes meaningless.
In Moragne, the Court recognized a wrongful-death remedy that supplements federal statutory remedies. But that holding depended on our conclusion that Congress withheld a statutory remedy in coastal waters in order to encourage and preserve supplemental remedies. 398 U. S., at 397-398. Congress did not limit DOHSA beneficiaries to recovery of their pecuniary losses in order to encourage the creation of non-pecuniary supplements. See generally Barbe v. Drummond, 507 F. 2d 794, 801 n. 10 (CA1 1974); Wilson v. Transocean Airlines, 121 F. Supp. 85 (ND Cal. 1954). There is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress’ silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specificallly enacted. In the area covered by the statute, it would be no more appropriate to prescribe a different measure of damages than to prescribe a different statute of limitations, or a different class of beneficiaries. Perhaps the wisdom we possess today would enable us to do a better job of repudiating The Harrisburg than Congress did in 1920, but even if that be true, we have no authority to substitute our views for those expressed by Congress in a duly enacted statute.
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.
Me. Justice BreNNAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Compare Barbe v. Drummond, 507 F. 2d 794, 800-802 (CA1 1974), with Higginbotham v. Mobil Oil Corp., 545 F. 2d 422 (CA5 1977). The members of the Higginbotham panel expressed their agreement with Barbe, swpra, but considered the issue foreclosed in their Circuit by Law v. Sea Drilling Corp., 510 F. 2d 242, on rehearing, 523 F. 2d 793 (CA5 1975). In that case, another Fifth Circuit panel stated that the statutory remedy provided by the Death on the High Seas Act was no longer needed. Id., at 798. See also n. 16, infra.
357 F. Supp. 1164, 1167 (WD La. 1973). The District Court bottomed admiralty jurisdiction on a finding that the helicopter was the functional equivalent of a erewboat. The ruling has not been challenged in this Court. Cf. Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249, 271-272.
360 F. Supp. 1140 (WD La. 1973). One family received $362,297, the other $163,400. The District Court held that the third passenger’s family could claim benefits only under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling. 545 F. 2d, at 431-433.
The former figure included $50,000 for one widow and $50,000 for her only daughter. The latter figure included $25,000 for the second widow and for each of two minor children, as well as $20,000 for each of four older children. 360 F. Supp., at 114A-1148.
41 Stat. 537, 46 U. S. C. § 761 et seq.
§ 761.
§ 763.
§ 765.
§ 766. In addition, the statute preserved the applicability of local law on the Great Lakes, in the Panama Canal Zone, and within the States’ territorial waters. § 767. Rights under foreign wrongful-death laws were also preserved. § 764.
§ 762.
The death of a seaman was an exception to this rule. The Jones Act gives a remedy to the dependents of a seaman killed in the course of employment by his employer’s negligence, no matter where the wrong takes place. § 688.
In The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588, for example, the Court could not definitively determine whether New Jersey law allowed recovery for unseaworthiness or required proof of negligence.
Three anomalies were identified in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U. S. 375. In States with limited wrongful-death remedies, shipowners were liable if their breach of a maritime duty caused injury but not if the breach caused death. Furthermore, deaths due to unseaworthiness had a remedy on the high seas, but often w>ent unremedied inside the three-mile limit. Finally, “true” seamen were denied the benefit of state wrongful-death laws while longshoremen doing seamen’s work could assert claims under state law. Id., at 395-396.
The Court in The Harrisburg arrived at its conclusion after rejecting arguments founded on nothing more than “good reason,” “natural equity,” and the experience of nations like France and Scotland. 119 U. S., at 212-213.
The primary issue in Gaudet was whether a decedent’s survivors could bring a Moragne action even though the decedent himself had sued and recovered damages before dying. DOHSA offered no guidance on this issue. 414 U. S., at 683 n. 10. In the course of providing its own answer, the Court addressed the contention that the survivors’ recovery would simply duplicate the decedent’s. The Court outlined the elements of damages under the new maritime-death remedy and noted that several were distinct from those available to the decedent himself.
As Chief Judge Brown put it in Law v. Sea Drilling Corp., 523 F. 2d 793 (CA5 1975): “It is time that the dead hand of The Harrisburg•— whether in the courts or on the elbow of the congressional draftsmen of DOHSA — follow the rest of the hulk to an honorable rest in the briney deep. ... No longer does one need . . . DOHSA as a remedy. There is a federal maritime cause of action for death on navigable waters — any navigable waters — and it can be enforced in any court.” Id., at 798.
The award contemplated by Gaudet is especially difficult to compute, for the jury must calculate the value of the lost love and affection without awarding damages for the survivors’ grief and mental anguish, even though that grief is probably the most tangible expression of the survivors’ emotional loss. See Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S., at 585-586, n. 17. See also G. Gilmore & C. Black, Law of Admiralty 372 (2d ed. 1975).
Moragne proclaimed the need for uniformity in a far more compelling context. When Moragne was decided, fatal accidents on the high seas had an adequate federal remedy, while the same accidents nearer shore might yield more generous awards, or none at all, depending on the law of the nearest State. The only disparity that concerns us today is the difference between applying one national rule to fatalities in territorial waters and a slightly narrower national rule to accidents farther from land.
Moragne recognized that the courts would need to devise a limitations period and a schedule of beneficiaries for the new death remedy. The Court considered several alternative solutions to these problems. Only DOHSA, however, figured prominently in the discussion of both issues. 398 U. S., at 405-408.
It remains to be seen whether the difference between awarding loss-of-society damages under Oaudet and denying them under DOHSA has a great practical significance. It may be argued that the competing views on awards for loss of society, see supra, at 623, can best be reconciled by allowing an award that is primarily symbolic, rather than a substantial portion of the survivors’ recovery. We have not been asked to rule on the propriety of the large sums that the District Court would have awarded for loss of society in this case. See n. 4, supra.
Similarly, there may be no great disparity between DOHSA and Gaudet on the issue of funeral expenses. Gaudet awards damages to dependents who have paid, or will pay, for the decedent’s funeral, evidently on the theory that, but for the wrongful death, the decedent would have accumulated an estate large enough to pay for his own funeral. 414 U. S., at 591. On that theory, the cost of the funeral could also be considered a pecuniary loss suffered by the dependent as a result of the death.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The False Claims Act contains two limitations periods that apply to a "civil action under section 3730"-that is, an action asserting that a person presented false claims to the United States Government. 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b). The first period requires that the action be brought within 6 years after the statutory violation occurred. The second period requires that the action be brought within 3 years after the United States official charged with the responsibility to act knew or should have known the relevant facts, but not more than 10 years after the violation. Whichever period provides the later date serves as the limitations period.
This case requires us to decide how to calculate the limitations period for qui tam suits in which the United States does not intervene. The Court of Appeals held that these suits are "civil action[s] under section 3730" and that the limitations periods in § 3731(b) apply in accordance with their terms, regardless of whether the United States intervenes. It further held that, for purposes of the second period, the private person who initiates the qui tam suit cannot be deemed the official of the United States. We agree, and therefore affirm.
I
As relevant, the False Claims Act imposes civil liability on "any person" who "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval" to the Government or to certain third parties acting on the Government's behalf. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a), (b)(2). Section 3730 authorizes two types of actions: First, the Attorney General, who "diligently shall investigate a violation under section 3729," may bring a civil action against the alleged false claimant. § 3730(a). Second, a private person, known as a relator, may bring a qui tam civil action "for the person and for the United States Government" against the alleged false claimant, "in the name of the Government." § 3730(b).
If a relator initiates the action, he must deliver a copy of the complaint and supporting evidence to the Government, which then has 60 days to intervene in the action. §§ 3730(b)(2), (4). During this time, the complaint remains sealed. § 3730(b)(2). If the Government intervenes, it assumes primary responsibility for prosecuting the action, though the relator may continue to participate. § 3730(c). Otherwise, the relator has the right to pursue the action. §§ 3730(b)(4), (c)(3). Even if it does not intervene, the Government is entitled to be served with all pleadings upon request and may intervene at any time with good cause. § 3730(c)(3). The relator receives a share of any proceeds from the action-generally 15 to 25 percent if the Government intervenes, and 25 to 30 percent if it does not-plus attorney's fees and costs. §§ 3730(d)(1)-(2). See Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens , 529 U.S. 765, 769-770, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000).
At issue here is the Act's statute of limitations, which provides:
"(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,
"whichever occurs last." § 3731(b).
On November 27, 2013, respondent Billy Joe Hunt filed a complaint alleging that petitioners-two defense contractors (collectively, Cochise)-defrauded the Government by submitting false claims for payment under a subcontract to provide security services in Iraq "from some time prior to January 2006 until early 2007." App. 43a. A little less than three years before bringing his complaint, Hunt was interviewed by federal agents about his role in an unrelated contracting fraud in Iraq. Hunt claims to have revealed Cochise's allegedly fraudulent scheme during this November 30, 2010, interview.
The United States declined to intervene in Hunt's action, and Cochise moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Hunt conceded that the 6-year limitations period in § 3731(b)(1) had elapsed before he filed suit on November 27, 2013. But Hunt argued that his complaint was timely under § 3731(b)(2) because it was filed within 3 years of the interview in which he informed federal agents about the alleged fraud (and within 10 years after the violation occurred).
The District Court dismissed the action. It considered three potential interpretations of § 3731(b). Under the first interpretation, § 3731(b)(2) does not apply to a relator-initiated action in which the Government elects not to intervene, so any such action must be filed within six years after the violation. Under the second interpretation, § 3731(b)(2) applies in nonintervened actions, and the limitations period begins when the relator knew or should have known the relevant facts. Under the third interpretation, § 3731(b)(2) applies in nonintervened actions, and the limitations period begins when "the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances" knew or should have known the relevant facts. The District Court rejected the third interpretation and declined to choose between the first two because it found that Hunt's complaint would be untimely under either. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, adopting the third interpretation. 887 F.3d 1081 (C.A.11 2018).
Given a conflict between the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 566, 202 L.Ed.2d 400 (2018).
II
The first question before us is whether the limitations period in § 3731(b)(2) is available in a relator-initiated suit in which the Government has declined to intervene. If so, the second question is whether the relator in such a case should be considered "the official of the United States" whose knowledge triggers § 3731(b)(2) 's 3-year limitations period.
A
Section 3731(b) sets forth two limitations periods that apply to "civil action[s] under section 3730." Both Government-initiated suits under § 3730(a) and relator-initiated suits under § 3730(b) are "civil action[s] under section 3730." Thus, the plain text of the statute makes the two limitations periods applicable in both types of suits.
Cochise agrees with that view as to the limitations period in § 3731(b)(1), but argues that the period in § 3731(b)(2) is available in a relator-initiated suit only if the Government intervenes. According to Cochise, starting a limitations period when the party entitled to bring a claim learns the relevant facts is a default rule of tolling provisions, so subsection (b)(2) should be read to apply only when the Government is a party. In short, under Cochise's reading, a relator-initiated, nonintervened suit is a "civil action under section 3730" for purposes of subsection (b)(1) but not subsection (b)(2).
This reading is at odds with fundamental rules of statutory interpretation. In all but the most unusual situations, a single use of a statutory phrase must have a fixed meaning. See Ratzlaf v. United States , 510 U.S. 135, 143, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994). We therefore avoid interpretations that would "attribute different meanings to the same phrase." Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd. , 528 U.S. 320, 329, 120 S.Ct. 866, 145 L.Ed.2d 845 (2000). Here, either a relator-initiated, nonintervened suit is a "civil action under section 3730"-and thus subject to the limitations periods in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2)-or it is not. It is such an action. Whatever the default tolling rule might be, the clear text of the statute controls this case.
Under Cochise's reading, a relator-initiated civil action would convert to "[a] civil action under section 3730" for purposes of subsection (b)(2) if and when the Government intervenes. That reading cannot be correct. If the Government intervenes, the civil action remains the same-it simply has one additional party. There is no textual basis to base the meaning of "[a] civil action under section 3730" on whether the Government has intervened.
Cochise relies on our decision in Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson , 545 U.S. 409, 125 S.Ct. 2444, 162 L.Ed.2d 390 (2005), which addressed the question whether § 3731(b)(1) or federal common law provided the limitations period for § 3730(h) retaliation actions. Section 3730(h) creates a cause of action for an employee who suffers retaliation for, among other things, assisting with the prosecution of a False Claims Act action. At the time, § 3730(h) did not specify a time limit for bringing a retaliation action, so the question before us was whether the phrase "civil action under section 3730" in § 3731(b) encompassed actions under § 3730(h). We considered the statute "ambiguous because its text, literally read, admits of two plausible interpretations." Id. , at 419, n. 2, 125 S.Ct. 2444. One reading was that a "civil action under section 3730" includes § 3730(h) actions because such actions arise under § 3730. Id. , at 415, 125 S.Ct. 2444. "Another reasonable reading" was that a "civil action under section 3730" "applies only to actions arising under §§ 3730(a) and (b)" because " § 3731(b)(1) t[ies] the start of the time limit to 'the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed.' " Ibid. That reading had force because retaliation claims need not involve an actual violation of § 3729. Ibid. Looking to statutory context, we explained that the phrase " '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"-not § 3730(h) retaliation actions. Id. , at 421-422, 125 S.Ct. 2444.
A relator-initiated, nonintervened suit arises under § 3730(b) and has as an element a violation of § 3729. Graham County supports our reading. Nonetheless, Cochise points out that in considering the statutory context, we discussed a similar phrase contained in § 3731(c) (now § 3731(d) ), which stated: "In 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." (Emphasis added.) We explained that § 3731(c)"use[d] the similarly unqualified phrase 'action brought under section 3730 ' to refer only to §§ 3730(a) and (b) actions." Id. , at 417-418, 125 S.Ct. 2444. We then stated: "As [respondent] 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." Id. , at 418, 125 S.Ct. 2444.
Cochise contends that we should adopt a similar construction of the phrase "civil action under section 3730" in § 3731(b). We disagree. Our discussion of § 3731(c) was focused on "the context of th[at] provision" and on whether it could be read to impose the burden of proof on the Government even in cases where the Government did not participate. Id. , at 418, 125 S.Ct. 2444. Those considerations do not apply here; there is nothing illogical about reading § 3731(b) to apply in accordance with its plain terms. Moreover, if a "civil action under section 3730" included only an action in which the Government participates for purposes of § 3731(b)(2), then we would be obligated to give it a like meaning for purposes of § 3731(b)(1). This would mean that a relator-initiated, nonintervened suit would be subject to neither § 3731(b)(1) nor § 3731(b)(2) -a reading Cochise expressly disclaims. See Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 3. Nothing in Graham County supports giving the same phrase in § 3731(b) two different meanings depending on whether the Government intervenes.
Again pointing to Graham County , Cochise next contends that our reading would lead to " 'counterintuitive results.' " Brief for Petitioners 26. For instance, if the Government discovers the fraud on the day it occurred, it would have 6 years to bring suit, but if a relator instead discovers the fraud on the day it occurred and the Government does not discover it, the relator could have as many as 10 years to bring suit. That discrepancy arises because § 3731(b)(2) begins its limitations period on the date that "the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act" obtained knowledge of the relevant facts. But we see nothing unusual about extending the limitations period when the Government official did not know and should not reasonably have known the relevant facts, given that the Government is the party harmed by the false claim and will receive the bulk of any recovery. See § 3730(d). In any event, a result that "may seem odd ... is not absurd." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. , 545 U.S. 546, 565, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). Although in Graham County we sought "a construction that avoids ... counterintuitive results," there the text "admit[ted] of two plausible interpretations." 545 U.S. at 421, 419, n. 2, 125 S.Ct. 2444. Here, Cochise points to no other plausible interpretation of the text, so the " 'judicial inquiry is complete.' " Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. , 534 U.S. 438, 462, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002).
B
Cochise's fallback argument is that the relator in a nonintervened suit should be considered "the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances," meaning that § 3731(b)(2) 's 3-year limitations period would start when the relator knew or should have known about the fraud. But the statute provides no support for reading "the official of the United States" to encompass a private relator.
First, a private relator is not an "official of the United States" in the ordinary sense of that phrase. A relator is neither appointed as an officer of the United States, see U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, nor employed by the United States. Indeed, the provision that authorizes qui tam suits is entitled "Actions by Private Persons." § 3730(b). Although that provision explains that the action is brought "for the person and for the United States Government" and "in the name of the Government," ibid. , it does not make the relator anything other than a private person, much less "the official of the United States" referenced by the statute. Cf. Stevens , 529 U.S. at 773, n. 4, 120 S.Ct. 1858 ("[A] qui tam relator is, in effect, suing as a partial assignee of the United States" (emphasis deleted)).
Second, the statute refers to "the" official "charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances." The Government argues that, in context, "the" official refers to the Attorney General (or his delegate), who by statute "shall investigate a violation under section 3729." § 3730(a). Regardless of precisely which official or officials the statute is referring to, § 3731(b)(2) 's use of the definite article "the" suggests that Congress did not intend for any and all private relators to be considered "the official of the United States." See Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542 U.S. 426, 434, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (explaining that the "use of the definite article ... indicates that there is generally only one" person covered). More fundamentally, private relators are not "charged with responsibility to act" in the sense contemplated by § 3731(b), as they are not required to investigate or prosecute a False Claims Act action.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed .
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. , 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Compare 887 F.3d 1081, 1089-1097 (C.A.11 2018) (adopting the third interpretation), with United States ex rel. Hyatt v. Northrop Corp. , 91 F.3d 1211, 1216-1218 (C.A.9 1996) (adopting the second interpretation); United States ex rel. Sanders v. North Am. Bus Industries, Inc. , 546 F. 3d 288, 293-294 (C.A.4 2008) (adopting the first interpretation); and United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield of Utah , 472 F. 3d 702, 725-726 (C.A.10 2006) (same).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed granted. as improvidently
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents an important and longstanding issue of Fourth Amendment law. Does a defendant in a criminal proceeding ever have the right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, subsequent to the ex parte issuance of a search warrant, to challenge the truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant?
In the present case the Supreme Court of Delaware held, as a matter of first impression for it, that a defendant under no circumstances may so challenge the veracity of a sworn statement used by police to procure a search warrant. We reverse, and we hold that, where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.
I
The controversy over the veracity of the search warrant affidavit in this case arose in connection with petitioner Jerome Franks’ state conviction for rape, kidnaping, and burglary. On Friday, March 5, 1976, Mrs. Cynthia Bailey told police in Dover, Del., that she had been confronted in her home earlier that morning by a man with a knife, and that he had sexually assaulted her. She described her assailant’s age, race, height, build, and facial hair, and gave a detailed description of his clothing as consisting of a white thermal undershirt, black pants with a silver or gold buckle, a brown leather three-quarter-length coat, and a dark knit cap that he wore pulled down around his eyes.
That same day, petitioner Franks coincidentally was taken into custody for an assault involving a 15-year-old girl, Brenda B.-, six days earlier. After his formal arrest, and while awaiting a bail hearing in Family Court, petitioner allegedly stated to Robert McClements, the youth officer accompanying him, that he was surprised the bail hearing was “about Brenda B.-. I know her. I thought you said Bailey. I don’t know her.” Tr. 175, 186. At the time of this statement, the police allegedly had not yet recited to petitioner his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).
On the following Monday, March 8, Officer McClements happened to mention the courthouse incident to a detective, Ronald R. Brooks, who was working on the Bailey case. Tr. 186, 190-191. On March 9, Detective Brooks and Detective Larry D. Gray submitted a sworn affidavit to a Justice of the Peace in Dover, in support of a warrant to search petitioner’s apartment. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit’s “probable cause page” mention was made of petitioner’s statement to McClements. In paragraph 10, it was noted that the description of the assailant given to the police by Mrs. Bailey included the above-mentioned clothing. Finally, the affidavit also described the attempt made by police to confirm that petitioner’s typical outfit matched that of the assailant. Paragraph 15 recited: “On Tuesday, 3/9/76, your affiant contacted Mr. James Williams and Mr. Wesley Lucas of the Delaware Youth Center where Jerome Franks is employed and did have personal conversation with both these people.” Paragraphs 16 and 17 respectively stated: “Mr. James Williams revealed to your affiant that the normal dress of Jerome Franks does consist of a white knit thermal undershirt and a brown leather jacket,” and “Mr. Wesley Lucas revealed to your affiant that in addition to the thermal undershirt and jacket, Jerome Franks often wears a dark green knit hat.”
The warrant was issued on the basis of this affidavit. App. 9. Pursuant to the warrant, police searched petitioner’s apartment and found a white thermal undershirt, a knit hat, dark pants, and a leather jacket, and, on petitioner’s kitchen table, a single-blade knife. All these ultimately were introduced in evidence at trial.
Prior to the trial, however, petitioner’s counsel filed a written motion to suppress the clothing and the knife found in the search; this motion alleged that the warrant on its face did not show probable cause and that the search and seizure were in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id., at 11-12. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, defense counsel orally amended the challenge to include an attack on the veracity of the warrant affidavit; he also specifically requested the right to call as witnesses Detective Brooks, Wesley Lucas of the Youth Center, and James D. Morrison, formerly of the Youth Center. Id., at 14-17. Counsel asserted that Lucas and Morrison would testify that neither had been personally interviewed by the warrant affiants, and that, although they might have talked to another police officer, any information given by them to that officer was “somewhat different” from what was recited in the affidavit. Id., at 16. Defense counsel charged that the misstatements were included in the affidavit not inadvertently, but in “bad faith.” Id., at 25. Counsel also sought permission to call Officer McClements and petitioner as witnesses, to seek to establish that petitioner’s courthouse statement to police had been obtained in violation of petitioner’s Miranda rights, and that the search warrant was thereby tainted as the fruit of an illegally obtained confession. Id., at 17, 27.
In rebuttal, the State’s attorney argued in detail, App. 15-24, (a) that Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§2306, 2307 (1974), contemplated that any challenge to a search warrant was to be limited to questions of sufficiency based on the face of the affidavit; (b) that, purportedly, a majority of the States whose practice was not dictated by statute observed such a rule; and (c) that federal cases on the issue were to be distinguished because of Fed. Rule Grim. Proc. 41 (e). He also noted that this Court had reserved the general issue of subfacial challenge to veracity in Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U. S. 528, 531-532 (1964), when it disposed of that case on the ground that, even if a veracity challenge were permitted, the alleged factual inaccuracies in that case’s affidavit “were of only peripheral relevancy to the showing of probable cause, and, not being within the personal knowledge of the affiant, did not go to the integrity of the affidavit.” Id., at 532. The State objected to petitioner’s “going behind [the warrant affidavit] in any way,” and argued that the court must decide petitioner’s motion “on the four corners” of the affidavit. App. 21.
The trial court sustained the State’s objection to petitioner’s proposed evidence. Id., at 25, 27. The motion to suppress was denied, and the clothing and knife were admitted as evidence at the ensuing trial. Tr. 192-196. Petitioner was convicted. In a written motion for judgment of acquittal and/or new trial, Record Doc. No, 23, petitioner repeated his objection to the admission of the evidence, stating that he “should have been allowed to impeach the Affidavit used in the Search Warrant to show purposeful misrepresentation of information contained therein.” Id., at 2. The motion was denied, and petitioner was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years each and an additional consecutive life sentence.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed. 373 A. 2d 578 (1977). It agreed with what it deemed to be the “majority rule” that no attack upon the veracity of a warrant affidavit could be made:
“We agree with the majority rule for two reasons. First, it is the function of the issuing magistrate to determine the reliability of information and credibility of affiants in deciding whether the requirement of probable cause has been met. There has been no need demonstrated for interfering with this function. Second, neither the probable cause nor suppression hearings are adjudications of guilt or innocence; the matters asserted by defendant are more properly considered in a trial on the merits.” Id., at 580.
Because of this resolution, the Delaware Supreme Court noted that there was no need to consider petitioner's “other contentions, relating to the evidence that would have been introduced for impeachment purposes.” Ibid.
Franks’ petition for certiorari presented only the issue whether the trial court had erred in refusing to consider his allegation of misrepresentation in the warrant affidavit. Because of the importance of the question, and because of the conflict among both state and federal courts, we granted certiorari. 434 U. S. 889 (1977).
II
It may be well first to note how we are compelled to reach the Fourth Amendment issue proffered in this case. In particular, the State’s proposals of an independent and adequate state ground and of harmless error do not dispose of the controversy.
Respondent argues that petitioner’s trial counsel, who is not the attorney representing him in this Court, failed to include the challenge to the veracity of the warrant affidavit in the written motion to suppress filed before trial, contrary to the requirement of Del. Super. Ct. Rule Grim.. Proc. 41 (e) that a motion to suppress “shall state the grounds upon which it is made.” The Supreme Court of Delaware, however, disposed of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim on the merits. A ruling on the merits of a federal question by the highest state court leaves the federal question open to review in this Court. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 134 (1914); Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 436-437 (1959); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 241-242 (1969).
Respondent next suggests that any error here was harmless. Assuming, arguendo, respondent says, that petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim was valid, and that the warrant should have been tested for veracity and the evidence excluded, it is still clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence complained of did not contribute to petitioner’s conviction. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 52-53 (1970). This contention falls of its own weight. The sole issue at trial was that of consent. Petitioner admitted, App. 37, that he had engaged in sexual relations with Mrs. Bailey on the day in question. She testified, Tr. 50-51, 69-70, that she had not consented to this, and that petitioner, upon first encountering her in the house, had threatened her with a knife to force her to submit. Petitioner claimed that she had given full consent and that no knife had been present. Id., at 254, 271. To corroborate its contention that consent was lacking, the State introduced in evidence a stainless steel, wooden-handled kitchen knife found by the detectives on the kitchen table in petitioner’s apartment four days after the alleged rape. Id., at 195-196; Magistrate’s Return on the Search Warrant March 9, 1976, Record Doc. No. 23. Defense counsel objected to its admission, arguing that Mrs. Bailey had not given any detailed description of the knife alleged to be involved in the incident and had claimed to have seen the knife only in “pitch blackness.” Tr. 195. The State obtained its admission, however, as a knife that matched the description contained in the search warrant, and Mrs. Bailey testified that the knife allegedly used was, like the knife in evidence, single-edged and not a pocket knife, and that the knife in evidence was the same length and thickness as the knife used in the crime. Id., at 69, 114-115. The State carefully elicited from Detective Brooks the fact that this was the only knife found in petitioner’s apartment. Id., at 196. Although respondent argues that the knife was presented to the jury as “merely exemplary of the generic class of weapon testimonially described by the victim,” Brief for Respondent 15-16, the State at trial clearly meant to suggest that this was the knife that had been used against Mrs. Bailey. Had the warrant been quashed, and the knife excluded from the trial as evidence, we cannot say with any assurance that the jury would have reached the same decision on the issue of consent, particularly since there was countervailing evidence on that issue.
We should note, in addition, why this case cannot be treated as was the situation in Rugendorf v. United States. There the Court held that no Fourth Amendment question was presented when the claimed misstatements in the search warrant affidavit “were of only peripheral relevancy to the showing of probable cause, and, not being within the personal knowledge of the affiant, did not go to the integrity of the affidavit.” 376 U. S., at 532 (emphasis added). Rugendorf emphasized that the “erroneous statements... were not those of the affiant” and thus “fail[ed] to show that the affiant was in bad faith or that he made any misrepresentations to the Commissioner in securing the warrant.” Id., at 533. Here, whatever the judgment may be as to the relevancy of the alleged misstatements, the integrity of the affidavit was directly placed in issue by petitioner in his allegation that the affiants did not, as claimed, speak directly to Lucas and Morrison. Whether such conversations took place is surely a matter “within the personal knowledge of the affiant[s].” We also might note that although respondent's brief puts forth that the alleged misrepresentations in the affidavit were of little importance in establishing probable cause, Brief for Respondent 16, respondent at oral argument appeared to disclaim any reliance on Rugendorj. Tr. of Oral Arg. 30.
Ill
Whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the derivative exclusionary rule made applicable to the States under Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), ever mandate that a defendant be permitted to attack the veracity of a warrant affidavit after the warrant has been issued and executed, is a question that encounters conflicting values. The bulwark of Fourth Amendment protection, of course, is the Warrant Clause, requiring that, absent certain exceptions, police obtain a warrant from a neutral and disinterested magistrate before embarking upon a search. In deciding today that, in certain circumstances, a challenge to a warrant’s veracity must be permitted, we derive our ground from language of the Warrant Clause itself, which surely takes the affiant's good faith as its premise: “[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation... Judge Frankel, in United States v. Halsey, 257 F. Supp. 1002, 1005 (SDNY 1966), aff’d, Docket No. 31369 (CA2, June 12, 1967) (unreported), put the matter simply: “[W]hen the Fourth Amendment demands a factual showing sufficient to comprise 'probable cause,’ the obvious assumption is that there will be a truthful showing” (emphasis in original). This does not mean “truthful” in the sense that every fact recited in the warrant affidavit is necessarily correct, for probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant’s own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily. But surely it is to be “truthful” in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true. It is established law, see Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41, 47 (1933); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480, 485-486 (1958); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 114-115 (1964), that a warrant affidavit must set forth particular facts and circumstances underlying the existence of probable cause, so as to allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the matter. If an informant’s tip is the source of information, the affidavit must recite “some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded” that relevant evidence might be discovered, and “some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed,... was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable.’ ” Id., at 114. Because it is the magistrate who must determine independently whether there is probable cause, Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 13-14 (1948); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 270-271 (1960), it would be an unthinkable imposition upon his authority if a warrant affidavit, revealed after the fact to contain a deliberately or recklessly false statement, were to stand beyond impeachment.
In saying this, however, one must give cognizance to competing values that lead us to impose limitations. They perhaps can best be addressed by noting the arguments of respondent and others against allowing veracity challenges. The arguments are several:
First, respondent argues that the exclusionary rule, created in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), is not a personal constitutional right, but only a judicially created remedy extended where its benefit as a deterrent promises to outweigh the societal cost of its use; that the Court has declined to apply the exclusionary rule when illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the credibility of a defendant’s testimony, Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954), is used in a grand jury proceeding, United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974), or is used in a civil trial, United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433 (1976); and that the Court similarly has restricted application of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in federal habeas corpus review of a state conviction. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976). Respondent argues that applying the exclusionary rule to another situation — the deterrence of deliberate or reckless untruthfulness in a warrant affidavit — is not justified for many of the same reasons -that led to the above restrictions; interfering with a criminal conviction in order to deter official misconduct is a burden too great to impose on society.
Second, respondent argues that a citizen’s privacy interests are adequately protected by a requirement that applicants for a warrant submit a sworn affidavit and by the magistrate’s independent determination of sufficiency based on the face of the affidavit. Applying the exclusionary rule to attacks upon veracity would weed out a minimal number of perjurious government statements, says respondent, but would overlap unnecessarily with existing penalties against perjury, including criminal prosecutions, departmental discipline for misconduct, contempt of court, and civil actions.,
Third, it is argued that the magistrate' already is equipped to conduct a fairly vigorous inquiry into the accuracy of the factual affidavit supporting a warrant application. He may question the affiant, or summon other persons to give testimony at the warrant proceeding. The incremental gain from a post-search adversary proceeding, it is said, would not be great.
Fourth, it is argued that it would unwisely diminish the solemnity and moment of the magistrate’s proceeding to mate his inquiry into probable cause reviewable in regard to veracity. The less final, and less deference paid to, the magistrate’s determination of veracity, the less initiative will he use in that task. Denigration of the magistrate’s function would be imprudent insofar as his scrutiny is the last bulwark preventing any particular invasion of privacy before it happens.
Fifth, it is argued that permitting a post-search evidentiary hearing on issues of veracity would confuse the pressing issue of guilt or innocence with the collateral question as to whether there had been official misconduct in the drafting of the affidavit. The weight of criminal dockets, and the need to prevent diversion of attention from the main issue of guilt or innocence, militate against such an added burden on the trial courts. And if such hearings were conducted routinely, it is said, they would be misused by defendants as a convenient source of discovery. Defendants might even use the hearings in an attempt to force revelation of the identity of informants.
Sixth and finally, it is argued that a post-search veracity challenge is inappropriate because the accuracy of an affidavit in large part is beyond the control of the affiant. An affidavit may properly be based on hearsay, on fleeting observations, and on tips received from unnamed informants whose identity often will be properly protected from revelation under McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300 (1967).
None of these considerations is trivial., Indeed, because of them, the rule announced today has a limited scope, both in regard to when exclusion of the seized evidence is mandated, and when a hearing on allegations of misstatements must be accorded. But neither do the considerations cited by respondent and others have a fully controlling weight; we conclude that they are insufficient to justify an absolute ban on post-search impeachment of veracity. On this side of the balance, also, there are pressing considerations:
First, a flat ban on impeachment of veracity could denude the probable-cause requirement of all real meaning. The requirement that a warrant not issue “but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,” would be reduced to a nullity if a police officer was able to use deliberately falsified allegations to demonstrate probable cause, and, having misled the magistrate, then was able to remain confident that the ploy was worthwhile. It is this specter of intentional falsification that, we think, has evoked such widespread opposition to the flat nonimpeachment rule from the commentators, from the American Law Institute in its Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, § SS290.3 (1) (Prop. Off. Draft 1975), from the federal courts of appeals, and from state courts. On occasion, of course, an instance of deliberate falsity will be exposed and confirmed without a special inquiry either at trial, see United States ex rel. Petillo v. New Jersey, 400 F. Supp. 1152, 1171-1172 (NJ 1975), vacated and remanded by order sub nom. Albanese v. Yeager, 541 F. 2d 275 (CA3 1976), or at a hearing on the sufficiency of the affidavit, cf. United States v. Upshaw, 448 F. 2d 1218, 1221-1222 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 934 (1972). A flat non-impeachment rule would bar re-examination of the warrant even in these cases.
Second, the hearing before the magistrate not always will suffice to discourage lawless or reckless misconduct. The pre-search proceeding is necessarily ex parte, since the subject of the search cannot be tipped off to the application for a warrant lest he destroy or remove evidence. The usual reliance of our legal system on adversary proceedings itself should be an indication that an ex parte inquiry is likely to be less vigorous. The magistrate has no acquaintance with the information that may contradict the good faith and reasonable basis of the affiant’s allegations. The pre-search proceeding will frequently be marked by haste, because of the understandable desire to act before the evidence disappears; this urgency will not always permit the magistrate to make an extended independent examination of the affiant or other witnesses.
Third, the alternative sanctions of a perjury prosecution, administrative discipline, contempt, or a civil suit are not likely to fill the gap. Mapp v. Ohio implicitly rejected the adequacy of these alternatives. Mr. Justice Douglas noted this in his concurrence in Mapp, 367 U. S., at 670, where he quoted from Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 42 (1949): “ ‘Self-scrutiny is a lofty ideal, but its exaltation reaches new heights if we expect a District Attorney to prosecute himself or his associates for well-meaning violations of the search and seizure clause during a raid the District Attorney or his associates have ordered.’ ”
Fourth, allowing an evidentiary hearing, after a suitable preliminary proffer of material falsity, would not diminish the importance and solemnity of the warrant-issuing process. It is the ex parte nature of the initial hearing, rather than the magistrate’s capacity, that is the reason for the review. A magistrate’s determination is presently subject to review before trial as to sufficiency without any undue interference with the dignity of the magistrate’s function. Our reluctance today to extend the rule of exclusion beyond instances of deliberate misstatements, and those of reckless disregard, leaves a broad field where the magistrate is the sole protection of a citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights, namely, in instances where police have been merely negligent in checking or recording the facts relevant to a probable-cause determination.
Fifth, the claim that a post-search hearing will confuse the issue of the defendant’s guilt with the issue of the State’s possible misbehavior is footless. The hearing will not be in the presence of the jury. An issue extraneous to guilt already is examined in any probable-cause determination or review of probable cause. Nor, if a sensible threshold showing is required and sensible substantive requirements for suppression are maintained, need there be any new large-scale commitment of judicial resources; many claims will wash out at an early stage, and the more substantial ones in any event would require judicial resources for vindication if the suggested alternative sanctions were truly to be effective. The requirement of a substantial preliminary showing should suffice to prevent the misuse of a veracity hearing for purposes of discovery or obstruction. And because we are faced today with only the question of the integrity of the affiant’s representations as to his own activities, we need not decide, and we in no way predetermine, the difficult question whether a reviewing court must ever require the revelation of the identity of an informant once a substantial preliminary showing of falsity has been made. McCray v. Illinois, 38.6 U. S. 300 (1967), the Court’s earlier disquisition in this area, concluded only that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not require the State to expose an informant’s identity routinely, upon a defendant’s mere demand, when there was ample evidence in the probable-cause hearing to show that the informant was reliable and his information credible.
Sixth and finally, as to the argument that the exclusionary rule should not be extended to a “new” area, we cannot regard any such extension really to be at issue here. Despite the deep skepticism of Members of this Court as to the wisdom of extending the exclusionary rule to collateral areas, such as civil or grand jury proceedings, the Court has not questioned, in the absence of a more efficacious sanction, the continued application of the rule to suppress evidence from the State’s case where a Fourth Amendment violation has been substantial and deliberate. See Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 422 (1977) (Burger, C. J., dissenting); Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S., at 538 (White, J., dissenting). We see no principled basis for distinguishing between the question of the sufficiency of an affidavit, which also is subject to a post-search reexamination, and the question of its integrity.
IV
In sum, and to repeat with some embellishment what we stated at the beginning of this opinion: There is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant. To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant. Finally, if these requirements are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required. On the other hand, if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing. Whether he will prevail at that hearing is, of course, another issue.
Because of Delaware’s absolute rule, its courts did not have occasion to consider the proffer put forward by petitioner Franks. Since the framing of suitable rules to govern proffers is a matter properly left to the States, we decline ourselves to pass on petitioner’s proffer. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Delaware is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX A TO OPINION OF THE COURT
J. P. Court #7
IN THE MATTER OF: Jerome Franks, B/M, DOB: 10/9/54 and 222 S. Governors Ave., Apt. #3, Dover, Delaware. A two room apartment located on the South side, second floor, of a white block building on the west side of S. Governors Avenue, Between Loockerman Street and North Street, in the City of Dover, The ground floor of this building houses Wayman’s Barber Shop.
State- of Delaware 1 County of Kent J
Be it remembered that on this 9th day of March A. D. 1976 before me John Green, personally appeared Det. Ronald R. Brooks and Det. Larry Gray of the Dover Police Department who being by me duly sworn depose and say:
That they have reason to believe and do believe that in the 222 S. Governors Avenue, Apartment #3, Dover, Delaware. A two room apartment located on the south side second floor of a white block building on the west side of S. Governors Avenue between Loockerman Street and North Street in the City of Dover. The ground floor of this building houses Wayman’s Barber Shop the occupant of which is Jerome Franks there has been and/or there is now located and/or concealed certain property in said house, place, conveyance and/or on the person or persons of the occupants thereof, consisting of property, papers, articles, or things which are the instruments of criminal offense, and/or obtained in the commission of a crime, and/or designated to be used in the commission of a crime, and not reasonably calculated to be used for any other purpose and/or the possession of which is unlawful, papers, articles, or things which are of an evidentiary nature pertaining to the commission of a crime or crimes specified therein and in particular, a white knit thermal undershirt; a brown % length leather jacket with a tie-belt; a pair of black mens pants; a dark colored knit hat; a long thin bladed knife or other instruments or items relating to the crime.
Articles, or things were, are, or will be possessed and/or used in violation of Title 11, Sub-Chapter D, Section 763, Delaware Code in that [see attached probable-cause page].
Wherefore, affiants pray that a search warrant may be issued authorizing a search of the aforesaid 222 S. Governors Avenue, Apartment #3, Dover, Delaware. A two room apartment located on the south side second floor of a white block building on the west side of S. Governors Avenue between Loockerman St. and North Street, in the City of Dover in the manner provided by law.
/s/ Det. Ronald R. Brooks Affiant
/s/ Det. Larry D. Gray Affiant
SWORN to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 9th day of March A. D. 1976.
/s/ John [illegible] Green Judge Ct 7
The facts tending to establish probable cause for the issuance of this search warrant are:
1. On Saturday, 2/28/76, Brenda L. B. -, W/F/15, reported to the Dover Police Department that she had been kidnapped and raped.
2. An investigation of this complaint was conducted by Det. Boyce Failing of the Dover Police Department.
3. Investigation of the aforementioned complaint revealed that Brenda B. -, while under the influence of drugs, was taken to 222 S. Governors Avenue, Apartment 3, Dover, Delaware.
4. Investigation of the aforementioned complaint revealed that 222 S. Governors Avenue, Apartment #3, Dover, Delaware, is the residence of Jerome Franks, B/M DOB: 10/9/54.
5. Investigation of the aforementioned complaint revealed that on Saturday, 2/2[8]/76, Jerome Franks did have sexual contact with Brenda B. - without her consent.
6. On Thursday, 3/4/76 at the Dover Police Department, Brenda B. -revealed to Det. Boyce Failing that Jerome Franks was the person who committed the Sexual Assault against her.
7. On Friday, 3/5/76, Jerome Franks was placed under arrest by Cpl. Robert McClements of the Dover Police Department, and charged with Sexual Misconduct.
8. On 3/5/76 at Family Court in Dover, Delaware, Jerome Franks did, after being arrested on the charge of Sexual Misconduct, ma[k]e a statement to Cpl. Robert McClements, that he thought the charge was concerning Cynthia Bailey not Brenda B.-.
9. On Friday, 3/5/76, Cynthia C. Bailey, W/F/21 of 132 North Street, Dover, Delaware, did report to Dover Police Department that she had been raped at her residence during the night.
10. Investigation conducted by your affiant on Friday, 3/5/76, revealed the perpetrator of the crime to be an unknown black male, approximately 5'7", 150 lbs., dark complexion, wearing white thermal undershirt, black pants with a belt having a silver or gold buckle, a brown leather % length coat with a tie belt in the front, and a dark knit cap pulled around the eyes.
11. Your affiant can state, that during the commission of this crime, Cynthia Bailey was forced at knife point and with the threat of death to engage in sexual intercourse with the perpetrator of the crime.
12. Your affiant can state that entry was gained to the residence of Cynthia Bailey through a window located on the east side of the residence.
13. Your affiant can state that the residence of Jerome Franks is within a very short distance and direct sight of the residence of Cynthia Bailey.
14. Your affiant can state that the description given by Cynthia Bailey of the unknown black male does coincide with the description of Jerome Franks.
15. On Tuesday, 3/9/76, your affiant contacted Mr. James Williams and Mr. Wesley Lucas of the Delaware Youth Center where Jerome Franks is employed and did have personal conversation with both these people.
16. On Tuesday, 3/9/76, Mr. James Williams revealed to your affiant that the normal dress of Jerome Franks does consist of a white knit thermal undershirt and a brown leather jacket.
17. On Tuesday, 3/9/76, Mr. Wesley Lucas revealed to your affiant that in addition to the thermal undershirt and jacket, Jerome Franks often wears a dark green knit hat.
18. Your affiant can state that a check of official records reveals that in 1971 Jerome Franks was arrested for the crime of rape and subsequently convicted with
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Death-sentenced petitioner Terence Andrus was six years old when his mother began selling drugs out of the apartment where Andrus and his four siblings lived. To fund a spiraling drug addiction, Andrus' mother also turned to prostitution. By the time Andrus was 12, his mother regularly spent entire weekends, at times weeks, away from her five children to binge on drugs. When she did spend time around her children, she often was high and brought with her a revolving door of drug-addicted, sometimes physically violent, boyfriends. Before he reached adolescence, Andrus took on the role of caretaker for his four siblings.
When Andrus was 16, he allegedly served as a lookout while his friends robbed a woman. He was sent to a juvenile detention facility where, for 18 months, he was steeped in gang culture, dosed on high quantities of psychotropic drugs, and frequently relegated to extended stints of solitary confinement. The ordeal left an already traumatized Andrus all but suicidal. Those suicidal urges resurfaced later in Andrus' adult life.
During Andrus' capital trial, however, nearly none of this mitigating evidence reached the jury. That is because Andrus' defense counsel not only neglected to present it; he failed even to look for it. Indeed, counsel performed virtually no investigation of the relevant evidence. Those failures also fettered the defense's capacity to contextualize or counter the State's evidence of Andrus' alleged incidences of past violence.
Only years later, during an 8-day evidentiary hearing in Andrus' state habeas proceeding, did the grim facts of Andrus' life history come to light. And when pressed at the hearing to provide his reasons for failing to investigate Andrus' history, Andrus' counsel offered none.
The Texas trial court that heard the evidence recommended that Andrus be granted habeas relief and receive a new sentencing proceeding. The court found the abundant mitigating evidence so compelling, and so readily available, that counsel's failure to investigate it was constitutionally deficient performance that prejudiced Andrus during the punishment phase of his trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. It concluded without explanation that Andrus had failed to satisfy his burden of showing ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
We conclude that the record makes clear that Andrus has demonstrated counsel's deficient performance under Strickland, but that the Court of Criminal Appeals may have failed properly to engage with the follow-on question whether Andrus has shown that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him. We thus grant Andrus' petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
I
A
In 2008, 20-year-old Terence Andrus unsuccessfully attempted a carjacking in a grocery-store parking lot while under the influence of PCP-laced marijuana. During the bungled attempt, Andrus fired multiple shots, killing car owner Avelino Diaz and bystander Kim-Phuong Vu Bui. The State charged Andrus with capital murder.
At the guilt phase of trial, Andrus' defense counsel declined to present an opening statement. After the State rested its case, the defense immediately rested as well. In his closing argument, defense counsel conceded Andrus' guilt and informed the jury that the trial would "boil down to the punishment phase," emphasizing that "that's where we are going to be fighting." 45 Tr. 18. The jury found Andrus guilty of capital murder.
Trial then turned to the punishment phase. Once again, Andrus' counsel presented no opening statement. In its 3-day case in aggravation, the State put forth evidence that Andrus had displayed aggressive and hostile behavior while confined in a juvenile detention center; that Andrus had tattoos indicating gang affiliations; and that Andrus had hit, kicked, and thrown excrement at prison officials while awaiting trial. The State also presented evidence tying Andrus to an aggravated robbery of a dry-cleaning business. Counsel raised no material objections to the State's evidence and cross-examined the State's witnesses only briefly.
When it came to the defense's case in mitigation, counsel first called Andrus' mother to testify. The direct examination focused on Andrus' basic biographical information and did not reveal any difficult circumstances in Andrus' childhood. Andrus' mother testified that Andrus had an "excellent" relationship with his siblings and grandparents. 49 id., at 52, 71. She also insisted that Andrus "didn't have access to" "drugs or pills in [her] household," and that she would have "counsel[ed] him" had she found out that he was using drugs. Id., at 67, 79.
The second witness was Andrus' biological father, Michael Davis, with whom Andrus had lived for about a year when Andrus was around 15 years old. Davis had been in and out of prison for much of Andrus' life and, before he appeared to testify, had not seen Andrus in more than six years. The bulk of Davis' direct examination explored such topics as Davis' criminal history and his relationship with Andrus' mother. Toward the end of the direct examination, counsel elicited testimony that Andrus had been "good around [Davis]" during the 1-year period he had lived with Davis. 50 id., at 8.
Once Davis stepped down, Andrus' counsel informed the court that the defense rested its case and did not intend to call any more witnesses. After the court questioned counsel about this choice during a sidebar discussion, however, counsel changed his mind and decided to call additional witnesses.
Following a court recess, Andrus' counsel called Dr. John Roache as the defense's only expert witness. Counsel's terse direct examination focused on the general effects of drug use on developing adolescent brains. On cross-examination, the State quizzed Dr. Roache about the relevance and purpose of his testimony, probing pointedly whether Dr. Roache "drove three hours from San Antonio to tell the jury... that people change their behavior when they use drugs." 51 id., at 21.
Counsel next called James Martins, a prison counselor who had worked with Andrus. Martins testified that Andrus "started having remorse" in the past two months and was "making progress." Id., at 35. On cross-examination, the State emphasized that Andrus' feelings of remorse had manifested only recently, around the time trial began.
Finally, Andrus himself testified. Contrary to his mother's depiction of his upbringing, he stated that his mother had started selling drugs when he was around six years old, and that he and his siblings were often home alone when they were growing up. He also explained that he first started using drugs regularly around the time he was 15. All told, counsel's questioning about Andrus' childhood comprised four pages of the trial transcript. The State on cross declared, "I have not heard one mitigating circumstance in your life." Id., at 60.
The jury sentenced Andrus to death.
B
After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Andrus filed a state habeas application, principally alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or present available mitigation evidence. During an 8-day evidentiary hearing, Andrus presented what the Texas trial court characterized as a "tidal wave of information... with regard to mitigation." 7 Habeas Tr. 101.
The evidence revealed a childhood marked by extreme neglect and privation, a family environment filled with violence and abuse. Andrus was born into a neighborhood of Houston, Texas, known for its frequent shootings, gang fights, and drug overdoses. Andrus' mother had Andrus, her second of five children, when she was 17. The children's fathers never stayed as part of the family. One of them raped Andrus' younger half sister when she was a child. The others-some physically abusive toward Andrus' mother, all addicted to drugs and carrying criminal histories-constantly flitted in and out of the picture.
Starting when Andrus was young, his mother sold drugs and engaged in prostitution. She often made her drug sales at home, in view of Andrus and his siblings. She also habitually used drugs in front of them, and was high more often than not. In her frequently disoriented state, she would leave her children to fend for themselves. Many times, there was not enough food to eat.
After her boyfriend was killed in a shooting, Andrus' mother became increasingly dependent on drugs and neglectful of her children. As a close family friend attested, Andrus' mother "would occasionally just take a week or a weekend and binge [on drugs]. She would get a room somewhere and just go at it." 13 Habeas Tr., Def. Exh. 13, p. 2.
With the children often left on their own, Andrus assumed responsibility as the head of the household for his four siblings, including his older brother with special needs. Andrus was around 12 years old at the time. He cleaned for his siblings, put them to bed, cooked breakfast for them, made sure they got ready for school, helped them with their homework, and made them dinner. According to his siblings, Andrus was "a protective older brother" who "kept on to [them] to stay out of trouble." Id., Def. Exh. 18, p. 1. Andrus, by their account, was "very caring and very loving," "liked to make people laugh," and "never liked to see people cry." Ibid. ; id., Def. Exh. 9, p. 1. While attempting to care for his siblings, Andrus struggled with mental-health issues: When he was only 10 or 11, he was diagnosed with affective psychosis.
At age 16, Andrus was sentenced to a juvenile detention center run by the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), for allegedly "serv[ing] as the 'lookout' " while he and his friends robbed a woman of her purse. 10 Habeas Tr., State Exh. 16, p. 9; 13 id., Def. Exh. 4, p. 4 ("[R]ecords indicate[d that] Andrus served as the lookout"); 3 id., at 273-274; 5 id., at 206. While in TYC custody, Andrus was prescribed high doses of psychotropic drugs carrying serious adverse side effects. He also spent extended periods in isolation, often for purported infractions like reporting that he had heard voices telling him to do bad things. TYC records on Andrus noted multiple instances of self-harm and threats of suicide. After 18 months in TYC custody, Andrus was transferred to an adult prison facility.
Not long after Andrus' release from prison at age 18, Andrus attempted the fatal carjacking that resulted in his capital convictions. While incarcerated awaiting trial, Andrus tried to commit suicide. He slashed his wrist with a razor blade and used his blood to smear messages on the walls, beseeching the world to "[j]ust let [him] die." 31 id., Def. Exh. 122-A, ANDRUS-SH 4522.
After considering all the evidence at the hearing, the Texas trial court concluded that Andrus' counsel had been ineffective for "failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence regarding [Andrus'] abusive and neglectful childhood." App. to Pet. for Cert. 36. The court observed that the reason Andrus' jury did not hear "relevant, available, and persuasive mitigating evidence" was that trial counsel had "fail[ed] to investigate and present all other mitigating evidence." Id., at 36-37. The court explained that "there [is] ample mitigating evidence which could have, and should have, been presented at the punishment phase of [Andrus'] trial." Id., at 36. For that reason, the court concluded that counsel had been constitutionally ineffective, and that habeas relief, in the form of a new punishment trial, was warranted. Id., at 37, 42.
C
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the trial court's recommendation to grant habeas relief. In an unpublished per curiam order, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded without elaboration that Andrus had "fail[ed] to meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different but for counsel's deficient performance." App. to Pet. for Cert. 7-8. A concurring opinion reasoned that, even if counsel had provided deficient performance under Strickland, Andrus could not show that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him.
Andrus petitioned for a writ of certiorari. We grant the petition, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. The evidence makes clear that Andrus' counsel provided constitutionally deficient performance under Strickland. But we remand so that the Court of Criminal Appeals may address the prejudice prong of Strickland in the first instance.
II
To prevail on a Sixth Amendment claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and that his counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To show deficiency, a defendant must show that "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Id., at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. And to establish prejudice, a defendant must show "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
A
"It is unquestioned that under prevailing professional norms at the time of [Andrus'] trial, counsel had an 'obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant's background.' " Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 39, 130 S.Ct. 447, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (per curiam ) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ). Counsel in a death-penalty case has " 'a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.' " Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). " 'In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments.' " Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521-522, 123 S.Ct. 2527.
Here, the habeas record reveals that Andrus' counsel fell short of his obligation in multiple ways: First, counsel performed almost no mitigation investigation, overlooking vast tranches of mitigating evidence. Second, due to counsel's failure to investigate compelling mitigating evidence, what little evidence counsel did present backfired by bolstering the State's aggravation case. Third, counsel failed adequately to investigate the State's aggravating evidence, thereby forgoing critical opportunities to rebut the case in aggravation. Taken together, those deficiencies effected an unconstitutional abnegation of prevailing professional norms.
1
To assess whether counsel exercised objectively reasonable judgment under prevailing professional standards, we first ask "whether the investigation supporting counsel's decision not to introduce mitigating evidence of [Andrus'] background was itself reasonable." Id., at 523, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (emphasis deleted); see also id., at 528, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (considering whether "the scope of counsel's investigation into petitioner's background" was reasonable); Porter, 558 U.S. at 39, 130 S.Ct. 447. Here, plainly not. Although counsel nominally put on a case in mitigation in that counsel in fact called witnesses to the stand after the prosecution rested, the record leaves no doubt that counsel's investigation to support that case was an empty exercise.
To start, counsel was, by his own admissions at the habeas hearing, barely acquainted with the witnesses who testified during the case in mitigation. Counsel acknowledged that the first time he met Andrus' mother was when she was subpoenaed to testify, and the first time he met Andrus' biological father was when he showed up at the courthouse to take the stand. Counsel also admitted that he did not get in touch with the third witness (Dr. Roache) until just before voir dire, and became aware of the final witness (Martins) only partway through trial. Apart from some brief pretrial discussion with Dr. Roache, who averred that he was "struck by the extent to which [counsel] appeared unfamiliar" with pertinent issues, counsel did not prepare the witnesses or go over their testimony before calling them to the stand. 13 Habeas Tr., Def. Exh. 6, p. 3.
Over and over during the habeas hearing, counsel acknowledged that he did not look into or present the myriad tragic circumstances that marked Andrus' life. For instance, he did not know that Andrus had attempted suicide in prison, or that Andrus' experience in the custody of the TYC left him badly traumatized. Aside from Andrus' mother and biological father, counsel did not meet with any of Andrus' close family members, all of whom had disturbing stories about Andrus' upbringing. As a clinical psychologist testified at the habeas hearing, Andrus suffered "very pronounced trauma" and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms from, among other things, "severe neglect" and exposure to domestic violence, substance abuse, and death in his childhood. 6 id., at 168-169, 180; 7 id., at 52. Counsel uncovered none of that evidence. Instead, he "abandoned [his] investigation of [Andrus'] background after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 524, 123 S.Ct. 2527.
On top of that, counsel "ignored pertinent avenues for investigation of which he should have been aware," and indeed was aware. Porter, 558 U.S. at 40, 130 S.Ct. 447. At trial, counsel averred that his review did not reveal that Andrus had any mental-health issues. But materials prepared by a mitigation expert well before trial had pointed out that Andrus had been "diagnosed with affective psychosis," a mental-health condition marked by symptoms such as depression, mood lability, and emotional dysregulation. 3 id., at 70. At the habeas hearing, counsel admitted that he "recall[ed] noting," based on the mitigation expert's materials, that Andrus had been "diagnosed with this seemingly serious mental health issue." Id., at 71. He also acknowledged that a clinical psychologist briefly retained to examine a limited sample of Andrus' files had informed him that Andrus may have schizophrenia. Clearly, "the known evidence would [have] le[d] a reasonable attorney to investigate further." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527, 123 S.Ct. 2527. Yet counsel disregarded, rather than explored, the multiple red flags.
In short, counsel performed virtually no investigation, either of the few witnesses he called during the case in mitigation, or of the many circumstances in Andrus' life that could have served as powerful mitigating evidence. The untapped body of mitigating evidence was, as the habeas hearing revealed, simply vast.
"[C]ounsel's failure to uncover and present [the] voluminous mitigating evidence," moreover, cannot "be justified as a tactical decision." Id., at 522, 123 S.Ct. 2527 ; see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Despite repeated questioning, counsel never offered, and no evidence supports, any tactical rationale for the pervasive oversights and lapses here. Instead, the overwhelming weight of the record shows that counsel's "failure to investigate thoroughly resulted from inattention, not reasoned strategic judgment." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 526, 123 S.Ct. 2527. That failure is all the more alarming given that counsel's purported strategy was to concede guilt and focus on mitigation. Indeed, counsel justified his decision to present "basically" "no defense" during the guilt phase by stressing that he intended to train his efforts on the case in mitigation. 3 Habeas Tr. 57. As the habeas hearing laid bare, that representation blinked reality. Simply put, "the scope of counsel's [mitigation] investigation" approached nonexistent. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 528, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (emphasis deleted).
2
No doubt due to counsel's failure to investigate the case in mitigation, much of the so-called mitigating evidence he offered unwittingly aided the State's case in aggravation. Counsel's introduction of seemingly aggravating evidence confirms the gaping distance between his performance at trial and objectively reasonable professional judgment.
The testimony elicited from Andrus' mother best illustrates this deficiency. First to testify during the case in mitigation, Andrus' mother sketched a portrait of a tranquil upbringing, during which Andrus got himself into trouble despite his family's best efforts. On her account, Andrus fell into drugs entirely on his own: Drugs were not available at home, Andrus did not use them at home, and she would have intervened had she known about Andrus' drug habits. Andrus, his mother related to the jury, "[k]ind of " "just decided he didn't want to do what [she] told him to do." 49 Tr. 83.
Even though counsel called Andrus' mother as a defense witness, he was ill-prepared for her testimony. Andrus told counsel that his mother was being untruthful on the stand, but counsel made no real attempt to probe the accuracy of her testimony. Later, at the habeas hearing, counsel conceded that Andrus' mother had been a "hostile" witness. 3 Habeas Tr. 94. He further admitted that he "[did not] know if [Andrus' mother] was telling the truth," id., at 96, and could not even say that he had known what Andrus' mother would say on the stand, because he had not "done any independent investigation" of her, id., at 95.
None of that inaction was for want of warning. During the habeas proceedings, a mitigation specialist averred that she had alerted Andrus' counsel to her concerns about Andrus' mother well before trial. In a short interview with the mitigation specialist, Andrus' mother had stated that she "had too many kids," and had taken out a $10,000 life-insurance policy on Andrus on which she would be able to collect were Andrus executed. 13 id., Def. Exh. 28, p. 5. Troubled by these comments, the mitigation specialist "specifically discussed with [Andrus' counsel] the fact that [Andrus' mother] was not being a cooperative witness and might not have Andrus' best interests motivating her behavior." Id., at 6. But Andrus' counsel did not heed the caution.
Turning a bad situation worse, counsel's uninformed decision to call Andrus' mother ultimately undermined Andrus' own testimony. After Andrus testified that his mother had sold drugs from home when he was a child, counsel promptly pointed out that Andrus "heard [his] mama testify," and that she "didn't say anything about selling drugs." 51 Tr. 48. Whether counsel merely intended to provide Andrus an opportunity to explain the discrepancy (or, far worse, sought to signal that his client was being deceitful) the jury could have understood counsel's statements to insinuate that Andrus was lying. Counsel did nothing to dislodge that suggestion, and the damaging exchange occurred only because defense counsel had called a hostile witness in the first place. Plainly, these offerings of seemingly aggravating evidence further demonstrate counsel's constitutionally deficient performance.
3
Counsel also failed to conduct any independent investigation of the State's case in aggravation, despite ample opportunity to do so. He thus could not, and did not, rebut critical aggravating evidence. This failure, too, reinforces counsel's deficient performance. See Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 385, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) ("counsel ha[s] a duty to make all reasonable efforts to learn what they c[an] about the offense[s]" the prosecution intends to present as aggravating evidence).
During the case in aggravation, the State's task was to prove to the jury that Andrus presented a future danger to society. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071, § 2(b)(1) (Vernon 2006). To that end, the State emphasized that Andrus had acted aggressively in TYC facilities and in prison while awaiting trial. This evidence principally comprised verbal threats, but also included instances of Andrus' kicking, hitting, and throwing excrement at prison officials when they tried to control him. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 10-13. Had counsel genuinely investigated Andrus' experiences in TYC custody, counsel would have learned that Andrus' behavioral problems there were notably mild, and the harms he sustained severe. Or, with sufficient understanding of the violent environments Andrus inhabited his entire life, counsel could have provided a counternarrative of Andrus' later episodes in prison. But instead, counsel left all of that aggravating evidence untouched at trial-even going so far as to inform the jury that the evidence made it "probabl[e]" that Andrus was "a violent kind of guy." 52 Tr. 35.
The State's case in aggravation also highlighted Andrus' alleged commission of a knifepoint robbery at a dry-cleaning business. At the time of the offense, "all [that] the crime victim... told the police... was that he had been the victim of an assault by a black man." 3 Habeas Tr. 65. Although Andrus stressed to counsel his innocence of the offense, and although the State had not proceeded with charges, Andrus' counsel did not attempt to exclude or rebut the State's evidence. That, too, is because Andrus' counsel concededly had not independently investigated the incident. In fact, at the habeas hearing, counsel did not even recall Andrus' denying responsibility for the offense. Had he looked, counsel would have discovered that the only evidence originally tying Andrus to the incident was a lone witness statement, later recanted by the witness, that led to the inclusion of Andrus' photograph in a belated photo array, which the police admitted gave rise to numerous reliability concerns. The dissent thus reinforces Andrus' claim of deficient performance by recounting and emphasizing the details of the dry-cleaning offense as if Andrus were undoubtedly the perpetrator. See post, at 1890 - 1891 (opinion of ALITO, J.). The very problem here is that the jury indeed heard that account, but not any of the significant evidence that would have cast doubt on Andrus' involvement in the offense at all: significant evidence that counsel concededly failed to investigate.
That is hardly the work of reasonable counsel. In Texas, a jury cannot recommend a death sentence without unanimously finding that a defendant presents a future danger to society (i.e., that the State has made a sufficient showing of aggravation). Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071, § 2(b)(1). Only after a jury makes a finding of future dangerousness can it consider any mitigating evidence. Ibid. Thus, by failing to conduct even a marginally adequate investigation, counsel not only "seriously compromis[ed his] opportunity to respond to a case for aggravation," Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 385, 125 S.Ct. 2456, but also relinquished the first of only two procedural pathways for opposing the State's pursuit of the death penalty. There is no squaring that conduct, certainly when examined alongside counsel's other shortfalls, with objectively reasonable judgment.
B
Having found deficient performance, the question remains whether counsel's deficient performance prejudiced Andrus. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Here, prejudice exists if there is a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel's ineffectiveness, the jury would have made a different judgment about whether Andrus deserved the death penalty as opposed to a lesser sentence. See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 536, 123 S.Ct. 2527 ; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071, § 2(e)(1). In assessing whether Andrus has made that showing, the reviewing court must consider "the totality of the available mitigation evidence-both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding"-and "reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation." Williams, 529 U.S. at 397-398, 120 S.Ct. 1495 ; see also Sears v. Upton, 561 U.S. 945, 956, 130 S.Ct. 3259, 177 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2010) (per curiam ) ("A proper analysis of prejudice under Strickland would have taken into account the newly uncovered [mitigation] evidence..., along with the mitigation evidence introduced during [the defendant's] penalty phase trial, to assess whether there is a reasonable probability that [the defendant] would have received a different sentence after a constitutionally sufficient mitigation investigation" (citing cases)). And because Andrus' death sentence required a unanimous jury recommendation, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071, prejudice here requires only "a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance" regarding Andrus' "moral culpability," Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 537-538, 123 S.Ct. 2527 ; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071, § 2(e)(1).
According to Andrus, effective counsel would have painted a vividly different tableau of aggravating and mitigating evidence than that presented at trial. See Pet. for Cert. 18. But despite powerful and readily available mitigating evidence, Andrus argues, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals failed to engage in any meaningful prejudice inquiry. See ibid.
It is unclear whether the Court of Criminal Appeals considered Strickland prejudice at all. Its one-sentence denial of Andrus' Strickland claim, see supra, at 1880 - 1881, does not conclusively reveal whether it determined that Andrus had failed to demonstrate deficient performance under Strickland's first prong, that Andrus had failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland's second prong, or that Andrus had failed to satisfy both prongs of Strickland.
Unlike the concurring opinion, however, the brief order of the Court of Criminal Appeals did not analyze Strickland prejudice or engage with the effect the additional mitigating evidence highlighted by Andrus would have had on the jury. What little is evident from the proceeding below is that the concurring opinion's analysis of or conclusion regarding prejudice did not garner a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Given that, the court may have concluded simply that Andrus failed to demonstrate deficient performance under the first prong of Strickland (without even reaching the second prong). For the reasons explained above, any such conclusion is erroneous as a matter of law. See supra, at 1881 - 1886.
The record before us raises a significant question whether the apparent "tidal wave," 7 Habeas Tr. 101, of "available mitigating evidence taken as a whole" might have sufficiently " 'influenced the jury's appraisal' of [Andrus'] moral culpability" as to establish Strickland prejudice, Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 538, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 398, 120 S.Ct. 1495 ). (That is, at the very least, whether there is a reasonable probability that "at least one juror would have struck a different balance." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 537, 123 S.Ct. 2527.) That prejudice inquiry "necessarily require[s] a court to'speculate' as to the effect of the new evidence" on the trial evidence, "regardless of how much or little mitigation evidence was presented during the initial penalty phase." Sears, 561 U.S. at 956, 130 S.Ct. 3259 ; see also id., at 954, 130 S.Ct. 3259 ("We have never limited the prejudice inquiry under Strickland to cases in which there was 'little or no mitigation evidence' presented"). Given the uncertainty as to whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adequately conducted that weighty and record-intensive analysis in the first instance, we remand for the Court of Criminal Appeals to address Strickland prejudice in light of the correct legal principles articulated above. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).
* * *
We conclude that Andrus has shown deficient performance under the first prong of Strickland, and that there is a significant question whether the Court of Criminal Appeals properly considered prejudice under the second prong of Strickland. We thus grant Andrus' petition for a writ of certiorari and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand the case for the court to address the prejudice prong of Strickland in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS and Justice GORSUCH join, dissenting.
The Court clears this case off the docket, but it does so on a ground that is hard to take seriously. According to the Court, "[i]t is unclear whether the Court of Criminal Appeals considered Strickland prejudice at all." Ante, at 1886; see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). But that reading is squarely contradicted by the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), which said explicitly that Andrus failed to show prejudice:
"[Andrus] fails to meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674] (1984), to show by a preponder
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, provides that "[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony after admission" to the United States may be removed from the country by the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). One of the many crimes that constitutes an aggravated felony under the INA is "sexual abuse of a minor." § 1101(a)(43)(A). A conviction for sexual abuse of a minor is an aggravated felony regardless of whether it is for a "violation of Federal or State law." § 1101(a)(43). The INA does not expressly define sexual abuse of a minor.
We must decide whether a conviction under a state statute criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse between a 21-year-old and a 17-year-old qualifies as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA. We hold that it does not.
I
Petitioner Juan Esquivel-Quintana is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2000. In 2009, he pleaded no contest in the Superior Court of California to a statutory rape offense: "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator," Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 261.5(c) (West 2014); see also § 261.5(a) ("Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor"). For purposes of that offense, California defines "minor" as "a person under the age of 18 years." Ibid.
The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against petitioner based on that conviction. An Immigration Judge concluded that the conviction qualified as "sexual abuse of a minor," 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A), and ordered petitioner removed to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissed his appeal. 26 I. & N. Dec. 469 (2015). "[F]or a statutory rape offense involving a 16- or 17-year-old victim" to qualify as " 'sexual abuse of a minor,' " it reasoned, "the statute must require a meaningful age difference between the victim and the perpetrator." Id., at 477. In its view, the 3-year age difference required by Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) was meaningful. Id., at 477. Accordingly, the Board concluded that petitioner's crime of conviction was an aggravated felony, making him removable under the INA. Ibid. A divided Court of Appeals denied Esquivel-Quintana's petition for review, deferring to the Board's interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 810 F.3d 1019 (C.A.6 2016) ; see also id., at 1027 (Sutton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). We granted certiorari, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 368, 196 L.Ed.2d 283 (2016), and now reverse.
II
Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) makes aliens removable based on the nature of their convictions, not based on their actual conduct. See Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1980, 1986-1987, 192 L.Ed.2d 60 (2015). Accordingly, to determine whether an alien's conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under that section, we "employ a categorical approach by looking to the statute ... of conviction, rather than to the specific facts underlying the crime." Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 483, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012) ; see, e.g., Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 186, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) (applying the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), to the INA). Under that approach, we ask whether " 'the state statute defining the crime of conviction' categorically fits within the 'generic' federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony." Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 190, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013) (quoting Duenas-Alvarez, supra, at 186, 127 S.Ct. 815 ). In other words, we presume that the state conviction "rested upon ... the least of th[e] acts" criminalized by the statute, and then we determine whether that conduct would fall within the federal definition of the crime. Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 137, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ; see also Moncrieffe, supra, at 191, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (focusing "on the minimum conduct criminalized by the state statute"). Petitioner's state conviction is thus an "aggravated felony" under the INA only if the least of the acts criminalized by the state statute falls within the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor.
A
Because Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) criminalizes "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator" and defines a minor as someone under age 18, the conduct criminalized under this provision would be, at a minimum, consensual sexual intercourse between a victim who is almost 18 and a perpetrator who just turned 21. Regardless of the actual facts of petitioner's crime, we must presume that his conviction was based on acts that were no more criminal than that. If those acts do not constitute sexual abuse of a minor under the INA, then petitioner was not convicted of an aggravated felony and is not, on that basis, removable.
Petitioner concedes that sexual abuse of a minor under the INA includes some statutory rape offenses. But he argues that a statutory rape offense based solely on the partners' ages (like the one here) is " 'abuse' " "only when the younger partner is under 16." Reply Brief 2. Because the California statute criminalizes sexual intercourse when the victim is up to 17 years old, petitioner contends that it does not categorically qualify as sexual abuse of a minor.
B
We agree with petitioner that, in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires that the victim be younger than 16. Because the California statute at issue in this case does not categorically fall within that definition, a conviction pursuant to it is not an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(A). We begin, as always, with the text.
1
Section 1101(a)(43)(A) does not expressly define sexual abuse of a minor, so we interpret that phrase using the normal tools of statutory interpretation. "Our analysis begins with the language of the statute." Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 8, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004) ; see also Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 53, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006) ("The everyday understanding of" the term used in § 1101"should count for a lot here, for the statutes in play do not define the term, and so remit us to regular usage to see what Congress probably meant").
Congress added sexual abuse of a minor to the INA in 1996, as part of a comprehensive immigration reform act. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 321(a)(i), 110 Stat. 3009-627. At that time, the ordinary meaning of "sexual abuse" included "the engaging in sexual contact with a person who is below a specified age or who is incapable of giving consent because of age or mental or physical incapacity." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 454 (1996). By providing that the abuse must be "of a minor," the INA focuses on age, rather than mental or physical incapacity. Accordingly, to qualify as sexual abuse of a minor, the statute of conviction must prohibit certain sexual acts based at least in part on the age of the victim.
Statutory rape laws are one example of this category of crimes. Those laws generally provide that an older person may not engage in sexual intercourse with a younger person under a specified age, known as the "age of consent." See id., at 20 (defining "age of consent" as "the age at which a person is deemed competent by law to give consent esp. to sexual intercourse" and cross-referencing "statutory rape"). Many laws also require an age differential between the two partners.
Although the age of consent for statutory rape purposes varies by jurisdiction, see infra, at 1571, reliable dictionaries provide evidence that the "generic" age-in 1996 and today-is 16. See B. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 38 (2d ed. 1995) ("Age of consent, usu[ally] 16, denotes the age when one is legally capable of agreeing ... to sexual intercourse" and cross-referencing "statutory rape"); Black's Law Dictionary 73 (10th ed. 2014) (noting that the age of consent is "usu[ally] defined by statute as 16 years").
2
Relying on a different dictionary (and "sparse" legislative history), the Government suggests an alternative " 'everyday understanding' " of "sexual abuse of a minor." Brief for Respondent 16-17 (citing Black's Law Dictionary 1375 (6th ed. 1990)). Around the time sexual abuse of a minor was added to the INA's list of aggravated felonies, that dictionary defined "[s]exual abuse" as "[i]llegal sex acts performed against a minor by a parent, guardian, relative, or acquaintance," and defined "[m]inor" as "[a]n infant or person who is under the age of legal competence," which in "most states" was "18." Id., at 997, 1375. " 'Sexual abuse of a minor,' " the Government accordingly contends, "most naturally connotes conduct that (1) is illegal, (2) involves sexual activity, and (3) is directed at a person younger than 18 years old." Brief for Respondent 17.
We are not persuaded that the generic federal offense corresponds to the Government's definition. First, the Government's proposed definition is flatly inconsistent with the definition of sexual abuse contained in the very dictionary on which it relies; the Government's proposed definition does not require that the act be performed "by a parent, guardian, relative, or acquaintance ." Black's Law Dictionary 1375 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added). In any event, as we explain below, offenses predicated on a special relationship of trust between the victim and offender are not at issue here and frequently have a different age requirement than the general age of consent. Second, in the context of statutory rape, the prepositional phrase "of a minor" naturally refers not to the age of legal competence (when a person is legally capable of agreeing to a contract, for example), but to the age of consent (when a person is legally capable of agreeing to sexual intercourse). Third, the Government's definition turns the categorical approach on its head by defining the generic federal offense of sexual abuse of a minor as whatever is illegal under the particular law of the State where the defendant was convicted. Under the Government's preferred approach, there is no "generic" definition at all. See Taylor, 495 U.S., at 591, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (requiring "a clear indication that ... Congress intended to abandon its general approach of using uniform categorical definitions to identify predicate offenses"); id., at 592, 110 S.Ct. 2143 ("We think that 'burglary' in § 924(e) must have some uniform definition independent of the labels employed by the various States' criminal codes").
C
The structure of the INA, a related federal statute, and evidence from state criminal codes confirm that, for a statutory rape offense to qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA based solely on the age of the participants, the victim must be younger than 16.
1
Surrounding provisions of the INA guide our interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 167 (2012). This offense is listed in the INA as an "aggravated felony." 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). "An 'aggravated' offense is one 'made worse or more serious by circumstances such as violence, the presence of a deadly weapon, or the intent to commit another crime.' " Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 574, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 75 (9th ed. 2009)). Moreover, the INA lists sexual abuse of a minor in the same subparagraph as "murder" and "rape," § 1101(a)(43)(A) -among the most heinous crimes it defines as aggravated felonies. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The structure of the INA therefore suggests that sexual abuse of a minor encompasses only especially egregious felonies.
A closely related federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2243, provides further evidence that the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor incorporates an age of consent of 16, at least in the context of statutory rape offenses predicated solely on the age of the participants. Cf. Leocal, 543 U.S., at 12-13, n. 9, 125 S.Ct. 377 (concluding that Congress' treatment of 18 U.S.C. § 16 in an Act passed "just nine months earlier" provided "stron [g] suppor[t]" for our interpretation of § 16 as incorporated into the INA); Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 232, 127 S.Ct. 2411, 168 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007). Section 2243, which criminalizes "[s]exual abuse of a minor or ward," contains the only definition of that phrase in the United States Code. As originally enacted in 1986, § 2243 proscribed engaging in a "sexual act" with a person between the ages of 12 and 16 if the perpetrator was at least four years older than the victim. In 1996, Congress expanded § 2243 to include victims who were younger than 12, thereby protecting anyone under the age of 16. § 2243(a) ; see also § 2241(c). Congress did this in the same omnibus law that added sexual abuse of a minor to the INA, which suggests that Congress understood that phrase to cover victims under age 16. See Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, §§ 121(7), 321,110 Stat. 3009-31, 3009-627.
Petitioner does not contend that the definition in § 2243(a) must be imported wholesale into the INA, Brief for Petitioner 17, and we do not do so. One reason is that the INA does not cross-reference § 2243(a), whereas many other aggravated felonies in the INA are defined by cross-reference to other provisions of the United States Code, see, e.g., § 1101(a)(43)(H) ("an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 1202 of Title 18 (relating to the demand for or receipt of ransom)"). Another is that § 2243(a) requires a 4-year age difference between the perpetrator and the victim. Combining that element with a 16-year age of consent would categorically exclude the statutory rape laws of most States. See Brief for Respondent 34-35; cf. Taylor, 495 U.S., at 594, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (declining to "constru[e] 'burglary' to mean common-law burglary," because that "would come close to nullifying that term's effect in the statute," since "few of the crimes now generally recognized as burglaries would fall within the common-law definition"). Accordingly, we rely on § 2243(a) for evidence of the meaning of sexual abuse of a minor, but not as providing the complete or exclusive definition.
2
As in other cases where we have applied the categorical approach, we look to state criminal codes for additional evidence about the generic meaning of sexual abuse of a minor. See Taylor, 495 U.S., at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (interpreting " 'burglary' " under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 according to "the generic sense in which the term is now used in the criminal codes of most States"); Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S., at 190, 127 S.Ct. 815 (interpreting "theft" in the INA in the same manner). When "sexual abuse of a minor" was added to the INA in 1996, thirty-one States and the District of Columbia set the age of consent at 16 for statutory rape offenses that hinged solely on the age of the participants. As for the other States, one set the age of consent at 14; two set the age of consent at 15; six set the age of consent at 17; and the remaining ten, including California, set the age of consent at 18. See Appendix, infra ; cf. ALI, Model Penal Code § 213.3(1)(a) (1980) (in the absence of a special relationship, setting the default age of consent at 16 for the crime of "[c]orruption of [m]inors"). A significant majority of jurisdictions thus set the age of consent at 16 for statutory rape offenses predicated exclusively on the age of the participants.
Many jurisdictions set a different age of consent for offenses that include an element apart from the age of the participants, such as offenses that focus on whether the perpetrator is in some special relationship of trust with the victim. That was true in the two States that had offenses labeled "sexual abuse of a minor" in 1996. See Alaska Stat. § 11.41.438 (1996) (age of consent for third-degree "sexual abuse of a minor" was 16 generally but 18 where "the offender occupie[d] a position of authority in relation to the victim"); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 254(1) (1983), as amended by 1995 Me. Laws p. 123 (age of consent for "[s]exual abuse of minors" was 16 generally but 18 where the victim was "a student" and the offender was "a teacher, employee or other official in the ... school ... in which the student [was] enrolled"). And that is true in four of the five jurisdictions that have offenses titled "sexual abuse of a minor" today. Compare, e.g., D.C. Code §§ 22-3001 (2012), 22-3008 (2016 Cum. Supp.) (age of consent is 16 in the absence of a significant relationship) with § 22-3009.01 (age of consent is 18 where the offender "is in a significant relationship" with the victim); see also Brief for Respondent 31 (listing statutes with that title). Accordingly, the generic crime of sexual abuse of a minor may include a different age of consent where the perpetrator and victim are in a significant relationship of trust. As relevant to this case, however, the general consensus from state criminal codes points to the same generic definition as dictionaries and federal law: Where sexual intercourse is abusive solely because of the ages of the participants, the victim must be younger than 16.
D
The laws of many States and of the Federal Government include a minimum age differential (in addition to an age of consent) in defining statutory rape. We need not and do not decide whether the generic crime of sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) includes an additional element of that kind. Petitioner has "show[n] something special about California's version of the doctrine"-that the age of consent is 18, rather than 16-and needs no more to prevail. Duenas-Alvarez, supra, at 191, 127 S.Ct. 815. Absent some special relationship of trust, consensual sexual conduct involving a younger partner who is at least 16 years of age does not qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA, regardless of the age differential between the two participants. We leave for another day whether the generic offense requires a particular age differential between the victim and the perpetrator, and whether the generic offense encompasses sexual intercourse involving victims over the age of 16 that is abusive because of the nature of the relationship between the participants.
III
Finally, petitioner and the Government debate whether the Board's interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor is entitled to deference under Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694. Petitioner argues that any ambiguity in the meaning of this phrase must be resolved in favor of the alien under the rule of lenity. See Brief for Petitioner 41-45. The Government responds that ambiguities should be resolved by deferring to the Board's interpretation. See Brief for Respondent 45-53. We have no need to resolve whether the rule of lenity or Chevron receives priority in this case because the statute, read in context, unambiguously forecloses the Board's interpretation. Therefore, neither the rule of lenity nor Chevron applies.
* * *
We hold that in the context of statutory rape offenses focused solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" under § 1101(a)(43)(A) requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX
These tables list offenses criminalizing sexual intercourse solely because of the age of the participants. The tables are organized according to the statutory age of consent as of September 30, 1996-the date "sexual abuse of a minor" was added to the INA.
14 Years
Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-730(1)(b) (1993)
15 Years
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-403(1)(e) (1997) South Carolina S. C. Code Ann. § 16-3-655(2) (1985)
16 Years
Alabama Ala. Code §§ 13A-6-62(a)(1), 13A-6-70(c)(1) (1994) Alaska Alaska Stat. § 11.41.436(a)(1) (1996) Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-14-106(a), 5-14-107(a) (1997) Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-71(a)(1) (1995) Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 773(2) (1995) District of Columbia D. C. Code §§ 22-4101(3), 22-4108 (1996) Georgia Ga. Code Ann. § 16-6-3(a) (1996) Indiana 1998 Ind. Acts § 8, p. 774 Iowa Iowa Code § 709.4(2) (1987), as amended by 1994 Iowa Acts p. 290 Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3504(a)(1) (1995) Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 510.020(3)(a), 510.060(1)(b) (Lexis 1990) Maine Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 254(1) (1983), as amended by 1995 Me. Laws p. 123 Maryland Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, §§ 464B(a)(4), (5), 464C(a)(2), (3) (1996) Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 265, § 23 (1992) Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520d(1)(a) (1991), as amended by 1996 Mich. Pub. Acts p. 393 Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 609.344.1(b) (1996) Montana Mont. Code Ann. §§ 45-5-501(1)(b)(iii), 45-5-503(3)(a) (1995) Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319(1) (1994 Cum. Supp.) Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.364(3), 200.368 (1997) New Hampshire N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 632-A:3(II) (1986) New Jersey N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-2(c)(5) (West 1995) North Carolina N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-27.7A (1998 Cum. Supp.) Ohio Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.04(A) (Lexis 1996) Oklahoma Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, § 1111(A)(1) (1983), as amended by 1995 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 22, § 1, p. 119 Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3122.1, added by 1995 Pa. Laws 985, § 5, p. 987 Rhode Island R. I. Gen. Laws § 11-37-6 (1994) South Dakota S. D. Codified Laws § 22-22-1(5) (1998) Utah 1983 Utah Laws ch. 88, § 16 Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, § 3252(a)(3) (1998) Washington Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.079 (1994) West Virginia W. Va. Code Ann. §§ 61-8B-2(c)(1), 61-8B-5(a)(2) (Lexis 1997) Wyoming Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-304(a)(i) (1997)
17 Years
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §§ 5/12-15(b)-(c), 5/12-16(d) (West 1996) Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:80(A)(1) (West 1986), as amended by 1995 La. Acts no. 241, p. 670 Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.034 (1994) New Mexico N. M. Stat. Ann. § 30-9-11(F), as amended by 1995 N. M. Laws ch. 159, p. 1414 New York N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §§ 130.05(3)(a), 130.20(1), 130.25(2) (West 1998) Texas Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.011(a)(2), (c)(1) (West 1994)
18 Years
Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1405(A) (1989) California Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 261.5(a) (West Supp. 1998) Florida Fla. Stat. § 794.05(1) (1991) Idaho Idaho Code Ann. § 18-6101(1) (Supp. 1996) Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-67 (Supp. 1993) North Dakota N. D. Cent. Code Ann. § 12.1-20-05 (Supp. 1983); § 14-10-01 (1997) Oregon Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 163.315(1), 163.435(1), 163.445(1) (1997) Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-506(a) (Supp. 1996) Virginia Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371 (1996) Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §§ 948.01(1), 948.09 (1993-1994)
Where a state statute contains several different crimes that are described separately, we employ what is known as the "modified categorical approach." See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 187, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under that approach, which is not at issue here, the court may review the charging documents, jury instructions, plea agreement, plea colloquy, and similar sources to determine the actual crime of which the alien was convicted. See ibid.
To eliminate a redundancy, Congress later amended § 2243(a) to revert to the pre-1996 language. See Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act of 1998, § 301(b), 112 Stat. 2979. That amendment does not change Congress' understanding in 1996, when it added sexual abuse of a minor to the INA.
The Government notes that this sort of multijurisdictional analysis can "be useful insofar as it helps shed light on the 'common understanding and meaning' of the federal provision being interpreted," but that it is not required by the categorical approach. Brief for Respondent 23-25 (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 45, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979) ). We agree. In this case, state criminal codes aid our interpretation of "sexual abuse of a minor" by offering useful context.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 GINSBURGdelivered the opinion of the Court.
In Illinois v. Caballes,543 U.S. 405, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005), this Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable seizures. This case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment tolerates a dog sniff conducted after completion of a traffic stop. We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, "become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission" of issuing a ticket for the violation. Id., at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834. The Court so recognized in Caballes,and we adhere to the line drawn in that decision.
I
Just after midnight on March 27, 2012, police officer Morgan Struble observed a Mercury Mountaineer veer slowly onto the shoulder of Nebraska State Highway 275 for one or two seconds and then jerk back onto the road. Nebraska law prohibits driving on highway shoulders, see Neb.Rev.Stat. § 60-6,142 (2010), and on that basis, Struble pulled the Mountaineer over at 12:06 a.m. Struble is a K-9 officer with the Valley Police Department in Nebraska, and his dog Floyd was in his patrol car that night. Two men were in the Mountaineer: the driver, Dennys Rodriguez, and a front-seat passenger, Scott Pollman.
Struble approached the Mountaineer on the passenger's side. After Rodriguez identified himself, Struble asked him why he had driven onto the shoulder. Rodriguez replied that he had swerved to avoid a pothole. Struble then gathered Rodriguez's license, registration, and proof of insurance, and asked Rodriguez to accompany him to the patrol car. Rodriguez asked if he was required to do so, and Struble answered that he was not. Rodriguez decided to wait in his own vehicle.
After running a records check on Rodriguez, Struble returned to the Mountaineer. Struble asked passenger Pollman for his driver's license and began to question him about where the two men were coming from and where they were going. Pollman replied that they had traveled to Omaha, Nebraska, to look at a Ford Mustang that was for sale and that they were returning to Norfolk, Nebraska. Struble returned again to his patrol car, where he completed a records check on Pollman, and called for a second officer. Struble then began writing a warning ticket for Rodriguez for driving on the shoulder of the road.
Struble returned to Rodriguez's vehicle a third time to issue the written warning. By 12:27 or 12:28 a.m., Struble had finished explaining the warning to Rodriguez, and had given back to Rodriguez and Pollman the documents obtained from them. As Struble later testified, at that point, Rodriguez and Pollman "had all their documents back and a copy of the written warning. I got all the reason[s] for the stop out of the way[,] ... took care of all the business." App. 70.
Nevertheless, Struble did not consider Rodriguez "free to leave." Id.,at 69-70. Although justification for the traffic stop was "out of the way," id.,at 70, Struble asked for permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez's vehicle. Rodriguez said no. Struble then instructed Rodriguez to turn off the ignition, exit the vehicle, and stand in front of the patrol car to wait for the second officer. Rodriguez complied. At 12:33 a.m., a deputy sheriff arrived. Struble retrieved his dog and led him twice around the Mountaineer. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs halfway through Struble's second pass. All told, seven or eight minutes had elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the dog indicated the presence of drugs. A search of the vehicle revealed a large bag of methamphetamine.
Rodriguez was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)and (b)(1). He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground, among others, that Struble had prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff.
After receiving evidence, a Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge found no probable cause to search the vehicle independent of the dog alert. App. 100 (apart from "information given by the dog," "Officer Struble had [no]thing other than a rather large hunch"). He further found that no reasonable suspicion supported the detention once Struble issued the written warning. He concluded, however, that under Eighth Circuit precedent, extension of the stop by "seven to eight minutes" for the dog sniff was only a de minimisintrusion on Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment rights and was therefore permissible.
The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and denied Rodriguez's motion to suppress. The court noted that, in the Eighth Circuit, "dog sniffs that occur within a short time following the completion of a traffic stop are not constitutionally prohibited if they constitute only de minimis intrusions." App. 114 (quoting United States v. Alexander,448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (C.A.8 2006)). The court thus agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the "7 to 10 minutes" added to the stop by the dog sniff "was not of constitutional significance." App. 114. Impelled by that decision, Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to five years in prison.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The "seven- or eight-minute delay" in this case, the opinion noted, resembled delays that the court had previously ranked as permissible. 741 F.3d 905, 907 (2014). The Court of Appeals thus ruled that the delay here constituted an acceptable "de minimisintrusion on Rodriguez's personal liberty." Id.,at 908. Given that ruling, the court declined to reach the question whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue Rodriguez's detention after issuing the written warning.
We granted certiorari to resolve a division among lower courts on the question whether police routinely may extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion, in order to conduct a dog sniff.573 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 43, 189 L.Ed.2d 896 (2014). Compare, e.g., United States v. Morgan,270 F.3d 625, 632 (C.A.8 2001)(postcompletion delay of "well under ten minutes" permissible), with, e.g., State v. Baker,2010 UT 18, ¶ 13, 229 P.3d 650, 658 (2010)("[W]ithout additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.").
II
A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation. "[A] relatively brief encounter," a routine traffic stop is "more analogous to a so-called 'Terrystop' ... than to a formal arrest." Knowles v. Iowa,525 U.S. 113, 117, 119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998)(quoting Berkemer v. McCarty,468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), in turn citing Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). See also Arizona v. Johnson,555 U.S. 323, 330, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009). Like a Terrystop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure's "mission"-to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Caballes,543 U.S., at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834and attend to related safety concerns, infra,at 1619 - 1620. See also United States v. Sharpe,470 U.S. 675, 685, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985); Florida v. Royer,460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)(plurality opinion) ("The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification."). Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may "last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose." Ibid.See also Caballes,543 U.S., at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are-or reasonably should have been-completed. See Sharpe,470 U.S., at 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568(in determining the reasonable duration of a stop, "it [is] appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued [the] investigation").
Our decisions in Caballesand Johnsonheed these constraints. In both cases, we concluded that the Fourth Amendment tolerated certain unrelated investigations that did not lengthen the roadside detention. Johnson,555 U.S., at 327-328, 129 S.Ct. 781(questioning);Caballes,543 U.S., at 406, 408, 125 S.Ct. 834(dog sniff). In Caballes,however, we cautioned that a traffic stop "can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission" of issuing a warning ticket. 543 U.S., at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834. And we repeated that admonition in Johnson: The seizure remains lawful only "so long as [unrelated] inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop." 555 U.S., at 333, 129 S.Ct. 781. See also Muehler v. Mena,544 U.S. 93, 101, 125 S.Ct. 1465, 161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005)(because unrelated inquiries did not "exten[d] the time [petitioner] was detained[,] ... no additional Fourth Amendment justification ... was required"). An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But contrary to Justice ALITO's suggestion, post, at 1625, n. 2, he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual. But see post,at 1623 - 1624 (ALITO, J., dissenting) (premising opinion on the dissent's own finding of "reasonable suspicion," although the District Court reached the opposite conclusion, and the Court of Appeals declined to consider the issue).
Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer's mission includes "ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop." Caballes,543 U.S., at 408, 125 S.Ct. 834. Typically such inquiries involve checking the driver's license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile's registration and proof of insurance. See Delaware v. Prouse,440 U.S. 648, 658-660, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). See also 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.3(c), pp. 507-517 (5th ed. 2012). These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. See Prouse,440 U.S., at 658-659, 99 S.Ct. 1391; LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.3(c), at 516(A "warrant check makes it possible to determine whether the apparent traffic violator is wanted for one or more previous traffic offenses.").
A dog sniff, by contrast, is a measure aimed at "detect[ing] evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." Indianapolis v. Edmond,531 U.S. 32, 40-41, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000). See also Florida v. Jardines,569 U.S. 1, ---- - ----, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1416-1417, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). Candidly, the Government acknowledged at oral argument that a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer's traffic mission.
In advancing its de minimisrule, the Eighth Circuit relied heavily on our decision in Pennsylvania v. Mimms,434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)(per curiam). See United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency,182 F.3d 643, 649 (C.A.8 1999). In Mimms,we reasoned that the government's "legitimate and weighty" interest in officer safety outweighs the "de minimis" additional intrusion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle. 434 U.S., at 110-111, 98 S.Ct. 330. See also Maryland v. Wilson,519 U.S. 408, 413-415, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997)(passengers may be required to exit vehicle stopped for traffic violation). The Eighth Circuit, echoed in Justice THOMAS's dissent, believed that the imposition here similarly could be offset by the Government's "strong interest in interdicting the flow of illegal drugs along the nation's highways." $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency,182 F.3d, at 649; see post, at 1621.
Unlike a general interest in criminal enforcement, however, the government's officer safety interest stems from the mission of the stop itself. Traffic stops are "especially fraught with danger to police officers," Johnson,555 U.S., at 330, 129 S.Ct. 781(internal quotation marks omitted), so an officer may need to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his mission safely. Cf. United States v. Holt,264 F.3d 1215, 1221-1222 (C.A.10 2001)(en banc) (recognizing officer safety justification for criminal record and outstanding warrant checks), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in United States v. Stewart,473 F.3d 1265, 1269 (C.A.10 2007). On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from that mission. See supra,at 1615. So too do safety precautions taken in order to facilitate such detours. But cf. post, at 1624 - 1625 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Thus, even assuming that the imposition here was no more intrusive than the exit order in Mimms,the dog sniff could not be justified on the same basis. Highway and officer safety are interests different in kind from the Government's endeavor to detect crime in general or drug trafficking in particular.
The Government argues that an officer may "incremental[ly]" prolong a stop to conduct a dog sniff so long as the officer is reasonably diligent in pursuing the traffic-related purpose of the stop, and the overall duration of the stop remains reasonable in relation to the duration of other traffic stops involving similar circumstances. Brief for United States 36-39. The Government's argument, in effect, is that by completing all traffic-related tasks expeditiously, an officer can earn bonus time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation. See also post, at 1617 - 1619 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (embracing the Government's argument). The reasonableness of a seizure, however, depends on what the police in fact do. See Knowles,525 U.S., at 115-117, 119 S.Ct. 484. In this regard, the Government acknowledges that "an officer always has to be reasonably diligent." Tr. of Oral Arg. 49. How could diligence be gauged other than by noting what the officer actually did and how he did it? If an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of "time reasonably required to complete [the stop's] mission." Caballes,543 U.S., at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834. As we said in Caballesand reiterate today, a traffic stop "prolonged beyond" that point is "unlawful." Ibid.The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as Justice ALITO supposes, post, at 1624 - 1625, but whether conducting the sniff "prolongs"-i.e., adds time to-"the stop," supra,at 1615.
III
The Magistrate Judge found that detention for the dog sniff in this case was not independently supported by individualized suspicion, see App. 100, and the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, see id., at 112-113. The Court of Appeals, however, did not review that determination. But see post, at 1617, 1622 - 1623 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (resolving the issue, nevermind that the Court of Appeals left it unaddressed); post, at 1623 - 1624 (ALITO, J., dissenting) (upbraiding the Court for addressing the sole issue decided by the Court of Appeals and characterizing the Court's answer as "unnecessary" because the Court, instead, should have decided an issue the Court of Appeals did not decide). The question whether reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justified detaining Rodriguez beyond completion of the traffic infraction investigation, therefore, remains open for Eighth Circuit consideration on remand.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Maryland for consideration in light of Griffin v. Maryland, ante, p. 130, and Bell v. Maryland, ante, p. 226.
Mr. Justice Douglas would reverse outright on the basis of the views expressed in his opinion in Bell v. Maryland, ante, p. 242.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White 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: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Darr, an inmate of the Oklahoma state penitentiary, has been denied federal habeas corpus for failure to exhaust his other available remedies. Petitioner’s omission to apply here for certiorari from the state court’s denial of habeas corpus was held an error, fatal to consideration on the merits. Therefore the merits of petitioner’s claims of imprisonment in violation of the Constitution are not before us. The petition for certiorari requires us to pass solely upon the correctness of the lower court’s view that ordinarily a petition for certiorari must be made to this Court from a state court’s refusal of collateral relief before a federal district court will consider an application for habeas corpus on its merits.
Petitioner was serving a term in the Oklahoma state penitentiary when, on November 28, 1930, he was summoned to appear in another Oklahoma county to plead to two separate charges of armed bank robbery. In January of 1931, he was tried by jury, and convicted on the first charge; petitioner then pleaded guilty to the second. He was sentenced to two terms of forty years each, to run consecutively, and the first sentence is now being served. No appeal from the conviction was taken, but in 1947 petitioner applied to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for habeas corpus. Judging only from the state court’s opinion, for the original petition is not included in the record before us, petitioner alleged in the state court that he had been without funds to employ counsel, that he had not had the aid of counsel of his own choosing, and had not been provided sufficient time to procure and prepare witnesses for his defense. These allegations were reviewed by the state court and the writ was denied on the merits. No application for certiorari was made here.
Petitioner then filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma the application for habeas corpus here at bar. The allegations were those passed upon by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, with the addition of a claim that petitioner’s plea of guilty to the second armed robbery charge had been coerced. After hearing petitioner’s testimony in open court, the District Judge examined into the merits sufficiently to assure himself that no extraordinary circumstances existed sufficient to justify federal inquiry into the merits of petitioner’s allegations without the exhaustion of all other available remedies. He then concluded that the writ must be discharged as to the first sentence since petitioner had not applied for certiorari here from the state court’s denial of habeas corpus. The allegations of a coerced plea underlying the second sentence could not properly be considered, held the court, first, because petitioner had not raised the point in the state proceeding, and further because petitioner is not presently being detained under that sentence. Therefore no adjudication on the merits was given. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting from the proposition that application for certiorari is a requisite step in the exhaustion of remedy.
It is not argued that the courts below state the law incorrectly insofar as the second conviction is concerned. It has long been settled that the federal courts will not consider on habeas corpus claims which have not been raised in the state tribunal; and in any event, it is unquestioned doctrine that only the sentence being served is subject to habeas corpus attack. Further, since neither court based its conclusion upon petitioner’s failure to appeal from his initial conviction, that issue is not before us. There is no problem of jurisdiction or power in the federal courts to consider applications for habeas corpus. Nor is there at issue the effect of a refusal of certiorari by this Court upon future applications for federal habeas corpus by the state prisoner. The issue of exhaustion of remedy, however, is not only of vital concern to those who would seek the protection of the Great Writ, but in the case of state prisoners is crucial to the relationship between the state and federal sovereignties in the exercise of their coordinate power over habeas corpus. Doubt respecting this issue should not go unresolved. We therefore granted certiorari. 337 U. S. 923.
The writ of habeas corpus commands general recognition as the essential remedy to safeguard a citizen against imprisonment by State or Nation in violation of his constitutional rights. To make this protection effective for unlettered prisoners without friends or funds, federal courts have long disregarded legalistic requirements in examining applications for the writ and judged the papers by the simple statutory test of whether facts are alleged that entitle the applicant to relief.
This favorable attitude toward procedural difficulties accords with the salutary purpose of Congress in extending in 1867 the scope of federal habeas corpus beyond an examination of the commitment papers under which a prisoner was held to the “very truth and substance of the causes of his detention.” Through this extension of the boundaries of federal habeas corpus, persons restrained in violation of constitutional rights may regain their freedom. But, since the 1867 statute granted jurisdiction to federal courts to examine into alleged unconstitutional restraint of prisoners by state power, it created an area of potential conflict between state and federal courts. As it would be unseemly in our dual system of government for a federal district court to upset a state court conviction without an opportunity to the state courts to correct a constitutional violation, the federal courts sought a means to avoid such collisions. Solution was found in the doctrine of comity between courts, a doctrine which teaches that one court should defer action on causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity to pass upon the matter.
Since habeas corpus is a discretionary writ, federal courts had authority to refuse relief as a matter of comity until state remedies were exhausted. Through this comity, the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies has developed steadily from cases refusing federal habeas corpus before state trial to a statutory direction that federal courts shall not grant the writ to a state prisoner until state remedies have been exhausted. Ex parte Royall, decided in 1886, held that a federal district court had jurisdiction to release before trial a state prisoner who was held in violation of federal constitutional rights, but it approved denial of the writ as a matter of discretion. It was not to be presumed that “the decision of the State court would be otherwise than is required by the fundamental law of the land, or that it would disregard the settled principles of constitutional law announced by this court....” Analogy was found in earlier cases where state and federal jurisdiction to attach property had been found to overlap. Apropos were the words of the Court in Covell v. Heyman:
“The forbearance which courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, administered under a single system, exercise towards each other, whereby conflicts are avoided, by avoiding interference with the process of each other, is a principle of comity, with perhaps no higher sanction than the utility which comes from concord; but between State courts and those of the United States, it is something more. It is a principle of right and of law, and therefore, of necessity.”
In the same term of court the doctrine was advanced to its next stage, for in Ex parte Fonda the prisoner sought his federal relief in this Court after his state conviction but before he had prosecuted his appeal to the state appellate tribunal. Stressing the importance of noninterference with the orderly processes of appellate review, this Court denied the writ, for if the trial court had erred to the prejudice of petitioner’s constitutional rights, it could not be assumed that the state appellate court would suffer the error to go uncorrected.
The established doctrine was applied to meet the variations presented by the eases. By 1891, it was clear that a federal circuit court committed no error in refusing a writ on the ground that the petitioner had not come to this Court on writ of error; and a great body of cases affirmed this holding that the petitioner should be “put to his writ of error.” Baker v. Grice states the reason for the rule that after a final determination of the case by the state court, the federal courts will even then generally leave the petitioner to his remedy by writ of error from this Court.
“... It is an exceedingly delicate jurisdiction given to the Federal courts by which a person under an indictment in a state court and subject to its laws may, by the decision of a single judge of the Federal court, upon a writ of habeas corpus, be taken out of the custody of the officers of the State and finally discharged therefrom, and thus a trial by the state courts of an indictment found under the laws of a State be finally prevented.”
And to this the Court added, in Markuson v. Boucher, the explicit reason why the exhaustion principle must extend to remedies available in this Court as well as those open in the state tribunals.
“The jurisdiction is more delicate, the reason against its exercise stronger, when a single judge is invoked to reverse the decision of the highest court of a State in which the constitutional rights of a prisoner could have been claimed....”
In 1913, a petitioner was denied an original writ here even though he had appealed and had applied for state habeas corpus, with the comment that writ of error to this Court was required. And following next upon the heels of an adjudication that a state habeas corpus action is a “suit” yielding a final reviewable judgment, came the leading case of Mooney v. Holohan clearly establishing the rule that available collateral attacks in the state tribunals must be exhausted in addition to direct attacks on the conviction. In 1944 the unanimous per curiam opinion of Ex parte Hawk stated the fully developed and established exhaustion doctrine in its most frequently quoted form.
“Ordinarily an application for habeas corpus by one detained under a state court judgment of conviction for crime will be entertained by a federal court only after all state remedies available, including all appellate remedies in the state courts and in this Court by appeal or writ of certiorari, have been exhausted.”
The doctrine of Ex parte Hawk has been repeatedly approved, and in White v. Ragen the same Court again unanimously restated that principle in the clearest language.
“Where the highest state court in which a decision could be had considers and adjudicates the merits of a petition for habeas corpus, state remedies, including appellate review, are not exhausted so as to permit the filing of a petition for habeas corpus in a federal district court, unless the federal question involved is presented to this Court on certiorari or appeal from the state court decision.”
Thus comity, which had constrained the lower federal courts to refuse a grant of the Great Writ when remedies in state courts were still open, brought forth the related rule that lower federal courts ordinarily will not allow habeas corpus if the applicant has not exhausted his remedy in this Court by certiorari or appeal from state courts’ refusal of relief on collateral attack.
In Wade v. Mayo alone, a case decided less than four years later, does there appear language that may be construed as a departure from the established rule. The District Court was allowed to hear Wade’s petition for habeas corpus even though he had not applied here for certiorari, because there was grave doubt whether the state judgment constituted an adjudication of a federal question. The Court said, at p. 682:
“That doubt was such as to make it reasonably certain that this Court would have denied certiorari on the theory that an adequate state ground appeared to underlie the judgment. His failure to make this futile attempt to secure certiorari accordingly should not prejudice his subsequent petition for habeas corpus in the District Court.”
We had pointed out in White v. Ragen, supra, a per curiam expressly reiterating the Hawk doctrine, that where a state court’s “decision is based upon some other adequate non-federal ground, it is unnecessary for the petitioner to ask this Court for certiorari in order to exhaust his state remedies, since we would lack jurisdiction to review the decision of the state court.”
Not limiting its discussion to the holding on the Hawk exception, however, Wade also treated with the general Hawk rule of the necessity for review here before seeking the writ in the federal district court. The thought behind the language on that point evidently was that review here is not usually required as a condition to a hearing on the merits in the district court. Wade did recognize that failure to come here might be relevant in determining whether a district court should entertain an application. On p. 680 it is said:
“After state procedure has been exhausted, the concern is with the appropriate federal forum in which to pursue further the constitutional claim. The choice lies between applying directly to this Court for review of the constitutional issue by certiorari or instituting an original habeas corpus proceeding in a federal district court. Considerations of prompt and orderly procedure in the federal courts will often dictate that direct review be sought first in this Court. And where a prisoner has neglected to seek that review, such failure may be a relevant consideration for a district court in determining whether to entertain a subsequent habeas corpus petition.”
We do not stop to reexamine the meaning of Wade’s specific language. Whatever deviation Wade may imply from the established rule will be corrected by this decision.
Ex parte Hawk prescribes only what should “ordinarily” be the proper procedure; all the cited cases from Ex parte Royall to Hawk recognize that much cannot be foreseen, and that “special circumstances” justify departure from rules designed to regulate the usual case. The exceptions are few but they exist. Other situations may develop. Compare Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86. Congress has now made statutory allowance for exceptions such as these, leaving federal courts free to grant habeas corpus when there exist “circumstances rendering such [state] process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254.
In § 2254 of the 1948 recodification of the Judicial Code, Congress gave legislative recognition to the Hawk rule for the exhaustion of remedies in the state courts and this Court. This was done by embodying in the new statute the rulings drawn from the precedents. The rulings had been definitively restated in Hawk. That case had represented an effort by this Court to clear the way for prompt and orderly consideration of habeas corpus petitions from state prisoners. This Court had caused the Hawk opinion to be distributed to persons seeking federal habeas corpus relief from state restraint and the opinion had been generally cited and followed. There is no doubt that Congress thought that the desirable rule drawn from the existing precedents was stated by Hawk, for the statutory reviser’s notes inform us that
“This new section is declaratory of existing law as affirmed by the Supreme Court. (See Ex parte Hawk, 1944, 64 S. Ct. 448, 321 U. S. 114, 88 L. Ed. 572.)”
While this section does not refer expressly to the requirement for application to this Court for review, it must be read in the light of the statement quoted on p. 207, supra, from Hawk. So read, there was occasion neither for the draftsmen of § 2254 to make reference to review in this Court, nor for the committees of the House or Senate or members of Congress to comment upon it. It is immaterial whether as a matter of terminology it is said that review in this Court of a state judgment declining relief from state restraint is a part of the state judicial process which must be exhausted, or whether it is said to be a part of federal procedure. The issue cannot be settled by use of the proper words. Hawk treated review here as a state remedy. Wade thought it was not state procedure. But undoubtedly review here is a part of the process by which a person unconstitutionally restrained of his liberty may secure redress. Ex parte Hawk had made it clear that all appellate remedies available in the state court and in this Court must be considered as steps in the exhaustion of the state remedy in the sense that the term is used, perhaps inexactly, in the field of habeas corpus. Consideration of the legislative history of § 2254 reveals no suggestion that the draftsmen intended to alter the sense of the term as defined in Hawk or to differentiate between exhaustion of state remedies and review in this Court. All the evidence manifests a purpose to enact Hawk into statute. The reviser’s notes, explicitly stating this purpose, remained unchanged throughout the bill’s legislative progress. So did the statement of the exhaustion principle contained in the first paragraph of § 2254 down to the first “or.” None of the changes or additions made by the Senate to § 2254 affected the problem of review here. They were directed at other issues.
It seems sure that Congress drafted and enacted § 2254 expecting review here in conformity with the Hawk rule. Nothing indicates to us a desire on the part of Congress to modify the language. We think the rule of the Hawk case that ordinarily requires an effort to obtain review here has been accepted by Congress as a sound rule to guide consideration of habeas corpus in federal courts.
There is an insistence voiced by the dissent that we determine what effect the lower federal courts should accord a denial of certiorari by this Court when the state prisoner later applies for federal habeas corpus. The issue of the effect of such a denial apparently could arise only in a case where, after our refusal, the state prisoner presented his application to another federal court. It is not here in this case. We doubt the effectiveness of a voluntary statement on a point not in issue. Whether a refusal to grant certiorari imports an opinion on any issue or not, the reason persists for requiring an application here from the state refusal before application to another federal court.
There should be no controversy over whether the refusal of certiorari “would serve the purpose of an adjudication on the merits.” All the authorities agree that res judicata does not apply to applications for habeas corpus. The courts must be kept open to guard against injustice through judicial error. Even after this Court has declined to review a state judgment denying relief, other federal courts have power to act on a new application by the prisoner. On that application, the court may require a showing of the record and action on prior applications, and may decline to examine further into the merits because they have already been decided against the petitioner. Thus there is avoided abuse of the writ by repeated attempts to secure a. hearing on frivolous grounds, and repeated adjudications of the same issues by courts of coordinate powers.
In this way the record on certiorari in this Court is brought to the attention of the trial court. There have been statements made in former opinions of this Court as to the effect of denial of petitions for habeas corpus. Records presented to this Court on petitions in habeas corpus cases raise many different issues. There may be issues of state procedure, questions of fact regarding the alleged violations of constitutional rights, and issues of law respecting the scope of constitutional rights — problems made difficult by the frequent practice of state courts to dismiss the applications without opinion. If this Court has doubts concerning the basis of state court judgments, the matter may be handled as in Burke v. Georgia, 338 U. S. 941, with an express direction that the petitioner may proceed in the federal district court without prejudice from the denial of his petition for certiorari. If the District Court feels that error may have occurred, it has power to examine the application to see if circumstances exist to justify it in holding a hearing on the merits. Such freedom of action protects the Great Writ without trivializing it.
But it is argued that if the denial of certiorari mean nothing, the result of our decision is to force a “meaningless step.” We do not agree. Though our denial of certiorari carry no weight in a subsequent federal habeas corpus proceeding, we think a petition for certiorari should nevertheless be made before an application may be filed in another federal court by a state prisoner. The requirement derives from the basic fact that this republic is a federation, a union of states that has created the United States. We have detailed the evolution of and the reason for the conclusion that the responsibility to intervene in state criminal matters rests primarily upon this Court. It is this Court which ordinarily should reverse state court judgments concerning local criminal administration. The opportunity to meet that constitutional responsibility should be afforded. Even if the District Court may disregard our denial of certiorari, the fact that power to overturn state criminal administration must not be limited to this Court alone does not make it less desirable to give this Court an opportunity to perform its duty of passing upon charges of state violations of federal constitutional rights. This Court has evolved a procedure which assures an examination into the substance of a prisoner’s protest against unconstitutional detention without allowing destructive abuse of the precious guaranty of the Great Writ. Congress has specifically approved it. Though a refusal of certiorari have no effect upon a later application for federal habeas corpus, a petition for certiorari here ordinarily should be required.
The answer to petitioner’s argument that he should not be required to seek review here from a state’s refusal to grant collateral relief before applying to other federal courts involves a proper distribution of power between state and federal courts. The sole issue is whether comity calls for review here before a lower federal court may be asked to intervene in state matters. We answer in the affirmative. Such a rule accords with our form of government. Since the states have the major responsibility for the maintenance of law and order within their borders, the dignity and importance of their role as guardians of the administration of criminal justice merits review of their acts by this Court before a prisoner, as a matter of routine, may seek release from state process in the district courts of the United States. It is this Court’s conviction that orderly federal procedure under our dual system of government demands that the state’s highest courts should ordinarily be subject to reversal only by this Court and that a state’s system for the administration of justice should be condemned as constitutionally inadequate only by this Court. From this conviction springs the requirement of prior application to this Court to avoid unseemly interference by federal district courts with state criminal administration.
As the Hawk requirement, we think, has always been the rule, no change in procedure is necessary and the reiteration of the rule in this decision can, of course, result in no shifting of the burden of work among federal courts. No person restrained by state process could heretofore have been certain of a hearing on the merits of his application to a federal district court unless he had sought review in this Court of the state’s refusal to release him. Further, the rule contributes toward expeditious administration, since it raises the constitutional issue in a federal forum immediately, without the necessity of a second trial court proceeding and the compilation of a second record. And while the rule has the merit of reasonable certainty, it does not err on the side of unreasonable rigidity. Flexibility is left to take care of the extraordinary situations that demand prompt action. Solicitous as we are that no man be unconstitutionally restrained and that prompt, certain and simple methods for redress be available, those ends for which modern habeas corpus has been evolved can best be achieved by requiring in ordinary cases the exhaustion of state remedies and review here.
The present case involves a refusal, on the merits, of state collateral relief from a conviction allegedly obtained in violation of the Constitution. No review was sought in this Court of the state’s refusal. Instead, without alleging that review had been sought in this Court and without reliance upon any pleaded facts to excuse such failure, the petitioner filed his application for this habeas corpus in the District Court. Limiting its consideration of the application solely to the question as to whether this was an extraordinary instance that required disregard of accustomed procedure, the District Court found that this was not a case of peculiar urgency. We agree with the lower court’s conclusion that it should go no further into consideration of the application. A conviction after public trial in a state court by verdict or plea of guilty places the burden on the accused to allege and prove primary facts, not inferences, that show, notwithstanding the strong presumption of constitutional regularity in state judicial proceedings, that in his prosecution the state so departed from constitutional requirements as to justify a federal court’s intervention to protect the rights of the accused. The petitioner has the burden also of showing that other available remedies have been exhausted or that circumstances of peculiar urgency exist. Nothing has been pleaded or proved to show that here exceptional circumstances exist to require prompt federal intervention. Oklahoma denied habeas corpus after obviously careful consideration. If that denial violated federal constitutional rights, the remedy was here, not in the District Court, and the District Court properly refused to examine the merits.
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Ex parte Darr, 84 Okla. Cr. 352, 182 P. 2d 523.
77 F. Supp. 553, 556.
77 F. Supp. 553.
172 F. 2d 668 (C. A. 10th Cir.).
Davis v. Burke, 179 U. S. 399.
McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131.
Hawk v. Olson, 326 U. S. 271, 274.
Holiday v. Johnson, 313 U. S. 342, 350; Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 291-92; 28 U. S. C. § 2242, restating R. S. § 754.
See Hawk v. Olson, supra, pp. 274-75, notes 3, 4.
Comity through discretion in granting habeas corpus had an antecedent in an early statutory command restraining federal injunctive interference with state courts. 28 U. S. C. § 2283; 1 Stat. 334, §5; see Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503. Cf. the three-judge district court provisions, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284.
117 U. S. 241.
117 U. S. 241, 252; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183.
111 U. S. 176,
117 U. S. 516.
In re Duncan, 139 U. S. 449, 454.
In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278.
In re Jugiro, 140 U. S. 291; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 70, 77-78; New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89, 98; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231, 242; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 104-105; Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499, 503; Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179, 181-82; United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U. S. 13, 17.
169 U. S. 284, 291.
175 U. S. 184, 187.
Ex parte Spencer, 228 U. S. 652, 660-61.
Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 70.
294 U. S. 103.
The point has been confirmed many times. Ex parte Botwinski, 314 U. S. 586; Ex parte Davis, 317 U. S. 592; Ex parte Williams, 317 U. S. 604; Ex parte Abernathy, 320 U. S. 219; and see cases cited in note 25, infra.
321 U. S. 114, 116-17.
White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760, 767; House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 46, 48; Marino v. Ragen, 332 U. S. 561, 564; Wade v. Mayo, 334 U. S. 672, 679; Young v. Ragen, 337 U. S. 235, 238. And see note 32, infra.
324 U. S. 760, 764.
334 U. S. 672.
324 U. S. 760, 765. In the White case we concluded that the state ground was the refusal by the Supreme Court of Illinois to entertain applications with possible fact controversies. Pp. 766-67. We made it clear that while proper procedure does not require review in this Court of a judgment denying habeas corpus on an adequate state ground, other available state remedies must be exhausted before an application should be entertained in a district court. P. 767.
See White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760; Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 251.
Young v. Ragen, 337 U. S. 235, 238. 28 U. S. C. § 2254 reads:
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.
“An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.”
Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on H. R. 3214, April 22 to June 7, 1948, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 28. See 28 U. S. C. Congressional Service, p. XXVIII; H. R. Rep. No. 308 on H. R. 3214,80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3.
See Lyon v. Harkness, 151 F. 2d 731, 733 (C. A. 1st Cir., N. H.); United States ex rel. Monsky v. Warden of Clinton State Prison, 163 F. 2d 978, 980 (C. A. 2d Cir., N. Y.); Stonebreaker v. Smyth, 163 F. 2d 498, 501, 502 (C. A. 4th Cir., Va.); Nusser v. Aderhold, 164 F. 2d 127 (C. A. 5th Cir., Ga.); Makowski v. Benson, 158 F. 2d 158 (C. A. 6th Cir., Mich.); United States ex rel. Ross v. Nierstheimer, 159 F. 2d 994 (C. A. 7th Cir., Ill.); Guy v. Utecht, 144 F. 2d 913, 915 (C. A. 8th Cir., Minn.); Gordon v. Scudder, 163 F. 2d 518 (C. A. 9th Cir., Cal.); Herzog v. Colpoys, 79 U. S. App. D. C. 81, 143 F. 2d 137, 138.
See S. Rep. No. 1559, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 9 and H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. A180,
Subsequent statements by Judge John J. Parker, who served as Chairman of the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, Committee on Habeas Corpus, are instructive.
“... The thing in mind in the drafting of this section was to provide that review of state court action be had so far as possible only by the Supreme Court of the United States, whose review of such action has historical basis, and that review not be had by the lower federal courts, whose exercise of such power is unseemly and likely to breed dangerous conflicts of jurisdiction....
“One of the incidents of the state remedy is [the] right to apply to the Supreme Court for certiorari. If a petitioner has failed to make such application after the refusal of the state court to release him, he cannot be said to have exhausted the remedies available to him under state procedure, provided he has the right to apply again to the state courts for relief as a basis for application to the Supreme Court for certiorari....
“The fact that certiorari from the Supreme Court to the state court may be called a federal remedy is not determinative of the question here involved. The crucial matter is that petitioner still has a right to attack in the courts of the state the validity of his conviction and, upon the record made in such attack, to petition the highest court of the land for a review. So long as such right remains, he does not have, and ought not have, the right to ask a review by one of the lower federal courts....” Parker, Limiting the Abuse of Habeas Corpus, 8 F. R. D. 171,176-77.
Wade v. Mayo, supra, had no effect on the discussion of § 2254, since it came down two days prior to the enactment of the new code, too late for consideration.
See H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. A180, and final reviser’s note to § 2254.
See note 30, supra. Compare § 2254, H. R. 3214, Union Calendar #140, H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., with §2254, H. R. 3214 in Senate, S. Rep. No. 1559, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 9.
The two exceptions at the last of the first paragraph provide for particular situations in the states. The definition of exhaustion in the last paragraph was made by the Senate at the instance of the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges. S. Rep. No. 1559, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 9. Report of the Judicial Conference, September Session 1947, p. 17.
H. R. 3214 had permitted federal habeas corpus not only where state remedies had been exhausted but where “there is no adequate remedy available in” the state court. The Senate Report informs us that the purpose of the Senate amendment was “to substitute detailed and specific language for the phrase ‘no adequate remedy available.’ That phrase is not sufficiently specific and precise, and its meaning should, therefore, be spelled out in more detail in the section as is done by the amendment.” S. Rep. No. 1559, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10.
Compare Bowen, L. J., in Cooke v. New River Co., 38 Ch. D. 56, 70-71: “... like my Brothers who sit with me, I am extremely reluctant to decide anything except what is necessary for the special case, because I believe by long experience that judgments come with far more weight and gravity when they come upon points which the Judges are bound to decide, and I believe that obiter dicta, like the proverbial chickens of destiny, come home to roost sooner or later in a very uncomfortable way to the Judges who have uttered them, and are a great source of embarrassment in future cases.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 399-400; Wright v. United States, 302 U. S. 583, 593-594.
Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, 230.
Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241.
Salinger v. Loisel, note 39, supra.
Ex parte Hawk, 321 U
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to strike petitioner’s demand for a trial by jury in an action now pending before it on the alternative grounds that either the action was “purely equitable” or, if not purely equitable, whatever legal issues that were raised were “incidental” to equitable issues, and, in either case, no right to trial by jury existed. The petitioner then sought mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to compel the district judge to vacate this order. When that court denied this request without opinion, we granted certiorari because the action of the Court of Appeals seemed inconsistent with protections already clearly recognized for the important constitutional right to trial by jury in our previous decisions.
At the outset, we may dispose of one of the grounds upon which the trial court acted in striking the demand for trial by jury — that based upon the view that the right to trial by jury may be lost as to legal issues where those issues are characterized as “incidental” to equitable issues — for our previous decisions make it plain that no such rule may be applied in the federal courts. In Scott v. Neely, decided in 1891, this Court held that a court of equity could not even take jurisdiction of a suit “in which a claim properly cognizable only at law is united in the same pleadings with a claim for equitable relief.” That holding, which' was based upon both the historical separation between law and equity and the duty of the Court to insure “that the right to a trial by a jury in the legal action may be preserved intact,” created considerable inconvenience in that it necessitated two separate trials in the same case whenever that case contained both legal and equitable claims. Consequently, when the procedure in the federal courts was modernized by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, it was deemed advisable to abandon that part of the holding of Scott v. Neely which rested upon the separation of law and equity and to permit the joinder of legal and equitable claims in a single action. Thus Rule 18 (a) provides that a plaintiff “may join either as independent or as alternate claims as many claims either legal or equitable or both as he may have against an opposing party.” And Rule 18 (b) provides: “Whenever a claim is one heretofore cognizable only after another claim has been prosecuted to a conclusion, the two claims may be joined in a single action; but the court shall grant relief in that action only in accordance with the relative substantive rights of the parties. In particular, a plaintiff may state a claim for money and a claim to have set aside a conveyance fraudulent as to him, without first having obtained a judgment establishing the claim for money.”
The Federal Rules did not, however, purport to change the basic holding of Scott v. Neely that the right to trial by jury of legal claims must be preserved. Quite the contrary, Rule 38 (a) expressly reaffirms that constitutional principle, declaring: “The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.” Nonetheless, after the adoption of the Federal Rules, attempts were made indirectly to undercut that right by having federal courts in which cases involving both legal and equitable claims were filed decide the equitable claim first. The result of this procedure in those cases in which it was followed was that any issue common to both the legal and equitable claims was finally determined by the court and the party seeking trial by jury on the legal claim was deprived of that right as to these common issues. This procedure finally came before us in Beacon Theatres, Inc., v. Westover, a case which, like this one, arose from the denial of a petition for mandamus to compel a district judge to vacate his order striking a demand for trial by jury.
Our decision reversing that case not only emphasizes the responsibility of the Federal Courts of Appeals to grant mandamus where necessary to protect the constitutional right to trial by jury but also limits the issues open for determination here by defining the protection to which that right is entitled in cases involving both legal and equitable claims. The holding in Beacon Theatres was that where both legal and equitable issues are presented in a single case, “only under the most imperative circumstances, circumstances which in view of the flexible procedures of the Federal Rules we cannot now anticipate, can the right to a jury-trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims.” That holding, of course, applies whether the trial judge chooses to characterize the legal issues presented as “incidental” to equitable issues or not. Consequently, in a case such as this where there cannot even be a contention of such “imperative circumstances,” Beacon Theatres requires that any legal issues for which a trial by jury is timely and properly demanded be submitted to a jury. There being no question of the timeliness or correctness of the demand involved here, the sole question which we must decide is whether the action now pending before the District Court contains legal issues.
The District Court proceeding arises out of a controversy between petitioner and the respondent owners of the trademark “DAIRY QUEEN” with regard to a written licensing contract made by them in December 1949, under which petitioner agreed to pay some $150,000 for the exclusive right to use that trademark in certain portions of Pennsylvania. The terms of the contract provided for a small initial payment with the remaining payments to be made at the rate of 50% of all amounts received by petitioner on sales and franchises to deal with the trademark and, in order to make certain that the $150,000 payment would be completed within a specified period of time, further provided for minimum annual payments regardless of petitioner’s receipts. In August 1960, the respondents wrote petitioner a letter in which they claimed that petitioner had committed “a material breach of that contract” by defaulting on the contract’s payment provisions and notified petitioner of the termination of the contract and the cancellation of petitioner’s right to use the trademark unless this claimed default was remedied immediately. When petitioner continued to deal with the trademark despite the notice of termination, the respondents brought an action based upon their view that a material breach of .contract had occurred.
The complaint filed in the District Court alleged, among other things, that petitioner had “ceased paying ... as required in the contract;” that the default “under the said contract . . . [was] in excess of $60,000.00;” that this default constituted a “material breach” of that contract; that petitioner had been notified by letter that its failure to pay as alleged made it guilty of a material breach of contract which if not “cured” would result in an immediate cancellation of the contract; that the breach had not been cured but that petitioner was contesting the cancellation and continuing to conduct business as an authorized dealer; that to continue such business after the cancellation of the contract constituted an infringement of the respondents’ trademark; that petitioner’s financial condition was unstable; and that because of the foregoing allegations, respondents were threatened with irreparable injury for which they had no adequate remedy at law. The complaint then prayed for both temporary and permanent relief, including: (1) temporary and permanent injunctions to restrain petitioner from any future use of or dealing in the franchise and the trademark; (2) an accounting to determine the exact amount of money owing by petitioner and a judgment for that amount; and (3) an injunction pending accounting to prevent petitioner from collecting any money from “Dairy Queen” stores in the territory.
In its answer to this complaint, petitioner raised a number of defenses, including: (1) a denial that there had been any breach of contract, apparently based chiefly upon its allegation that in January 1955 the parties had entered into an oral agreement modifying the original written contract by removing the provision requiring minimum annual payments regardless of petitioner’s receipts thus leaving petitioner’s only obligation that of turning over 50% of all its receipts; (2) laches and estop-pel arising from respondents’ failure to' assert their claim promptly, thus permitting petitioner to expend large amounts of money in the development of its right to use the trademark; and (3) alleged violations of the antitrust laws by respondents in connection with their dealings with the trademark. Petitioner indorsed upon this answer a demand for trial by jury in accordance with Rule 38 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner’s contention, as set forth in its petition for mandamus to the Court of Appeals and reiterated in its briefs before this Court, is that insofar as the complaint requests a money judgment it presents a claim which is unquestionably legal. We agree with that contention. The most natural construction of the respondents’ claim for a money judgment would seem to be that it is a claim that they are entitled to recover whatever was owed them under the contract as of the date of its purported-termination plus damages for infringement of their trademark since that date. Alternatively, the complaint could be construed to set forth a full claim based upon both of these theories — that is, a claim that the respondents were entitled to recover both the debt due under the contract and damages for trademark infringement for the entire period of the alleged breach including that before the termination of the contract. Or it might possibly be construed to set forth a claim for recovery based completely on either one of these two theories — that is, a claim based solely upon the contract for the entire period both before and after the attempted termination on the theory that the termination, having been ignored, was of no consequence, or a claim based solely upon the charge of infringement on the theory that the contract, having been breached, could not be used as a defense to an infringement action even for the period prior to its termination. We find it unnecessary to resolve this ambiguity in the respondents’ complaint because we think it plain that their claim for a money judgment is a claim wholly legal in its nature however the complaint is construed. As an action on a debt allegedly due under a contract, it would be difficult to conceive of an action of a more traditionally legal character. And as an action for damages based upon a charge of trademark infringement, it would be no less subject to cognizance by a court of law.
The respondents’ contention that this money claim is “purely equitable” is based primarily upon the fact that their complaint is cast in terms of an “accounting,” rather than in terms of an action for “debt” or “damages.” But the constitutional right to trial by jury cannot be made to depend upon the choice of words used in the pleadings. The necessary prerequisite to the right to maintain a suit for an equitable accounting, like all other equitable remedies, is, as we pointed out in Beacon Theatres, the absence of an adequate remedy at law. Consequently, in order to maintain such a suit on a cause of action cognizable at law, as this one is, the plaintiff must be able to show that the “accounts between the parties” are of such a “complicated nature” that only a court of equity can satisfactorily unravel them. In view of the powers given to District Courts by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 (b) to appoint masters to assist the jury in those exceptional cases where the legal issues are too complicated for the jury adequately to handle alone, the burden of such a showing is considerably increased and it will indeed be a rare case in which it can be met. But be that as it may, this is certainly not such a case. A jury, under proper instructions from the court, could readily determine the recovery, if any, to be had here, whether the theory finally settled upon is that of breach of contract, that of trademark infringement, or any combination of the two. The legal remedy cannot be characterized as inadequate merely because the measure of damages may necessitate a look into petitioner’s business records.
Nor is the legal claim here rendered “purely equitable” by the nature of the defenses interposed by petitioner. Petitioner’s primary defense to the charge of breach of contract — -that is, that the contract was modified by a subsequent oral agreement — presents a purely legal question having nothing whatever to do either with novation, as the district judge suggested, or reformation, as suggested by the respondents here. Such a defense goes to the question of just what, under the law, the contract between the respondents and petitioner is and, in an action to collect a debt for breach of a contract between these parties, petitioner has a right to have the jury determine not only whether the contract has been breached and the extent of the damages if any but also just what the contract is.
We conclude therefore that the district judge erred in refusing to grant petitioner’s demand for a trial by jury on the factual issues related to the question of whether there has been a breach of contract. Since these issues are common with those upon which respondents’ claim to equitable relief is based, the legal claims involved in the action must be determined prior to any final court determination of respondents’ equitable claims. The Court of Appeals should have corrected the error of the district judge by granting the petition for mandamus. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Stewart concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no.part in the consideration or decision of this case.
McCullough v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 686.
368 U. S. 874.
140 U. S. 106, 117. See also Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451, in which the principles expressed and applied in Scott v. Neely were explicitly reaffirmed.
Id., at 110.
“Subdivision (b) [of Rule 18] does not disturb the doctrine of those cases [Scott v. Neely and Cates v. Allen] but is expressly bottomed upon their principles. This is true because the Federal Rules abolish the distinction between law and equity, permit the joinder of legal and equitable claims, and safeguard the right to jury trial of legal issues.” 3 Moore, Federal Practice, 1831-1832.
359 U. S. 500.
Id., at 510-511.
“It is therefore immaterial that the case at bar contains a stronger basis for equitable relief than was present in Beacon Theatres. It would make no difference if the equitable cause clearly outweighed the legal cause so that the basic issue of the case taken as a whole is equitable. As long as any legal cause is involved the jury rights it creates control. This is the teaching of Beacon Theatres, as we construe it.” Thermo-Stitch, Inc., v. Chemi-Cord Processing Corp., 294 F. 2d 486, 491.
There are two groups of respondents in this case in addition to the district judge who is formally a respondent by reason of the procedural posture of the case. H. A. McCullough and H. F. McCullough, a partnership doing business as McCullough’s Dairy Queen, are the owners of the trademark and are entitled under the contract to payment for its use. B. F. Myers, R. J. Rydeen, M. E. Montgomery, and H. S. Dale are the original licensees under the contract through whom petitioner obtained its rights by assignment. This latter group of respondents joined in the action against petitioner on the grounds (1) that they would be responsible to the trademark owners if petitioner defaulted on its obligations under the contract, and (2) that they are themselves entitled to certain royalties under the assignment arrangement. Since the portion of the complaint involving this latter group raises no issues relevant to the question to be determined here which differ from those raised in that part of the complaint involving the trademark owners, the discussion can be restricted to the issues raised by the trademark owners and “respondents” as used in this opinion will refer only to that group.
The full text of the letter sent to petitioner is as follows:
“This letter is to advise you that your failure to pay the amounts required in your contract with McCullough’s Dairy Queen for the ‘Dairy Queen’ franchise for the State of Pennsylvania, as called for in your contract with your assignors, constitutes in our opinion a material breach of that contract.
“This will advise you that unless this material breach is completely satisfied for the amount due and owing, your franchise for ‘Dairy Queen’ in Pennsylvania is hereby cancelled.
“Copies of this letter are being sent to your assignors.”
“Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.”
This seems to be the construction given the complaint by the district judge in passing on the motion to strike petitioner’s jury demand. See 194 F. Supp., at 687-688.
This last possible construction of the complaint, though accepted as' the correct one in the concurring opinion, actually seems the least likely of all. For it seems plain that irrespective of whatever else the complaint sought, it did seek a judgment for the some $60,000 allegedly owing under the contract. Certainly, the district judge had no doubt that this was the ease: “Incidental to this relief, the complaint also demands the $60,000 now allegedly due and owing plaintiffs under the aforesaid contract.” 194 F. Supp., at 687.
“In the case before us the debt due the complainants was in no respect different from any other debt upon contract; it was the subject of a legal action only, in which the defendants were entitled to a jury trial in the Federal courts.” Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106, 110. See also Thompson v. Railroad Companies, 6 Wall. 134.
Cf., e. g., Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F. 2d 464; Bruckman v. Hollzer, 152 F. 2d 730.
359 U. S., at 506-510. See also Thompson v. Railroad Companies, 6 Wall. 134, 137; Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106, 110.
Kirby v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co., 120 U. S. 130, 134.
Even this limited inroad upon the right to trial by jury “ ‘should seldom be made, and if at all only when unusual circumstances exist.’ ” La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U. S. 249, 258. See also In re Watkins, 271 F. 2d 771.
It was settled in Beacon Theatres that procedural changes which remove the inadequacy of a remedy at law may sharply diminish the scope of traditional equitable remedies by making them unnecessary in many eases. “Thus, the justification for equity’s deciding legal issues once it obtains jurisdiction, and refusing to dismiss a case, merely because subsequently a legal remedy becomes available, must be re-evaluated in the light of the liberal joinder provisions of the Federal Rules which allow legal and equitable causes to be brought and resolved in one civil action. Similarly the need for, and therefore, the availability of such equitable remedies as Bills of Peace, Quia Timet and Injunction must be reconsidered in view of the existence of the Declaratory Judgment Act as well as the liberal joinder provision of the Rules.” 359 U. S., at 509.
This does not, of course, interfere with the District Court’s power to grant temporary relief pending a final adjudication on the merits. Such temporary relief has already been granted in this ease (see McCullough v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 290 F. 2d 871) and is no part of the issues before this Court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, parties to a contract may agree that an arbitrator rather than a court will resolve disputes arising out of the contract. When a dispute arises, the parties sometimes may disagree not only about the merits of the dispute but also about the threshold arbitrability question-that is, whether their arbitration agreement applies to the particular dispute. Who decides that threshold arbitrability question? Under the Act and this Court's cases, the question of who decides arbitrability is itself a question of contract. The Act allows parties to agree by contract that an arbitrator, rather than a court, will resolve threshold arbitrability questions as well as underlying merits disputes. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68-70, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010) ; First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943-944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995).
Even when a contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, some federal courts nonetheless will short-circuit the process and decide the arbitrability question themselves if the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to the particular dispute is "wholly groundless." The question presented in this case is whether the "wholly groundless" exception is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. We conclude that it is not. The Act does not contain a "wholly groundless" exception, and we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President. When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties' decision as embodied in the contract. We vacate the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Archer and White is a small business that distributes dental equipment. Archer and White entered into a contract with Pelton and Crane, a dental equipment manufacturer, to distribute Pelton and Crane's equipment. The relationship eventually soured. As relevant here, Archer and White sued Pelton and Crane's successor-in-interest and Henry Schein, Inc. (collectively, Schein) in Federal District Court in Texas. Archer and White's complaint alleged violations of federal and state antitrust law, and sought both money damages and injunctive relief.
The relevant contract between the parties provided:
"Disputes . This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property of [Schein] ), shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association [ (AAA) ]. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina." App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a.
After Archer and White sued, Schein invoked the Federal Arbitration Act and asked the District Court to refer the parties' antitrust dispute to arbitration. Archer and White objected, arguing that the dispute was not subject to arbitration because Archer and White's complaint sought injunctive relief, at least in part. According to Archer and White, the parties' contract barred arbitration of disputes when the plaintiff sought injunctive relief, even if only in part.
The question then became: Who decides whether the antitrust dispute is subject to arbitration? The rules of the American Arbitration Association provide that arbitrators have the power to resolve arbitrability questions. Schein contended that the contract's express incorporation of the American Arbitration Association's rules meant that an arbitrator-not the court-had to decide whether the arbitration agreement applied to this particular dispute. Archer and White responded that in cases where the defendant's argument for arbitration is wholly groundless-as Archer and White argued was the case here-the District Court itself may resolve the threshold question of arbitrability.
Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the District Court agreed with Archer and White about the existence of a "wholly groundless" exception, and ruled that Schein's argument for arbitration was wholly groundless. The District Court therefore denied Schein's motion to compel arbitration. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
In light of disagreement in the Courts of Appeals over whether the "wholly groundless" exception is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, we granted certiorari, 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2678, 201 L.Ed.2d 1071 (2018). Compare 878 F.3d 488 (C.A.5 2017) (case below); Simply Wireless, Inc.
v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 877 F.3d 522 (C.A.4 2017) ; Douglas v. Regions Bank, 757 F.3d 460 (C.A.5 2014) ; Turi v. Main Street Adoption Servs., LLP, 633 F.3d 496 (C.A.6 2011) ; Qualcomm, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 466 F.3d 1366 (C.A.Fed.2006), with Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare, 844 F.3d 1272 (C.A.10 2017) ; Jones v. Waffle House, Inc., 866 F.3d 1257 (C.A.11 2017) ; Douglas, 757 F.3d, at 464 (Dennis, J., dissenting).
II
In 1925, Congress passed and President Coolidge signed the Federal Arbitration Act. As relevant here, the Act provides:
"A written provision in ... a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract ... 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 Act, arbitration is a matter of contract, and courts must enforce arbitration contracts according to their terms. Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S., at 67, 130 S.Ct. 2772. Applying the Act, we have held that parties may agree to have an arbitrator decide not only the merits of a particular dispute but also " 'gateway' questions of 'arbitrability,' such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy." Id., at 68-69, 130 S.Ct. 2772 ; see also First Options, 514 U.S., at 943, 115 S.Ct. 1920. We have explained that an "agreement to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other." Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S., at 70, 130 S.Ct. 2772.
Even when the parties' contract delegates the threshold arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the Fifth Circuit and some other Courts of Appeals have determined that the court rather than an arbitrator should decide the threshold arbitrability question if, under the contract, the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. Those courts have reasoned that the "wholly groundless" exception enables courts to block frivolous attempts to transfer disputes from the court system to arbitration.
We conclude that the "wholly groundless" exception is inconsistent with the text of the Act and with our precedent.
We must interpret the Act as written, and the Act in turn requires that we interpret the contract as written. When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract. In those circumstances, a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue. That is true even if the court thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless.
That conclusion follows not only from the text of the Act but also from precedent. We have held that a court may not "rule on the potential merits of the underlying" claim that is assigned by contract to an arbitrator, "even if it appears to the court to be frivolous." AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649-650, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986). A court has " 'no business weighing the merits of the grievance' " because the " 'agreement is to submit all grievances to arbitration, not merely those which the court will deem meritorious.' " Id., at 650, 106 S.Ct. 1415 (quoting Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 568, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960) ).
That AT & T Technologies principle applies with equal force to the threshold issue of arbitrability. Just as a court may not decide a merits question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator, a court may not decide an arbitrability question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator.
In an attempt to overcome the statutory text and this Court's cases, Archer and White advances four main arguments. None is persuasive.
First, Archer and White points to §§ 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Section 3 provides that a court must stay litigation "upon being satisfied that the issue" is "referable to arbitration" under the "agreement." Section 4 says that a court, in response to a motion by an aggrieved party, must compel arbitration "in accordance with the terms of the agreement" when the court is "satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue."
Archer and White interprets those provisions to mean, in essence, that a court must always resolve questions of arbitrability and that an arbitrator never may do so. But that ship has sailed. This Court has consistently held that parties may delegate threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, so long as the parties' agreement does so by "clear and unmistakable" evidence. First Options, 514 U.S., at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920 (alterations omitted); see also Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S., at 69, n. 1, 130 S.Ct. 2772. To be sure, before referring a dispute to an arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. See 9 U.S.C. § 2. But if a valid agreement exists, and if the agreement delegates the arbitrability issue to an arbitrator, a court may not decide the arbitrability issue.
Second, Archer and White cites § 10 of the Act, which provides for back-end judicial review of an arbitrator's decision if an arbitrator has "exceeded" his or her "powers." § 10(a)(4). According to Archer and White, if a court at the back end can say that the underlying issue was not arbitrable, the court at the front end should also be able to say that the underlying issue is not arbitrable. The dispositive answer to Archer and White's § 10 argument is that Congress designed the Act in a specific way, and it is not our proper role to redesign the statute. Archer and White's § 10 argument would mean, moreover, that courts presumably also should decide frivolous merits questions that have been delegated to an arbitrator. Yet we have already rejected that argument: When the parties' contract assigns a matter to arbitration, a court may not resolve the merits of the dispute even if the court thinks that a party's claim on the merits is frivolous. AT & T Technologies, 475 U.S., at 649-650, 106 S.Ct. 1415. So, too, with arbitrability.
Third, Archer and White says that, as a practical and policy matter, it would be a waste of the parties' time and money to send the arbitrability question to an arbitrator if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. In cases like this, as Archer and White sees it, the arbitrator will inevitably conclude that the dispute is not arbitrable and then send the case back to the district court. So why waste the time and money? The short answer is that the Act contains no "wholly groundless" exception, and we may not engraft our own exceptions onto the statutory text. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 556-557, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005).
In addition, contrary to Archer and White's claim, it is doubtful that the "wholly groundless" exception would save time and money systemically even if it might do so in some individual cases. Archer and White assumes that it is easy to tell when an argument for arbitration of a particular dispute is wholly groundless. We are dubious. The exception would inevitably spark collateral litigation (with briefing, argument, and opinion writing) over whether a seemingly unmeritorious argument for arbitration is wholly groundless, as opposed to groundless. We see no reason to create such a time-consuming sideshow.
Archer and White further assumes that an arbitrator would inevitably reject arbitration in those cases where a judge would conclude that the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. Not always. After all, an arbitrator might hold a different view of the arbitrability issue than a court does, even if the court finds the answer obvious. It is not unheard-of for one fair-minded adjudicator to think a decision is obvious in one direction but for another fair-minded adjudicator to decide the matter the other way.
Fourth, Archer and White asserts another policy argument: that the "wholly groundless" exception is necessary to deter frivolous motions to compel arbitration. Again, we may not rewrite the statute simply to accommodate that policy concern. In any event, Archer and White overstates the potential problem. Arbitrators can efficiently dispose of frivolous cases by quickly ruling that a claim is not in fact arbitrable. And under certain circumstances, arbitrators may be able to respond to frivolous arguments for arbitration by imposing fee-shifting and cost-shifting sanctions, which in turn will help deter and remedy frivolous motions to compel arbitration. We are not aware that frivolous motions to compel arbitration have caused a substantial problem in those Circuits that have not recognized a "wholly groundless" exception.
In sum, we reject the "wholly groundless" exception. The exception is inconsistent with the statutory text and with our precedent. It confuses the question of who decides arbitrability with the separate question of who prevails on arbitrability. When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties' decision as embodied in the contract.
We express no view about whether the contract at issue in this case in fact delegated the arbitrability question to an arbitrator. The Court of Appeals did not decide that issue. Under our cases, courts "should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so." First Options, 514 U.S., at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920 (alterations omitted). On remand, the Court of Appeals may address that issue in the first instance, as well as other arguments that Archer and White has properly preserved.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
In 1979, following a year of study and public comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated standards limiting the emission of sulfur dioxide by coal-burning powerplants. Both respondents in this case — the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Sierra Club— filed petitions for review of the agency’s action in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. EDF argued that the standards promulgated by the EPA were tainted by the agency’s ex parte contacts with representatives of private industry, while the Sierra Club contended that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to issue the type of standards that it did. In a lengthy opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected all the claims of both EDF and the Sierra Club. Sierra Club v. Costle, 211 U. S. App. D. C. 336, 657 F. 2d 298 (1981).
Notwithstanding their lack of success on the merits, EDF and the Sierra Club filed a request for attorney’s fees incurred in the Sierra Club action. They relied on § 307(f) of the Clean Air Act, 91 Stat. 777, 42 U. S. C. § 7607(f) (1976 ed., Supp. V), which permits the award of attorney’s fees in certain proceedings “whenever [the court] determines that such award is appropriate.” Respondents argued that, despite their failure to obtain any of the relief they requested, it was “appropriate” for them to receive fees for their contributions to the goals of the Clean Air Act. The Court of Appeals agreed with respondents, ultimately awarding some $45,000 to the Sierra Club and some $46,000 to EDF. Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 217 U. S. App. D. C. 180, 672 F. 2d 33 (1982); Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 221 U. S. App. D. C. 450, 684 F. 2d 972 (1982). We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 942 (1982), to consider the important question decided by the Court of Appeals.
I
The question presented by this case is whether it is “appropriate,” within the meaning of § 307(f) of the Clean Air Act, to award attorney’s fees to a party that achieved no success on the merits of its claims. We conclude that the language of the section, read in the light of the historic principles of fee-shifting in this and other countries, requires the conclusion that some success on the merits be obtained before a party becomes eligible for a fee award under § 307(f).
A
Section 307(f) provides only that:
“In any judicial proceeding under this section, the court may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) whenever it determines that such award is appropriate.” 91 Stat. 777, 42 U. S. C. §7607(f) (1976 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added).
It is difficult to draw any meaningful guidance from § 307 (f )’s use of the word “appropriate,” which means only “specially suitable: fit, proper.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 106 (1976). Obviously, in order to decide when fees should be awarded under § 307(f), a court first must decide what the award should be “specially suitable,” “fit,” or “proper” for. Section 307(f) alone does not begin to answer this question, and application of the provision thus requires reference to other sources, including fee-shifting rules developed in different contexts. As demonstrated below, inquiry into these sources shows that requiring a defendant, completely successful on all issues, to pay the unsuccessful plaintiff’s legal fees would be a radical departure from longstanding fee-shifting principles adhered to in a wide range of contexts.
B
Our basic point of reference is the “American Rule,” see Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247 (1975) (emphasis added), under which even “the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee from the loser.” It is clear that generations of American judges, lawyers, and legislators, with this rule as the point of departure, would regard it as quite “inappropriate” to award the “loser” an attorney’s fee from the “prevailing litigant.” Similarly, when Congress has chosen to depart from the American Rule by statute, virtually every one of the more than 150 existing federal fee-shifting provisions predicates fee awards on some success by the claimant; while these statutes contain varying standards as to the precise degree of success necessary for an award of fees — such as whether the fee claimant was the “prevailing party,” the “substantially prevailing” party, or “successful” — the consistent rule is that complete failure will not justify shifting fees from the losing party to the winning party. Also instructive is Congress’ reaction to a draft of the Equal Access to Justice Act, which permitted shifting fees from losing parties to the Government, if “in the interest of justice,” S. 2354, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978). This provision, criticized by the Justice Department as a “radical” departure from traditional principles, was rejected by Congress. Finally, English courts have awarded counsel fees to successful litigants for 750 years, see Alyeska, supra, at 247, n. 18, but they have never gone so far as to force a vindicated defendant to pay the plaintiff’s legal expenses.
While the foregoing treatments of fee-shifting differ in many respects, they reflect one consistent, established rule: a successful party need not pay its unsuccessful adversary’s fees. The uniform acceptance of this rule reflects, at least in part, intuitive notions of fairness to litigants. Put simply, ordinary conceptions of just returns reject the idea that a party who wrongly charges someone with violations of the law should be able to force that defendant to pay the costs of the wholly unsuccessful suit against it. Before we will conclude Congress abandoned this established principle that a successful party need not pay its unsuccessful adversary’s fees — rooted as it is in intuitive notions of fairness and widely manifested in numerous different contexts — a clear showing that this result was intended is required.
Also relevant in deciding whether to accept the reading of “appropriate” urged by respondents is the fact that § 307(f) affects fee awards against the United States, as well as against private individuals. Except to the extent it has waived its immunity, the Government is immune from claims for attorney’s fees, Alyeska, supra, at 267-268, and n. 42. Waivers of immunity must be “construed strictly in favor of the sovereign,” McMahon v. United States, 342 U. S. 25, 27 (1951), and not “enlarge[d] . . . beyond what the language requires.” Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 675, 686 (1927). In determining what sorts of fee awards are “appropriate,” care must be taken not to “enlarge” §307(f)’s waiver of immunity beyond what a fair reading of the language of the section requires.
Given all the foregoing, we fail to find in § 307(f) the requisite indication that Congress meant to abandon historic fee-shifting principles and intuitive notions of fairness when it enacted the section. Instead, we believe that the term “appropriate” modifies but does not completely reject the traditional rule that a fee claimant must “prevail” before it may recover attorney’s fees. This result is the most reasonable interpretation of congressional intent.
M HH
Respondents make relatively little effort to dispute much of the foregoing, devoting their principal attention to the legislative history of § 307(f). Respondents’ arguments rest primarily on the following excerpt from the 1977 House Report on § 307(f):
“The committee bill also contains express authority for the courts to award attorneys [sic] fees and expert witness fees in two situations. The judicial review proceedings under section 307 of the act when the court determines such award is appropriate [sic].
“In the case of the section 307 judicial review litigation, the purposes of the authority to award fees are not only to discourage frivolous litigation, but also to encourage litigation which will assure proper implementation and administration of the act or otherwise serve the public interest. The committee did not intend that the court’s discretion to award fees under this provision should be restricted to cases in which the party seeking fees was the ‘prevailing party.’ In fact, such an amendment was expressly rejected by the committee, largely on the grounds set forth in NRDC v. EPA, 484 F. 2d 1331, 1388 [sic] (1st Cir. 1973).” H. R. Rep. No. 95-294, p. 337 (1977) (emphasis added).
In determining the meaning of the Senate Report’s rejection of the “prevailing party” standard it first is necessary to ascertain what this standard was understood to mean. When § 307(f) was enacted, the “prevailing party” standard had been interpreted in a variety of rather narrow ways. See, e. g., Taylor v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 524 F. 2d 263, 273 (CA10 1975); Pearson v. Western Electric Co., 542 F. 2d 1150 (CA10 1976); Best Medium Publishing Co. v. National Insider, Inc., 385 F. 2d 384, 386 (CA7) (the “‘prevailing party’ is the one who prevails as to the substantial part of the litigation”), aff’g 259 F. Supp. 433 (ND Ill. 1967); Dobbins v. Local 212, Int’l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 292 F. Supp. 413, 450 (SD Ohio 1968); Goodall v. Mason, 419 F. Supp. 980 (ED Va. 1976); Clanton v. Allied Chemical Corp., 409 F. Supp. 282 (ED Va. 1976). Some courts — although, to be sure, a minority — denied fees to plaintiffs who lacked a formal court order granting relief, while others required showings not just of some success, but “substantial” success. Indeed, even today, courts require that, to be a “prevailing party,” one must succeed on the “central issue,” Coen v. Harrison County School Bd., 638 F. 2d 24, 26 (CA5 1981), or “essentially succee[d] in obtaining the relief he seeks in his claims on the merits,” Bagby v. Beal, 606 F. 2d 411, 415 (CA3 1979). See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 433, n. 8 (1983).
These various interpretations of the “prevailing party” standard provide a ready, and quite sensible, explanation for the Senate Report’s discussion of § 307(f). Section 307(f) was meant to expand the class of parties eligible for fee awards from prevailing parties to partially prevailing parties— parties achieving some success, even if not major success. Put differently, by enacting § 307(f), Congress intended to eliminate both the restrictive readings of “prevailing party” adopted in some of the cases cited above and the necessity for case-by-case scrutiny by federal courts into whether plaintiffs prevailed “essentially” on “central issues.”
This view of the “when appropriate” standard is confirmed by the language of a forerunner of § 307, § 36 of S. 252, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977):
“(d) In any judicial proceeding under this Act in which the United States ... is a party.. . any party other than the United States which prevails in such action shall recover from the United States the reasonable costs for such party’s participation in such proceeding, including reasonable attorney’s fees. ... In any case in which such party prevails in part, the court shall have discretion to award such reasonable costs.” (Emphasis added.)
This provision was described, in the legislative history, as follows:
“This section amends section 307 of existing law. In any suit in which the United States is a party, any prevailing party . . . shall recover all reasonable costs of its participation in such proceeding. Where such party prevails in part, the court may award reasonable costs.”
It is clear from the distinction drawn in these two passages that — as the case law discussed above fairly indicated — Congress understood “prevailing party” and “partially prevailing party” as two quite different things, with the former encompassing only a limited category of parties that achieved success in their lawsuits. The “prevailing party” category was thought not to extend to parties who prevailed only in part.
Given this, the House Report’s statement that “the court’s discretion. .. should [not] be restricted to cases in which the party seeking fees was the ‘prevailing party,’” H. R. Rep. No. 95-294, p. 337 (1977) (emphasis added), provides little, if any, support for the theory that completely unsuccessful plaintiffs may receive fees. Rather, the sentence, fairly read, means only that fees may be awarded to all parties who prevail in part as w.ell as those who prevail in full: it rejects the restrictive notions of “prevailing party” adopted in Pearson, supra, and like cases, as well as difficult questions of what constitutes a “central” issue, or “essential” success. The Report, however, does not give any real support to the view that Congress meant to depart from the long-established rule that complete winners need not pay complete losers for suing them.
This straightforward reading of the House Report finds support in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 484 F. 2d 1331 (CA1 1973), cited in the Report. There, the court considered whether fees should be denied under § 304(d) “because some issues were decided adversely to petitioners.” Id., at 1338. This argument was rejected, primarily because “petitioners were successful in several major respects; they should not be penalized for having also advanced some points of lesser weight.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Needless to say, this holding does not mean that even if a party is unsuccessful in all respects, it still may recover fees from its opponent. Rather, the court’s decision provides precise support for the view, urged above, that adoption of the “when appropriate” standard was intended to permit awards of fees to all partially prevailing parties. After all, this was just what the facts were in NRDC v. EPA.
The foregoing reading of § 307(f) also finds support in other aspects of the legislative history. For example, § 307(f), as enacted, was regarded as narrower than the attorney’s fee provision in S. 252, which, as mentioned above, was a forerunner of § 307(f). A section-by-section analysis of S. 252 and § 307(f) stated that the “conference report [setting out the current ‘when appropriate’ standard] contained a narrower House provision” than S. 252. Section-by-Section Analysis, swpra n. 10, at 37. Yet, as the quotation, supra, at 689, shows, S. 252 permitted fee awards only to prevailing and partially prevailing parties, and not to completely losing parties. The statement that the current language of § 307(f) is “narrower” than S. 252 strongly suggests that losing parties were not intended to recover fee awards under the section. Moreover, the view that § 307(f) was “narrow” hardly comports with the somewhat radical departure from well-settled legal principles urged by respondents.
In addition, the relation between §§ 304(d) and 307(f) is instructive. Like § 307(f), § 304(d) provides that a court may award fees when “appropriate.” Importantly, however, suits may be brought under § 304 against private parties alleged to be in violation of the requirements of the Clean Air Act. It is clear, as explained below, that, whatever general standard may apply under § 307(f), a similar standard applies under § 304(d). In Northcross v. Memphis Bd. of Ed., 412 U. S. 427 (1973), we held that similar attorney’s fee provisions should be interpreted pari passu, and read the “prevailing party” standard in 20 U. S. C. § 1617 as identical to that in 42 U. S. C. §2000a-3(b). In Hensley, 461 U. S., at 433, n. 7, we held that “the standards set forth . . . are generally applicable to all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a ‘prevailing party.’” See also BankAmerica, Corp. v. United States, 462 U. S. 122, 129 (1983). Thus, it is clear, at least as a general principle, that awards of attorney’s fees under § 304(d) will be “appropriate” in circumstances similar to those that are “appropriate” under § 307(f).
Given the foregoing, respondents’ argument that fee awards are available even to unsuccessful plaintiffs encounters yet further difficulties. Section 304 suits may be brought against private businesses by any private citizen. Such suits frequently involve novel legal theories, theories that the EPA has rejected. After protracted litigation requiring payment of expensive legal fees and associated costs in both money and manpower, the private defendant may well succeed in refuting each charge against it — proving it was in complete compliance with every detail of the Clean Air Act. Yet, under respondents’ view of the Act, the defendant’s reward could be a second lawyer’s bill — this one payable to those who wrongly accused it of violating the law. We simply do not believe that Congress would have intended such a result without clearly saying so.
Finally, as shown in the margin, the central purpose of § 304(d) was to check the “multiplicity of [potentially merit-less] suits,” that Congress feared would follow the authorization of suits under the Clean Air Act, which was seen as an “unprecedented” innovation. One might well imagine the surprise of the legislators who voted for this section as an instrument for deterring meritless suits upon learning that instead it could be employed to fund such suits.
I — I I — I I — Í
We conclude, therefore, that the language and legislative history of § 307(f) do not support respondents’ argument that the section was intended as a radical departure from established principles requiring that a fee claimant attain some success on the merits before it may receive an award of fees. Instead, we are persuaded that if Congress intended such a novel result — which would require federal courts to make sensitive, difficult, and ultimately highly subjective determinations — it would have said so in far plainer language than that employed here. Hence, we hold that, absent some degree of success on the merits by the claimant, it is not “appropriate” for a federal court to award attorney’s fees under § 307(f). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Sixteen federal statutes and § 304(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7604(d) (1976 ed., Supp. V), contain provisions for awards of attorney’s fees identical to § 307(f). See, e. g., Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U. S. C. § 2618(d); Endangered Species Act, 16 U. S. C. § 1540(g)(4); Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 30 U. S. C. § 1270(d) (1976 ed., Supp. V); Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, 30 U. S. C. § 1427(c) (1976 ed., Supp. V); Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1365(d); Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1415(g)(4); Deep-water Port Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1515(d); Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U. S. C. § 300j — 8(d); Noise Control Act, 42 U. S. C. § 4911(d); Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U. S. C. § 6305(d); Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 42 U. S. C. § 8435(d) (1976 ed., Supp. V); Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act, 42 U. S. C. § 9124(d) (1976 ed., Supp. V); and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1349(a)(6) (1976 ed., Supp. V). As explained below, the interpretation of “appropriate” in § 307(f) controls construction of the term in these statutes.
Dissenting from an award of fees under § 307(f) by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Wilkey noted “the absence of any clue as to the meaning of ‘appropriate,’ ” and wrote that “there is no comprehensible or principled meaningfor ‘appropriate.’ ” Alabama Power Co. v. Gorsuch, 217 U. S. App. D. C. 148, 171, 179, 672 F. 2d 1, 24, 32 (1982). The Senate Report to § 307 also illustrates the lack of guidance provided by the plain language of the section. The Report observed that “[t]he purpose of the amendment to section 307 is to carry out the intent of the committee in 1970 that a court may, in its discretion, award costs of litigation to a party bringing a suit under section 307 of the Clean Air Act.” S. Rep. No. 95-127, p. 99 (1977) (emphasis added). See also H. R. Rep. No. 95-294, p. 28 (1977).
See, e. g., 5 U. S. C. § 504(a)(1) (1982 ed.); Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U. S. C. § 18(f); Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973Z(e); Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U. S. C. § 1988 (1976 ed., Supp. V).
See, e. g., Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552(a)(4)(E); Privacy Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 552a(g)(2)(B), 552a(g)(3)(B); Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552b(i).
See, e. g., Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U. S. C. § 2607(d)(2); Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U. S. C. § 3417(a)(4) (1982 ed.); Jewelers’ Liability Act, 15 U. S. C. § 298(c).
Equal Access to Courts: Hearing on S. 2354 before the Senate Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 31, 50 (1978).
Indeed, when Congress has desired such a change it has said so expressly, as in 15 U. S. C. § 2605(c)(4)(A), permitting fee awards if a party “represents an interest which would substantially contribute to a fair determination of the issues,” even if the participant’s viéws are rejected. If Congress intended the truly radical departure from American and English common law and countless federal fee-shifting statutes that the Court of Appeals attributes to it, it no doubt would have used explicit language to this effect — as it did in 15 U. S. C. §2605.
Respondents also rely on a single sentence from the 1970 Senate Report:
“The Courts should recognize that in bringing legitimate actions under this section citizens would be performing a public service and in such instances the courts should award costs of litigation to such party. This should extend to plaintiffs in actions which result in successful abatement but do not reach a verdict. For instance, if as a result of a citizen proceeding and before a verdict is issued, a defendant abated a violation, the court may award litigation expenses borne by the plaintiffs in prosecuting such actions.” S. Rep. No. 91-1196, p. 38 (emphasis added).
The approval of fee awards in “legitimate” actions offers respondents little comfort: “legitimate” means “being exactly as proposed: neither spurious nor false,” which does not describe respondents’ claims in this case. Respondents contend, however, that Congress intended the term “appropriate” to encompass situations beyond those mentioned in the legislative history, and, therefore, that the term reaches even totally unsuccessful actions. This is, of course, possible, but not likely. Congress found it necessary to explicitly state that the term appropriate “extended” to suits that forced defendants to abandon illegal conduct, although without a formal court order; this was no doubt viewed as a somewhat expansive innovation, since, under then-controlling law, see infra, some courts awarded fees only to parties formally prevailing in court. We are unpersuaded by the argument that this same Congress was so sure that “appropriate” also would extend to the far more novel, costly, and intuitively unsatisfying result of awarding fees to unsuccessful parties that it did not bother to mention the fact. If Congress had intended the far-reaching result urged by respondents, it plainly would have said so, as is demonstrated by Congress’ careful statement that a less sweeping innovation was adopted.
Of course, we do not mean to suggest that trivial success on the merits, or purely procedural victories, would justify an award of fees under statutes setting out the “when appropriate” standard. Rather, Congress meant merely to avoid the necessity for lengthy inquiries into the question whether a particular party’s success was “substantial” or occurred on a “central issue.”
Section-by-Section Analysis of S. 252 and S. 253, Prepared by the Staff of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Serial No. 95-2, p. 36 (Comm. Print 1977) (emphasis added).
Respondents observe that Congress failed to adopt the attorney’s fee provision contained in S. 252, discussed above, requiring fee awards to “prevailing parties,” and permitting awards to “partially prevailing parties.” They argue that Congress’ failure to adopt this rule indicates a desire to expand the availability of fee awards to parties not prevailing in any degree. The argument is unpersuasive. Congress almost certainly rejected the provision because it required fee awards to “prevailing parties.” This rule was specifically criticized by several groups commenting on the proposed legislation. One group wrote: “[W]e strongly oppose Section 36 of S. 252. We see no basis for automatically providing court costs and attorney’s fees for parties prevailing in litigation pursuant to the Act. If such parties represent a widespread public interest, they should be able to finance themselves.” See 5 Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 95-16, pp. 4241, 4255 (1978) (Chamber of Commerce). Indeed, the Natural Resources Defense Council told Congress that the provision requiring fee awards to “prevailing parties was “fundamentally unwise” and “wholly unprecedented in American law”: it urged that the provision be rejected. Id., at 4092. It is obvious, therefore, that S. 252 was rejected not because it was too restrictive in its awarding of fees, but because it required, rather than permitted awards of attorney’s fees.
We do not mean to suggest that private parties should be treated in exactly the same manner as governmental entities. Differing abilities to bear the cost of legal fees and differing notions of responsibility for fulfilling the goals of the Clean Air Act likely would justify exercising special care regarding the award of fees against private parties.
Because, as just shown, §§ 304(d) and 307(f) have similar meanings, the history of §304 is relevant to a construction of § 307(f). The 1970 Clean Air Amendments contained a new concept — the statutory authorization of “citizens suits,” allowing private citizens to sue any person violating the Clean Air Act. This provision attracted vehement opposition in Congress.- Senator Hruska, for example, read a memorandum observing that the section “is unprecedented in American history.’’ 1 Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress) Ser. No. 93-18, p. 277 (1974) (Senate debate on S. 4358, Sept. 21, 1970). The memorandum predicted that § 304 “will result in a multiplicity of suits which will interfere with the Executive’s capability of carrying out its duties” and warned that § 304’s “open invitation to the institution of Citizens Suits” would “impose an impossible burden on the already burdened judicial system.” Id., at 278.
The principal response to these concerns was as follows:
“The Senator from Nebraska raised the question of possible harassing suits by citizens. This the committee attempted to discourage by providing that the costs of litigation — including counsel fees — may be awarded by the courts to the defendants in such cases, so that the citizen who brings a harassing suit is subject not only to the loss of his own costs of litigation, but to the burden of bearing the costs of the parties against whom he has brought the suit in the first instance. I doubt very much that individual citizens would lightly engage this possibility.” Id., at 280.
This point was repeated in the Senate Report:
“Concern was expressed that some lawyers would use section 304 to bring frivolous and harassing actions. The Committee has added a key element in providing that the courts may award costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees, whenever the court determines that such action is in the public interest. The court could thus award costs of litigation to defendants where the litigation was obviously frivolous or harassing. This should have the effect of discouraging abuse of this provision, while at the same time encouraging the quality of the actions that will be brought.” S. Rep. No. 91-1196, p. 38 (1970).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether respondent may be convicted for violating 18 U. S. C. § 1382, which makes it unlawful to reenter a military base after having been barred by the commanding officer. Respondent attended an open house at a military base some nine years after the commanding officer ordered him not to reenter without written permission. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that respondent could not be convicted for violating § 1382 because he had a First Amendment right to enter the military base during the open house. 710 F. 2d 1410 (1983). We granted certiorari, 469 U. S. 1071 (1984), and we now reverse.
HH
The events underlying this case date from 1972, when respondent and a companion entered Hickam Air Force Base (Hickam) in Hawaii ostensibly to present a letter to the commanding officer. Instead, they obtained access to secret Air Force documents and destroyed the documents by pouring animal blood on them. For these acts, respondent was convicted of conspiracy to injure Government property in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§371, 1361. Respondent also received a “bar letter” from the Commander of Hickam informing him that he was forbidden to “reenter the confines of this installation without the written permission of the Commander or an officer designated by him to issue a permit of reentry.” App. 43; cf. Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 838 (1976). The bar letter directed respondent to 18 U. S. C. § 1382 and quoted the statute, which provides:
“Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, goes upon any military, naval, or Coast Guard Reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, for any purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation; or
“Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer in command or charge thereof—
“Shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
In subsequent years, respondent, according to his own testimony, received bar letters from a number of military bases in Hawaii. App. 30. In March 1981, he and eight companions improperly entered the Nuclear War Policy and Plans Office at Camp Smith in Hawaii and defaced Government property. Ibid. Respondent testified that he was not prosecuted for what he termed his “rather serious clear-cut case” of civil disobedience at Camp Smith, ibid., and that the 1972 bar letter was the only one he had ever received for Hickam. Id., at 28, 30.
Respondent entered Hickam again on May 16,1981, during the base’s annual open house for Armed Forces Day. On that day, members of the public, who ordinarily can enter Hickam only with permission, are allowed to enter portions of- the base to view displays of aircraft and other military equipment and to enjoy entertainment provided by military and nonmilitary performers. Press releases issued by the base declared that “[w]hile Hickam is normally a closed base, the gates will be open to the public for this 32nd Annual Armed Forces Day Open House.” Id., at 45. Radio announcements similarly proclaimed that “the public is invited and it’s all free.” Id., at 48.
With four friends, respondent attended the open house in order to engage in a peaceful demonstration criticizing the nuclear arms race. Id., at 27-28. His companions gathered in front of a B-52 bomber display, unfurled a banner reading “Carnival of Death,” and passed out leaflets. Respondent took photographs of the displays and did not disrupt the activities of the open house. The Commander of Hickam summoned Major Jones, the Chief of Security Police at the base, and told him to have the individuals cease their demonstration. Id., at 9. Before respondent was approached by military police, the Commander further informed Major Jones that he believed one of the individuals involved in the demonstration had been barred from Hickam. Id., at 9-10, 13-14. Respondent and his companions were apprehended and escorted off the base.
An information filed on July 1, 1981, charged respondent with violating § 1382 because on May 16, 1981, he “unlawfully and knowingly” reentered Hickam Air Force Base “after [he] had previously been ordered not to reenter by an officer in command.” Id., at 3. Respondent was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. Id., at 1. On appeal, respondent challenged his conviction on three grounds. 710 F. 2d, at 1413. First, he argued that he had written permission to reenter based on the advertisements inviting the public to attend the open house. Second, respondent contended that the 9-year-old bar letter was ineffective because it violated due process. Finally, he argued that his presence at Hickam during the open house was protected by the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected respondent’s first argument and found it unnecessary to consider the due process arguments. Id., at 1413, 1417. The conviction must be reversed, the Court of Appeals held, because Hickam had been transformed into a temporary public forum during the open house, and the military could not exclude respondent from such a forum. Id., at 1417.
r — 1 HH
In the order granting certiorari, this Court asked the parties to address the additional question “[wjhether the respondent’s attendance at the ‘open house’ at Hickam Air Force Base on May 16, 1981, was the kind of reentry that Congress intended to prohibit in 18 U. S. C. § 1382.” 469 U. S., at 1071. Although this issue was not raised by the parties or passed upon by the Court of Appeals, we address it to “‘ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constititutional] question may be avoided.”’ United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 175-176 (1983), quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932).
Courts in applying criminal laws generally must follow the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statutory language. Garcia v. United States, 469 U. S. 70, 75 (1984); United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 580 (1981). “[O]nly the most extraordinary showing of contrary intentions” in the legislative history will justify a departure from that language. Garcia, supra, at 75. This proposition is not altered simply because application of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds. Statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional questions, but this interpretative canon is not a license for the judiciary to rewrite language enacted by the legislature. Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U. S. 728, 741-742 (1984). Any other conclusion, while purporting to be an exercise in judicial restraint, would trench upon the legislative powers vested in Congress by Art. I, §1, of the Constitution. United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 95-96 (1985). Proper respect for those powers implies that “[statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.” Park ’N Fly v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985).
Turning to the statute involved here, we conclude that § 1382 applies to respondent’s conduct. The relevant portion of the statute makes it unlawful for a person to reenter a military base after having been ordered not to do so by the commanding officer. Unless the statutory language is to be emptied of its ordinary meaning, respondent violated , the terms of § 1382 when he reentered Hickam in 1981 contrary to the bar letter. Respondent, however, argues that § 1382 does not apply to his attendance at the open house for three reasons. First, he contends that § 1382 does not allow indefinite exclusion from a military base, but instead applies only when a person has reentered “within a reasonable period of time after being ejected.” Brief for Respondent 10. Second, respondent maintains that Congress did not intend § 1382 to apply when a military base is opened to the general public for purposes of attending an open house. Respondent finally argues that reentry is unlawful under § 1382 only if a person knows that his conduct violates an extant order not to return. None of these arguments is persuasive.
The legislative history of § 1382, although sparse, fully supports application of the statute to respondent. The statute was enacted in virtually its present form as part of a general revision and codification of the federal penal laws. Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §45, 35 Stat. 1097. Both the War Department and the Department of Justice supported the statute as an extension of existing prohibitions on sabotage. The congressional Reports explained:
“[I]t... is designed to punish persons who, having been ejected from a fort, reservation, etc., return for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the strength, etc., of the fort, etc., or for the purpose of inducing the men to visit saloons, dives, and similar places. Such persons may now go upon forts and reservations repeatedly for such purposes and there is no law to punish them.” S. Rep. No. 10, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 16 (1908); H. R. Rep. No. 2, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 16 (1908).
The congressional Reports, as well as the floor debates, 42 Cong. Rec. 689 (1908) (remarks of Reps. Moon and Williams), indicate that the primary purpose of § 1382 was to punish spies and panderers for repeated entry into military installations. Nonetheless, § 1382 by its terms is not limited to such persons, and such a restrictive reading of the statute would frustrate its more general purpose of “protect[ing] the property of the Government so far as it relates to the national defense.” 42 Cong. Rec. 689 (1908) (remarks of Reps. Moon and Payne). One need hardly strain to conclude that this purpose is furthered by applying § 1382 to respondent, who has repeatedly entered military installations unlawfully and engaged in vandalism against Government property.
We find no merit to the reasons respondent offers for concluding he did not violate § 1382. First, nothing in the statute or its history supports the assertion that § 1382 applies only to reentry that occurs within some “reasonable” period of time. Respondent argues that most prosecutions for violating the second paragraph of § 1382 have involved reentry within a year after issuance of a bar order, and further asserts that recent bar letters for Hickam have been limited to a 1- or 2-year period. We agree that prosecution under § 1382 would be impermissible if based on an invalid bar order. But even assuming the accuracy of respondent’s description of prosecutorial and military policy, we do not believe that it justifies engrafting onto §1382 a judicially defined time limit. Although due process or military regulations might limit the effective lifetime of a bar order, § 1382 by its own terms does not limit the period for which a commanding officer may exclude a civilian from a military installation.
Section 1382, we further conclude, applies during an open house. Of course, Congress in 1909 very likely gave little thought to open houses on military bases. The pertinent question, however, is whether § 1382 applies to a base that is open to the general public. The language of the statute does not limit § 1382 to military bases where access is restricted. Moreover, the legislative intent to punish panderers and others who repeatedly enter military facilities suggests that Congress was concerned with bases that are to some extent open to nonmilitary personnel. Finally, limiting the prohibition on reentry to closed military bases would make the second paragraph of § 1382 almost superfluous, because the first paragraph of the statute already makes it unlawful for a person to go upon a military installation “for any purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation.” 18 U. S. C. § 1382. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 829 (1985) (noting common-sense principle that a statute is to be read to give effect to each of its clauses).
The final statutory argument advanced by respondent is that he did not violate § 1382 because he did not subjectively believe that his attendance at the open house was contrary to a valid order barring reentry. This argument misper-ceives the knowledge required for a violation of the statute. Cf. United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F. 2d 1373, 1377 (CA1 1981) (specific intent to violate particular regulation not required for violation of first paragraph of § 1382). The second paragraph of § 1382 does not contain the word “knowingly” or otherwise refer to the defendant’s state of mind, and there is no requirement that the Government prove improper motive or intent. Holdridge v. United States, 282 F. 2d 302, 310-311 (CA8 1960). Respondent does not dispute that he received the bar letter in 1972 and deliberately and knowingly reentered the base to which the letter applied. Nothing in the language of §1382 or in previous judicial decisions supports the rather remarkable proposition that merely because respondent thought the bar order was no longer effective, he was thereby immunized from prosecution. Cf. United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U. S. 558, 563 (1971).
We also reject the suggestion, made in the dissenting opinion, that §1382 does not apply because the circumstances did not reasonably indicate to respondent that his reentry during the open house was prohibited. Post, at 696-697, 701. The assertion that respondent lacked notice that his entry was prohibited is implausible. The bar letter in no way indicated that it applied only when public access to Hickam was restricted. Any uncertainty respondent had in this regard might have been eliminated had he sought, in accord with the bar letter, permission to reenter from the base commander. There is no contention that respondent ever asked to have the bar letter rescinded or otherwise requested permission to reenter the base. Moreover, the dissenting opinion exaggerates the implications of our holding. We have no occasion to decide in what circumstances, if any, § 1382 can be applied where anyone other than the base commander has validly ordered a person not to reenter a military base. Nor do we decide or suggest that the statute can apply where a person unknowingly or unwillingly reenters a military installation. Finally, we note that respondent has not disputed that he entered a portion of Hickam that was a “military reservation, army post, fort, or arsenal” within the meaning of § 1382.
Ill
The Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment bars respondent’s conviction for violating § 1382. A military base, the court acknowledged, is ordinarily not a public forum for First Amendment purposes even if it is open to the public. See Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828 (1976). Nonetheless, the court relied on Flower v. United States, 407 U. S. 197 (1972) (per curiam), to conclude that portions of Hickam constituted at least a temporary public forum because the military had opened those areas to the public for purposes related to expression. 710 F. 2d, at 1414-1417. Having found that the public had a First Amendment right to hold signs and to distribute leaflets at Hickam on Armed Forces Day, the Court of Appeals then considered whether the military could rely on the bar letter to exclude respondent from the base. Id., at 1417. The court, again relying on Flower, held that the military lacks power to exclude persons from a military base that has become a public forum. 710 F. 2d, at 1417.
In holding that § 1382 cannot be applied during an open house, the Court of Appeals misapprehended the significance of Flower. As this Court later observed in Greer, the decision in Flower must be viewed as an application of established First Amendment doctriné concerning expressive activity that takes place in a municipality’s open streets, sidewalks, and parks. 424 U. S., at 835-836. Flower did not adopt any novel First Amendment principles relating to military bases, but instead concluded that the area in question was appropriately considered a public street. There is “no generalized constitutional right to make political speeches or distribute leaflets,” id., at 838, on military bases, even if they are generally open to the public. Id., at 830, 838, and n. 10. Greer clarified that the significance of the per curiam opinion in Flower is limited by the unusual facts underlying the earlier decision. 424 U. S., at 837.
The Court in Flower summarily reversed a conviction under § 1382 of a civilian who entered a military reservation after receiving a bar letter. At the time of his arrest, the civilian was “quietly distributing leaflets on New Braunfels Avenue at a point within the limits of Fort Sam Houston” in San Antonio, Texas. 407 U. S., at 197. No sentry was posted anywhere along the street, which was open to unrestricted civilian traffic 24 hours a day. Id., at 198. The Court determined that New Braunfels Avenue was a public thoroughfare no different than other streets in the city, and that the military had abandoned not only the right to exclude civilian traffic from the avenue, but also any right to exclude leafleteers. Greer v. Spock, supra, at 835. The defendant in Flower received a bar letter because he participated in an attempt to distribute unauthorized publications on the open military base. 407 U. S., at 197; United States v. Flower, 452 F. 2d 80, 82, 87 (CA5 1971). This was the very activity that Flower held protected by the First Amendment.
Flower cannot plausibly be read to hold that regardless of the events leading to issuance of a bar letter, a person may not subsequently be excluded from a military facility that is temporarily open to the public. Instead, Flower establishes that where a portion of a military base constitutes a public forum because the military has abandoned any right to ex-elude civilian traffic and any claim of special interest in regulating expression, see Greer v. Spock, supra, at 836-838, a person may not be excluded from that area on the basis of activity that is itself protected by the First Amendment. Properly construed, Flower is simply inapplicable to this case. There is no suggestion that respondent’s acts of vandalism in 1972, which resulted in the issuance of the bar letter, were activities protected by the First Amendment. The observation made by the Court of Appeals, 710 F. 2d, at 1417, that enforcement of the bar letter was precipitated by respondent’s “peaceful expressive activity” misses the point. Respondent was prosecuted not for demonstrating at the open house, but for reentering the base after he had been ordered not to do so.
Respondent argues that because Hickam was temporarily transformed into a public forum, the exercise of standardless discretion by the base commander to exclude him from the base violates the First Amendment. Cf. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 150-151 (1969). The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Hickam was ever a public forum is dubious. Military bases generally are not public fora, and Greer expressly rejected the suggestion that “whenever members of the public are permitted freely to visit a place owned or operated by the Government, then that place becomes a ‘public forum’ for purposes of the First Amendment.” 424 U. S., at 836. See also United States v. Grace, 461 U. S., at 177. Nor did Hickam become a public forum merely because the base was used to communicate ideas or information during the open house. United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U. S. 114, 130, n. 6 (1981). The District Court did not make express findings on the nature of public access to Hickam during the open house, and the record does not suggest that the military so completely abandoned control that the base became indistinguishable from a public street as in Flower.
Whether or not Hickam constituted a public forum on the day of the open house, the exclusion of respondent did not violate the First Amendment. Respondent concedes that the commander of Hickam could exclude him from the closed base, but contends this power was extinguished when the public was invited to enter on Armed Forces Day. We do not agree that “the historically unquestioned power of a commanding officer to exclude civilians from the area of his command,” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 893 (1961), should be analyzed in the same manner as government regulation of a traditional public forum simply because an open house was held at Hickam. See Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S., at 838, n. 10 (fact that speakers previously allowed on base “did not leave the authorities powrerless thereafter to prevent any civilian from entering ... to speak on any subject whatever”). The fact that respondent had previously received a valid bar letter distinguished him from the general public and provided a reasonable grounds for excluding him from the base. That justification did not become less weighty when other persons were allowed to enter. Indeed, given the large number of people present during an open house, the need to preserve security by excluding those who have previously received bar letters could become even more important, because the military may be unable to monitor closely who comes and goes. Where a bar letter is issued on valid grounds, a person may not claim immunity from its prohibition on entry merely because the military has temporarily opened a military facility to the public.
Section 1382 is content-neutral and serves a significant Government interest by barring entry to a military base by persons whose previous conduct demonstrates that they are a threat to security. Application of a facially neutral regulation that incidentally burdens speech satisfies the First Amendment if it “furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377 (1968). Respondent argues that even if OBrien applies here, the general exclusion of recipients of bar letters from military open houses fails under the First Amendment because it is greater than is essential to the furtherance of Government interests in the security of military installations.
Respondent maintains that enforcing bar letters is not essential to security because reported cases concerning § 1382 have not involved vandalism or other misconduct during open houses. Moreover, respondent asserts that persons holding bar letters have been allowed to attend open houses on bases other than Hickam. Finally, respondent contends that the Government interests were adequately served by the security measures taken during the open house and by statutes that punish any misconduct occurring at such events. Cf. 710 F. 2d, at 1417 (noting that “sensitive areas of Hickam were cordoned off and protected by guards”). Respondent’s arguments in this regard misapprehend the third element of the OBrien standard. We acknowledge that barring respondent from Hickam was not “essential” in any absolute sense to security at the military base. The military presumably could have provided him with a military police chaperone during the open house. This observation, however, provides an answer to the wrong question by focusing on whether there were conceivable alternatives to enforcing the bar letter in this case.
The First Amendment does not bar application of a neutral regulation that incidentally burdens speech merely because a party contends that allowing an exception in the particular case will not threaten important government interests. See Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 296-297 (1984) (“the validity of this regulation need not be judged solely by reference to the demonstration at hand”). Regulations that burden speech incidentally or control the time, place, and manner of expression, see id., at 298-299, and n. 8, must be evaluated in terms of their general effect. Nor are such regulations invalid simply because there is some imaginable alternative that might be less burdensome on speech. Id., at 299. Instead, an incidental burden on speech is no greater than is essential, and therefore is permissible under O’Brien, so long as the neutral regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. Cf. 468 U. S., at 297 (“if the parks would be more exposed to harm without the sleeping prohibition than with it, the ban is safe from invalidation under the First Amendment”). The validity of such regulations does not turn on a judge’s agreement with the responsible decisionmaker concerning the most appropriate method for promoting significant government interests. Id., at 299.
We are persuaded that exclusion of holders of bar letters during military open houses will promote an important Government interest in assuring the security of military installations. Nothing in the First Amendment requires military commanders to wait until persons subject to a valid bar order have entered a military base to see if they will conduct themselves properly during an open house. Cf. Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 52, and n. 12 (1983). In Community for Creative Non-Violence, we observed that O’Brien does not “assign to the judiciary the authority to replace the Park Service as the manager of the Nation’s parks or endow the judiciary with the competence to judge how much protection of park lands is wise and how that level of conservation is to be attained.” 468 U. S., at 299 (footnote omitted). We are even less disposed to conclude that O’Brien assigns to the judiciary the authority to manage military facilities throughout the Nation.
As a final First Amendment challenge to his conviction, respondent asserts that the Government apprehended and prosecuted him because it opposed the demonstration against nuclear war. This argument lacks evidentiary support. The demonstration did attract the attention of military officials to respondent and his companions, and the base Commander ordered military police to stop them from displaying their banner and distributing leaflets. Nonetheless, Major Jones testified that respondent was not approached or apprehended until he was identified as the possible holder of a bar letter. App. 9-11, 13-14. The trial judge found that this testimony was accurate, Tr. 98, and we see no reason to disturb that finding on appeal. Inasmuch as respondent contends that his prosecution was impermissibly motivated, he did not raise below and the record does not support a claim that he was selectively prosecuted for engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment. Cf. Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 608-610 (1985).
IV
Before the District Court and the Court of Appeals, respondent argued that his prosecution based on the 1972 bar letter violated due process. Respondent has made similar arguments to this Court. Brief for Respondent 19, 20, 26-27, n. 38. Although a commanding officer has broad discretion to exclude civilians from a military base, this power cannot be exercised in a manner that is patently arbitrary or discriminatory. Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S., at 898. Respondent, however, has not shown that the 1972 bar letter is inconsistent with any statutory or regulatory limits on the power of military officials to exclude civilians from military bases. Nor do we think that it is inherently unreasonable for a commanding officer to issue a bar order of indefinite duration requiring a civilian to obtain written permission before reentering a military base. The Court of Appeals did not address whether, on the facts of this case, application of the 1972 bar letter to respondent was so patently arbitrary as to violate due process, and we therefore do not decide that issue.
For the reasons stated, 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: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense “for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress “[t]o regulate Commerce... among the several States....” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3.
On March 10,1992, respondent, who was then a 12th~grade student, arrived at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, carrying a concealed.38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting upon an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted respondent, who admitted that he was carrying the weapon. He was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.03(a)(1) (Supp. 1994). The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged respondent by complaint with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V).
A federal grand jury indicted respondent on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone, in violation of § 922(q). Respondent moved to dismiss his federal indictment on the ground that § 922(q) “is unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools.” The District Court denied the motion, concluding that § 922(q) “is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ well-defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the ‘business’ of elementary, middle and high schools... affects interstate commerce.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 55a. Respondent waived his right to a jury trial. The District Court conducted a bench trial, found him guilty of violating §922(q), and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release.
On appeal, respondent challenged his conviction based on his claim that § 922(q) exceeded Congress’ power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed respondent’s conviction. It held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, “section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.” 2 F. 3d 1342, 1367-1368 (1993). Because of the importance of the issue, we granted certiorari, 511 U. S. 1029 (1994), and we now affirm.
We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See Art. I, § 8. As James Madison wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority “was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Ibid.
The Constitution delegates to Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. The Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress’ commerce power in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824):
“Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse.”
The commerce power “is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.” Id., at 196. The Gibbons Court, however, acknowledged that limitations on the commerce power are inherent in the very language of the Commerce Clause.
“It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.
“Comprehensive as the word ‘among’ is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one.... The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something, if we regard the language, or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State.” Id., at 194-195.
For nearly a century thereafter, the Court’s Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress’ power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce. See, e. g., Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. 568, 573-575 (1853) (upholding a state-created steamboat monopoly because it involved regulation of wholly internal commerce); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 17, 20-22 (1888) (upholding a state prohibition on the manufacture of intoxicating liquor because the commerce power “does not comprehend the purely internal domestic commerce of a State which is carried on between man and man within a State or between different parts of the same State”); see also L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 306 (2d ed. 1988). Under this line of precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were within the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 121 (1942) (describing development of Commerce Clause jurisprudence).
In 1887, Congress enacted the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 379, and in 1890, Congress enacted the Sherman Antitrust Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. These laws ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power. When cases involving these laws first reached this Court, we imported from our negative Commerce Clause cases the approach that Congress could not regulate activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining.” See, e. g., United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 12 (1895) (“Commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not part of it”); Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 304 (1936) (“Mining brings the subject matter of commerce into existence. Commerce disposes of it”). Simultaneously, however, the Court held that, where the interstate and intrastate aspects of commerce were so mingled together that full regulation of interstate commerce required incidental regulation of intrastate commerce, the Commerce Clause authorized such regulation. See, e. g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 342 (1914).
In A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 550 (1935), the Court struck down regulations that fixed the hours and wages of individuals employed by an intrastate business because the activity being regulated related to interstate commerce only indirectly. In doing so, the Court characterized the distinction between direct and indirect effects of intrastate transactions upon interstate commerce as “a fundamental one, essential to the maintenance of our constitutional system.” Id., at 548. Activities that affected interstate commerce directly were within Congress’ power; activities that affected interstate commerce indirectly were beyond Congress’ reach. Id., at 546. The justification for this formal distinction was rooted in the fear that otherwise “there would be virtually no limit to the federal power and for all practical purposes we should have a completely centralized government.” Id., at 548.
Two years later, in the watershed case of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1 (1937), the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act against a Commerce Clause challenge, and in the process, departed from the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” effects on interstate commerce. Id., at 36-38 (“The question [of the scope of Congress’ power] is necessarily one of degree”). The Court held that intrastate activities that “have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions” are within Congress’ power to regulate. Id., at 37.
In United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100 (1941), the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act, stating:
“The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.” Id., at 118.
See also United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U. S. 110, 119 (1942) (the commerce power “extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power”).
In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld the application of amendments to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to the production and consumption of homegrown wheat. 317 U. S., at 128-129. The Wickard Court explicitly rejected earlier distinctions between direct and indirect effects on interstate commerce, stating:
“[Ejven if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’” Id., at 125.
The Wickard Court emphasized that although Filburn’s own contribution to the demand for wheat may have been trivial by itself, that was not “enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.” Id., at 127-128.
Jones & Laughlin Steel, Darby, and Wickard ushered in an era of Commerce Clause jurisprudence that greatly expanded the previously defined authority of Congress under that Clause. In part, this was a recognition of the great changes that had occurred in the way business was carried on in this country. Enterprises that had once been local or at most regional in nature had become national in scope. But the doctrinal change also reflected a view that earlier Commerce Clause cases artificially had constrained the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
But even these modern-era precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits. In Jones & Laughlin Steel, the Court warned that the scope of the interstate commerce power “must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.” 301 U. S., at 37; see also Darby, supra, at 119-120 (Congress may regulate intrastate activity that has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce); Wickard, supra, at 125 (Congress may regulate activity that “exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce”). Since that time, the Court has heeded that warning and undertaken to decide whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce. See, e. g., Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 276-280 (1981); Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146, 155-156 (1971); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 299-301 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 252-253 (1964).
Similarly, in Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183 (1968), the Court reaffirmed that “the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits” that “[t]he Court has ample power” to enforce. Id., at 196, overruled on other grounds, National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833 (1976), overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985). In response to the dissent’s warnings that the Court was powerless to enforce the limitations on Congress’ commerce powers because “[a]ll activities affecting commerce, even in the minutest degree, [Wickard], may be regulated and controlled by Congress,” 392 U. S., at 204 (Douglas, J., dissenting), the Wirtz Court replied that the dissent had misread precedent as “[njeither here nor in Wickard has the Court declared that Congress may use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or private activities,” id., at 197, n. 27. Rather, “[t]he Court has said only that where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.” Ibid, (first emphasis added).
Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. Perez, supra, at 150; see also Hodel, supra, at 276-277. First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. See, e.g., Darby, 312 U. S., at 114; Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, at 256 (“ ‘[T]he authority of Congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question’ ” (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 491 (1917))). Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. See, e. g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U. S. 20 (1911) (upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles used in intrastate commerce); Perez, supra, at 150 (“[F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U. S. C. § 32), or... thefts from interstate shipments (18 U. S. C. § 659)”). Finally, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U. S., at 37, i. e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, Wirtz, supra, at 196, n. 27.
Within this final category, admittedly, our case law has not been clear whether an activity must “affect” or “substantially affect” interstate commerce in order to be within Congress’ power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. Compare Preseault v. ICC, 494 U. S. 1, 17 (1990), with Wirtz, supra, at 196, n. 27 (the Court has never declared that “Congress may use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or private activities”). We conclude, consistent with the great weight of our case law, that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity “substantially affects” interstate commerce.
We now turn to consider the power of Congress, in the light of this framework, to enact § 922(q). The first two categories of authority may be quickly disposed of: § 922(q) is not a regulation of the use of the channels of interstate commerce, nor is it an attempt to prohibit the interstate transportation of a commodity through the channels of commerce; nor can § 922(q) be justified as a regulation by which Congress has sought to protect an instrumentality of interstate commerce or a thing in interstate commerce. Thus, if § 922(q) is to be sustained, it must be under the third category as a regulation of an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
First, we have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce. Examples include the regulation of intrastate coal mining; Hodel, supra, intrastate extortionate credit transactions, Perez, supra, restaurants utilizing substantial interstate supplies, McClung, supra, inns and hotels catering to interstate guests, Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, and production and consumption of homegrown wheat, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942). These examples are by no means exhaustive, but the pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.
Even Wickard, which is perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate activity, involved economic activity in a way that the possession of a gun in a school zone does not. Roscoe Filburn operated a small farm in Ohio, on which, in the year involved, he raised 23 acres of wheat. It was his practice to sow winter wheat in the fall, and after harvesting it in July to sell a portion of the crop, to feed part of it to poultry and livestock on the farm, to use some in making flour for home consumption, and to keep the remainder for seeding future crops. The Secretary of Agriculture assessed a penalty against him under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 because he harvested about 12 acres more wheat than his allotment under the Act permitted. The Act was designed to regulate the volume of wheat moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages, and concomitant fluctuation in wheat prices, which had previously obtained. The Court said, in an opinion sustaining the application of the Act to Filburn’s activity:
“One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat and to that end to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.” 317 U. S., at 128.
Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce. For example, in United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336 (1971), the Court interpreted former 18 U. S. C. § 1202(a), which made it a crime for a felon to “receiv[e], posses[s], or transport] in commerce or affecting commerce... any firearm.” 404 U. S., at 337. The Court interpreted the possession component of § 1202(a) to require an additional nexus to interstate commerce both because the statute was ambiguous and because “unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance.” Id., at 349. The Bass Court set aside the conviction because, although the Government had demonstrated that Bass had possessed a firearm, it had failed “to show the requisite nexus with interstate commerce.” Id., at 347. The Court thus interpreted the statute to reserve the constitutional question whether Congress could regulate, without more, the “mere possession” of firearms. See id., at 339, n. 4; see also United States v. Five Gambling Devices, 346 U. S. 441, 448 (1953) (plurality opinion) (“The principle is old and deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence that this Court will construe a statute in a manner that requires decision of serious constitutional questions only if the statutory language leaves no reasonable alternative”). Unlike the statute in Bass, §922(q) has no express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach to a discrete set of firearm possessions that additionally have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.
Although as part of our independent evaluation of constitutionality under the Commerce Clause we of course consider legislative findings, and indeed even congressional committee findings, regarding effect on interstate commerce, see, e. g., Preseault v. ICC, 494 U. S., at 17, the Government concedes that “[njeither the statute nor its legislative history contain[s] express congressional findings regarding the effects upon interstate commerce of gun possession in a school zone.” Brief for United States 5-6. We agree with the Government that Congress normally is not required to make formal findings as to the substantial burdens that an activity has on interstate commerce. See McClung, 379 U. S., at 304; see also Perez, 402 U. S., at 156 (“Congress need [not] make particularized findings in order to legislate”). But to the extent that congressional findings would enable us to evaluate the legislative judgment that the activity in question substantially affected interstate commerce, even though no such substantial effect was visible to the naked eye, they are lacking here.
The Government argues that Congress has accumulated institutional expertise regarding the regulation of firearms through previous enactments. Cf. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448, 503 (1980) (Powell, J., concurring). We agree, however, with the Fifth Circuit that importation of previous findings to justify §922(q) is especially inappropriate here because the “prior federal enactments or Congressional findings [do not] speak to the subject matter of section 922(q) or its relationship to interstate commerce. Indeed, section 922(q) plows thoroughly new ground and represents a sharp break with the long-standing pattern of federal firearms legislation.” 2 F. 3d, at 1366.
The Government’s essential contention, in fine, is that we may determine here that § 922(q) is valid because possession of a firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. Brief for United States 17. The Government argues that possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs of violent crime are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. See United States v. Evans, 928 F. 2d 858, 862 (CA9 1991). Second, violent crime reduces the willingness of individuals to travel to areas within the country that are perceived to be unsafe. Cf. Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U. S., at 253. The Government also argues that the presence of guns in schools poses a substantial threat to the educational process by threatening the learning environment. A handicapped educational process, in turn, will result in a less productive citizenry. That, iii turn, would have an adverse effect on the Nation’s economic well-being. As a result, the Government argues that Congress could rationally have concluded that § 922(q) substantially affects interstate commerce.
We pause to consider the implications of the Government’s arguments. The Government admits, under its “costs of crime” reasoning, that Congress could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9. Similarly, under the Government’s “national productivity” reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for example. Under the theories that the Government presents in support of § 922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government’s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is' without power to regulate.
Although Justice Breyer argues that acceptance of the Government’s rationales would not authorize a general federal police power, he is unable to identify any activity that the States may regulate but Congress may not. Justice Breyer posits that there might be some limitations on Congress’ commerce power, such as family law or certain aspects of education. Post, at 624. These suggested limitations, when viewed in light of the dissent’s expansive analysis, are devoid of substance.
Justice Breyer focuses, for the most part, on the threat that firearm possession in and near schools poses to the educational process and the potential economic consequences flowing from that threat. Post, at 619-624. Specifically, the dissent reasons that (1) gun-related violence is a serious problem; (2) that problem, in turn, has an adverse effect on classroom learning; and (3) that adverse effect on classroom learning, in turn, represents a substantial threat to trade and commerce. Post, at 623. This analysis would be equally applicable, if not more so, to subjects such as family law and direct regulation of education.
For instance, if Congress can, pursuant to its Commerce Clause power, regulate activities that adversely affect the learning environment, then, a fortiori, it also can regulate the educational process directly. Congress could determine that a school’s curriculum has a “significant” effect on the extent of classroom learning. As a result, Congress could mandate a federal curriculum for local elementary and secondary schools because what is taught in local schools has a significant “effect on classroom learning,” cf. ibid., and that, in turn, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Justice Breyer rejects our reading of precedent and argues that “Congress... could rationally conclude that schools fall on the commercial side of the line.” Post, at 629. Again, Justice Breyer’s rationale lacks any real limits because, depending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial. Under the dissent’s rationale, Congress could just as easily look at child rearing as “fall[ing] on the commercial side of the line” because it provides a “valuable service — namely, to equip [children] with the skills they need to survive in life and, more specifically, in the workplace.” Ibid. We do not doubt that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate numerous commercial activities that substantially affect interstate commerce and also affect the educational process. That authority, though broad, does not include the authority to regulate each and every aspect of local schools.
Admittedly, a determination whether an intrastate activity is commercial or noncommercial may in some eases result in legal uncertainty. But, so long as Congress’ authority is limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and so long as those enumerated powers are interpreted as having judicially enforceable outer limits, congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause always will engender “legal uncertainty.” Post, at 630. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819):
“Th[e] [federal] government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it... is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.” Id., at 405.
See also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., at 195 (“The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated”). The Constitution mandates this uncertainty by withholding from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation. See Art. I, § 8. Congress has operated within this framework of legal uncertainty ever since this Court determined that it was the Judiciary’s duty “to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) (Marshall, C. J.). Any possible benefit from eliminating this “legal uncertainty” would be at the expense of the Constitution’s system of enumerated powers.
In Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U. S., at 37, we held that the question of congressional power under the Commerce Clause “is necessarily one of degree.” To the same effect is the concurring opinion of Justice Cardozo in Schechter Poultry:
“There is a view of causation that would obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local in the activities of commerce. Motion at the outer rim is communicated perceptibly, though minutely, to recording instruments at the center. A society such as ours ‘is an elastic medium which transmits all tremors throughout its territory; the only question is of their size.’” 295 U. S., at 554 (quoting United States v. A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp., 76 F. 2d 617, 624 (CA2 1935) (L. Hand, J., concurring)).
These are not precise formulations, and in the nature of things they cannot be. But we think they point the way to a correct decision of this case. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.
To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. See supra, at 556-558. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, at 195, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 30. This we are unwilling to do.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The term “school zone” is defined as “in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school” or “within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.” §921(a)(25).
See also Hodel, 452 U. S., at 311 (“[SJimply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so”) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment); Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U. S., at 273 (“[Wjhether particular operations affect interstate commerce sufficiently to come under the constitutional power of Congress to regulate them is ultimately a judicial rather than a legislative question, and can be settled finally only by this Court”) (Black, J., concurring).
Under our federal system, the “ ‘States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.’” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 635 (1993) (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 128 (1982)); see also Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 109 (1945) (plurality opinion) (“Our national government is one of delegated powers alone. Under our federal system the administration of criminal justice rests with the States except as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States”). When Congress criminalizes conduct already denounced as criminal by the States, it effects a “‘change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.’” United States v. Enmons, 410 U. S. 396, 411-412 (1973) (quoting United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 349 (1971)). The Government acknowledges that § 922(q) “displaced] state policy choices in... that its prohibitions apply even in States that have chosen not to outlaw the conduct in question.” Brief for United States 29, n. 18; see also Statement of President George Bush on Signing the Crime Control Act of 1990, 26 Weekly Comp, of Pres. Doc. 1944, 1945 (Nov. 29, 1990) (“Most egregiously, section [922(q)] inappropriately overrides legitimate State firearms laws with a new and unnecessary Federal law. The policies reflected in these provisions could legitimately be adopted by the States, but they should not be imposed upon the States by the Congress”).
We note that on September 13,1994, President Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796. Section 320904 of that Act, id., at 2125, amends § 922(q) to include congressional findings regarding the effects of firearm possession in and around schools upon interstate and foreign commerce. The Government does not rely upon these subsequent findings as a substitute for the absence of findings in the first instance. Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (“[W]e’re not relying on them in the strict sense of the word, but we think that at a very minimum they indicate
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed.
DECREE
The joint motion of plaintiff and defendants for entry of a decree having been submitted to the Court together with the Report of the Special Master recommending that the motion be granted,
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed As Follows:
1. The Report of the Special Master is hereby approved, and the motion of plaintiff and defendants for entry of a decree is granted.
2. This decree determines ownership of certain portions of the bed of the former channel of the Colorado River. The decree does not relate to, nor does it have an effect upon, the political boundary between the State of California and the State of Arizona, which was set by congressionally approved compact in 1966 (Pub. L. No. 89-531, 80 Stat. 340).
3. The State of California is the owner in fee simple, by virtue of its sovereignty, of those lands in the bed of the former channel of the Colorado River more particularly described in Exhibit A to this decree.
4. The boundaries of the lands described in paragraph 3 above and in Exhibit A to this decree are permanent and fixed.
5. The State of Arizona and the United States of America, and each of them, have no right, title, estate, or lien, whatever, in the lands described in paragraph 3 above and in Exhibit A to this decree, and the State of Arizona and the United States of America, and each of them, are hereby enjoined and restrained from claiming or asserting any right, title, estate, or lien, whatever, in said lands, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 below.
6. The State of Arizona is the owner in fee simple, by virtue of its sovereignty, of those lands in the bed of the former channel of the Colorado River more particularly described in Exhibit B to this decree.
7. The boundaries of the lands described in paragraph 6 above and in Exhibit B to this decree are permanent and fixed.
8. The State of California and the United States of America, and each of them, have no right, title, estate, or lien, whatever, in the lands described in paragraph 6 above and in Exhibit B to this decree, and the State of California and the United States of America, and each of them, are hereby enjoined arid restrained from claiming or asserting any right, title, estate, or lien, whatever, in said lands, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 below.
9. This action does not present for decision any question concerning the existence or extent of the federal navigational servitude in the lands that are the subject of this decree, and this decree makes no determination concerning that question.
10. The expenses of the Special Master shall be borne by the parties as previously directed by the Court. Each party shall bear its own costs in this action.
EXHIBIT A
A parcel of land in the former channel of the Colorado River in Imperial County, California, adjacent to Township 9 South, Range 21 East, San Bernardino Meridian; Township 10 South Range 21 East, San Bernardino Meridian; Township 10 South, Range 22 East, San Bernardino Meridian; Township 11 South, Range 22 East, San Bernardino Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the center line of the former channel of the Colorado River having California Coordinate System, Zone 6, coordinates of x=2,482,449.14 feet and y=387,218.39 feet, from which United States Water and Power Resources Service (formerly United States Bureau of Reclamation) Station' RUIN bears N 56°27'07" E 733.37 feet, as said points are shown on the map entitled, “Davis Lake Area Project Administrative Maps,” said map approved October 28, 1976 by the California State Lands Commission, and being on file at the office of said Commission in Sacramento, California; thence from said point of beginning, upstream along the center line of the former channel of the Colorado River, said center line being a fixed and limiting boundary of the herein described parcel, the following 377 courses:
1. N 06° 11/02" E 91.76 feet;
2. N 54°12'32" E 18.78 feet;
3. N 12°45/10" E 174.75 feet;
4. N 12°53/00" W 103.53 feet;
5. N 05°0947" W 146.10 feet;
6. N 13°58T0" E 87.64 feet;
7. N 05°10/13" W 66.53 feet;
8. N 23°3140" E 26.95 feet;
9. N 36°3247" E 111.82 feet;
10. N 19° 1748" W 275.69 feet;
11. N 04°49/28" W 45.39 feet;
12. N 25°30'26" W 64.01 feet;
13. N 21°4549" W 170.09 feet;
14. N 02° 1646" E 15.76 feet;
15. N 26°2544" W 142.77 feet;
16. N 19°59/28" W 151.68 feet;
17. N 32°00'03" W 345.18 feet;
18. N 03-2444" W 16.15 feet;
19. N 34°25/41" W 352.66 feet;
20. N 30°34'31" W 260.03 feet;
21. N 36°46'58" W 310.64 feet;
22. N 41 °48/53" W 306.12 feet;
23. N 40-2549" W 290.08 feet;
24. N 44°30'49" W 169.94 feet;
25. N 30°52'29" W 39.42 feet;
26. N 47°4442" W 40.80 feet;
27. N 21°3040" W 23.17 feet;
28. N 34“34'58" W 209.82 feet;
29. N 34°44'50" W 317.95 feet;
30. N 34°44'47" W 291.32 feet;
31. N 37°3147" W 279.41 feet;
32. N 36°05'21" W 275.56 feet;
33. N 37°3947" W 240.96 feet;
34. N 32°0344" W 164.74 feet;
35. N 26-4141" E 14.17 feet;
36. N 37-0844" W 33.36 feet;
37. N 35-3646" W 86.74 feet;
38. N 39°4149" W 66.46 feet;
39. N 37°12'59" W 163.13 feet;
40. N 28°19/51" W 220.22 feet;
41. N 34°3342" W 149.82 feet;
42. N 39°16'54" W 17.91 feet;
43. N 46°59/54" W 65.69 feet;
44. N 36-4541" W 175.14 feet;
45. N 30°48,13// W 247.89 feet;
46. N 35°33'18" W 233.54 feet;
47. N 42°45/30" W 301.59 feet;
48. N 29°31'50" W 70.64 feet;
49. N 39°15'12" W 181.84 feet;
50. N 34°08'26" W 287.28 feet;
51. N 36°56'15" W 341.54 feet;
52. N 33°51'40" W 248.93 feet;
53. N 30°53'53" W 227.36 feet;
54. N 28°52'32" W 133.47 feet;
55. N 41°33'10" W 32.08 feet;
56. N 32°30'33" W 214.79 feet;
57. N 32°47'41" W 159.63 feet;
58. N 41°44'15" W 149.07 feet;
59. N 51°38'10" W 15.67 feet;
60. N 29°44'55" W 238.30 feet;
61. N 25°49'43,/ W 111.43 feet;
62. N 09°13'34" W 69.07 feet;
63. N 21°53,52" W 147.48 feet;
64. N 65°05'19" W 9.15 feet;
65. N 32°30'38,/ W 38.27 feet;
66. N 21°01'27" W 83.19 feet;
67. N 10°39'51" E 44.53 feet;
68. N 02°15/38" W 45.67 feet;
69. N 44°22/08" W 27.00 feet;
70. N 20°34/25/' W 93.00 feet;
71. N 18°23'16// W 48.78 feet;
72. N 16°26'02" W 95.55 feet;
73. N 04°26/34" W 49.11 feet;
74. N 08°54/12,/ W 109.59 feet;
75. N 45°00'45/' W 15.45 feet;
76. N 15°52/18" W 46.11 feet;
77. N 23°50W' E 50.55 feet;
78. N 06°27/18// W 28.68 feet;
79. N 29°30'20,/ W 14.62 feet;
80. N 15'’29'04// E 39.92 feet;
81. N 28°23/27// E 42.72 feet;
82. N 23°04/47// E 132.80 feet;
83. N 47°17'33// E 256.64 feet;
84. N 48°40/23// E 89.15 feet;
85. N 52°50'14" E 286.63 feet;
86. N 59°57'29" E 156.23 feet;
87. N 62°51/03" E 103.67 feet;
88. N 60o52,13" E 166.51 feet;
89. N 57°00,27// E 53.17 feet;
90. N 57°43'27" E 326.93 feet;
91. N 68°38'25" E 38.74 feet;
92. N 45°44/50" E 25.05 feet;
93. N eO^S^" E 148.11 feet;
94. N 52°28/50// E 136.72 feet;
95. N 53°4&'33" E 194.46 feet;
96. N 53°11'16" E 49.55 feet;
97. N 80°15'07" E 22.12 feet;
98. N 50°13'23,/ E 181.66 feet;
99. N 69°57/50" E 40.08 feet;
100. N 34°56'12// E 24.41 feet;
101. N 50°47'14" E 202.15 feet;
102. N 61°59'40" E 50.34 feet;
103. N 47°49/50" E 49.76 feet;
104. N 48°09/42// E 163.97 feet;
105. N 50°09'37" E 112.15 feet;
106. N 27°22/23" E 134.94 feet;
107. N 47°51'44" E 124.47 feet;
108. N 46°01'44" E 142.53 feet;
109. N 39°04/50'/ E 180.94 feet;
110. N 45°09'21'/ E 189.68 feet;
111. N 39°57'52" E 156.08 feet;
112. N 43“26'27// E 199.19 feet;
113. N 52°12/27/' E 221.41 feet;
114. N 50°29'55" E 152.42 feet;
115. N 52°54,27// E 179.48 feet;
116. N 62°15'35" E 213.37 feet;
117. N 68°45'32// E 55.26 feet;
118. N 67°29'40" E 76.60 feet;
119. N 65°41'07" E 165.43 feet;
120. N 67°14/09" E 294.39 feet;
121. N 64°24/36// E 128.78 feet;
122. N 53°03'32// E 106.15 feet;
123. N 70°17'39// E 35.29 feet;
124. N 73°29/13" E 147.47 feet;
125. N 59°19'13" E 74.01 feet;
126. N 30°28'52" E 18.53 feet;
127. N 60°22/22// E 71.20 feet;
128. N 18°45'56" E 28.50 feet;
129. N 39°20'12" E 181.32 feet;
130. N 15°18'44" E 22.87 feet;
131. N 34°48/05,/ E 113.34 feet;
132. N 01°37'33" E 25.20 feet;
133. N 20°03'20" E 279.59 feet;
134. N 08°48'55" E 494.65 feet;
135. N 06°07'16" W 329.64 feet;
136. N 01°08'01" W 46.25 feet;
137. N 12°04'58" W 216.22 feet;
138. N 02°16'55" E 41.56 feet;
139. N 12°25'25" W 199.17 feet;
140. N 27° 14'52" W 38.46 feet;
141. N 20°48'06" W 242.26 feet;
142. N 19°51'45" W 337.38 feet;
143. N 24°07'19" W 226.77 feet;
144. N 27°31,47" W 169.08 feet;
145. N 25°20,37" W 190.07 feet;
146. N 27°40'18" W 329.72 feet;
147. N 28°56'10" W 330.72 feet;
148. N 24°33'34" W 60.51 feet;
149. N 29°27'35" W 208.29 feet;
150. N 28°05/26" W 247.46 feet;
151. N 23°44,10" W 163.83 feet;
152. N 13°09'48" W 254.49 feet;
153. N 19°22/18" W 307.39 feet;
154. N 21°47'25" W 159.63 feet;
155. N 30°33'33" W 99.94 feet;
156. N 29°12'13" W 207.55 feet;
157. N 31°55'33" W 235.86 feet;
158. N 28°51'47" W 106.13 feet;
159. N 36°40'00" W 174.32 feet;
160. N 02°47/21" E 19.11 feet;
161. N 43°43/57" W 240.40 feet;
162. N 41°01'16" W 304.70 feet;
163. N 46°54'46" W 122.65 feet;
164. N 40°49'49" W 90.29 feet;
165. N 51°59'40" W 174.20 feet;
166. N 44°21/26" W 78.79 feet;
167. N 54°41,29" W 220.08 feet;
168. N 53°16rll" W 329.75 feet;
169. N 61051'41" W 110.58 feet;
170. N 52°54/43" W 215.67 feet;
171. N W 153.28 feet;
172. N 59°29'55" W 174.49 feet;
173. N 56°21'47" W 191.68 feet;
174. S 89°23'45" W 20.87 feet;
175. N 62°40'51" W 144.58 feet;
176. N 60°27,35" W 329.61 feet;
177. N 58°43'43" W 350.72 feet;
178. N 49°48'54" W 206.44 feet;
179. N 71°14'37" W 266.43 feet;
180. N 67°56'20" W 72.52 feet;
181. N 64°05'13" W 230.11 feet;
182. N 68°36'52" W 337.96 feet;
183. N 68°46'07" W 60.86 feet;
184. N 57°31'28" W 62.02 feet;
185. N 69°12'17" W 194.71 feet;
186. N 74°52/18" W 51.54 feet;
187. N OOnO'^" W 91.32 feet;
188. N 72°23/57" W 284.72 feet;
189. N 66°43'26" W 289.75 feet;
190. N 71°49'29" W 317.90 feet;
191. N 69°12'03" W 238.91 feet;
192. N 64°15/14" W 72.27 feet;
193. S 65°27'32" W 40.27 feet;
194. N 74°15'53" W 194.46 feet;
195. N 73°49/49" W 290.50 feet;
196. N 72°33/14" W 374.10 feet;
197. N 67°46/21" W 342.36 feet;
198. N 57°56/05" W 76.94 feet;
199. N S7°47'11" W 87.90 feet;
200. N 72°42/55" W 288.96 feet;
201. N 71°19/03" W 300.30 feet;
202. N 80°29'32" W 203.62 feet;
203. S 89° 12'33" W 61.22 feet;
204. N 70°29'19" W 104.61 feet;
205. N 79°25/58" W 67.02 feet;
206. N 80°35'3l" W 373.72 feet;
207. N 80°52/09" W 380.68 feet;
208. N 77°30'29" W 200.60 feet;
209. S 80°07/35" W 41.78 feet;
210. N 68°08'20" W 43.73 feet;
211. N 82°47/20" W 337.50 feet;
212. N 78°02'35" W 194.88 feet;
213. N 77°39,54" W 170.67 feet;
214. N 77°07'59" W 330.55 feet;
215. N 79°02r44" W 201.15 feet;
216. N 70°18,48" W 173.92 feet;
217. N 78°14'27" W 273.38 feet;
218. N 86°10'16" W 121.38 feet;
219. N 66°59'20" W 23.64 feet;
220. N 77°12/59// W 426.70 feet;
221. N 83°15'03" W 185.75 feet;
222. N 73°51'47" W 182.15 feet;
223. N 71°13,45" W 167.21 feet;
224. S 75°37'59" W 30.89 feet;
225. N 71°33'44" W 234.05 feet;
226. N 80°43'52" W 137.24 feet;
227. N 69°41'51" W 273.22 feet;
228. N 70°43'07// W 254.91 feet;
229. N 66°56'08" W 301.42 feet;
230. N 63°53'15" W 256.28 feet;
231. N 58°33/26" W 202.83 feet;
232. N 6V5Y11" W 184.76 feet;
233. N 52°03/07// W 236.22 feet;
234. N 59°50'4l" W 424.43 feet;
235. N 57°02/33// W 230.68 feet;
236. N 48°19'51" W 103.33 feet;
237. N 40°22'48" W 238.16 feet;
238. N 27°29'10" W 445.07 feet;
239. N 27°28'12// W 417.56 feet;
240. N 23°53'28// W 462.72 feet;
241. N 20°07'44" W 182.40 feet;
242. N 02°09'48'/ W 110.47 feet;
243. N 45°05/17" W 66.80 feet;
244. N 24°47/08" W 167.79 feet;
245. N 04°37'48" E 25.09 feet;
246. N 25°09/10// W 194.51 feet;
247. N 47°03,42" W 36.76 feet;
248. N 23°12/08" W 208.06 feet;
249. N 31°51'35" W 213.36 feet;
250. N 25°18/01// W 275.95 feet;
251. N 22°57'02,/ W 335.59 feet;
252. N 35°58'44" W 89.13 feet;
253. N 24°17'16// W 160.88 feet;
254. N 75°21/26// W 17.52 feet;
255. N 27°01'17// W 188.36 feet;
256. N ÍS^S^' W 227.87 feet;
257. N 40°21'42" W 136.76 feet;
258. N 24°24/56// W 197.69 feet;
259. N 23^°37'41" W 184.07 feet;
260. N 26°21/53" W 373.91 feet;
261. N 30°13'3G" W 285.83 feet;
262. N 23°37/13" W 44.79 feet;
263. N 32°55'17" W 111.43 feet;
264. N 70°24/21// W 45.64 feet;
265. N 38°36'29" W 28.58 feet;
266. N 27°45/40,/ W 98.67 feet;
267. N 46°12'44/' W 44.96 feet;
268. N 24°49'30// W 178.43 feet;
269. N 0h°35'43" E 26.71 feet;
270. N 22°59'42" W 38.82 feet;
271. N 10°02'49,/ E 30.61 feet;
272. N 19°34/05// W 114.65 feet;
273. N 05°33'59" E 13.45 feet;
274. N 12°59'57/' W 110.34 feet;
275. N 01°10059" E 216.95 feet;
276. N Q7°13'33" E 110.78 feet;
277. N 06W55" E 131.88 feet;
278. N ^“Ol'ie" E 173.06 feet;
279. N 04°06'19" W 44.77 feet;
280. N 34°06'19" E 126.69 feet;
281. N 40°46/38" E 329.61 feet;
282. N 27°01/26// E 173.94 feet;
283. N 46°34/13// E 311.34 feet;
284. N 46°36'53" E 361.75 feet;
285. N 57°24'33,/ E 118.71 feet;
286. N 52°19,49// E 242.35 feet;
287. N 47°03/21// E 177.59 feet;
288. N 52°11/08" E 276.80 feet;
289. N 52°23,33" E 387.60 feet;
290. N 39°39'32" E 300.47 feet;
291. N 24°24/38" E 351.30 feet;
292. N 18°55'03" E 170.32 feet;
293. N 16°04/01// E 220.64 feet;
294. N 27°29/02// E 177.93 feet;
295. N 33°39,19" E 182.00 feet;
296. N 44°33'29" E 266.80 feet;
297. N 37°44/11// E 162.18 feet;
298. N 39°45'24" E 191.62 feet;
299. N 44°ll/35// E 141.82 feet;
300. N 49°35'13// E 289.05 feet;
301. N 67°47,17// E 434.12 feet;
302. N 50°05'56" E 187.21 feet;
303. N 53°46'23" E 313.82 feet;
304. N 57°52'30" E 229.52 feet;
305. N 34°44'43" E 240.98 feet;
306. N 13°51'55" E 139.72 feet;
307. N 30°29'51" E 218.39 feet;
308. N 09°00,09// E 310.43 feet;
309. N 03°29'17" E 364.22 feet;
310. N 21°07'35" E 112.02 feet;
311. N 25°42'13" E 133.57 feet;
312. N 45°58'18" E 53.38 feet;
313. N 60°19'59" E 51.98 feet;
314. N 37°15'32" E 182.58 feet;
315. N 15°23'58" E 83.49 feet;
316. N 15°42'01" E 261.08 feet;
317. N 36°24'20" W 51.58 feet;
318. N 15°15'01" E 196.32 feet;
319. N 13°42'25" W 206.28 feet;
320. N 32°40'58" E 42.13 feet;
321. N 32°31'26" E 214.62 feet;
322. N 44°06/21// E 17.67 feet;
323. N 30°59'00" E 115.35 feet;
324. N 25°35'07" E 44.46 feet;
325. N 18°27'29" E 109.88 feet;
326. N 22°50'29" E 131.46 feet;
327. N 05°32'17" E 162.37 feet;
328. N 01°04'56" W 188.48 feet;
329. N 08°30,21// W 126.56 feet;
330. N 16°47'18" E 224.07 feet;
331. N 30°43,44" E 88.32 feet;
332. N 41°35/58" E 181.80 feet;
333. N 41°26'54" E 4.11 feet;
334. N 62°19'06" E 53.47 feet;
335. N 42°17'15" E 75.16 feet;
336. N 42°33'08" E 98.01 feet;
337. N 14°53'12,/ E 16.50 feet;
338. N 05°14'15" W 25.31 feet;
339. N 39°32'31" E 98.80 feet;
340. N 04°53'40" W 145.92 feet;
341. N 09°04'54" E 362.65 feet;
342. N 14°50'01" E 304.17 feet;
343. N 01°28'58" E 71.48 feet;
344. N 02°08'33" E 176.53 feet;
345. N 01°57/51" W 319.75 feet;
346.'N 01°20'24" W 243.11 feet;
347. N 09°08'02" E 139.88 feet;
348. N 13°07'32" W 209.36 feet;
349. N 06°26'13" W 175.51 feet;
350. N 05°37'45" W 293.41 feet;
351. N 06°34'59" W 217.59 feet;
352. N 07°47'48" W 290.66 feet;
353. N 10°41'30" W 267.70 feet;
354. N 04°47'01,/ W 72.08 feet;
355. N 14°28'47" W 234.20 feet;
356. N 0Ó°19'43" W 116.62 feet;
357. N 07°44'46" W 279.97 feet;
358. N 11°32'18" W 356.71 feet;
359. N 11°07'49" W 213.28 feet;
360. N 14°30'09" W 272.42 feet;
361. N 06°36/37" W 286.80 feet;
362. N 08°28/38" W 238.45 feet;
363. N 17°03'40" W 151.67 feet;
364. N 09°18'29" W 342.55 feet;
365. N 14°40'23" W 256.29 feet;
366. N U°18'Q3" W 363.43 feet;
367. N ll°45/38" E 206.67 feet;
368. N 41°54'52// E 321.85 feet;
369. N 63°25'44" E 273.18 feet;
370. S 74°04'12" E 474.64 feet;
371. N 88°03/52" E 416.71 feet;
372. S 66°20'00" E 572.97 feet;
373. S 80°24'37" E 222.10 feet;
374. S 89°46/40" E 349.53 feet;
375. N 82°26r19" E 391.23 feet;
376. N 66°00'59" E 497.08 feet;
377. N 58°38'57" E 276.46 feet to a standard California State Lands Commission brass tablet set in concrete stamped “N-MID-CAL 1981” having California Coordinate System, Zone 6 coordinates of x=2,472,-838.61 feet and y=432,666.01 feet, said tablet being located on the westerly boundary of the parcels of land taken by condemnation in United States v. 243.25 Acres of Land, Civil No. 3505-SD Smith (S. D. Cal. 1973) and United States v. 67.57 Acres of Land, Civil No. 5925-Phx-Craig (D. Ariz. 1972); thence leaving said centerline of the former channel,
378. Northeasterly 278.84 feet along said westerly boundary, being a fixed and limiting boundary of the herein described parcel, on the arc of a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 15,350 feet, to a point on said curve subtended by a chord which bears N 06°51/25// E 278.83 feet, said point being mon-umented with a standard California State Lands Commission brass tablet set in concrete, stamped “N-RB-CAL 1891”, having California Coordinate System Zone 6 coordinates of x=2,472,871.90 feet and y=432,942.85 feet, from which California State Lands Commission Monument “PI-14” bears N 29°11'26" E 613.52 feet, as said monument is shown on said map; thence downstream along a fixed and limiting boundary of the herein described parcel, the following 27 courses:
379. S 47°59'19" W 68.50 feet;
380. S 60°07/46// W 395.55 feet
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | K | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The common question these cases present is whether the United States has such exclusive jurisdiction over a 22,000-acre tract of land in Louisiana on which the Barks-dale Air Force Base is located that Louisiana is without jurisdiction to levy an ad valorem tax on privately owned property situated on the tract. The District Court and Court of Appeal of Louisiana upheld such a tax laid on certain oil drilling equipment and pipelines owned, used and kept by the petitioners on this federal enclave. 151 So. 2d 575. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied review. 244 La. 463, 467, 152 So. 2d 561, 562. We granted certiorari to consider this federal question important to the United States. 375 U. S. 878.
The United States acquired a fee simple title to the entire tract in 1930 by donations from the State of Louisiana, the City of Shreveport, and the Bossier Levee District, a state agency, for the purpose of using the land as a military base. The Government has spent huge amounts of money in creating and operating at Barksdale Field one of its most important military posts. When the State and its agencies gave the land to the United States, Louisiana law provided that the United States should have “the right of exclusive jurisdiction” over any land it “purchased or condemned, or otherwise acquired ... for all purposes, except the administration of the criminal laws . . . and the service of civil process of said State therein . ...” All of the pipelines or equipment in question upon which the State's ad valorem tax has been imposed are, as the Louisiana District Court stated, “situated on the United States Military Reservation known as ‘Barksdale Air Force Base’. . . .”
Article I, § 8, cl. 17, of the United States Constitution permits the United States to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over lands within a State. It provides:
“The Congress shall have Power ... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever . . . over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Buildings . . . .”
Louisiana contends that the United States cannot “exercise exclusive Legislation” here because the land for the military base was donated, not “purchased” within the meaning of the constitutional provision. We cannot agree to such a constricted reading of that provision. Louisiana concedes that, as we pointed out in our recent holding in Paul v. United States, 371 U. S. 245, 264, the Government could, with the State’s consent, have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by condemning the land. See also James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 141-142. This common-sense reading of the constitutional provision simply follows the interpretation given it long ago in Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 538:
“The essence of that provision is that the State shall freely cede the particular place to the United States for one of the specific and enumerated objects.”
In accordance with this construction the Court in that case went on to emphasize that although the United States had not “purchased” Fort Leavenworth in the narrow trading sense of the term, the crucial question was whether Kansas had ceded exclusive jurisdiction over the fort. Likewise, we hold here that under Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, the United States acquired exclusive jurisdiction when the land was ceded to it with consent of the State (except for the State’s express reservation as to civil and criminal process) just as if the United States had acquired its title by negotiation and payment of a money consideration.
Relying on the fact that the United States has leased the right to exploit parts of the reservation for oil and gas and for an oil pipeline, Louisiana contends that the Federal Government has thereby lost its power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over those parts of the area. We cannot agree. We did hold in S. R. A., Inc. v. Minnesota, 327 U. S. 558, that where the United States, while retaining what was in substance a mortgage, had sold land and buildings formerly used for governmental purposes it thereby in effect surrendered its former exclusive jurisdiction, leaving that property taxable by the State. But that cáse does not control the present situation, for here the Government continues to hold all the land subject to its primary jurisdiction and control. This Court has previously held that exclusive federal jurisdiction was not lost either by lease of property for commercial purposes within an enclave, Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U. S. 439, or by conveying a right of way to a railroad across a reservation, United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U. S. 138. And in holding that exclusive jurisdiction was not lost over a part of a reservation used for farming, this Court recognized the responsibility of the Executive Department of the Government to determine what land it will acquire and hold for military purposes. Benson v. United States, 146 U. S. 325, 331. There is no evidence here which would justify a court in deciding that the Government does not need to keep all of this tract intact, ready for use when needed for the highly important military purposes to which it has been dedicated.
Louisiana further contends that this record shows that the Government did not intend to accept exclusive jurisdiction here. It is the established rule that a grant of jurisdiction by a State to the Federal Government need not be accepted and that a refusal to accept may be proved by evidence. Atkinson v. State Tax Comm’n, 303 U. S. 20, 23; Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Comm’n, 302 U. S. 186, 207-209. The State’s contention is based chiefly on a statement that Barksdale Air Force Base buys public utility services from the State or a state instrumentality at its gate and pays to the State’s school system a per capita charge for each child of a serviceman attending the State’s schools. We think these circumstances wholly fail to show a rejection by the Government of the State’s cession of exclusive jurisdiction over the base. Nor do we think it possible to find a refusal or an abandonment of exclusive federal jurisdiction from the fact that the oil and gas leases provided that the companies should “pay when due, all taxes lawfully assessed and levied under the laws of the State or the United States upon improvements, oil and gas produced from the lands hereunder, or other rights, property, or assets of the lessee____” It is by no means sure that a federal agency making an oil and gas lease could waive the Government’s exclusive jurisdiction over a federal reservation, but even if it could we see nothing more in this standard contractual provision than a precaution on the Government’s part to guard itself against liability for payment of any state taxes “lawfully assessed” against its lessee. Cf. United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U. S. 174, 189. A contractual requirement to pay taxes lawfully owing, standing alone, cannot be read as manifesting a purpose of the Government to abandon exclusive jurisdiction over one of its important military enclaves. When Congress has wished to allow a State to exercise jurisdiction to levy certain taxes within a federal enclave it has specifically so stated, as in the Buck Act, 4 U. S. C. §§ 104M10.
The judgments are reversed and the cases remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
No issue concerning immunity of federal instrumentalities from state taxation, apart from the question of lack of state jurisdiction to tax within a federal enclave, has been raised here.
Act No. 4, Louisiana Legislature, 1930.
Act No. 12, Louisiana Legislature, 1892, subsequently amended by Act No. 31, Louisiana Legislature, 1942, La. Rev. Stat. 1950, Tit. 52, c. 1, § 1. The deed to the United States was for a fee simple, and unlike that in Palmer v. Barrett, 162 U. S. 399, the authorizing statute contained no conditions and reserved only “the administration of the criminal laws . . . and the service of civil process.”
The fact that the oil and gas leases were issued by the Department of the Interior rather than the Department of the Air Force does not affect the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
But cf. International Business Machines Corp. v. Ott, 230 La. 666, 701-702, 89 So. 2d 193, 205-206.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent is the executive secretary of an organization known as the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee (hereinafter referred to as the association) and as such has custody of its records. Prior to April 4, 1946, the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, which was conducting an investigation into the activities of the association, had attempted without success to procure these records from respondent and from the chairman of the association’s executive board, Dr. Edward K. Barsky. On March 29, 1946, the Committee issued subpoenas to each of the known members of the executive board summoning them to appear in the Committee’s room on April 4, 1946, at 10 a. m., to testify and produce certain specified records of the association, and an identical subpoena directed to the association by name was served upon respondent Bryan in her official capacity.
Bryan and the members of the executive board appeared before the Committee at the date and time set out in the subpoenas and in response thereto. Each person so summoned failed to produce any of the records specified in the subpoenas. The members of the executive board made identical statements in which each declared that he or she did not have possession, custody or control of the records; that Miss Bryan, the executive secretary, did. Respondent admitted that the records were in her possession but refused to comply with the subpoena because “after consulting with counsel [she] came to the conclusion that the subpena was not valid” because the Committee had no constitutional right to demand the books and records. Asked whether the executive board supported her action, she refused to answer because she did not think the question pertinent.
The Committee on Un-American Activities then submitted its report and resolution to the House. Setting out at length the Committee’s attempts to procure the records of the association, the report concludes:
“The willful and deliberate refusal of Helen R. Bryan and the members of the executive board of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee as named herein to produce the books, papers, and records called for in the subpenas deprives your committee of evidence necessary in the conduct of its investigation of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, which evidence is pertinent to the said investigation and places the said persons in contempt of the House of Representatives of the United States.”
The resolution directing the Speaker to certify the Committee’s report to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for legal action was approved by the full House after debate.
Respondent was indicted for violation of R. S. § 102, in that she had failed to produce the records called for in the subpoenas and had thereby wilfully made default. At the trial she contended, inter alia, that she was not guilty of wilful default because a quorum of the Committee on Un-American Activities had not been present when she appeared on the return day. However, the trial court withdrew that issue from the jury’s consideration by instructing the jury “as a matter of law, that the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives was a validly constituted committee of the Congress, and was at the time of the defendant’s appearanee.” Respondent was found guilty, 72 F. Supp. 58, but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, one judge dissenting, reversed the judgment on the ground that the presence of a quorum of the Committee at the hearing on April 4, 1946, was a material question of fact in the alleged offense and should have been submitted to' the jury. 84 U. S. App. D. C. 394, 174 F. 2d 525. We granted a writ of certiorari, 338 U. S. 846, to consider this important question affecting the procedures of congressional committees.
First. R. S. § 102 was enacted in 1857. Its purpose, as stated by its sponsors, was to avoid the procedural difficulties which had been experienced by the House of Representatives when, persons cited for contempt of the House were brought before its bar to show cause why they should not be committed, and, more important, to permit the imprisonment of a contemnor beyond the expiration of the current session of Congress. Transmission of the fact of the commission of a contempt to the prosecuting authority is made under the Seal of the House or Senate by the Speaker or President of the Senate. The judicial proceedings are intended as an alternative method of vindicating the authority of Congress to compel the disclosure of facts which are needed in the fulfillment of the legislative function. In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661, 671-672 (1897); Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U. S. 125, 151 (1935).
“Default” is, of course, a failure to comply with the summons. In this case we may assume, without deciding, that the subpoena served on respondent required her to produce the records of the association before the Committee on Un-American Activities, sitting as a committee. Upon that assumption, respondent takes the position that, absent a quorum, the Committee was without power to receive the records on the return day; that she cannot be guilty of a default in failing to produce papers before an “agency organizationally defective,” which, for that reason, “cannot be obstructed.” Respondent does not and cannot, in view of the jury’s verdict, contest the finding that she deliberately and intentionally refused to produce the papers called for in the subpoena. Her contention is that a quorum of the Committee was required to meet to witness her refusal. Reliance is placed upon certain precedents of the House of Representatives, which hold that a committee report may be challenged in the House on the ground that a quorum of the committee was not present when the report was approved, and upon this Court’s recent decision in Christoffel v. United States, 338 U. S. 84 (1949).
The Christoffel case is inapposite. For that decision, which involved a prosecution for perjury before a congressional committee, rests in part upon the proposition that the applicable perjury statute requires that a “competent tribunal” be present when the false statement is made. There is no such requirement in R. S. § 102. It does not contemplate some affirmative act which is made punishable only if performed before a competent tribunal, but an intentional failure to testify or produce papers, however the contumacy is manifested. Respondent attempts to equate R. S. § 102 with the perjury statute considered in the Christoffel case by contending that it applies only to the refusal to testify or produce papers before a committee — i. e., in the presence of a quorum of the committee. But the statute is not so limited. In the first place, it refers to the wilful failure by any person “to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before... any committee of either House of Congress,” not to the failure to testify before a congressional committee. And the fact that appearance before a committee is not an essential element of the offense is further emphasized by additional language in the statute, which, after defining wilful default in the terms set out above, continues, “or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,....” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear that R. S. § 102 is designed to punish the obstruction of inquiries in which the Houses of Congress or their committees are engaged. If it is shown that such an inquiry is, in fact, obstructed by the intentional withholding of documents, it is unimportant whether the subpoenaed person proclaims his refusal to respond before the full committee, sends a telegram to the chairman, or simply stays away from the hearing on the return day. His statements or actions are merely evidence from which a jury might infer an intent to default. A proclaimed refusal to respond, as in this case, makes that intent plain. But it would hardly be less plain if the witness embarked on a voyage to Europe on the day before his scheduled appearance before the committee.
Of course a witness may always change his mind. A default does not mature until the return date of the subpoena, whatever the previous manifestations of intent to default. But when the Government introduced evidence in this case that respondent had been validly served with a lawful subpoena directing her to produce records within her custody and control, and that on the day set out in the subpoena she intentionally failed to comply, it made out a prima facie case of wilful default.
Second. It is argued, however, that even if the Government is not required to prove presence of a quorum affirmatively, lack of a quorum is a defense raising material questions of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. The theory is that if the subpoena required production of the records before the Committee on UnAmerican Activities qua committee, respondent could not have complied with the subpoena in the absence of a quorum had she wished to do so, and therefore her default is not wilful, albeit deliberate and intentional. While she did not introduce any direct evidence at the trial, respondent appropriately raised the defense by cross-examination and by her motions, requests and objections.
Ordinarily, one charged with contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order makes a complete defense by proving that he is unable to comply. A court will not imprison a witness for failure to produce documents which he does not have, unless he is responsible for their unavailability, cf. Jurney v. MacCracken, supra, or is impeding justice by not explaining what happened to them, United States v. Goldstein, 105 F. 2d 150 (1939).
On the other hand, persons summoned as witnesses by competent authority have certain minimum duties and obligations which are necessary concessions to the public interest in the orderly operation of legislative and judicial machinery. A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity. We have often iterated the importance of this public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned. See, e. g., Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 281 (1919); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 438 (1932).
Certain exemptions from attending or, having attended, giving testimony are recognized by all courts. But every such exemption is grounded in a substantial individual interest which has been found, through centuries of experience, to outweigh the public interest in the search for truth. Dean Wigmore stated the proposition thus: “For more than three centuries it has now been recognized as a fundamental maxim that the public (in the words sanctioned by Lord Hardwicke) has a right to every man’s evidence. When we come to examine the various claims of exemption, we start with the primary assumption that there is a general duty to give what testimony one is capable of giving, and that any exemptions which may exist are distinctly exceptional, being so many derogations from a positive general rule.”
Every exemption from testifying or producing records thus presupposes a very real interest to be protected. If a privilege based upon that interest is asserted, its validity must be assessed. Since we assume in this case that the subpoenas refer to the production of papers before the Committee qua committee, we agree that respondent could rightfully have demanded attendance of a quorum of the Committee and declined to testify or to produce documents so long as a quorum was not present. But the courts need not treat as important that which the witness obviously regarded as unimportant. Testimonial compulsion is an intensely practical matter. If, therefore, a witness seeks to excuse a default on grounds of inability to comply with the subpoena, we think the defense must fail in the absence of even a modicum of good faith in responding to the subpoena. That such was the situation in this case does not admit of doubt.
In the first place, if respondent had legitimate reasons for failing to produce the records of the association, a decent respect for the House of Representatives, by whose authority the subpoenas issued, would have required that she state her reasons for noncompliance upon the return of the writ. At the time and place specified in the subpoenas the Chairman of the Committee and a number of other members — whether or not a quorum was present at any time is not clear from the record — presented themselves for the taking of testimony and receipt of papers. The defect in composition of the Committee, if any, was one which could easily have been remedied. But the Committee was not informed until the trial, two years after the refusal to produce the records, that respondent sought to excuse her noncompliance on the ground that a quorum of the Committee had not been present. For two years, now grown to four, the Committee’s investigation was obstructed by an objection which, so far as we are informed, could have been rectified in a few minutes.
Such a patent evasion of the duty of one summoned to produce papers before a congressional committee cannot be condoned. Suppose one who has been summoned to produce papers fails to deliver them as required but refuses to give any reason. May he defend a prosecution for wilful default, many months later, on the ground that he had not been given a sufficient time to gather the papers? We think such a contention hardly tenable. Yet, at the return date, compliance with the subpoena was “impossible” just as in the present case. To deny the Committee the opportunity to consider the objection or remedy it is in itself a contempt of its authority and an obstruction of its processes. See Bevan v. Krieger, 289 U. S. 459, 464-465 (1933).
In the second place, the fact that the alleged defect upon which respondent now insists is, in her own estimation, an immaterial one, is clearly shown by her reliance before the Committee upon other grounds for failing to produce the records. She does not deny, and the transcript of the hearing makes it perfectly clear, that she would not have complied with the subpoenas no matter how the Committee had been constituted at the time. This Court considered a similar question in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 (1906), where a witness had refused in the trial court to produce certain books and papers called for by a subpoena duces tecum on three grounds, one of which was that it was impossible to collect the records within the time allowed. The Court pointed out that “Had the witness relied solely upon the first ground, doubtless the court would have given him the necessary time.” 201 U. S. at p. 70. But having refused compliance for other reasons which the lower court could not remedy, the witness could not later complain of its refusal to do a meaningless act — to grant him additional time to gather papers which he had indicated he would not produce in any event. Here respondent would have the Committee go through the empty formality of summoning a quorum of its members to gather in solemn conclave to hear her refuse to honor its demands. Presumably the same formalism would be required if respondent had informed the Committee that she was not coming at all and did not do so.
In a not dissimilar case, Judge Learned Hand stated what we consider to be the basic question before us and gave the answer which we think must necessarily follow. He said:
“The question is no less than whether courts must put up with shifts and subterfuges in the place of truth and are powerless to put an end to trifling. They would prove themselves incapable of dealing with actualities if it were so, for there is no surer sign of a feeble and fumbling law than timidity in penetrating the form to the substance.” Loubriel v. United States, 9 F. 2d 807, 808 (1926).
We hold that the Government is not required to prove that a quorum of the Committee was present when the default occurred, and that under the circumstances disclosed by this record a defense of lack of a quorum was not open to respondent.
Third. Respondent also contended at the trial that the court erred in permitting the Government to read to the jury the testimony she had given before the House Committee when called upon to produce the records. She relies upon R. S. § 859, now codified in § 3486 of Title 18 U. S. C., which provides that “No testimony given by a witness before... any committee of either House,... shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, except in a prosecution for perjury committed in giving such testimony....” Admittedly her testimony relative to production of the books comes within the literal language of the statute; but the trial court thought that to apply the statute to respondent’s testimony would subvert the congressional purpose in its passage. We agree.
We need not set out the history of the statute in detail. It should be noted, however, that its function was to provide an immunity in subsequent criminal proceedings to witnesses before congressional committees, in return for which it was thought that witnesses could be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. That purpose was effectively nullified in 1892 by this Court’s decision in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, holding that R. S. § 860, a statute identical in all material respects with R. S. § 859, was not a sufficient substitute for the constitutional privilege of refusing to answer self-incriminating questions. Under that decision, a witness who is offered only the partial protection of a statute such as §§ 859 and 860 — that his testimony may not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings — rather than complete immunity from prosecution for any act concerning which he testifies may claim his privilege and remain silent with impunity.
Section 860 was ultimately repealed. Its usefulness undermined by the Counselman decision, it remained on the statute books until 1910, “a shield to the criminal and an obstruction to justice.” But the attention of Congress has not, apparently, been called to the anomaly presented by the continued existence of R. S. § 859, which, like § 860, was a constituent part of an immunity “bargain” declared invalid in the Counselman case. The courts must, therefore, give effect to the statute. Cameron v. United States, 231 U. S. 710, 720 (1914).
Since respondent did not refuse to answer the questions put to her by members of the House Committee, her argument is not of denial of any constitutional right but solely that R. S. § 859 bars use of her testimony in her trial for wilful default. The history of that statute, its original purpose, and its present status are all relevant considerations in its interpretation. Despite the fact that the literal language would encompass testimony elicited by the House Committee in its questioning of respondent relative to the production of the records of the association, the Court will not reach that result if it is contrary to the congressional intent and leads to absurd conclusions. United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486 (1869); Glickstein v. United States, 222 U. S. 139 (1911). And we are clearly of the opinion that the congressional purpose would be frustrated if the words, “in any criminal proceeding,” were read to include a prosecution for wilful default under R. S. §. 102.
That purpose was “more effectually to enforce the Attendance of Witnesses... and to compel them to discover Testimony.” It had been the experience of Congress prior to 1857 that witnesses could not be compelled to disclose desired information, in part because of insufficient penalties for nondisclosure, and in part because of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. In an attempt to surmount the latter obstacle, Congress enacted what became R. S. § 859. By granting an immunity, it was the congressional intent to compel testimony which had hitherto been unavailable.
It is now contended that the protection of the statute, which was extended to witnesses in an effort to obtain testimony, protects equally the person who wilfully withholds testimony and is prosecuted for his wilful default. This contention completely ignores the purpose of the immunity. In the first place, it imputes to Congress the contradictory and irrational purpose of granting an immunity from prosecution for contempt in order to obtain evidence of that contempt. And in the second place, it assumes that Congress had some purpose to compel testimony of the kind here involved — statements of refusal by the witness to answer questions or produce documents — in return for which it was willing to grant an immunity. Such an assumption cannot be made. These statements have always been available to the Houses of Congress in contempt proceedings. They are uniformly printed in the reports of committees recommending contempt action and are relied upon by the Houses when deliberating in contempt cases. In short, the purpose of the statute contradicts its application to testimony of this kind.
Furthermore, to hold such testimony inadmissible in a prosecution for wilful default is to conclude that Congress, for no discernable reason, made proof of contempt vastly more difficult before the courts than in its own chambers, since, as we have indicated, the Houses of Congress themselves are accustomed to rely upon such testimony. There is not a hint of any such purpose in the legislative history of the statute or the decisions construing it. On the contrary, this Court has often noted that prosecution under R. S. § 102 was intended “merely to supplement the power of contempt by providing for additional punishment.” Jurney v. MacCracken, supra, at 151.
The debates attending enactment of the statutes here in question and the decisions of this and other federal courts construing substantially identical statutes make plain the fact that Congress intended the immunity therein provided to apply only to past criminal acts concerning which the witness should be called to testify. The offense of contempt of Congress, with which we are presently concerned, on the other hand, matures only when the witness is called to appear before the committee to answer questions or produce documents and wilfully fails to do so. Until that moment he has committed no crime. There is, in our jurisprudence, no doctrine of “anticipatory contempt.” While the witness’ testimony may show that he has elected to perjure himself or commit contempt, he does not thereby admit his guilt of some past crime about which he has been summoned for questioning but commits the criminal act then and there.
In Glickstein v. United States, supra, this Court considered the problem thereby presented. It was there held that perjury committed in the course of testimony given pursuant to statute falls outside the purview of § 7 (9) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 25 (10), which, like R. S. § 859, provides that no testimony given by the witness (at a creditors’ meeting) shall be used against him in any criminal proceedings. In the Court’s view, such an immunity “relates to the past and does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury.” 222 U. S. at 142. The distinction is fully spelled out in a Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Edelstein v. United States, 149 F. 636 (1906), which was cited with approval in the Glickstein case:
“To hold that the statute protects a bankrupt from the use of his evidence in a prosecution for perjury while actually testifying would defeat the obvious purposes of the act. It would, in effect, say to the bankrupt: You may forego the exercise of your constitutional privilege, and consent to testify concerning the conduct of your business, and in that way promote the efficient administration of your estate and benefit your creditors, and by so doing secure the immunity provided for; but if you give false testimony, calculated to embarrass the administration of your estate and to defeat the just rights of your creditors, and thereby commit a crime specially denounced against you, you shall enjoy the same immunity therefor. Moreover, it would, in effect, secure to the bankrupt the immunity in question for violating his part of the compact,"namely, to testify— that is, to testify truthfully — by virtue of which he secured a right to the immunity. We are not willing to impute to Congress any such contradictory and absurd purpose. The words ‘any criminal proceeding’ cannot sensibly or reasonably be construed so literally and generally as to include the criminal proceeding provided by law for false swearing in giving his testimony. They obviously have reference to such criminal proceedings as arise out of past transactions, about which the bankrupt is called to testify.” 149 F. at 643-644.
That statement is at least equally applicable to statements made by the witness in refusing to answer questions or produce papers. Such, in fact, was the rationale and decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in just such a case. See In re Kaplan Bros., 213 F. 753 (1914). And see Cameron v. United States, supra, 719; McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 42 (1924).
The same reasons.that led this Court to conclude that the clause excepting a prosecution for perjury from the reach of another immunity statute “was added only from superfluous caution and throws no light on the construction,” Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 141 (1913), lead us to hold that Congress did not intend the term, “any criminal proceeding,” to encompass a prosecution of the witness for wilful default under R. S. § 102. A contrary view would simply encourage the refusal of witnesses to answer questions or produce papers, quite contrary to the purpose of the statute.
Respondent advances several contentions which were not passed upon by the Court of Appeals. We do not decide them at this time. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter agrees with this opinion except as to the portion marked Third, involving the applicability of § 3486 of Title 18 U. S. C. to the facts of this case, which requires him to dissent from the judgment of reversal.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
92 Cong. Rec. 3762, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946).
Id. at 3773.
11 Stat. 155, as amended, R. S. § 102, 2 U. S. C. § 192:
“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.”
See, e. g., remarks of Representative Orr, Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess. 405 (1857).
R. S. § 104, 2 U. S. C. § 194.
The subpoena read as follows:
“BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA “To the Sergeant at Arms, or his Special Messenger:
“You are hereby commanded to summon the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, 192 Lexington Avenue, New York City, a voluntary organization to be and appear before the Un-American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States, of which the Hon. John S. Wood is chairman, and to bring with you all books, ledgers, records and papers relating to the receipt and disbursement of money by or on account of the Joint AntiFascist Refugee Committee or any subsidiary or sub-committee thereof, together with all correspondence and memoranda of communications by any means whatsoever with persons in foreign countries. The said books, papers and records demanded herein are for the period from January 1, 1945 up to and including the date of this subpoena, in their chamber in the city of Washington, on April 4, 1946, at the hour of 10:00 A. M. then and there to testify touching matters of inquiry committed to said Committee; and [she] is not to depart without leave of said Committee.
“Herein fail not, and make return of this summons....”
Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.) § 2192.
It is, of course, clear that respondent’s “inability” to comply with the subpoena because a quorum of the Committee was not present amounts to no more than the claim that she is excused from doing so. The jury found that she had power to produce the papers. The question therefore arises as to what possible prejudice respondent might have suffered if she had turned over the records to less than a quorum of the Committee. In the case of oral testimony, a witness might well desire to appear only if a quorum was present because of a feeling that some committee members, unrestrained by presence of a majority, might exceed proper bounds of inquiry. But that consideration is obviously inapplicable to the production of papers and is irrelevant here in any event since respondent testified.
See also, Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 443 (1932); Leber v. United States, 170 F. 881, 888 (1909); London Guarantee & Accident Co., Ltd. v. Doyle & Doak, 134 F. 125 (1905); State ex rel. Berge v. Superior Court, 154 Wash. 144, 281 P. 335 (1929).
See the court’s opinion in United States v. Barsky, 72 F. Supp. 165 (1947), affirmed, Barsky v. United States, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 127, 138, 167 F. 2d 241, 252 (1948).
R. S. § 859, as originally enacted in 1857, was a part of § 2 of a comprehensive statute, 11 Stat. 155, designed on the one hand to compel the testimony of witnesses and on the other hand to profect them from prosecution for crimes revealed by their testimony. Section 1 of the Act became R. S. § 102, 2 U. S. C. § 192. As first enacted, § 2 not only prevented the use of a witness’ testimony in subsequent criminal proceedings but gave him complete immunity from prosecution “for any fact or act touching which he shall be required to testify.” This latter provision was deleted in 1862, 12 Stat. 333, leaving only the partial protection of § 859, which was in effect declared insufficient to require a witness to give self-incriminatory testimony in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892).
R. S. § 860 applied to evidence obtained from a party or witness in any “judicial proceeding” and provided that such evidence should not be used against such person in any criminal proceeding.
See Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 (1896).
H. R. Rep. No. 266, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., which was concurred in by the Senate Committee reporting the repealer, states:
“This section [860] was enacted apparently for the purpose of enabling the Government to compel the disclosure of incriminating testimony on condition that the witness disclosing the same would be given immunity. In the case of Counselman v. Hitchcock (142 U. S., 547) it was held that legislation can not abridge a constitutional privilege, and that it can not replace or supply one, at least unless it is so broad as to have the same extent in scope and effect, and that said section 860 of the Revised Statutes does not supply a complete protection from all the perils against which the constitutional prohibition was designed to guard, and is not a full substitute for that prohibition, and that in view of the constitutional provision (article 5 of the amendments) a statutory enactment to be valid must afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offense to which the question relates.
“Since the decision above referred to section 860 has possessed no usefulness whatever, but has remained in the law as an impediment to the course of justice. Under it a witness can not be compelled to give any incriminating testimony whatever, but if he chooses to go on the witness stand and testify as to any matter whatever, even of his own volition, and, whether incriminatory or not, his testimony can not thereafter be brought up against him in any criminal proceedings. He can not be confronted with his own testimony or his own previous statement under oath even on cross-examination. The statute has become a shield to the criminal and an obstruction to justice.”
In 1938 Congress made minor amendments to the statutes in question without recognizing their inconsistency with the Counselman case. 52 Stat. 943. See S. Rep. No. 2108, 75th Cong., 3d Sess.
United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424 (1943), is, of course, inapplicable. That decision relates to the necessity of making a claim of immunity under the particular statute there involved. The opinion specifically states that the constitutional privilege, as distinguished from the statutory immunity under consideration in that case, must be claimed. Id. at 427.
See 11 Stat. 155.
See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 254, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., the Report of a Special Committee on Investigation of Air Mail and Ocean Mail Contracts, setting out in great detail the testimony of William P. MacCracken, Jr., et al., “in order that the Senate may determine whether or not any action shall be taken by the Senate with a view to proceeding against the said William P. MacCracken, Jr.... in the nature of a proceeding for contempt or otherwise....” See Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U. S. 125 (1935).
The incident giving rise to enactment of the statute illustrates the point. A correspondent of the New York Times, having made charges of corruption on the part of members of the House of Representatives in connection with pending legislation, was called before a select committee of the House and asked to name the Representatives involved. He declined to do so for the reason that the information had been given to him in confidence. The committee’s questions and the witness’ answers are set out at length in the Congressional Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 403-404, as a part of the committee’s report and resulted in his being called to the bar of the House “to answer as for a contempt of the authority of this House,” and in his subsequent commitment. These proceedings were carried on in conjunction with consideration of the statute in the House. The contention now made would impute to Congress an intent to deprive the courts of the very information upon which the House had acted in the case giving rise to the statute.
Representative Orr: “The bill provides that no persons called before that committee to testify before them shall be subjected to criminal prosecution for any offense they may have committed, and for which their testimony would furnish the basis of an indictment.” Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess. 406. Representative Washburn: “The second section of the bill declares that no person summoned as a witness shall be excused from answering a question for the reason that his answer would criminate himself; and provides that he shall be exempt from punishment for any offense which he may testify that he has committed, and that on trial for such offense in any court in the country such evidence shall not be used against him.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case originated in 1978 when the Crow Tribe sought to enjoin the State of Montana and its counties from taxing coal extracted from mines held by the United States in trust for the Tribe. Having succeeded in that endeavor, the Tribe and the United States now seek to recover coal-related taxes once paid to the State and counties by Westmoreland Resources, Inc., a nontribal enterprise that mined coal under a lease from the Tribe. We hold that the restitution sought for the Tribe is not warranted.
H-i
J>
Just north of the northern surface boundary of the Crow Reservation in Montana lies the “ceded strip,” approximately 1,137,500 acres of land that was originally part of the reservation. The Tribe ceded the tract to the United States in 1904 for settlement by non-Indians. Act of Apr. 27, 1904, ch. 1624, 33 Stat. 352; see Ash Sheep Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 159 (1920). Surface interests in the eeded strip were thereafter conveyed to non-Indians, but the United States holds rights to minerals underlying the strip in trust for the Tribe. Since 1904, the State and the Counties of Big Horn, Treasure, and Yellowstone have exercised full legal authority and responsibility for public services on the eeded strip, and the Tribe has not exercised civil jurisdiction over this area. See Crow Tribe v. Montana, 650 F. 2d 1104, 1107 (CA9 1981) (noting the Court of Appeals’ understanding, in Little Light v. Crist, 649 F. 2d 683, 685 (CA9 1981), that “the ceded area is not a part of the reservation”).
In 1972, with the approval of the Department of the Interior and pursuant to the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (IMLA), 52 Stat. 347, 25 U. S. C. § 396a et seq., Westmoreland Resources, a non-Indian company, entered into a mining lease with the Tribe for coal underlying approximately 31,000 acres of the eeded strip. After executing the 1972 lease, Westmoreland signed contracts with its customers, four Midwest utility companies, allowing Westmoreland to pass on the cost of valid taxes to the utilities. Westmore-land began mining the coal in the spring of 1974.
In November 1974, Westmoreland and the Tribe renegotiated the 1972 lease. The renegotiated royalties were recognized at the time as being among the highest in the United States. Crow Tribe v. United States, 657 F. Supp. 573, 587 (Mont. 1985); see App. 376 (testimony of Westmoreland’s president that the renegotiated royalty was “by far the highest royalty that was being paid in the nation”). A settlement agreement attending the 1974 renegotiation stated that the Tribe found the amended lease and associated documents “satisfactory in that they provide the financial, economic and social protections that the Tribe deems necessary.” Id., at 44. The amended lease and the royalties for which it provided had an extendable term of ten years, running from June 14,1972. Id., at 8. Pursuant to the lease, Westmore-land paid the Tribe almost $18 million in royalties through October 1983. Crow Tribe v. United States, 657 F. Supp., at 588.
In July 1975, the State imposed a severance tax and a gross proceeds tax on all coal produced in Montana, including coal underlying the reservation proper and the ceded strip. See Mont. Code Ann. §§ 15-23-701 to 15-23-704, 15-35-101 to 15-35-111 (1979). The severance tax rate applicable to the ceded strip coal was 30 percent of the contract sales price of the coal extracted; the gross proceeds tax rate was approximately 5 percent of the contract sales price. During the relevant periods, Westmoreland paid approximately $46.8 million in severance taxes to the State and $11.4 million in gross proceeds taxes to Big Horn County. Westmoreland paid these taxes without timely pursuit of the procedures Montana law provides for protests and refunds. App. to Pet. for Cert. 37; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-14. The company subsequently agreed, in exchange for $50,000, to dismiss with prejudice any claim of entitlement to a refund of the severance or gross proceeds taxes it had paid to the State or Big Horn County. App. to Pet. for Cert. 37; see also App. 294-296.
In January 1976; some six months after the State imposed its coal taxes, the Tribal Council adopted an ordinance setting out a Crow Tribal Coal Taxation Code. Id., at 79-86. The Tribe’s code imposed a 25 percent severance tax on “all persons engaged in or carrying on the business of coal mining within the boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation].” Id., at 81; see also id., at 97-98. Reservation boundaries, as described in the code, included the coal beneath the ceded strip. Id., at 81. Under the Tribe’s constitution, the tax adopted by the Tribal Council was subject to review by the Department of the Interior. Id., at 329.
In January 1977, the Department approved the Tribe’s code “to the extent that it applied to coal underlying the Crow Reservation proper.” Id., at 98. Because of a limitation in the Tribe’s constitution, however, the Department “disapproved the tax to the extent that it applied to the Crow Tribe’s coal in the ceded strip.” Id., at 153; see also id., at 217-218, 329, In 1982, the Tribe again enacted a tax for coal mined on the ceded strip, and again the Department rejected the tax. See Crow Tribe v. Montana, 819 F. 2d 895, 897 (CA9 1987). According to the Superintendent of the Crow Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department continued to withhold permission for extension of the Tribe’s tax to the ceded area because the Tribe’s constitution “disclaimed jurisdiction outside the boundaries of the reservation.” App. 218. The Tribe endeavored to amend its constitution to satisfy the Department’s objection; it did not petition for court review of the Department’s refusal to approve extension of the Tribe’s tax to the ceded strip.
B
The Tribe brought a federal action against Montana and Montana counties in 1978, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against imposition of the State’s severance and gross proceed taxes on coal belonging to the Tribe. The State’s taxes, the Tribe alleged, were preempted by the IMLA and infringed on the Tribe’s right to govern itself. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Crow Tribe v. Montana, 469 F. Supp. 154 (Mont. 1979). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 650 F. 2d 1104 (1981), amended, 665 F. 2d 1390 (1982) (Crow I). It held that the Tribe’s allegations, if proved, would establish that the IMLA preempted Montana’s taxes, 650 F. 2d, at 1113-1115, and that the taxes impermissibly infringed upon the Tribe’s sovereignty, id., at 1115-1117.
While the Ninth Circuit trained on the nonmonetary claim the Tribe was then pursuing, one for declaratory and injunc-tive relief to stop the imposition of Montana’s taxes, the Court of Appeals noted: “As to the taxes already paid by Westmoreland... it is true that the Tribe has not paid any of the taxes and is apparently not entitled to any refund if the tax statutes are declared invalid.” Id., at 1113, n. 13. The Ninth Circuit further observed that the Tribe’s own attempt “to tax its lessees’ coal production was partially frustrated by the Secretary of the Interior’s refusal to sanction the Tribe’s tax ordinances insofar as they applied to coal production on the ceded strip.” Id., at 1115, n. 19.
In July 1982, after the Crow I decision, the Tribe and Westmoreland entered into an amended lease agreement, approved by the Interior Department that September. Under the amended arrangement, Westmoreland agreed to pay the Tribe a tax equal to the State’s then-existing taxes, less any tax payments Westmoreland was required to make to the State and its subdivisions. See App. 135-141; see also id., at 329-330. The 1982 agreement achieved, prospectively, the federal permission the Tribe had long sought. It allowed the Tribe to have an approved tax in place so that, if successful in the litigation against Montana, the Tribe could claim for itself any tax amounts Westmoreland might be ordered to pay into the District Court’s registry pendente lite. Correspondingly, the agreement enabled Westmoreland to avoid double taxation, present and future, and it absolved the company from any tax payment obligation to the Tribe for the 1976-1982 period. App. to Pet. for Cert. 32-35.
In November 1982, in keeping with their amended lease agreement, the Tribe and Westmoreland jointly filed a motion to deposit severance tax payments into the District Court’s registry, pending resolution of the controversy over Montana’s authority to tax coal mined at the ceded strip. Id., at 32. In January 1983, the District Court granted the motion. Thereafter, Westmoreland paid the Montana severance tax into the court’s registry in lieu of paying the State. The District Court granted the same interim relief, in November 1987, for the gross proceeds tax. Id., at 35, 36. In ordering the registry deposits, which ultimately would be paid over, with interest, to the prevailing party (Montana or the Tribe), the District Court recalled the Ninth Circuit’s observation that “the Tribe is apparently not entitled to any refund of taxes previously paid by Westmoreland to Montana.” App. 213 (citing Crow I, 650 F. 2d, at 1113, n. 13). The provisional remedy attended to that concern; it “preserve[d the District Court’s] power... [to give post-1982] tax moneys to their rightful owner after a trial on the merits.” App. 215.
In June 1983, the United States intervened on behalf of the Tribe to protect its interests as trustee of the coal upon which Montana’s taxes were levied. Trial took place in January 1984, after which the District Court concluded that federal law did not preempt the State’s taxes on coal underlying the ceded strip. Crow Tribe v. United States, 657 F. Supp. 573 (Mont. 1985). The Ninth Circuit again reversed. Crow Tribe v. Montana, 819 F. 2d 895 (1987) (Crow II). Montana’s taxes, as applied to the ceded strip coal, the Court of Appeals held, were both “preempted by federal law and policies,” as reflected in the IMLA, and “void for interfering with tribal self-government.” Id., at 903. Explaining its decision, the Ninth Circuit stressed these considerations: The Tribe had a vital interest in the development of its coal resources, id., at 899, 901; the State’s taxes had “at least some negative impact on the... marketability [of the Tribe’s coal],” id., at 900; Montana’s coal tax exactions were not “narrowly tailored” to serve only the State’s “legitimate” interests, id., at 902. Montana appealed, and this Court summarily affirmed. 484 U. S. 997 (1988).
When the case returned to the District Court in 1988, the Tribe sought an order directing release of the funds held in the court’s registry. Montana did not object but, in a new twist, Westmoreland did. The company, for the first time in this protracted litigation, asserted that neither Montana nor the Tribe qualified for receipt of the funds. Montana was out because the Ninth Circuit had declared the State’s taxes preempted. The Tribe, according to Westmoreland, did not have a valid tax law in place even in the years following 1982 — the fund deposit period — for want of proper Interior Department approval. Therefore, Westmoreland urged, the company should receive back all deposited funds.
Rejecting Westmoreland’s novel claim of entitlement to the deposited funds, the District Court observed that the Ninth Circuit, in Crow I, 650 F. 2d, at 1117, and Crow II, 819 F. 2d, at 898, had characterized the minerals underlying the ceded strip as a “ ‘component of the Reservation land itself.’ ” App. 286. It follows, the District Court next said, that the tax approved for the reservation proper in 1977, see supra, at 703, covered the strip as well, and the Interior Department had erred in ever opining otherwise, App. 286. As to Westmoreland’s operations on the strip, the District Court further stated, the Crow tax had been modified by the 1982 agreement amending the lease. Id., at 287; see supra, at 704-705. That 1982 Tribe-Westmoreland accord controlled, the District Court concluded, rendering the amount deposited payable to the Tribe, and not to Westmoreland. Shortly thereafter, the District Court ordered distribution of funds in its registry to the United States, as trustee for the Tribe. App. 288-291.
Having secured exclusively for the Tribe’s benefit West-moreland’s post-1982 tax payments once held in the District Court’s registry, the United States and the Tribe commenced the fray now before us.. Filing amended complaints against Montana and Big Horn County, they invoked theories of as-sumpsit and constructive trust in support of prayers to recover some $58.2 million in state and county taxes paid by Westmoreland prior to the 1983 and 1987 orders directing deposits into the court’s registry. App. to Pet. for Cert. 243-260. These complaints alleged that, because the State and Big Horn County had collected taxes from Westmoreland in violation of federal law, it would be unjust and inequitable to allow them to retain the funds. In “equity and good conscience,” the United States and the Tribe urged, Montana should pay over for the benefit of the Tribe all moneys illegally collected, together with interest thereon..See id., at 249-250,258-259. Neither the Tribe nor the United States requested, as additional or alternate relief, recovery for the Tribe’s actual financial losses attributable to the State’s taxes.
Montana moved for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that any refund right that may have existed belonged to Westmoreland, as payer of the taxes in question. Id., at 72. The District Court, in December 1990, denied Montana’s motion on the ground that full airing of the parties’ positions was in order. Id., at 67-85.
On Montana’s application, the District Court certified for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b), the question whether summary judgment for the State was properly denied. Id., at 61-66. The Ninth Circuit, in 1991, initially granted permission for the interlocutory appeal, but one year later, in 1992, dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted. Crow Tribe v. Montana, 969 F. 2d 848 (Crow III). In dismissing the appeal, the Ninth Circuit commented that the “sole issue” presented was whether the Tribe and the United States, although they did not pay the Montana taxes, were nevertheless positioned to state a claim for relief in assumpsit and constructive trust. That issue, the Ninth Circuit said, “was already addressed” in Crow II. The Court of Appeals then recited passages from Crow II indicating why that court had determined that “The state tax[es] threatened] Congress’ overriding objective of encouraging tribal self-government and economic development.’” 969 F. 2d, at 848-849 (quoting Crow II, 819 F. 2d, at 903).
C
The District Court conducted a trial in April and May 1994 to determine whether coal taxes paid by Westmoreland to Montana and its counties in the years 1975-1982 unjustly enriched the State and its subdivisions at the expense of the Tribe. In detailed findings and conclusions, that court explained why, in its judgment, the disgorgement remedy sought by the Tribe was not appropriate. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17-38, 42-54.
The Tribe’s case rested on three principal points: first, the fact, settled in Crow I, that the coal underlying the ceded strip was a mineral resource of the Tribe; second, the federal policy favoring tribal self-government and economic development; finally, the Ninth Circuit’s preemption decision. Critical to the preemption decision, the District Court recognized, was the Court of Appeals’ determination that “Montana’s coal taxes burdened the Tribe’s economic interests by increasing the costs of production by coal producers, which reduced royalties received by the Tribe.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 45 (citing Crow II, 819 F. 2d, at 899).
Counterbalancing the Tribe’s case, the District Court observed first that the State and its subdivisions, not the Tribe, provided “[pjublic services to residents and businesses on the [c]eded [sjtrip, many of which facilitate the mining of coal.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 47; see supra, at 701,703, n. 5. Key to the District Court’s reasoning, however, was the respective taxing authority of State and Tribe.
In a decision rendered two years after the Ninth Circuit’s Crow II preemption decision, this Court held that both State and Tribe may impose severance taxes on on-reservation oil and gas production by a non-Indian lessee. Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989). Cotton Petroleum indicated that Montana’s taxes on ceded strip coal were invalidated, not because the State lacked power to tax the coal at all, but because the taxes at issue were “extraordinarily high.” Id., at 186-187, n. 17.
The Tribe’s exercise of taxing authority, on the other hand, required approval from the Secretary of the Interior, and that approval had not been obtained in the relevant period, 1976-1982. See supra, at 703-704. In 1988, the District Court had determined that the Interior Department’s refusal to approve the Tribe’s tax on the ceded strip was an error, see supra, at 707, but the presence of the state taxes did not cause that error. App. to Pet. for Cert. 36. Rather, the Department initially questioned the Tribe’s authority to tax on the ceded strip and later pointed to the Tribe’s noneompli-anee with the proper procedures for amending its constitution to impose the tax. Id., at 36-37.
Accorded weight in the District Court’s evaluation, West-moreland would not have paid coal taxes to the Tribe prior to 1983, for Interior Department approval was essential to allow pass-through to the company’s customers. Id., at 35. Furthermore, under the 1982 lease agreement, see supra, at 704-705, the Tribe and Westmoreland stipulated that Westmoreland would have no tax liability to the Tribe for the 1976-1982 period. App. to Pet. for Cert. 36. Moreover, the deposited funds, Westmoreland’s post-1982 tax payments, had been turned over in full to the United States for the benefit of the Tribe. Ibid.; see supra, at 705-707.
The District Court further noted that Westmoreland did not timely endeavor to recover taxes paid to the State and counties, and that the Tribe did nothing to prompt West-moreland to initiate appropriate proceedings for refunds. App. to Pet. for Cert. 50-51. In that regard, the District Court recalled the Court of Appeals’ statement in Crow I that “ ‘as to the taxes already paid by Westmoreland,... the Tribe... is apparently not entitled to any refund if the tax statutes are declared invalid.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 53 (quoting Crow I, 650 F. 2d, at 1113, n. 13).
Concerning the negative effect of Montana’s taxes on the marketability of coal produced in Montana, the District Court entertained additional evidence, supplementing the evidence offered ten years earlier. Westmoreland’s president testified that “he could not identify any utility contracts lost during the relevant time period due to Montana’s coal taxes,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 29, and the parties’ economic experts presented conflicting testimony on the impact of Montana’s taxes on the sale of Montana coal. The District Court described the conflicting positions, but made no findings on the matter. Id., at 29-30.
Satisfied that the factors justifying preemption did not impel the disgorgement relief demanded by the Tribe, that under Cotton Petroleum, the State could impose a reasonably sized severance tax, and that the State, though enriched by Westmoreland’s tax payments, did not gain that enrichment unjustly at the expense of the Tribe, the District Court refused to order that Montana coal taxes collected between 1975 and 1982 be remitted to the Tribe.
The Ninth Circuit again reversed the District Court’s judgment; in a per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals read its prior opinions to require the relief the Tribe demanded, i. e., an order directing the State and county to disgorge approximately $58.2 million in coal taxes paid by Westmoreland to Montana and its subdivisions before Westmoreland began making payments into the District Court’s registry. 92 F. 3d 826, amended, 98 F. 3d 1194 (1996) (Crow TV). Acknowledging “the absence of traditional requirements for relief under theories of assumpsit or constructive trust,” 92 F. 3d, at 828, the Court of Appeals remanded for entry of the disgorgement order. That court left to the District Court only the “unresolved requests] for prejudgment interest [and attorney’s fees].” Id., at 830-831.
In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the District Court had not adhered to the “law of this case,” id., at 828, and had therefore abused its discretion, id., at 830. In particular, the Court of Appeals faulted the District Court for giving undue weight to the fact that Westmoreland rather than the Tribe had paid the taxes, id., at 828-829, and to the fact, made plain by this Court in Cotton Petroleum, 490 U. S., at 176-187, that “similar [state] taxes are not always preempted,” Crow IV, 92 F. 3d, at 829. Further, the Ninth Circuit discounted the public services Montana provided at the ceded strip because “the State would have provided such services even if the Tribal coal had not been mined.” Ibid. Finally, the Court of Appeals attributed to the District Court a finding that Westmoreland “would have paid the tribal tax even without [the Interior Department’s] approval because [Westmore-land] agreed to do so in its 1982 lease.” Id., at 830; see also ibid. (‘Westmoreland was willing to pay coal taxes to the Tribe as early as 1976, so there was no reason for the [District Court] to distinguish between the taxes collected before and after 1982.”).
We granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 912 (1997), and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
II
A
The petition for certiorari presents the question whether the Tribe — or the United States as its trustee — may recover state and county taxes imposed on and paid by the Tribe’s mineral lessee, Westmoreland, a party who has forfeited entitlement to a tax refund. Taxpayer Westmoreland, it is undisputed, did not qualify for a refund because the company failed to pursue protest and claim procedures within the time Montana law prescribes. Further, Westmoreland entered into a settlement with the State and the county relinquishing any claim it might have had for return of the tax payments in question. See supra, at 702.
As a rule, a nontaxpayer may not sue for a refund of taxes paid by another. See, e. g., Furman Univ. v. Livingston, 136 S. E. 2d 254, 256, 244 S. C. 200, 204 (1964); Krauss Co. v. Develle, 236 La. 1072, 1077, 110 So. 2d 104, 106 (1959); Kesbec, Inc. v. McGoldrick, 278 N. Y. 293, 297, 16 N. E. 2d 288, 290 (1938); cf. United States v. California, 507 U. S. 746, 752 (1993). The Ninth Circuit evidently had that rule in mind when it noted, in Crow I, that the Tribe “is apparently not entitled to any refund” of taxes Westmoreland had paid to Montana. 650 F. 2d, at 1113, n. 13.
The Tribe now maintains, however, that the disgorgement remedy approved by the Ninth Circuit does not fall within the “refund” category. The Tribe suggests two ways of analyzing its claim. First, Westmoreland was liable for tax payments, but it paid the wrong sovereign; the Tribe, not the State, should have been the recipient of those payments. Second, the State’s taxes adversely affected the Tribe’s economy by reducing the demand for the Tribe’s coal and the royalties the Tribe could charge; a remedial order transferring Westmoreland’s 1975-1982 tax payments from Montana to the Tribe would eliminate the enrichment unjustly gained by the State at the Tribe’s expense.
Before inspecting the Tribe’s justifications for the disgorgement ordered by the Court of Appeals, we place in clear view a pathmarking decision this Court rendered less than two years after our summary affirmance in Crow II. In Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989), we held that the IMLA did not preempt New Mexico’s nondiscriminatory severance taxes on the production of oil and gas on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation by Cotton Petroleum, a non-Indian lessee. Id., at 186-187. In so holding, we acknowledged that the same on-reservation production of oil and gas was subject to tribal severance taxes, id., at 167-169, and that New Mexico’s taxes might reduce demand for on-reservation leases, id., at 186-187. Cotton Petroleum clarified that neither the IMLA, nor any other federal law, categorically preempts state mineral severance taxes imposed, without discrimination, on all extraction enterprises in the State, including on-reservation operations. “Unless and until Congress provides otherwise, each of the... two sovereigns[ — State and Tribe — ]has taxing jurisdiction over all [on-reservation production].” Id., at 189.
The Court in Cotton Petroleum distinguished Grow II in a footnote referring to the Solicitor General’s representation that Montana’s taxes were “extraordinarily high” and the Ninth Circuit’s recognition that “the state taxes had a negative effect on the marketability of coal produced in Montana.” 490 U. S., at 186-187, n. 17. Montana, Cotton Petroleum thus indicates, had the power to tax Grow coal, but not at an exorbitant rate. See id., at 187, n. 17 (according to the Tribe’s expert, Montana’s rate was “'more than twice that of any other state’s coal taxes’”). We examine the Tribe’s disgorgement claim in light of Cotton Petroleum, a decision on the books before the Tribe (and the United States) filed their current claims for restitution.
B
We consider first the argument that the Tribe, not Montana, should have received Westmoreland’s 1975-1982 coal tax payments; therefore the proper remedy is to require the State to turn all taxes it collected from Westmoreland over to the Tribe. As authority, the Tribe and the United States rely on eases typified by Valley County v. Thomas, 109 Mont. 345, 97 P. 2d 345 (1939). That ease involved a Montana law providing for the licensing of motor vehicles by the county in which the vehicle is owned and taxable. Valley County claimed that McCone County was unlawfully issuing licenses, and collecting license fees, for vehicles owned and taxable within Valley County. Valley sued McCone for both injunc-tive and monetary relief. The Montana Supreme Court held that if Montana’s vehicle licensing law made Valley, not Mc-Cone, the county entitled to issue the licenses in question, then Valley could recover from McCone the fees McCone improperly collected. It would make scant sense, the court reasoned, to hold instead that Valley should “exact the... license fee anew from the [vehicle] owner, leaving the latter to his remedy, if any, for the illegal exaction.” Id., at 385-386, 97 P. 2d, at 366.
As the District Court in this case correctly recognized, App. to Pet. for Cert. 49-50, the Valley County pattern is not the one presented here. There, the Montana licensing statute bound both counties. One, and not the other, was the sole subdivision authorized to issue the license and collect the fee. Here, as Cotton Petroleum makes plain, neither the State nor the Tribe enjoys authority to tax to the total exclusion of the other. Moreover, dispositively distancing the Tribe’s situation from that of the prevailing subdivision in Valley County, the Tribe itself could not have taxed lessee Westmoreland during the period in question, for the Interior Department (whether wrongly or rightly) had withheld the essential permission.
It bears repetition that the Department did not approve the Tribe’s imposition of a coal tax on ceded strip production until September 1982, see supra, at 705, that the Tribe never sought judicial review of the Department’s pre-1982 disap-provals, see supra, at 703-704, that Westmoreland would pay no tax to the Tribe absent Department approval, see supra, at 706, 710, 713, n. 18, that Montana’s taxes did not impede the Tribe from gaining the Department’s clearance, see supra, at 710, and that Montana received no share of the post-1982 tax payments released from the District Court’s registry, see supra, at 705-707. These were factors the District Court correctly considered significant in holding disgorgement an exorbitant, and therefore inequitable, remedy.
C
The negative impact of Montana’s high taxes on the marketability of the Tribe’s coal, as the District Court correctly. comprehended, was the principal basis for the Ninth Circuit’s Crow II preemption decision. See supra, at 709. The Tribe and the United States urge that impact as an alternative justification for requiring Montana to disgorge taxes collected from Westmoreland from 1975 through 1982.
At oral argument, counsel for the Tribe clarified that the impact of concern was not coal that went unsold because the State’s tax made the price too high. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37. Instead, the Tribe’s disgorgement claim rested on the coal “actually produced and sold”; by taxing that coal, counsel maintained, Montana “deprived [the Tribe] of its fair share of the economic rent.” Ibid.
Again, however, the Tribe itself could not have exaete.d a tax from Westmoreland before 1983, because the Interior Department withheld approval. And the royalty the Tribe and Westmoreland agreed upon in 1974 was both high and long term, running until June 1982. See supra, at 701-702. No evidence suggests Westmoreland would have paid higher royalties, but for Montana’s tax. It merits emphasis also, as the District Court recognized, App. to Pet. for Cert. 46, 50, that under our Cotton Petroleum decision, Montana could have imposed a severance tax, albeit not one so extraordinarily high. See Cotton Petroleum, 490 U. S., at 186-187 (New Mexico’s oil and gas severance taxes imposed on on-reservation production, amounting to about 8 percent of the value of the taxpayer’s production, were not preempted by federal law although the taxes could be expected to have “at least a marginal effect on the demand for on-reservation leases, the value to the Tribe of those leases, and the ability of the Tribe to increase its tax rate”).
The District Court did not consider awarding the Tribe, in lieu of all the 1975-1982 taxes Montana collected, damages based on actual losses the Tribe suffered. We cannot call this an oversight. The complaint contained no prayer for compensatory damages. See supra, at 707-708, and nn. 7,8. Nor did the proof establish entitlement to such relief. See supra, at 711.
The only testimony homing in on Westmoreland’s sales came from the company’s president. He could “identify [no] utility contracts lost during the relevant time period due to Montana’s coal taxes.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 29. While he acknowledged that some customers “exereise[d] the payment option under their contracts rather than continuing to receive coal and that the Montana coal taxes were probably a factor,” he identified as other factors “demand, alternative sources, and transportation.” Ibid. Indeed, as just noted, see supra this page, the Tribe concentrated on disgorgement as the desired remedy; it deliberately sought “no damages... now” for “coal that was not sold because the price was too high [due to] the State’s tax.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 87. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(e), therefore, could not aid the Tribe. That Rule instructs that “every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in the party’s pleadings.” The Tribe, however, had not shown entitlement to actual damages.
In sum, the District Court carefully and fairly determined that the disgorgement demanded was not warranted and should not be granted. In so ruling, that court endeavored to heed both Crow II and Cotton Petroleum, and closely attended to the history of and record in this tangled, long-pending ease. See supra, at 708, n. 8. Proceeding as it did, the District Court ignored no tenable “law of the case” and did not indulge in an “abuse of discretion.” See Crow IV, 92 F. 3d, at 829, 830.
As a result of the District Court’s orders for registry deposits, see swpra, at 705, the Tribe has displaced Montana to this extent: With respect to ceded strip mining operations, all severance taxes have gone to the Tribe since January 1983, and all gross proceeds taxes since November 1987. Montana’s retention of preregistry deposit taxes must be assessed in light of the court-ordered distribution of all funds in the registry to the United States
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 question is whether 28 U. S. C. § 2281 required the convening of a three-judge court in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to hear this case. It is a class action brought by and on behalf of persons awaiting trial and confined in Philadelphia County prisons because either unable to afford bail or because charged with nonbailable offenses. The complaint alleges that provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code, in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, absolutely deny petitioners' class the right to vote in that they neither permit members of the class to leave prison to register and vote, nor provide facilities for the purpose at the prisons, and in that they expressly prohibit persons “confined in penal institutions” from voting by absentee ballot. The complaint names as defendants two Commonwealth officials, the Attorney General and Secretary of State of Pennsylvania, and certain municipal officials of the County and City of Philadelphia: the City Commissioners of Philadelphia who constitute the Board of Elections and Registration Commission of the City and County of Philadelphia, the Voting Registration Supervisor for the City and County, and the Superintendent of Prisons for the County.
On oral argument before a single judge on petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order, the Commonwealth officials appeared by a Deputy Attorney General, who conceded that the challenged provisions of the Election Code, as applied to petitioners’ class, were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The municipal officials, on the other hand, vigorously defended the constitutionality of the provisions as so applied. The single judge deemed the contrary view of the municipal officials to be irrelevant, as he regarded the Commonwealth officials to be the “principal defendants.” See n. 3, infra. He therefore ruled that the concession on behalf of the Commonwealth officials meant there was no case or controversy before the court as required by Art. Ill of the Constitution, and dismissed the complaint. On petitioners’ appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. 452 F. 2d 39 (1971). We do not, however, read the per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals as resting the affirmance on agreement with the single judge that the concession of the Commonwealth officials meant there was no case or controversy before the court. Rather, we read the per curiam opinion as either implying disagreement with the single judge on that question, or as at least assuming that a case or controversy existed, for the opinion states that, in the view of the Court of Appeals, petitioners’ constitutional claims were wholly insubstantial under McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs, 394 U. S. 802 (1969), in which circumstance, the Court of Appeals held, Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (1962), was authority that 28 U. S. C. §2281 did not require the assembly of a three-judge court and that dismissal by the single judge was therefore proper, 452 F. 2d, at 40. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, three judges dissenting. We granted certiorari, 408 U. S. 922 (1972). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand with direction to enter an appropriate order pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 for the convening of a three-judge court to hear this case.
I
The single judge clearly erred in holding that the concession of the Commonwealth officials foreclosed the existence of a case or controversy. All parties are in accord that Pennsylvania law did not oblige the municipal officials to defer to the concession of the Commonwealth officials, or otherwise give the Commonwealth officials a special status as “principal defendants.” Indeed, the brief filed in this Court by the Commonwealth officials forthrightly argues that “[t]he District Court made an egregious error. The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth are not the only defendants in this case. The City Commissioners of Philadelphia, the Voting Registration Supervisor, the Registration Commission, and the Superintendent of Prisons for Philadelphia County are also parties. These parties have contested vigorously the issues raised by petitioners both in the District Court and on appeal. They have provided adversity of interest, and will sharply define the issues, to the extent they are not already clear.” Brief for Respondents Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. 4^5.
Thus, there is satisfied the requisite of Art. Ill that “[t]he constitutional question ... be presented in the context of a specific live grievance.” Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 110 (1969). As between petitioners and the municipal officials, the District Court was “called upon to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies,” Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 39 (1885), and “the interests of [petitioners’ class] require the use of . .. judicial authority for [petitioners’] protection against actual interference.” United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 90 (1947). Since the municipal officials persist in their asserted right to enforce the challenged provisions of the Election Code, there is a “real and substantial controversy” “touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests,” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241 (1937), in which circumstance the concession of the Commonwealth officials could not have the effect of dissipating the existence of a case or controversy. Cf. In re Metropolitan Railway Receivership, 208 U. S. 90, 107-108 (1908).
II
The Court of Appeals also erred. We disagree with its holding that McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs, supra, rendered petitioners’ constitutional claims wholly insubstantial.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2281 does not require the convening of a three-judge court when the constitutional attack upon the state statutes is insubstantial. “Constitutional insubstantiality” for this purpose has been equated with such concepts as “essentially fictitious,” Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S., at 33; “wholly insubstantial,” ibid.; “obviously frivolous,” Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285, 288 (1910); and “obviously without merit,” Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30, 32 (1933). The limiting words “wholly” and “obviously” have cogent legal significance. In the context of the effect of prior decisions upon the substantiality of constitutional claims, those words import that claims are constitutionally insubstantial only if the prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous; previous decisions that merely render claims of doubtful or questionable merit do not render them insubstantial for the purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 2281. A claim is insubstantial only if “ 'its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.’ ” Ex parte Poresky, supra, at 32, quoting from Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, supra, at 288; see also Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U. S. 103, 105-106 (1933); McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U. S. 70, 80 (1909). Under this test, it is clear that McDonald is not a prior decision of this Court that “foreclosed the subject” of petitioners’ constitutional attack upon the Pennsylvania statutory scheme; it is demonstrably not a decision that “leave [s] no room for the inference that the question sought to be raised [by petitioners] can be the subject of controversy.”
In McDonald, appellants were a class of pretrial detainees in Cook County, Illinois, already registered to vote, who sought to vote only by absentee ballot. Their timely applications to the Cook County Board of Election Commissioners for absentee ballots were denied on the ground that pretrial detainees were not included among those persons specifically permitted by the Illinois Election Code to vote by absentee ballot. Appellants brought suit alleging that in that circumstance the Illinois Election Code denied them equal protection of the laws, particularly as the Code provided absentee ballots for those “medically incapacitated,” and for pretrial detainees who were residents of Cook County but incarcerated outside of Cook County.
The threshold question presented in McDonald was “how stringent a standard to use in evaluating the classifications made [by the Illinois absentee ballot provisions] and whether the distinctions must be justified by a compelling state interest . . . .” 394 U. S., at 806. In resolving this question, the Court analyzed the Illinois scheme in light of our decisions that required the application of the more stringent compelling state interest test when either a fundamental right, such as the right to vote, was allegedly infringed, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elec tions, 383 U. S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89 (1965), or when the statutory classifications were drawn on the basis of suspect criteria, such as wealth or race, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, supra; McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 192 (1964); Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963). 394 U. S., at 807. Our analysis led us to conclude that neither situation was presented by the Illinois absentee voting provisions. We held that “the distinctions made by Illinois' absentee provisions are not drawn on the basis of wealth or race,” ibid., and, with respect to the alleged infringement of appellants’ right to vote, that:
“[TJhere is nothing in the record to indicate that the Illinois statutory scheme has an impact on appellants’ ability to exercise the fundamental right to vote. It is thus not the right to vote that is at stake here but a claimed right to receive absentee ballots. Despite appellants’ claim to the contrary, the absentee statutes, which are designed to make voting more available to some groups who cannot easily get to the polls, do not themselves deny appellants the exercise of the franchise; nor, indeed, does Illinois’ Election Code so operate as a whole, for the State’s statutes specifically disenfranchise only those who have been convicted and sentenced, and not those similarly situated to appellants. [Citation omitted.] Faced as we are with a constitutional question, we cannot lightly assume, with nothing in the record to support such an assumption, that Illinois has in fact precluded appellants from voting.” Id., at 807-808. (Emphasis supplied.)
For all that appeared, Illinois might make the franchise available by other means :
“Appellants agree that the record is barren of any indication that the State might not, for instance, possibly furnish the jails with special polling booths or facilities on election day, or provide guarded transportation to the polls themselves for certain inmates, or entertain motions for temporary reductions in bail to allow some inmates to get to the polls on their own.” Id., at 808 n. 6.
Thus, “[s]ince there is nothing in the record to show that appellants are in fact absolutely prohibited from voting by the State . . id., at 808 n. 7, we concluded that the Illinois absentee ballot provisions were to be tested by the “more traditional standards for evaluating . . . equal protection claims,” id., at 808, and that under those standards the provisions could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, particularly since “there is nothing to show that a judicially incapacitated, pretrial detainee is absolutely prohibited from exercising the franchise.” Id., at 809.
Petitioners’ constitutional challenges to the Pennsylvania scheme are in sharp contrast. Petitioners allege that, unlike the appellants in McDonald, the Pennsylvania statutory scheme absolutely prohibits them from voting, both because a specific provision affirmatively excludes “persons confined in a penal institution” from voting by absentee ballot, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 25, § 2602 (w) (12) (Supp. 1972-1973), and because requests by members of petitioners’ class to register and to vote either by absentee ballot, or by personal or proxy appearance at polling places outside the prison, or at polling booths and registration facilities set up at the prisons, or generally by any means satisfactory to the election officials, had been denied. Thus, petitioners’ complaint alleges a situation that McDonald itself suggested might make a different case.
This is not to say, of course, that petitioners are as a matter of law entitled to the relief sought. We neither decide nor intimate any view upon the merits. It suffices that we hold that McDonald does not “foreclose the subject” of petitioners’ challenge to the Pennsylvania statutory scheme. The significant differences between that scheme and the Illinois scheme leave ample “room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised [by petitioners] can be the subject of controversy.” See supra, at 518, 519.
We therefore conclude that this case must be “heard and determined by a district court of three judges . . . .” 28 U. S. C. § 2281. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed and the case is remanded with direction to enter an appropriate order pursuant to that section for the convening of a three-judge court to hear and determine the merits of petitioners’ constitutional claims, see Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 153 (1963); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713 (1962); Borden Co. v. Liddy, 309 F. 2d 871, 876 (CA8 1962), cert. denied, 372 U. S. 953 (1963); Riss Co. v. Hoch, 99 F. 2d 553, 555 (CA10 1938); see also C. Wright, The Law of Federal Courts 190-191 (2d ed. 1970), or, if deemed appropriate, to abstain from such determination pending state court proceedings. See Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498, 509-513 (1972).
It is so ordered.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2281 provides:
“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.”
Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 25, § 623-1 et seq. (1963 and Supp. 1972-1973); § 2602 (w) (12) (Supp. 1972-1973). Several elections, including the 1972 presidential election, have been held since this action was filed, but this does not render the case moot. See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969). Similarly, the case is not rendered moot because some of the named petitioners have lost their status as class members by being released on bail, discharged, acquitted, or convicted. See McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs, 394 U. S. 802, 803 n. 1 (1969); Lee v. Washington, 390 U. S. 333 (1968), aff’g 263 F. Supp. 327 (MD Ala. 1966).
The unpublished transcript of the oral opinion of the single judge reads in pertinent part as follows:
“It has been stated that no Federal Court has jurisdiction to pronounce any statute, either of the State or of the United States void because irreconcilable with the Constitution except as it is called upon to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies.
“Now, in the instant case the Attorney General, as the chief legal officer of the Commonwealth, obviously represents, as Counsel have stated in their arguments this morning, the ‘principal’ Defendant or Defendants. The position taken by the remaining Defendants seems to be the result of the fact that the Attorney General has not, in accordance with his past practice, rendered an opinion together with suggested procedures, plans, etc., covering the subject matter of the opinion.
“It is, therefore, our conclusion that in the posture of this case as it presently exists . . . there is no controversy in the sense in which that term is used by the Courts, and we find ourselves compelled to, therefore, dismiss the complaint. It is so ordered.” App. 85.
Thus, this is not a situation in which a State confesses error and represents that the error will be corrected without need for further court action. See, e. g., Titmus v. Tinsley, 370 U. S. 964 (1962); McKissick v. Durham City Board of Education, 176 F. Supp. 3 (MDNC 1959); Jeffers v. Whitley, 197 F. Supp. 84 (MDNC 1961); Kelley v. Board of Education, 139 F. Supp. 578 (MD Tenn. 1956).
We also read respondents’ brief as rejecting the view of the single judge that the municipal officials must defer to the commonwealth officials’ concession pending the issuance of a formal opinion of the Attorney General on the question of the constitutionality of the statutes.
Insofar as the single judge may have rested his finding of the absence of a case or controversy on the alleged difficulty of formulating a remedy, he also erred. See Louisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145, 154 (1965); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 300 (1955).
The Illinois absentee voting statute, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 46, §§ 19-1 to 19-3 (1971), made absentee voting available to four classes of persons: (1) those who were absent from their county of residence for any reason; (2) those who were “physically incapacitated”; (3) those whose observance of a religious holiday prevented attendance at the polls; and (4) those who served as poll watchers in precincts other than their own on election day. See McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs, supra, at 803-804.
“The existence of a substantial question of constitutionality must be determined by the allegations of the bill of complaint.” Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30, 32 (1933). In the present procedural posture of petitioners’ case, the allegations of their complaint must be deemed to be true. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 373 (1971); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 341 (1960). In addition to the allegations that they are absolutely prohibited from voting, petitioners allege that the Pennsylvania statute creates classifications based on wealth and race, that the denial of the right to vote is an impermissible consequence of pretrial detention in violation of due process of law, and that the Pennsylvania statute’s specific exclusion of pretrial detainees from the definition of a “qualified absentee voter” is unconstitutional even under the less stringent rational relationship test applied in McDonald.
The -per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals states: “We have carefully considered each of the contentions raised by the [petitioners] and find them to be without merit.” 452 F. 2d 39, 41. In view of the result we reach, the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to render this holding insofar as it implies an adjudication of the merits of petitioners’ constitutional contentions. Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 282 U. S. 10 (1930). C. Wright, The Law of Federal Courts 193 (2d ed. 1970).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide in this case whether a prisoner whose murder conviction became final before our decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 (1985), is entitled to use that decision to challenge his capital sentence in a federal habeas corpus action. We hold that he cannot, for Caldwell announced a new rule as defined by Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), and the new rule does not come within Teague’s exception for watershed rules fundamental to the integrity of the criminal proceeding.
I
Over 10 years ago, petitioner Robert Sawyer murdered Frances Arwood, a visitor in the New Orleans, Louisiana, residence petitioner shared with his girlfriend, Cynthia Shano. On September 29, 1979, petitioner and his accomplice Charles Lane arrived at the residence after a night of drinking. They argued with Arwood and accused her of giving drugs to Shano’s children. For reasons that are not clear, petitioner and Lane struck Arwood repeatedly with their fists and dragged her by the hair into the bathroom. There they stripped the victim naked, literally kicked her into the bathtub, and subjected her to scalding, dunkings, and additional beatings. Petitioner left Lane to guard the victim, and apparently to rape her, while petitioner went to the kitchen to boil water to scald her. Petitioner kicked Arwood in the chest, causing her head to strike the tub or a windowsill and rendering her unconscious. The pair then dragged Arwood into the living room, where they continued to beat and kick her. Petitioner poured lighter fluid on the unconscious victim, particularly her torso and genital area, and set the lighter fluid afire. He told Lane that he had done this to show “just how cruel he could be.” There were further brutalities we do not recount. Arwood later died of her injuries.
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for the crime by a Louisiana jury in September 1980. At issue in this case are remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument during the sentencing phase of the trial. The prosecutor first stated, after discussing the proof of aggravating circumstances under Louisiana law:
“The law provides that if you find one of those circumstances then what you are doing as a juror, you yourself will not be sentencing Robert Sawyer to the electric chair. What you are saying to this Court, to the people of this Parish, to any appellate court, the Supreme Court of this State, the Supreme Court possibly of the United States, that you the people as a fact finding body from all the facts and evidence you have heard in relationship to this man’s conduct are of the opinion that there are aggravating circumstances as defined by the statute, by the State Legislature that this is a type of crime that deserves that penalty. It is merely a recommendation so try as he may, if Mr. Weidner tells you that each and every one of you I hope can live with your conscience and try and play upon your emotions, you cannot deny, it is a difficult decision. No one likes to make those type of decisions but you have to realize if but for this man’s actions, but for the type of life that he has decided to live, if of his own free choosing, I wouldn’t be here presenting evidence and making argument to you. You wouldn’t have to make the decision.” Tr. 982.
After emphasizing the brutal nature of the crime for which they had convicted petitioner, the prosecutor told the jury:
“There is really not a whole lot that can be said at this point in time that hasn’t already been said and done. The decision is in your hands. You are the people that are going to take the initial step and only the initial step and all you are saying to this court, to the people of this Parish, to this man, to all the Judges that are going to review this case after this day, is that you the people do not agree and will not tolerate an individual to commit such a heinous and atrocious crime to degrade such a fellow human being without the authority and the impact, the full authority and impact of the law of Louisiana. All you are saying is that this man from his actions could be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No more and no less.” Id., at 984.
Finally, the prosecutor emphasized again that the jury’s decision would be reviewed by later decisionmakers:
“It’s all [you’re] doing. Don’t feel otherwise. Don’t feel like you are the one, because it is very easy for defense lawyers to try and make each and every one of you feel like you are pulling the switch. That is not so. It is not so and if you are wrong in your decision believe me, believe me there will be others who will be behind you to either agree with you or to say you are wrong so I ask that you do have the courage of your convictions.” Id., at 985.
The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction and sentence. State v. Sawyer, 422 So. 2d 95 (1982). This Court granted certiorari and remanded the case with instructions to the Louisiana Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in light of Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983). Sawyer v. Louisiana, 463 U. S. 1223 (1983). The Louisiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the capital sentence on remand, Sawyer v. Louisiana, 442 So. 2d 1136 (1983). His conviction and sentence became final on April 2, 1984, when we denied certiorari, Sawyer v. Louisiana, 466 U. S. 931. Petitioner sought state collateral relief, which was denied. Sawyer v. Maggio, 479 So. 2d 360 (La. 1985); Sawyer v. Maggio, 480 So. 2d 313 (La. 1985).
Petitioner then filed the federal habeas corpus petition now before us, raising a host of constitutional claims. Relevant here is petitioner’s claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by diminishing the jury’s sense of responsibility for the capital sentencing decision, in violation of our decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 (1985). Caldwell was decided over one year after petitioner’s conviction became final.
The District Court denied relief, concluding that the prosecutor’s remarks were of a different character from those in Caldwell, and that there was no reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different in the absence of the comments. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 848 F. 2d 582 (1988). The panel held that the facts in this case were “a far cry from those in Caldwell,” in large part due to the absence of any judicial approval of the prosecutor’s comments. Id., at 596. Following the panel decision, the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Id., at 606.
After the en banc court heard oral argument, but while the case was pending, a plurality held in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), that a rule of constitutional law established after a petitioner’s conviction has become final may not be used to attack the conviction on federal habeas corpus unless the rule falls within one of two narrow exceptions. The Fifth Circuit requested supplemental briefing from the parties on the question whether Teague barred petitioner’s claim for relief under Caldwell. The en banc court held that Caldwell announced a new rule within the meaning of Teague, a rule not within Teague’s second exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that guarantee the accuracy of a criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief. 881 F. 2d 1273 (1989).
We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1042 (1990), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals, see Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 888 F. 2d 1286 (CA10 1989), and now affirm.
II
We must address first whether, in relying on Caldwell, petitioner claims the benefit of a new rule, as defined by our decision in Teague. In Caldwell, we held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of a death sentence by a sentencer that has been led to the false belief that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant’s capital sentence rests elsewhere. See 472 U. S., at 328-329; id., at 342 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). We determined that false information of this type might produce “substantial unreliability as well as bias in favor of death sentences.” Id., at 330.
At the outset we note that the parties dispute whether Caldwell, even if its rule applies, could support any claim for relief in petitioner’s case. The State emphasizes that the judge in this case, unlike Caldwell, see id., at 339, did not approve the prosecutor’s argument, and that the remarks in this case were less likely to mislead. Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the prosecutor’s remarks were similar to those in Caldwell, and were not cured by the judge’s instructions to the jury. We need not address the significant questions concerning the merits of petitioner’s Caldwell claim on these facts, or the question whether application of Caldwell to the facts presented here would itself involve a new rule of law. Rather, we address only whether Caldwell is available to petitioner as a ground upon which he may seek relief. Cf. Dugger v. Adams, 489 U. S. 401, 408, n. 4 (1989) (merit of Caldwell claim immaterial to disposition of case on procedural bar grounds).
Our review of the relevant precedents that preceded Caldwell convinces us that it is a new rule for purposes of Teague. On this point we are in accord with the Court of Appeals, as well as the other two Courts of Appeals that have addressed the question. See Clark v. Dugger, 901 F. 2d 908 (CA11 1990); Hopkinson v. Shillinger, supra. The rule of Teague serves to “validate] reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions.” Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 414 (1990). Thus, we have defined new rules as those that were not “dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Teague, supra, at 301 (plurality opinion). The principle announced in Teague serves to ensure that gradual developments in the law over which reasonable jurists may disagree are not later used to upset the finality of state convictions valid when entered. This is but a recognition that the purpose of federal habeas corpus is to ensure that state convictions comply with the federal law in existence at the time the conviction became final, and not to provide a mechanism for the continuing reexamination of final judgments based upon later emerging legal doctrine.
Caldwell, of course, was not decided upon a clean slate. As the Court in Caldwell recognized, we had earlier addressed the question of improper prosecutorial comment in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637 (1974). We stated in Donnelly that improper remarks by a prosecutor could at some point “so infec[t] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Id., at 643. No such pervasive error was established in that case, and we took the occasion to warn against “holding every improper and unfair argument of a state prosecutor to be a federal due process violation.” Caldwell, supra, at 338. Caldwell, unlike Donnelly, was a capital case; and while noting the principle set forth in Donnelly, the Court in Caldwell determined to rely not on the Due Process Clause but on more particular guarantees of sentencing reliability based on the Eighth Amendment. In Donnelly we had reversed a Court of Appeals opinion vacating a conviction because prosecutorial comments were “potentially” misleading, 416 U. S., at 641, but in Caldwell we found that the need for reliable sentencing in capital cases required a new sentencing proceeding because false prosecutorial comment created an “unacceptable risk that ‘the death penalty [may have been] meted out arbitrarily or capriciously,’” 472 U. S., at 343 (opinion of O’Connor, J.).
Examination of our Eighth Amendment authorities that preceded Caldwell shows that it was not dictated by prior precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final. In Caldwell itself we relied on Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978) (plurality opinion); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977) (plurality opinion); and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976) (plurality opinion), in support of the result. We cited these decisions for the general proposition that capital sentencing must have guarantees of reliability, and must be carried out by jurors who would view all of the relevant characteristics of the crime and the criminal, and take their task as a serious one. Petitioner, too, cites these and other cases in support of the argument that Caldwell was “rooted” in the Eighth Amendment command of reliable sentencing, and that application of these cases to misleading prosecutorial comment “[b]y analogy” would lead to the predictable Caldwell result. Brief for Petitioner 16.
We do not doubt that our earlier Eighth Amendment cases lent general support to the conclusion reached in Caldwell. But neither this fact, nor petitioner’s contention that state courts “would have found Caldwell to be a predictable development in Eighth Amendment law,” Brief for Petitioner 8, suffices to show that Caldwell was not a new rule. In petitioner’s view, Caldwell was dictated by the principle of reliability in capital sentencing. But the test would be meaningless if applied at this level of generality. Cf. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 639 (1987) (“[I]f the test of ‘clearly established law’ were to be applied at this level of generality, . . . [plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights”).
It is beyond question that no case prior to Caldwell invalidated a prosecutorial argument as impermissible under the Eighth Amendment. Eddings and Lockett invalidated statutory schemes that imposed an absolute prohibition against consideration of certain mitigating evidence by the sen-tencer. Woodson invalidated a capital sentencing statute providing for mandatory capital sentencing. Gardner invalidated a capital sentence based on information of which the defendant had no notice or opportunity to respond. These cases do not speak to the issue we decided in Caldwell. What we said in Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484, 491 (1990), applies here: “Even were we to agree with [petitioner’s] assertion that our decisions in Lockett and Eddings inform, or even control or govern, the analysis of his claim, it does not follow that they compel the rule that [petitioner] seeks.” Certainly Caldwell was not seen as compelled by the three Justices of this Court who found a “lack of authority” in our Eighth Amendment precedents for the approach taken there. See 472 U. S., at 350 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
From the point of view of a state court considering petitioner’s claim at the time his conviction became final, Saffle, supra, at 488, there were in fact indications in our decisions that the Caldwell rule was not a requirement of the Eighth Amendment. In a previous case raising an Eighth Amendment challenge to prosecutorial comment, we had rejected the petitioner’s claim. California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992 (1983). Indeed, the Mississippi Supreme Court had held without dissent in Caldwell that Ramos stood for the proposition that “states may decide whether it is error to mention to jurors the matter of appellate review.” See Caldwell v. State, 443 So. 2d 806, 813 (1983). The Mississippi court’s characterization of Ramos, of course, later proved to be incorrect. But this nonetheless suggests that prior to Caldwell our cases did not put other courts on notice that the Eighth Amendment compelled the Caldwell result.
Our opinion in Maggio v. Williams, 464 U. S. 46 (1983), provides more direct evidence that the rule of Caldwell cannot be described as dictated by existing law at the time petitioner’s claim became final. In Williams we vacated a stay of execution in a case presenting a claim very similar to that in Caldwell. Justice Stevens’ opinion concurring in the judgment described at length the prosecutor’s argument in that case, 464 U. S., at 53-54, one similar to the argument made in Caldwell. The Court, however, found that the prisoner’s challenge to the prosecutor’s statements “warrant[ed] little discussion.” 464 U. S., at 49. Although we stated that the failure to raise the claim of improper prosecutorial argument in an earlier habeas petition was “inexcusable,” we noted that the District Court in the second petition had given the claim “full consideration” under the “standard established in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637 (1974),” and had found that the prosecutor’s closing argument “did not render Williams’ trial fundamentally unfair.” Id., at 49-50. Our opinion concluded by describing this and other claims raised by Williams as “insubstantial.” Id., at 52. Williams, of course, did not represent a rejection on the merits of the rule announced in Caldwell. But given our statements concerning so similar a claim in Williams, we do not think a state court viewing petitioner’s case at the time his conviction became final could have concluded that our Eighth Amendment precedents compelled such a rule.
We note also that, when petitioner’s conviction became final, there was some reason for doubt as to this Court’s view concerning what became a major premise of Caldwell, that misleading prosecutorial comment might cause a “bias in favor of death sentences.” 472 U. S., at 330. At the time of petitioner’s trial and appeal there was at least “some suggestion,” see Dugger v. Adams, 489 U. S., at 409, that comments tending to diminish the jury’s sense of sentencing responsibility would skew the result toward leniency rather than a death sentence. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 294, and n. 7 (1977) (Florida’s change to a system in which jury’s verdict was advisory might benefit defendants, as the jury “may have chosen leniency when they knew [the sentencing] decision rested ultimately on the shoulders of the trial judge, but might not have followed the same course if their vote were final”).
Petitioner places primary reliance on numerous state cases, decided prior to the finality of his conviction, that prohibited prosecutorial statements of the type later held to violate the Eighth Amendment in Caldwell. See, e. g., Ward v. Commonwealth, 695 S. W. 2d 404, 408 (Ky. 1985); Ice v. Commonwealth, 667 S. W. 2d 671, 676 (Ky.), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 860 (1984); Wiley v. State, 449 So. 2d 756, 762 (Miss. 1984), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 906 (1986); Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 798, 811-812 (Miss. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1117 (1985); State v. Robinson, 421 So. 2d 299, 233-234 (La. 1982); State v. Willie, 410 So. 2d 1019, 1033-1035 (La. 1982), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1051 (1984); State v. Jones, 296 N. C. 495, 501-502, 251 S. E. 2d 425, 427-429 (1979); State v. Gilbert, 273 S. C. 690, 696-698, 258 S. E. 2d 890, 894 (1979); State v. Tyner, 273 S. C. 646, 659-660, 258 S. E. 2d 559, 566 (1979); Hawes v. State, 240 Ga. 327, 334-335, 240 S. E. 2d 833, 839 (1977); Fleming v. State, 240 Ga. 142, 145-146, 240 S. E. 2d 37, 40 (1977), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 885 (1979); State v. White, 286 N. C. 395, 403-404, 211 S. E. 2d 445, 450 (1975); Prevatte v. State, 233 Ga. 929, 932-933, 214 S. E. 2d 365, 367-368 (1975); State v. Hines, 286 N. C. 377, 381-386, 211 S. E. 2d 201, 204-207 (1975). Petitioner argues that these authorities show that state courts anticipated the rule of Caldwell, and that no state reliance interest could be upset by retroactive application of the federal rule to overturn a state conviction that became final before Caldwell was decided.
The flaw in this argument is that “the availability of a claim under state law does not of itself establish that a claim was available under the United States Constitution.” Dugger v. Adams, supra, at 409. All of the cases cited by petitioner, with one arguable exception, are decisions of state law, and do not purport to construe the Eighth Amendment. These cases, moreover, apply state common-law rules prohibiting any mention of appellate review; they do not condemn false prosecutorial statements under the Eighth Amendment analysis employed in Caldwell. Reliance on state-law cases for the proposition that the rule adopted in Caldwell was an old one misapprehends the function of federal habeas corpus. As we have said, the “ ‘relevant frame of reference’ ” for the new rule inquiry “ ‘is not the purpose of the new rule whose benefit the [defendant] seeks, but instead the purposes for which the writ of habeas corpus is made available.’” Teague, 489 U. S., at 306 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667, 682 (1971)). Federal habeas corpus serves to ensure that state convictions comport with the federal law that was established at the time petitioner’s conviction became final.
Petitioner points out, to support his argument that Caldwell applied an old rule, that our opinion there was based in part on the adoption by many state courts of rules that prohibited prosecutorial comments that could diminish the jury’s sense of sentencing responsibility. Brief for Petitioner 11; see 472 U. S., at 333-334, and n. 4. It is true that our cases have looked to the decisions of state courts and legislatures to inform Eighth Amendment analysis. But petitioner’s attempt to use this fact to show that Caldwell is an old rule is untenable. Under this view, state-court decisions would both inform this Court’s decisions on the substantive content of the Eighth Amendment and, by simultaneous effect, impose those standards back upon the States themselves with retroactive effect. This view is also inconsistent with our citation in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 329-330 (1989), of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986), which relied for its Eighth Amendment analysis on the statutory or common law of a majority of the States, see id., at 408-409, as an example of a new rule.
One Louisiana case cited by petitioner disapproving pros-ecutorial comment on appellate review does discuss Eighth Amendment principles rather than relying solely on state law. Even in this case, however, the court cited Eighth Amendment cases only in its discussion of prosecutorial reference to the possibility of pardon. Its discussion of pros-ecutorial comment on appellate review, the issue before us here, referred to state-law rules. See State v. Willie, supra, at 1033 (La. 1982), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1051. Petitioner also cites post-Caldwell Louisiana cases, which cite Caldwell and state cases interchangeably, and state that Caldwell did not change prior law in the State. See State v. Smith, 554 So. 2d 676, 685 (La. 1989); State v. Clark, 492 So. 2d 862, 870-871 (La. 1986); State ex rel. Busby v. Butler, 538 So. 2d 164, 173 (La. 1988). To the extent these cases reflect state-court recognition that general Eighth Amendment principles pointed toward adoption of a Caldwell rule, or that Caldwell is congruent with pre-existing state law, they cannot serve to show that Caldwell was dictated by our Eighth Amendment precedent. State courts as well as federal can be expected to engage in application of the principles announced in prior Eighth Amendment decisions that are “susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.” Butler, 494 U. S., at 415.
Petitioner appears to contend that state courts will recognize federal constitutional protections only if they are compelled to do so by federal precedent and the threat of federal habeas review. Since some state courts had recognized a principle similar to Caldwell’s, this argument goes, the result in Caldwell must have been compelled by Eighth Amendment precedent. This argument is premised on a skepticism of state courts that we decline to endorse. State courts are coequal parts of our national judicial system and give serious attention to their responsibilities for enforcing the commands of the Constitution. It is not surprising that state courts, whether applying federal constitutional protections or seeking fair administration of their own state capital punishment law, would have taken care to exclude misleading prosecuto-rial comment. But this conscientious exercise of their powers of supervision and review could not dictate Caldwell as a principle of federal law under the Eighth Amendment.
HH HH HH
Under Teague, new rules may be applied m habeas corpus proceedings only if they come within “one of two narrow exceptions.” Saffle, 494 U. S., at 486. The first of these applies to new rules that place an entire category of primary-conduct beyond the reach of the criminal law, Teague, supra, at 311 (plurality opinion), or new rules that-prohibit imposition of a certain type of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense, Penry, supra, at 330. This exception has no application here. The second Teague exception applies to new “watershed rules of criminal procedure” that are necessary to the fundamental fairness of the criminal proceeding. Saffle, supra, at 495; Teague, 489 U. S., at 311-313 (plurality opinion). Petitioner here challenges the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Caldwell does not come within this exception.
Petitioner contends that the second Teague exception should be read to include new rules of capital sentencing that “preserve the accuracy and fairness of capital sentencing judgments.” Brief for Petitioner 30. But this test looks only to half of our definition of the second exception. Acceptance of petitioner’s argument would return the second exception to the broad definition that Justice Harlan first proposed in Desist, but later abandoned in Mackey, under which new rules that “significantly improve the pre-existing fact-finding procedures are to be retroactively applied on ha-beas.” Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 262 (1969). In Teague, we modified Justice Harlan’s test to combine the accuracy element of the Desist test with the Mackey limitation of the exception to watershed rules of fundamental fairness. It is thus not enough under Teague to say that a new rule is aimed at improving the accuracy of trial. More is required. A rule that qualifies under this exception must not only improve accuracy, but also “ ‘alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements’ ” essential to the fairness of a proceeding. Teague, supra, at 311 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mackey, 401 U. S., at 693).
The scope of the Teague exceptions must be consistent with the recognition that “[a]pplication of constitutional rules not in existence at the time a conviction became final seriously undermines the principle of finality which is essential to the operation of our criminal justice system.” Teague, supra, at 309 (plurality opinion) (citing Friendly, Is Innocence Irrelevant? Collateral Attacks on Criminal Judgments, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 142, 150 (1970)). The “costs imposed upon the State[s] by retroactive application of new rules of constitutional law on habeas corpus thus generally far outweigh the benefits of this application.” Solem v. Stumes, 465 U. S. 638, 654 (1984) (opinion of Powell, J.). As we stated in Teague, because the second exception is directed only at new rules essential to the accuracy and fairness of the criminal process, it is “unlikely that many such components of basic due process have yet to emerge.” 489 U. S., at 313 (plurality opinion).
It is difficult to see any limit to the definition of the second exception if cast as proposed by petitioner. All of our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence concerning capital sentencing is directed toward the enhancement of reliability and accuracy in some sense. Indeed, petitioner has not suggested any Eighth Amendment rule that would not be sufficiently “fundamental” to qualify for the proposed definition of the exception, and at oral argument in this case counsel was unable to provide a single example. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17. In practical effect, petitioner asks us to overrule our decision in Penry that Teague applies to new rules of capital sentencing. This we decline to do.
At the time of petitioner’s trial and appeal, the rule of Don-nelly was in place to protect any defendant who could show that a prosecutor’s remarks had in fact made a proceeding fundamentally unfair. It was always open to this petitioner to challenge the prosecutor’s remarks at his sentencing proceeding, by making the showing required by Donnelly. See Dugger v. Adams, 489 U. S., at 410 (defendant whose trial and appeal occurred prior to Caldwell “could have challenged the improper remarks by the trial judge at the time of his trial as a violation of due process. See Donnelly v. De-Christoforo, 416 U. S. 637 (1974)”); Maggio v. Williams, 464 U. S., at 49-50 (discussing application of Donnelly to improper remarks at sentencing). Petitioner has not contested the Court of Appeals’ finding that he has no claim for relief under the Donnelly standard. And as the Court of Appeals stated: “[T]he only defendants who need to rely on Caldwell rather than Donnelly are those who must concede that the prosecutorial argument in their case was not so harmful as to render their sentencing trial ‘fundamentally unfair. ’ ” 881 F. 2d, at 1293.
Rather than focusing on the prejudice to the defendant that must be shown to establish a Donnelly violation, our concern in Caldwell was with the “unacceptable risk” that misleading remarks could affect the reliability of the sentence. See 472 U. S., at 343 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). Caldwell must therefore be read as providing an additional measure of protection against error, beyond that afforded by Donnelly, in the special context of capital sentencing. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 168, 183-184, n. 14 (1986). The Caldivell rule was designed as an enhancement of the accuracy of capital sentencing, a protection of systemic value for state and federal courts charged with reviewing capital proceedings. But given that it was added to an existing guarantee of due process protection against fundamental unfairness, we cannot say this systemic rule enhancing reliability is an “absolute prerequisite to fundamental fairness,” 489 U. S., at 314, of the type that may come within Teague s second exception.
Discussions of the nature of Caldivell error from other contexts also support our conclusion. In Dugger v. Adams, supra, we held that failure to consider a Caldwell claim would not come within a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception to the doctrine of procedural default. Id., at 412, n. 6; see Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478 (1986). We rejected the dissent’s contention that a fundamental miscarriage of justice had been shown in that “the very essence of a Caldwell claim is that the accuracy of the sentencing determination has been unconstitutionally undermined.” Dugger, supra, at 412, n. 6. Similarly, in Williams, supra, Justice Stevens concluded his discussion of a Caldivell-type claim by stating: “I question whether it can be said that this trial was fundamentally unfair. See Rose v. Lundy, [455 U. S. 509,] 543, and n. 8 [(1982)] (Stevens, J., dissenting).” 464 U. S., at 56. These cases, of course, involved different rules and contexts. Yet we think their rationale reflects a rejection of the argument that Caldwell represents a rule fundamental to the criminal proceeding.
Because petitioner seeks the benefit of a new rule that does not come within either of the Teague exceptions, his claim for habeas corpus relief is without merit. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
That Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 329 (1989), and Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 301 (1989), cite Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986), as crafting a “new” rule does not establish that state decisions are irrelevant in assessing the status of a right under the Federal Constitution. Cf. ante, at 240. Neither of these opinions discussed the citation to Ford, and the force of their conclusions is undermined by this Court’s subsequent reliance on state decisions in Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484 (1990), to determine whether the rule invoked in that ease was compelled by our Eighth Amendment decisions, see id., at 490-491 (citing state decisions). State decisions cannot be deemed relevant to the Teague inquiry only to the extent that they disprove the rootedness of a constitutional right.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed. Patchak v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 995 (2016). It held that "[t]he language of the Gun Lake Act makes plain that Congress has stripped federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction" over suits, like Patchak's, that relate to the Bradley Property. Id., at 1001. The D.C. Circuit rejected Patchak's argument that § 2(b) violates Article III of the Constitution. Id., at 1001-1003. Article III prohibits Congress from "direct[ing] the result of pending litigation," the D.C. Circuit reasoned, but it does not prohibit Congress from "'supply[ing] new law.' " Id., at 1002 (quoting Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc., 503 U.S. 429, 439, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992) ). Section 2(b) supplies new law: "[I]f an action relates to the Bradley Property, it must promptly be dismissed." 828 F.3d, at 1003.
We granted certiorari to review whether § 2(b) violates Article III of the Constitution.2 See 565 U.S. 1092, 132 S.Ct. 845, 181 L.Ed.2d 548 (2017). Because it does not, we now affirm.
II
A
The Constitution creates three branches of Government and vests each branch with a different type of power. See Art. I, § 1 ; Art. II, § 1, cl. 1 ; Art. III, § 1. "To the legislative department has been committed the duty of making laws; to the executive the duty of executing them; and to the judiciary the duty of interpreting and applying them in cases properly brought before the courts." Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923) ; see also Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 46, 6 L.Ed. 253 (1825) (Marshall, C.J.) ("[T]he legislature makes, the executive executes, and the judiciary construes the law"). By vesting each branch with an exclusive form of power, the Framers kept those powers separate. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 946, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). Each branch "exercise[s]... the powers appropriate to its own department," and no branch can "encroach upon the powers confided to the others." Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 191, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1881). This system prevents "[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands," The Federalist No. 47, p. 301 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison)-an accumulation that would pose an inherent "threat to liberty," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 450, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998) (KENNEDY, J., concurring).
The separation of powers, among other things, prevents Congress from exercising the judicial power. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). One way that Congress can cross the line from legislative power to judicial power is by "usurp[ing] a court's power to interpret and apply the law to the [circumstances] before it." Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1310, 1323, 194 L.Ed.2d 463 (2016). The simplest example would be a statute that says, "In Smith v. Jones, Smith wins." See id., at ---- - ----, n. 17, 136 S.Ct., at 1323, n. 17. At the same time, the legislative power is the power to make law, and Congress can make laws that apply retroactively to pending lawsuits, even when it effectively ensures that one side wins. See id., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1324-1327.
To distinguish between permissible exercises of the legislative power and impermissible infringements of the judicial power, this Court's precedents establish the following rule: Congress violates Article III when it "compel[s]... findings or results under old law." Seattle Audubon, supra, at 438, 112 S.Ct. 1407. But Congress does not violate Article III when it "changes the law." Plaut, supra, at 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447.
B
Section 2(b) changes the law. Specifically, it strips federal courts of jurisdiction over actions "relating to" the Bradley Property. Before the Gun Lake Act, federal courts had jurisdiction to hear these actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Now they do not. This kind of legal change is well within Congress' authority and does not violate Article III.
1
Section 2(b) strips federal jurisdiction over suits relating to the Bradley Property. The statute uses jurisdictional language. It states that an "action" relating to the Bradley Property "shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court." It imposes jurisdictional consequences: Actions relating to the Bradley Property "shall be promptly dismissed." See Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1869) ("[W]hen [jurisdiction] ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause"). Section 2(b) has no exceptions. Cf. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 165, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010). And it applies "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law," including the general grant of federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although § 2(b) does not use the word "jurisdiction," this Court does not require jurisdictional statutes to "incant magic words." Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. 145, 153, 133 S.Ct. 817, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013). Indeed, § 2(b) uses language similar to other statutes that this Court has deemed jurisdictional. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 142, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (" 'an appeal may not be taken' " (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) )); Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208-209, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993) (" '[n]o person shall file or prosecute' " (quoting 36 Stat. 1138)); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975) (" '[n]o action... shall be brought under [ 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ]' " (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) )).
Our conclusion that § 2(b) is jurisdictional is bolstered by the fact that it cannot plausibly be read as anything else. Section 2(b) is not one of the nonjurisdictional rules that this Court's precedents have identified as "important and mandatory" but not governing "a court's adjudicatory capacity." Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 435, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011). Section 2(b) does not identify an "element of [the] plaintiff's claim for relief" or otherwise define its "substantive adequacy." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 516, 504, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). Nor is it a "claim-processing rule," like a filing deadline or an exhaustion requirement, that requires the parties to "take certain procedural steps at certain specified times." Henderson, supra, at 435, 131 S.Ct. 1197. Instead, § 2(b) completely prohibits actions relating to the Bradley Property. Because § 2(b) addresses "a court's competence to adjudicate a particular category of cases," Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 316, 126 S.Ct. 941, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006), it is best read as a jurisdiction-stripping statute.
2
Statutes that strip jurisdiction "chang[e] the law" for the purpose of Article III, Plaut, supra, at 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447 just as much as other exercises of Congress' legislative authority. Article I permits Congress "[t]o constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court," § 8, and Article III vests the judicial power "in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," § 1. These provisions reflect the so-called Madisonian Compromise, which resolved the Framers' disagreement about creating lower federal courts by leaving that decision to Congress. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 907, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997) ; 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 125 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Congress' greater power to create lower federal courts includes its lesser power to "limit the jurisdiction of those Courts." United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 33, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812) ; accord, Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943). So long as Congress does not violate other constitutional provisions, its "control over the jurisdiction of the federal courts" is "plenary." Trainmen v. Toledo, P. & W.R. Co., 321 U.S. 50, 63-64, 64 S.Ct. 413, 88 L.Ed. 534 (1944) ; see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) ("Within constitutional bounds, Congress decides what cases the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider"). Thus, when Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it.
Indeed, this Court has held that Congress generally does not violate Article III when it strips federal jurisdiction over a class of cases. Shortly after the Civil War, for example, Congress repealed this Court's appellate jurisdiction over certain habeas corpus cases. See Act of Mar. 27, 1868, ch. 34, § 2, 15 Stat. 44; see also U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2 (permitting Congress to make "Exceptions" to this Court's appellate jurisdiction). William McCardle, a military prisoner whose appeal was pending at the time, argued that the repealing statute was "an exercise by the Congress of judicial power." 7 Wall., at 510. This Court disagreed. Jurisdiction-stripping statutes, the Court explained, do not involve "the exercise of judicial power" or "legislative interference with courts in the exercising of continuing jurisdiction." Id., at 514. Because jurisdiction is the "power to declare the law" in the first place, "judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer." Id., at 514-515.
This Court has reaffirmed these principles on many occasions. Congress generally does not infringe the judicial power when it strips jurisdiction because, with limited exceptions, a congressional grant of jurisdiction is a prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) ("The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter'spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States' " (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884) )); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845) ("[T]he judicial power of the United States... is (except in enumerated instances, applicable exclusively to this court) dependent... entirely upon the action of Congress"); Hudson, supra, at 33 (similar). "To deny this position" would undermine the separation of powers by "elevat[ing] the judicial over the legislative branch." Cary, supra, at 245. Congress' power over federal jurisdiction is "an essential ingredient of separation and equilibration of powers, restraining the courts from acting at certain times, and even restraining them from acting permanently regarding certain subjects." Steel Co., supra, at 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003.
In sum, § 2(b) strips jurisdiction over suits relating to the Bradley Property. It is a valid exercise of Congress' legislative power. And because it changes the law, it does not infringe the judicial power. The constitutionality of jurisdiction-stripping statutes like this one is well established.
III
Patchak does not dispute Congress' power to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts. He instead raises two arguments why § 2(b) violates Article III, even if it strips jurisdiction. First, relying on United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1872), Patchak argues that § 2(b) flatly directs federal courts to dismiss lawsuits without allowing them to interpret or apply any new law. Second, relying on Plaut, 514 U.S. 211, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328, Patchak argues that § 2(b) attempts to interfere with this Court's decision in Patchak I -specifically, its conclusion that his suit "may proceed," 567 U.S., at 212, 132 S.Ct. 2199. We reject both arguments.
A
Section 2(b) does not flatly direct federal courts to dismiss lawsuits under old law. It creates new law for suits relating to the Bradley Property, and the District Court interpreted and applied that new law in Patchak's suit. Section 2(b)'s "relating to" standard effectively guaranteed that Patchak's suit would be dismissed. But "a statute does not impinge on judicial power when it directs courts to apply a new legal standard to undisputed facts." Bank Markazi, 578 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1325. "[I]t is not any the less a case or controversy upon which a court possessing the federal judicial power may rightly give judgment" when the arguments before the court are "uncontested or incontestable." Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 11, 65 S.Ct. 16, 89 L.Ed. 3 (1944).
Patchak argues that the last four words of § 2(b)-"shall be promptly dismissed"-direct courts to reach a particular outcome. But a statute does not violate Article III merely because it uses mandatory language. See Seattle Audubon, 503 U.S., at 439, 112 S.Ct. 1407. Instead of directing outcomes, the mandatory language in § 2(b) "simply imposes the consequences" of a court's determination that it lacks jurisdiction because a suit relates to the Bradley Property. Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 349, 120 S.Ct. 2246, 147 L.Ed.2d 326 (2000) ; see McCardle, 7 Wall., at 514.
Patchak compares § 2(b) to the statute this Court held unconstitutional in Klein. In that case, the administrator of the estate of V.F. Wilson, a former Confederate soldier, sued to recover the value of some cotton that the Government had seized during the war. 13 Wall., at 132. The relevant statute required claimants to prove their loyalty in order to reclaim their property. Ch. 120, § 3, 12 Stat. 820. Wilson had received a pardon before he died, 13 Wall., at 132, and this Court had held that pardons conclusively prove loyalty under the statute, see United States v. Padelford, 9 Wall. 531, 543, 19 L.Ed. 788 (1870). But after Wilson's administrator secured a judgment in his favor, 13 Wall., at 132, Congress passed a statute making pardons proof of disloyalty and declaring that, if a claimant had accepted one, "the jurisdiction of the court in the case shall cease, and the court shall forthwith dismiss the suit of such claimant." Act of July 12, 1870, 16 Stat. 235. If the court had already entered judgment in favor of a pardoned claimant and the Government had appealed, the statute instructed this Court to dismiss the whole suit for lack of jurisdiction. See ibid. Klein held that this statute infringed the executive power by attempting to "change the effect of... a pardon." Id., at 148. Klein also held that the statute infringed the judicial power, see id., at 147, although its reasons for this latter holding were not entirely clear.
This Court has since explained that "the statute in Klein infringed the judicial power, not because it left too little for courts to do, but because it attempted to direct the result without altering the legal standards governing the effect of a pardon-standards Congress was powerless to prescribe." Bank Markazi, supra, at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1324. Congress had no authority to declare that pardons are not evidence of loyalty, so it could not achieve the same result by stripping jurisdiction whenever claimants cited pardons as evidence of loyalty. See Klein, 13 Wall., at 147-148. Nor could Congress confer jurisdiction to a federal court but then strip jurisdiction from that same court once the court concluded that a pardoned claimant should prevail under the statute. See id., at 146-147.
Patchak's attempts to compare § 2(b) to the statute in Klein are unpersuasive. Section 2(b) does not attempt to exercise a power that the Constitution vests in another branch. And unlike the selective jurisdiction-stripping statute in Klein, § 2(b) strips jurisdiction over every suit relating to the Bradley Property. Indeed, Klein itself explained that statutes that do "nothing more" than strip jurisdiction over "a particular class of cases" are constitutional. Id., at 145. That is precisely what § 2(b) does.
B
Section 2(b) does not unconstitutionally interfere with this Court's decision in Patchak I. Article III, this Court explained in Plaut, prohibits Congress from "retroactively commanding the federal courts to reopen final judgments." 514 U.S., at 219, 115 S.Ct. 1447. But Patchak I did not finally conclude Patchak's case. See Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711, n. 14, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). When this Court said that his suit "may proceed," 567 U.S., at 212, 132 S.Ct. 2199 it meant that the Secretary's preliminary defenses lacked merit and that Patchak could return to the District Court for further proceedings. It did not mean that Congress was powerless to change the law that governs his case. As this Court emphasized in Plaut, Article III does not prohibit Congress from enacting new laws that apply to pending civil cases. See 514 U.S., at 226-227, 115 S.Ct. 1447. When a new law clearly governs pending cases, Article III does not prevent courts from applying it because "each court, at every level, must 'decide according to existing laws.' " Ibid. (quoting United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 109, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801) ). This principle applies equally to statutes that strip jurisdiction. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 274, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) ; Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922) ; Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 509, 36 S.Ct. 202, 60 L.Ed. 409 (1916). Because § 2(b) expressly references "pending" cases, it applies to Patchak's suit. And because Patchak's suit is not final, applying § 2(b) here does not offend Article III.
Of course, we recognize that the Gun Lake Act was a response to this Court's decision in Patchak I. The text of the Act, after all, cites both the administrative decision and the property at issue in that case. See §§ 2(a)-(b). And we understand why Patchak would view the Gun Lake Act as unfair. By all accounts, the Band exercised its political influence to persuade Congress to enact a narrow jurisdiction-stripping provision that effectively ends all lawsuits threatening its casino, including Patchak's.
But the question in this case is "[n]ot favoritism, nor even corruption, but power." Plaut, supra, at 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447 ; see also McCardle, 7 Wall., at 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 ("We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution"). Under this Court's precedents, Congress has the power to "apply newly enacted, outcome-altering legislation in pending civil cases," Bank Markazi, 578 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1325, even when the legislation "govern[s] one or a very small number of specific subjects," id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1328. For example, this Court has upheld narrow statutes that identified specific cases by caption and docket number in their text. See id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1326-1327 ; Seattle Audubon, 503 U.S., at 440, 112 S.Ct. 1407. And this Court has approvingly cited a D.C. Circuit decision, which upheld a statute that retroactively stripped jurisdiction over suits challenging "a single memorial." Bank Markazi, supra, at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1328 (citing National Coalition To Save Our Mall v. Norton, 269 F.3d 1092 (2001) ). If these targeted statutes did not cross the line from legislative to judicial power, then § 2(b) does not either.
IV
The dissent offers a different theory for why § 2(b) violates Article III. A statute impermissibly exercises the judicial power, the dissent contends, when it "targets" a particular suit and "manipulates" jurisdiction to direct the outcome, "practical[ly] operat[es]" to affect only one suit, and announces a legal standard that does not "imply some measure of generality" or "preserv [e]... an adjudicative role for the courts." Post, at 918, 919 - 920.
We doubt that the constitutional line separating the legislative and judicial powers turns on factors such as a court's doubts about Congress' unexpressed motives, the number of "cases [that] were pending when the provision was enacted," or the time left on the statute of limitations. Post, at 918. But even if it did, we disagree with the dissent's characterization of § 2(b). Nothing on the face of § 2(b) is limited to Patchak's case, or even to his challenge under the Indian Reorganization Act. Instead, the text extends to all suits "relating to" the Bradley Property. Thus, § 2(b) survives even under the dissent's theory: It "prospectively govern[s] an open-ended class of disputes," post, at 916 - 917, and its "relating to" standard "preserv[es]... an adjudicative role for the courts," post, at 919 - 920. While § 2(b)'s "relating to" standard is not difficult to interpret or apply, this Court's precedents encourage Congress to draft jurisdictional statutes in this manner. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010) ("[A]dministrative simplicity is a major virtue in a jurisdictional statute.... [C]ourts benefit from straightforward rules under which they can readily assure themselves of their power to hear a case").
We conclude that § 2(b) of the Gun Lake Act does not violate Article III of the Constitution. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The statutory context makes clear that this is not simply a case in which Congress has said, "In Smith v. Jones, Smith wins." See post, at 914, 919 - 920 (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting). In 2005, the Secretary of the Interior announced her decision to take the Bradley Property into trust for an Indian Tribe, the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians. See 70 Fed.Reg. 25596 (2005). The petitioner brought suit, claiming that the Secretary lacked the statutory authority to do so. See Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379, 382, 129 S.Ct. 1058, 172 L.Ed.2d 791 (2009) (the Indian Reorganization Act gives the Secretary authority to take land into trust only for a tribe under federal jurisdiction in 1934).
Congress then enacted the law here at issue. Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, Pub.L. 113-179, 128 Stat. 1913. (I have placed the full text of that law in the Appendix, infra.) The first part "reaffirm[s]," "ratifie[s]," and "confirm[s]" the Secretary's "actions in taking" the Bradley Property "into trust," as well as the status of the Bradley Property "as trust land." § 2(a). The second part says that actions "relating to" the Bradley Property "shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed." § 2(b). Read together, Congress first made certain that federal statutes gave the Secretary the authority to take the Bradley Property into trust, and second tried to dot all the i's by adding that federal courts shall not hear cases challenging the land's trust status. The second part, the jurisdictional part, perhaps gilds the lily, perhaps simplifies judicial decisionmaking (the judge need only determine whether a lawsuit relates to the Bradley Property), but, read in context, it does no more than provide an alternative legal standard for courts to apply that seeks the same real-world result as does the first part: The Bradley Property shall remain in trust.
The petitioner does not argue that Congress acted unconstitutionally by ratifying the Secretary's actions and the land's trust status, and I am aware of no substantial argument to that effect. See United States v. Heinszen & Co., 206 U.S. 370, 382-383, 387, 27 S.Ct. 742, 51 L.Ed. 1098 (1907) (Congress may retroactively ratify Government action that was unauthorized when taken); Brief for Federal Courts and Federal Indian Law Scholars as Amici Curiae 6-11 (citing numerous examples of tribe-specific Indian-land bills). The jurisdictional part of the statute therefore need not be read to do more than eliminate the cost of litigating a lawsuit that will inevitably uphold the land's trust status.
This case is consequently unlike United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1872), where this Court held unconstitutional a congressional effort to use its jurisdictional authority to reach a result (involving the pardon power) that it could not constitutionally reach directly. Id., at 146 ; see Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ----, ----, and n. 19, 136 S.Ct. 1310, 1324, and n. 19, 194 L.Ed.2d 463 (2016). And the plurality, in today's opinion, carefully distinguishes from the case before us other circumstances where Congress' use of its jurisdictional power could prove constitutionally objectionable. Ante, at 906, and n. 3, 918, n. 6. Here Congress has used its jurisdictional power to supplement, without altering, action that no one has challenged as unconstitutional. Under these circumstances, I find its use of that power unobjectionable. And, on this understanding, I join the plurality's opinion.
APPENDIX
Public Law 113-179
"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
"This Act may be cited as the 'Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act'.
"SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF INDIAN TRUST LAND.
"(a) IN GENERAL.-The land taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians and described in the final Notice of Determination of the Department of the Interior (70 Fed.Reg. 25596 (May 13, 2005) ) is reaffirmed as trust land, and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking that land into trust are ratified and confirmed.
"(b) NO CLAIMS.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action (including an action pending in a Federal court as of the date of enactment of this Act) relating to the land described in subsection (a) shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed.
"(c) RETENTION OF FUTURE RIGHTS. -Nothing in this Act alters or diminishes the right of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians from seeking to have any additional land taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band."
What Congress grants, it may retract. That is undoubtedly true of the Legislature's authority to forgo or retain the Government's sovereign immunity from suit. The Court need venture no further to decide this case.
Patchak sought relief from the Secretary of the Interior "other than money damages," 5 U.S.C. § 702 ; because he confined his complaint to declaratory and injunctive relief, the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) waiver of the Federal Government's immunity from suit, ibid., enabled Patchak to launch this litigation. Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209, 215-224, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 183 L.Ed.2d 211 (2012) ( Patchak I ) (APA waiver of immunity covers Patchak's suit). But consent of the United States to suit may be withdrawn "at any time." Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 581, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434 (1934) ; see Maricopa County v. Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix, 318 U.S. 357, 362, 63 S.Ct. 587, 87 L.Ed. 834 (1943) ("[T]he power to withdraw the privilege of suing the United States or its instrumentalities knows no limitations."). Congress' authority to reinstate sovereign immunity, this Court has recognized, extends to pending litigation. District of Columbia v. Eslin, 183 U.S. 62, 65-66, 22 S.Ct. 17, 46 L.Ed. 85 (1901).
Just as it is Congress' prerogative to consent to suit, so too is it within Congress' authority to withdraw consent once given. Retraction of consent to be sued (effectively restoration of immunity) is just what Congress achieved when it directed in the Gun Lake Act: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action... relating to the [Bradley Property]," including any pending action, "shall not be... maintained in a Federal Court and shall be promptly dismissed." Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, Pub.L. 113-179, § 2(b), 128 Stat. 1913 ; see H.R. Rep. No. 113-590, p. 2 (2014) (framed with Patchak I in view, § 2(b) provides an "unusually broad grant of immunity from lawsuits pertaining to the Bradley Property " (emphasis added)); S. Rep. No. 113-194, p. 2 (2014) (discussing Patchak I ); Patchak I, 567 U.S., at 223-224, 132 S.Ct. 2199 (argument that allowing suits challenging land trust acquisitions would harm tribe's economic well-being "is not without force, but must be addressed to Congress"). Notably, the language Congress employed in the Gun Lake Act (any "action... relating to the [Bradley Property]... shall be promptly dismissed") is the mirror image of the APA's immunity waiver, which instructs that suits "against the United States" for declaratory or injunctive relief "shall not be dismissed." 5 U.S.C. § 702 (emphasis added).
In short, Congress acted effectively to displace the APA's waiver of immunity for suits against the United States with a contrary command applicable to the Bradley Property: No action concerning the trust status of that property is currently attended by the sovereign's consent to suit. For that reason, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann. § 13-35-227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.” Id., at 342 (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case. The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a pauper, has been convicted and sentenced to prison. After conviction the court-appointed lawyer, who represented him at the trial, withdrew his appearance with the approval of the court. The present court-appointed attorney is a different person, appointed by the Court of Appeals after the indigent had prepared pro se a petition for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The District Court denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Court of Appeals, although empowered to allow the appeal (Coppedge v. United States, 369 U. S. 438, 455), merely allowed petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of the appeal “to the extent of having the stenographic transcript of the testimony and evidence presented by the government prepared at the expense of the United States,” as those parts of the transcript were the only ones that relate “to the conclusory allegations” formulated by the indigent defendant pro se. See Ingram v. United States, 315 F. 2d 29, 30-31. After a petition for rehearing was denied, petitioner moved the Court of Appeals for a transcript of the balance of the proceedings in the District Court. This motion was denied by a divided Bench. The case is here on certiorari. 373 U. S. 902.
We deal with the federal system where the appeal is a matter of right (Coppedge v. United States, supra, at 441; 28 U. S. C. §§ 1291,1294), and where the appellant is entitled to “the aid of counsel unless he insists on being his own.” Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565, 566. Congress has buttressed that right of appeal in several ways. It has provided in 28 U. S. C. § 1915 that any federal court may authorize an “appeal” injorma pau- peris, except that such an appeal may not be taken if the trial court certifies that “it is not taken in good faith.” Further, a transcript is available for appeal purposes, Congress having provided in the Court Reporter Act, 28 U. S. C. § 753 (b), that a transcript “by shorthand or by mechanical means” of “all proceedings in criminal cases had in open court” shall be made. The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, has adopted the practice of furnishing to indigents a full transcript on request if the cost to the United States is not more than $200. That policy draws a distinction not present in the statute nor in the Rules of the Court of Appeals which provide that, when the court allows an appeal in forma pauperis, it shall then determine “whether and to what extent, a transcript will be necessary for the proper determination of the appeal.” D. C. Cir. Rule 33 (b) (2) (i).
We have here a case where an appeal in forma pauperis has not yet been allowed. But whether counsel seeks an entire transcript at that stage or later on, the problem seems to us to be the same.
A court-appointed counsel who represents the indigent on appeal gets at public expense, as a minimum, the transcript which is relevant to the points of error assigned. Coppedge v. United States, supra, at 446; Ingram v. United States, supra. But when, as here, new -counsel represents the indigent on appeal, how can he faithfully discharge the obligation which the court has placed on him unless he can read the entire transcript? His duty may possibly not be discharged if he is allowed less than that. For Rule 52 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” The right to notice “plain errors or defects” is illusory if no transcript is available at least to one whose lawyer on appeal enters the case after the trial is ended.
The duty of counsel on appeal, as we noted in Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674, 675, is not to serve as amicus to the Court of Appeals, but as advocate for the appellant:
“Normally, allowance of an appeal should not be denied until an indigent has had adequate representation by counsel. Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565. In this case, it appears that the two attorneys appointed by the Court of Appeals, performed essentially the role of amici curiae. But representation in the role of an advocate is required. If counsel is convinced, after conscientious investigation, that the appeal is frivolous, of course, he may ask to withdraw on that account. If the court is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the possible grounds of appeal, and agrees with counsel’s evaluation of the case, then leave to withdraw maybe allowed and leave to appeal may be denied.” (Italics added.)
We deal here only with the statutory .scheme and do not reach a consideration of constitutional requirements. We see no escape from the conclusion that either where the requirements of a nonfrivolous appeal prescribed by Coppedge v. United States, supra, are met, or where such a showing is sought to be made, and where counsel on appeal was not counsel at the trial, the requirements placed on him by Ellis v. United States, supra, will often make it seem necessary to him to obtain an entire transcript.
We conclude that this counsel’s duty cannot be discharged unless he has a transcript of the testimony and evidence presented by the defendant and also the court’s charge to the jury, as well as the testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution.
Reversed.
During oral argument of this case, counsel for respondent stated that the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia initiated, since this case was before the lower courts, a practice of not filing an opposition to a motion for a full transcript where the cost of such a transcript will not exceed $200. This is usually the case when the trial does not exceed three days. This practice is followed because the United States Attorney feels that the time and effort necessary to oppose such a motion will, in terms of dollars, exceed $200. According to counsel, the Federal District Court, pursuant to a “tacit” understanding, usually grants unopposed motions for a complete transcript.
In Ingram the Court of Appeals said:
“. . . when a pro se petition is filed, upon direct appeal from judgment of conviction, and the claims of error stated therein (e. g., ‘insufficiency of evidence,’ ‘unlawful search and seizure,’) are so con-clusory in nature that ‘their substance cannot adequately be ascertained,’ counsel will be appointed and, simultaneously, the portion of the transcript of proceedings which relates to the conclusory allegations will be ordered so that appointed counsel may determine their merit. Of course, counsel will not be limited to the transcript initially allowed if he can in good conscience advance other claims of error requiring additional portions of the transcript.” Id., at 30-31.
Boskey, The Right to Counsel in Appellate Proceedings, 45 Minn. L. Rev. 783, 792-793 (1961), in speaking of the task of counsel who is appointed to represent the appellant and who did not serve as trial counsel, says:
“. . . the new counsel is operating under serious handicaps. Normally he has no prior acquaintance with the trial proceedings and no personal knowledge- of the case which would form a basis for sound judgment. Normally no transcript is in existence at this stage, so he cannot make his own independent analysis of the trial proceedings.
“In order to investigate whether the appeal involves one or more ‘not plainly frivolous’ issues, counsel may examine the formal documents on record in the trial court; he may interview his client; he may discuss the case with defendant’s trial counsel and with the prosecutor; he may try to work out with the prosecutor an ‘agreed statement’ of the case, despite the fact that he lacks the information necessary to assure himself that the agreed statement would be an accurate one; he may ask the official court reporter as a courtesy to read back certain limited portions of the reporter’s shorthand notes (or all of them, if the trial was a short one); and it has been suggested- — -though perhaps without too much regard for the practicalities of some situations — that he may even interview the trial judge and seek to inspect any notes which the trial judge kept of the trial proceedings. Such efforts are apt to be incredibly time-consuming and frustrating, and sometimes may arouse in counsel a feeling that he would be well advised to avoid future assignments of appellate in forma pauperis work. But worse than that, in many instances these efforts will be wholly unsatisfactory as a means of safeguarding the defendant’s rights.
“Recollections and notes of trial counsel and of others are apt to be faulty and incomplete. Frequently, issues simply cannot even be seen — let alone assessed — without reading an accurate transcript. Particularly is this true of questions relating to evidence or to the judge’s charge; and it may also apply to many other types of questions. Moreover, the actual record (if appellate counsel could have it to inspect) might disclose issues substantial enough to constitute probable or possible ‘plain error,’ even though trial counsel was not aware of their existence; and the indigent should have the same opportunity as the wealthy to urge that plain error should be noticed on appeal. In short, a conscientious counsel freshly entering the case at the appellate stage normally is likely to conclude that a full or partial transcript of the trial proceedings will be indispensable if the requisite ‘dependable record’ is to be obtained as a basis for evaluating the case.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to grant a ‘“fresh start’” to the “‘honest but unfortunate debtor.’” Grogan v. Garner, 498 U. S. 279,286,287 (1991). Both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 of the Code permit an insolvent individual to discharge certain unpaid debts toward that end. Chapter 7 authorizes a discharge of prepetition debts following the liquidation of the debtor’s assets by a bankruptcy trustee, who then distributes the proceeds to creditors. Chapter 13 authorizes an individual with regular income to obtain a discharge after the successful completion of a payment plan approved by the bankruptcy court. Under Chapter 7 the debtor’s nonexempt assets are controlled by the bankruptcy trustee; under Chapter 13 the debtor retains possession of his property. A proceeding that is commenced under Chapter 7 may be converted to a Chapter 13 proceeding and vice versa. 11 U. S. C. §§ 706(a), 1307(a) and (c)..
An issue that has arisen with disturbing frequency is whether a debtor who acts in bad faith prior to, or in the course of, filing a Chapter 13 petition by, for example, fraudulently concealing significant assets, thereby forfeits his right to obtain Chapter 13 relief. The issue may arise at the outset of a Chapter 13 case in response to a motion by creditors or by the United States trustee either to dismiss the case or to convert it to Chapter 7, see § 1307(c). It also may arise in a Chapter 7 case when a debtor files a motion under § 706(a) to convert to Chapter 13. In the former context, despite the absence of any statutory provision specifically addressing the issue, the federal courts are virtually unanimous that prepetition bad-faith conduct may cause a forfeiture of any right to proceed with a Chapter 13 case. In the latter context, however, some courts have suggested that even a bad-faith debtor has an absolute right to convert at least one Chapter 7 proceeding into a Chapter 13 case even though the case will thereafter be dismissed or immediately-returned to Chapter 7. We granted certiorari to decide whether the Code mandates that procedural anomaly. 547 U. S. 1191 (2006).
I
On March 11,2003, petitioner, Robert Marrama, filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7, thereby creating an estate consisting of all his property “wherever located and by whomever held.” 11 U. S. C. § 541(a). Respondent Mark DeGiacomo is the trustee of that estate. Respondent Citizens Bank of Massachusetts (hereinafter Bank) is the principal creditor.
In verified schedules attached to his petition, Marrama made a number of statements about his principal asset, a house in Maine, that were misleading or inaccurate. For instance, while he disclosed that he was the sole beneficiary of the trust that owned the property, he listed its value as zero. He also denied that he had transferred any property other than in the ordinary course of business during the year preceding the filing of his petition. Neither statement was true. In fact, the Maine property had substantial value, and Marrama had transferred it into the newly created trust for no consideration seven months prior to filing his Chapter 7 petition. Marrama later admitted that the purpose of the transfer was to protect the property from his creditors.
After Marrama’s examination at the meeting of creditors, see 11 U. S. C. § 341, the trustee advised Marrama’s counsel that he intended to recover the Maine property as an asset of the estate. Thereafter, Marrama filed a “Verified Notice of Conversion to Chapter 13.” Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(2), the notice of conversion was treated as a motion to convert, to which both the trustee and the Bank filed objections. Relying primarily on Marrama’s attempt to conceal the Maine property from his creditors, the trustee contended that the request to convert was made in bad faith and would constitute an abuse of the bankruptcy process. The Bank opposed the conversion on similar grounds.
At the hearing on the conversion issue, Marrama explained through counsel that his misstatements about the Maine property were attributable to “scrivener’s error,” that he had originally filed under Chapter 7 rather than Chapter 13 because he was then unemployed, and that he had recently become employed and was therefore eligible to proceed under Chapter 13. The Bankruptcy Judge rejected these arguments, ruling that there is no “Oops” defense to the concealment of assets and that the facts established a “bad faith” case. App. 34a~35a. The judge denied the request for conversion.
Marrama’s principal argument on appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, for the First Circuit was that he had an absolute right to convert his case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 under the plain language of § 706(a) of the Code. The panel affirmed the decision of the Bankruptcy Court. It construed § 706(a), when read in connection with other provisions of the Code and the Bankruptcy Rules, as creating a right to convert a case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 that “is absolute only in the absence of extreme circumstances.” In re Marrama, 313 B. R. 525, 531 (2004). In concluding that the record disclosed such circumstances, the panel relied on Marrama’s failure to describe the transfer of the Maine residence into the revocable trust, his attempt to obtain a homestead exemption on rental property in Massachusetts, and his nondisclosure of an anticipated tax refund.
On appeal from the panel, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also rejected the argument that § 706(a) gives a Chapter 7 debtor an absolute right to convert to Chapter 13. In addition to emphasizing that the statute uses the word “may” rather than “shall,” the court added:
“In construing subsection 706(a), it is important to bear in mind that the bankruptcy court has unquestioned authority to dismiss a chapter 13 petition — as distinguished from converting the case to chapter 13 — based upon a showing of ‘bad faith’ on the part of the debtor. We can discern neither a theoretical nor a practical reason that Congress would have chosen to treat a first-time motion to convert a chapter 7 case to chapter 13 under subsection 706(a) differently from the filing of a chapter 13 petition in the first instance.” In re Marrama, 430 F. 3d 474, 479 (2005) (citations omitted).
While other Courts of Appeals and Bankruptcy Appellate Panels have refused to recognize any “bad faith” exception to the conversion right created by § 706(a), see n. 2, supra, we conclude that the courts in this case correctly held that Marrama forfeited his right to proceed under Chapter 13.
II
The two provisions of the Bankruptcy Code most relevant to our resolution of the issue are subsections (a) and (d) of 11 U. S. C. § 706, which provide:
“(a) The debtor may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 11, 12, or 13 of this title at any time, if the case has not been converted under section 1112,1208, or 1307 of this title. Any waiver of the right to convert a case under this subsection is unenforceable.
“(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a case may not be converted to a case under another chapter of this title unless the debtor may be a debtor under such chapter.”
Petitioner contends that subsection (a) creates an unqualified right of conversion. He seeks support from language in both the House and Senate Committee Reports on the provision. The Senate Report stated:
“Subsection (a) of this section gives the debtor the onetime absolute right of conversion of a liquidation case to a reorganization or individual repayment plan case. If the case has already once been converted from chapter 11 or 13 to chapter 7, then the debtor does not have that right. The policy of the provision is that the debtor should always be given the opportunity to repay his debts, and a waiver of the right to convert a case is unenforceable.” S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 94 (1978); see also H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 380 (1977) (using nearly identical language).
The Committee Reports’ reference to an “absolute right” of conversion is more equivocal than petitioner suggests. Assuming that the described debtor’s “opportunity to repay his debts” is a shorthand reference to a right to proceed under Chapter 13, the statement that he should “always” have that right is inconsistent with the earlier recognition that it is only a one-time right that does not survive a previous conversion to, or filing under, Chapter 13. More importantly, the broad description of the right as “absolute” fails to give full effect to the express limitation in subsection (d). The words “unless the debtor may be a debtor under such chapter” expressly conditioned Marrama’s right to convert on his ability to qualify as a “debtor” under Chapter 13.
There are at least two possible reasons why Marrama may not qualify as such a debtor, one arising under § 109(e) of the Code, and the other turning on the construction of the word “cause” in § 1307(c). The former provision imposes a limit on the amount of indebtedness that an individual may have in order to qualify for Chapter 13 relief. More pertinently, the latter provision, § 1307(c), provides that a Chapter 13 proceeding may be either dismissed or converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding “for cause” and includes a nonexclusive list of 10 causes justifying that relief. None of the specified causes mentions prepetition bad-faith conduct (although paragraph (10) does identify one form of Chapter 7 error— which is necessarily prepetition conduct — that would justify dismissal of a Chapter 13 case). Bankruptcy courts nevertheless routinely treat dismissal for prepetition bad-faith conduct as implicitly authorized by the words “for cause.” See n. 1, supra. In practical effect, a ruling that an individual’s Chapter 13 case should be dismissed or converted to Chapter 7 because of prepetition bad-faith conduct, including fraudulent acts committed in an earlier Chapter 7 proceeding, is tantamount to a ruling that the individual does not qualify as a debtor under Chapter 13. That individual, in other words, is not a member of the class of “ ‘honest but unfortunate debtor [s]’” that the bankruptcy laws were enacted to protect. See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U. S., at 287. The text of § 706(d) therefore provides adequate authority for the denial of his motion to convert.
The class of honest but unfortunate debtors who do possess an absolute right to convert their eases from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 includes the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who file Chapter 7 petitions each year. Congress sought to give these individuals the chance to repay their debts should they acquire the means to do so. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals observed, the reference in § 706(a) to the unenforceability of a waiver of the right to convert functions “as a consumer protection provision against adhesion contracts, whereby a debtor's creditors might be precluded from attempting to prescribe a waiver of the debtor’s right to convert to chapter 13 as a non-negotiable condition of its contractual agreements.” 430 F. 3d, at 479.
A statutory provision protecting a borrower from waiver is not a shield against forfeiture. Nothing in the text of either § 706 or § 1307(c) (or the legislative history of either provision) limits the authority of the court to take appropriate action in response to fraudulent conduct by the atypical litigant who has demonstrated that he is not entitled to the relief available to the typical debtor. On the contrary, the broad authority granted to bankruptcy judges to take any action that is necessary or appropriate “to prevent an abuse of process” described in § 105(a) of the Code, is surely adequate to authorize an immediate denial of a motion to convert filed under § 706 in lieu of a conversion order that merely postpones the allowance of equivalent relief and may provide a debtor with an opportunity to take action prejudicial to creditors.
Indeed, as the Solicitor General has argued in his brief amicus curiae, even if § 105(a) had not been enacted, the inherent power of every federal court to sanction “abusive litigation practices,” see Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U. S. 752, 765 (1980), might well provide an adequate justification for a prompt, rather than a delayed, ruling on an unmeritorious attempt to qualify as a debtor under Chapter 13.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
See, e. g., In re Alt, 305 F. 3d 413, 418-419 (CA6 2002); In re Leavitt, 171 F. 3d 1219,1224 (CA9 1999); In re Kestell, 99 F. 3d 146,148 (CA4 1996); In re Molitor, 76 F. 3d 218, 220 (CA8 1996); In re Gier, 986 F. 2d 1326, 1329-1330 (CA10 1993); In re Love, 957 F 2d 1350,1354 (CA7 1992); In re Sullivan, 326 B. R. 204, 211 (Bkrtcy. App. Panel CA1 2005) (per curiam).
See, e. g., In re Martin, 880 F. 2d 857, 859 (CA5 1989); In re Croston, 313 B. R. 447 (Bkrtcy. App. Panel CA9 2004); In re Miller, 303 B. R. 471 (Bkrtcy. App. Panel CA10 2003).
The trustee also noted that in his original verified schedules Marrama had claimed a property in Gloucester, Mass., as a homestead exemption, see 11 U. S. C. § 522(b)(2); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 188, §1 (West 2005), but testified at the meeting of creditors that he did not reside at the property and was receiving rental income from it, App. 71a-72a. Moreover, when asked at the meeting whether anyone owed him any money, Marrama responded “No,” id., at 50a, and in response to a similar question on Schedule B to his petition, which specifically requested a description of any “tax refunds,” Marrama indicated that he had “none,” Supp. App. 6. In fact, Marrama had filed an amended tax return in July 2002 in which he claimed the right to a refund, and shortly before the hearing on the motion to convert, the Internal Revenue Service informed the trustee that Marrama was entitled to a refund of $8,745.86, App. 30a-31a.
The parties dispute the accuracy of this representation. The trustee’s brief notes that Schedule I to Marrama’s original petition indicates that he had been employed by a flooring company at the time the case was filed. See Brief for Respondent Mark G. DeGiacomo 10, n. 7 (citing Supp. App. 18, 30). Marrama’s counsel stated during oral argument, however, that the income listed in Schedule I represented an estimate based on employment that had not yet begun. Tr. of Oral Arg. 24. Since the sufficiency of the evidence of bad faith is not at issue, we may assume that Marrama did have more income available when he sought to convert than when he commenced the Chapter 7 case.
The judicial council of any circuit is authorized by statute to establish a bankruptcy appellate panel service, comprising bankruptcy judges, to hear appeals from the bankruptcy courts with the consent of the parties. See 28 U. S. C. § 158(b); Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 252 (1992). The First Circuit has established this service.
Subsection (e) of 11 U. S. C. §109 provides:
“Only an individual with regular income that owes, on the date of the filing of the petition, noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts of less than $250,000 and noncontingent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $750,000, or an individual with regular income and such individual’s spouse, except a stockbroker or a commodity broker, that owe, on the date of the filing of the petition, noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts that aggregate less than $250,000 and noncontingent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $750,000 may be a debtor under chapter 13 of this title.”
These dollar limits are subject to adjustment for inflation every three years. See § 104(b).
Marrama initiated a new Chapter 13 case the day after we granted certiorari in the present case. The new case was dismissed on the grounds that, under § 109(e), he was ineligible to be a Chapter 13 debtor. See In re Marrama, 345 B. R. 458, 463-464, and n. 10 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Mass. 2006). As the Bankruptcy Judge made no such determination on the record before us in this case, and as it is not necessary to our decision that such a determination be made, we do not consider whether Marrama fails to meet the § 109(e) debt limit.
Title 11 U. S. C. § 1307(c) provides, in relevant part:
“Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause, including—
“(1) unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors;
“(2) nonpayment of any fees and charges required under chapter 123 of title 28;
“(3) failure to file a plan timely under section 1321 of this title;
“(10) only on request of the United States trustee, failure to timely file the information required by paragraph (2) of section 521.”
Section 521(2), which has since been amended and redesignated as § 521(a)(2), see 119 Stat. 38, imposes a duty on a debtor in a Chapter 7 proceeding to file within a certain time period a statement of intent with respect to the retention or surrender of property being used to secure debts. See 11 U. S. C. § 521(a)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. V).
Indeed, because § 521(a)(2) by its terms applies only to Chapter 7 debtors, at least one prominent treatise has assumed that this subsection could only apply to a debtor who has converted a case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13. See 8 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1307.04[9] (rev. 15th ed. 2006).
We are advised by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that 833,148 Chapter 7 cases were filed in fiscal year 2006. Memorandum from Steven R. Schlesinger, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, to Supreme Court Library (Dec. 13, 2006) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
We have no occasion here to articulate with precision what conduct qualifies as “bad faith” sufficient to permit a bankruptcy judge to dismiss a Chapter 13 case or to deny conversion from Chapter 7. It suffices to emphasize that the debtor’s conduct must, in fact, be atypical. Limiting dismissal or denial of conversion to extraordinary cases is particularly appropriate in light of the fact that lack of good faith in proposing a Chapter 13 plan is an express statutory ground for denying plan confirmation. 11 U. S. C. § 1325(a)(3); see In re Love, 957 F. 2d, at 1356 (“Because dismissal is harsh . . . the bankruptcy court should be more reluctant to dismiss a petition ... for lack of good faith than to reject a plan for lack of good faith under Section 1325(a)”).
Title 11 U. S. C. § 105(a) provides:
“The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.”
Both the Chapter 7 trustee and the United States as amicus curiae argue in their briefs that in the interval between the allowance of a motion to convert under § 706(a) and the subsequent granting of a motion to dismiss under § 1307(c), the fact that the debtor would have possession of the property formerly under the control of the trustee would create an opportunity for the debtor to take actions that would impair the rights of creditors. Whether or not that risk is significant, under our understanding of the Code, the debtor’s prior misconduct may provide a sufficient justification for a denial of his motion to convert.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Colorado allows its citizens to make laws directly through initiatives placed on election ballots. See Colo. Const., Art. V, §§1(1), (2); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§1-40-101 to 1-40-133 (1998). We review in this case three conditions Colorado places on the ballot-initiative process: (1) the requirement that initiative-petition circulators be registered voters, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-112(1) (1998); (2) the requirement that they wear an identification badge bearing the circulator’s name, § 1-40-112(2); and (3) the requirement that proponents of an initiative report the names and addresses of all paid circula-tors and the amount paid to each circulator, § 1-40-121.
Precedent guides our review. In Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414 (1988), we struck down Colorado’s prohibition of payment for the circulation of ballot-initiative petitions. Petition circulation, we held, is “core political speech,” because it involves “interactive communication concerning political change.” Id., at 422 (internal quotation marks omitted). First Amendment protection for such interaction, we agreed, is "at its zenith.” Id., at 425 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have also recognized, however, that “there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974); see Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 358 (1997); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 788 (1983). Taking careful account of these guides, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld some of the State’s regulations, but found the three controls at issue excessively restrictive of political speech, and therefore declared them invalid. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer, 120 F. 3d 1092 (1997). We granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 1107 (1998), and now affirm that judgment.
I
The complaint in this action was filed in 1993 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983; it challenged six of Colorado’s many controls on the initiative-petition process. Plaintiffs, now respondents, included American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit, public interest organization that supports direct democracy, and several individual participants in Colorado’s initiative process. In this opinion we refer to plaintiffs-respondents, collectively, as ACLF. ACLF charged that the following prescriptions of Colorado’s law governing initiative petitions violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee: (1) the requirement that petition circulators be at least 18 years old, Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-40-112(1) (1998); (2) the further requirement that they be registered voters, ibid.; (3) the limitation of the petition circulation period to six months, § 1-40-108; (4) the requirement that petition circulators wear identification badges stating their names, their status as “VOLUNTEER” or “PAID,” and if the latter, the name and telephone number of their employer, §1-40-112(2); (5) the requirement that circulators attach to each pétition section an affidavit containing, inter alia, the circulator’s name and address and a statement that “he or she has read and understands the laws governing the circulation of petitions,” §1-40-111(2); and (6) the requirements that initiative proponents disclose (a) at the time they file their petition, the name, address, and county of voter registration of all paid circulators, the amount of money proponents paid per petition signature, and the total amount paid to each circulator, and (b) on a monthly basis, the names of the proponents, the name and address of each paid circulator, the name of the proposed ballot measure, and the amount of money paid and owed to each circulator during the month, § 1-40-121.
The District Court, after a bench trial, struck down the badge requirement and portions of the disclosure requirements, but upheld the age and affidavit requirements and the six-month limit on petition circulation. See American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer, 870 F. Supp. 995, 1001-1004 (Colo. 1994). The District Court also found that the registration requirement "limits the number of persons available to circulate... and, accordingly, restricts core political speech.” Id., at 1002. Nevertheless, that court upheld the registration requirement. In 1980, the District Court noted, the registration requirement had been adopted by Colorado’s voters as a constitutional amendment. See ibid. For that reason, the District Court believed, the restriction was "not subject to any level of scrutiny.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. See 120 F. 3d 1092 (CA10 1997). That court properly sought guidance from our recent decisions on ballot access, see, e. g., Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351 (1997), and on handbill distribution, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334 (1995). See 120 F. 3d, at 1097, 1103. Initiative-petition circulators, the Tenth Circuit recognized, resemble handbill distributors, in that both seek to promote public support for a particular issue or position. See id., at 1103. Initiative-petition circulators also resemble candidate-petition signature gatherers, however, for both seek ballot access. In common with the District Court, the Tenth Circuit upheld, as reasonable regulations of the ballot-initiative process, the age restriction, the six-month limit on petition circulation, and the affidavit requirement. See id., at 1098-1100, 1101. The Court of Appeals struck down the requirement that petition circulators be registered voters, and also held portions of the badge and disclosure requirements invalid as trenching unnecessarily and improperly on political expression. See id., at 1100,1101-1105.
I — { HH
As the Tenth Circuit recognized in upholding the age restriction, the six-month limit on circulation, and the affidavit requirement, States allowing ballot initiatives have considerable leeway to protect the integrity and reliability of the initiative process, as they have with respect to election processes generally. See Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F. 3d 1491, 1494, 1500-1501 (CA11 1996) (upholding single subject and unambiguous title requirements for initiative proposals to amend Florida’s Constitution), cert. denied, 519 U. S. 1151 (1997); Taxpayers United For Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F. 2d 291, 293-294, 296-297 (CA6 1998) (upholding Michigan procedures for checking voters’ signatures on initiative petitions). We have several times said "no litmus-paper test” will separate valid ballot-access provisions from invalid interactive speech restrictions; we have come upon "no substitute for the hard judgments that must be made.” Storer, 415 U. S., at 730; see Timmons, 520 U. S., at 359; Anderson, 460 U. S., at 789-790. But the First Amendment requires us to be vigilant in making those judgments, to guard against undue hindrances to political conversations and the exchange of ideas. See Meyer, 486 U. S., at 421. We therefore detail why we are satisfied that, as in Meyer, the restrictions in question significantly inhibit communication with voters about proposed political change, and are not warranted by the state interests (administrative efficiency, fraud detection, informing voters) alleged to justify those restrictions. Our judgment is informed by other means Colorado employs to accomplish its regulatory purposes.
rH HH HH
By constitutional amendment in 1980, see Colo. Const., Art. V, § 1(6), and corresponding statutory change the next year, see 1981 Colo. Sess. Laws, eh. 56, §4, Colorado added to the requirement that petition circulators be residents, the further requirement that they be registered voters. Registration, Colorado’s Attorney General explained at oral argument, demonstrates “committment] to the Colorado law-making process,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 10, and facilitates verification of the circulator’s residence, see id., at 10, 14. Beyond question, Colorado’s registration requirement drastically reduces the number of persons, both volunteer and paid, available to circulate petitions. We must therefore inquire whether the State’s concerns warrant the reduction. See Timmons, 520 U. S., at 358.
When this case was before the District Court, registered voters in Colorado numbered approximately 1.9 million. At least 400,000 persons eligible to vote were not registered. See 2 Tr. 159 (testimony of Donetta Davidson, elections official in the Colorado Secretary of State’s office); 120 F. 3d, at 1100 (“Colorado acknowledges there are at least 400,000 qualified but unregistered voters in the state.”).
Trial testimony complemented the statistical picture. Typical of the submissions, initiative proponent Paul Grant testified: “Trying to circulate an initiative petition, you’re drawing on people who are not involved in normal partisan politics for the most part.... [L]arge numbers of these people, our natural support, are not registered voters.” 1 Tr. 128.
As earlier noted, see supra, at 190, the District Court found from the statistical and testimonial evidence: “The record does show that the requirement of registration limits the number of persons available to circulate and sign [initiative] petitions and, accordingly, restricts core political speech.” 870 P. Supp., at 1002. Because the requirement’s source was a referendum approved by the people of Colorado, however, the District Court deemed the prescription “not subject to any level of [judicial] scrutiny.” Ibid. That misjudgment was corrected by the Tenth Circuit: “The voters may no more violate the United States Constitution by enacting a ballot issue than the genera] assembly may by enacting legislation.” 120 F. 3d, at 1100.
The Tenth Circuit reasoned that the registration requirement placed on Colorado’s voter-eligible population produces a speech diminution of the very kind produced by the ban on paid circulators at issue in Meyer. See 120 F. 3d, at 1100. We agree. The requirement that circulators be not merely voter eligible, but registered voters, it is scarcely debatable given the uncontested numbers, see supra, at 193, and n. 15, decreases the pool of potential circulators as certainly as that pool is decreased by the prohibition of payment to circula-tors. Both provisions “limi[t] the number of voices who will convey [the initiative proponents’] message” and, consequently, cut down “the size of the audience [proponents] can reach.” Meyer, 486 U. S., at 422, 423; see Bernbeck v. Moore, 126 F. 3d 1114, 1116 (CA8 1997) (quoting Meyer); see also Meyer, 486 U. S., at 423 (stating, further, that the challenged restriction reduced the chances that initiative proponents would gather signatures sufficient in number to qualify for the ballot, and thus limited proponents’ “ability to make the matter the focus of statewide discussion”). In this ease, as in Meyer, the requirement “imposes a burden on political expression that the State has failed to justify.” Id., at 428.
Colorado acknowledges that the registration requirement limits speech, but not severely, the State asserts, because “it is exceptionally easy to register to vote.” Reply Brief 5, 6; see Brief for Petitioner 30-31. The ease with which qualified voters may register to vote, however, does not lift the burden on speech at petition circulation time. Of course there are individuals who fail to register out of ignorance or apathy. See post, at 219-220 (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). But there are also individuals for whom, as the trial record shows, the choice not to register implicates political thought and expression. See 1 Tr. 14 (testimony of ballot-initiative organizer Jack Hawkins). A lead plaintiff in this ease, long active in ballot-initiative support — a party no doubt “ ‘able and willing’ to convey a political message,” cf. post, at 219 (O’Con-nor, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) — testified that his refusal to register is a “form of... private and public protest.” 1 Tr. 223 (testimony of William Orr, executive director of ACLF). Another initiative proponent similarly stated that some circulators refuse to register because “they don’t believe that the political process is responsive to their needs.” Id., at 58 (testimony of Jon Baraga). For these voter-eligible circulators, the ease of registration misses the point.
The State’s dominant justification appears to be its strong interest in policing lawbreakers among petition circulators. Colorado seeks to ensure that circulators will be amenable to the Secretary of State’s subpoena power, which in these matters does not extend beyond the State’s borders. See Brief for Petitioner 32. The interest in reaching law violators, however, is served by the requirement, upheld below, that each circulator submit an affidavit setting out, among several particulars, the “address at which he or she resides, including the street name and number, the city or town, [and] the county.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-40-111(2) (1998); see supra, at 189, n. 7. This address attestation, we note, has an immediacy, and corresponding reliability, that a voter’s registration may lack. The attestation is made at the time a petition section is submitted; a voter’s registration may lack that currency.
ACLF did not challenge Colorado’s right to require that all circulators be residents, a requirement that, the Tenth Circuit said, “more precisely achieved” the State’s subpoena service objective. 120 F. 3d, at 1100. Nor was any eligible-to-vote qualification in contest in this lawsuit. Colorado maintains that it is more difficult to determine who is a state resident than it is to determine who is a registered voter. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10,14. The force of that argument is diminished, however, by the affidavit attesting to residence that each circulator must submit with each petition section.
In sum, assuming that a residence requirement would be upheld as a needful integrity-policing measure — a question we, like the Tenth Circuit, see 120 F. 3d, at 1100, have no occasion to decide because the parties have not placed the matter of residence at issue — the added registration requirement is not warranted. That requirement cuts down the number of message carriers in the ballot-access arena without impelling cause.
IV
Colorado enacted the provision requiring initiative-petition circulators to wear identification badges in 1993, five years after our decision in Meyer. 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws, ch. 183, § l. The Tenth Circuit held the badge requirement invalid insofar as it requires circulators to display their names. See 120 F. 3d, at 1104. The Court of Appeals did not rule on the constitutionality of other elements of the badge provision, namely, the “requirements that the badge disclose whether the circulator is paid or a volunteer, and if paid, by whom.” Ibid. Nor do we.
Evidence presented to the District Court, that court found, “demonstrated that compelling circulators to wear identification badges inhibits participation in the petitioning process.” 870 F. Supp., at 1001. The badge requirement, a veteran ballot-initiative-petition organizer stated, "very definitely limited the number of people willing to work for us and the degree to which those who were willing to work would go out in public.” 1 Tr. 127 (testimony of Paul Grant). Another witness told of harassment he personally experienced as circulator of a hemp initiative petition. See 870 F. Supp., at 1001. He also testified to the reluctance of potential circulators to face the recrimination and retaliation that bearers of petitions on “volatile” issues sometimes encounter: “[W]ith their name on a badge, it makes them afraid.” 1 Tr. 60 (testimony of Jon Baraga). Other petition advocates similarly reported that "potential circulators were not willing to wear personal identification badges.” 870 F. Supp., at 1001-1002.
Colorado urges that the badge enables the public to identify, and the State to apprehend, petition circulators who engage in misconduct. See Brief for Petitioner 36-37; Reply Brief 17. Here again, the affidavit requirement, unsuccessfully challenged below, see supra, at 191, and n. 10, is responsive to the State’s concern; as earlier noted, see supra, at 188-189, and n. 7, each petition section must contain, along with the collected signatures of voters, the circulator’s name, address, and signature. This notarized submission, available to law enforcers, renders less needful the State’s provision for personal names on identification badges.
While the affidavit reveals the name of the petition circulator and is a public record, it is tuned to the speaker’s interest as well as the State’s. Unlike a name badge worn at the time a circulator is soliciting signatures, the affidavit is separated from the moment the circulator speaks. As the Tenth Circuit explained, the name badge requirement “forces circu-labors to reveal their identities at the same time they deliver their political message,” 120 F. 3d, at 1102; it operates when reaction to the circulator’s message is immediate and “may be the most intense, emotional, and unreasoned,” ibid. The affidavit, in contrast, does not expose the circulator to the risk of “heat of the moment” harassment. Cf. 870 F. Supp., at 1004 (observing that affidavits are not instantly accessible, and are therefore less likely to be used “for such purposes as retaliation or harassment”).
Our decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334 (1995), is instructive here. The complainant in McIntyre challenged an Ohio law that prohibited the distribution of anonymous campaign literature. The writing in question was a handbill urging voters to defeat a ballot issue. Applying “exacting scrutiny” to Ohio’s fraud prevention justifications, we held that the ban on anonymous speech violated the First Amendment. See id., at 347, 357. “Circulating a petition is akin to distributing a handbill,” the Tenth Circuit observed in the decision now before us. 120 F. 3d, at 1103. Both involve a one-on-one communication. But the restraint on speech in this ease is more severe than was the restraint in McIntyre. Petition circulation is the less fleeting encounter, for the circulator must endeavor to persuade electors to sign the petition. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 21,25-26. That endeavor, we observed in Meyer, “of necessity involves both the expression of a desire for political change and a discussion of the merits of the proposed change.” 486 U. S., at 421.
The injury to speech is heightened for the petition circulator because the badge requirement compels personal name identification at the precise moment when the circulator’s interest in anonymity is greatest. See 120 F. 3d, at 1102. For this very reason, the name badge requirement does not qualify for inclusion among the “more limited [election process] identification requirement^]” to which we alluded in McIntyre. 514 U. S., at 353 (“We recognize that a State’s enforcement interest might justify a more limited identification requirement, but Ohio has shown scant cause for inhibiting the leafletting at issue here.”); see id., at 358 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). In contrast, the affidavit requirement upheld by the District Court and Court of Appeals, which must be met only after circulators have completed their conversations with electors, exemplifies the type of regulation for which McIntyre left room.
In sum, we conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that Colorado’s current badge requirement discourages participation in the petition circulation process by forcing name identification without sufficient cause. We reiterate this qualification: In its final observation, the Court of Appeals noted that ACLF’s “arguments and evidence focus[ed] entirely on [the circulator identification] requirement”; therefore, that court expressed no opinion whether the additional requirements — that the badge disclose the circulator’s paid or volunteer status, and if paid, by whom — “would pass constitutional muster standing alone.” 120 F. 3d, at 1104. We similarly confine our decision.
V
Like the badge requirement, Colorado’s disclosure provisions were enacted post -Meyer in 1993. See 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws, ch. 183, § l. The Tenth Circuit trimmed these provisions. Colorado requires ballot-initiative proponents who pay circulators to file both a final report when the initiative petition is submitted to the Secretary of State, and monthly reports during the circulation period. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-121 (1998), set out supra, at 189-190, n. 8. The Tenth Circuit invalidated the final report provision only insofar as it compels disclosure of information specific to each paid cir-culator, in particular, the circulators’ names and addresses and the total amount paid to each circulator. See 120 F. 3d, at 1104-1105. As modified by the Court of Appeals decision, the final report will reveal the amount paid per petition signature, and thus, effectively, the total amount paid to petition circulators. See ibid.
The Court of Appeals next addressed Colorado’s provision demanding “detailed monthly disclosures.” 120 F. 3d, at 1105. In a concise paragraph, the court rejected compelled disclosure of the name and addresses (residential and business) of each paid circulator, and the amount of money paid and owed to each circulator, during the month in question. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ l-40-121(2)(b), (d) (1998). The Court of Appeals identified no infirmity in the required reporting of petition proponents’ names, or in the call for disclosure of proposed ballot measures for which paid circulators were engaged. See §§ l-40-121(2)(a), (c). We express no opinion whether these monthly report prescriptions, standing alone, would survive review.
In ruling on Colorado’s disclosure requirements for paid circulations, the Court of Appeals looked primarily to our decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam). In that decision, we stated that “exacting scrutiny” is necessary when compelled disclosure of campaign-related payments is at issue. See id., at 64-65. We nevertheless upheld, as substantially related to important governmental interests, the recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 86 Stat. 3, as amended, 88 Stat. 1263, 2 U. S. C. §431 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. IV). See 424 U. S., at 66-68, 84. We explained in Buckley that disclosure provides the electorate with information “as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent,” thereby aiding electors in evaluating those who seek their vote. Id., at 66 (internal quotation marks omitted). We further observed that disclosure requirements “deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity.” Id., at 67; see also Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 250 (1936) (observing that an “informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment”).
Mindful of Buckley, the Tenth Circuit did not upset Colorado’s disclosure requirements “as a whole.” But see post, at 233 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting). Notably, the Court of Appeals upheld the State’s requirements for disclosure of payors, in particular, proponents’ names and the total amount they have spent to collect signatures for their petitions. See 120 F. 3d, at 1104-1105. In this regard, the State and supporting amici stress the importance of disclosure as a control or check on domination of the initiative process by affluent special interest groups. See Reply Brief 15 (“[T]here are increasingly more initiatives that are the product of large monied interests.”); Brief for Council of State Governments et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (“Today the initiative and referendum process is dominated by money and professional firms.”). Disclosure of the names of initiative sponsors, and of the amounts they have spent gathering support for their initiatives, responds to that substantial state interest. See 870 F. Supp., at 1003 (“What is of interest is the payor, not the payees.’); ef. this Court’s Rule 87.6 (requiring disclosure of “every person or entity... who made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief”).
Through the disclosure requirements that remain in place, voters are informed of the source and amount of money spent by proponents to get a measure on the ballot; in other words, voters will be told “who has proposed [a measure],” and “who has provided funds for its circulation.” See post, at 224 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). The added benefit of revealing the names of paid circulators and amounts paid to each circulator, the lower courts fairly determined from the record as a whole, is hardly apparent and has not been demonstrated.
We note, furthermore, that ballot initiatives do not involve the risk of “quid pro quo” corruption present when money is paid to, or for, candidates. See Meyer, 486 U. S., at 427-428 (citing First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 790 (1978) (“The risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elections... simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue.”)); McIntyre, 514 U. S., at 352, n. 15. In addition, as we stated in Meyer, “the risk of fraud or corruption, or the appearance thereof, is more remote at the petition stage of an initiative than at the time of balloting.” 486 U. S., at 427. Finally, absent evidence to the contrary, “we are not prepared to assume that a professional circulator — whose qualifications for similar future assignments may well depend on a reputation for competence and integrity— is any more likely to accept false signatures than a volunteer who is motivated entirely by an interest in having the proposition placed on the ballot.” Id., at 426.
In sum, we agree with the Court of Appeals appraisal: Listing paid circulators and their income from circulation "forc[es] paid circulators to surrender the anonymity enjoyed by their volunteer counterparts,” 120 F. 3d, at 1105; no more than tenuously related to the substantial interests disclosure serves, Colorado’s reporting requirements, to the extent that they target paid circulators, “fai[l] exacting scrutiny,” ibid.
VI
Through less problematic measures, Colorado can and does meet the State’s substantial interests in regulating the ballot-initiative process. Colorado aims to protect the integrity of the initiative process, specifically, to deter fraud and diminish corruption. See Brief for Petitioner 24,42,45; Reply Brief 13,14,17. To serve that important interest, as we observed in Meyer, Colorado retains an arsenal of safeguards. See 486 U. S., at 426-427; 120 F. 3d, at 1103, 1105; see, e. g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § l-40-130(l)(b) (1998) (making it criminal to forge initiative-petition signatures); § 1-40-132(1) (initiative-petition section deemed void if circulator has violated any provision of the laws governing circulation). To inform the publie “where [the] money comes from,” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 66 (internal quotation marks omitted), we reiterate, the State legitimately requires sponsors of ballot initiatives to disclose who pays petition circulators, and how much. See supra, at 202-203.
To ensure grass roots support, Colorado conditions placement of an initiative proposal on the ballot on the proponent’s submission of valid signatures representing five percent of the total votes cast for all candidates for Secretary of State at the previous general election. Colo. Const., Art. V, § 1(2); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(1) (1998); see Meyer, 486 U. S., at 425-426; 120 F. 3d, at 1105. Furthermore, in aid of efficiency, veracity, or clarity, Colorado has provided for an array of process measures not contested here by ACLF. These measures prescribe, inter alia, a single subject per initiative limitation, Colo. Rev. Stat. § l-40-106.5(l)(a) (1998), a signature verification method, § 1-40-116, a large, plain-English notice alerting potential signers of petitions to the law’s requirements, § 1-40-110(1), and the text of the affidavit to which all circulators must subscribe, § 1-40-111(2).
* * *
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Tenth Circuit correctly separated necessary or proper ballot-access controls from restrictions that unjustifiably inhibit the circulation of ballot-initiative petitions. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Individual plaintiffs included: David Aitken, who, as chairman of the Colorado Libertarian Party, had organized the circulation of several initiative petitions; Jon Baraga, statewide petition coordinator for the Colorado Hemp Initiative; Craig Eley and Jack Hawkins, circulators of petitions for the Safe Workplace Initiative and Worker’s Choice of Care Initiative; Lonnie Haynes, an initiative-supporting member of ACLF; Alden Kautz, a circulator of numerous initiative petitions; Bill Orr, executive director of ACLF and a qualified but unregistered voter, who regularly participated in the petition process and wanted to circulate petitions; and William David Orr, a minor who wanted to circulate petitions. See American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer, 120 F. 3d 1092, 1096-1097 (CA10 1997); Brief for Respondents David Aitken et al. 2, 3, 5, 6.
Section 1-40-112(1) provides:
“No section of a petition for any initiative or referendum measure shall be circulated by any person who is not a registered elector and at least eighteen years of age at the time the section is circulated.”
To be a registered voter, one must reside in Colorado. 101(l)(b). ACLF did not challenge the residency requirement in this action.
Section 1-40-108(1) provides in relevant part:
“No petition for any ballot issue shall be of any effect unless filed with the secretary of state within six months from the date that the titles, submission clause, and summary have been fixed and determined pursuant to the provisions of sections 1-40-106 and 1-40-107....”
Section 1-40-112(2) provides:
“(a) All circulators who are not to be paid for circulating petitions concerning ballot issues shall display an identification badge that includes the words “VOLUNTEER CIRCULATOR’ in bold-faced type which is clearly legible and the circulator’s name. concern-
“(b) All circulators who are to be paid for circulating petitions concerning ballot issues shall display an identification badge that includes the words ‘PAID CIRCULATOR’ in bold-faced type which is clearly legible, the circulator’s name, and the name and telephone number of the individual employing the circulator.” which
A petition section is a “bound compilation of initiative forms... which... include... a copy of the proposed [ballot] measure;... ruled lines numbered consecutively for registered electors’ signatures; and a final page that contains the affidavit required by section 1-40-111(2).” §1-40-102(6).
Section 1-40-111(2) provides:
“To each petition section shall be attached a signed, notarized, and dated affidavit executed by the registered elector who circulated the petition section, which shall include his or her printed name, the address at which he or she resides, including the street name and number, the dty or town, the county, and the date he or she signed the affidavit; that he or she has read and understands the laws governing the circulation of petitions; that he or she was a registered elector at the time the section of the petition was circulated and signed by the listed electors; that he or she circulated the section of the petition; that each signature thereon was affixed in the circulator’s presence; that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be; that to the best of the circulator’s knowledge and belief each of the persons signing the petition section was, at the time of signing, a registered elector; and that he or she has not paid or will not in the future pay and that he or she believes that no other person has paid or will pay, directly or indirectly, any money or other thing of value to any signer for the purpose of inducing or causing such signer to affix his or her signature to the petition. The secretary of state shall not accept for filing any section of a petition that does not have attached thereto the notarized affidavit required by this section. Any signature added to a section of a petition after the affidavit has been executed shall be invalid.”
Section 1-40-121 provides in relevant part:
“(1) The proponents of the petition shall file... the name, address, and county of voter registration of all circulators who were paid to circulate any section of the petition, the amount paid per signature, and the total amount paid to each circulator. The filing shall be made at the same time the petition is filed with the secretary of state....
“(2) The proponents of the petition shall sign and file monthly reports with the secretary of state, due ten days after the last day of each month in which petitions are circulated on behalf of the proponents by paid circu-lators. Monthly reports shall set forth the following:
"(a) The names of the proponents;
“(b) The name and the residential and business addresses of each of the paid circulators;
“(c) The name of the proposed ballot measure for which petitions are being circulated by paid circulators; and
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Utah claims the right to select extremely valuable oil shale lands located within federal grazing districts in lieu of and as indemnification for original school land grants of significantly lesser value that were frustrated by federal pre-emption, or private entry, prior to survey. The question presented is whether the Secretary of the Interior is obliged to accept Utah’s selections of substitute tracts of the same size as the originally designated sections even though there is a gross disparity between the value of the original grants and the selected substitutes. We hold that the Secretary’s “grossly disparate value” policy is a lawful exercise of the broad discretion vested in him by § 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1272, as amended in 1936, 49 Stat. 1976, 43 U. S. C. § 315f, and is a valid ground for refusing to accept Utah’s selections.
Utah became a State in 1896. In the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, Congress granted Utah, upon admission, four numbered sections in each township for the support of public schools. The statute provided that if the designated sections had already “been sold or otherwise disposed of” pursuant to another Act of Congress, “other lands equivalent thereto... are hereby granted.” The substitute grants, denominated “indemnity lands” were “to be selected within the State in such manner as [its] legislature may provide with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.”
Because much of the State was not surveyed until long-after its admission to the Union, its indemnity or “in lieu” selections were not made promptly. On September 10, 1965, Utah filed the first of 194 selection lists with the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior covering the land in dispute in this litigation. The 194 indemnity-selections include 157,255.90 acres in Uintah County, Utah, all of which are located within federal grazing districts created pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act.
In January 1974, before Utah’s selection lists had been approved or disapproved, the Governor of Utah agreed that the Secretary of the Interior could include two tracts comprising 10,240 acres of selected indemnity lands in an oil shale leasing program, on the understanding that the rental proceeds would ultimately be paid to the State if its selections were approved. The proceeds of the leases are of substantial value.
In February 1974, the Secretary advised the Governor that he would not approve any indemnity applications that involved “grossly disparate values.” He wrote:
“As you know, the Department of the Interior has not as yet acted upon the State’s [indemnity] applications. The principal question presented by the applications is whether pursuant to Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, 48 Stat. 1272 (1934), as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 315f (1972), the Department may refuse to convey applied-for lands to a State where the value of those lands greatly exceeds the value of the lost school lands for which the State seeks indemnity. In January 1967, the then Secretary of the Interior adopted the policy that in the exercise of his discretion under, inter alia, Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, he would refuse to approve indemnity applications that involve grossly disparate values. That policy remains in effect.
“In the present case, although the land values are not precisely determined, it appears that the selections involve lands of grossly disparate values, within the meaning of the Department’s policy. While the Department is not yet prepared to adjudicate the State’s applications, I feel it is appropriate at this time to advise you that we will apply the above-mentioned policy in that adjudication.”
The State promptly filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The facts were stipulated, and Judge Ritter entered summary judgment in favor of the State. He held that if Utah’s selections satisfy all of the statutory criteria governing indemnity selections when filed, the Secretary has no discretion to refuse them pursuant to a “grossly disparate value” policy. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, Utah v. Kleppe, 586 F. 2d 756 (1978), holding that § 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act gave the Secretary no authority to classify land as eligible for selection and that the State had a right to select indemnity land of equal acreage without regard to the relative values of the original grants and the indemnity selections.
Because the dispute between the parties involves a significant issue regarding the disposition of vast amounts of public lands, we granted certiorari. 442 U. S. 928. We believe that the Court of Appeals and the District Court failed to give proper effect to the congressional policy underlying the provision for indemnity selection, and specifically misconstrued § 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act as amended in 1936. We therefore reverse.
I
The Enabling Act of each of the public-land States admitted into the Union since 1802 has included grants of designated sections of federal lands for the purpose of supporting public schools. Whether the Enabling Act contained words of present or future grant, title to the numbered sections did not vest in the State until completion of an official survey. Prior to survey, the Federal Government remained free to dispose of the designated lands “in any manner and for any purpose consistent with applicable federal statutes.” In recognition of the fact that the essentially random grants in place might therefore be unavailable at the time of survey for a variety of reasons, Congress authorized grants of indemnity or “lieu” lands of equal acreage.
As Utah correctly emphasizes, the school land grant was a “solemn agreement” which in some ways may be analogized to a contract between private parties. The United States agreed to cede some of its land to the State in exchange for a commitment by the State to use the revenues derived from the land to educate the citizenry.
The State’s right to select indemnity lands may be viewed as the remedy stipulated by the parties for the Federal Government’s failure to perform entirely its promise to grant the specific numbered sections. The fact that the Utah Enabling Act used the phrase “lands equivalent thereto” and described the substituted lands as “indemnity lands” implies that the purpose of the substitute selections was to provide the State with roughly the same resources with which to support its schools as it would have had had it actually received all of the granted sections in place. Thus, as is typical of private contract remedies, the purpose of the right to make indemnity selections was to give the State the benefit of the bargain.
The history of the general statutes relating to land grants for school purposes confirms this view. ■ Thus, for example, in 1859, when confronted with the fact that many settlers had occupied unsurveyed lands that had been included in school grants, Congress confirmed the settlers’ claims and granted to the States “other lands of like quantity.” Ch. 58, 11 Stat. 385. The substitution of an equal quantity of land provided the States a rough measure of equal value.
The school land grants gave the States a random selection of public lands subject, however, to one important exception. The original school land grants in general, and Utah’s in particular, did not include any numbered sections known to be mineral in character by the time of survey. United States v. Sweet, 245 U. S. 563. This Court so held even though the Utah Enabling Act “neither expressly includes mineral lands nor expressly excludes them.” Id., at 567. The Court’s opinion stressed “the practice of Congress to make a distinction between mineral lands and other lands, to deal with them along different lines, and to withhold mineral lands from disposal save under laws specially including them.” Ibid. Mineral lands were thus excluded not only from the original grants in place but also from the indemnity selections. Since mineral resources provide both the most significant potential source of value and the greatest potential for variation in value in the generally arid western lands, the total exclusion of mineral lands from the school land grants is consistent with an intent that the States’ indemnity selections of equal acreage approximate the value of the numbered sections lost.
In 1927, some nine years after the decision in United States v. Sweet, supra, Congress changed its policy to allow grants of school lands to embrace numbered sections that were mineral in character. But the 1927 statute did not expand the kinds of land available for indemnity selections. Thus, after 1927 even if the lost school lands were mineral in character, a State was prohibited from selecting mineral lands as indemnity. It was not until 1958 that Congress gave the States the right to select mineral lands to replace lost school lands, and that right was expressly conditioned on a determination that the lost lands were also mineral in character. 72 Stat. 928, 43 U. S. C. § 852. See n. 5, supra. For 30 years, then, States were not even permitted to select lands roughly equivalent in value to replace lost mineral lands. The condition in the 1958 statute, that the lost lands be mineral in character before mineral lands could be selected as indemnity, rather clearly reflects an intention to restore the character of the indemnity selection as a substitute of roughly equal value.
Throughout the history of congressional consideration of school land grants and related subjects — a history discussed at great length in the voluminous briefs submitted to us — we find no evidence whatever of any congressional desire to have the right to select indemnity lands do anything more than make the States whole for the loss of value resulting from the unavailability of the originally designated cross section of lands within the State. There is certainly no suggestion of a purpose at any time, including 1958, to allow the States to obtain substantially greater values through the process of selecting indemnity land.
Thus, viewing the program in this broad historical perspective, it is difficult to identify any sensible justification for Utah’s position that it is entitled to select any mineral lands it chooses regardless of the value of the school sections lost. Nevertheless, Utah is quite correct in arguing that the Secretary has no power to reject its selections unless Congress has given it to him. We have no doubt that it has.
II
Prior to the 1930’s, cases in this Court had made it perfectly clear that the Federal Government retained the power to appropriate public lands embraced within school grants for other purposes if it acted in a timely fashion. On the other hand, it was equally clear that the States’ title to unappropriated land in designated sections could not be defeated after survey, and that their right to indemnity selections could not be rejected if they satisfied the statutory criteria when made, and if the selections were filed before the lands were appropriated for other purposes. The authority of the Secretary of the Interior was limited to determining whether the States’ indemnity selections met the relevant statutory criteria. See Wyoming v. United States, 255 U. S. 489; Payne v. New Mexico, 255 U. S. 367, 371.
In the 1930’s, however, dissatisfaction with the rather loose regime governing use and disposition of unappropriated federal lands, prompted mostly by the waste caused by unregulated stock grazing, led to a series of congressional and executive actions that are critical to this case. By means of these actions, all unappropriated federal lands were withdrawn from every form of entry or selection. The withdrawal did not affect the original school land grants in place, whether or not surveyed, but did include all lands then available for school indemnity selections. The lands thus withdrawn were thereafter available for indemnity selections only as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior in the exercise of his discretion.
The sequence of events was as follows. In 1934, Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act “[t]o stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range, and for other purposes.” 48 Stat. 1269. Section 1 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to establish grazing districts in up to 80 million acres of unappropriated federal lands; the establishment of such a district had the effect of withdrawing all lands within its boundaries “from all forms of entry of settlement.” That section also expressly provided that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed in any way... to affect any land heretofore or hereafter surveyed which, except for the provisions of this Act, would be a part of any grant to any State... Thus, § 1 preserved the original school land grants, whether or not the designated sections had already been identified by survey, but the statute made no provision for school indemnity selections.
Because the Taylor Grazing Act as originally passed in 1934 applied to less than half of the federal lands in need of more orderly regulation, President Roosevelt promptly issued Executive Order No. 6910 withdrawing all of the unappropriated and unreserved public lands in 12 Western States, including Utah, from “settlement, location, sale or entry” pending a determination of the best use of the land. The withdrawal affected the land covered by the Taylor Grazing Act as well as land not covered by the statute. The President’s authority to issue Executive Order No. 6910 was expressly conferred by the Pickett Act.
Congress responded to Executive Order No. 6910 by amending the Taylor Grazing Act in 1936 in two respects that are relevant to this case. First, it expanded the acreage subject to the Act, see n. 18, supra. Second, it revised § 7 of the Act, see n. 17, supra, to give the Secretary the authority, in his discretion, to classify both lands within grazing districts and lands withdrawn by the recent Executive Order as proper not only for homesteading, but also, for the first time, for satisfaction of any outstanding “lieu” rights, and to open such lands to “selection.” The section, thus amended, provided in pertinent part:
“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, to examine and classify any lands withdrawn or reserved by Executive order... or within a grazing district, which are... proper for acquisition in satisfaction of any outstanding lieu, exchange or script rights or land grant, and to open such lands to entry, selection, or location for disposal in accordance with such classification under applicable public-land laws.... Such lands shall not he subject to disposition... until after the same have been classified....” (Emphasis added.)
The changes in this section were apparently prompted in part by the fact that while the Taylor Grazing Act withdrawal preserved the States’ school grants in place, no provision had been made in the 1934 version for the States’ indemnity selections from land within grazing districts even though the States had expressed the concern that “the establishment of a grazing district would restrict the State in its indemnity selections.” While this omission may not have been critical in 1934 when the Act was passed — since only about half of the unappropriated federal land was then affected — by 1936, as a consequence of Executive Order No. 6910, no land at all was available in the public domain for indemnity selections. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the amendments to § 7 were at least in part a response to the complaint expressed in congressional hearings in 1935, that there was no land available under current law for indemnity-selections.
The 1936 amendment to § 7 rectified that problem, but did not give the States a completely free choice in making indemnity selections. Rather, Congress decided to route the States’ selections through § 7, and thereby to condition their acceptance on the Secretary’s discretion. That decision was consistent with the dominant purpose of both the Act and Executive Order No. 6910 to exert firm control over the Nation’s land resources through the Department of the Interior. In sum, the Taylor Grazing Act, coupled with the withdrawals by Executive Order, “locked up” all of the federal lands in the Western States pending further action by Congress or the President, except as otherwise permitted in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior for the limited purposes specified in § 7.
This was Congress’ understanding of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1958 when it amended the school land indemnity selection statute to permit selection of mineral lands. Both the House and Senate Reports specifically noted and adopted the Department of the Interior’s assumption “ 'that nothing in this bill is intended to affect the rights or duties of States under other laws’ and, in particular, 'that no change is intended to be made in section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, as amended (43 U. S. C., sec. 315f).’ ” H. R. Rep. No. 2347, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1958). Since Congress was specifically dealing with school indemnity selections, the Reports make it perfectly clear that Congress deemed school indemnity selections to be subject to § 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act. And since the congressional decision in 1958 to allow school land indemnity selections to embrace mineral lands was expressly conditioned on a determination that the lost school lands were also mineral in character, it is manifest that Congress did not intend to grant the States any windfall. It only intended to restore to the States a rough approximation of what was lost. See n. 14, supra.
We therefore hold that the 1936 amendment to the Taylor Grazing Act conferred on the Secretary the authority in his discretion to classify lands within a federal grazing district as proper for school indemnity selection. And we find no merit in the argument that the Secretary’s “grossly disparate value” policy constitutes an abuse of the broad discretion thus conferred. On the contrary, that policy is wholly faithful to Congress’ consistent purpose in providing for indemnity selections, to give the States a rough equivalent of the school land grants in place that were lost through pre-emption or private entry prior to survey. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
“That upon the admission of said State [Utah] into the Union, sections numbered two, sixteen, thirty-two, and thirty-six in every township of said proposed State, and where such sections or any parts thereof have been sold or otherwise disposed of by or under the authority of any Act of Congress other lands equivalent thereto, in legal subdivisions of not less than one quarter section and as contiguous as may be to the section in lieu of which the same is taken, are hereby granted to said State for the support of common schools, such indemnity lands to be selected within said State in such manner as the legislature may provide, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That the second, sixteenth, thirty-second, and thirty-sixth sections embraced in permanent reservations for national purposes shall not, at any time, be subject to the grants nor to the indemnity provisions of this Act, nor shall any lands embraced in Indian, military, or other reservations of any character be subject to the grants or to the indemnity provisions of this Act until the reservation shall have been extinguished and such lands be restored to and become a part of the public domain.” 28 Stat. 109 (emphasis added).
The District Court found that as of May 25, 1976, $48,291,840 had been accumulated. App. to Pet. for Cert. 62a. It should be noted that these proceeds were derived from only 10,240 acres out of the total area selected comprising over 157,000 acres.
Suggested guidelines of the Department of the Interior provide that the policy will not be applied unless the estimated value of the selected lands exceeds that of the base lands by more than $100 per acre or 25% whichever is greater. If the values are grossly disparate using those criteria, the case will be submitted to the Washington office for evaluation of all the circumstances. App. 44-45.
Letter of February 14, 1974, from Rogers Morton, Secretary of the Interior, to Calvin Rampton, Governor of the State of Utah. Id., at 61.
The statute provides, in part:
Ҥ 851. Deficiencies in grants to State by reason of settlements, etc., on designated sections generally
“Where settlements with a view to preemption or homestead have been, or shall hereafter be made, before the survey of the lands in the field, which are found to have been made on sections sixteen or thirty-six, those sections shall be subject to the claims of such settlers; and if such sections or either of them have been or shall be granted, reserved, or pledged for the use of schools or colleges in the State in which they lie, other lands of equal acreage are hereby appropriated and granted, and may be selected, in accordance with the provisions of section 852 of this title, by said State, in lieu of such as may be thus taken by preemption or homestead settlers. And other lands of equal acreage are also hereby appropriated and granted and may be selected, in accordance with the provisions of section 852 of this title, by said State where sections sixteen or thirty-six are, before title could pass to the State, included within any Indian, military, or other reservation, or are, before title could pass to the State, otherwise disposed of by the United States: Provided, That the selection of any lands under this section in lieu of sections granted or reserved to a State shall be a waiver by the State of its right to the granted or reserved sections. And other lands of equal acreage are also appropriated and granted, and may be selected, in accordance with the provisions of section 852 of this title, by said State to compensate deficiencies for school purposes, where sections sixteen or thirty-six are fractional in quantity, or where one or both are wanting by reason of the township being fractional, or from any natural cause whatever. And it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior, without awaiting the extension of the public surveys, to ascertain and determine, by protraction or otherwise, the number of townships that will be included within such Indian, military, or other reservations, and thereupon the State shall be entitled to select indemnity lands to the extent of section for section in lieu of sections therein which have been or shall be granted, reserved, or pledged; but such selections may not be made within the boundaries of said reservation: Provided, however, That nothing in this section contained shall prevent any State from awaiting the extinguishment of any such military, Indian, or other reservation and the restoration of the lands therein embraced to the public domain and then taking the sections sixteen and thirty-six in place therein.” 43 U. S. C. § 851.
Ҥ 852. Selections to supply deficiencies of school lands
“(a) Restrictions
“The lands appropriated by section 851 of this title shall be selected from any unappropriated, surveyed or unsurveyed public lands within the State where such losses or deficiencies occur subject to the following restrictions:
“(1) No lands mineral in character may be selected by a State except to the extent that the selection is being made as indemnity for mineral lands lost to the State because of appropriation before title could pass to the State;
“(2) No lands on a known geologic structure of a producing oil or gas field may be selected except to the extent that the selection is being made as indemnity for lands on such a structure lost to the State because of appropriation before title could pass to the State; and
“(3) Land subject to a mineral lease or permit may be selected if none of the land subject to that lease or permit is in a producing or producible status, subject, however, to the restrictions and conditions of the preceding and following paragraphs of this subsection.” 43 U. S. C. §852 (a).
Title 43 U. S. C. § 853 provides that in applying this statute to Utah, the words “sections sixteen and thirty-six” also include sections,two and thirty-two.
“Because the western states are the ones most recently admitted to the Union and because Utah and Arizona are two of the three states that received particularly large grants, the remaining indemnity selection rights are concentrated in seven western states. Utah and Arizona alone hold nearly 70% of the outstanding indemnity rights. The approximate number of acres still to be selected in each state (and thus the approximate number of acres potentially affected by this lawsuit) is as follows: Arizona, 170,000 acres; California, 108,000 acres; Colorado, 17,000 acres; Idaho, 27,000 acres; Montana, 22,900 acres; Utah, 225,000 acres; and Wyoming, 1,100 acres.” Brief for Petitioner 4-5, n. 2.
“The first enactment for the sale of public lands in the western territory provided for setting apart section sixteen of every township for the maintenance of public schools (Ordinance of 1785; Cooper v. Roberts, 18 How. 173, 177); and, in carrying out this policy, grants were made for common school purposes to each of the public-land States admitted to the Union. Between the years 1802 and 1846 the grants were of every section sixteen, and, thereafter, of sections sixteen and thirty-six. In some instances, additional sections have been granted.” United States v. Morrison, 240 U. S. 192, 198 (footnotes omitted).
“It has consistently been held that under the terms of the grants hitherto considered by this Court, title to unsurveyed sections of the public lands which have been designated as school lands does not pass to the State upon its admission into the Union, but remains in the Federal Government until the land is surveyed. Prior to survey, those sections are a part of the public lands of the United States and may be disposed of by the Government in any manner and for any purpose consistent with applicable federal statutes. If upon survey it is found that the Federal Government has made a previous disposition of the section, the State is then entitled to select lieu lands as indemnity in accordance with provisions incorporated into each of the school-land grants. The interest of the State vests at the date of its admission into the Union only as to those sections which are surveyed at that time and which previously have not been disposed of by the Federal Government.” United States v. Wyoming, 331 U. S. 440, 443-444 (footnote omitted).
These include the establishment of reservations for Indians or federal military purposes, and entries by individuals under the homestead laws. See, e. g., Wisconsin v. Lane, 245 U. S. 427, 432-433.
See Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co., 93 U. S. 634, 639-640: “Until the status of the lands was fixed by a survey, and they were capable of identification, Congress reserved absolute power over them; and if in exercising it the whole or any part of a 16th or 36th section had been disposed of, the State was to be compensated by other lands equal in quantity, and as near as may be in quality.” (Emphasis added.)
Under the 1891 general indemnity selection statute then in effect, selections were limited to “unappropriated, surveyed public lands, not mineral in character.” 26 Stat. 796-797.
The Act of January 25, 1927, 44 Stat. 1026-1027, provided that “the several grants to the States of numbered sections in place for the support or in aid of common or public schools be, and they are hereby, extended to embrace numbered school sections mineral in character.” See 43 U. S. C. § 870.
“[T]his Act shall not apply to indemnity or lieu selections or exchanges or the right hereafter to select indemnity for numbered school sections in place lost to the State under the provisions of this or other Acts, and all existing laws governing such grants and indemnity or lieu selections and exchanges are hereby continued in full force and effect.” 44 Stat. 1027, 43 U. S. C. § 871.
“Under present law the States are restricted to selecting non-mineral lands to replace forfeited school sections even when these sections are mineralized. There appears to be little equity in this situation.” H. R. Rep. No. 2347, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1958). “The objective of this legislation is merely to make whole the States which have pending in lieu selections of lands for preempted school sections.” Remarks of Senator Watkins of Utah, 104 Cong. Rec. 11921 (1958).
See H. R. Rep. No. 903, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934); 78 Cong. Rec. 11139 (1934) (remarks of Sen. Adams of Colorado).
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to promote the highest use of the public lands pending its final disposal, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, by order to establish grazing districts or additions thereto and/or to modify the boundaries thereof, not exceeding in the aggregate an area of eighty million acres of vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved lands from any part of the public domain of the United States (exclusive of Alaska), which are not in national forests, national parks and monuments, Indian reservations, re-vested Oregon and California Railroad grant lands, or revested Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, and which in his opinion are chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops: Provided, That no lands withdrawn or reserved for any other purpose shall be included in any such district except with the approval of the head of the department having jurisdiction thereof. Nothing in this Act shall be construed in any way to diminish, restrict, or impair any right which has been heretofore or may be hereafter initiated under existing law validly affecting the public lands, and which is maintained pursuant to such law except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nor to affect any land heretofore or hereafter surveyed which, except for the provisions of this Act, would be a part of any grant to any State, nor as limiting or restricting the power or authority of any State as to matters within its jurisdiction. Whenever any grazing district is established pursuant to this Act, the Secretary shall grant to owners of land adjacent to such district, upon application of any such owner, such rights-of-way over the lands included in such district for stock-driving purposes as may be necessary for the convenient access by any such owner to marketing facilities or to lands not within such district owned by such person or upon which such person has stock-grazing rights. Neither this Act nor the Act of December 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 862; U. S. C., title 43, secs. 291 and following), commonly known as the 'Stock Raising Homestead Act’, shall bei construed as limiting the authority or policy of Congress or the President to include in national forests public lands of the character described in section 24 of the Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1103; U. S. C., title 16, sec. 471), as amended, for the purposes set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 35; U. S. C., title 16, sec. 475), or such other purposes as Congress may specify. Before grazing districts are created in any State as herein provided, a hearing shall be held in the State, after public notice thereof shall have been given, at such location convenient for the attendance of State officials, and the settlers, residents, and livestock owners of the vicinity, as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior. No such district shall be established until the expiration of ninety days after such notice shall have been given, nor until twenty days after such hearing shall be held: Provided, however, That the publication of such notice shall have the effect of withdrawing all public lands within the exterior boundary of such proposed grazing districts from all forms of entry of settlement. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as in any way altering or restricting the right to hunt or fish within a grazing district in accordance with the laws of the United States or of any State, or as vesting in any permittee any right whatsoever to interfere with hunting or fishing within a grazing district.” 48 Stat. 1269-1270.
Section 7 of the Act authorized the Secretary
“...in his discretion, to examine and classify any lands within such grazing districts which are more valuable and suitable for the production of agricultural crops than native grasses and forage plants, and to open such lands to homestead entry in tracts not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres in area. Such lands shall not be subject to settlement or occupation as homesteads until after same have been classified and opened to entry after notice to the permittee by the Secretary of the Interior, and the lands shall remain a part of the grazing district until patents are issued therefor, the homesteader to be, after his entry is allowed, entitled to the possession and use thereof: Provided, That upon the application of any person qualified to make homestead entry under the public-land laws, filed in the land office of the proper district, the Secretary of the Interior shall cause any tract not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres in any grazing district to be classified, and such application shall entitle the applicant to a preference right to enter such lands when opened to entry as herein provided.” 48 Stat. 1272.
The bill originally introduced by Congressman Taylor in 1934 (H. R. 6462, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.) purported to authorize the protection of 173 million acres of public range lands by including them within grazing districts. As enacted, however, the statute covered a maximum of 80 million acres. This figure was increased to 142 million acres in 1936, 49 Stat. 1976, and the acreage limitation was removed entirely in 1954. 68 Stat. 151.
The Order, quoted in Executive Withdrawal Order, 55 I. D. 205, 206-207 (1935), reads as follows:
“WHEREAS, the act of June 28, 1934 (ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269), provides, among other things, for the prevention of injury to the public grazing lands by overgrazing and soil deterioration; provides for the orderly use, improvement and development of such lands; and provides for the stabilization of the livestock industry dependent upon the public range; and
“WHEREAS, in furtherance of its purposes, said act provides for the creation of grazing districts to include an aggregate area of not more than eighty million acres of vacant, unreserved and unappropriated lands from any part of the public domain of the United States; provides for the exchange of State owned and privately owned lands for unreserved, surveyed public lands of the United States; provides for the sale of isolated or disconnected tracts of the public domain; and provides for the leasing for grazing purposes of isolated or disconnected tracts of vacant, unreserved and unappropriated lands of the public domain; and
“WHEREAS, said act provides that the President of the United States may order that unappropriated public lands be placed under national forest administration, if, in his opinion, the land be best adapted thereto; and
“WHEREAS, said act provides for the use of public land for the conservation or propagation of wild life; and
“WHEREAS, I find and declare that it is necessary to classify all of the vacant, unreserved and unappropriated lands of the public domain within certain States for the purpose of effective administration of the provisions of said act ;
“NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in me by the act of June 25, 1910 (ch. 421, 36 Stat. 847), as amended by the act of August 24, 1912 (ch. 369, 37 Stat. 497), and subject to the conditions therein expressed, it is ordered that all of the vacant, unreserved, and unappropriated public land in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, born in Poland in 1893, immigrated to this country in 1912 and became a naturalized American citizen in 1926. He went to Israel in 1950, and in 1951 he voluntarily voted in an election for the Israeli Knesset, the legislative body of Israel. In 1960, when he applied for renewal of his United States passport, the Department of State refused to grant it on the sole ground that he had lost his American citizenship by virtue of § 401 (e) of the Nationality Act of 1940 which provides that a United States citizen shall “lose” his citizenship if he votes “in a political election in a foreign state.” Petitioner then brought this declaratory judgment action in federal district court alleging that § 401 (e) violates both the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and § 1, cl. 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment which grants American citizenship to persons like petitioner. Because neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to take away that citizenship once it has been acquired, petitioner contended that the only way he could lose his citizenship was by his own voluntary renunciation of it. Since the Government took the position that § 401 (e) empowers it to terminate citizenship without the citizen's voluntary renunciation, petitioner argued that this section is prohibited by the Constitution. The District Court and the Court of Appeals, rejecting this argument, held that Congress has constitutional authority forcibly to take away citizenship for voting in a foreign country based on its implied power to regulate foreign affairs. Consequently, petitioner was held to have lost his American citizenship regardless of his intention not to give it up. This is precisely what this Court held in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44.
Petitioner, relying on the same contentions about voluntary renunciation of citizenship which this Court rejected in upholding § 401 (e) in Perez, urges us to reconsider that case, adopt the view of the minority there, and overrule it. That case, decided by a 5-4 vote almost 10 years ago, has been a source of controversy and confusion ever since, as was emphatically recognized in the opinions of all the judges who participated in this case below. Moreover, in the other cases decided with and since Perez, this Court has consistently invalidated on a case-by-case basis various other statutory sections providing for involuntary expatriation. It has done so on various grounds and has refused to hold that citizens can be expatriated without their voluntary renunciation of citizenship. These cases, as well as many commentators, have cast great doubt upon the soundness of Perez. Under these circumstances, we granted certiorari to reconsider it, 385 U. S. 917. In view of the many recent opinions and dissents comprehensively discussing all the issues involved, we deem it unnecessary to treat this subject at great length.
The fundamental issue before this Court here, as it was in Perez, is whether Congress can consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced or given up. The majority in Perez held that Congress could do this because withdrawal of citizenship is “reasonably calculated to effect the end that is within the power of Congress to achieve.” 356 U. S., at 60. That conclusion was reached by this chain of reasoning: Congress has an implied power to deal with foreign affairs as an indispensable attribute of sovereignty; this implied power, plus the Necessary and Proper Clause, empowers Congress to regulate voting by American citizens in foreign elections; involuntary expatriation is within the “ample scope” of “appropriate modes” Congress can adopt to effectuate its general regulatory power. Id., at 57-60. Then, upon summarily concluding that “there is nothing in the . . . Fourteenth Amendment to warrant drawing from it a restriction upon the power otherwise possessed by Congress to withdraw citizenship,” id., at 58, n. 3, the majority specifically rejected the “notion that the power of Congress to terminate citizenship depends upon the citizen’s assent,” id., at 61.
First we reject the idea expressed in Perez that, aside from the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent. This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. Other nations are governed by their own constitutions, if any, and we can draw no support from theirs. In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. The Constitution, of course, grants Congress no express power to strip people of their citizenship, whether in the exercise of the implied power to regulate foreign affairs or in the exercise of any specifically granted power. And even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, views were expressed in Congress and by this Court that under the Constitution the Government was granted no power, even under its express power to pass a uniform rule of naturalization, to determine what conduct should and should not result in the loss of citizenship. On three occasions, in 1794, 1797, and 1818, Congress considered and rejected proposals to enact laws which would describe certain conduct as resulting in expatriation. On each occasion Congress was considering bills that were concerned with recognizing the right of voluntary expatriation and with providing some means of exercising that right. In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship. By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation, but several judicial decisions had indicated that the right could not be exercised by the citizen without the consent of the Federal Government in the form of enabling legislation. Therefore, a bill was introduced to provide that a person could voluntarily relinquish his citizenship by declaring such relinquishment in writing before a district court and then departing from the country. The opponents of the bill argued that Congress had no constitutional authority, either express or implied, under either the Naturalization Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, to provide that a certain act would constitute expatriation. They pointed to a proposed Thirteenth Amendment, subsequently not ratified, which would have provided that a person would lose his citizenship by accepting an office or emolument from a foreign government. Congressman Anderson of Kentucky argued:
“The introduction of this article declares the opinion . . . that Congress could not declare the acts which should amount to a renunciation of citizenship; otherwise there would have been no necessity for this last resort. When it was settled that Congress could not declare that the acceptance of a pension or an office from a foreign Emperor amounted to a disfranchisement of the citizen, it must surely be conceded that they could not declare that any other act did. The cases to which their powers before this amendment confessedly did not extend, are very strong, and induce a belief that Congress could not in any case declare the acts which should cause ‘a person to cease to be a citizen.’ The want of power in a case like this, where the individual has given the strongest evidence of attachment to a foreign potentate and an entire renunciation of the feelings and principles of an American citizen, certainly establishes the absence of all power to pass a bill like the present one. Although the intention with which it was introduced, and the title of the bill declare that it is to insure and foster the right of the citizen, the direct and inevitable effect of the bill, is an assumption of power by Congress to declare that certain acts when committed shall amount to a renunciation of citizenship.” 31 Annals of Cong. 1038-1039 (1818).
Congressman Pindall of Virginia rejected the notion, later accepted by the majority in Perez, that the nature of sovereignty gives Congress a right to expatriate citizens:
“[Ajllegiance imports an obligation on the citizen or subject, the correlative right to which resides in the sovereign power: allegiance in this country is not due to Congress, but to the people, with whom the sovereign power is found; it is, therefore, by the people only that any alteration can be made of the existing institutions with respect to allegiance.” Id., at 1045.
Although he recognized that the bill merely sought to provide a means of voluntary expatriation, Congressman Lowndes of South Carolina argued:
“But, if the Constitution had intended to give to Congress so delicate a power, it would have been expressly granted. That it was a delicate power, and ought not to be loosely inferred, . . . appeared in a strong light, when it was said, and could not be denied, that to determine the manner in which a citizen may relinquish his right of citizenship, is equivalent to determining how he shall be divested of that right. The effect of assuming the exercise of these powers will be, that by acts of Congress a man may not only be released from all the liabilities, but from all the privileges of a citizen. If you pass this bill, . . . you have only one step further to go, and say that such and such acts shall be considered as presumption of the intention of the citizen to expatriate, and thus take from him the privileges of a citizen. . . . [QJuestions affecting the right of the citizen were questions to be regulated, not by the laws of the General or State Governments, but by Constitutional provisions. If there was anything essential to our notion of a Constitution, ... it was this: that while the employment of the physical force of the country is in the hands of the Legislature, those rules which determine what constitutes the rights of the citizen, shall be a matter of Constitutional provision.” Id., at 1050-1051.
The bill was finally defeated. It is in this setting that six years later, in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Marshall, declared in what appears to be a mature and well-considered dictum that Congress, once a person becomes a citizen, cannot deprive him of that status:
“[The naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”
Although these legislative and judicial statements may be regarded as inconclusive and must be considered in the historical context in which they were made, any doubt as to whether prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment Congress had the power to deprive a person against his will of citizenship once obtained should have been removed by the unequivocal terms of the Amendment itself. It provides its own constitutional rule in language calculated completely to control the status of citizenship: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . . .” There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.
It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes. The Dred Scott decision, 19 How. 393, had shortly before greatly disturbed many people about the status of Negro citizenship. But the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, had already attempted to confer citizenship on all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Nevertheless, when the Fourteenth Amendment passed the House without containing any definition of citizenship, the sponsors of the Amendment in the Senate insisted on inserting a constitutional definition and grant of citizenship. They expressed fears that the citizenship so recently conferred on Negroes by the Civil Rights Act could be just as easily taken away from them by subsequent Congresses, and it was to provide an insuperable obstacle against every governmental effort to strip Negroes of their newly acquired citizenship that the first clause was added to the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Howard, who sponsored the Amendment in the Senate, thus explained the purpose of the clause:
“It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. . . . We desired to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizens . . . under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power . . . Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2890, 2896 (1866).
This undeniable purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the Government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted. Though the framers of the Amendment were not particularly concerned with the problem of expatriation, it seems undeniable from the language they used that they wanted to put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy. In 1868, two years after the Fourteenth Amendment had been proposed, Congress specifically considered the subject of expatriation. Several bills were introduced to impose involuntary expatriation on citizens who committed certain acts. With little discussion, these proposals were defeated. Other bills, like the one proposed but defeated in 1818, provided merely a means by which the citizen could himself voluntarily renounce his citizenship. Representative Van Trump of Ohio, who proposed such a bill, vehemently denied in supporting it that his measure would make the Government “a party to the act dissolving the tie between the citizen and his country . . . where the statute simply prescribes the manner in which the citizen shall proceed to perpetuate the evidence of his intention, or election, to renounce his citizenship by expatriation.” Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 1804 (1868). He insisted that “inasmuch as the act of expatriation depends almost entirely upon a question of intention on the part of the citizen,” id., at 1801, “the true question is, that not only the right of expatriation, but the whole power of its exercise, rests solely and exclusively in the will of the individual,” id., at 1804. In strongest of terms, not contradicted by any during the debates, he concluded:
“To enforce expatriation or exile against a citizen without his consent is not a power anywhere belonging to this Government. No conservative-minded statesman, no intelligent legislator, no sound lawyer has ever maintained any such power in any branch of the Government. The lawless precedents created in the delirium of war ... of sending men by force into exile, as a punishment for political opinion, were violations of this great law ... of the Constitution. . . . The men who debated the question in 1818 failed to see the true distinction. . . . They failed to comprehend that it is not the Government, but that it is the individual, who has the right and the only power of expatriation. ... [I] t belongs and appertains to the citizen and not to the Government; and it is the evidence of his election to exercise his right, and not the power to control either the election or the right itself, which is the legitimate subject matter of legislation. There has been, and there can be, no legislation under our Constitution to control in any manner the right itself.” Ibid.
But even Van Trump’s proposal, which went no further than to provide a means of evidencing a citizen’s intent to renounce his citizenship, was defeated. The Act, as finally passed, merely recognized the “right of expatriation” as an inherent right of all people.
The entire legislative history of the 1868 Act makes it abundantly clear that there was a strong feeling in the Congress that the only way the citizenship it conferred could be lost was by the voluntary renunciation or abandonment by the citizen himself. And this was the unequivocal statement of the Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. The issues in that case were whether a person born in the United States to Chinese aliens was a citizen of the United States and whether, nevertheless, he could be excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act, 22 Stat. 58. The Court first held that within the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States, and then pointed out that though he might “renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of . . . any other country,” he had never done so. Id., at 704-705. The Court then held that Congress could not do anything to abridge or affect his citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall’s well-considered and oft-repeated dictum in Osborn to the effect that Congress under the power of naturalization has “a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away,” the Court said:
“Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act ... of Congress . . . can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself .... The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.” Id., at 703.
To uphold Congress’ power to take away a man’s citizenship because he voted in a foreign election in violation of § 401 (e) would be equivalent to holding that Congress has the power to “abridge,” “affect,” “restrict the effect of,” and “take . . . away” citizenship. Because the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from doing any of these things, we agree with The Chief Justice’s dissent in the Perez case that the Government is without power to rob a citizen of his citizenship under § 401 (e).
Because the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the expatriation proposals which preceded and followed it, like most other legislative history, contains many statements from, which conflicting inferences can be drawn, our holding might be unwarranted if it rested entirely or principally upon that legislative history. But it does not. Our holding we think is the only one that can stand in view of the language and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and our construction of that Amendment, we believe, comports more nearly than Perez with the principles of liberty and equal justice to all that the entire Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to guarantee. Citizenship is no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world — as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a cooperative affair. Its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.
Perez v. Brownell is overruled. The judgment is
Reversed.
54 Stat. 1168, as amended, 58 Stat. 746, 8 U. S. C. § 801 (1946 ed.):
“A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
“(e) Voting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory."
This provision was re-enacted as § 349 (a) (5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 267, 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (a)(5).
“All persons bom or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . .
250 F. Supp. 686; 361 F. 2d 102, 105.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86; Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 129.
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144; Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163. In his concurring opinion in Mendoza-Martinez, Mr. Justice BreNNan expressed “felt doubts of the correctness of Perez 372 U. S., at 187.
See, e. g., Agata, Involuntary Expatriation and Schneider v. Rusk, 27 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (1965); Hurst, Can Congress Take Away Citizenship?, 29 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 62 (1956); Kurland, Foreword: “Equal in Origin and Equal in Title to the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Government,” 78 Harv. L. Rev. 143, 169-175 (1964); Comment, 56 Mich. L. Rev. 1142 (1958); Note, Forfeiture of Citizenship Through Congressional Enactments, 21 U. Cin. L. Rev. 59 (1952); 40 Cornell L. Q. 365 (1955); 25 S. Cal. L. Rev. 196 (1952). But see, e. g., Comment, The Expatriation Act of 1954, 64 Yale L. J. 1164 (1955).
See Perez v. Brownell, supra, at 62 (dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice), 79 (dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas); Trop v. Dulles, supra, at 91-93 (part I of opinion of Court); Nishikawa v. Dulles, supra, at 138 (concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Black).
For a history of the early American view of the right of expatriation, including these congressional proposals, see generally Roche, The Early Development of United States Citizenship (1949); Tsiang, The Question of Expatriation in America Prior to 1907 (1942); Dutcher, The Right of Expatriation, 11 Am. L. Rev. 447 (1877); Roche, The Loss of American Nationality — The Development of Statutory Expatriation, 99 U. Pa. L. Rev. 25 (1950); Slay-maker, The Right of the American Citizen to Expatriate, 37 Am. L. Rev. 191 (1903).
4 Annals of Cong. 1005, 1027-1030 (1794); 7 Annals of Cong. 349 et seq. (1797).
See, e. g., Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dall. 133.
31 Annals of Cong. 495 (1817).
Id., at 1036-1037, 1058 (1818). Although some of the opponents, believing that citizenship was derived from the States, argued that any power to prescribe the mode for its relinquishment rested in the States, they were careful to point out that “the absence of all power from the State Legislatures would not vest it in us.” Id., at 1039.
The amendment had been proposed by the 11th Cong., 2d Sess. See The Constitution of the United States of America, S. Doc. No. 39, 88th Cong., 1st Sess,, 77-78 (1964).
Id., at 1071. It is interesting to note that the proponents of the bill, such as Congressman Cobb of Georgia, considered it to be “the simple declaration of the manner in which a voluntary act, in the exercise of a natural right, may be performed” and denied that it created or could lead to the creation of “a presumption of relinquishment of the right of citizenship.” Id., at 1068.
The dissenting opinion here points to the fact that a Civil War Congress passed two Acts designed to deprive military deserters to the Southern side of the rights of citizenship. Measures of this kind passed in those days of emotional stress and hostility are by no means the most reliable criteria for determining what the Constitution means.
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2768-2769, 2869, 2890 et seq. (1866). See generally, Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94 (1908).
Representative Jenckes of Rhode Island introduced an fl.-mp.ndment that would expatriate those citizens who became naturalized by a foreign government, performed public duties for a foreign government, or took up domicile in a foreign country without intent to return. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 968, 1129, 2311 (1868). Although he characterized his proposal as covering “cases where citizens may voluntarily renounce their allegiance to this country,” id., at 1159, it was opposed by Representative Chanler of New York who said, “So long as a citizen does not expressly dissolve his allegiance and does not swear allegiance to another country his citizenship remains in statu quo, unaltered and unimpaired.” Id., at 1016.
Proposals of Representatives Pruyn of New York (id., at 1130) and Van Trump of Ohio (id., at 1801, 2311).
While Van Trump disagreed with the 1818 opponents as to whether Congress had power to prescribe a means of voluntary renunciation of citizenship, he wholeheartedly agreed with their premise that the right of expatriation belongs to the citizen, not to the Government, and that the Constitution forbids the Government from being party to the act of expatriation. Van Trump simply thought that the opponents of the 1818 proposal failed to recognize that their mutual premise would not be violated by an Act which merely prescribed “how . . . [the rights of citizenship] might be relinquished at the option of the person in whom they were vested.” Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 1804 (1868).
Id., at 2317. Representative Banks of Massachusetts, the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs which drafted the bill eventually enacted into law, explained why Congress refrained from providing a means of expatriation:
“It is a subject which, in our opinion, ought not to be legislated upon. . . . [T]his comes within the scope and character of natural rights which no Government has the right to control and which no Government can confer. And wherever this subject is alluded to in the Constitution— ... it is in the declaration that Congress shall have no power whatever to legislate upon these matters.” Id., at 2316.
15 Stat. 223, R. S. § 1999.
Some have referred to this part of the decision as a holding, see, e. g., Hurst, supra, 29 Rocky Mt. L. Rev., at 78-79; Comment, 56 Mich. L. Rev., at 1153-1154; while others have referred to it as obiter dictum, see, e. g., Roche, supra, 99 U. Pa. L. Rev., at 26-27. Whichever it was, the statement was evidently the result of serious consideration and is entitled to great weight.
Of course, as The Chief Justice said in his dissent, 356 U. S., at 66, naturalization unlawfully procured can be set aside. See, e. g., Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665; Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine whether a company’s policy of paying its discharged employees for their unused vacation time constitutes an “employee welfare benefit plan” within the meaning of §3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or Act), 88 Stat. 833, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1002(1), and whether a criminal action to enforce that policy is foreclosed by the Act’s broad pre-emption provision.
I
In May 1986, petitioner, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, issued two complaints in the Boston Municipal Court against respondent, Richard N. Morash, president of the Yankee Bank for Finance and Savings (Bank). The complaints charged Morash with criminal violations of the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws §149:148 (1987).
Under the Massachusetts law, an employer is required to pay a discharged employee his full wages, including holiday or vacation payments, on the date of discharge. Similar wage payment statutes have been enacted by 47 other States, the District of Columbia, and the United States, and over half of these include vacation pay. The complaints filed in the Boston Municipal Court alleged that respondent had failed to compensate two discharged bank vice presidents for vacation time they accrued but did not use.
Respondent moved to dismiss the criminal complaints on the ground that the Massachusetts statute, insofar as it applied to these complaints, had been pre-empted by ERISA. He argued that the Bank’s vacation policy constituted an “employee welfare benefit plan” under the Act, and that the State’s prosecution of him for failure to comply with the policy therefore ran afoul of § 514(a) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), which pre-empts “any and all State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit plan.” Without ruling on the motion, the trial judge reported the preemption question to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for decision; the Supreme Judicial Court then transferred the case to its docket on its own initiative. For the purpose of answering the reported question, the parties stipulated that the Bank had made oral or written agreements stemming from handbooks, manuals, memoranda, and practices to pay employees in lieu of unused vacation time, and that “such payments are made out of the Bank’s general assets” in lump sums upon termination of employment.
The Supreme Judicial Court held that the policy constituted an employee welfare benefit plan and that the prosecution was pre-empted by ERISA. 402 Mass. 287, 522 N. E. 2d 409 (1988). The court found that under the plain language of the statute and its earlier decision in Barry v. Dymo Graphic Systems, Inc., 394 Mass. 830, 478 N. E. 2d 707 (1985), the Bank’s policy constituted a plan, fund, or program for the purpose of providing its participants vacation benefits. It rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Labor (Secretary), had excepted payments out of an employer’s general assets for unused vacation time from the definition of a welfare plan because even if regular vacation pay was not included in ERISA, the lump-sum payment for unused vacation time upon discharge was akin to severance pay covered by ERISA. The fact that it would be necessary for an employer to maintain records relating to its employees’ unused vacation time, plus the need to accumulate funds to pay the benefits, made it appropriate to treat the employer’s promise to its employees as a “plan.” The court concluded that the Massachusetts statute related to the plan within the meaning of § 514, and was not excluded from its coverage by the provision saving from pre-emption a “generally applicable criminal law.” ERISA § 514(b)(4), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(4).
Because the federal question decided by the Supreme Judicial Court is an important one over which the courts have disagreed, we granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 815 (1988). We now reverse.
II
ERISA was passed by Congress in 1974 to safeguard employees from the abuse and mismanagement of funds that had been accumulated to finance various types of employee benefits. Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 15 (1987). The “comprehensive and reticulated statute,” Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359, 361 (1980), contains elaborate provisions for the regulation of employee benefit plans. It sets forth reporting and disclosure obligations for plans, imposes a fiduciary standard of care for plan administrators, and establishes schedules for the vesting and accrual of pension benefits. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 732 (1985). Suits to enforce the terms of the statute and to recover welfare benefits wrongfully withheld arise under federal law and can be brought in federal court without regard for the amount in controversy. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 108 (1989).
The precise coverage of ERISA is not clearly set forth in the Act. ERISA covers “employee benefit plans,” which it defines as plans that are either “an employee welfare benefit plan,” or “an employee pension benefit plan,” or both. ERISA §3(3), 29 U. S. C. §1002(3). An employee welfare benefit plan, in turn, is defined as:
“[A]ny plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, (A) medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services, or (B) any benefit described in section 186(c) of this title (other than pensions on retirement or death, and insurance to provide such pensions).” ERISA § 3(1), as codified, 29 U. S. C. § 1002(1).
The Act does not further define “plan, fund, or program” or “vacation benefits” and does not specify whether every policy to provide vacation benefits falls within its ambit.
The words “any plan, fund, or program . . . maintained for the purpose of providing . . . vacation benefits” may surely be read to encompass any form of regular vacation payments to an employee. A multiemployer fund created to provide vacation benefits for union members who typically work for several employers during the course of a year, see, e. g., Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 4, n. 2 (1983), undoubtedly falls within the scope of the Act. In addition, the creation of a separate fund to pay employees vacation benefits would subject a single employer to the regulatory provisions of ERISA. See California Hospital Assn. v. Henning, 770 F. 2d 856, 861 (1985), modified, 783 F. 2d 946 (CA9), cert. denied, 477 U. S. 904 (1986). We do not believe, however, that the policy here to pay employees for unused vacation time constitutes an employee welfare benefit plan.
The interpretation of §3(1) is governed by the familiar principles that “ ‘words grouped in a list should be given related meaning,’” Schreiber v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 472 U. S. 1, 8 (1985) (quoting Securities Industry Assn. v. Board of Governors, FRS, 468 U. S. 207, 218 (1984)), and that “in expounding a statute, we [are] not . . . guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.” Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 51 (1987). In enacting ERISA, Congress’ primary concern was with the mismanagement of funds accumulated to finance employee benefits and the failure to pay employees benefits from accumulated funds. California Hospital Assn., supra, at 859. To that end, it established extensive reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary duty requirements to insure against the possibility that the employee’s expectation of the benefit would be defeated through poor management by the plan administrator. Because ordinary vacation payments are typically fixed, due at known times, and do not depend on contingencies outside the employee’s control, they present none of the risks that ERISA is intended to address. If there is a danger of defeated expectations, it is no different from the danger of defeated expectations of wages for services performed — a danger Congress chose not to regulate in ERISA.
This conclusion is supported by viewing the reference to vacation benefits not in isolation but in light of the words that accompany it and give the provision meaning. Section 3(1) subjects to ERISA regulation plans to provide medical, sickness, accident, disability, and death benefits, training programs, day care centers, scholarship funds, and legal services. The distinguishing feature of most of these benefits is that they accumulate over a period of time and are payable only upon the occurrence of a contingency outside of the control of the employee. See 40 Fed. Reg. 24642 (1975). Thus, for example, plans to pay employees severance benefits, which are payable only upon termination of employment, are employee welfare benefit plans within the meaning of the Act. See Holland v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 772 F. 2d 1140 (CA4 1985), summarily aff’d sub nom. Brooks v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 477 U. S. 901 (1986); Gilbert v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 765 F. 2d 320 (CA2 1985), summarily aff’d sub nom. Roberts v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 477 U. S. 901 (1986). The reference to vacation payments in §3(1) should be understood to include within the scope of ERISA those vacation benefit funds, analogous to other welfare benefits, in which either the employee’s right to a benefit is contingent upon some future occurrence or the employee bears a risk different from his ordinary employment risk. It is unlikely that Congress intended to subject to ERISA’s reporting and disclosure requirements those vacation benefits which by their nature are payable on a regular basis from the general assets of the employer and are accumulated over time only at the election of the employee.
The Secretary, who is specifically authorized to define ERISA’s “accounting, technical, and trade terms,” ERISA § 505, 29 U. S. C. § 1135, and to whose reasonable views we give deference, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984); Watt v. Alaska, 451 U. S. 259, 272-273 (1981); Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965), has also so understood the statute. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published shortly after the effective date of the Act, the Secretary identified a basic distinction between the benefit programs covered by the Act and the types of regular compensation, including vacation pay, that are not covered:
“The Secretary also anticipates issuance of regulations that will make it clear that other programs, including certain employer practices (whether pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement or not) under which employees are paid as a part of their regular compensation directly by the employer and under which no separate fund is established will not subject the employer to any filing or disclosure duties under Title I of the Act. Examples of the employer practices that may receive this treatment are payment of overtime pay, vacation pay, shift premiums, Sunday premiums, holiday premiums, jury duty or military duty, make-up pay, and pay while absent on account of illness or excused absences.” 39 Fed. Reg. 42236 (1974) (emphasis added).
The Secretary subsequently proposed regulations excluding payment of compensation for work performed at night or during holidays and paid sick leave and vacation leave from the definition of an employee benefit. 40 Fed. Reg. 24642-24643 (1975). He explained:
“[P]aid vacations . . . are not treated as employee benefit plans because they are associated with regular wages or salary, rather than benefits triggered by contingencies such as hospitalization. Moreover, the abuses which created the impetus for the reforms in Title I were not in this area, and there is no indication that Congress intended to subject these practices to Title I coverage.” Ibid.
The proposed regulations promulgated by the Secretary were adopted without significant modification. They provide that numerous “payroll practices,” including the payment of vacation benefits “out of [an] employer’s general assets” rather than from a trust fund, are not employee welfare benefit plans within the meaning of ERISA. In addition, under the regulations, the term “employee welfare benefit plan” does not include the payment by an employer of premium rates for work performed during special periods such as holidays and weekends. The Secretary has consistently adhered to this position even when the premium pay is accumulated and carried over to later years.
A contrary interpretation, including routine vacation pay policies within ERISA, would have profound consequences. Most employers in the United States provide some type of vacation benefit to their employees. ERISA coverage would put all these employers to the choice of complying with the statute’s detailed requirements for reporting and disclosure or discontinuing the practice of compensating employees for unused vacation time. In addition, the extension of ERISA to claims for vacation benefits would vastly expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts, providing a federal forum for any employee with a vacation grievance. Finally, such an interpretation would also displace the extensive state regulation of the vesting, funding, and participation rights of vacation benefits; because ERISA’s vesting and funding requirements do not apply to welfare benefit plans, ERISA §§201(1), 301(a), as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§1051(1), 1081(a), employees would actually receive less protection if ERISA were applied to ordinary vacation wages paid from the employer’s general assets. See Note, 87 Colum. L. Rev. 1702, 1718 (1987). The States have traditionally regulated the payment of wages, including vacation pay. Absent any indication that Congress intended such far-reaching consequences, we are reluctant to so significantly interfere with “the separate spheres of governmental authority preserved in our federalist system.” Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S., at 19.
Ill
Respondent argues that, even if the Department of Labor regulation exempting vacation payments from ERISA constitutes a reasonable construction of the Act, the Bank’s policy did not constitute a payroll practice under the regulation because employees were allowed at their option to accumulate vacation time and defer payment for such time until termination. See Brief for Respondent 11. We do not agree. Although neither of the Secretary’s regulations explicitly covers the precise practice at issue in this case, the reasons for treating holiday and weekend premiums and payments of compensation while an employee is on vacation as “payroll practices” are equally applicable to the payment of an employee’s regular wages for accrued and unused vacation time upon discharge. If the employees in this case had chosen to take a vacation, the vacation days would have been available and the vacation benefit would have been excluded under the regulation; the benefit cannot be transformed into an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA solely because the employees did not use their vacation days prior to their formal termination of employment. See Shea v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 810 F. 2d 372, 377 (CA2 1987).
Moreover, except for the fact that the payment has been deferred, such payments are as much a part of the employees’ regular basic compensation as overtime pay or the payment of salary while the employee is absent on vacation. If in the end the employee elects to receive additional compensation instead of a paid vacation, he or she is receiving the same kind of premium pay that is available for holiday or weekend work. The fact that the payments in this case were due at the time of the employee’s termination does not affect their character as a part of regular compensation. Unlike normal severance pay, the employees’ right to compensation for accrued vacation time is not contingent upon the termination of their employment.
In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that the case before us — and the Secretary’s regulations on which we rely— concern payments by a single employer out of its general assets. An entirely different situation would be presented if a separate fund had been created by a group of employers to guarantee the payment of vacation benefits to laborers who regularly shift their jobs from one employer to another. Employees who are beneficiaries of such a trust face far different risks and have far greater need for the reporting and disclosure requirements that the federal law imposes than those whose vacation benefits come from the same fund from which they receive their paychecks. It is sufficient for this case that the Secretary’s determination that a single employer’s administration of a vacation pay policy from its general assets does not possess the characteristics of a welfare benefit plan constitutes a reasonable construction of the statute.
The judgment of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Massachusetts Gen. Laws § 149:148 (1987) provides, in pertinent part: “Every person having employees in his service shall pay weekly each such employee the wages earned by him . . . ; and any employee discharged from such employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge .... The word ‘wages’ shall include any holiday or vacation payments due an employee under an oral or written agreement.”
See Alaska Stat. Ann. §§23.05.140 to 23.05.340 (1984 and Supp. 1988); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§23-350 to 23-361 (1983 and Supp. 1988); Ark. Code Ann. §11-4-401 (1987); Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §227.3 (West Supp. 1989); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-4-101 to 8-4-126 (1986); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§31-71a to 31-71Í (1987 and Supp. 1988); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 19, §§ 1101 to 1115 (1985); Ga. Code Ann. § 34-7-2 (1988); Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 388-1 to 388-13 (1988); Idaho Code §§45-601 to 45-615 (1977 and Supp. 1988); 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, 1M39m-l to 39m-15 (1987); Ind. Code §§22-2-9-1 to 22-2-9-7 (1988); Iowa Code §§91A.2 to 91A.13 (1985); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-313 to 44-327 (1986); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 337.010 to 337.070 (Baldwin 1986); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 631 (West 1985 and Supp. 1989); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 26, §§621-626 (1988); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 100, §94 (1985); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 408.471 to 408.475 (1985); Minn. Stat. § 181.74 (1988); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 71-1-35 to 71-1-53 (1972 and Supp. 1988); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§290.080 to 290.110 (1986); Mont. Code Ann. §§39-3-201 to 39-3-215 (1987); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1228 to 48-1232 (1988); Nev. Rev. Stat. §§608.005 to 608.060 (1987); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§275:42 to 275:55 (1987); N. J. Stat. Ann. §§34:11-4.1 to 34:11-4.11 (West 1988); N. M. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-4-1 to 50-4-12 (1988); N. Y. Lab. Law §§ 190 to 198-c (McKinney 1986 and Supp. 1989); N. C. Gen. Stat. §§95-25.2 to 95-25.25 (1985); N. D. Cent. Code §§ 34-14-01 to 34-14-13 (1987); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4113.15 (1980); Okla. Stat., Tit. 40, §§165.1 to 165.9 (1986); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 652.110 to 652.405 (1987); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 43, §§260.2a to 260.11a (Purdon Supp. 1988); R. I. Gen. Laws §§28-14-1 to 28-14-30 (1986); S. C. Code §§41-10-10 to 41-10-110 (Supp. 1988); S. D. Codified Laws §§ 60-11-9 to 60-11-15 (1978); Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-2-103 (1983); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 5155 to 5159 (Vernon 1987); Utah Code Ann. §§34-28-2 to 34-28-14 (1988); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21, §§341-345 (1987); Va. Code §40.1-29 (1986); Wash. Rev. Code §§49.48.010, 49.48.020 (1987); W. Va. Code §§21-5-1, 21-5-4 (1985 and Supp. 1988); Wis. Stat. §§ 109.01 to 109.11 (1987-1988); Wyo. Stat. §§27-4-101 to 27-4-105 (1987).
See D. C. Code §§36-101 to 36-110 (1981).
See, e. g., 46 U. S. C. §596. See also Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U. S. 564, 572 (1982).
Section 514 of ERISA, as codified, provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan ....
“(b) . . .
“(4) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to any generally applicable criminal law of a State.”
The Secretary’s payroll practice regulation provides, in part:
“(b) Payroll practices. For purposes of Title I of the Act and this chapter, the terms ‘employee welfare benefit plan’ and ‘welfare plan’ shall not include—
“(3) Payment of compensation, out of the employer’s general assets, on account of periods of time during which the employee, although physically and mentally able to perform his or her duties and not absent for medical reasons (such as pregnancy, a physical examination or psychiatric treatment) performs no duties; for example—
“(i) Payment of compensation while an employee is on vacation or absent on a holiday, including payment of premiums to induce employees to take vacations at a time favorable to the employer for business reasons.” 29 CFR § 2510.3 — 1(b)(3) (1987).
Compare Holland v. National Steel Corp., 791 F. 2d 1132 (CA4 1986); Blakeman v. Mead Containers, 779 F. 2d 1146 (CA6 1985) (both holding that vacation benefits constitute employee welfare benefit plan), with Shea v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 810 F. 2d 372 (CA2 1987); California Hospital Assn. v. Henning, 770 F. 2d 856 (1985), modified, 783 F. 2d 946 (CA9), cert. denied, 477 U. S. 904 (1986); Golden Bear Family Restaurants, Inc. v. Murray, 144 Ill. App. 3d 616, 494 N. E. 2d 581 (1986) (all holding that vacation pay from employer’s general assets not covered by ERISA).
The benefits described “in section 186(c) of this title” include “pooled vacation, holiday, severance or similar benefits.” See 29 U. S. C. § 186(c)(6).
Respondent argues that because a pooled vacation benefit plan is “a benefit described in section 186(c) of this title” and thus constitutes an employee welfare benefit plan under 29 U. S. C. § 1002(1)(B), the exclusion of ordinary vacation pay plans from ERISA coverage would render the reference to vacation pay in clause (A) surplusage. Clause (A), however, also includes within ERISA vacation wages paid from a separate fund rather than from general assets. See United States Dept. of Labor, ERISA Opinion Letter No. 77-84A (Nov. 7, 1977). The fact that a benefit covered by clause (B) is also covered by clause (A) is not dispositive of the meaning of clause (A). As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted: “Many of the benefits incorporated in section 1002(1) by the cross-reference to section 186(c) are already found in section 1002(1). Thus it is evident that Congress was not concerned with duplication, but only with assuring that all benefits covered by section 186(c) were also covered by section 1002(1).” California Hospital Assn. v. Henning, 770 F. 2d 856, 861 (1985), modified, 783 F. 2d 946, cert. denied, 477 U. S. 904 (1986).
See e. g., Private Welfare and Pension Plan Legislation: Hearings on H. R. 1045 et al. before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 91st Cong., 1st and 2d Sess., 470-472 (1970) (testimony of Secretary of Labor concerning mismanagement of 22 pension and welfare funds); 120 Cong. Rec. 4279-4280 (1974) (remarks of Rep. Brademas); id., at 4277-4278 (remarks of Rep. Perkins); 119 Cong. Rec. 30003 (1973) (remarks of Sen. Williams).
Section 505, 88 Stat. 894, provides, in part:
“Subject to title III and section 109, the Secretary may prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. Among other things, such regulations may define accounting, technical, and trade terms used in such provisions . . . .”
See n. 6, supra.
The Secretary’s regulation provides, in part:
“(b)(1) Payment by an employer of compensation on account of work performed by an employee, including compensation at a rate in excess of the normal rate of compensation on account of performance of duties under other than ordinary circumstances, such as —
“(i) Overtime pay,
“(ii) Shift premiums,
“(iii) Holiday premiums,
“(iv) Weekend premiums.” 29 CFR § 2510.3-l(b)(l) (1987).
See United States Dept, of Labor, ERISA Opinion Letter No. 79-48A (July 30, 1979) (sick leave).
A 1988 survey reflects that paid vacations are provided to 98 percent of the 31,000,000 employees in medium and large establishments. United States Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Reports on Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms in 1988, pp. 1, 4 (Apr. 4,1989) (press release). Another survey of 833 companies in manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries found that 86 percent of them provided payments for, or in lieu of, vacations. United States Chamber of Commerce, Employee Benefits 1986, p. 21 (1987).
A 1983 survey found that state agencies each year resolve more than 19,000 vacation pay claims, involving more than $7.5 million. Note, 16 Loyola U. Chi. L. J. 387, 422 (1985).
Many States have provisions for the vesting of vacation benefits, see Note, 87 Colum. L. Rev. 1702,1714 (1987), and for the administrative resolution of vacation pay claims, Note, 16 Loyola U. Chi. L. J., at 421-422. An interpretation of ERISA to include ordinary vacation pay would imperil these mechanisms designed for the benefit of employees.
We therefore have no occasion to address the Commonwealth’s alternative argument that Mass. Gen. Laws § 149:148 (1987) is a “generally applicable criminal law of a State” within the meaning of ERISA § 514(b)(4), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(4).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall 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: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we are called upon to review an award of compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Act of March 4, 1927, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. The award was made on a claim arising from the accidental death of an employee of Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., a government contractor operating on the island of Guam. Brown-Pacific maintained for its employees a recreation center near the shoreline, along which ran a channel so dangerous for swimmers that its use was forbidden and signs to that effect erected. John Yalak, the employee, spent the afternoon at the center, and was waiting for his employer’s bus to take him from the area when he saw or heard two men, standing on the reefs beyond the channel, signaling for help. Followed by nearly twenty others, he plunged in to effect a rescue. In attempting to swim the channel to reach the two men he was drowned.
A claim was filed by his dependent mother, based on the Longshoremen’s Act and on an Act of August 16, 1941, extending the compensation provisions to certain employment in overseas possessions. 55 Stat. 622, 56 Stat. 1035, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1651. In due course of the statutory procedure, the Deputy Commissioner found as a “fact” that “at the time of his drowning and death the deceased was using the recreational facilities sponsored and made available by the employer for the use of its employees and such participation by the deceased was an incident of his employment, and that his drowning and death arose out of and in the course of said employment . . . .” Accordingly, he awarded a death benefit of $9.38 per week. Brown-Pacific and its insurance carrier thereupon petitioned the District Court under § 21 of the Act to set aside the award. That court denied the petition on the ground that “there is substantial evidence ... to sustain the compensation order.” On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It concluded that “The lethal currents were not a part of the recreational facilities supplied by the employer and the swimming in them for the rescue of the unknown man was not recreation. It was an act entirely disconnected from any use for which the recreational camp was provided and not in the course of Valak’s employment.” 182 F. 2d 772, 773. We granted certiorari, 340 U. S. 849, because the case brought into question judicial review of awards under the Longshoremen’s Act in light of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act authorizes payment of compensation for “accidental injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment.” § 2 (2), 44 Stat. 1425, 33 U. S. C. § 902 (2). As we read its opinion the Court of Appeals entertained the view that this standard precluded an award for injuries incurred in an attempt to rescue persons not known to be in the employer’s service, undertaken in forbidden waters outside the employer’s premises. We think this is too restricted an interpretation of the Act. Workmen’s compensation is not confined by common-law conceptions of scope of employment. Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 330 U. S. 469, 481; Matter of Waters v. Taylor Co., 218 N. Y. 248, 251, 112 N. E. 727, 728. The test of recovery is not a causal relation between the nature of employment of the injured person and the accident. Thom v. Sinclair, [1917] A. C. 127, 142. Nor is it necessary that the employee be engaged at the time of the injury in activity of benefit to his employer. All that is required is that the “obligations or conditions” of employment create the “zone of special danger” out of which the injury arose. Ibid. A reasonable rescue attempt, like pursuit in aid of an officer making an arrest, may be “one of the risks of the employment, an incident of the service, foreseeable, if not foreseen, and so covered by the statute.” Matter of Babington v. Yellow Taxi Corp., 250 N. Y. 14, 17, 164 N. E. 726, 727; Puttkammer v. Industrial Comm’n, 371 Ill. 497, 21 N. E. 2d 575. This is not to say that there are not cases “where an employee, even with the laudable purpose of helping another, might go so far from his employment and become so thoroughly disconnected from the service of his employer that it would be entirely unreasonable to say that injuries suffered by him arose out of and in the course of his employment.” Matter of Waters v. Taylor Co., 218 N. Y. at 252, 112 N. E. at 728. We hold only that rescue attempts such as that before us are not necessarily excluded from the coverage of the Act as the kind of conduct that employees engage in as frolics of their own.
The Deputy Commissioner treated the question whether the particular rescue attempt described by the evidence was one of the class covered by the Act as a question of “fact.” Doing so only serves to illustrate once more the variety of ascertainments covered by the blanket term “fact.” Here of course it does not connote a simple, external, physical event as to which there is conflicting testimony. The conclusion concerns a combination of happenings and the inferences drawn from them. In part at least, the inferences presuppose applicable standards for assessing the simple, external facts. Yet the standards are not so severable from the experience of industry nor of such a nature as to be peculiarly appropriate for independent judicial ascertainment as “questions of law.”
Both sides conceded that the scope of judicial review of such findings of fact is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. Act of June 11, 1946, 60 Stat. 237, 5 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. The standard, therefore, is that discussed in Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, ante, p. 474. It is sufficiently described by saying that the findings are to be accepted unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. The District Court recognized this standard.
When this Court determines that a Court of Appeals has applied an incorrect principle of law, wise judicial administration normally counsels remand of the cause to the Court of Appeals with instructions to reconsider the record. Compare Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, supra. In this instance, however, we have a slim record and the relevant standard is not difficult to apply; and we think the litigation had better terminate now. Accordingly we have ourselves examined the record to assess the sufficiency of the evidence.
We are satisfied that the record supports the Deputy Commissioner’s finding. The pertinent evidence was presented by the written statements of four persons and the testimony of one witness. It is, on the whole, consistent and credible. From it the Deputy Commissioner could rationally infer that Valak acted reasonably in attempting the rescue, and that his death may fairly be attributable to the risks of the employment. We do not mean that the evidence compelled this inference; we do not suggest that had the Deputy Commissioner decided against the claimant, a court would have been justified in disturbing his conclusion. We hold only that on this record the decision of the District Court that the award should not be set aside should be sustained.
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: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants, citizens and registered voters of New York’s Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Congressional Districts, all in New York County (the Island of Manhattan), brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of that part of Chapter 980 of New York’s 1961 congressional apportionment statute which defined these four districts. The Governor and several other New York state officials were named as defendants. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who represents the Eighteenth Congressional District, and several other New York County political leaders were permitted to intervene as defendants supporting the constitutionality of the apportionment act. Appellants charged that the part of the New York Act in question deprived them of rights guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and by the Fifteenth Amendment, which provides that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Their complaint alleged that:
“Chapter 980 establishes irrational, discriminatory and unequal Congressional Districts in the County of New York and segregates eligible voters by race and place of origin. It is contrived to create one district, the 17th Congressional District, which excludes non-white citizens and citizens of Puerto Rican origin and which is over-represented in comparison to the other three districts in the County of New York. The 18th, 19th and 20th Congressional Districts have been drawn so as to include the overwhelming number of non-white citizens and citizens of Puerto Rican origin in the County of New York and to be under-represented in relation to the 17th Congressional District.”
The case was heard by a District Court of three judges. During these hearings, counsel for appellants made it clear that their case did not depend on “under-representation because of the variation in the size of the Congressional districts”; it was rather, he said, “a case of ghettoizing the Island of Manhattan” so as “to create a white Congressional district and a non-white Congressional district.” “I think,” counsel said, “the only province of the Court in this area is to determine whether or not these districts have been created with racial considerations in mind, and, if they have, or if the results of this districting, the effect of the statute is to create racially segregated areas, we maintain that it violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.” Appellants offered maps, statistics, and some oral evidence designed to prove their charge that it was impossible to have districts such as these were unless they “were drawn with regard to race.” The statistics showed that the Eighteenth District contained 86.3% Negroes and Puerto Ricans; the Nineteenth, 28.5%; the Twentieth, 27.5%; and the Seventeenth, 5.1%. The evidence also showed irregularities in the boundaries of the districts and some variation in population among the four. Appellees presented no oral testimony but did offer historical maps, a table from the Bureau of the Census, and a message from the President to the Congress on the subject of congressional apportionment.
A majority of the District Court found that appellants had not made out their case on the crucial factual issues. Judge Moore broadly found that “[n]o proof was offered by any party that the specific boundaries created by Chapter 980 were drawn on racial lines or that the Legislature was motivated by considerations of race, creed or country of origin in creating the districts.” He concluded, “Plaintiffs having failed upon the facts and the law to establish any violation of their constitutional rights as a result of the action of the New York Legislature in enacting Chapter 980 of the Laws of 1961, the complaint must be dismissed.” Judge Feinberg concurred in Judge Moore’s result because he, too, believed that appellants had
“not met their burden of proving that the boundaries of the new 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th Congressional Districts were drawn along racial lines, as they allege. . . .
“. . . Plaintiffs did introduce evidence which might justify an inference that racial considerations motivated the 1961 reapportionment of congressional districts in Manhattan. However, other inferences, as set forth below, are equally or more justifiable. Plaintiffs have a difficult burden to meet in attacking the constitutionality of this state statute. . . . Upon analysis, I do not think that burden has been met.
“. . . In short, based upon the entire record, I do not feel that plaintiffs have proved their case.”
Judge Murphy dissented. He viewed the evidence as “tantamount for all practical purposes, to a mathematical demonstration” that the legislation was “solely concerned with segregating” white voters from colored and Puerto Rican voters “by fencing colored and Puerto Rican citizens out of the 17th District and into a district of their own (the 18th)” and as establishing “per se a prima facie case of a legislative intent to draw congressional district lines in the 17th and 18th Districts on the basis of race and national origin.”
While a number of other matters have been discussed, we find it necessary to decide only the first question presented in the jurisdictional statement, namely “[w]hether appellants sustained their burden of proving that the portion of Chapter 980 . . . which delineates the boundaries of the Congressional districts in Manhattan Island segregates eligible voters by race and place of origin in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.” We accept the findings of the majority of the District Court that appellants failed to prove that the New York Legislature was either motivated by racial considerations or in fact drew the districts on racial lines. Compare Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339. It may be true, as Judge Feinberg thought, that there was evidence which could have supported inferences that racial considerations might have moved the state legislature, but, even if so, we agree that there also was evidence to support his finding that the contrary inference was “equally, or more, persuasive.” Where there are such conflicting inferences one group of them cannot, because labeled as “prima facie proof,” be treated as conclusive on the fact finder so as to deprive him pf his responsibility to choose among disputed inferences. And this is true whether the conflicting inferences are drawn from evidence offered by the plaintiff or by the defendant or by both. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475, does not support the dissenting view of Judge Murphy that appellants’ evidence here established a prima facie case compelling the District Court, despite conflicting inferences which could be drawn from that evidence, to find that New York created these districts on the basis of race and place of origin. Hernandez followed the rule laid down in Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, and other cases, that proof of a long-continued state practice of not calling Negroes as jurors made out a prima facie case sufficient to justify, but not necessarily to compel, a finding of discrimination on account of race. The conclusion of racial discrimination in those cases was reached only after an appraisal of this practice along with all the circumstances. It is plain to us that the District Court was not compelled to find that these districts were the product of a state contrivance to discriminate against colored or Puerto Rican voters. As the majority below pointed out, the concentration of colored and Puerto Rican voters in one area in the county made it difficult, even assuming it to be permissible, to fix districts so as to have anything like an equal division of these voters among the districts. Undoubtedly some of these voters, as shown by this lawsuit, would prefer a more even distribution of minority groups among the four congressional districts, but others, like the intervenors in this case, would argue strenuously that the kind of districts for which appellants contended would be undesirable and, because based on race or place of origin, would themselves be unconstitutional.
We accept the District Court’s finding that appellants have not shown that the challenged part of the New York Act was the product of a state contrivance to segregate on the basis of race or place of origin. That finding was crucial to appellants’ case as they presented it, and for that reason their challenge cannot be sustained. We do not pass on the question which appellants have not presented here, that is, whether the state apportionment is constitutionally invalid because it may fail in its objective to create districts based as nearly as practicable on equal population. See Wesberry v. Sanders, ante, p. 1. Since no such challenge has been urged here, the issues have not been formulated to bring it into focus, and the evidence has not been offered or appraised to decide it, our holding has no bearing on that wholly separate question.
The judgment dismissing the complaint is
Affirmed.
N. Y. State Law, §111.
The complaint also, stated that unconstitutional districting had existed for many years but that repeated efforts to bring about legislative correction had been of no avail, partly because of unconstitutional apportionment of the state legislature. Appellants did not offer proof to support these allegations, however.
The population of the Seventeenth Congressional District was 382,320; the Eighteenth, 431,330; the Nineteenth, 445,175; and the Twentieth, 439,456.
211 F. Supp. 460.
Id., at 462.
Id., at 468.
Id., at 468, 469, 471.
Id., at 472-473.
Id., at 471.
E. g., Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 361-362; Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 130-131; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 404.
211 F. Supp., at 467-468 (Moore, J.), 471 (Feinberg, J.).
The Committee of the New York Legislature which proposed the 1961 apportionment bill said in its report, “It is the conclusion of your Committee that the most important standard is substantial equality of population.” McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, 1961 (Second Extraordinary Session), 63, 64.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are asked to determine whether the Federal Power Commission exceeded its statutory authorization when it asserted jurisdiction over the Florida Power & Light Co. Section 201 (b) of the Federal Power Act, as amended, 49 Stat. 847, 16 U. S. C. § 824 (b), grants the Federal Power Commission jurisdiction over “the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and . . . the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce, but . . . not [over] any other sale of electric energy . . . .” Section 201 (c) defines energy transmitted in interstate commerce as energy “transmitted from a State and consumed at any point outside thereof.” In Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 515 (1945), we noted that by this definition the initial jurisdictional determination “was to follow the flow of electric energy, an engineering and scientific, rather than a legalistic or governmental, test.” Id., at 529; FPC v. Southern California Edison Co., 376 U. S. 205, 209 n. 5 (1964).
In the case now before us the FPC hearing examiner and the Commission itself, utilizing two scientific tests, determined that the Florida Power & Light Co. (FP&L) generates energy that is transmitted in interstate commerce. They therefore held the company subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. Respondent FP&L argues that an alternative model better represents the flow of its electricity; by use of this model it purports to demonstrate that its power has not flowed in interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the FPC’s tests as “not sufficient to prove the actual transmission of energy interstate.” 430 F. 2d 1377, 1383 (1970). It did not approve FP&L’s test (“Both [the FPC and the FP&L tests] suffer from the same vice,” id., at 1385), but because the FPC must shoulder the burden of proof, its finding of jurisdiction was set aside.
We granted certiorari to determine if either of the FPC’s tests provides an acceptable basis at law and a sufficient basis in fact for the establishment of jurisdiction. 401 U. S. 907 (1971).
I
FP&L is Florida’s largest electric utility. At the time relevant to this litigation it served nearly one million customers, ranked ninth nationally among electric companies in revenues, 14th in investment in gross utility electric plant, and 16th in kilowatt-hour sales. Despite this significant size, the peninsular nature of Florida, the concentration of the company’s sales in the southern part of the State, and the recurrent threat of hurricanes which might sever power lines combine to make the operations of the company unusually insular and independent of the operations of like companies in other States. All of FP&L’s equipment, including transmission lines, is confined to Florida and none of its lines directly connect with those of out-of-state companies.
FP&L does, however, indirectly connect with out-of-state companies. As a member of the Florida Pool, it is interconnected with the Florida Power Corp. (Corp), the Tampa Electric Co., the Orlando Utilities Commission, and the City of Jacksonville. These interconnected utilities and authorities coordinate their activities and exchange power as circumstances require. In 1964 FP&L transferred over 107 million kwh to Corp and received over 61 million kwh from Corp. If power from FP&L flows in interstate commerce it is because Corp interconnects just short of Florida’s northern border with Georgia Power Co. and regularly exchanges power with it. Georgia’s lines transmit the power out of or into Florida. There are numerous instances in which transfers between Georgia and Corp are recorded as coinciding with transfers between Corp and FP&L.
The Georgia-Corp interconnection serves another function. Corp, FP&L, and the other Florida Pool participants are members of the Interconnected Systems Group (ISG), a national interlocking of utilities that automatically provides power in case of emergencies. In time of emergency this power also would flow through Corp’s links with Georgia. To date FP&L has had no occasion to call for ISG power. But when a midwestern utility sustained a 580-megawatt generating loss, a regularly scheduled 8-megawatt FP&L contribution to the Florida Pool coincided with an 8-megawatt contribution from the pool to the ISG system.
These relationships establish the focal issue in this case. The FPC may exercise jurisdiction only if there is substantial evidentiary support for the Commission’s conclusion that FP&L power has reached Georgia via Corp or that Georgia’s power has reached FP&L because of exchanges with Corp. What happens when FP&L gives power to Corp and Corp gives power to Georgia (or vice versa)? Is FP&L power commingled with Corp’s own supply, and thus passed on with that supply, as the Commission contends? Or is it diverted to handle Corp’s independent power needs, displacing a like amount of Corp power that is then passed on, as respondent argues? Or, as the Commission also contends, do changes in FP&L’s load or generation, or that of others in the interconnected system, stimulate a reaction up and down the line by a signal or a chain reaction that is, in essence, electricity moving in interstate commerce? Upon answer to these questions, jurisdiction rides.
If FP&L were directly involved in power exchanges with Georgia, there would be no serious question about the resolution of this case. Section 201 of the Federal Power Act owes its origin to the determination of this Court that a direct transfer of power from a utility in Rhode Island to a utility in Massachusetts is in interstate commerce. See Public Utilities Comm’n v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., 273 U. S. 83 (1927). "Part II [of the Act] is a direct result of Attleboro." United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, 345 U. S. 295, 311 (1953). There can be no doubt that § 201 achieves its end and fills the "Attleboro gap" by giving the FPC jurisdiction over direct exchanges. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 515 (1945).
Nor would there be any difficulty in resolving this case if the company or companies that stood between FP&L and the out-of-state power companies could be shown to be sometimes no more than a funnel. In Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 319 U. S. 61 (1943), the first of the major FPC jurisdictional cases to be considered by this Court, Jersey Central supplied power to the Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (also a New Jersey company), which in turn had exchange arrangements with Staten Island Edison Corp. (a New York company). The transfer from PSE&G to Staten Island was effected through a “bus”— a transmission line of three conductors into which a number of subsidiary lines connect. The FPC showed through extensive sampling of the logs of the relevant companies, that on at least a dozen occasions when Staten Island drew power from the bus only Jersey Central was supplying the bus. Thus, the intermediate presence of PSE&G was shown to be, in some circumstances, a null factor, and it was established that Jersey Central energy was moving in interstate commerce.
In the litigation before us the record does not disclose situations in which Corp operated as a null or insufficient factor. Thus, the FPC has not in this litigation demonstrated with the clarity and certainty obtaining in the Jersey Central case that the energy flows that are a prerequisite to jurisdiction occurred.
This is not, however, the equivalent of saying that the flows did not occur or that there was not substantial evidence for concluding that they did. The Court of Appeals was hardly less emphatic than the Federal Power Commission in its conclusion that FP&L’s “proof” that the flows did not occur was unconvincing. The court purported to have no opinion whether the flows had actually occurred. The question that must be resolved, therefore, is whether the evidence presented, though not so certain and convincing as that which the FPC offered in Jersey Central, was nonetheless adequate to establish jurisdiction.
We turn first to the conflicting contentions of the parties.
II
The Federal Power Commission followed alternate routes to its conclusion that FP&L energy moved in interstate commerce. The first course, based on what the Commission called the electromagnetic unity of response of interconnected electrical systems, is best represented in the words of the hearing examiner:
“[N]one of the connected electric systems including that of Florida, Corp, and Georgia has any control over the actual transfers of power at each point of interconnection because of the free flow characteristics of electric networks. . . .
“An electric utility system such as Florida [Power & Light] is essentially an electro-mechanical system to which all operating generators on the interconnected network are interlocked eleetromagneti-cally. This means that electric generators, under ordinary operating conditions run either at exactly the same speed or at speeds which will result in a frequency of 60 cycles. No operating generator can change its speed by itself as long as it operates connected to the network. All generators connected to the same network must follow each other as to speed and frequency whenever there is a change in frequency, and the frequency of all interlocked generators is always exactly the same.
“If a housewife in Atlanta on the Georgia system turns on a light, every generator on Florida’s system almost instantly is caused to produce some quantity of additional electric energy which serves to maintain the balance in the interconnected system between generation and load. If sensitive enough instruments were available and were to be placed throughout Florida’s system the increase in generation by every generator on Florida [Power & Light] could be precisely measured.”
The hearing examiner concluded:
“The cause and effect relationship in electric energy occurring throughout every generator and point on the Georgia, Corp and Florida systems constitutes interstate transmission of electric energy by, to, and from Florida. It is the electromagnetic unity of response of Florida, Corp, Georgia and other interconnecting systems that constitutes the interstate transmission of electric energy by Florida.”
By this analysis a change in FP&L’s load or generating pattern depletes or adds to the force available in out-of-state lines; therefore FP&L is transmitting energy in interstate commerce.
The alternative analysis by the Commission and its staff experts concentrates on power flow within the “Turner bus” — the point of connection between Corp’s and FP&L’s systems. Power supplied to the bus from a variety of sources is said to merge at a point and to be commingled just as molecules of water from different sources (rains, streams, etc.) would be commingled in a reservoir. On this basis the FPC need only show (1) FP&L power entering the bus and (2) power leaving the bus for out-of-state destinations at the same moment, in order to establish the fact that some FP&L power goes out of State. The FPC purported to make this demonstration by a series of tracing studies.
FP&L objects. The first approach is said to be technologically sound, but legally insufficient in that it does not demonstrate that any FP&L power flows in interstate commerce, but only that it affects interstate commerce. Congress, it is argued, could have chosen to grant the FPC jurisdiction over activities affecting commerce, but it clearly did not do so.
The second approach of the FPC purports to meet the standard at law, but according to FP&L it is technologically unsound. A bus is not a point, but rather a tangible, physical three-strand power line, in this case 225 feet in length. It is argued that it is not a general reservoir. Power, according to this argument, enters and is drawn off the line at discrete identifiable points. Power from any given source will not flow further along the line than loads of wattage cumulatively equal to the wattage of the power source. The distribution of entry lines and wattage loads on the Turner bus is said to demonstrate that all of the FP&L’s power will be exhausted by Corp’s load lines before the point, further down the line, where Georgia’s load intervenes. When power flows in the opposite direction (i e., north to south) again the effect is one of displacement: Georgia’s power goes to Corp’s loads and the output of Corp’s generators is thus displaced to FP&L.
III
We do not find it necessary to approve or disapprove the Federal Power Commission’s analysis based on unity of electromagnetic response. Its alternative assertion that energy commingles in a bus is, in our opinion, sufficient to sustain jurisdiction.
In evaluating this second approach, the courts are called upon to do no more than assess the Commission’s judgment of technical facts. If the Commission’s conclusion of commingling is not overturned, then the legal consequences are clear.
The conclusion of the FPC that FP&L energy commingled with that of Corp and was transmitted in commerce rested on the testimony of expert witnesses. The major points expounded by these witnesses were probed, and in our opinion not undercut, by the hearing examiner’s questions, FP&L’s cross-examination, and rebuttal testimony of FP&L witnesses. The hearing examiner found the testimony persuasive and held that his conclusions could be independently reached upon it. A majority of the Commission, reasoning similarly, endorsed these conclusions.
A court must be reluctant to reverse results supported by such a weight of considered and carefully articulated expert opinion. Particularly when we consider a purely factual question within the area of competence of an administrative agency created by Congress, and when resolution of that question depends on “engineering and scientific” considerations, we recognize the relevant agency’s technical expertise and experience, and defer to its analysis unless it is without substantial basis in fact. An appreciation of such different institutional capacities is reflected in the congressional directive defining the terms of judicial review of FPC action: “The finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” Federal Power Act § 313 (b), 16 U. S. C. § 825l (b). See Gainesville Utilities Dept. v. Florida Power Corp., 402 U. S. 515, 526-529 (1971).
The Court of Appeals appears to have rejected the Commission's conclusions for two reasons. First, it apparently regarded these conclusions as supported by mere speculation rather than evidence. In its view, expert opinion about the nature of reality, however logically compelling, is not fact. Second, even if the Commission’s views might be said to be supported by substantial evidence, the Court of Appeals apparently thought it important that the Commission acknowledged that its conclusions rest upon representations of a reality imperfectly understood. From this the Court of Appeals concluded that it was dealing with a “simplified characterization” that, despite the frequent use of that same characterization by other courts of appeals, was too uncertain in its application to any particular situation to be used as the basis for establishing jurisdiction.
We reverse and reinstate the FPC’s order because we do not think these points are well taken. As to the Court of Appeals’ first reservation, we hold that well-reasoned expert testimony — based on what is known and uncontradicted by empirical evidence — may in and of itself be “substantial evidence” when first-hand evidence on the question (in this case how electricity moves within a bus) is unavailable. This proposition has been so long accepted, and indeed has been so often applied specifically to challenges to the FPC’s determination of technical matters, that we do not consider it fairly in dispute. See, e. g., FPC v. Southern California Edison Co., 376 U. S. 205, 209 n. 5 (1964); Travelers’ Indemnity Co. v. Parkersburg Iron & Steel Co., 70 F. 2d 63, 64 (1934); United States ex rel. Chapman v. FPC, 191 F. 2d 796, 808 (1951), aff’d, 345 U. S. 153 (1953). As Judge Parker said in the Court of Appeals’ opinion in the latter case:
“The [substantial-evidence] rule is no different because the questions involve matters of scientific knowledge and the evidence consists largely of the opinion of experts. The court may not, for that reason, ignore the conclusions of the experts and the Commission and put itself in the absurd position of substituting its judgment for theirs on controverted matters of hydraulic engineering. It is in just such matters that the findings of the Commission, because of its experience and the assistance of its technical staff, should be accorded the greatest weight and the courts should be most hesitant to substitute their judgment for that of the Commission.” 191 F. 2d, at 808.
On affirming, this Court noted,
“[W]e cannot say, within the limited scope of review open to us, that the Commission’s findings were not warranted. Judgment upon these conflicting engineering and economic issues is precisely that which the Commission exists to determine, so long as it cannot be said, as it cannot, that the judgment which it exercised had no basis in evidence and so was devoid of reason.” 345 U. S., at 171.
The elusive nature of electrons renders experimental evidence that might draw the fine distinctions required by this case practically unobtainable. That does not mean that expert testimony is insubstantial and that FP&L is beyond federal regulation.
We think the second, related, concern expressed by the Court of Appeals exaggerates the standard of proof required in civil cases such as this. The lower court would apparently require tracing studies showing an energy flow-through like that demonstrated in Jersey Central.
We do not think Jersey Central sets such high jurisdictional standards. Special circumstances in that case (the occasional operation of PSE&G as a null factor) permitted the FPC to present clear and compelling proof of interstate transactions. But we assessed the FPC’s determination, not by the standards of certainty, but rather by the substantial-evidence test. The fact that the FPC was exceptionally convincing in that leading case does not raise the standard that it must meet in all future cases.
Finding no reason in the case law for imposing a standard of certainty, we are not willing to construct one. It is not true, as argued by respondent, that an engineering test of certainty is needed to reserve an area of state jurisdiction. On top of the “engineering and scientific test” that controls this case, the Federal Power Act imposes a “legalistic or governmental” test. Federal jurisdiction may not reach “facilities used in local distribution” of energy. 16 U. S. C. § 824 (b). Thus, state jurisdiction is clearly demarcated and preserved. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 515 (1945).
A requirement of tracing studies of the sort demanded by the Court of Appeals — if they are feasible at all — would take one to two years to conduct. Even under the FPC’s supposedly too- easily met criteria of jurisdiction, the FP&L matter took almost four years to pass through Commission proceedings; it has been before the courts for four more years. If the congres-sionally mandated system is to function meaningfully, the judiciary cannot overwhelm it with unworkably high standards of proof. New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184, 197 (1923); Railroad Comm’n of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 257 U. S. 563, 579 (1922).
We note, moreover, that Jersey Central type tracing studies become less feasible as interconnections grow more complicated. Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 368 F. 2d 376, 382 (CA8 1966), quoting 34 F. P. C. 747, 751. The requirement of Jersey Central type tracing might encourage the artificial and wasteful complication of interconnections for the purpose of avoiding federal jurisdiction. More important, as interconnections proliferate and energy pools grow larger, jurisdictional hurdles like those erected by the Court of Appeals would become ever more difficult to clear. Thus, the greater the need for regulation, the more likely it would become (under the Court of Appeals’ rule) that regulation would not be achieved.
As pointed out by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in an FPC case similar to this one, even in a criminal prosecution where the highest standards of proof are required, guilt may be shown by circumstantial evidence. The FPC has used tracing studies to show what went into and out of the Turner bus at a given moment; it has marshaled expert opinion to suggest what may reasonably be said to have occurred in the bus at the instant of transmission; it has presented this evidence in a closely reasoned and empirically uncontra-dicted opinion. Recognizing that the men responsible do not now fully understand electricity, though they know how to use it, and use it on an ever-expanding basis, we do not demand more of the Commission than that its conclusions be substantially supported by expert opinion that is in accord with the facts known for certain. The Commission has done enough to establish its jurisdiction.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for reinstatement of the order of the Federal Power Commission.
Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The relevant sections of 16 U. S. C. § 824, stated in full, are as follows:
“(a) It is declared that the business of transmitting and selling electric energy for ultimate distribution to the public is affected with a public interest, and that Federal regulation of matters relating to generation to the extent provided in this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter and of that part of such business which consists of the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and the sale of such energy at wholesale in interstate commerce is necessary in the public interest, such Federal regulation, however, to extend only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the States.
“(b) The provisions of this subchapter shall apply to the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and to the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce, but shall not apply to any other sale of electric energy or deprive a State or State commission of its lawful authority now exercised over the exportation of hydroelectric energy which is transmitted across a State line. The Commission shall have jurisdiction over all facilities for such transmission or sale of electric energy, but shall not have jurisdiction, except as specifically provided in this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter, over facilities used for the generation of electric energy or over facilities used in local distribution or only for the transmission of electric energy in intrastate commerce, or over facilities for the transmission of electric energy consumed wholly by the transmitter.
“(c) For the purpose of this subchapter, electric energy shall be held to be transmitted in interstate commerce if transmitted from a State and consumed at any point outside thereof; but only insofar as such transmission takes place within the United States.
“(d) The term ‘sale of electric energy at wholesale’ when used in this subchapter, means a sale of electric energy to any person for resale.”
Seventy-five percent of FP&L’s load is concentrated at the southern tip of Florida, some 400 miles south of the Georgia border. Transcript of Proceedings before the FPC 241. Reprinted in App. 2 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as (T)).
Corp was before this Court in Gainesville Utilities Dept. v. Florida Power Corp., 402 U. S. 515 (1971), in which case its operations are described in some detail. Corp is a public utility subject to the FPC’s jurisdiction.
“The purpose of the energy interchanges is to take care of temporary needs. There are no economy sales (sales by a company that can produce lower cost power to a higher cost producer) because fuel costs are similar for all members [of the Florida Pool].” Opinion of the FPC Hearing Examiner, 37 F. P. C. 544, 562.
Hearing Exhibit No. 15, p. 1028 (T).
It has other interconnections across state lines, but we concentrate, as did the FPC, on a single Georgia-Corp connection. If FP&L power is shown to flow through this connection the others need not be considered, because jurisdiction is established. See n. 7, infra.
Opinion of the FPC Hearing Examiner, 37 F. P. C., at 564.
FPC staff exhibits revealed 42 instances, discovered by meter readings at selected hours over a four-month period, in which a transfer from Georgia to Corp’s bus was instantly followed by a transfer from that bus to FP&L. Hearing Exhibits Nos. 18, pp. 1048-1054 (T), and 19, pp. 1055-1059 (T). Five instances of power flow from FP&L to Corp’s bus, followed by transmission from that bus to Georgia were recorded over the same period. Hearing Exhibit No. 32, p. 1116 (T). “For example, Staff’s Exhibit No. 18, at page 6, graphically demonstrates that on September 28, 1964, at 7:00 o’clock p. m., there was a flow of 51,000 kw of interstate power from Georgia to Corp and an instantaneous flow of 50,000 kw of . . . power from Corp to FPL.” Opinion of the FPC, 37 F. P. C., at 550.
Opinion of the Hearing Examiner, 37 F. P. C., at 567-568.
If any FP&L power has reached Georgia, or FP&L makes use of any Georgia power, no matter how small the quantity, FPC jurisdiction will attach because it is settled that Congress has not “conditioned the jurisdiction of the Commission upon any particular volume or proportion of interstate energy involved, and we do not . . . supply such a jurisdictional limitation by construction.” Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 515, 536. See also Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. FPC, 343 U. S. 414 (1952).
See Exhibits Nos. 18 and 19, pp. 1048-1059 (T).
This argument is developed by the dissent in Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 319 U. S. 61, 78 et seq. Note particularly p. 88: “It is interesting to compare, in this connection, other statutes enacted by the same Congress [as the one which enacted Part II of the Federal Power Act]. Three adopted in July and August 1935 covered activities ‘affecting’ commerce; three, including the Federal Power Act in question, adopted in August 1935 did not cover activities ‘affecting’ commerce.” Thus it was inferred that we are dealing with a particularly “discriminating use of language.”
“Neither the examiner nor the Commission treated the commingling theory as a scientific fact depicting accurately what does occur but only as the more adequate way to conceptualize actual occurrences.
“The Commission expert witness Jacobsen acknowledged commingling has never been verified experimentally as fact.” 430 F. 2d 1377, 1384-1385.
See principally Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. FPC, 365 F. 2d 180 (CA7), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 972 (1966); Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 368 F. 2d 376 (CA8 1966); Public Service Co. of Indiana v. FPC, 375 F. 2d 100 (CA7), cert. denied, 387 U. S. 931 (1967); Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. FPC, 376 F. 2d 506 (CA6), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 842 (1967).
“Sometimes the reason for tolerating a gap either between evidence and findings or between findings and decision has to do with limitations of human intellects or limitations on the magnitude of investigations that may be conducted in particular circumstances. Not all propositions of fact that are useful and used in the administrative process are susceptible of proof with evidence. Or developing the evidence would be inordinately expensive.” 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 16.11, p. 473 (1958).
The weight of such testimony was properly recognized by Lord Mansfield some 190 years ago:
“The facts in this case are not disputed. In 1758 the bank was erected, and soon afterwards the harbour went to decay. The question is, to what has this decay been owing? The defendant says, to this bank. Why? Because it prevents the backwater. That is matter of opinion: — the whole case is a question of opinion, from facts agreed upon. Nobody can swear that it was the cause .... [T]he parties go down to trial . . . and Mr. Smeaton is called. A confusion now arises from a misapplication of terms. It is objected that Mr. Smeaton is going to speak, not as to facts, but as to opinion. That opinion, however, is deduced from facts which are not disputed — the situation of banks, the course of tides and of winds, and the shifting of sands. His opinion, deduced from all these facts, is, that, mathematically speaking, the bank may contribute to the mischief, but not sensibly. Mr. Smeaton understands the construction of harbours, the causes of their destruction, and how remedied. In matters of science no other witnesses can be called. . . . The question then depends on the evidence of those who understand such matters; and when such questions come before me, I always send for some of the brethren of the Trinity House. I cannot believe that where the question is, whether a defect arises from a natural or an artificial cause, the opinions of men of science are not to be received. . . . The cause of the decay of the harbour is ... a matter of science .... Of this, such men as Mr. Smeaton alone can judge. Therefore we are of opinion that his judgment, formed on facts, was very proper evidence.” Folkes v. Chadd, 3 Doug. 157, 158-160, 99 Eng. Rep. 589-590 (1782).
Modern analysis follows this perception. See 7 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1917-1929, 1976 (3d ed. 1940 and Supp. 1970).
“This evidence, we think, furnishes substantial basis for the conclusion of the Commission that facilities of Jersey Central are utilized for the transmission of electric energy across state lines.” Jersey Central, supra, n. 12, at 67.
“Logic would seem to dictate that where the utility is a member of a combination of utilities and has continuous access to an integrated pool of interstate energy, the tracing of out-of-state energy is indeed difficult, burdensome, and perhaps impossible.” Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 368 F. 2d, at 382.
Public Service Co. of Indiana v. FPC, 375 F. 2d, at 104 n. 7.
The final FPC decision was handed down on May 2, 1967. We do not know when the FPC began its investigation of FP&L. But ignoring what must have been an extended period of initial staff work, we observe that the record shows that FP&L was formally notified on October 3, 1963, that in the opinion of the FPC staff it was subject to FPC jurisdiction. Order Initiating Investigation and Hearing 2412 (T).
“We reject I&M’s fundamental proposition in this case that in order to prevail, the Federal Power Commission must do what I&M claims to be impossible, that is, to prove by either tracing or some other unnamed ‘scientific and engineering proof’ that out-of-state energy reaches the wholesale customers. We might recall that even in criminal cases, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt often can be established by circumstantial evidence.” Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. FPC, 365 F. 2d 180, at 184.
“Nobody can say for certain just how electricity is really transmitted.” Opinion of the Hearing Examiner, 37 F. P. C., at 568.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The village of Pender, Nebraska sits a few miles west of an abandoned right-of-way once used by the Sioux City and Nebraska Railroad Company. We must decide whether Pender and surrounding Thurston County, Nebraska, are within the boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation or whether the passage of an 1882 Act empowering the United States Secretary of the Interior to sell the Tribe's land west of the right-of-way "diminished" the reservation's boundaries, thereby "free[ing]" the disputed land of "its reservation status." Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 467, 104 S.Ct. 1161, 79 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). We hold that Congress did not diminish the reservation in 1882 and that the disputed land is within the reservation's boundaries.
I
A
Centuries ago, the Omaha Tribe settled in present-day eastern Nebraska. By the mid-19th century, the Tribe was destitute and, in exchange for much-needed revenue, agreed to sell a large swath of its land to the United States. In 1854, the Tribe entered into a treaty with the United States to create a 300,000-acre reservation. Treaty with the Omahas (1854 Treaty), Mar. 16, 1854, 10 Stat. 1043. The Tribe agreed to "cede" and "forever relinquish all right and title to" its land west of the Mississippi River, excepting the reservation, in exchange for $840,000, to be paid over 40 years. Id., at 1043-1044.
In 1865, after the displaced Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe moved west, the Omaha Tribe agreed to "cede, sell, and convey" an additional 98,000 acres on the north side of the reservation to the United States for the purpose of creating a reservation for the Winnebagoes. Treaty with the Omaha Indians (1865 Treaty), Mar. 6, 1865, 14 Stat. 667-668. The Tribe sold the land for a fixed sum of $50,000. Id ., at 667.
In 1872, the Tribe again expressed its wish to sell portions of the reservation, but Congress took a different tack than it had in the 1854 and 1865 Treaties. Instead of purchasing a portion of the reservation for a fixed sum, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to survey, appraise, and sell up to 50,000 acres on the western side of the reservation "to be separated from the remaining portion of said reservation" by a north-south line agreed to by the Tribe and Congress. Act of June 10, 1872 (1872 Act), ch. 436, § 1, 17 Stat. 391. Under the 1872 Act, a nonmember could purchase "tracts not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres each" or "the entire body offered." Ibid . Proceeds from any sales would be "placed to the credit of said Indians on the books of the treasury of the United States." Ibid . But the proceeds were meager. The 1872 Act resulted in only two sales totaling 300.72 acres.
Then came the 1882 Act, central to the dispute between petitioners and respondents. In that Act, Congress again empowered the Secretary of the Interior "to cause to be surveyed, if necessary, and sold" more than 50,000 acres lying west of a right-of-way granted by the Tribe and approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1880 for use by the Sioux City and Nebraska Railroad Company. Act of Aug. 7, 1882 (1882 Act), 22 Stat. 341. The land for sale under the terms of the 1882 Act overlapped substantially with the land Congress tried, but failed, to sell in 1872. Once the land was appraised "in tracts of forty acres each," the Secretary was "to issue [a] proclamation" that the "lands are open for settlement under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe." §§ 1, 2, id., at 341. Within one year of that proclamation, a nonmember could purchase up to 160 acres of land (for no less than $2.50 per acre) in cash paid to the United States, so long as the settler "occup[ied]" it, made "valuable improvements thereon," and was "a citizen of the United States, or ... declared his intention to become such." § 2, id., at 341. The proceeds from any land sales, "after paying all expenses incident to and necessary for carrying out the provisions of th[e] act," were to "be placed to the credit of said Indians in the Treasury of the United States." § 3, id., at 341. Interest earned on the proceeds was to be "annually expended for the benefit of said Indians, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior." Ibid.
The 1882 Act also included a provision, common in the late 19th century, that enabled members of the Tribe to select individual allotments, §§ 5-8, id., at 342-343, as a means of encouraging them to depart from the communal lifestyle of the reservation. See Solem, supra, at 467, 104 S.Ct. 1161. The 1882 Act provided that the United States would convey the land to a member or his heirs in fee simple after holding it in trust on behalf of the member and his heirs for 25 years. § 6, 22 Stat. 342. Members could select allotments on any part of the reservation, either east or west of the right-of-way. § 8, id., at 343.
After the members selected their allotments-only 10 to 15 of which were located west of the right-of-way-the Secretary proclaimed that the remaining 50,157 acres west of the right-of-way were open for settlement by nonmembers in April 1884. One of those settlers was W.E. Peebles, who "purchased a tract of 160 acres, on which he platted the townsite for Pender." Smith v. Parker, 996 F.Supp.2d 815, 828 (D.Neb.2014).
B
The village of Pender today numbers 1,300 residents. Most are not associated with the Omaha Tribe. Less than 2% of Omaha tribal members have lived west of the right-of-way since the early 20th century.
Despite its longstanding absence, the Tribe sought to assert jurisdiction over Pender in 2006 by subjecting Pender retailers to its newly amended Beverage Control Ordinance. The ordinance requires those retailers to obtain a liquor license (costing $500, $1,000, or $1,500 depending upon the class of license) and imposes a 10% sales tax on liquor sales. Nonmembers who violate the ordinance are subject to a $10,000 fine.
The village of Pender and Pender retailers, including bars, a bowling alley, and social clubs, brought a federal suit against members of the Omaha Tribal Council in their official capacities to challenge the Tribe's power to impose the requirements of the Beverage Control Ordinance on nonmembers. Federal law permits the Tribe to regulate liquor sales on its reservation and in "Indian country" so long as the Tribe's regulations are (as they were here) "certified by the Secretary of the Interior, and published in the Federal Register." 18 U.S.C. § 1161. The challengers alleged that they were neither within the boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation nor in Indian country and, consequently, were not bound by the ordinance.
The State of Nebraska intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the United States intervened on behalf of the Omaha Tribal Council members. The State's intervention was prompted, in part, by the Omaha Tribe's demand that Nebraska share with the Tribe revenue that the State received from fuel taxes imposed west of the right-of-way. In addition to the relief sought by Pender and the Pender retailers, Nebraska sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from asserting tribal jurisdiction over the 50,157 acres west of the abandoned right-of-way.
After examining the text of the 1882 Act, as well as the contemporaneous and subsequent understanding of the 1882 Act's effect on the reservation boundaries, the District Court concluded that Congress did not diminish the Omaha Reservation in 1882. 996 F.Supp.2d, at 844. Accordingly, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive and declaratory relief barring the Tribe's enforcement of the Beverage Control Ordinance. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Smith v. Parker, 774 F.3d 1166, 1168-1169 (2014). We granted certiorari to resolve whether the 1882 Act diminished the Omaha Reservation. 576 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 27, 192 L.Ed.2d 998 (2015).
II
We must determine whether Congress "diminished" the Omaha Indian Reservation in 1882. If it did so, the State now has jurisdiction over the disputed land. Solem, 465 U.S., at 467, 104 S.Ct. 1161. If Congress, on the other hand, did not diminish the reservation and instead only enabled nonmembers to purchase land within the reservation, then federal, state, and tribal authorities share jurisdiction over these "opened" but undiminished reservation lands. Ibid .
The framework we employ to determine whether an Indian reservation has been diminished is well settled. Id., at 470-472, 104 S.Ct. 1161. "[O]nly Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries," and its intent to do so must be clear. Id., at 470, 104 S.Ct. 1161. To assess whether an Act of Congress diminished a reservation, we start with the statutory text, for "[t]he most probative evidence of diminishment is, of course, the statutory language used to open the Indian lands." Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 411, 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994). Under our precedents, we also "examine all the circumstances surrounding the opening of a reservation." Id ., at 412, 114 S.Ct. 958. Because of "the turn-of-the-century assumption that Indian reservations were a thing of the past," many surplus land Acts did not clearly convey "whether opened lands retained reservation status or were divested of all Indian interests." Solem, supra, at 468, 104 S.Ct. 1161. For that reason, our precedents also look to any "unequivocal evidence" of the contemporaneous and subsequent understanding of the status of the reservation by members and nonmembers, as well as the United States and the State of Nebraska. South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329, 351, 118 S.Ct. 789, 139 L.Ed.2d 773 (1998).
A
As with any other question of statutory interpretation, we begin with the text of the 1882 Act, the most "probative evidence" of diminishment. Solem, supra, at 470, 104 S.Ct. 1161 ; see, e.g., United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) ("The task of resolving the dispute over the meaning of [a statutory text] begins where all such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself"). Common textual indications of Congress' intent to diminish reservation boundaries include "[e]xplicit reference to cession or other language evidencing the present and total surrender of all tribal interests" or "an unconditional commitment from Congress to compensate the Indian tribe for its opened land." Solem, supra, at 470, 104 S.Ct. 1161. Such language "providing for the total surrender of tribal claims in exchange for a fixed payment" evinces Congress' intent to diminish a reservation, Yankton Sioux, supra, at 345, 118 S.Ct. 789 and creates "an almost insurmountable presumption that Congress meant for the tribe's reservation to be diminished," Solem, supra, at 470-471, 104 S.Ct. 1161. Similarly, a statutory provision restoring portions of a reservation to "the public domain" signifies diminishment. Hagen, 510 U.S., at 414, 114 S.Ct. 958. In the 19th century, to restore land to the public domain was to extinguish the land's prior use-its use, for example, as an Indian reservation-and to return it to the United States either to be sold or set aside for other public purposes. Id., at 412-413, 114 S.Ct. 958.
The 1882 Act bore none of these hallmarks of diminishment. The 1882 Act empowered the Secretary to survey and appraise the disputed land, which then could be purchased in 160-acre tracts by nonmembers. 22 Stat. 341. The 1882 Act states that the disputed lands would be "open for settlement under such rules and regulations as [the Secretary of the Interior] may prescribe." Ibid . And the parcels would be sold piecemeal in 160-acre tracts. Ibid. So rather than the Tribe's receiving a fixed sum for all of the disputed lands, the Tribe's profits were entirely dependent upon how many nonmembers purchased the appraised tracts of land.
From this text, it is clear that the 1882 Act falls into another category of surplus land Acts: those that "merely opened reservation land to settlement and provided that the uncertain future proceeds of settler purchases should be applied to the Indians' benefit." DeCoteau v. District County Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425, 448, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975). Such schemes allow "non-Indian settlers to own land on the reservation." Seymour v. Superintendent of Wash. State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351, 356, 82 S.Ct. 424, 7 L.Ed.2d 346 (1962). But in doing so, they do not diminish the reservation's boundaries.
Our conclusion that Congress did not intend to diminish the reservation in 1882 is confirmed by the text of earlier treaties between the United States and the Tribe. See Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 504, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973) (comparing statutory text to earlier bills). In drafting the 1882 Act, Congress legislated against the backdrop of the 1854 and 1865 Treaties-both of which terminated the Tribe's jurisdiction over their land "in unequivocal terms." Ibid . Those treaties "ced[ed]" the lands and "reliquish [ed]" any claims to them in exchange for a fixed sum. 10 Stat. 1043-1044; see also 14 Stat. 667 ("The Omaha tribe of Indians do hereby cede, sell, and convey to the United States a tract of land from the north side of their present reservation ..." (emphasis added)). The 1882 Act speaks in much different terms, both in describing the way the individual parcels were to be sold to nonmembers and the way in which the Tribe would profit from those sales. That 1882 Act also closely tracks the 1872 Act, which petitioners do not contend diminished the reservation. The change in language in the 1882 Act undermines petitioners' claim that Congress intended to do the same with the reservation's boundaries in 1882 as it did in 1854 and 1865. Petitioners have failed at the first and most important step. They cannot establish that the text of the 1882 Act evinced an intent to diminish the reservation.
B
We now turn to the history surrounding the passage of the 1882 Act. The mixed historical evidence relied upon by the parties cannot overcome the lack of clear textual signal that Congress intended to diminish the reservation. That historical evidence in no way "unequivocally reveal[s] a widely held, contemporaneous understanding that the affected reservation would shrink as a result of the proposed legislation." Solem, 465 U.S., at 471, 104 S.Ct. 1161 (emphasis added); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) (describing the "often murky, ambiguous, and contradictory" nature of extratextual evidence of congressional intent).
Petitioners rely largely on isolated statements that some legislators made about the 1882 Act. Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, for example, noted that he had been "assured that [the 1882 Act] would leave an ample reservation " for the Tribe. 13 Cong. Rec. 3032 (1882) (emphasis added). And Senator John Ingalls of Kansas observed "that this bill practically breaks up that portion at least of the reservation which is to be sold, and provides that it shall be disposed of to private purchasers." Id., at 3028. Whatever value these contemporaneous floor statements might have, other such statements support the opposite conclusion-that Congress never intended to diminish the reservation. Senator Charles Jones of Florida, for example, spoke of "white men purchas[ing] titles to land within this reservation and settl [ing] down with the Indians on it." Id., at 3078 (emphasis added). Such dueling remarks by individual legislators are far from the "clear and plain" evidence of diminishment required under this Court's precedent. Yankton Sioux, 522 U.S., at 343, 118 S.Ct. 789 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Solem, 465 U.S., at 478, 104 S.Ct. 1161 (noting that it was unclear whether statements referring to a " 'reduced reservation' " alluded to the "reduction in Indian-owned lands that would occur once some of the opened lands were sold to settlers or to the reduction that a complete cession of tribal interests in the opened area would precipitate").
More illuminating than cherry-picked statements by individual legislators would be historical evidence of "the manner in which the transaction was negotiated" with the Omaha Tribe. Id., at 471, 104 S.Ct. 1161. In Yankton Sioux, for example, recorded negotiations between the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and leaders of the Yankton Sioux Tribe unambiguously "signaled [the Tribe's] understanding that the cession of the surplus lands dissolved tribal governance of the 1858 reservation." 522 U.S., at 353, 118 S.Ct. 789. No such unambiguous evidence exists in the record of these negotiations. In particular, petitioners' reliance on the remarks of Representative Edward Valentine of Nebraska, who stated, "You cannot find one of those Indians that does not want the western portion sold," and that the Tribe wished to sell the land to those who would " 'reside upon it and cultivate it' " so that the Tribe members could "benefit of these improvements," 13 Cong. Rec. 6541, falls short. Nothing about this statement or other similar statements unequivocally supports a finding that the existing boundaries of the reservation would be diminished.
C
Finally, we consider both the subsequent demographic history of opened lands, which serves as "one additional clue as to what Congress expected would happen once land on a particular reservation was opened to non-Indian settlers," Solem, 465 U.S., at 472, 104 S.Ct. 1161 as well as the United States' "treatment of the affected areas, particularly in the years immediately following the opening," which has "some evidentiary value," id., at 471, 104 S.Ct. 1161. Our cases suggest that such evidence might "reinforc[e]" a finding of diminishment or nondiminishment based on the text. Mattz, 412 U.S., at 505, 93 S.Ct. 2245 ; see also, e.g., Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 604-605, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977) (invoking subsequent history to reject a petitioner's "strained" textual reading of a congressional Act). But this Court has never relied solely on this third consideration to find diminishment.
As petitioners have discussed at length, the Tribe was almost entirely absent from the disputed territory for more than 120 years. Brief for Petitioners 24-30. The Omaha Tribe does not enforce any of its regulations-including those governing businesses, fire protection, animal control, fireworks, and wildlife and parks-in Pender or in other locales west of the right-of-way. 996 F.Supp.2d, at 832. Nor does it maintain an office, provide social services, or host tribal celebrations or ceremonies west of the right-of-way. Ibid.
This subsequent demographic history cannot overcome our conclusion that Congress did not intend to diminish the reservation in 1882. And it is not our role to "rewrite" the 1882 Act in light of this subsequent demographic history. DeCoteau, 420 U.S., at 447, 95 S.Ct. 1082. After all, evidence of the changing demographics of disputed land is "the least compelling" evidence in our diminishment analysis, for "[e]very surplus land Act necessarily resulted in a surge of non-Indian settlement and degraded the 'Indian character' of the reservation, yet we have repeatedly stated that not every surplus land Act diminished the affected reservation." Yankton Sioux, 522 U.S., at 356, 118 S.Ct. 789.
Evidence of the subsequent treatment of the disputed land by Government officials likewise has "limited interpretive value." Id., at 355, 118 S.Ct. 354. Petitioners highlight that, for more than a century and with few exceptions, reports from the Office of Indian Affairs and in opinion letters from Government officials treated the disputed land as Nebraska's. Brief for Petitioners 24-38; see also 996 F.Supp.2d, at 828, 830. It was not until this litigation commenced that the Department of the Interior definitively changed its position, concluding that the reservation boundaries were in fact not diminished in 1882. See id., at 830-831. For their part, respondents discuss late-19th-century statutes referring to the disputed land as part of the reservation, as well as inconsistencies in maps and statements by Government officials. Brief for Respondent Omaha Tribal Council et al. 45-52; Brief for United States 38-52; see also 996 F.Supp.2d, at 827, 832-833. This "mixed record" of subsequent treatment of the disputed land cannot overcome the statutory text, which is devoid of any language indicative of Congress' intent to diminish. Yankton Sioux, supra, at 356, 118 S.Ct. 789.
Petitioners' concerns about upsetting the "justifiable expectations" of the almost exclusively non-Indian settlers who live on the land are compelling, Rosebud Sioux, supra, at 605, 97 S.Ct. 1361 but these expectations alone, resulting from the Tribe's failure to assert jurisdiction, cannot diminish reservation boundaries. Only Congress has the power to diminish a reservation. DeCoteau, 420 U.S., at 449, 95 S.Ct. 1082. And though petitioners wish that Congress would have "spoken differently" in 1882, "we cannot remake history." Ibid.
* * *
In light of the statutory text, we hold that the 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation. Because petitioners have raised only the single question of diminishment, we express no view about whether equitable considerations of laches and acquiescence may curtail the Tribe's power to tax the retailers of Pender in light of the Tribe's century-long absence from the disputed lands. Cf. City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 217-221, 125 S.Ct. 1478, 161 L.Ed.2d 386 (2005).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Until this Court's 1903 decision in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566-568, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299, the question whether Congress could unilaterally abrogate treaties with tribes and divest them of their reservation lands was unsettled. Thus, what the tribe agreed to has been significant in the Court's diminishment analysis. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329, 351-353, 118 S.Ct. 789, 139 L.Ed.2d 773 (1998). Historical evidence of how pre-Lone Wolf sales of lands were negotiated has been deemed compelling, whereas historical evidence of negotiations post-Lone Wolf might be less so. See, e.g., Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 416-417, 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994).
See, e.g ., Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 4:07-cv-03101 (D Neb.), pp. 31, 38 (defendants cannot "impose an alcohol tax and licensing scheme outside the boundaries of the Omaha Reservation"); Plaintiff Intervenor's Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 4:07-cv-03101 (D Neb.), pp. 1-2; see also Smith v. Parker, 996 F.Supp.2d 815, 834 (D.Neb.2014) ("In this case, I must decide whether Congress's Act of August 7, 1882 ... diminished the boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation, or whether the Act simply permitted non-Indians to settle within existing Omaha Reservation boundaries"); Smith v. Parker, 774 F.3d 1166, 1167 (C.A.8 2014) ("Appellants challenge the district court's determination that the Omaha Indian Reservation was not diminished by an 1882 act of Congress").
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to forfeitures of property under 21 U. S. C. §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7). We hold that it does and therefore remand the case for consideration of the question whether the forfeiture at issue here was excessive.
I
On August 2,1990, petitioner Richard Lyle Austin was indicted on four counts of violating South Dakota’s drug laws. Austin ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced by the state court to seven years’ imprisonment. On September 7, the United States filed an in rem action in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota seeking forfeiture of Austin’s mobile home and auto body shop under 21 U. S. C. §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7). Austin filed a claim and an answer to the complaint.
On February 4, 1991, the United States made a motion, supported by an affidavit from Sioux Falls Police Officer Donald Satterlee, for summary judgment. According to Satterlee’s affidavit, Austin met Keith Engebretson at Austin’s body shop on June 13, 1990, and agreed to sell cocaine to Engebretson. Austin left the shop, went to his mobile home, and returned to the shop with two grams of cocaine which he sold to Engebretson. State authorities executed a search warrant on the body shop and mobile home the following day. They discovered small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, a.22 caliber revolver, drug paraphernalia, and approximately $4,700 in cash. App. 13. In opposing summary judgment, Austin argued that forfeiture of the properties would violate the Eighth Amendment. The District Court rejected this argument and entered summary judgment for the United States. Id., at 19.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit “reluctantly agree[d] with the government” and affirmed. United States v. One Parcel of Property, 964 F. 2d 814, 817 (1992). Although it thought that “the principle of proportionality should be applied in civil actions that result in harsh penalties,” ibid., and that the Government was “exacting too high a penalty in relation to the offense committed,” id., at 818, the court felt constrained from holding the forfeiture unconstitutional. It cited this Court’s decision in CaleroToledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663 (1974), for the proposition that, when the Government is proceeding against property in rem, the guilt or innocence of the property’s owner “is constitutionally irrelevant.” 964 F. 2d, at 817. It then reasoned: “We are constrained to agree with the Ninth Circuit that ‘[i]f the constitution allows in rem forfeiture to be visited upon innocent owners... the constitution hardly requires proportionality review of forfeitures.’” Ibid., quoting United States v. Tax Lot 1500, 861 F. 2d 232, 234 (CA9 1988), cert. denied sub nom. Jaffee v. United States, 493 U. S. 954 (1989).
We granted certiorari, 506 U. S. 1074 (1993), to resolve an apparent conflict with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit over the applicability of the Eighth Amendment to in rem civil forfeitures. See United States v. Certain Real Property, 954 F. 2d 29, 35, 38-39, cert. denied sub nom. Levin v. United States, 506 U. S. 815 (1992).
II
Austin contends that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to in rem civil forfeiture proceedings. See Brief for Petitioner 10,19, 23. We have had occasion to consider this Clause only once before. In Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257 (1989), we held that the Excessive Fines Clause does not limit the award of punitive damages to a private party in a civil suit when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages. Id., at 264. The Court’s opinion and Justice O’Connor’s opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, reviewed in some detail the history of the Excessive Fines Clause. See id., at 264-268,286-297. The Court concluded that both the Eighth Amendment and § 10 of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, from which it derives, were intended to prevent the government from abusing its power to punish, see id., at 266-267, and therefore that “the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, the government,” id., at 268.
We found it unnecessary to decide in Browning-Ferris whether the Excessive Fines Clause applies only to criminal cases. Id., at 263. The United States now argues that
“any claim that the government’s conduct in a civil proceeding is limited by the Eighth Amendment generally, or by the Excessive Fines Clause in particular, must fail unless the challenged governmental action, despite its label, would have been recognized as a criminal punishment at the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted.” Brief for United States 16 (emphasis added).
It further suggests that the Eighth Amendment cannot apply to a civil proceeding unless that proceeding is so punitive that it must be considered criminal under Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144 (1963), and United States v. Ward, 448 U. S. 242 (1980). Brief for United States 26-27. We disagree.
Some provisions of the Bill of Rights are expressly limited to criminal cases. The Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause, for example, provides: “No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The protections provided by the Sixth Amendment are explicitly confined to “criminal prosecutions.” See generally Ward, 448 U. S., at 248. The text of the Eighth Amendment includes no similar limitation. See n. 2, supra.
Nor does the history of the Eighth Amendment require such a limitation. Justice O’Connor noted in Browning-Ferris: “Consideration of the Eighth Amendment immediately followed consideration of the Fifth Amendment. After deciding to confine the benefits of the Self-Inerimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to criminal proceedings, the Framers turned their attention to the Eighth Amendment. There were no proposals to limit that Amendment to criminal proceedings....” 492 U. S., at 294. Section 10 of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 is not expressly limited to criminal cases either. The original draft of § 10 as introduced in the House of Commons did contain such a restriction, but only with respect to the bail clause: “The requiring excessive Bail of Persons committed in criminal Cases, and imposing excessive Fines, and illegal Punishments, to be prevented.” 10 H. C. Jour. 17 (1688). The absence of any similar restriction in the other two clauses suggests that they were not limited to criminal cases. In the final version, even the reference to criminal cases in the bail clause was omitted. See 1 W. & M., 2d Sess., ch. 2, 3 Stat. at Large 441 (1689) (“That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted”); see also L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 88 (1981) (“But article 10 contains no reference to ‘criminal cases’ and, thus, would seem to apply... to all cases”).
The purpose of the Eighth Amendment, putting the Bail Clause to one side, was to limit the government’s power to punish. See Browning-Ferris, 492 U. S., at 266-267, 275. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is self-evidently concerned with punishment. The Excessive Fines Clause limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, “as punishment for some offense.” Id.¡ at 265 (emphasis added). “The notion of punishment, as we commonly understand it, cuts across the division between the civil and the criminal law.” United States v. Halper, 490 U. S. 435, 447-448 (1989). “It is commonly understood that civil proceedings may advance punitive as well as remedial goals, and, conversely, that both punitive and remedial goals may be served by criminal penalties.” Id., at 447. See also United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537, 554 (1943) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Thus, the question is not, as the United States would have it, whether forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment.
In considering this question, we are mindful of the fact that sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose. We need not exclude the possibility that a forfeiture serves remedial purposes to conclude that it is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. We, however, must determine that it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. We said in Halper that “a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term.” 490 U. S., at 448. We turn, then, to consider whether, at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, forfeiture was understood at least in part as punishment and whether forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) should be so understood today.
Ill
A
Three kinds of forfeiture were established in England at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified in the United States: deodand, forfeiture upon conviction for a felony or treason, and statutory forfeiture. See Calero-Toledo, 416 U. S., at 680-683. Each was understood, at least in part, as imposing punishment.
“At common law the value of an inanimate object directly or indirectly causing the accidental death of a King’s subject was forfeited to the Crown as a deodand. The origins of the deodand are traceable to Biblical and pre-Judeo-Christian practices, which reflected the view that the instrument of death was accused and that religious expiation was required. See O. Holmes, The Common Law, c. 1 (1881). The value of the instrument was forfeited to the King, in the belief that the King would provide the money for Masses to be said for the good of the dead man’s soul, or insure that the deodand was put to charitable uses. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *300. When application of the deodand to religious or eleemosynary purposes ceased, and the deodand became a source of Crown revenue, the institution was justified as a penalty for carelessness.” Id., at 680-681 (footnotes omitted).
As Blackstone put it, “such misfortunes are in part owing to the negligence of the owner, and therefore he is properly punished by such forfeiture.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *301.
The second kind of common-law forfeiture fell only upon those convicted of a felony or of treason. “The convicted felon forfeited his chattels to the Crown and his lands es-cheated to his lord; the convicted traitor forfeited all of his property, real and personal, to the Crown.” Calero-Toledo, 416 U. S., at 682. Such forfeitures were known as forfeitures of estate. See 4 W. Blackstone, at *381. These forfeitures obviously served to punish felons and traitors, see The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 14 (1827), and were justified on the ground that property was a right derived from society which one lost by violating society’s laws, see 1 W. Blackstone, at *299; 4 id., at *382.
Third, “English Law provided for statutory forfeitures of offending objects used in violation of the customs and revenue laws.” Calero-Toledo, 416 U. S., at 682. The most notable of these were the Navigation Acts of 1660 that required the shipping of most commodities in English vessels. Violations of the Acts resulted in the forfeiture of the illegally carried goods as well as the ship that transported them. See generally L. Harper, English Navigation Laws (1939). The statute was construed so that the act of an individual seaman, undertaken without the knowledge of the master or owner, could result in forfeiture of the entire ship. See Mitchell v. Torup, Park. 227, 145 Eng. Rep. 764 (Ex. 1766). Yet Blackstone considered such forfeiture statutes “penal.” 3 W. Blackstone, at *261.
In Calero-Toledo, we observed that statutory forfeitures were “likely a product of the confluence and merger of the deodand tradition and the belief that the right to own property could be denied the wrongdoer.” 416 U. S., at 682. Since each of these traditions had a punitive aspect, it is not surprising that forfeiture under the Navigation Acts was justified as a penalty for negligence: “But the Owners of Ships are to take Care what Master they employ, and the Master what Mariners; and here Negligence is plainly imputable to the Master; for he is to report the Cargo of the Ship, and if he had searched and examined the Ship with proper care, according to his Duty, he would have found the Tea... and so might have prevented the Forfeiture.” Mitchell, Park., at 238, 145 Eng. Rep., at 768.
B
Of England’s three kinds of forfeiture, only the third took hold in the United States. “Deodands did not become part of the common-law tradition of this country.” CaleroToledo, 416 U. S., at 682. The Constitution forbids forfeiture of estate as a punishment for treason “except during the Life of the Person attainted,” U. S. Const., Art. III, § 3, cl. 2, and the First Congress also abolished forfeiture of estate as a punishment for felons. Act of Apr. 30, 1790, ch. 9, §24, 1 Stat. 117. “But ‘[l]ong before the adoption of the Constitution the common law courts in the Colonies — and later in the states during the period of Confederation — were exercising jurisdiction in rem in the enforcement of [English and local] forfeiture statutes.’ ” Calero-Toledo, 416 U. S., at 683, quoting C. J. Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 U. S. 133, 139 (1943).
The First Congress passed laws subjecting ships and car-gos involved in customs offenses to forfeiture. It does not follow from that fact, however, that the First Congress thought such forfeitures to be beyond the purview of the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, examination of those laws suggests that the First Congress viewed forfeiture as punishment. For example, by the Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, § 12, 1 Stat. 39, Congress provided that goods could not be unloaded except during the day and with a permit.
“[A]nd if the master or commander of any ship or vessel shall suffer or permit the same, such master and commander, and every other person who shall be aiding or assisting in landing, removing, housing, or otherwise securing the same, shall forfeit and pay the sum of four hundred dollars for every offence; shall moreover be disabled from holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, for a term not exceeding seven years; and it shall be the duty of the collector of the district, to advertise the names of all such persons in the public gazette of the State in which he resides, within twenty-days after each respective conviction. And all goods, wares and merchandise, so landed or discharged, shall become forfeited, and may be seized by any officer of the customs; and where the value thereof shall amount to four hundred dollars, the vessel, tackle, apparel and furniture, shall be subject to like forfeiture and seizure.”
Forfeiture of the goods and vessel is listed alongside the other provisions for punishment. It is also of some interest that “forfeit” is the word Congress used for fine. See ibid. (“shall forfeit and pay the sum of four hundred dollars for every offence”). Other early forfeiture statutes follow the same pattern. See, e. g., Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 34, §§ 13, 22, 27, 28, 1 Stat. 157, 161, 163.
C
Our cases also have recognized that statutory in rem forfeiture imposes punishment. In Peisch v. Ware, 4 Cranch 347 (1808), for example, the Court held that goods removed from the custody of a revenue officer without the payment of duties should not be forfeitable for that reason unless they were removed with the consent of the owner or his agent. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court:
“The court is also of opinion that the removal for which the act punishes the owner with a forfeiture of the goods must be made with his consent or connivance, or with that of some person employed or trusted by him. If, by private theft, or open robbery, without any fault on his part, his property should be invaded, while in the custody of the officer of the revenue, the law cannot be understood to punish him with the forfeiture of that property.” Id., at 364.
The same understanding of forfeiture as punishment runs through our cases rejecting the “innocence” of the owner as a common-law defense to forfeiture. See, e. g., Calero-Toledo, 416 U. S., at 683; J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 505 (1921); Dobbins’s Distillery v. United States, 96 U. S. 395 (1878); Harmony v. United States, 2 How. 210 (1844); The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1 (1827). In these cases, forfeiture has been justified on two theories — that the property itself is “guilty” of the offense, and that the owner may_ be held accountable for the wrongs of others to whom he entrusts his property. Both theories rest, at bottom, on the notion that the owner has been negligent in allowing his property to be misused and that he is properly punished for that negligence.
The fiction that “the thing is primarily considered the offender,” Goldsmith-Grant Co., 254 U. S., at 511, has a venerable history in our case law. See The Palmyra, 12 Wheat., at 14 (“The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing”); Harmony, 2 How., at 233 (“The vessel which commits the aggression is treated as the offender, as the guilty instrument or thing to which the forfeiture attaches, without any reference whatsoever to the character or conduct of the owner”); Dobbins’s Distillery, 96 U. S., at 401 (“[T]he offence... is attached primarily to the distillery, and the real and personal property used in connection with the same, without any regard whatsoever to the personal misconduct or responsibility of the owner”). Yet the Court has understood this fiction to rest on the notion that the owner who allows his property to become involved in an offense has been negligent. Thus, in Goldsmith-Grant Co., the Court said that “ascribing to the property a certain personality, a power of complicity and guilt in the wrong,” had “some analogy to the law of deodand.” 254 U. S., at 510. It then quoted Blackstone’s explanation of the reason for deodand: that “‘such misfortunes are in part owing to the negligence of the owner, and therefore he is properly punished by such forfeiture.’” Id., at 510-511, quoting 1 W. Blackstone, at *301.
In none of these cases did the Court apply the guilty-property fiction to justify forfeiture when the owner had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the unlawful use of his property. In The Palmyra, it did no more than reject the argument that the criminal conviction of the owner was a prerequisite to the forfeiture of his property. See 12 Wheat., at 15 (“[N]o personal conviction of the offender is necessary to enforce a forfeiture in rem in cases of this nature”). In Harmony, the owners’ claim of “innocence” was limited to the fact that they “never contemplated or authorized the acts complained of.” 2 How., at 230. And in Dobbins’s Distillery, the Court noted that some responsibility on the part of the owner arose “from the fact that he leased the property to the distiller, and suffered it to be occupied and used by the lessee as a distillery.” 96 U. S., at 401. The more recent cases have expressly reserved the question whether the fiction could be employed to forfeit the property of a truly innocent owner. See, e. g., Goldsmith-Grant Co., 254 U. S., at 512; Calero-Toledo, 416 U. S., at 689-690 (noting that forfeiture of a truly innocent owner’s property would raise “serious constitutional questions”). If forfeiture had been understood not to punish the owner, there would have been no reason to reserve the case of a truly innocent owner. Indeed, it is only on the assumption that forfeiture serves in part to punish that the Court’s past reservation of that question makes sense.
The second theory on which the Court has justified the forfeiture of an “innocent” owner’s property is that the owner may be held accountable for the wrongs of others to whom he entrusts his property. In Harmony, it reasoned that “the acts of the master and crew, in cases of this sort, bind the interest of the owner of the ship, whether he be innocent or guilty; and he impliedly submits to whatever the law denounces as a forfeiture attached to the ship by reason of their unlawful or wanton wrongs.” 2 How., at 234. It repeated this reasoning in Dobbins’s Distillery:
“[T]he unlawful acts of the distiller bind the owner of the property, in respect to the management of the same, as much as if they were committed by the owner himself. Power to that effect the law vests in him by virtue of his lease; and, if he abuses his trust, it is a matter to be settled between him and his lessor; but the acts of violation as to the penal consequences to the property are to be considered just the same as if they were the acts of the owner.” 96 U. S., at 404.
Like the guilty-property fiction, this theory of vicarious liability is premised on the idea that the owner has been negligent. Thus, in Calero-Toledo, we noted that application of forfeiture provisions “to lessors, bailors, or secured creditors who are innocent of any wrongdoing... may have the desirable effect of inducing them to exercise greater care in transferring possession of their property.” 416 U. S., at 688.
In sum, even though this Court has rejected the “innocence” of the owner as a common-law defense to forfeiture, it consistently has recognized that forfeiture serves, at least in part, to punish the owner. See Peisch v. Ware, 4 Cranch, at 364 (“[T]he act punishes the owner with a forfeiture of the goods”); Dobbins’s Distillery, 96 U. S., at 404 (“[T]he acts of violation as to the penal consequences to the property are to be considered just the same as if they were the acts of the owner”); Goldsmith-Grant Co., 254 U. S., at 511 (“'[S]uch misfortunes are in part owing to the negligence of the owner, and therefore he is properly punished by such forfeiture’ ”). More recently, we have noted that forfeiture serves “punitive and deterrent purposes,” Calero-Toledo, 416 U. S., at 686, and “impos[es] an economic penalty,” id., at 687. We conclude, therefore, that forfeiture generally and statutory in rem forfeiture in particular historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment.
IV
We turn next to consider whether forfeitures under 21 U. S. C. §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) are properly considered punishment today. We find nothing in these provisions or their legislative history to contradict the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment. Unlike traditional forfeiture statutes, §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) expressly provide an “innocent owner” defense. See § 881(a)(4)(C) (“[N]o conveyance shall be forfeited under this paragraph to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge, consent, or willful blindness of the owner”); § 881(a)(7) (“[N]o property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner”); see also United States v. Parcel of Rumson, N. J., Land, 507 U. S. 111, 122-123 (1993) (plurality opinion) (noting difference from traditional forfeiture statutes). These exemptions serve to focus the provisions on the culpability of the owner in a way that makes them look more like punishment, not less. In United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U. S. 715 (1971), we reasoned that 19 U. S. C. § 1618, which provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is to return the property of those who do not intend to violate the law, demonstrated Congress’ intent “to impose a penalty only upon those who are significantly involved in a criminal enterprise.” 401 U. S., at 721-722. The inclusion of innocent-owner defenses in §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) reveals a similar congressional intent to punish only those involved in drug trafficking.
Furthermore, Congress has chosen to tie forfeiture directly to the commission of drug offenses. Thus, under § 881(a)(4), a conveyance is forfeitable if it is used or intended for use to facilitate the transportation of controlled substances, their raw materials, or the equipment used to manufacture or distribute them. Under § 881(a)(7), real property is forfeitable if it is used or intended for use to facilitate the commission of a drug-related crime punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment. See n. 1, supra.
The legislative history of §881 confirms the punitive nature of these provisions. When it added subsection (a)(7) to §881 in 1984, Congress recognized “that the traditional criminal sanctions of fine and imprisonment are inadequate to deter or punish the enormously profitable trade in dangerous drugs.” S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 191 (1983). It characterized the forfeiture of real property as “a powerful deterrent.” Id., at 195. See also Joint House-Senate Explanation of Senate Amendment to Titles II and III of the Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978, 124 Cong. Rec. 34671 (1978) (noting “the penal nature of forfeiture statutes”).
The Government argues that §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) are not punitive but, rather, should be considered remedial in two respects. First, they remove the “instruments” of the drug trade “thereby protecting the community from the threat of continued drug dealing.” Brief for United States 32. Second, the forfeited assets serve to compensate the Government for the expense of law enforcement activity and for its expenditure on societal problems such as urban blight, drug addiction, and other health concerns resulting from the drug trade. Id., at 25, 32.
In our view, neither argument withstands scrutiny. Concededly, we have recognized that the forfeiture of contraband itself may be characterized as remedial because it removes dangerous or illegal items from society. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U. S. 354, 364 (1984). The Court, however, previously has rejected government’s attempt to extend that reasoning to conveyances used to transport illegal liquor. See One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U. S. 693, 699 (1965). In that case it noted: “There is nothing even remotely criminal in possessing an automobile.” Ibid. The same, without question, is true of the properties involved here, and the Government’s attempt to characterize these properties as “instruments” of the drug trade must meet the same fate as Pennsylvania’s effort to characterize the 1958 Plymouth sedan as “contraband.”
The Government’s second argument about the remedial nature of this forfeiture is no more persuasive. We previously have upheld the forfeiture of goods involved in customs violations as “a reasonable form of liquidated damages.” One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S. 232, 237 (1972). But the dramatic variations in the value of conveyances and real property forfeitable under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) undercut any similar argument with respect to those provisions. The Court made this very point in Ward: The “forfeiture of property... [is] a penalty that ha[s] absolutely no correlation to any damages sustained by society or to the cost of enforcing the law.” 448 U. S., at 254.
Fundamentally, even assuming that §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) serve some remedial purpose, the Government’s argument must fail. “[A] civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term.” Halper, 490 U. S., at 448 (emphasis added). In light of the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment, the clear focus of §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) on the culpability of the owner, and the evidence that Congress understood those provisions as serving to deter and to punish, we cannot conclude that forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) serves solely a remedial purpose. We therefore conclude that forfeiture under these provisions constitutes “payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense,” Browning-Ferris, 492 U. S., at 265, and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
V
Austin asks that we establish a multifactor test for determining whether a forfeiture is constitutionally “excessive.” See Brief for Petitioner 46-48. We decline that invitation. Although the Court of Appeals opined that “the government is exacting too high a penalty in relation to the offense committed,” 964 F. 2d, at 818, it had no occasion to consider what factors should inform such a decision because it thought it was foreclosed from engaging in the inquiry. Prudence dictates that we allow the lower courts to consider that question in the first instance. See Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 538 (1992).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
These statutes provide for the forfeiture of:
“(4) All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or are intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or conceálment of [controlled substances, their raw materials, and equipment used in their manufacture and distribution]
“(7) All real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment...
Each provision has an “innocent owner” exception. See §§ 881(a)(4)(C) and (a)(7).
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 8.
In Browning-Ferris, we left open the question whether the Excessive Fines Clause applies to qui tam actions in which a private party brings suit in the name of the United States and shares in the proceeds. See 492 U. S., at 276, n. 21. Because the instant suit was prosecuted by the United States and because Austin’s property was forfeited to the United States, we have no occasion to address that question here.
As a general matter, this Court’s decisions applying constitutional protections to civil forfeiture proceedings have adhered to this distinction between provisions that are limited to criminal proceedings and provisions that are not. Thus, the Court has held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies in forfeiture proceedings, see One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U. S. 693, 696 (1965); Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 634 (1886), but that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause does not, see United States v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 475, 480-482 (1896). It has also held that the due process requirement that guilt in a criminal proceeding be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, see In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), does not apply to civil forfeiture proceedings. See Lilienthal’s Tobacco v. United States, 97 U. S. 237, 271-272 (1878).
The Double Jeopardy Clause has been held not to apply in civil forfeiture proceedings, but only in cases where the forfeiture could properly be characterized as remedial. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U. S. 354, 364 (1984); One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S. 232, 237 (1972); see generally United States v. Halper, 490 U. S. 435, 446-449 (1989) (Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits second sanction that may not fairly be characterized as remedial). Conversely, the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause, which is textually limited to “criminal case[s],” has been applied in civil forfeiture proceedings, but only where the forfeiture statute had made the culpability of the owner relevant, see United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U. S. 715, 721-722 (1971), or where the owner faced the possibility of subsequent criminal proceedings, see Boyd, 116 U. S., at 634; see also United States v. Ward, 448 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: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A federal statute sets forth a method that the Secretary of Education is to use when determining whether a State’s public school funding program “equalizes expenditures” throughout the State. The statute instructs the Secretary to calculate the disparity in per-pupil expenditures among local school districts in the State. But, when doing so, the Secretary is to “disregard” school districts “with per-pupil expenditures... above the. 95th percentile or below the 5th percentile of such expenditures...in the State.” 20 U. S. C. § 7709(b)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added).
The question before us is whether the emphasized statutory language permits the Secretary to identify the school districts that should be “disregardfed]” by looking to the number of the district’s pupils as well as to the size of the district’s expenditures per pupil. We conclude that it does.
I
A
The federal Impact Aid Act, 108 Stat. 3749, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 7701 et seq., provides financial assistance to local school districts whose ability to finance public school education is adversely affected by a federal presence. Federal aid is available to districts, for example, where a significant amount of federal land is exempt from local property taxes, or where the federal presence is responsible for an increase in school-age children (say, of armed forces personnel) whom local schools must educate. See § 7701 (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). The statute typically prohibits a State from offsetting this federal aid by reducing its own state aid to the local district. If applied without exceptions, however, this prohibition might unreasonably interfere with a state program that seeks to equalize per-pupil expenditures throughout the State, for instance, by preventing the state program from taking account of a significant source of federal funding that some local school districts receive. The statute consequently contains an exception that permits a State to compensate for federal impact aid where “the Secretary [of Education] determine^] and certifies... that the State has in effect a program of State aid that equalizes expenditures for free public education among local [school districts] in the State.” § 7709(b)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added).
The statute sets out a formula that the Secretary of Education must use to determine whether a state aid program satisfies the federal “equalization]” requirement. The formula instructs the Secretary to compare the local school district with the greatest per-pupil expenditures to the school district with the smallest per-pupil expenditures to see whether the former exceeds the latter by more than 25 percent. So long as it does not, the state aid program qualifies as a program that “equalizes expenditures.” More specifically the statute provides that “a program of state aid” qualifies, i. e., it “equalizes expenditures” among local school districts if,
“in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the determination is made, the amount of per-pupil expenditures made by [the local school district] with the highest such per-pupil expenditures... did not exceed the amount of such per-pupil expenditures made by [the local school district] with the lowest such expenditures... by more than 25 percent.” § 7709(b)(2)(A) (2000 ed.).
The statutory provision goes on to set forth what we shall call the “disregard” instruction. It states that, when “making” this “determination,” the “Secretary shall... disregard [school districts] with per-pupil expenditures... above the 95th percentile or below the 5th percentile of such expenditures.” § 7709(b)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). It adds that the Secretary shall further
“take into account the extent to which [the state program reflects the special additional costs that some school districts must bear when they are] geographically isolated [or when they provide education for] particular types of students, such as children with disabilities.” § 7709(b)(2)(B)(ii).
B
This case requires us to decide whether the Secretary’s present calculation method is consistent with the federal statute’s “disregard” instruction. The method at issue is contained in a set of regulations that the Secretary first promulgated 30 years ago. Those regulations essentially state the following:
When determining whether a state aid program “equalizes expenditures” (thereby permitting the State to reduce its own local funding on account of federal impact aid), the Secretary will first create a list of school districts ranked in order of per-pupil expenditure. The Secretary will then identify the relevant percentile cutoff point on that list on the basis of a specific (95th or 5th) percentile of student population — essentially identifying those districts whose students account for the 5 percent of the State’s total student population that lies at both the high and low ends of the spending distribution. Finally the Secretary will compare the highest spending and lowest spending school districts of those that remain to see whether they satisfy the statute’s requirement that the disparity between them not exceed 25 percent.
The regulations set forth this calculation method as follows:
“ [D]eterminations of disparity in current expenditures... per-pupil are made by—
“(i) Ranking all [of the State’s school districts] on the basis of current expenditures... per pupil [in the relevant statutorily determined year];
“(ii) Identifying those [school districts] that fall at the 95th and 5th percentiles of the total number of pupils in attendance [at all the State’s school districts taken together]; and
“(iii) Subtracting the lower current expenditure... per pupil figure from the higher for those [school districts] identified in paragraph (ii) and dividing the difference by the lower figure.” 34 CFR pt. 222, subpt. K, App., ¶ 1 (2006).
The regulations also provide an illustration of how to perform the calculation:
“In State X, after ranking all [school districts] in order of the expenditures per pupil for the [statutorily determined] fiscal year in question, it is ascertained by counting the number of pupils in attendance in those [school districts] in ascending order of expenditure that the 5th percentile of student population is reached at [school district A] with a per pupil expenditure of $820, and that the 95th percentile of student population is reached at [school district B] with a per pupil expenditure of $1,000. The percentage disparity between the 95th percentile and the 5th percentile [school districts] is 22 percent ($1000 - $820 = $180/$820).” Ibid.
Because 22 percent is less than the statutory “25 percent” requirement, the state program in the example qualifies as a program that “equalizes expenditures.”
c
This case concerns the Department of Education’s application of the Secretary’s regulations to New Mexico’s local district aid program in respect to fiscal year 2000. As the regulations require, Department officials listed each of New Mexico’s 89 local school districts in order of per-pupil spending for fiscal year 1998. (The calculation in New Mexico’s case was performed, as the statute allows, on the basis of per-pupil revenues, rather than per-pupil expenditures. See 20 U. S. C. § 7709(b)(2)(A). See also Appendix B, infra. For ease of reference we nevertheless refer, in respect to New Mexico’s figures and throughout the opinion, only to “per-pupil expenditures.”) After ranking the districts, Department officials excluded 17 school districts at the top of the list because those districts contained (cumulatively) less than 5 percent of the student population; for the same reason, they excluded an additional 6 school districts at the bottom of the list.
The remaining 66 districts accounted for approximately 90 percent of the State’s student population. Of those, the highest ranked district spent $3,259 per student; the lowest ranked district spent $2,848 per student. The difference, $411, was less than 25 percent of the lowest per-pupil figure, namely, $2,848. Hence, the officials found that New Mexico’s local aid program qualifies as a program that “equalizes expenditures.” New Mexico was therefore free to offset federal impact aid to individual districts by reducing state aid to those districts.
Two of New Mexico’s public school districts, Zuni Public School District and Gallup-McKinley County Public School District (whom we shall collectively call Zuni), sought further agency review of these findings. Zuni conceded that the Department’s calculations were correct in terms of the Department’s own regulations. Zuni argued, however, that the regulations themselves are inconsistent with the authorizing statute. That statute, in its view, requires the Department to calculate the 95th and 5th percentile cutoffs solely on the basis of the number of school districts (ranked by their per-pupil expenditures), without any consideration of the number of pupils in those districts. If calculated as Zuni urges, only 10 districts (accounting for less than 2 percent of all students) would have been identified as the outliers that the statute instructs the Secretary to disregard. The difference, as a result, between the highest and lowest per-pupil expenditures of the remaining districts (26.9 percent) would exceed 25 percent. Consequently, the statute would forbid New Mexico to take account of federal impaet aid as it decides how to equalize school funding across the State. See N. M. Stat. Ann. § 22-8-1 et seq. (2006).
A Department of Education Administrative Law Judge rejected Zuni’s challenge to the regulations. The Secretary of Education did the same. Zuni sought review of the Secretary’s decision in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 393 F. 3d 1158 (2004). Initially, a Tenth Circuit panel affirmed the Secretary’s determination by a split vote (2 to 1). Subsequently, the full Court of Appeals vacated the panel’s decision and heard the matter en banc. The 12-member en banc court affirmed the Secretary but by an evenly divided court (6 to 6). 437 F. 3d 1289 (2006) (per curiam). Zuni sought certiorari. We agreed to decide the matter.
II
A
Zuni’s strongest argument rests upon the literal language of the statute. Zuni concedes, as it must, that if the language of the statute is open or ambiguous — that is, if Congress left a “gap” for the agency to fill — then we must uphold the Secretary’s interpretation as long as it is reasonable. See Chevron U. S. A Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984). See also Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 589, n. (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). For purposes of exposition, we depart from a normal order of discussion, namely, an order that first considers Zuni’s statutory language argument. See Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U. S. 438, 450 (2002). Instead, because of the technical nature of the language in question, we shall first examine the provision’s background and basic purposes. That discussion will illuminate our subsequent analysis in Part II-B, infra. It will also reveal why Zuni concentrates its argument upon language alone.
Considerations other than language provide us with unusually strong indications that Congress intended to leave the Secretary free to use the calculation method before us and that the Secretary’s chosen method is a reasonable one. For one thing, the matter at issue — i. e., the calculation method for determining whether a state aid program “equalizes expenditures” — is the kind of highly technical, specialized interstitial matter that Congress often does not decide itself, but delegates to specialized agencies to decide. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 234 (2001); cf. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 231 (1994); Christensen, supra, at 589, n. (opinion of Scalia, J.).
For another thing, the history of the statute strongly supports the Secretary. Congress first enacted an impact aid “equalization” exception in 1974. The exception originally provided that the “ter[m]... ‘equalizing] expenditures’... shall be defined by the [Secretary].” 20 U. S. C. § 240(d)(2)(B) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Soon thereafter, in 1976, the Secretary promulgated the regulation here at issue defining the term “equalizing expenditures” in the manner now before us. See Part I-B, supra. As far as we can tell, no Member of Congress has ever criticized the method the 1976 regulation sets forth nor suggested at any time that it be revised or reconsidered.
The present statutory language originated in draft legislation that the Secretary himself sent to Congress in 1994. With one minor change (irrelevant to the present calculation controversy), Congress adopted that language without comment or clarification. No one at the time — no Member of Congress, no Department of Education official, no school district or State — expressed the view that this statutory language (which, after all, was supplied by the Secretary) was intended to require, or did require, the Secretary to change the Department’s system of calculation, a system that the Department and school districts across the Nation had followed for nearly 20 years, without (as far as we are told) any adverse effect.
Finally, viewed in terms of the purpose of the statute’s disregard instruction, the Secretary’s calculation method is reasonable, while the reasonableness of a method based upon the number of districts alone (Zuni’s proposed method) is more doubtful. When the Secretary (then Commissioner) of Education considered the matter in 1976, he explained why that is so.
Initially the Secretary pointed out that the “exclusion of the upper and bottom 5 percentile school districts is based upon the accepted principle of statistical evaluation that such percentiles usually represent unique or noneharacteristic situations.” 41 Fed. Reg. 26320 (1976) (emphasis added). That purpose, a purpose to exclude statistical outliers, is evident in the language of the present statute. The provision uses the technical term “percentile”; it refers to cutoff numbers (“95th” and “5th”) often associated with scientific calculations; and it directly precedes another statutory provision that tells the Secretary to account for those districts, from among the middle 5th to 95th percentile districts, that remain “noncharacteristic” in respect to geography or the presence of special students (such as disabled students). See 20 U. S. C. §§7709(b)(2)(B)(iMii) (2000 ed.).
The Secretary added that under the regulation’s calculation system the “percentiles” would be “determined on the basis of numbers of pupils and not on the basis of numbers of districts.” 41 Fed. Reg. 26324. He said that to base “an exclusion on numbers of districts” alone “would act to apply the disparity standard in an unfair and inconsistent manner among States.” Ibid. He then elaborated upon his concerns:
“The purpose of the exclusion is to eliminate those anomalous characteristics of a distribution of expenditures. In States with a small number of large districts, an exclusion based on percentage of school districts might exclude from the measure of disparity a substantial percentage of the pupil population in those States. Conversely, in States with large numbers of small districts, such an approach might exclude only an insignificant fraction of the pupil population and would not exclude anomalous characteristics.” Ibid.
To understand the Secretary’s first problem, consider an exaggerated example, say, a State with 80 school districts of unequal size. Suppose 8 of the districts include urban areas and together account for 70 percent of the State’s students, while the remaining 72 districts include primarily rural areas and together account for 30 percent of the State’s students. If the State’s greatest funding disparities are among the 8 urban districts, Zuni’s calculation method (which looks only at the number of districts and ignores their size) would require the Secretary to disregard the system’s 8 largest districts (i. e., 10 percent of the number 80) even though those 8 districts (because they together contain 70 percent of the State’s pupils) are typical of, indeed characterize, the State’s public school system. It would require the Secretary instead to measure the system’s expenditure equality by looking only to noncharacteristic districts that are not representative of the system as a whole, indeed districts accounting for only 30 percent of the State’s pupils. Thus, according to Zuni’s method, the Secretary would have to certify a state aid program as one that “equalizes expenditures” even if there were gross disparities in per-pupil expenditures among urban districts accounting for 70 percent of the State’s students. By way of contrast, the Secretary’s method, by taking into account a district’s size as well as its expenditures, would avoid a calculation that would produce results so contrary to the statute’s objective.
To understand the Secretary’s second problem consider this very case. New Mexico’s 89 school districts vary significantly in respect to the number of pupils each contains. Zuni’s calculation system nonetheless forbids the Secretary to discount more than 10 districts — 10 percent of the total number of districts (rounded up). But these districts taken together account for only 1.8 percent of the State’s pupils. To eliminate only those districts, instead of eliminating districts that together account for 10 percent of the State’s pupils, risks resting the “disregard” calculation upon a few particularly extreme noncharacteristic districts, yet again contrary to the statute’s intent.
Thus, the history and purpose of the disregard instruction indicate that the Secretary’s calculation formula is a reasonable method that carries out Congress’ likely intent in enacting the statutory provision before us.
B
But what of the provision’s literal language? The matter is important, for normally neither the legislative history nor the reasonableness of the Secretary’s method would be determinative if the plain language of the statute unambiguously indicated that Congress sought to foreclose the Secretary’s interpretation. And Zuni argues that the Secretary’s formula could not possibly effectuate Congress’ intent since the statute’s language literally forbids the Secretary to use such a method. Under this Court’s precedents, if the intent of Congress is clear and unambiguously expressed by the statutory language at issue, that would be the end of our analysis. See Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843. A customs statute that imposes a tariff on “clothing” does not impose a tariff on automobiles, no matter how strong the policy arguments for treating the two kinds of goods alike. But we disagree with Zuni’s conclusion, for we believe that the Secretary’s method falls within the scope of the statute’s plain language.
That language says that, when the Secretary compares (for a specified fiscal year) “the amount of per-pupil expenditures made by” (1) the highest-per-pupil-expenditure district and (2) the lowest-per-pupil-expenditure district, “the Secretary shall... disregard” local school districts “with per-pupil expenditures... above the 95th percentile or below the 5th percentile of such expenditures in the State.” 20 U. S. C. §§ 7709(b)(2)(A), (B)(i). The word “such” refers to “per-pupil expenditures” (or more precisely to “per-pupil expenditures” in the test year specified by the statute). The question then is whether the phrase “above the 95th percentile... of... [per pupil] expenditures” permits the Secretary to calculate percentiles by (1) ranking local districts, (2) noting the student population of each district, and (3) determining the cutoff point on the basis of districts containing 95 percent (or 5 percent) of the State’s students.
Our answer is that this phrase, taken with absolute literalness, limits the Secretary to calculation methods that involve “per-pupil expenditures.” But it does not tell the Secretary which of several different possible methods the Department must use. Nor does it rule out the present formula, which distributes districts in accordance with per-pupil expenditures, while essentially weighting each district to reflect the number of pupils it contains.
Because the statute uses technical language (e. g., “percentile”) and seeks a technical purpose (eliminating uncharacteristic, or outlier, districts), we have examined dictionary definitions of the term “percentile.” See 41 Fed. Reg. 26320 (Congress intended measurements based upon an “accepted principle of statistical evaluation” (emphasis added)). Those definitions make clear that “percentile” refers to a division of a distribution of some population into 100 parts. Thus, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1675 (1961) (Webster’s Third) defines “percentile” as “the value of the statistical variable that marks the boundary between any two consecutive intervals in a distribution of 100 intervals each containing one percent of the total population.” A standard economics dictionary gives a similar definition for “percentiles”:
“The values separating hundredth parts of a distribution, arranged in order of size. The 99th percentile of the income distribution, for example, is the income level such that only one per cent of the population have larger incomes.” J. Black, A Dictionary of Economics 348-349 (2d ed. 2002).
A dictionary of mathematics states: “The n-th percentile is the value Xniiw such that n per cent of the population is less than or equal to XnJioo” It adds that “[t]he terms can be modified, though not always very satisfactorily, to be applicable to a discrete random variable or to a large sample ranked in ascending order.” C. Clapham & J. Nicholson, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics 378-379 (3d ed. 2005) (emphasis deleted). The American Heritage Science Dictionary 468 (2005) explains that a percentile is “[a]ny of the 100 equal parts into which the range of the values of a set of data can be divided in order to show the distribution of those values.” And Merriam-Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary 612 (2002) describes percentile as “a value on a scale of one hundred that indicates the percent of a distribution that is equal to or below it.”
These definitions, mainstream and technical, all indicate that, in order to identify the relevant percentile cutoffs, the Secretary must construct a distribution of values. That distribution will consist of a “population” ranked according to a characteristic. That characteristic takes on a “value” for each member of the relevant population. The statute’s instruction to identify the 95th and 5th “percentile of such expenditures” makes clear that the relevant characteristic for ranking purposes is per-pupil expenditure during a particular year. But the statute does not specify precisely what population is to be “distributed” (i. e., ranked according to the population’s corresponding values for the relevant characteristic). Nor does it set forth various details as to how precisely the distribution is to be constructed (as long as it is ranked according to the specified characteristic).
But why is Congress’ silence in respect to these matters significant? Are there several different populations, relevant here, that one might rank according to “per-pupil expenditures” (and thereby determine in several different ways a cutoff point such that “n percent of [that] population” falls, say, below the percentile cutoff)? We are not experts in statistics, but a statistician is not needed to see what the dictionary does not say. No dictionary definition we have found suggests that there is any single logical, mathematical, or statistical link between, on the one hand, the characterizing data (used for ranking purposes) and, on the other hand, the nature of the relevant population or how that population might be weighted for purposes of determining a percentile cutoff.
Here, the Secretary has distributed districts, ranked them according to per-pupil expenditure, but compared only those that account for 90 percent of the State’s pupils. Thus, the Secretary has used — as her predecessors had done for a quarter century before her — the State’s students as the relevant population for calculating the specified percentiles. Another Secretary might have distributed districts, ranked them by per-pupil expenditure, and made no reference to the number of pupils (a method that satisfies the statute’s language but threatens the problems the Secretary long ago identified, see 41 Fed. Reg. 26324; supra, at 91-93). A third Secretary might have distributed districts, ranked them by per-pupil expenditure, but compared only those that account for 90 percent of total pupil expenditures in the State. A fourth Secretary might have distributed districts, ranked them by per-pupil expenditure, but calculated the 95th and 5th percentile cutoffs using the per-pupil expenditures of all the individual schools in the State. See 41 Fed. Reg. 26324 (considering this system of calculation). A fifth Secretary might have distributed districts, ranked them by per-pupil expenditure, but accounted in his disparity calculation for the sometimes significant differences in per-pupil spending at different grade levels. See 34 CFR § 222.162(b)(1) (2006) (authorizing such a system); id., pt. 222, subpt. K, App. See also Appendix B, infra.
Each of these methods amounts to a different way of determining which districts fall between the 5th and 95th “percentile of per-pupil expenditures.” For purposes of that calculation, they each adopt different populations — students, districts, schools, and grade levels. Yet, linguistically speaking, one may attribute the characteristic of per-pupil expenditure to each member of any such population (though the values of that characteristic may be more or less readily available depending on the chosen population, see 41 Fed. Reg. 26324). Hence, the statute’s literal language covers any or all of these methods. That language alone does not tell us (or the Secretary of Education), however, which method to use.
Justice Scalia’s claim that this interpretation “defies any semblance of normal English” depends upon its own definition of the word “per.” That word, according to the dissent, “connotes... a single average figure assigned to a unit the composite members of which are individual pupils.” Post, at 113 (emphasis deleted). In fact, the word “per” simply means “[f]or each” or “for every.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1171 (8th ed. 1999); see Webster’s Third 1674. Thus, nothing in the English language prohibits the Secretary from considering expenditures for each individual pupil in a district when instructed to look at a district’s “per-pupil expenditures.” The remainder of the dissent’s argument, colorful language to the side, rests upon a reading of the statutory language that ignores its basic purpose and history.
We find additional evidence for our understanding of the language in the fact that Congress, in other statutes, has clarified the matter here at issue thereby avoiding comparable ambiguity. For example, in a different education-related statute, Congress refers to “the school at the 20th percentile in the State, based on enrollment, among all schools ranked by the percentage of students at the proficient level.” 20 U.S.C. §6311(b)(2)(E)(ii) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added). In another statute fixing charges for physicians services, Congress specified that the maximum charge “shall be the 50th percentile of the customary charges for the service (weighted by the frequency of the service) performed by nonparticipating physicians in the locality during the [prior] 12-month period.” 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(j)(l)(C)(v) (2000 ed.) (emphasis added). In these statutes Congress indicated with greater specificity how a percentile should be determined by stating precisely not only which data values are of interest, but also (in the first) the population that is to be distributed and (in the second) the weightings needed to make the calculation meaningful and to avoid counterproductive results. In the statute at issue here, however, Congress used more general language (drafted by the Secretary himself), which leaves the Secretary with the authority to resolve such subsidiary matters at the administrative level.
We also find support for our view of the language in the more general circumstance that statutory “[a]mbiguity is a creature not [just] of definitional possibilities but [also] of statutory context.” Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S. 115, 118 (1994). See also FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 132-133 (2000) (“[mjeaning — or ambiguity — of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context” (emphasis added)). That may be so even if statutory language is highly technical. After all, the scope of what seems a precise technical chess instruction, such as “you must place the queen next to the king,” varies with context, depending, for example, upon whether the instructor is telling a beginner how to set up the board or telling an advanced player how to checkmate an opponent. The dietionary acknowledges that, when interpreting technical statistical language, the purpose of the exercise matters, for it says that “quantile,” “percentile,” “quartile,” and “decile” are “terms [that] can be modified, though not always very satisfactorily, to be applicable to... a large sample ranked in ascending order.” Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics, at 378-379.
Thus, an instruction to “identify schools with average scholastic aptitude test scores below the 5th percentile of such scores” may vary as to the population to be distributed, depending upon whether the context is one of providing additional counseling and support to students at low-performing schools (in which ease the relevant population would likely consist of students), or one of identifying unsuccessful learning protocols at low-performing schools (in which case the appropriate population may well be the schools themselves). Context here tells us that the instruction to identify school districts with “per-pupil expenditures” above the 95th percentile “of such expenditures” is similarly ambiguous, because both students and school districts are of concern to the statute. Accordingly, the disregard instruction can include within its scope the distribution of a ranked population that consists of pupils (or of school districts weighted by pupils) and not just a ranked distribution of unweighted school districts alone.
Finally, we draw reassurance from the fact that no group of statisticians, nor any individual statistician, has told us directly in briefs, or indirectly through citation, that the language before us cannot be read as we have read it. This circumstance is significant, for the statutory language is technical, and we are not statisticians. And the views of experts (or their absence) might help us understand (though not control our determination of) what Congress had in mind.
The upshot is that the language of the statute is broad enough to permit the Secretary’s reading. That fact requires us to look beyond the language to determine whether the Secretary’s interpretation is a reasonable, hence permissible, implementation of the statute. See Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843. For the reasons set forth in Part II-A, supra, we conclude that the Secretary’s reading is a reasonable reading. We consequently find the Secretary’s method of calculation lawful.
The judgment of the Tenth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIXES TO OPINION OF THE COURT
A
We set out the relevant statutory provisions and accompanying regulations in full. The reader will note that in the text of our opinion, for purposes of exposition, we use the term “local school districts” where the statute refers to “local educational agencies.” We also disregard the statute’s frequent references to local “revenues” because those references do not raise any additional considerations germane to this case.
Impact Aid Program, 20 U. S. C. § 7709 (2000 ed. and Supp. IV) (state consideration of payments in providing state aid):
“(a) General prohibition
“Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a State may not—
“(1) consider payments under this subchapter in determining for any fiscal year—
“(A) the eligibility of a local educational agency for State aid for free public education; or
“(B) the amount of such aid; or
“(2) make such aid available to local educational agencies in a manner that results in less State aid to any local educational agency that is eligible for such payment than such agency would receive if such agency were not so eligible.
“(b) State equalization plans
“(1) In general
“A State may reduce State aid to a local educational agency that receives a payment under section 7702 or 7703(b) of this title (except the amount calculated in excess of 1.0 under section 7703(a)(2)(B) of this title and, with respect to a local educational agency that receives a payment under section 7703(b)(2) of this title, the amount in excess of the amount that the agency would receive if the agency were deemed to be an agency eligible to receive a payment under section 7703(b)(1) of this title and not section 7703(b)(2) of this title) for any fiscal year if the Secretary determines, and certifies under subsection (c)(3)(A) of this section, that the State has in effect a program of State aid that equalizes expenditures for free public education among local educational agencies in the State.
“(2) Computation
“(A) In general
“For purposes of paragraph (1), a program of State aid equalizes expenditures among local educational agencies if, in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the determination is made, the amount of per-pupil expenditures made by, or per-pupil revenues available to, the local educational agency in the State with the highest such per-pupil expenditures or revenues did not exceed the amount of such per-pupil expenditures made by, or per-pupil revenues available to, the local educational agency in the State with the lowest such expenditures or revenues by more than 25 percent. “(B) Other factors
“In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall—
“(i) disregard local educational agencies with per-pupil expenditures or revenues above the 95th percentile or below the 5th percentile of such expenditures or revenues in the State; and “(ii) take into account the extent to which a program of State aid reflects the additional cost of providing free public education in particular types of local educational agencies, such as those that are geographically isolated, or to particular types of students, such as children with disabilities.”
B
34 CFR §222.162 (2006) (What disparity standard must a State meet in order to be certified, and how are disparities in current expenditures or revenues per pupil measured?):
“(a) Percentage disparity limitation. The Secretary considers that a State aid program equalizes expenditures if the disparity in the amount of current expenditures or revenues per pupil for free public education among LEAs in the State is no more than 25 percent. In determining the disparity percentage, the Secretary disregards LEAs with per pupil expenditures or revenues above the 95th or below the 5th percentile of those expenditures or revenues in the State. The method for calculating the percentage of disparity in a State is in the appendix to this subpart.
“(b)(1) Weighted average disparity for different grade level groups. If a State requests it, the Secretary will make separate disparity computations for different groups of LEAs in the State that have similar grade levels of instruction.
“(2) In those cases, the weighted average disparity for all groups, based on the proportionate number of pupils in each group, may not be more than the percentage provided in paragraph (a) of this section. The method for calculating the weighted average disparity percentage is set out in the appendix to this subpart.
“(c) Per pupil figure computations. In calculating the current expenditures or revenue disparities under this
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes unlawful, practices, procedures, or tests that “operate to 'freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 430. To this rule, § 703 (h) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (h), provides an exception:
“[I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority . . . system, . . . provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race....”
In Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 352, the Court held that “the unmistakable purpose of § 703 (h) was to make clear that the routine application of a bona fide seniority system would not be unlawful under Title VII . . . even where the employer’s pre-Act discrimination resulted in whites having greater existing seniority rights than Negroes.”
The present case concerns the application of § 703 (h) to a particular clause in a California brewery industry collective-bargaining agreement. That agreement accords greater benefits to “permanent” than to “temporary” employees, and the clause in question provides that a temporary employee must work at least 45 weeks in a single calendar year before he can become a permanent employee. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the 45-week requirement was not a “seniority system” or part of a “seniority system” within the meaning of § 703 (h). 585 F. 2d 421. We granted cer-tiorari to consider the important question presented under Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 442 U. S. 916.
I
In 1973, respondent Bryant (hereafter respondent), a Negro, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Negroes, against the California Brewers Association and seven brewing companies (petitioners here), as well as against several unions. The complaint alleged that the defendants had discriminated against the respondent and other Negroes in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., and in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1981.
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the respondent had been intermittently employed since May 1968 as a temporary employee of one of the defendants, the Falstaff Brewing Corp. It charged that all the defendant employers had discriminated in the past against Negroes, that the unions had acted in concert with the employers in such discrimination, and that the unions had discriminated in referring applicants from hiring halls to the employers. The complaint further asserted that this historical discrimination was being perpetuated by the seniority and referral provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement (Agreement) that governed industrial relations at the plants of the seven defendant employers. In particular, the complaint alleged, the Agreement’s requirement that a temporary employee work 45 weeks in the industry in a single calendar year to reach permanent status had, as a practical matter, operated to preclude the respondent and the members of his putative class from achieving, or from a reasonable opportunity of achieving, permanent employee status. Finally, the complaint alleged that on at least one occasion one of the defendant unions had passed over the respondent in favor of more junior white workers in making referrals to job vacancies at a plant of one of the defendant employers.
The Agreement is a multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement negotiated more than 20 years ago, and thereafter updated, by the California Brewers Association (on behalf of the petitioner brewing companies) and the Teamsters Brewery and Soft Drink Workers Joint Board of California (on behalf of the defendant unions). The Agreement establishes several classes of employees and the respective rights of each with respect to hiring and layoffs. Three of these classes are pertinent here: “permanent,” “temporary,” and “new” employees.
A permanent employee is “any employee . . . who . . . has completed forty-five weeks of employment under this Agreement in one classification [] in one calendar year as an employee of the brewing industry in [the State of California].” An employee who acquires permanent status retains that status unless he “is not employed under this Agreement for any consecutive period of two (2) years. ...” A temporary employee under the Agreement is “any person other than a permanent employee . . . who worked under this agreement ... in the preceding calendar year for at least sixty (60) working days. ...” A new employee is any employee who is not a permanent or temporary employee.
The rights of employees with respect to hiring and layoffs depend in substantial part on their status as permanent, temporary, or new employees. The Agreement requires that employees at a particular plant be laid off in the following order: new employees in reverse order of their seniority at the plant, temporary employees in reverse order of their plant seniority, and then permanent employees in reverse order of their plant seniority. Once laid off, employees are to be rehired in the reverse order from which they were laid off.
The Agreement also gives permanent employees special “bumping” rights. If a permanent employee is laid off at any plant subject to the Agreement, he may be dispatched by the union hiring hall to any other plant in the same local area with the right to replace the temporary or new employee with the lowest plant seniority at that plant.
Finally, the Agreement provides that each employer shall obtain employees through the local union hiring hall to fill needed vacancies. The hiring hall must dispatch laid-off workers to such an employer in the following order: first, employees of that employer in the order of their seniority with that employer; second, permanent employees registered in the area in order of their industry seniority; third, temporary employees in the order of their seniority in the industry; and fourth, new employees in the order of their industry seniority. The employer then “shall have full right of selection among” such employees.
The District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. No opinion accompanied this order. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, 585 F. 2d 421, concluding that the 45-week rule is not a “seniority system” or part of a “seniority system” within the meaning of § 703 (h) of Title VII. In the appellate court’s view the provision “lacks the fundamental component of such a system” which is “the concept that employment rights should increase as the length of an employee’s service increases.” 585 F. 2d, at 426. The court pointed out that under the Agreement some employees in the industry could acquire permanent status after a total of only 45 weeks of work if those weeks were served in one calendar year, while others “could work for many years and never attain permanent status because they were always terminated a few days before completing 45 weeks of work in any one year.” Id., at 426-427.
The Court of Appeals concluded that “while the collective bargaining agreement does contain a seniority system, the 45-week provision is not a part of it.” Id., at 427: Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court to enable the respondent to prove that the 45-week provision has had a discriminatory impact on Negroes under the standards enunciated in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424. 585 F. 2d, at 427-428.
“The 45-week rule is simply a classification device to determine who enters the permanent employee seniority line and this function does not make the rule part of a seniority system. Otherwise any hiring policy (e. g., an academic degree requirement) or classification device (e. g., merit promotion) would become part of a seniority system merely because it affects who enters the seniority line.” Id., at 427, n. 11.
II
Title VII does not define the term “seniority system,” and no comprehensive definition of the phrase emerges from the legislative history of § 703 (h) . Moreover, our cases have not purported to delineate the contours of its meaning. It is appropriate, therefore, to begin with commonly accepted notions about “seniority” in industrial relations, and to consider those concepts in the context of Title YII and this country’s labor policy.
In the area of labor relations, “seniority” is a term that connotes length of employment. A “seniority system” is a scheme that, alone or in tandem with non-“seniority” criteria, allots to employees ever improving employment rights and benefits as their relative lengths of pertinent employment increase. Unlike other methods of allocating employment benefits and opportunities, such as subjective evaluations or educational requirements, the principal feature of any and every “seniority system” is that preferential treatment is dispensed on the basis of some measure of time served in employment.
Viewed as a whole, most of the relevant provisions of the Agreement before us in this case conform to these core concepts of “seniority.” Rights of temporary employees and rights of permanent employees are determined according to length of plant employment in some respects, and according to length of industry employment in other respects. Notwithstanding this fact, the Court of Appeals concluded that the 45-week rule should not be viewed, for purposes of § 703 (h), as part of what might otherwise be considered a “seniority system.” For the reasons that follow, we hold that this conclusion was incorrect.
First, by legislating with respect to “systems” of seniority in § 703 (h), Congress in 1964 quite evidently intended to exempt from the normal operation of Title VII more than simply those components of any particular seniority scheme that, viewed in isolation, embody or effectuate the principle that length of employment will be rewarded. In order for any seniority system to operate at all, it has to contain ancillary rules that accomplish certain necessary functions, but which may not themselves be directly related to length of employment. For instance, every seniority system must include rules that delineate how and when the seniority time-clock begins ticking, as well as rules that specify how and when a particular person’s seniority may be forfeited. Every seniority system must also have rules that define which passages of time will “count” towards the accrual of seniority and which will not. Every seniority system must, moreover, contain rules that particularize the types of employment conditions that will be governed or influenced by seniority, and those that will not. Rules that serve these necessary purposes do not fall outside § 703 (h) simply because they do not, in and of themselves, operate on the basis of some factor involving the passage of time.
Second, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the backdrop of this Nation’s longstanding labor policy of leaving to the chosen representatives of employers and employees the freedom through collective bargaining to establish conditions of employment applicable to a particular business or industrial environment. See generally Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U. S. 193. It does not behoove a court to second-guess either that process or its products. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U. S. 99. Seniority systems, reflecting as they do, not only the give and take of free collective bargaining, but also the specific characteristics of a particular business or industry, inevitably come in all sizes and shapes. See Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330; Aeronautical Lodge v. Campbell, 337 U. S. 521. As we made clear in the Teamsters case, seniority may be “measured in a number of ways” and the legislative history of § 703 (h) does not suggest that it was enacted to prefer any particular variety of seniority system over any other. 431 U. S., at 355, n. 41.
What has been said does not mean that § 703 (h) is to be given a scope that risks swallowing up Title YII’s otherwise broad prohibition of “practices, procedures, or tests” that disproportionately affect members of those groups that the Act protects. Significant freedom must be afforded employers and unions to create differing seniority systems. But that freedom must not be allowed to sweep within the ambit of § 703 (h) employment rules that depart fundamentally from commonly accepted notions concerning the acceptable contours of a seniority system, simply because those rules are dubbed “seniority” provisions or have some nexus to an arrangement that concededly operates on the basis of seniority. There can be no doubt, for instance, that a threshold requirement for entering a seniority track that took the form of an educational prerequisite would not be part of a “seniority system” within the intendment of § 703 (h).
The application of these principles to the case at hand is straightforward. The Agreement sets out, in relevant part, two parallel seniority ladders. One allocates the benefits due temporary employees; the other identifies the benefits owed permanent employees. The propriety under § 703 (h) of such parallel seniority tracks cannot be doubted after the Court’s decision in the Teamsters case. The collective-bargaining agreement at issue there allotted one set of benefits according to each employee’s total service with the company, and another set according to each employee’s service in a particular job category. Just as in that case the separation of seniority tracks did not derogate from the identification of the provisions as a “seniority system” under § 703 (h), so in the present case the fact that the system created by the Agreement establishes two or more seniority ladders does not prevent it from being a “seniority system” within the meaning of that section.
The 45-week rule, correspondingly, serves the needed function of establishing the threshold requirement for entry into the permanent-employee seniority track. As such, it performs the same function as did the employment rule in Teamsters that provided that a line driver began to accrue seniority for certain purposes only when he started to work as a line driver, even though he had previously spent years as a city driver for the same employer. In Teamsters, the Court expressed no reservation about the propriety of such a threshold rule for § 703 (h) purposes. There is no reason why the 45-week threshold requirement at issue here should be considered any differently.
The 45-week rule does not depart significantly from commonly accepted concepts of “seniority.” The rule is not an educational standard, an aptitude or physical test, or a standard that gives effect to subjectivity. Unlike such criteria, but like any “seniority” rule, the 45-week requirement focuses on length of employment.
Moreover, the rule does not distort the operation of the basic system established by the Agreement, which rewards employment longevity with heightened benefits. A temporary employee’s chances of achieving permanent status increase inevitably as his industry employment and seniority accumulate. The temporary employees with the most industry seniority have the first choice of new jobs within the industry available for temporary employees. Similarly, the temporary employees with the most plant seniority have the first choice of temporary employee jobs within their plant and enjoy the greatest security against “bumping” by permanent employees from nearby plants. As a general rule, therefore, the more seniority a temporary employee accumulates, the more likely it is that he will be able to satisfy the 45-week requirement. That the correlation between accumulated industry employment and acquisition of permanent employee status is imperfect does not mean that the 45-week requirement is not a component of the Agreement’s seniority system. Under any seniority system, contingencies such as illnesses and layoffs may interrupt the accrual of seniority and delay realization of the advantages dependent upon it.
For these reasons, we conclude that the Court of Appeals was in error in holding that the 45-week rule is not a component of a “seniority system” within the meaning of § 703 (h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the District Court the respondent will remain free to show that, in respect to the 45-week rule or in other respects, the seniority system established by the Agreement is not “bona fide,” or that the differences in employment conditions that it has produced are “the result of an intention to discriminate because of race.”
For the reasons stated, the judgment before us is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq.
United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U. S. 553, extended this holding to preclude Title VII challenges to seniority systems that perpetuated the effects of discriminatory post-Act practices that had not been the subject of a timely complaint. See also Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S., at 348, n. 30.
The complaint also alleged, under 29 U. S. C. §§ 159 and 185, that the union defendants had breached their duty of fair representation by, among other things, negotiating “unreasonable privileges for some employees over others. . .
In this Court, the respondent emphasizes that he has not contended that there is anything illegal in classifying employees as permanent and temporary or in according greater rights to permanent than to temporary employees. His sole Title VII challenge in this respect has been to the 45-week rule on its face and as it has been applied by the defendant unions and employers.
The Agreement classifies employees into brewers, bottlers, drivers, shipping and receiving clerks, and checkers. Under the Agreement, separate seniority lists have to be maintained for each of these classifications of employees. The respondent is a brewer.
An employee may also lose permanent status if he “quits the industry” or is discharged for certain specified reasons.
In addition, permanent employees are given preference over temporary employees with respect to various other employment matters, such as the right to collect supplemental unemployment benefits upon layoff, wages and vacation pay, and choice of vacation times.
The Court of Appeals also observed that “the 45-week requirement makes the system particularly susceptible to discriminatory application since employers and unions can manipulate their manpower requirements and employment patterns to prevent individuals who are disfavored from ever achieving permanent status.” 585 F. 2d, at 427. This danger, according to the court, is almost never present in any “true” seniority system, in which rights “usually accumulate automatically over time. . . .” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals directed the trial court on remand to consider as well the respondent’s claims -under 42 U. S. C. § 1981 and 29 U. S. C. §§ 159 and 185.
See 110 Cong. Rec. 1518, 5423, 7207, 7213, 7217, 12723, 15893 (1964). The example of a “seniority system” most frequently cited in the congressional debates was one that provided that the “last hired” employee would be the “first fired.” Nowhere in the debates, however, is there any suggestion that this model was intended to be anything other than an illustration.
See Tram World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63; United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U. S. 553; Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324; Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2066 (unabridged ed. 1961) defines “seniority,” in pertinent part, as the “status attained by length of continuous service ... to which are attached by custom or prior collective agreement various rights or privileges ... on the basis of ranking relative to others. ...”
A collective-bargaining agreement could, for instance, provide that transfers and promotions are to be determined by a mix of seniority and other factors, such as aptitude tests and height requirements. That the “seniority” aspects of such a scheme of transfer and promotion might be covered by § 703 (h) does not mean that the aptitude tests or the height requirements would also be so covered.
See E. Beal, E. Wickersham, & P. Kienast, The Practice of Collective Bargaining 430-431 (1972); Cooper & Sobol, Seniority and Testing Under Fair Employment Laws: A General Approach to Objective Criteria of Hiring and Promotion, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1598, 1602 (1969); Aaron, Reflections on the Legal Nature and Enforceability of Seniority Rights, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 1532, 1534 (1962).
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2322 (unabridged ed. 1961) defines “system,” in pertinent part, as a “complex unity formed of many often diverse parts subject to a common plan or serving a common purpose.”
See generally S. Slichter, J. Healy, & E. Livemash, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management 115-135 (1960).
By way of example, a collective-bargaining agreement could specify that an employee begins to accumulate seniority rights at the time he commences employment with the company, at the time he commences employment within the industry, at the time he begins performing a particular job function, or only after a probationary period of employment.
For example, a collective-bargaining agreement could provide that accumulated seniority rights are permanently forfeited by voluntary resignation, by severance for cause, or by nonemployment at a particular plant or in the industry for a certain period.
For instance, the time an employee works in the industry or with his current employer might not be counted for the purpose of accumulating seniority rights, whereas the time the employee works in a particular job classification might determine his seniority.
By way of example, a, collective-bargaining agreement could provide that an employee's seniority will govern his entitlement to vacation time and his job security in the event of layoffs, but will have no influence on promotions or job assignments.
The examples in the text of the types of rules necessary to the operation of a seniority system are not intended to and do not comprise an exhaustive list.
There are indications in the record of this case that a long-term decline in the California brewing industry’s demand for labor is a reason why the accrual of seniority as a temporary employee has not led more automatically to the acquisition of permanent status. But surely, what would be part of a “seniority system” in an expanding labor market does not become something else in a declining labor market.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi of assaulting two federal officers with a deadly weapon in violation of former 18 U. S. C. § 254. The court sentenced the petitioner to the maximum punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment on each conviction of assault, the sentences to run consecutively. Upon completion of the first 10-year sentence, the petitioner made a motion in the District Court, under 28 U. S. C. § 2255, to correct the second, and consecutive, sentence. He supported his motion by allegations that the evidence at his trial showed that he fired a single discharge from a shotgun into the front seat of an automobile and that the pellets wounded the two federal officers, who were transporting an arrested prisoner. He contended that in this circumstance he was guilty of but one “assault” within the meaning of former § 254 and accordingly was subject to only one punishment. The District Court denied his motion and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 230 F. 2d 726. Both courts held that the wounding of two federal officers by the single discharge of a shotgun would constitute a separate offense against each officer under the statute. We granted certiorari, 352 U. S. 907, to consider the construction of § 254 in light of principles applied to construe the federal criminal statutes involved in Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81; United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218; and Prince v. United States, 352 U. S. 322. We affirmed the Court of Appeals by an equally divided Court, 355 U. S. 282, but vacated our judgment, and set the case for reargument, when a petition for rehearing was granted. 356 U. S. 969. Reargument was had this Term.
It is suggested that the remedy under § 2255 is not available to the petitioner in the circumstances of this case. The record does not disclose that the Government raised this question in the District Court or in the Court of Appeals, and the Government does not tender it as a Question Presented for Decision in its brief in this Court. This Court has often reached the merits of a case involving questions of statutory construction similar to that presented in this case under former 18 U. S. C. § 254 in proceedings by way of collateral attack upon consecutive sentences. In In re Snow, 120 U. S. 274, the petitioner brought a habeas corpus proceeding after serving seven months of three consecutive six-month sentences. He claimed that the sentencing court had misinterpreted the applicable statute and that he had committed but a single offense punishable by a single six-month sentence. This Court held that “the objection may be taken on habeas corpus, when the sentence on more than one of the convictions is sought to be enforced.” Id., at 285. In Bell v. United States, supra, a case on all fours with the present case, the Court reached the question of statutory construction over objection in the Government’s brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari that the question could not be raised on motion under § 2255. Other cases in which the Court reached and decided questions of statutory construction, although the questions were raised by collateral attack on consecutive sentences, include: Tinder v. United States, 345 U. S. 565 (§ 2255); Gore v. United States, 357 U. S. 386 (§ 2255); Prince v. United States, supra (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35); Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U. S. 625 (habeas corpus); Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632 (habeas corpus). The fact that the Court has so often reached the merits of the statutory construction issues in such proceedings suggests that the availability of a collateral remedy is not a jurisdictional question in the sense that, if not properly raised, this Court should nevertheless determine it sua sponte. Moreover, there was only meagre argument of the question of the availability of the remedy in this case. The Government submitted only a short discussion of the question in the body of its brief and made only a passing reference to it toward the close of the oral argument. The question of the scope of collateral attack upon criminal sentences is an important and complex one, judging from the number of decisions discussing it in the District Courts and the Courts of Appeals. We think that we should have the benefit of a full argument before dealing with the question. We, therefore, proceed to construe former 18 U. S. C. § 254 without, however, intimating any view as to the availability of a collateral remedy in another case where that question is properly raised, and is adequately briefed and argued in this Court.
There is no constitutional issue presented. The question for decision is as to the construction to be given former § 254 in the circumstances alleged by the petitioner. Did Congress mean that the single discharge of a shotgun would constitute one assault, and thus only one offense, regardless of the number of officers affected, or did Congress define a separate offense for each federal officer affected by the doing of the act? The congressional meaning is plainly open to question on the face of the statute, which originated as § 2 of the Act of May 18, 1934. 48 Stat. 780. The Government does not seriously contend otherwise, but emphasizes that the legislative history shows that the statute was designed to protect federal officers from personal harm, or the threat of personal harm, in the performance of their duties, or on account of the performance of their duties. From this premise, the Government argues that there must be an offense for each officer who is put in immediate apprehension of personal injury, i. e., assaulted, and that each officer thus defines the unit of prosecution. The position is summed up in the Government’s brief as follows: “The legislation was aimed at protecting federal officers, not only to promote the orderly functioning of the federal government (whose efficiency would diminish in proportion to the number of individual officers affected), but also to protect the individual officers, as 'wards’ of the federal government, from personal harm. Both of these legislative objectives make the individual officers a separate unit of protection.”
However, we are unable to read the legislative history as clearly illumining the statute with this meaning. The history is scant, consisting largely of an Attorney General’s letter recommending the passage of the legislation, and sheds no real light on what Congress intended to be the unit of prosecution. Although the letter mentions the need for legislation for the protection of federal officers, it also speaks of the need for legislation “to further the legitimate purposes of the Federal government.” From what appears, an argument at least as plausible as the Government’s may be made that the congressional aim was to prevent hindrance to the execution of official duty, and thus to assure the carrying out of federal purposes and interests, and was not to protect federal officers except as incident to that aim. Support for this meaning may be found in the fact that § 254 makes it unlawful not only to assault federal officers engaged on official duty but also forcibly to resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere with such officers. Clearly one may resist, oppose, or impede the officers or interfere with the performance of their duties without placing them in personal danger. Such a congressional aim would, of course, be served by considering the act of hindrance as the unit of prosecution without regard to the number of federal officers affected by the act. For example, the locking of the door of a building to prevent the entry of officers intending to arrest a person within would be an act of hindrance denounced by the statute. We cannot find clearly from the statute, even when read in the light of its legislative history, that the Congress intended that the person locking the door might commit as many crimes as there are officers denied entry. And if we cannot find this meaning in the supposed case, we cannot find that Congress intended that a single act of assault affecting two officers constitutes two offenses under the statute. The Government frankly conceded on the oral argument that assault can be treated no differently from the other outlawed activities, and that if a single act of hindrance which has an impact on two officers is only one offense when the act is not an assault, an act of assault can be only one offense even though it has an impact on two officers.
Moreover, an interpretation that there are as many assaults committed as there are officers affected would produce incongruous results. Punishments totally disproportionate to the act of assault could be imposed because it will often be the case that the number of officers affected will have little bearing upon the seriousness of the criminal act. For an assault is ordinarily held to be committed merely by putting another in apprehension of harm whether or not the actor actually intends to inflict or is capable of inflicting that harm. Thus under the meaning for which the Government contends, one who shoots and seriously wounds an officer would commit one offense punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, but if he points a gun at five officers, putting all of them in apprehension of harm, he would commit five offenses punishable by 50 years’ imprisonment, even though he does not fire the gun and no officer actually suffers injury. It is difficult, without a clearer indication than the materials before us provide, to find that Congress intended this result.
It is therefore apparent that § 254 may as reasonably be read to mean that the single discharge of the shotgun would constitute an “assault” without regard to the number of federal officers affected, as it may be read to mean that as many “assaults” would be committed as there were officers affected. Neither the wording of the statute nor its legislative history points clearly to either meaning. In that circumstance the Court applies a policy of lenity and adopts the less harsh meaning. “[W]hen choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite. We should not derive criminal outlawry from some ambiguous implication.” United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 221-222. And in Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, 83, the Court expressed this policy as follows: “When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity.” See also Prince v. United States, supra; Gore v. United States, 357 U. S. 386, 391. This policy of lenity means that the Court will not interpret a federal criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what Congress intended. If Congress desires to create multiple offenses from a single act affecting more than one federal officer, Congress can make that meaning clear. We thus hold that the single discharge of a shotgun alleged by the petitioner in this case would constitute only a single violation of § 254.
It follows that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to sustain his allegation that his conviction of two assaults rested upon evidence that the wounding of the two officers resulted from a single discharge of the gun. The District Court did not hold a hearing on his motion because of its view that the single discharge admitted by him resulted in two assaults. But the Court of Appeals, in affirming on the same ground, correctly acknowledged that if this were an erroneous view of the law, “there is a necessity for the determination of such a factual question [and] there must be a hearing [at which] the [petitioner] is entitled to be present.” 230 F. 2d, at 728. See United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205, 219-220; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275. Because the proceedings at the petitioner's trial were not transcribed it will be necessary at the hearing on the motion to reconstruct the trial record. We decide only the issue tendered by the parties and intimate no view as to whether the petitioner may be entitled to correction of the consecutive sentence under any different fact situation which the reconstructed trial record may disclose.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
That statute provides:
"Whoever shall forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any person ... [if he is a federal officer designated in § 253] while engaged in the performance of his official duties, or shall assault him on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be . . . imprisoned not more than three years . . . ; and whoever, in the commission of any of the acts described in this section, shall use a deadly or dangerous weapon shall be . . . imprisoned not more than ten years 18 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) §254.
Ladner was convicted by a jury on three separate counts; one for conspiring to assault the officers, a second for assaulting one of the officers, and a third for assaulting the other officer. He was sentenced for two years on the conspiracy count, which sentence was to run concurrently with a 10-year sentence for assaulting one of the officers. A 10-year sentence imposed for the assault on the second officer was to run from and after the expiration of the first two sentences. Thus Ladner was sentenced to a total jail term of 20 years. The proceedings instituted by Ladner’s co-conspirator, one Cameron, for post-conviction relief are reported in 84 F. Supp. 289.
The letter, of January 3, 1934, to Senator Ashurst, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
“My Dear SeNator:
“I wish again to renew the recommendation of this Department that legislation be enacted making if a Federal offense forcibly to resist, impede, or interfere with, or to assault or kill, any official or employee of the United States while engaged in, or on account of, the performance of his official duties. Congress has already made •it a Federal offense to assault, resist, etc., officers or employees of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture while engaged in or on account of the execution of their duties (sec. 62, C. C.; sec. 118, title 18, U. S. C.); to assault, resist, etc., officers and others of the Customs and Internal Revenue, while engaged in the execution of their duties (sec. 65, C. C.; sec. 121, title 18, U. S. C.); to assault, resist, beat, wound, etc., any officer of the United States, or other person duly authorized, while serving or attempting to serve the process of any court of the United States (sec. 140, C. C.; sec. 245, title 18, U. S. C.); and to assault, resist, etc., immigration officials or employees while engaged in the performance of their duties (sec. 16, Immigration Act of Feb. 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 885; sec. 152, title 8, U. S. C.). Three of the statutes just cited impose an increased penalty when a deadly or dangerous weapon is used in resisting the officer or employee.
“The need for general legislation of the same character, for the protection of Federal officers and employees other than those specifically embraced in the statutes above cited, becomes increasingly apparent every day. The Federal Government should not be compelled to rely upon the courts of the States, however respectable and well disposed, for the protection of its investigative and law-enforcement personnel; and Congress has recognized this fact at least to the extent indicated by the special acts above cited. This Department has found need for similar legislation for the adequate protection of the special agents of its division of investigation, several of whom have been assaulted in the course of a year, while in the performance of their official duties.
“In these cases resort must usually be had to the local police court, which affords but little relief to us, under the circumstances, in our effort to further the legitimate purposes of the Federal Government. It would seem to be preferable, however, instead of further extending the piecemeal legislation now on the statute books, to enact a broad general statute to embrace all proper cases, both within and outside the scope of existing legislation. Other cases in point are assaults on letter carriers, to cover which the Post Office Department has for several years past sought legislation; and the serious wounding, a couple of years ago, of the warden of the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth by escaped convicts outside the Federal jurisdiction. In the latter case it was possible to punish the escaped convicts under Federal law for their escape; but they could not be punished under any Federal law for the shooting of the warden.
“I have the honor, therefore, to enclose herewith a copy of S. 3184, which was introduced at the request of this Department in the Seventy-second Congress and to urge its reintroduction in the present Congress; and to express the hope that it may receive the prompt and serious consideration of your committee.
“Respectfully,
“HomeR Cummings,
“Attorney General.”
See, for the legislative history, S. Rep. No. 535, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1455, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.; 78 Cong. Rec. 8126-8127.
This concession by the Government seems necessary in view of the lack of any indication that assault was to be treated differently, and in light of 18 U. S. C. § 111, the present recodification of § 254, which lumps assault in with the rest of the offensive actions. The statute now provides that “Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” any designated federal officer “while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties” is committing a crime. The Reviser’s Note indicates that this change in wording was not intended to be a substantive one.
See Burdick, Law of Crime (1946), §342; Clark and Marshall, Law of Crimes (1958), § 10.16; Miller on Criminal Law (1934) §99.
In view of the trial judge’s recollection that “more than one shot was fired into the car in which the officers were riding . . we cannot say that it is impossible that petitioner was properly convicted of more than one offense, even under the principles which govern here.
Although 58 Stat. 5, now 28 U. S. C. §753, which provides for the recording of all proceedings in criminal cases, was enacted on January 20, 1944, Congress had not appropriated funds for the payment of court reporters at the time of the trial in June 1944. See Ricard v. United States, 148 F. 2d 895; Vickers v. United States, 157 F. 2d 285.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is § 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U. S. C. § 1401 (b).
Section 301 (a) of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1401 (a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301 (a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301 (b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301 (a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin.
The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.
I
The facts are stipulated:
1. The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei (hereinafter the plaintiff), was born in Italy on December 22,1939. He is now 31 years of age.
2. The plaintiff’s father has always been a citizen of Italy and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff’s mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915 and thus was a native-born United States citizen. She has retained that citizenship. Moreover, she has fulfilled the requirement of § 301 (a)(7) for physical presence in the United States for 10 years, more than five of which were after she attained the age of 14 years. The mother and father were married in Philadelphia on the mother’s 24th birthday, March 14, 1939. Nine days later, on March 23, the newlyweds departed for Italy. They have resided there ever since.
3. By Italian law the plaintiff acquired Italian citizenship upon his birth in Italy. He retains that citizenship. He also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev. Stat. § 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect. That version of the statute, as does the present one, contained a residence condition applicable to a child born abroad with one alien parent.
4. The plaintiff resided in Italy from the time of his birth until recently. He currently resides in England, where he has employment as an electronics engineer with an organization engaged in the NATO defense program.
5. The plaintiff has come to the United States five different times. He was physically present here during the following periods:
April 27 to July 31, 1948
July 10 to October 5, 1951
June to October 1955
December 18, 1962 to February 13, 1963
May 26 to June 13, 1965.
On the first two occasions, when the plaintiff was a boy of eight and 11, he entered the country with his mother on her United States passport. On the next two occasions, when he was 15 and just under 23, he entered on his own United States passport and was admitted as a citizen of this country. His passport was first issued on June 27, 1952. His last application approval, in August 1961, contains the notation “Warned abt. 301 (b).” The plaintiff’s United States passport was periodically approved to and including December 22, 1962, his 23d birthday.
6. On his fifth visit to the United States, in 1965, the plaintiff entered with an Italian passport and as an alien visitor. He had just been married and he came with his bride to visit his maternal grandparents.
7. The plaintiff was warned in writing by United States authorities of the impact of § 301 (b) when he was in this country in January 1963 and again in November of that year when he was in Italy. Sometime after February 11, 1964, he was orally advised by the American Embassy at Rome that he had lost his United States citizenship pursuant to §301 (b). In November 1966 he was so notified in writing by the American Consul in Rome when the plaintiff requested another American passport.
8. On March 28, 1960, plaintiff registered under the United States Selective Service laws with the American Consul in Rome. At that time he already was 20 years of age. He took in Italy, and passed, a United States Army physical examination. On December 11, 1963, he was asked to report for induction in the District of Columbia. This induction, however, was then deferred because of his NATO defense program employment. At the time of deferment he was warned of the danger of losing his United States citizenship if he did not comply with the residence requirement. After February 14,1964, Selective Service advised him by letter that, due to the loss of his citizenship, he had no further obligation for United States military service.
Plaintiff thus concededly failed to comply with the conditions imposed by § 301 (b) of the Act.
II
The plaintiff instituted the present action against the Secretary of State in the Southern District of New York. He asked that the Secretary be enjoined from carrying out and enforcing § 301 (b), and also requested a declaratory judgment that § 301 (b) is unconstitutional as vio-lative of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment’s Punishment Clause, and the Ninth Amendment, and that he is and always has been a native-born United States citizen. Because, under 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (e), the New York venue was improper, the case was transferred to the District of Columbia. 28 U. S. C. § 1406 (a).
A three-judge District Court was convened. With the facts stipulated, cross motions for summary judgment were filed. The District Court ruled that § 301 (b) was unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253 (1967), and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163 (1964), and sustained the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Bellei v. Rusk, 296 F. Supp. 1247 (DC 1969). This Court noted probable jurisdiction, 396 U. S. 811 (1969), and, after argument at the 1969 Term, restored the case to the calendar for reargument. 397 U. S. 1060 (1970).
III
The two cases primarily relied upon by the three-judge District Court are, of course, of particular significance here.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163 (1964). Mrs. Schneider, a German national by birth, acquired United States citizenship derivatively through her mother’s naturalization in the United States. She came to this country as a small child with her parents and remained here until she finished college. She then went abroad for graduate work, was engaged to a German national, married in Germany, and stayed in residence there. She declared that she had no intention of returning to the United States. In 1959, a passport was denied by the State Department on the ground that she had lost her United States citizenship under the specific provisions of § 352 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1484 (a)(1), by continuous residence for three years in a foreign state of which she was formerly a national. The Court, by a five-to-three vote, held the statute violative of Fifth Amendment due process because there was no like restriction against foreign residence by native-born citizens.
The dissent (Mr. Justice Clark, joined by Justices Harlan and White) based its position on what it regarded as the long acceptance of expatriating naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to residence in their native lands; possible international complications; past decisions approving the power of Congress to enact statutes of that type; and the Constitution’s distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253 (1967). Mr. Afroyim, a Polish national by birth, immigrated to the United States at age 19 and after 14 years here acquired United States citizenship by naturalization. Twenty-four years later he went to Israel and voted in a political election there. In 1960 a passport was denied him by the State Department on the ground that he had lost his United States citizenship under the specific provisions of §349 (a)(5) of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (a)(5), by his foreign voting. The Court, by a five-to-four vote, held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizenship was significant; that Congress has no “general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent,” 387 U. S., at 257; that Congress’ power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization and, when once exercised with respect to the individual, is exhausted, citing Mr. Chief Justice Marshall’s well-known but not uncontroversial dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824); and that the “undeniable purpose” of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the recently conferred “citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure” and “to put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy,” 387 U. S., at 263. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44 (1958), a five-to-four holding within the decade and precisely to the opposite effect, was overruled.
The dissent (Me. Justice Hablan, joined by Justices Clark, Stewabt, and White) took issue with the Court’s claim of support in the legislative history, would elucidate the Marshall dictum, and observed that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment did not deprive Congress of the power to expatriate on permissible grounds consistent with “other relevant commands” of the Constitution. 387 U. S., at 292.
It is to be observed that both Mrs. Schneider and Mr. Afroyim had resided in this country for years. Each had acquired United States citizenship here by the naturalization process (in one case derivative and in the other direct) prescribed by the National Legislature. Each, in short, was covered explicitly by the Fourteenth Amendment’s very first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This, of course, accounts for the Court’s emphasis in Afroyim upon “Fourteenth Amendment citizenship.” 387 U. S., at 262.
IY
The statutes culminating in § 301 merit review:
1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States....”
2. A like provision, with only minor changes in phrasing and with the same emphasis on paternal residence, was continuously in effect through three succeeding naturalization Acts. Act of January 29, 1795, § 3, 1 Stat. 415; Act of April 14, 1802, § 4, 2 Stat. 155; Act of February 10, 1855, c. 71, § 1, 10 Stat. 604. The only significant difference is that the 1790, 1795, and 1802 Acts read retrospectively, while the 1855 Act reads prospectively as well. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S. 657, 664 (1927), and Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308, 311 (1961).
3. Section 1 of the 1855 Act, with changes unimportant here, was embodied as § 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874.
4. The Act of March 2, 1907, § 6, 34 Stat. 1229, provided that all children born abroad who were citizens under Rev. Stat. § 1993 and who continued to reside elsewhere, in order to receive governmental protection, were to record at age 18 their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and were to take the oath of allegiance upon attaining their majority.
5. The change in § 1993 effected by the Act of May 24, 1934, is reflected in n. 2, supra. This eliminated the theretofore imposed restriction to the paternal parent and prospectively granted citizenship, subject to a five-year continuous residence requirement and an oath, to the foreign-born child of either a citizen father or a citizen mother. This was the form of the statute at the time of plaintiff’s birth on December 22, 1939.
6. The Nationality Act of 1940, § 201, 54 Stat. 1138, contained a similar condition directed to a total of five years’ residence in the United States between the ages of 13 and 21.
7. The Immigration and Nationality Act, by its § 407, 66 Stat. 281, became law in December 1952. Its § 301 (b) contains a five years’ continuous residence condition (alleviated, with the 1957 amendment, see n. 1, by an allowance for absences less than 12 months in the aggregate) directed to the period between 14 and 28 years of age.
The statutory pattern, therefore, developed and expanded from (a) one, established in 1790 and enduring through the Revised Statutes and until 1934, where citizenship was specifically denied to the child born abroad of a father who never resided in the United States; to (b), in 1907, a governmental protection condition for the child born of an American citizen father and residing abroad, dependent upon a declaration of intent and the oath of allegiance at majority; to (c), in 1934, a condition, for the child born abroad of one United States citizen parent and one alien parent, of five years’ continuous residence in the United States before age 18 and the oath of allegiance within six months after majority; to (d), in 1940, a condition, for that child, of five years’ residence here, not necessarily continuous, between ages 13 and 21; to (e), in 1952, a condition, for that child, of five years’ continuous residence here, with allowance, between ages 14 and 28.
The application of these respective statutes to a person in plaintiff Bellei’s position produces the following results:
1. Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit. One may observe, too, that if Mr. Bellei had been born in 1933, instead of in 1939, he would have no claim even today. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.
2. Despite the recognition of the maternal root by the 1934 amendment, in effect at the time of plaintiff’s birth, and despite the continuing liberalization of the succeeding statutes, the plaintiff still would not be entitled to full citizenship because, although his mother met the condition for her residence in the United States, the plaintiff never did fulfill the residential condition imposed for him by any of the statutes.
3. This is so even though the liberalizing 1940 and 1952 statutes, enacted after the plaintiff’s birth, were applicable by their terms to one born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, the date of the 1934 Act, and were available to the plaintiff. See nn. 5 and 1, supra.
Thus, in summary, it may be said fairly that, for the most part, each successive statute, as applied to a foreign-born child of one United States citizen parent, moved in a direction of leniency for the child. For plaintiff Bellei the statute changed from complete disqualification to citizenship upon a condition subsequent, with that condition being expanded and made less onerous, and, after his birth, with the succeeding liberalizing provisions made applicable to him in replacement of the stricter statute in effect when he was born. The plaintiff nevertheless failed to satisfy any form of the condition.
V
It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship. Of course, Congress obviously felt that way, too, about the two expatriation provisions invalidated by the decisions in Schneider and Afroyim.
We look again, then, at the Constitution and further indulge in history’s assistance:
Of initial significance, because of its being the foundation stone of the Court’s decisional structure in Afroyim, and, perhaps by a process of after-the-fact osmosis, of the earlier Schneider as well, is the Fourteenth Amendment’s opening sentence:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The central fact, in our weighing of the plaintiff’s claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship, is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizen. His posture contrasts with that of Mr. Afroyim, who was naturalized in the United States, and with that of Mrs. Schneider, whose citizenship was derivative by her presence here and by her mother’s naturalization here.
The plaintiff's claim thus must center in the statutory-power of Congress and in the appropriate exercise of that power within the restrictions of any pertinent constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment’s first sentence.
The reach of congressional power in this area is readily apparent:
1. Over 70 years ago the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 668-671 (1898). The Court concluded that “naturalization by descent” was not a common-law concept but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment. The statutes examined were 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1677); 7 Anne, c. 5, § 3 (1708); 4 Geo. 2, c. 21 (1731); and 13 Geo. 3, c. 21 (1773). Later Mr. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, referred to this “very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray” and observed “that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute....” Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S., at 660. He referred to the cited English statutes and stated, “These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.”
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
2. The Constitution as originally adopted contained no definition of United States citizenship. However, it referred to citizenship in general terms and in varying contexts: Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, qualifications for members of the House; Art. I, §3, cl. 3, qualifications for Senators; Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, eligibility for the office of President; Art. Ill, § 2, cl. 1, citizenship as affecting judicial power of the United States. And, as has been noted, Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, vested Congress with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The historical reviews in the Afroyim opinions provide an intimation that the Constitution’s lack of definitional specificity may well have been attributable in part to the desire to avoid entanglement in the then-existing controversy between concepts of state and national citizenship and with the difficult question of the status of Negro slaves.
In any event, although one might have expected a definition of citizenship in constitutional terms, none was embraced in the original document or, indeed, in any of the amendments adopted prior to the War Between the States.
3. Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution’s Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: “[A] 11 persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States....” This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to “[a] 11 persons born or naturalized in the United States....” As has been noted above, the amendment’s “undeniable purpose” was “to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure” and not subject to change by mere statute. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S., at 263. See H. Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94 (1908).
Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,” so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., at 688. Then follows a most significant sentence:
“But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
4. The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, “No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with....” United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472, 475 (1917). See United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319 (1917); Maney v. United States, 278 U. S. 17 (1928). And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens. Congress responded to that situation only by enacting the 1855 statute. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S., at 311. But more than 50 years had expired during which, because of the withholding of that benefit by Congress, citizenship by such descent was not bestowed. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., at 673-674. Then, too, the Court has recognized that until the 1934 Act the transmission of citizenship to one born abroad was restricted to the child of a qualifying American father, and withheld completely from the child of a United States citizen mother and an alien father. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.
Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.
Thus we have the presence of congressional power in this area, its exercise, and the Court’s specific recognition of that power and of its having been properly withheld or properly used in particular situations.
VI
This takes us, then, to the issue of the constitutionality of the exercise of that congressional power when it is used to impose the condition subsequent that confronted plaintiff Bellei. We conclude that its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful, and that it withstands the present constitutional challenge.
1. The Congress has an appropriate concern with problems attendant on dual nationality. Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U. S. 491, 500 (1950); N. Bar-Yaacov, Dual Nationality xi and 4 (1961). These problems are particularly acute when it is the father who is the child’s alien parent and the father chooses to have his family reside in the country of his own nationality. The child is reared, at best, in an atmosphere of divided loyalty. We cannot say that a concern that the child’s own primary allegiance is to the country of his birth and of his father’s allegiance is either misplaced or arbitrary.
The duality also creates problems for the governments involved. Mr. Justice Brennan recognized this when, concurring in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 187 (1963), a case concerning native-born citizens, he observed: “We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance....” In a famous case Mr. Justice Douglas wrote of the problem of dual citizenship. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U. S. 717, 723-736 (1952). He noted that “[o]ne who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting,” id., at 733; that one with dual nationality cannot turn that status “into a fair-weather citizenship,” id., at 736; and that “ [circumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship,” ibid. The District Court in this very case conceded:
“It is a legitimate concern of Congress that those who bear American citizenship and receive its benefits have some nexus to the United States.” 296 F. Supp., at 1252.
2. There are at least intimations in the decided cases that a dual national constitutionally may be required to make an election. In Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325, 329 (1939), the Court observed that a native-born citizen who had acquired dual nationality during minority through his parents’ foreign naturalization abroad did not lose his United States citizenship “provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” In Kawakita v. United States, 343 U. S., at 734, the Court noted that a dual national “under certain circumstances” can be deprived of his American citizenship through an Act of Congress. In Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U. S. 133, 138 (1952), the Court took pains to observe that there was no statute in existence imposing an election upon that dual nationality litigant.
These cases do not flatly say that a duty to elect may be constitutionally imposed. They surely indicate, however, that this is possible, and in Mandoli the holding was based on the very absence of a statute and not on any theory of unconstitutionality. And all three of these cases concerned persons who were born here, that is, persons who possessed Fourteenth Amendment citizenship; they did not concern a person, such as plaintiff Bellei, whose claim to citizenship is wholly, and only, statutory.
3. The statutory development outlined in Part IV above, by itself and without reference to the underlying legislative history, committee reports, and other studies, reveals a careful consideration by the Congress of the problems attendant upon dual nationality of a person born abroad. This was purposeful and not accidental. It was legislation structured with care and in the light of then apparent problems.
4. The solution to the dual nationality dilemma provided by the Congress by way of required residence surely is not unreasonable. It may not be the best that could be devised, but here, too, we cannot say that it is irrational or arbitrary or unfair. Congress first has imposed a condition precedent in that the citizen parent must have been in the United States or its possessions not less than 10 years, at least five of which are after attaining age 14. It then has imposed, as to the foreign-born child himself, the condition subsequent as to residence here. The Court already had emphasized the importance of residence in this country as the talisman of dedicated attachment, Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S., at 666-667, and said:
“It is not too much to say, therefore, that Congress at that time [when Rev. Stat. § 1993 was under consideration] attached more importance to actual residence in the United States as indicating a basis for citizenship than it did to descent from those who had been born citizens of the colonies or of the states before the Constitution. As said by Mr. Fish, when Secretary of State, to Minister Washburn, June 28, 1873, in speaking of this very proviso, ‘the heritable blood of citizenship was thus associated unmistakeably with residence within the country which was thus recognized as essential to full citizenship.’ Foreign Relations of the United States, Pt. 1, 1873, p. 259.” 274 U. S., at 665-666.
The same policy is reflected in the required period of residence here for aliens seeking naturalization. 8 U. S. C. § 1427 (a).
5. We feel that it does not make good constitutional sense, or comport with logic, to say, on the one hand, that Congress may impose a condition precedent, with no constitutional complication, and yet be powerless to impose precisely the same condition subsequent. Any such distinction, of course, must rest, if it has any basis at all, on the asserted “premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive,” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S., at 165, and on the announcement that Congress has no “power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent,” Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S., at 257. But, as pointed out above, these were utterances bottomed upon Fourteenth Amendment citizenship and that Amendment’s direct reference to “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” We do not accept the notion that those utterances are now to be judicially extended to citizenship not based upon the Fourteenth Amendment and to make citizenship an absolute. That it is not an absolute is demonstrated by the fact that even Fourteenth Amendment citizenship by naturalization, when unlawfully procured, may be set aside. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S., at 267 n. 23.
6. A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious.
7. Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with “second-class citizenship.” That cliché is too handy and too easy, and, like most clichés, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not “second-class.”
8. The plaintiff is not stateless. His Italian citizenship remains. He has lived practically all his life in Italy. He has never lived in this country; although he has visited here five times, the stipulated facts contain no indication that he ever will live here. He asserts no claim of ignorance or of mistake or even of hardship. He was warned several times of the provision of the statute and of his need to take up residence in the United States prior to his 23d birthday.
We hold that § 301 (b) has no constitutional infirmity in its application to plaintiff Bellei. The judgment of the District Court is reversed.
“Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
“(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided....
“(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State[s] for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
“(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person bom abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934...
Section 301 (a) (7) was amended November 6
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellee’s 18-year-old son was shot and killed by police while attempting to escape arrest. Appellee filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the police officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He sought to recover damages, and also to obtain a declaratory judgment that the Missouri statutes authorizing the police action were unconstitutional. The District Court held that a defense of good faith had been established, and denied both forms of relief. No appeal was taken from the denial of damages, but appellee did seek review of the denial of declaratory relief. The Eighth Circuit held that declaratory relief was available and remanded for consideration of the merits of the constitutional issue. Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F. 2d 588 (1974).
On remand, appellee filed an amended complaint, in which he made no claim for damages. The Missouri Attorney General was allowed to intervene in defense of the statutes, and the case was then submitted on stipulated facts. The District Court upheld the statutes, Mattis v. Schnarr, 404 F. Supp. 643 (1975), but was reversed by a divided Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, 547 F. 2d 1007 (1976). The Attorney General brought an appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (2) from the holding that the state statutes were unconstitutional.
Although we are urged to consider the merits of the Court of Appeals’ holding, we are unable to do so, because this suit does not now present a live “case or controversy.” This suit was brought to determine the police officers’ liability for the death of appellee’s son. That issue has been decided, and there is no longer any possible basis for a damages claim. Nor is there any possible basis for a declaratory judgment. For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which “calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 242 (1937). See also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941). Here, the District Court was asked to answer the hypothetical question whether the defendants would have been liable apart from their defense of good faith. No “present right” of appellee was at stake. Indeed, appellee’s primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that he will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling that his son’s death was wrongful. Appellee’s Motion to Affirm 5-6, n. 1. Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the second amended complaint.
It is so ordered.
These statutes permit police to use deadly force in apprehending a person who has committed a felony, following notice of the intent to arrest. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 559.040 and 544.190 (1969); see Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F. 2d 588, 591, and n. 4 (CA8 1974).
The second amended complaint also alleges that appellee has another son who “if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers . . . .” 3 App. in Mattis v. Schnarr, No. 75-1849 (CA8), p. 5 (emphasis added). Such speculation is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Nevada Supreme Court invalidated a recusal provision of the State’s Ethics in Government Law as unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. We consider whether legislators have a personal, First Amendment right to vote on any given matter.
I
Nevada’s Ethics in Government Law provides that a public, officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his situation would be materially affected by,” inter alia, “[h]is commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(2) (2007). Section 28lA.420(8)(a)-(d) of the law defines the term “commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others” to mean a “commitment to a person” who is a member of the officer's household; is related by blood, adoption, or marriage to the officer; employs the officer or a member of his household; or has a substantial and continuing business relationship with the officer. Paragraph (e) of the same subsection adds a catchall to that definition: “[a]ny other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar” to one of those listed in paragraphs (a)-(d).
The Ethics in Government Law is administered and enforced by the petitioner in this litigation, the Nevada Commission on Ethics. In 2005, the Commission initiated an investigation of Michael Carrigan, an elected member of the City Council of Sparks, Nevada, in response to complaints that Carrigan had violated §281A.420(2) by voting to approve an application for a hotel/casino project known as the “Lazy 8.” Carrigan, the complaints asserted, had a disabling conflict in the matter because his long-time friend and campaign manager, Carlos Vasquez, worked as a paid consultant for the Red Hawk Land Company, which had proposed the Lazy 8 project and would benefit from its approval.
Upon completion of its investigation, the Commission concluded that Carrigan had a disqualifying conflict of interest under §281A.420(8)(e)’s catchall provision because his relationship with Vasquez was “substantially similar” to the prohibited relationships listed in § 281A.420(8)(a)-(d). Its written decision censured Carrigan for failing to abstain from voting on the Lazy 8 matter, but did not impose a civil penalty because his violation was not willful, see §281A.480. (Before the hearing, Carrigan had consulted the Sparks city attorney, who advised him that disclosing his relationship with Vasquez before voting on the Lazy 8 project, which he did, would satisfy his obligations under the Ethics in Government Law.)
Carrigan filed a petition for judicial review in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, arguing that the provisions of the Ethics in Government Law that he was found to have violated were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The District Court denied the petition, but a divided Nevada Supreme Court reversed. The majority held that voting was protected by the First Amendment, and, applying strict scrutiny, found that § 281A.420(8)(e)’s catchall definition was unconstitutionally overbroad. 126 Nev. 277, 284-288, 236 P. 3d 616, 621-624 (2010).
We granted certiorari, 562 U. S. 1127 (2011).
rH H-(
The First Amendment prohibits laws “abridging the freedom of speech,” which, ‘“as a general matter . . . means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 65 (1983)). But the Amendment has no application when what is restricted is not protected speech. See, e. g., Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957) (obscenity not protected speech). The Nevada Supreme Court thought a legislator’s vote to be protected speech because voting “is a core legislative function.” 126 Nev., at 284, 236 P. 3d, at 621 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We disagree, for the same reason. But before discussing that issue, we must address a preliminary detail: The challenged law not only prohibits the legislator who has a conflict from voting on the proposal in question, but also forbids him to “advocate the passage or failure” of the proposal — evidently meaning advocating its passage or failure during the legislative debate. Neither Carrigan nor any of his amici contend that the prohibition on advocating can be unconstitutional if the prohibition on voting is not. And with good reason. Legislative sessions would become massive town-hall meetings if those who had a right to speak were not limited to those who had a right to vote. If Carrigan was constitutionally excluded from voting, his exclusion from “advocating]” at the legislative session was a reasonable time, place, and manner limitation. See Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984).
rH H-Í HH
[A] universal and long-established tradition of prohibiting certain conduct creates a strong presumption that the prohibition is constitutional: Principles of liberty fundamental enough to have been embodied within constitutional guarantees are not readily erased from the Nation’s consciousness.” Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U. S. 765, 785 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Laws punishing libel and obscenity are not thought to violate “the freedom of speech” to which the First Amendment refers because such laws existed in 1791 and have been in place ever since. The same is true of legislative recusal rules. The Nevada Supreme Court and Carrigan have not cited a single decision invalidating a generally applicable conflict-of-interest recusal rule — and such rules have been commonplace for over 200 years.
“[E]arly congressional enactments ‘provid[e] contemporaneous and weighty evidence of the Constitution’s meaning,’ ” Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 905 (1997) (quoting Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 723-724 (1986)). That evidence is dispositive here. Within 15 years of the founding, both the House of Representatives and the Senate adopted recusal rules. The House rule — to which no one is recorded as having objected, on constitutional or other grounds, see D. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period 1789-1801, p. 10 (1997) — was adopted within a week of that chamber’s first achieving a quorum. The rule read: “No member shall vote on any question, in the event of which he is immediately and particularly interested.” 1 Annals of Cong. 99 (1789). Members of the House would have been subject to this recusal rule when they voted to submit the First Amendment for ratification; their failure to note any inconsistency between the two suggests that there was none.
The first Senate rules did not include a recusal requirement, but Thomas Jefferson adopted one when he was President of the Senate. His rule provided as follows:
“Where the private interests of a member are concerned in a bill or question, he is to withdraw. And where such an interest has appeared, his voice [is] disallowed, even after a division. In a case so contrary, not only to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principles of the social compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause, it is for the honor of the house that this rule, of immemorial observance, should be strictly adhered to.” A Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States 31 (1801).
Contemporaneous treatises on parliamentary procedure track parts of Jefferson’s formulation. See, e. g., A. Clark, Manual, Compiled and Prepared for the Use of the [New York] Assembly 99 (1816); L. Cushing, Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Rules of Proceeding and Debate in Deliberative Assemblies 30 (7th ed. 1854).
Federal conflict-of-interest rules applicable to judges also date back to the founding. In 1792, Congress passed a law requiring district court judges to recuse themselves if they had a personal interest in a suit or had been counsel to a party appearing before them. Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 36, §11, 1 Stat. 278-279. In 1821, Congress expanded these bases for recusal to include situations in which “the judge ... is so related to, or connected with, either party, as to render it improper for him, in his opinion, to sit on the trial of such suit.” Act of Mar. 3, 1821, ch. 51, 3 Stat. 643. The statute was again expanded in 1911, to make any “personal bias or prejudice” a basis for recusal. Act of Mar. 3, 1911, §21,36 Stat. 1090. The current version, which retains much of the 1911 version’s language, is codified at 28 U. S. C. § 144. See generally Liteky v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 544 (1994); Frank, Disqualification of Judges, 56 Yale L. J. 605, 626-630 (1947) (hereinafter Frank). There are of course differences between a legislator’s vote and a judge’s, and thus between legislative and judicial recusal rules; nevertheless, there do not appear to have been any serious challenges to judicial recusal statutes as having unconstitutionally restricted judges’ First Amendment rights.
The Nevada Supreme Court’s belief that recusal rules violate legislators’ First Amendment rights is also inconsistent with longstanding traditions in the States. A number of States, by common-law rule, have long required recusal of public officials with a conflict. See, e. g., In re Nashua, 12 N. H. 425, 430 (1841) (“If one of the commissioners be interested, he shall not serve”); Commissioners’ Court v. Tarver, 25 Ala. 480, 481 (1854) (“If any member . . . has a peculiar, personal interest, such member would be disqualified”); Stubbs v. Florida State Finance Co., 118 Fla. 450, 452, 159 So. 527, 528 (1935) (“[A] public official cannot legally participate in his official capacity in the decision of a question in which he is personally and adversely interested”). Today, virtually every State has enacted some type of recusal law, many of which, not unlike Nevada's, require public officials to abstain from voting on all matters presenting a conflict of interest. See National Conference of State Legislatures, Voting Recusal Provisions (2009), online at http:// www.nesl.org/7TabID-15357 (as visited June 9, 2011, and available in Clerk of Court's case file).
In an attempt to combat this overwhelming evidence of constitutional acceptability, Carrigan relies on a handful of lower-court cases from the 1980's and afterwards. See Brief for Respondent 25 (citing Clarke v. United States, 886 F. 2d 404 (CADC 1989); Miller v. Hull, 878 F. 2d 523 (CA1 1989); and Camacho v. Brandon, 317 F. 3d 153 (CA2 2003)). Even if they were relevant, those cases would be too little and too late to contradict the long-recognized need for legislative recusal. But they are not relevant. The first was vacated as moot, see Clarke v. United States, 915 F. 2d 699, 700, 706 (CADC 1990) (en banc), and the other two involve retaliation amounting to viewpoint discrimination. See Miller, supra, at 533; Camacho, supra, at 160. In the past we have applied heightened scrutiny to laws that are viewpoint discriminatory even as to speech not protected by the First Amendment, see R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 383-386 (1992). Carrigan does not assert that the recusal laws here are viewpoint discriminatory, nor could he: The statute is content-neutral and applies equally to all legislators regardless of party or position.
IV
But how can it be that restrictions upon legislators’ voting are not restrictions upon legislators’ protected speech? The answer is that a legislator's vote is the commitment of his apportioned share of the legislature’s power to the passage or defeat of a particular proposal. The legislative power thus committed is not personal to the legislator but belongs to the people; the legislator has no personal right to it. As we said in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 821 (1997), when denying Article III standing to legislators who claimed that their voting power had been diluted by a statute providing for a line-item veto, the legislator casts his vote “as trustee for his constituents, not as a prerogative of personal power.” In this respect, voting by a legislator is different from voting by a citizen. While “a voter’s franchise is a personal right,” “[t]he procedures for voting in legislative assemblies . pertain to legislators not as individuals but as political representatives executing the legislative process.” Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 469-470 (1939) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.).
Carrigan and Justice Alito say that legislators often “ ‘us[e] their votes to express deeply held and highly unpopular views, often at great personal or political peril.’” Post, at 133 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (quoting Brief for Respondent 23). How do they express those deeply held views, one wonders? Do ballots contain a check-one-of-the-boxes attachment that will be displayed to the public, reading something like “( ) I have a deeply held view about this; ( ) this is probably desirable; ( ) this is the least of the available evils; ( ) my personal view is the other way, but my constituents want this; ( ) my personal view is the other way, but my big contributors want this; ( ) I don’t have the slightest idea what this legislation does, but on my way in to vote the party Whip said vote 'aye' ”? There are, to be sure, instances where action conveys a symbolic meaning — such as the burning of a flag to convey disagreement with a country’s policies, see Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 406 (1989). But the act of voting symbolizes nothing. It discloses, to be sure, that the legislator wishes (for whatever reason) that the proposition on the floor be adopted, just as a physical assault discloses that the attacker dislikes the vie-tim. But neither the one nor the other is an act of communication, Cf. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 66 (2006) (expressive value was “not created by the conduct itself but by the speech that accompanies it”).
Moreover, the fact that a nonsymbolic act is the product of deeply held personal belief — even if the actor would like it to convey his deeply held personal belief — does not transform action into First Amendment speech. Nor does the fact that action may have social consequences — such as the unpopularity that cost John Quincy Adams his Senate seat resulting from his vote in favor of the Embargo Act of 1807, see post, at 133. However unpopular Adams’ vote may have made him, and however deeply Adams felt that his vote was the right thing to do, the act of voting was still nonsym-bolic conduct engaged in for an independent governmental purpose.
Even if it were true that the vote itself could “express deeply held and highly unpopular views,” the argument would still miss the mark. This Court has rejected the notion that the First Amendment confers a right to use governmental mechanics to convey a message. For example, in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351 (1997), we upheld a State’s prohibition on multiple-party or “fusion” candidates for elected office against a First Amendment challenge. We admitted that a State’s ban on a person’s appearing on the ballot as the candidate of moré than one party might prevent a party from “using the ballot to communicate to the public that it supports a particular candidate who is already another party’s candidate,” id., at 362; but we nonetheless were “unpersuaded... by the party’s contention that it has a right to use the ballot itself to send a particularized message.” Id., at 362-363; see also Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428, 438 (1992). In like manner, a legislator has no right to use official powers for expressive purposes.
Carrigan and Justice Alito also cite Doe v. Reed, 561 U. S. 186 (2010), as establishing “the expressive character of voting.” Post, at 133; see also Brief for' Respondent 26. But Reed did no such thing. That ease held only that a citizen’s signing of a petition — “‘core political speech'” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 421-422 (1988) — was not deprived of its protected status simply because, under state law, a petition that garnered a sufficient number of signatures would suspend the state law to which it pertained, pending a referendum. See Reed, 561 U. S., at 195; id., at 221-222 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). It is one thing to say that an inherently expressive act remains so despite its having governmental effect, but it is altogether another thing to say that a governmental act becomes expressive simply because the governmental actor wishes it to be so. We have never said the latter is true.
Y
Carrigan raises two additional arguments in his brief: that Nevada’s catchall provision unconstitutionally burdens the right of association of officials and supporters, and that the provision is unconstitutionally vague. Whatever the merits of these arguments, we have no occasion to consider them. Neither was decided below: The Nevada Supreme Court made no mention of the former argument and said that it need not address the latter given its resolution of the over-breadth challenge, 126 Nev., at 282, n. 4, 236 P. 3d, at 619, n. 4. Nor was either argument raised in Carrigan’s brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari. Arguments thus omitted are normally considered waived, see this Court’s Rule 15.2; Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U. S. 27, 34 (2004), and we find no reason to sidestep that Rule here.
* * *
The judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
At tho timo of the relevant events in thic caeo, the disclosure and rcou sal. provisions of the Ethics in Government Law were codified at Nev, Rev. Stat. §281.501 (2003). They were recodified without relevant change in 2007 at § 281A.420, and all citations are to that version. The Nevada Legislature further amended the statute in 2009, see Nev. Stats., eh. 257, § 9.5, p. 1057, but those changes are not relevant here.
The House first achieved a quorum on April 1,1789,1 Annals of Cong. 96, and it adopted rules governing its procedures on April 7, 1789, see id., at 98-99.
We have held that restrictions on judges’ speech during elections are a different matter. See Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U. S. 765, 788 (2002) (holding that it violated the First Amendment to prohibit announeomont of views on disputed legal and political issues by candidates for judicial election).
A number of States enacted early judicial recusal laws as well. See, e. g., 1797 Vt. Laws, §23, p. 178 (“[N]o justice of the peace shall take cognizance of any cause, where he shall be within either the first, second, third, or fourth degree of affinity, or consanguinity, to either of the parties, or shall be directly or indirectly interested, in the cause or matter to be determined”); 1818 Mass. Laws, § 5, p. 632 (“[Wjhenever any Judge of Probate shall be interested in the estate of any person deceased, within the county of ouch Judge, such eatatc shall be oettlcd in the Probato Court of the most ancient next adjoining county . . . ”); Macon v. Huff, 60 Ga. 221, 223-226 (1878). See generally Frank 609-626.
Justice Auto reasons as follows: (1) If an ordinary citizen were to vote in a otraw poll on an ígguc pending before a lcgiolativc body, that vote would be speech; (2) if a member of the legislative body were to do the same, it would be no less expressive; therefore (3) the legislator’s actual vote must also be expressive. This conclusion does not follow. A legislator voting on a bill is not fairly analogized to one simply discussing that bill or expressing an opinion for or against it. The former is performing a governmental act as a representative of his constituents, see supra, at 126; only the latter is exercising personal First Amendment rights.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Rivera seeks leave to proceed informa pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Rivera is allowed until April 12, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor petitions for extraordinary writs from Rivera in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Rivera has abused this Court’s eertiorari and extraordinary writ processes. In January of this year, we twice invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Rivera in forma pauperis status. See Rivera v. Allin, 525 U. S. 1065; In re Rivera, 525 U. S. 1066. At that time, Rivera had filed two petitions for extraordinary writs and eight petitions for certiorari, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. The instant petition for certio-rari thus constitutes Rivera’s 13th frivolous filing with this Court. He has four additional filings — all of them patently frivolous — currently pending before this Court.
We enter the order barring sons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Rivera’s abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has been in noncriminal eases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Rivera from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order, however, will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.
It is 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.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether employer contributions to union trust funds for health and welfare, pensions, and training are “wages” for the purpose of computing compensation benefits under § 2(13) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. (part 2) 1425, 33 U. S. C. § 902(13) (Compensation Act).
I
James Hilyer, an employee of petitioner Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co., was fatally injured while working on the construction of the District of Columbia Metrorail System. At the time of his death, Hilyer was covered by the District of Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act, D. C. Code §36-501 (1973), which incorporates the provisions of the Compensation Act. He was also a beneficiary of a collective-bargaining agreement between Morrison-Knudsen and his union, Local 456 of the Laborers’ District Council of Washington, D. C., and Vicinity (AFL-CIO).
Immediately upon Hilyer’s death, petitioner began to pay 662/3% of Hilyer’s “average weekly wage” in death benefits to his wife and two minor children pursuant to 33 U. S. C. § 909(b). Respondent Hilyer disputed the amount of benefits paid, claiming, among other things, that her husband’s average weekly wage included not only his take-home pay, as petitioner contended, but also the 680 per hour in contributions the employer was required to make to union trust funds under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement. The Administrative Law Judge rejected Mrs. Hilyer’s contention and the Benefits Review Board affirmed. The Board reasoned that only values that are readily identifiable and calculable may be included in the determination of wages. Hilyer’s rights in his union trust funds were speculative. It was not clear from the record whether his pension rights had vested, and even if they had, the value of his interest in the Pension and Disability Fund depended on his continued employment with petitioner, while the value of his interest in the health, welfare, and training funds was contingent on his need for these benefits. The Board also rejected the notion that the values could be computed from the amounts contributed by the employer, noting that the family in all likelihood would not have been able to purchase similar protection at the same cost.
Mrs. Hilyer sought review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reiterating her contention that her husband’s wages included the contributions that his employer made to the union trust funds. The Court of Appeals reversed. It agreed with the Board that the term “wages” includes only values that are readily identifiable and calculable, but held that the benefits at issue here met that definition. The court reasoned that since the contributions were intended for the benefit of the workers, the trustees could be viewed as “no more than a channel; ... a means by which the company provides life insurance, health insurance, retirement benefits, and career training for its employees.” Hilyer v. Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co., 216 U. S. App. D. C. 50, 53, 670 F. 2d 208, 211 (1981). Although the court conceded that the family would not be able to use the employer’s contribution to purchase benefits of equivalent value, it relied on United States ex rel. Sherman v. Carter, 353 U. S. 210 (1957), for the proposition that the employer’s contributions were a reasonable measurement of the value of the benefits to the employees.
We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 820 (1982), and we reverse.
II
This case involves the meaning of 33 U. S. C. §902(13), a definitional section that was part of the Compensation Act in 1927, when it became law, and that has remained unchanged through 10 revisions of the Act. The section provides:
“ Wages’ means the money rate at which the service rendered is recompensed under the contract of hiring in force at the time of the injury, including the reasonable value of board, rent, housing, lodging, or similar advantage received from the employer, and gratuities received in the course of employment from others than the employer.”
A
We begin with the plain language of the Compensation Act. Since it is undisputed that the employers’ contributions are not “money . . . recompensed” or “gratuities received . . . from others,” the narrow question is whether these contributions are a “similar advantage” to “board, rent, housing, [or] lodging.” We hold that they are not. Board, rent, housing, or lodging are benefits with a present value that can be readily converted into a cash equivalent on the basis of their market values.
The present value of these trust funds is not, however, so easily converted into a cash equivalent. Respondent Hilyer urges us to calculate the value by reference to the employer’s cost of maintaining these funds or to the value of the employee’s expectation interests in them, but we do not believe that either approach is workable. The employer’s cost is irrelevant in this context; it measures neither the employee’s benefit nor his compensation. It does not measure the benefit to the employee because his family could not take the 680 per hour earned by Mr. Hilyer to the open market to purchase private policies offering similar benefits to the group policies administered by the union’s trustees. It does not measure compensation because the collective-bargaining agreement does not tie petitioner’s costs to its workers’ labors. To the contrary, the employee enjoys full advantage of the Training and Health and Welfare Funds as soon as he becomes a beneficiary of the collective-bargaining agreement. App. 37-38 and 40. He derives benefit from the Pension and Disability Fund according to the “pension credits” he earns. These pension credits are not correlated to the amount of the employer’s contribution; the employer pays benefits for every hour the employee works, while the employee earns credits only for the first 1,600 hours of work in a given year. Furthermore, although the employer is never refunded money that has been contributed, the employee can lose credit if he works less than 200 hours in a year or fails to earn credit for four years. Significantly, the employee loses all advantage if he leaves his employment before he attains age 40 and accumulates 10 credits. Id., at 49-68.
Nor can the value of the funds be measured by the employee’s expectation interest in them, for that interest is at best speculative. Employees have no voice in the administration of these plans and thus have no control over the level of funding or the benefits provided. Furthermore, the value of each fund depends on factors that are unpredictable. The value to the Hilyer family of the Health and Welfare Fund depends on its need for the services the Fund provides; the value of the Pension and Disability Fund depends on whether Hilyer’s interest vested, see n. 7, supra. And the value of the Training Fund, which was established to insure “adequate trained manpower,” see n. 3, supra, and not for the benefit of the individual workers, is even more amorphous.
United States ex rel. Sherman v. Carter, supra, is not to the contrary. That case concerned a claim under the Miller Act, 40 U. S. C. §270a et seq., which requires a contractor working for the United States to furnish a surety bond to insure the payment of “sums justly due” employees. When the employer failed to contribute to the union trust funds as required by the employees’ collective-bargaining agreement, the union trustees sued the surety on the bond. The Court allowed the trustees to maintain their action, reasoning that “contributions were a part of the compensation for the work to be done by [the] employees.” 353 U. S., at 217-218. The Court did not, however, base its conclusion on the notion these contributions were included in wages. Indeed the Court specifically noted that the Miller Act “does not limit recovery on the statutory bond to ‘wages.’” Id., at 217. A far different situation obtains here, where the Compensation Act specifically limits benefits to the worker’s “wages.” See also United States v. Embassy Restaurant, Inc., 359 U. S. 29, 35 (1959).
B
We are aided in our interpretation of § 902(13) by the legislative history of the Compensation Act, its structure, and the consistent policies of the agency charged with its enforcement. That history provides abundant indication that Congress did not intend to include employer contributions to benefit plans within the concept of “wages.”
In 1927, when the Act was enacted, employer-funded fringe benefits were virtually unknown, see United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Beneficial Activities of American Trade-Unions, Bull. No. 465, pp. 3-4 (Sept. 1928); cf. S. Rep. No. 963, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 1-2 (1964). Although the Act was amended several times in the ensuing years, including substantial revision in 1972, there is no evidence in the legislative history indicating that Congress seriously considered the possibility that fringe benefits should be taken into account in determining compensation under the Act. In comparison, over these same years, Congress has acted on several occasions to include fringe benefits in other statutory schemes, see, e. g., the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U. S. C. § 276a et seq., which was amended in 1964 to bring the United States’ wage practices “into conformity with modern wage payment practices.” S. Rep. No. 963, supra, at l. From this evidence that Congress was aware of the significant changes in compensation practices, its willingness to amend and enact legislation in view of these changes, and its failure to amend the Compensation Act in the same manner, we can only conclude that Congress did not intend this expanded definition of “wages.”
The structure of the Act lends further support for our conclusion; it uses the concept of wages in several ways: to determine disability and survivors’ actual benefits, 33 U. S. C. §§ 908 and 909, and to calculate the minimum and maximum level of benefits, § 909(e) (survivors’ benefits), § 906(b) (disability benefits). In the latter sense, the reference is to the “national average weekly wage. ” Since we have of ten stated that a word is presumed to have the same meaning in all subsections of the same statute, see Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, 826 (1980), we would expect the term “wages” to maintain the same meaning throughout the Compensation Act. Accordingly, were we to accept respondent Hilyer’s argument, we would also have to conclude that in determining the national average weekly wage, the Secretary of Labor is required to evaluate the benefit provisions of collective-bargaining agreements throughout the Nation. Any attempt to make this determination on a national basis would involve deciding which benefits to include, a subject on which different branches of the Government differ, see Chen, The Growth of Fringe Benefits: Implications for Social Security, 104 Monthly Labor Review 3, 9, n. 6 (Nov. 1981). It would also require deciding how the benefits should be evaluated. Evaluating benefits is not simple in “defined contribution” plans such as the one involved in this case; in “defined benefit” plans, where the employer’s costs are actuarially determined to provide a certain level of services, the calculation is infinitely harder. See, e. g., the collective-bargaining agreement between General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers, cited in App. F to Brief for National Council of Self-Insurers as Amicus Curiae 16a. Without clear indication from Congress that this approach with its attendant problems is required, we decline to adopt it.
Finally, we note that, with the exception of the instant case, the Director of Workers’ Compensation has consistently taken the position that fringe benefits are not includible in wages, see Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. Director, OWCP, 686 F. 2d 1336 (CA9 1982), and letters filed by the Department of Labor in Levis v. Farmers Export Co., appeal pending, No. 81-4258 (CA5), and Waters v. Farmers Export Co., No. 81-4273 (same). See also U. S. Dept. of Labor, LS/HW Program Memorandum No. 32, June 17, 1968, reprinted in App. to Brief for American Insurance Association as Amicus Curiae 1a-4a. Prior to the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case, the Benefits Review Board had uniformly rejected the argument pressed by respondent Hilyer. See, e. g., Waters v. Farmers Export Co., 14 BRBS 102 (1981); Freer v. Duncanson-Harrelson Co., 9 BRBS 888 (1979), rev’d in pertinent part and remanded sub nom. Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. Director, OWCP, supra; Lawson v. Atlantic & Gulf Grain Stevedores Co., 6 BRBS 770 (1977); Collins v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 5 BRBS 334 (1977). Although not controlling, the consistent practice of the agencies charged with the enforcement and interpretation of the Act are entitled to deference. NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corp., 454 U. S. 170, 189-190 (1981); E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Collins, 432 U. S. 46, 54-55 (1977). We discern nothing to suggest that Congress intended the phrase “wages” as used in § 902(13) to include employer contributions to fringe benefit plans.
III
Respondent Hilyer argues that, despite these clear indications to the contrary, the remedial policies underlying the Act authorize the agency and require us to expand the meaning of the term to reflect modern employment practices. It is argued that fringe benefits are advantageous to both the worker, who receives tax-free benefits that he otherwise would have to buy with after-tax dollars, and to the employer, who reduces payroll costs by providing his workers with services that they could not on their own purchase with equivalent dollars. Respondent Hilyer contends that the incentive to trade salary for benefits should not be diluted by failing to consider the value of the benefits in determining survivorship and disability rights.
There is force to this argument, but a comprehensive statute such as this Act is not to be judicially expanded because of “recent trends.” Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U. S. 268, 279 (1980). There we recognized that the Act was not a simple remedial statute intended for the benefit of the workers. Rather, it was designed to strike a balance between the concerns of the longshoremen and harbor workers on the one hand, and their employers on the other. Employers relinquished their defenses to tort actions in exchange for limited and predictable liability. Employees accept the limited recovery because they receive prompt relief without the expense, uncertainty, and delay that tort actions entail. Id., at 282, and n. 24; H. R. Rep. No. 1767, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., 19-20 (1927); cf. S. Rep. No. 92-1125, p. 5 (1972).
Against this background, reinterpretation of the term “wages” would significantly alter the balance achieved by Congress. As noted above, employer-funded benefits were virtually unknown in 1927; as a result, employers have long calculated their compensation costs on the basis of their cash payroll. Since 1927, however, the proportion of costs attributable to fringe benefits has increased significantly. In 1950, these benefits constituted only 5% of compensation costs; their value increased to 10% by 1970 and is over 15% presently. Chen, supra, at 5. According to some projections, they could easily constitute more than one-third of labor costs by the middle of the next century, ibid. This shift in the relative value of take-home pay versus fringe benefits dramatically alters the cost factors upon which employers and their insurers have relied in ordering their affairs. If these reasonable expectations are to be altered, that is a task for Congress, J. W. Bateson Co. v. United States ex rel. Board of Trustees, 434 U. S. 586, 593 (1978).
An expanded definition of wages would also undermine the goal of providing prompt compensation to injured workers and their survivors. Under the Act as presently interpreted, more.than 95% of all lost-time injuries are immediately compensated without recourse to the administrative process. In all but 0.1% of the cases, delays averaged less than 10 months. Report by the Comptroller General of the United States, Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Needs Amending 31, 41 (Apr. 1982). This situation could well change drastically if every worker could challenge the manner in which his own wages were calculated or the basis used by the Secretary to determine the national average weekly wage.
The language of this statute, Congress’ failure to include other benefits that were common in 1972, when the statute was amended, the longstanding administrative interpretation of the Act, and the policies underlying it, all combine to support our conclusion that Congress did not intend to include employer contributions to union trust funds in the Act’s term “wages.” Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Morrison-Rnudsen’s insurer, the Argonaut Insurance Co., is also a petitioner here. Both parties are referred to collectively as “petitioner.”
Section 909(b) requires the employer to pay a surviving husband or wife 50% of the deceased spouse’s average weekly wages and each minor child (in excess of one) 16%% of the deceased parent’s wages. In no event, however, is the amount payable to exceed 66%% of such wages. The statute also establishes a minimum level of death benefits by providing that “the average weekly wages of the deceased shall be considered to have been not less than the applicable national average weekly wage” as determined by the Secretary of Labor, § 909(e), so long as benefits do not exceed the deceased’s average weekly wage.
In relevant part, that agreement provides:
“Section 5. The parties hereto agree to continue to operate the Health and Welfare Fund known as Laborers’ District Council Trust Fund No. 3 for the benefit of the employees covered by this collective bargaining agreement. The Employers agree to pay to such fund an amount equal to twenty-eight cents ($.28) per hour ... for all hours worked by employees who are covered by this Agreement....
“. . . The trustees shall use the payments to the Fund for the benefit of the Subway and Rapid Transit Laborers, their families and dependents, for medical, dental, and/or hospital care, compensation for injuries, and/ or illness resulting from occupational activity, or for unemployment benefits, or for the purchase of insurance covering life and accidental death, accident disability benefits, hospitalization, surgical, medical and sickness benefits. . . .
“Section 6. Parties hereto agree to continue to operate the Pension and Disability. . . Fund known as Laborers’ District Council Trust Fund No. 3 .... The employers shall pay such fund . . . thirty-five cents ($.35) per hour for all hours worked by employees ....
“. . . The trustees shall use the payments to the Fund for Subway and Rapid Transit Laborers, and their families and shall cover all disability and pension benefits as may in the discretion of the trustees be agreed upon
“Section 9. The parties hereto agree to establish and operate a Training Fund for the purpose of insuring adequate trained manpower to perform the work covered by this collective bargaining agreement. The employers agree to pay to such fund ... an amount equal to five cents ($0.05) per hour for all hours worked by employees . . . .” App. 37-40.
The Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs joined Mrs. Hilyer in her petition for review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision. That Office has, however, since readopted its prior understanding that the term “wages” does not include employer contributions to union trust funds. See, e. g., Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. Director, OWCP, 686 F. 2d 1336, 1343 (CA9 1982). Accordingly, before this Court, the federal respondent has taken a position in support of the petitioner.
Mrs. Hilyer also disputed the manner in which the employer had accounted for the fact that Hilyer had worked for Morrison-Knudsen for only part of the year and had worked for substantially lower wages for the remainder of the year. The employer contended that the average weekly wages should be calculated on the basis of Hilyer’s actual wages; Mrs. Hilyer claimed that under 33 U. S. C. § 910(b), his wages should be determined by reference to the wages of a fellow employee “of the same class” who had worked “substantially the whole” of the preceding year. The Benefits Review Board upheld a determination by the Administrative Law Judge in Mrs. Hilyer’s favor but modified the amount of attorney’s fees awarded under 33 U. S. C. § 928. The employer’s and insurer’s cross-appeal from that determination was consolidated by the Court of Appeals with Mrs. Hilyer’s appeal of the Board’s adverse determination on the definition of wages. The court affirmed the decision of the Board to modify the attorney’s fees award but did not address the § 910(b) issue. Petitioner did not seek review of the determination on either the attorney’s fees issue or the § 910(b) issue. Accordingly, neither determination is before us.
The statute was amended in 1934, 1938, 1948, 1956, 1960, 1961, and 1969 to revise or increase benefits. It was amended in 1958 to require employers to maintain a reasonably safe workplace. In 1959, it was amended to allow certain third-party actions. In 1972, the Act was comprehensively revised. See S. Rep. No. 97-498, p. 20 (1982).
Since Hilyer worked for Morrison-Knudsen for less than a year, it is probable that his rights in the Pension and Disability Fund did not vest.
It is not insignificant that the Senate Report accompanying the 1972 Amendments, which raised the maximum benefit from a specific sum to a multiple of the national average weekly wage, stated: “Today the average weekly wage for private, non-agriculture employees in the United States is $135 a week.” S. Rep. No. 92-1125, p. 4 (1972). This figure apparently comes from earnings Statistics provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, see United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics 1978, p. 321 (1979) (listing data from 1972). The Bureau determines “earnings” by “dividing payrolls by hours. . . . The earnings ... do not measure the level of total labor costs . . . since the following are excluded: . . . payment of various welfare benefits . . . Id., at 4. (Emphasis added.)
See also, e. g., 46 U. S. C. § 814 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V); 39 U. S. C. §1004 (1976 ed. and Supp. V); 38 U. S. C. § 2003A (1976 ed., Supp. V); 45 U. S. C. § 836; 38 U. S. C. § 4114; 41 U. S. C. § 351 et seq.
Recent consideration of this issue by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources is also suggestive. The Committee, which was charged with reviewing administration of the Act to, inter alia, “reduce incentives for fraud and abuse [and] to assure immediate compensation,” S. Rep. No. 97-498, p. 1 (1982), recommended changing the Act’s definition of wages “to confirm past practice and congressional intent and to reaffirm the previously settled rule that fringe benefits are excluded from the definition of ‘wages.’ ” Id., at 41. The Committee would have the definition amended to read:
“The term ‘wages’ means the money rate at which the service rendered by an employee is compensated .... The term wages does not include fringe benefits, including but not limited to employer payments for or contributions to a retirement, pension, health and welfare, . . . fund or trust for the employee’s or dependent’s benefit . . . .” Id., at 3. (Emphasis added.)
Mrs. Hilyer asked only for the inclusion in wages of Morrison-Knudsen’s contributions to union trust funds. Her argument appears to imply, however, that every benefit of her husband's employment should be evaluated to determine his wages. This would seem to require the Secretary of Labor to include in his determination of the national average weekly wage such diverse elements as employer contributions to Social Security, administrative costs of maintaining savings and thrift plans, and the costs of Christmas parties, company outings, or gold watches.
See also Handbook of Labor Statistics, supra n. 8, at 388-393. The Chen figures are based on data obtained from the United States Department of Commerce. The figures in the Handbook are not identical to Chen’s because, as discussed above, the Departments of Commerce and Labor take different views on what benefits are to be included in the calculation of compensation.
The report states that in the 5% of eases that are referred to an administrative law judge, delays average 4-4.5 months, Report by the Comptroller General, at 41. The 1% of cases that are appealed to the Benefits Review Board, id., at 5, are resolved on the average in 10 months, id., at 41. Only 0.1% of all lost-time injuries reach the Courts of Appeals, id., at 5.
It is argued that the standard of living of the injured worker’s family will decrease if employer contributions are not included in wages because the family will be required to use a portion of their compensation benefits to purchase health, disability, training, and pension benefits for themselves. This argument is not well taken in the context of survivor benefits; upon the death of the worker, disability, pension, and training benefits have no relevance. Furthermore, under respondent Hilyer’s interpretation of the statute, she would be entitled to a death benefit (had her husband’s interest in his pension plan vested) as well as the funds necessary to purchase the benefit she has just received. We do not think Congress could have intended to provide this double “recovery.” While it is true that once the worker’s employment ends, his survivors will be forced to provide for their own health insurance, we do not believe that a statute as complex as this one should be interpreted in light of this single factor.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action is the most recent episode of a lengthy lawsuit in which the city of Yonkers was held liable for intentionally enhancing racial segregation in housing in Yonkers. The issue here is whether it was a proper exercise of judicial power for the District Court to hold petitioners, four Yonkers city councilmembers, in contempt for refusing to vote in favor of legislation implementing a consent decree earlier approved by the city. We hold that in the circumstances of this action the District Court abused its discretion.
I
In 1980, the United States filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the two named defendants—the city of Yonkers and the Yonkers Community Development Agency—had intentionally engaged in a pattern and practice of housing discrimination, in violation of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 81, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §3601 et seq. (1982 ed.), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Government and plaintiff-intervenor National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) asserted that the city had, over a period of three decades, selected sites for subsidized housing in order to perpetuate residential racial segregation. The plaintiffs’ theory was that the city had equated subsidized housing for families with minority housing, and thus disproportionately restricted new family housing projects to areas of the city—particularly southwest Yonkers—already predominately populated by minorities.
The District Court found the two named defendants liable, concluding that the segregative effect of the city’s actions had been “consistent and extreme,” and that “the desire to preserve existing patterns of segregation ha[d] been a significant factor in the sustained community opposition to subsidized housing in East Yonkers and other overwhelmingly white areas of the City.” United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 624 F. Supp. 1276, 1369-1371 (SDNY 1985). The District Court in its remedial decree enjoined “the City of Yonkers, its officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them” from, inter alia, intentionally promoting racial residential segregation in Yonkers, taking any action intended to deny or make unavailable housing to any person on account of race or national origin, and from blocking or limiting the availability of public or subsidized housing in east or northwest Yonkers on the basis of race or national origin. United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 635 F. Supp. 1577 (SDNY 1986). Other parts of the remedial order were directed only to the city. They required affirmative steps to disperse public housing throughout Yonkers. Part IV of the order noted that the city previously had committed itself to provide acceptable sites for 200 units of public housing as a condition for receiving 1983 Community Development Block Grant funds from the Federal Government, but had failed to do so. Consequently, it required the city to designate sites for 200 units of public housing in east Yonkers, and to submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development an acceptable Housing Assistance Plan for 1984-1985 and other documentation. Id., at 1580-1581. Part VI directed the city to develop by November 1986 a long-term plan “for the creation of additional subsidized family housing units ... in existing residential areas in east or northwest Yonkers.” Id., at 1582. The court did not mandate specific details of the plan such as how many subsidized units must be developed, where they should be constructed, or how the city should provide for the units.
Under the Charter of the city of Yonkers all legislative powers are vested in the city council, which consists of an elected mayor and six councilmembers, including petitioners. The city, for all practical purposes, therefore, acts through the city council when it comes to the enactment of legislation. Pending appeal of the District Court’s liability and remedial orders, however, the city did not comply with Parts IV and VI of the remedial order. The city failed to propose sites for the public housing, and in November 1986, informed the District Court that it would not present a long-term plan in compliance with Part VI. The United States and the NAACP then moved for an adjudication of civil contempt and the imposition of coercive sanctions, but the District Court declined to take that action. Instead, it secured an agreement from the city to appoint an outside housing adviser to identify sites for the 200 units of public housing and to draft a long-term plan.
In December 1987, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in all respects, United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 837 F. 2d 1181, and we subsequently denied certiorari, Yonkers Bd. of Ed. v. United States, 486 U. S. 1055 (1988). Shortly after the Court of Appeals’ decision, in January 1988, the parties agreed to a consent decree that set forth “certain actions which the City of Yonkers [would] take in connection with a consensual implementation of Parts IV and VI” of the housing remedy order. App. 216. The decree was approved by the city council in a 5-to-2 vote (petitioners Spallone and Chema voting no), and entered by the District Court as a consent judgment on January 28, 1988. Sections 12 through 18 of the decree established the framework for the long-term plan and are the underlying bases for the contempt orders at issue in this action. Perhaps most significant was § 17, in which the city agreed to adopt, within 90 days, legislation conditioning the construction of all multifamily housing on the inclusion of at least 20 percent assisted units, granting tax abatements and density bonuses to developers, and providing for zoning changes to allow the placement of housing developments.
For several more months, however, the city continued to delay action toward implementing the long-term plan. The city was loath to enact the plan because it wished to exhaust its remedies on appeal, but it had not obtained any stay of the District Court’s order. As a result of the city’s intransigence, the United States and the NAACP moved the court for the entry of a Long Term Plan Order based on a draft that had been prepared by the city’s lawyers during negotiations between January and April 1988. On June 13, following a hearing and changes in the draft, the District Court entered the Long Term Plan Order, which provided greater detail for the legislation prescribed by § 17 of the decree. After several weeks of further delay the court held a hearing on July 26, 1988, and entered an order requiring the city of Yonkers to enact, on or before August 1, 1988, the “legislative package” described in a section of the earlier consent decree; the second paragraph provided:
“It is further ORDERED that, in the event the City of Yonkers fails to enact the legislative package on or before August 1, 1988, the City of Yonkers shall be required to show cause at a hearing before this Court at 10:00 a.m. on August 2, 1988, why it should not be held in contempt, and each individual City Council member shall be required to show cause at a hearing before this court at 10:00 a.m. on August 2, 1988, why he should not be held in contempt.” App. 398.
Further provisions of the order specified escalating daily amounts of fines in the event of contempt, and provided that if the legislation were not enacted before August 10, 1988, any councilmember who remained in contempt should be committed to the custody of the United States Marshal for imprisonment. The specified daily fines for the city were $100 for the first day, to be doubled for each consecutive day of noncompliance; the specified daily fine for members of the city council was $500 per day.
Notwithstanding the threat of substantial sanctions, on August 1 the city council defeated a resolution of intent to adopt the legislative package, known as the Affordable Housing Ordinance, by a vote of 4 to 3 (petitioners constituting the majority). On August 2, the District Court held a hearing to afford the city and the councilmembers an opportunity to show cause why they should not be adjudicated in contempt. It rejected the city’s arguments, held the city in contempt, and imposed the coercive sanctions set forth in the July 26 order. After questioning the individual councilmembers as to the reasons for their negative votes, the court also held each of the petitioners in contempt and imposed sanctions. It refused to accept the contention that the proper subject of the contempt sanctions was the city of Yonkers alone, see id., at 461, and overruled the objection that the court lacked the power to direct councilmembers how to vote, because in light of the consent judgment, it thought the city council’s adoption of the Affordable Housing Ordinance would be “in the nature of a ministerial act.” Id., at 460.
On August 9, the Court of Appeals stayed the contempt sanctions pending appeal. Shortly thereafter, the court affirmed the adjudications of contempt against both the city and the councilmembers, but limited the fines against the city so that they would not exceed $1 million per day. United States v. Yonkers, 856 F. 2d 444 (CA2 1988). The Court of Appeals refused to accept the councilmembers’ argument that the District Court abused its discretion in selecting its method of enforcing the consent judgment. While recognizing that “a court is obliged to use the ‘least possible power adequate to the end proposed,’ ” id. at 454 (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231 (1821)), it concluded that the District Court’s choice of coercive contempt sanctions against the councilmembers could not be an abuse of discretion, because the city council had approved the consent judgment and thereby agreed to implement the legislation described in § 17 of the decree. The Court of Appeals also rejected petitioners’ invocation of the federal common law of legislative immunity, see Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951), concluding that “[w]hatever the scope of local legislators’ immunity, it does not insulate them from compliance with a consent judgment to which their city has agreed and which has been approved by their legislative body.” 856 F. 2d, at 457. Finally, the court held that even if “the act of voting has sufficient expressive content to be accorded some First Amendment protection as symbolic speech, the public interest in obtaining compliance with federal court judgments that remedy constitutional violations unquestionably justifies whatever burden on expression has occurred.” Ibid.
Both the city and the councilmembers requested this Court to stay imposition of sanctions pending filing and disposition of petitions for certiorari. We granted a stay as to petitioners, but denied the city’s request. 487 U. S. 1251 (1988). With the city’s contempt sanction approaching $1 million per day, the city council finally enacted the Affordable Housing Ordinance on September 9, 1988, by a vote of 5 to 2, petitioners Spallone and Fagan voting no. Because the contempt orders raise important issues about the appropriate exercise of the federal judicial power against individual legislators, we granted certiorari, 489 U. S. 1064 (1989), and now reverse.
II
The issue before us is relatively narrow. There can be no question about the liability of the city of Yonkers for racial discrimination: the District Court imposed such liability on the city, its decision was affirmed in all respects by the Court of Appeals, and we denied certiorari. Nor do we have before us any question as to the District Court’s remedial order; the Court of Appeals found that it was within the bounds of proper discretion, United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 837 F. 2d, at 1236, and we denied certiorari. Our focus, then, is only on the District Court’s order of July 26 imposing contempt sanctions on the individual petitioners if they failed to vote in favor of the ordinance in question.
Petitioners contend that the District Court’s order violates their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and they also contend that they are entitled as legislators to absolute immunity for actions taken in discharge of their legislative responsibilities. We find it unnecessary to reach either of these questions, because we conclude that the portion of the District Court’s order of July 26 imposing contempt sanctions against petitioners if they failed to vote in favor of the court-proposed ordinance was an abuse of discretion under traditional equitable principles.
Before discussing the principles informing our conclusion, it is important to note the posture of the case before the District Court at the time it entered the order in question. Petitioners were members of the city council of the city of Yonkers, and if the city were to enact legislation it would have to be by their doing. But petitioners had never been made parties to the action, and the District Court’s order imposed liability only on the named defendants in the action — the city of Yonkers and the Yonkers Community Development Agency. The remedial order had enjoined the two named defendants, and — in the traditional language of a prohibitory decree — officers, agents, and others acting in concert with them from discriminating on the basis of race in connection with the furnishing of housing and from intentionally promoting racial residential segregation in Yonkers. The order had gone on to require extensive affirmative steps to disperse public housing throughout Yonkers, but those portions of the order were directed only against the city. There was no evidence taken at the hearing of July 26, 1988, and the court’s order of that date did not make petitioners parties to the action.
From the time of the entry of the remedial order in early 1986 until this Court denied certiorari in the case involving the merits of the litigation in June 1988, the city backed and filled in response to the court’s efforts to obtain compliance with the housing portions of the decree. It agreed to a consent decree and then sought unsuccessfully to have the decree vacated. During this period of time the city had a certain amount of bargaining power simply by virtue of the length of time it took the appellate process to run its course. Although the judgment against the city was not stayed, the District Court was sensibly interested in moving as rapidly as possible toward the construction of housing which would satisfy the remedial order, rather than simply forcing the city to enact legislation. The District Court realized that for such construction to begin pursuant to the remedial decree, not only must the city comply, but potential builders and developers must be willing to put up money for the construction. To the extent that the city took action voluntarily, without threatening to rescind the action if the District Court’s decision were reversed, construction could proceed before the appellate process had run its course.
All of this changed, however, in June 1988, when this Court denied certiorari and the District Court’s orders on the merits of the case became final. On July 26, the court heard the comments of counsel for the parties and entered the order upon which the contempt sanctions against the individual councilmembers were based.
At this stage of the case, the court contemplated various methods by which to ensure compliance with its remedial orders. It considered proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70, whereby a party who is ordered to perform an act but fails to do so is nonetheless “deemed” to have performed it. It also suggested the possible transference of functions relating to housing from the city council to a court-appointed affordable housing commission; the city opposed this method. Finally, it considered proceeding by way of sanctions for contempt to procure the enactment of the ordinance.
In selecting a means to enforce the consent judgment, the District Court was entitled to rely on the axiom that “courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 370 (1966). When a district court’s order is necessary to remedy past discrimination, the court has an additional basis for the exercise of broad equitable powers. See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 15 (1971). But while “remedial powers of an equity court must be adequate to the task, . . . they are not unlimited.” Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 161 (1971). “[T]he federal courts in devising a remedy must take into account the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution.” Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 280-281 (1977). And the use of the contempt power places an additional limitation on a district court’s discretion, for as the Court of Appeals recognized, “in selecting contempt sanctions, a court is obliged to use the ‘least possible power adequate to the end proposed.’ ” 856 F. 2d, at 454 (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat., at 231).
Given that the city had entered a consent judgment committing itself to enact legislation implementing the long-term plan, we certainly cannot say it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to have chosen contempt sanctions against the city, as opposed to petitioners, as a means of ensuring compliance. The city, as we have noted, was a party to the action from the beginning, had been found liable for numerous statutory and constitutional violations, and had been subjected to various elaborate remedial decrees which had been upheld on appeal. Petitioners, the individual city council-members, on the other hand, were not parties to the action, and they had not been found individually liable for any of the violations upon which the remedial decree was based. Although the injunctive portion of that decree was directed not only to the city but to “its officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them,” App. 20, the remaining parts of the decree ordering affirmative steps were directed only to the city.
It was the city, in fact, which capitulated. After the Court of Appeals had briefly stayed the imposition of sanctions in August, and we granted a stay as to petitioners but denied it to the city in September, the city council on September 9,1988, finally enacted the Affordable Housing Ordinance by a vote of 5 to 2. While the District Court could not have been sure in late July that this would be the result, the city’s arguments against imposing sanctions on it pointed out the sort of pressure that such sanctions would place on the city. After just two weeks of fines, the city’s emergency financial plan required it to curtail sanitation services (resulting in uncollected garbage), eliminate part-time school crossing guards, close all public libraries and parks, and lay off approximately 447 employees. In the ensuing four weeks, the city would have been forced to lay off another 1,100 city employees. See N. Y. Times, Sept. 8,1988, p. Al, col. 4; N. Y. Times, Sept. 9, 1988, p. Al, col. 4.
Only eight months earlier, the District Court had secured compliance with an important remedial order through the threat of bankrupting fines against the city alone. After the city had delayed for several months the adoption of a 1987-1988 Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) vital to the public housing required by Part IV of the remedial order, the court ordered the city to carry out its obligation within two days. App. 176. The court set a schedule of contempt fines equal to that assessed for violation of the orders in this litigation and recognized that the consequence would be imminent bankruptcy for the city. Id., at 177-179. Later the same day, the city council agreed to support a resolution putting in place an effective HAP and reaffirming the commitment of Yonkers to accept funds to build the 200 units of public housing mandated by Part IV of the remedial order. Id., at 183.
The nub of the matter, then, is whether in the light of the reasonable probability that sanctions against the city would accomplish the desired result, it was within the court’s discretion to impose sanctions on petitioners as well under the circumstances of this case.
In Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951), we held that state legislators were absolutely privileged in their legislative acts in an action against them for damages. We applied this same doctrine of legislative immunity to regional legislatures in Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U. S. 391, 404-405 (1979), and to actions for both damages and injunctive relief in Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U. S. 719, 731-734 (1980). The holdings in these cases do not control the question whether local legislators such as petitioners should be immune from contempt sanctions imposed for failure to vote in favor of a particular legislative bill. But some of the same considerations on which the immunity doctrine is based must inform the District Court’s exercise of its discretion in a case such as this. “Freedom of speech and action in the legislature,” we observed, “was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation.” Tenney, supra, at 372.
In perhaps the earliest American case to consider the import of the legislative privilege, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, interpreting a provision of the Massachusetts Constitution granting the rights of freedom of speech and debate to state legislators, recognized that “the privilege secured by it is not so much the privilege of the house as an organized body, as of each individual member composing it, who is entitled to this privilege, even against the declared will of the house. For he does not hold this privilege at the pleasure of the house; but derives it from the will of the people . . . .” Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 27 (1808). This theme underlies our cases interpreting the Speech or Debate Clause and the federal common law of legislative immunity, where we have emphasized that any restriction on a legislator’s freedom undermines the “public good” by interfering with the rights of the people to representation in the democratic process. Lake Country Estates, supra, at 404-405; Tenney, supra, at 377. The District Court was quite sensitive to this fact; it observed:
“I know of no parallel for a court to say to an elected official, ‘You are in contempt of court and subject to personal fines and may eventually be subject to personal imprisonment because of a manner in which you cast a vote.’ I find that extraordinary.” App. 433.
Sanctions directed against the city for failure to take actions such as those required by the consent decree coerce the city legislators and, of course, restrict the freedom of those legislators to act in accordance with their current view of the city’s best interests. But we believe there are significant differences between the two types of fines. The imposition of sanctions on individual legislators is designed to cause them to vote, not with a view to the interest of their constituents or of the city, but with a view solely to their own personal interests. Even though an individual legislator took the extreme position — or felt that his constituents took the extreme position — that even a huge fine against the city was preferable to enacting the Affordable Housing Ordinance, monetary sanctions against him individually would motivate him to vote to enact the ordinance simply because he did not want to be out of pocket financially. Such fines thus encourage legislators, in effect, to declare that they favor an ordinance not in order to avoid bankrupting the city for which they legislate, but in order to avoid bankrupting themselves.
This sort of individual sanction effects a much greater perversion of the normal legislative process than does the imposition of sanctions on the city for the failure of these same legislators to enact an ordinance. In that case, the legislator is only encouraged to vote in favor of an ordinance that he would not otherwise favor by reason of the adverse sanctions imposed on the city. A councilman who felt that his constituents would rather have the city enact the Affordable Housing Ordinance than pay a “bankrupting fine” would be motivated to vote in favor of such an ordinance because the sanctions were a threat to the fiscal solvency of the city for whose welfare he was in part responsible. This is the sort of calculus in which legislators engage regularly.
We hold that the District Court, in view of the “extraordinary” nature of the imposition of sanctions against the individual councilmembers, should have proceeded with such contempt sanctions first against the city alone in order to secure compliance with the remedial order. Only if that approach failed to produce compliance within a reasonable time should the question of imposing contempt sanctions against petitioners even have been considered. “This limitation accords with the doctrine that a court must exercise ‘[t]he least possible power adequate to the end proposed.’ Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231 (1821); In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224, 227 (1945).” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S., at 371.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Sections 1 through 11 of the consent decree set forth actions that the city agreed to take in connection with the public housing obligations imposed by Part IV of the housing remedy order. As the Solicitor General emphasized at oral argument, neither those sections of the decree nor Part IV of the remedy order is at issue in this action.
The full text of § 17 provides that “[t]he City agrees to adopt, among other things, legislation (a) conditioning the construction of all multifamily housing (inclusive of projects for future construction currently in the planning stage but which will require zoning changes, variances, special exceptions, or other discretionary approvals from the City to begin construction) on the inclusion of at least 20 percent assisted units; (b) granting necessary tax abatements to housing developments constructed under the terms of the legislation referred to in clause (a); (c) granting density bonuses to such developers; (d) providing for zoning changes to allow the placement of such developments, provided, however, that such changes are not substantially inconsistent with the character of the area; and (e) other provisions upon which the parties may subsequently agree (including the use of the Industrial Development Authority as a development vehicle and the creation of a municipally-designated, independent not-for-profit Local Development Corporation) (collectively, the ‘Mandated Incentives’). The City agrees to implement a package of Mandated Incentives as promptly as practicable but, in no event, later than 90 days after the entry of this decree.”
The Government’s statement to the contrary in its brief, Brief for United States 23-24, is in error.
The Government distinguishes the instant sanctions from those threatened in January 1988, because in this litigation the city and the city council had indicated by the defeat of a resolution proposed by the court that it “would not ‘voluntarily adopt the legislation contemplated by the [court’s orders].’ ” Id., at 45 (quoting City of Yonkers Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Contempt Order; see App. 351). Before the court threatened sanctions for refusal to adopt the 1987-1988 HAP, however, the city council had twice tabled an initiative to enact the HAP, id., at 173, and the court previously had been forced to “deem” HAP’s to have been submitted for two previous years. Id., at 174; Brief for United States 5, n. 7. Suffice it to say that the council’s conduct with regard to the HAP hardly suggested a willingness to comply “voluntarily.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This is an appeal from a three-judge District Court specially constituted on appellee’s application for an injunction to restrain enforcement of a portion of an Act of Congress for repugnance to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Section 304 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1044, 21 U. S. C. § 334 (a), as amended, 62 Stat. 582, 21 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 334 (a), permits multiple seizures of misbranded articles “when the Administrator has probable cause to believe from facts found, without hearing, by him or any officer or employee of the Agency that the misbranded article is dangerous to health, or that the labeling of the misbranded article is fraudulent, or would be in a material respect misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer.”
Appellee is the exclusive national distributor of Nutrilite Food Supplement, an encapsulated concentrate of alfalfa, water cress, parsley, and synthetic vitamins combined in a package with mineral tablets. There is no claim that the ingredients of the preparation are harmful or dangerous to health. The sole claim is that the labeling was, to use the statutory words, “misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer” and that therefore the preparation was “misbranded” when introduced into interstate commerce.
This was indeed the administrative finding behind eleven seizures resulting in that number of libel suits, between September and December, 1948. The misbranding, it was found, resulted from the booklet which accompanied the preparation. Shortly thereafter the present suit was instituted to have the multiple seizure provision of § 304 (a) declared unconstitutional and to dismiss all libel cases except the first one instituted. The District Court held that appellants had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Fifth Amendment in instituting multiple libel suits without first affording the appellee a hearing on the probable cause issue; that the multiple seizure provision of § 304 (a) was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and that appellants should be permanently enjoined from instituting any action raising a claim that the booklet accompanying the preparation was a misbranding since it was not fraudulent, false, or misleading. 87 F. Supp. 650.
First. The administrative finding of probable cause required by § 304 (a) is merely the statutory prerequisite to the bringing of the lawsuit. When the libels are filed the owner has an opportunity to appear as a claimant and to have a full hearing before the court. This hearing, we conclude, satisfies the requirements of due process.
At times a preliminary decision by an agency is a step in an administrative proceeding. We have repeatedly held that no hearing at the preliminary stage is required by due process so long as the requisite hearing is held before the final administrative order becomes effective. See Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742; Inland Empire Council v. Millis, 325 U. S. 697; Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U. S. 126.
But this case does not go as far. Here an administrative agency is merely determining whether a judicial proceeding should be instituted. Moreover, its finding of probable cause, while a necessary prerequisite to multiple seizures, has no effect in and of itself. All proceedings for the enforcement of the Act or to restrain violations of it must be brought by and in the name of the United States. § 307. Whether a suit will be instituted depends on the Attorney General, not on the administrative agency. He may or may not accept the agency’s recommendation. If he does, seizures are made and libels are instituted. But the seizures and suits are dependent on the discretion of the Attorney General.
It is said that these multiple seizure decisions of the Administrator can cause irreparable damage to a business. And so they can. The impact of the initiation of judicial proceedings is often serious. Take the case of the grand jury. It returns an indictment against a man without a hearing. It does not determine his guilt; it only determines whether there is probable cause to believe he is guilty. But that determination is conclusive on the issue of probable cause. As a result the defendant can be arrested and held for trial. See Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 85; Ex parte United States, 287 U. S. 241, 250. The impact of an indictment is on the reputation or liberty of a man. The same is true where a prosecutor files an information charging violations of the law. The harm to property and business can also be incalculable by the mere institution of proceedings. Yet it has never been held that the hand of government must be stayed until the courts have an opportunity to determine whether the government is justified in instituting suit in the courts. Discretion of any official may be abused. Yet it is not a requirement of due process that there be judicial inquiry before discretion can be exercised. It is sufficient, where only property rights are concerned, that there is at some stage an opportunity for a hearing and a judicial determination. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 596-597; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 520; Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 442-443.
One of the oldest examples is the summary destruction of property without prior notice or hearing for the protection of public health. There is no constitutional reason why Congress in the interests of consumer protection may not extend that area of control. It may conclude, as it did here, that public damage may result even from harmless articles if they are allowed to be sold as panaceas for man’s ills. A requirement for a hearing, as a matter of constitutional right, does not arise merely because the danger of injury may be more apparent or immediate in the one case than in the other. For all we know, the most damage may come from misleading or fraudulent labels. That is a decision for Congress, not for us. The decision of Congress was that the administrative determination to make multiple seizures should be made without a hearing. We cannot say that due process requires one at that stage.
Second. The District Court had no jurisdiction to review the administrative determination of probable cause.
The determination of probable cause in and of itself had no binding legal consequence any more than did the final valuation made by the Interstate Commerce Commission in United States v. Los Angeles & S. L. R. Co., 273 U. S. 299. It took the exercise of discretion on the part of the Attorney General, as we have pointed out above, to bring it into play against appellee’s business. Judicial review of such a preliminary step in a judicial proceeding is so unique that we are not willing easily to infer that it exists.
Judicial review of this preliminary phase of the administrative procedure does not fit the statutory scheme nor serve the policy of the Act. Congress made numerous administrative determinations under the Act reviewable by the courts. But it did not place the finding of probable cause under § 304 (a) in that category. This highly selective manner in which Congress has provided for judicial review reinforces the inference that the only-review of the issue of probable cause which Congress granted was the one provided in the libel suit. Cf. Switchmen’s Union v. Board, 320 U. S. 297, 305-306.
The purpose of the multiple seizure provision is plain. It is to arrest the distribution of an article that is dangerous, or whose labeling is fraudulent or misleading, pending a determination of the issue of adulteration or misbranding. The public therefore has a stake in the jurisdictional issue before us. If the District Court can step in, stay the institution of seizures, and bring the administrative regulation to a halt until it hears the case, the public will be denied the speedy protection which Congress provided by multiple seizures. It is not enough to say that the vitamin preparation in the present case is not dangerous to health. This preparation may be relatively innocuous. But the statutory scheme treats every “misbranded article” the same in this respect — -whether it is “dangerous to health,” or its labeling is “fraudulent,” or materially “misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer.” *** What we do today determines the jurisdiction of the District Court in all the cases in that category. If the court in the present case can halt all multiple seizures but one, so can the court in other cases. The means which Congress provided to protect consumers against the injurious consequences of protracted proceedings would then be seriously impaired. Congress weighed the potential injury to the public from misbranded articles against the injury to the purveyor of the article from a temporary interference with its distribution and decided in favor of the speedy, preventive device of multiple seizures. We would impair or destroy the effectiveness of that device if we sanctioned the interference which a grant of jurisdiction to the District Court would entail. Multiple seizures are the means of protection afforded the public. Consolidation of all the libel suits so that one trial may be had is the relief afforded the distributors of the articles.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Burton concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
62 Stat. 928, 961, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253, 2101.
62 Stat. 968, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282, 2284.
The provision of which the quoted portion is a part reads as follows:
“Any article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce, or which may not, under the provisions of section 404 or 505, be introduced into interstate commerce, shall be liable to be proceeded against while in interstate commerce, or at any time thereafter, on libel of information and condemned in any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the article is found: Provided, however, That no libel for condemnation shall be instituted under this Act, for any alleged misbranding if there is pending in any court a libel for condemnation proceeding under this Act based upon the same alleged misbranding, and not more than one such proceeding shall be instituted if no such proceeding is so pending, except that such limitation shall not apply (1) when such misbranding has been the basis of a prior judgment in favor of the United States, in a criminal, injunction, or libel for condemnation proceeding under this Act, or (2) when the Administrator has probable cause to believe from facts found, without hearing, by him or any officer or employee of the Agency that the misbranded article is dangerous to health, or that the labeling of the misbranded article is fraudulent, or would be in a material respect misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer.”
The booklet, How to Get Well and Stay Well, is used by salesmen in soliciting prospective customers. A version of the booklet in use in 1947 represented that Nutrilite had “cured or greatly helped” such “common ailments” as “Low blood pressure, Ulcers, Mental depression, Pyorrhea, Muscular twitching, Rickets, Worry over small things, Tonsilitis, Hay Fever, Sensitiveness to noise, Underweight, Easily tired, Gas in Stomach, Cuts heal slowly, Faulty vision, Headache, Constipation, Anemia, Boils, Flabby tissues, Hysterical tendency, Eczema, Overweight, Faulty memory, Lack of ambition, Certain bone conditions, Nervousness, Nosebleed, Insomnia (sleeplessness), Allergies, Asthma, Restlessness, Bad skin color, Poor appetite, Biliousness, Neuritis, Night blindness, Migraine, High blood pressure, Sinus trouble, Lack of concentration, Dental caries, Irregular heartbeat, Colitis, Craving for sour foods, Arthritis (rheumatism), Neuralgia, Deafness, Subject to colds.” This version is the basis for an indictment now pending in the Southern District of California charging Lee S. Mytinger and William S. Casselberry with the misbranding of Nutrilite in violation-of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
After a hearing prior to the indictment, appellee revised the booklet. Direct curative claims were eliminated. But pages 41-52 of the revised booklet were devoted to case histories explaining that Nutrilite brought relief from such ailments as diabetes, feeblemindedness, stomach pains, sneezing and weeping. Appellant Crawford, Associate Commissioner of Food and Drugs, concluded that there was probable cause to believe and that he did believe that this version of the booklet was misleading. On September 28 and 30, 1948, he recommended seizures of Nutrilite shipments.
Appellee thereafter ordered its salesmen to remove pages 37-58 which contained the case histories. The pages which remained pointed to the dangers and prevalence of illness, described the discovery of Nutrilite, and recommended the booklet to those who wanted to get well and stay well. On December 2, 1948, appellant Larrick, Assistant Commissioner of Foods and Drugs, made a probable cause determination on these pages of the booklet and recommended seizure.
Six new pages were thereafter added to the booklet. On December 9, 1948, appellant Dunbar, Commissioner of Foods and Drugs, made a probable cause determination on that version of the booklet and recommended further seizures.
Sec. 304 (b) provides in part:
“The article shall be liable to seizure by process pursuant to the libel, and the procedure in cases under this section shall conform, as nearly as may be, to the procedure in admiralty; except that on demand of either party any issue of fact joined in any such case shall be tried by jury.”
Review of an order of the Administrator refusing to permit an application for a new drug to become effective or suspending the effectiveness of an application is authorized in § 505 (h), 21 U. S. C. §355 (h). Orders of the Administrator in connection with issuing, amending, or repealing regulations under §§401, 403 (j), 404 (a), 406 (a) and (b), 501 (b), 502 (d), 502 fh), 504, 604 are expressly made reviewable by § 701 (e) and (f), 21 U. S. C. § 371 (e) and (f).
See § 304 (a) note 3, supra.
Sec. 304 (b) provides in part:
“When libel for condemnation proceedings under this section, involving the same claimant and the same issues of adulteration or misbranding, are pending in two or more jurisdictions, such pending proceedings, upon application of the claimant seasonably made to the court of one such jurisdiction, shall be consolidated for trial by order of such court, and tried in (1) any district selected by the claimant where one of such proceedings is pending; or (2) a district agreed upon by stipulation between the parties. If no order for consolidation is so made within a reasonable time, the claimant may apply to the court of one such jurisdiction, and such "court (after giving the United States attorney for such district reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard) shall by order, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, specify a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant’s principal place of business, in which all such pending proceedings shall be consolidated for trial and tried. Such order of consolidation shall not apply so as to require the removal of any case the date for trial of which has been fixed. The court granting such order shall give prompt notification thereof to the other courts having jurisdiction of the cases covered thereby.”
Congress has granted distributors through the provision for consolidation of all libel suits the measure of relief which courts at times grant through a stay of multiple actions. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 28 U. S. C. § 994(h), Congress directed the United States Sentencing Commission (Commission) to “assure” that the Sentencing Guidelines specify a prison sentence “at or near the maximum term authorized for categories of” adult offenders who commit their third felony drug offense or violent crime. We are asked to decide whether, by “maximum term authorized,” Congress meant (1) the maximum term available for the offense of conviction including any applicable statutory sentencing enhancements, as the United States argues, or (2) the maximum term available without such enhancements, as the Commission has determined. We conclude that the Commission’s interpretation is inconsistent with § 994(h)’s plain language, and therefore hold that “maximum term authorized” must be read to include all applicable statutory sentencing enhancements.
I
A
In 1984, Congress created the Commission and charged it with “establishing] sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system.” 28 U. S. C. § 991; see Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 367-370 (1989). The Commission, however, was not granted unbounded discretion. Instead,. Congress articulated general goals for federal sentencing and imposed upon the Commission a variety of specific requirements. See §§994(b)-(n). Among those requirements, Congress directed that the Commission
“shall assure that the guidelines specify a sentence to a term of imprisonment at or near the maximum term authorized for categories of defendants in which the defendant is eighteen years old or older and—
“(1) has been convicted of a felony that is—
“(A) a crime of violence; or
“(B) an offense described in section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U. S. C. 841). . .; and
“(2) has previously been convicted of two or more prior [such] felonies . . . .” 28 U. S. C. § 994(h).
The Commission sought to implement this directive by promulgating the “Career Offender Guideline,” which created a table of enhanced total offense levels to be used in calculating sentences for “career offenders.” United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §4B1.1 (Nov. 1987) (USSG). Pursuant to that Guideline, each defendant who qualifies for career offender status is automatically placed in criminal history “Category VI,” the highest available under the Guidelines. The table then assigns the appropriate offense level based on the so-called “offense statutory maximum.”
When the Commission coined the phrase “offense statutory maximum,” it defined it, unhelpfully, as “the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense of conviction.” USSG App. C, amdt. 267 (Nov. 1989) (adding §4B1.1, comment., n. 2). Neither the Career Offender Guideline itself, however, nor the accompanying commentary designated which “maximum term” was to be used when federal law established a basic statutory maximum for persons convicted of a particular offense, but also provided an enhanced maximum penalty for career offenders convicted of that same offense. The Courts of Appeals, required to choose between sentencing “at or near the maximum” of the base sentence, or of the base sentence plus the relevant statutory enhancements, uniformly concluded that the “offense statutory maximum” for a defendant with prior convictions was the enhanced maximum term.
The Commission subsequently amended the Career Offender Guideline’s commentary to preclude consideration of statutory enhancements in calculating the “offense statutory maximum.” Rejecting the approach prevailing in the Courts of Appeals, the Commission defined the phrase “offense statutory maximum” as:
“the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense of conviction that is a crime of violence or controlled substance offense, not including any increase in that maximum term under a sentencing enhancement provision that applies because of the defendant’s prior criminal record . . . USSG App. C, amdt. 506 (Nov. 1994) (amending USSG §4B1.1, comment., n. 2).
Pursuant to its authority under 28 U. S. C. § 994(u), the Commission opted to give Amendment 506 retroactive effect, providing sentencing courts with discretion to reduce sentences imposed before the amendment’s November 1, 1994, effective date. See USSG §1B1.10(c) (Nov. 1996).
B
Prior to the adoption of Amendment 506, respondents George LaBonte, Alfred Lawrence Hunnewell, and Stephen Dyer were convicted of various federal controlled substance offenses in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Each respondent qualified as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1 (Nov. 1987), had received the required notice that an enhanced penalty would be sought, and was sentenced under the Career Offender Guideline using the enhancement. The First Circuit affirmed each respondent’s conviction and sentence. Following the adoption of Amendment 506, however, each respondent sought a reduction in his sentence. In the cases of respondents Dyer and Hun-newell, the District Court found that the amendment was contrary to 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(C) and 28 U. S. C. § 994(h), and refused to reduce the sentences. In respondent La-Bonte’s case, however, a different judge of the same District Court upheld the amendment and reduced LaBonte’s sentence. The First Circuit consolidated the ensuing appeals and a divided panel, applying the approach set forth in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), upheld Amendment 506 as an appropriate exercise of the Commission’s discretion. 70 F. 3d 1396, 1403-1409 (1995). The First Circuit looked to the statutory language and “f[ou]nd no clear congressional directive regarding the meaning of the term ‘maximum’ as that term is used in section 994(h).” Id., at 1406. In the court’s view, the meaning of the word “maximum” was influenced by its presence in the phrase “ ‘maximum term authorized for [certain] categories of defendants.’” Id., at 1404 (bracketed term in original). While acknowledging that the phrase could apply exclusively to that category of repeat offenders for whom the Government filed a notice to seek sentence enhancement, the court also observed that the word “categories” could plausibly be defined “to include all offenders (or all repeat offenders) charged with transgressing the same criminal statute, regardless of whether the prosecution chooses to invoke the sentence-enhancing mechanism against a particular defendant.” Id., at 1404-1405 (emphasis added). Under the latter view, the court reasoned, the- word “maximum” would necessarily refer to the unenhanced statutory maximum “since this represents the highest possible sentence applicable to all defendants in the category.” Id., at 1405.
Based on that perceived ambiguity, the court explained that the “Career Offender Guideline, read through the prism of Amendment 506, adopts an entirely plausible version of the categorical approach that the statute suggests.” Id., at 1407. The court thus held that the Career Offender Guideline, as construed under Amendment 506, was a reasonable implementation of § 994(h)’s command to designate sentences at or near the authorized maximum term. Id., at 1409.
In validating Amendment 506, the First Circuit here reached the same conclusion as the Ninth Circuit later did in United States v. Dunn, 80 F. 3d 402, 404 (1996). Five other Courts of Appeals, however, have reached the opposite conclusion, finding Amendment 506 at odds with the plain language of § 994(h). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 518 U. S. 1016 (1996), and now reverse.
II
Congress has delegated to the Commission “significant discretion in formulating guidelines” for sentencing convicted federal offenders. Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 377. Broad as that discretion may be, however, it must bow to the specific directives of Congress. In determining whether Amendment 506 accurately reflects Congress’ intent, we turn, as we must, to the statutory language. If the Commission’s revised commentary is at odds with § 994(h)’s plain language, it must give way. Cf. Stinson v. United States, 508 U. S. 36, 38 (1993) (explaining that the Guidelines commentary “is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute”).
In § 994(h), Congress directed the Commission to “assure” that for adult offenders who commit their third felony drug offense or crime of violence, the Guidelines prescribe a sentence of imprisonment “at or near the maximum term authorized.” 28 U. S. C. § 994(h). We do not start from the premise that this language is imprecise. Instead, we assume that in drafting this legislation, Congress said what it meant. Giving the words used their “ordinary meaning,” Moskal v. United States, 498 U. S. 103, 108 (1990), we find that the word “maximum” most naturally connotes the “greatest quantity or value attainable in a given case.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1396 (2d ed. 1958); Black’s Law Dictionary 979 (6th ed. 1990) (“The highest or greatest amount, quality, value, or degree”). We similarly conclude, and the parties do not dispute, that the phrase “term authorized” refers not to the period of incarceration specified by the Guidelines, but to that permitted by the applicable sentencing statutes. Accordingly, the phrase “maximum term authorized” should be construed as requiring the “highest” or “greatest” sentence allowed by statute.
Respondents, however, argue that “maximum term authorized” refers only to the highest penalty authorized by the offense of conviction, excluding any statutory sentencing enhancements. We find little merit in that contention. In calculating the “highest” term prescribed for a specific offense, it is not sufficient merely to identify the basic penalty associated with that offense. Congress has expressly provided enhanced maximum penalties for certain categories of repeat offenders in an effort to treat them more harshly than other offenders. Section 994(h) explicitly refers, for example, to 21 U. S. C. § 841, which establishes a base “term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years” for certain drug traffickers, but then adds that “[i]f any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years.” § 841(b)(1)(C). Where Congress has enacted a base penalty for first-time offenders or nonqualifying repeat offenders, and an enhanced penalty for qualifying repeat offenders, the “maximum term authorized” for the qualifying repeat offenders is the enhanced, not the base, term. As a consequence, the “maximum term authorized” for repeat offenders convicted under § 841(b)(1)(C) is 30 years — the enhanced statutory maximum — not the unenhanced maximum of 20 years.
Respondents’ assertion that § 994(h) is ambiguous is based, at least in part, on a strained construction of the phrase “categories of defendants.” They claim that the word “categories” can be defined broadly to encompass all repeat offenders charged with violating the same criminal statute— including those for whom the Government did not file a notice under § 851(a)(1) and who are therefore ineligible for the penalty enhancement. See n. 1, supra. If “categories of defendants” is defined in this way, respondents argue, a sentence “at or near the maximum term authorized” for this broader “category” of repeat offenders would necessarily permit only the unenhanced maximum because this is the highest possible sentence that could apply to all of the defendants within that category.
We see at least two serious flaws in this reasoning. First, respondents’ construction of the word “categories” is overin-elusive because it subsumes within a single category both defendants who have received notice under § 851(a)(1) and those who have not. The statutory scheme, however, obviously contemplates two distinct categories of repeat offenders for each possible crime. The Commission is no more free to ignore this distinction than it is to ignore the distinction made between those defendants who distributed certain controlled substances and those whose distribution also directly resulted in the death of a user. See, e. g., 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Thus, for defendants who have received the notice under § 851(a)(1), as respondents did here, the “maximum term authorized” is the enhanced term. For defendants who did not receive the notice, the unenhanced maximum applies.
Second, to read the phrase “categories of defendants” as respondents suggest would largely eviscerate the penalty enhancements Congress enacted in statutes such as § 841. We are unwilling to read § 994(h) as essentially rendering meaningless entire provisions of other statutes to which it expressly refers. Under respondents’ novel construction, a repeat drug or violent felon could only receive a sentence at or near the maximum allowed for defendants who had no such prior qualifying convictions or who had never received the notice under § 851(a)(1). Indeed, if this interpretation of the term “categories” were adopted, a sentencing court could be forbidden to impose the enhanced maximum penalty. Congress surely did not establish enhanced penalties for repeat offenders only to have the Commission render them a virtual nullity.
Respondents further seek to circumvent §994(h)’s plain meaning by claiming that Amendment 506 satisfies Congress’ mandate to sentence repeat offenders “at or near” the maximum sentence authorized. The flexibility afforded by the phrase “at or near,” respondents contend, justifies the Commission’s decision to rely on the unenhanced maximum. This statutory phrase unquestionably permits a certain degree of flexibility for upward and downward departures and adjustments. The pertinent issue, however, “is not how close the sentence must be to the statutory maximum, but to which statutory maximum it must be close.” United States v. Fountain, 83 F. 3d 946, 952 (CA8 1996), cert. pending, No. 96-6001. Whatever latitude § 994(h) affords the Commission in deciding how close a sentence must come to the maximum to be “near” it, the statute does not license the Commission to select as the relevant “maximum term” a sentence that is different from the congressionally authorized maximum term.
Finally, respondents rely heavily on the Commission’s stated justifications for choosing the unenhanced maximum. We are unmoved. First, the Commission asserted that, by precluding the use of the statutory enhancements, Amendment 506 “avoids unwarranted double counting” of the defendant’s prior offenses. 59 Fed. Reg. 23608, 23609 (1994). That argument is entirely beside the point. Congress has instructed the Commission to assure that the sentences of repeat offenders closely track the statutory maximum. The number of steps the Commission employs to achieve that requirement is unimportant, provided the Commission’s mechanism results in sentences “at or near” the “maximum term authorized.”
Second, respondents invoke the Commission’s assertion that its amended commentary eliminates “unwarranted disparity associated with variations in the exercise of prosecu-tional discretion in seeking enhanced penalties based on prior convictions.” Ibid. As we understand it, this argument posits that if the Government provides notice under § 851(a)(1) to one defendant, but not to another, the resulting difference in the maximum possible term is an “unwarranted disparity.” Insofar as prosecutors, as a practical matter, may be able to determine whether a particular defendant will be subject to the enhanced statutory maximum, any such discretion would be similar to the discretion a prosecutor exercises when he decides what, if any, charges to bring against a criminal suspect. Such discretion is an integral feature of the criminal justice system, and is appropriate, so long as it is not based upon improper factors. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 464-465 (1996); Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 607 (1985). Any disparity in the maximum statutory penalties between defendants who do and those who do not receive the notice is a foreseeable— but hardly improper — consequence of the statutory notice requirement.
III
In sum, we hold that the phrase “at or near the maximum term authorized” is unambiguous and requires a court to sentence a career offender “at or near” the “maximum” prison term available once all relevant statutory sentencing enhancements are taken into account. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
We note that imposition of an enhanced penalty is not automatic. Such a penalty may not be imposed unless the Government files an information notifying the defendant in advance of trial (or prior to the acceptance of a plea) that it will rely on that defendant’s prior convictions to seek a penalty enhancement. 21 U. S. C. § 851(a)(1). If the Government does not file such notice, however, the lower sentencing range will be applied even though the defendant may otherwise be eligible for the increased penalty.
See United States v. Smith, 984 F. 2d 1084, 1087 (CA10), cert. denied, 510 U. S. 873 (1993); United States v. Garrett, 959 F. 2d 1005, 1009-1011 (CADC 1992); United States v. Amis, 926 F. 2d 328, 329-330 (CA3 1991); United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F. 2d 541, 558-560 (CA9 1989).
See United States v. McQuilkin, 97 F. 3d 723, 731-733 (CA3 1996), cert. pending, No. 96-6810; United States v. Branham, 97 F. 3d 835, 845-846 (CA6 1996); United States v. Hernandez, 79 F. 3d 584, 595-601 (CA7 1996), cert. pending, Nos. 95-8469, 95-9335; United States v. Fountain, 83 F. 3d 946, 950-953 (CA8 1996), cert. pending, No. 96-6001; United States v. Novey, 78 F. 3d 1483, 1486-1488 (CA10 1996), cert. pending, No. 95-8791.
Indeed, the Commission has explicitly recognized that “the phrase ‘maximum term authorized’ should be construed as the maximum term authorized by statute.” USSG §4B1.1, comment., backg’d (Nov. 1987) (emphasis added). And, in our view, the phrase refers to all applicable statutes that would affect the district court’s calculation of the prison term. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, however, 18 U. S. C. § 3584 does not affect the maximum term authorized. Section 3584 merely instructs a sentencing court whether to run “multiple terms of imprisonment” consecutively or concurrently; it says nothing about how the individual term is to be calculated. §3584 (emphasis added). Of course, § 3584(c), which the dissent highlights, post, at 770, directs that “[mjultiple terms of imprisonment... shall be treated for administrative purposes as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment.” 18 U. S. C, § 3584(c) (emphasis added). Each of the sections cited by the dissent falls within this “administrative purposes” carve-out, which in no way undercuts, and in fact plainly bolsters, our point.
Respondents’ reliance on United States v. R. L. C., 503 U. S. 291 (1992), is inapposite. There, we construed 18 U. S. C. § 5037(c), which provides that the sentence ordered by a court for a juvenile delinquent may not extend beyond “the maximum term of imprisonment that would be authorized if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an adult.” We held that the applicable “maximum” term authorized was the upper limit of the Guidelines range that would apply to a similarly situated adult offender. 503 U. S., at 306-307. R. L. C. involved a directive to a sentencing court, however, whereas 28 U. S. C. § 994(h) is a directive to the Commission. Because § 994(h) is designed to cabin the Commission’s discretion in the promulgation of guidelines for career offenders, it would be entirely circular to suggest that the Commission had complied with § 994(h) merely by specifying sentences “at or near” the top of the Guidelines range. The Commission itself recognizes that the “maximum term authorized” within the meaning of § 994(h) is the statutory maximum, not the otherwise applicable Guidelines maximum. See n. 4, supra.
Inasmuch as we find the statute at issue here unambiguous, we need not decide whether the Commission is owed deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners were convicted by a jury in the District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring to import and conceal heroin in violation of the federal narcotics laws. An important part of the Government’s evidence consisted of tape recordings of conversations among several of the petitioners in a New York City hotel room. The tapes were made by federal officers in the adjoining room by means of an electronic recording device which did not physically intrude into the petitioners’ room. Because there was no “trespass” or “actual intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” the District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected the petitioners’ argument that this evidence was inadmissible because the eavesdropping had violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment. The convictions were affirmed, and we granted certiorari to consider the constitutional questions thus presented.
Last Term in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, we held that the reach of the Fourth Amendment “cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.” Id., at 363. Noting that the “Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” id., at 351, we overruled cases holding that a search and seizure of speech requires some trespass or actual penetration of a particular enclosure. We concluded that since every electronic eavesdropping upon private conversations is a search or seizure, it can comply with constitutional standards only when authorized by a neutral magistrate upon a showing of probable cause and under precise limitations and appropriate safeguards. The eavesdropping in this case was not carried out pursuant to such a warrant, and the convictions must therefore be reversed if Katz is to be applied to electronic surveillance conducted before the date of that decision. We have concluded, however, that to the extent Katz departed from previous holdings of this Court, it should be given wholly prospective application. Accordingly, and because we find no merit in any of the petitioners’ other challenges to their convictions, we affirm the judgment before us.
We are met at the outset with the petitioners’ contention that Katz does not actually present a choice between prospective or retroactive application of new constitutional doctrine. The Court in that decision, it is said, did not depart from any existing interpretation of the Constitution, but merely confirmed the previous demise of obsolete decisions enunciating the distinction between “trespassory” searches and those in which there was no physical penetration of the protected premises. Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438. But this contention misconstrues our opinion in Katz. Our holding there that Goldman and Olmstead “can no longer be regarded as controlling,” 389 U. S., at 353, recognized that those decisions had not been overruled until that day. True, the principles they expressed had been modified. The belief that an oral conversation could not be the object of a “search” or “seizure” had not survived. And in Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, we had cautioned that the scope of the Fourth Amendment could not be ascertained by resort to the “ancient niceties of tort or real property law.” 365 U. S., at 511. But the assumption persisted that electronic surveillance did not offend the Constitution unless there was an “actual intrusion into a constitutionally protected area.” While decisions before Katz may have reflected growing dissatisfaction with the traditional tests of the constitutional validity of electronic surveillance, the Court consistently reiterated those tests and declined invitations to abandon them. However clearly our holding in Katz may have been foreshadowed, it was a clear break with the past, and we are thus compelled to decide whether its application should be limited to the future.
Ever since Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 629, established that “the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect” for decisions expounding new constitutional rules affecting criminal trials, the Court has viewed the retroactivity or nonretroactivity of such decisions as a function of three considerations. As we most recently summarized them in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297,
“The criteria guiding resolution of the question implicate (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.”
Foremost among these factors is the purpose to be served by the new constitutional rule. This criterion strongly supports prospectivity for a decision amplifying the evidentiary exclusionary rule. Thus, it was principally the Court’s assessment of the purpose of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, which led it in Linkletter to deny those finally convicted the benefit of Mapp’s extension of the exclusionary rule to the States:
“all of the cases . . . requiring the exclusion of illegal evidence have been based on the necessity for an effective deterrent to illegal police action. . . . We cannot say that this purpose would be advanced by making the rule retrospective. The misconduct of the police . . . has already occurred and will not be corrected by releasing the prisoners involved.” 381 U. S., at 636-637.
We further observed that, in contrast with decisions which had been accorded retroactive effect, “there is no likelihood of unreliability or coercion present in a search- and-seizure case”; the exclusionary rule is but a “procedural weapon that has no bearing on guilt,” and “the fairness of the trial is not under attack.” 381 U. S., at 638, 639. Following this reasoning of Linkletter, we recently held in Fuller v. Alaska, 393 U. S. 80, that the exclusionary rule of Lee v. Florida, 392 U. S. 378, should be accorded only prospective application. Analogizing Lee to Mapp, we concluded that evidence seized in violation of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act was “no less relevant and reliable than that seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” and that both decisions were merely “designed to enforce the federal law.” 393 U. S., at 81.
The second and third factors — reliance of law enforcement officials, and the burden on the administration of justice that would flow from a retroactive application— also militate in favor of applying Katz prospectively. Katz for the first time explicitly overruled the “physical penetration” and “trespass”, tests enunciated in earlier decisions of this Court. Our periodic restatements of those tests confirmed the interpretation that police and courts alike had placed on the controlling precedents and fully justified reliance on their continuing validity. Nor had other courts theretofore held that the prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment encompassed “non-trespassory” electronic surveillance. On the contrary, only a few months before the eavesdropping in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had upheld the introduction of electronic evidence obtained by the same narcotics agent with a virtually identical installation. United States v. Pardo-Bolland, 348 F. 2d 316, cert. denied, 382 U. S. 944.
Although there apparently have not been many federal convictions based on evidence gathered by warrantless electronic surveillance, we have no cause to doubt that the number of state convictions obtained in reliance on pre-Katz decisions is substantial. Moreover, the determination of whether a particular instance of eavesdropping led to the introduction of tainted evidence at trial would in most cases be a difficult and time-consuming task, which, particularly when attempted long after the event, would impose a weighty burden on any court. Cf. Alderman v. United States, ante, at 180-185. It is to be noted also that we have relied heavily on the factors of the extent of reliance and consequent burden on the administration of justice only when the purpose of the rule in question did not clearly favor either retroactivity or prospectivity. Because the deterrent purpose of Katz overwhelmingly supports nonretroactivity, we would reach that result even if relatively few convictions would be set aside by its retroactive application.
The petitioners argue that even if Katz is not given fully retrospective effect, at least it should govern those cases which, like the petitioners’, were pending on direct review when Katz was decided. Petitioners point out that in Linkletter, the only other case involving the retroactivity of a Fourth Amendment decision, the Court held Mapp applicable to every case still pending on direct review on the date of that decision. A similar approach was adopted in Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, with respect to the prospectivity of Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609. In Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, however, we abandoned the approach taken in Linkletter and Tehan and concluded that “there are no jurisprudential or constitutional obstacles” to the adoption of a different cut-off point. Id,., at 733. We explained that Here, on the other hand, as in Johnson, “the possibility of applying [Katz] only prospectively is yet an open issue.” Ibid.
“[o]ur holdings in Linkletter and Tehan were necessarily limited to convictions which had become final by the time Mapp and Griffin were rendered. Decisions prior to Linkletter and Tehan had already established without discussion that Mapp and Griffin applied to cases still on direct appeal at the time they were announced.” Id., at 732.
All of the reasons for making Katz retroactive also undercut any distinction between final convictions and those still pending on review. Both the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule and the reliance of law enforcement officers focus upon the time of the search, not any subsequent point in the prosecution, as the relevant date. Exclusion of electronic eavesdropping evidence seized before Katz would increase the burden on the administration of justice, would overturn convictions based on fair reliance upon pre-Katz decisions, and would not serve to deter similar searches and seizures in the future.
Nor can it sensibly be maintained that the Court is foreclosed by Linkletter in this case, as it was not in Johnson, simply because Katz, like Mapp, was a Fourth Amendment decision. In neither Linkletter nor Johnson was it intimated that the cut-off points there adopted depended in any degree on the constitutional provision involved. There is, moreover, a significant distinction between the Mapp and Katz decisions. Mapp dealt solely with the applicability of the exclusionary rule to the States; “the situation before Mapp . . . [was that] the States at least knew that they were constitutionally forbidden from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures under Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949).” Before Katz on the other hand, “non-trespassory” electronic surveillance was not thought to fall within the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, this case lacks whatever impetus the knowingly unconstitutional conduct by the States may have provided in Linkletter to apply Mapp to all pending prosecutions.
In sum, we hold that Katz is to be applied only to cases in which the prosecution seeks to introduce the fruits of electronic surveillance conducted after December 18, 1967. Since the eavesdropping in this case occurred before that date and was consistent with pre-Katz decisions of this Court, the convictions must be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black, while adhering to his dissent in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 640 (1965), concurs in the affirmance of the judgment of convictions in this case for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 364 (1967).
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
35 Stat. 614, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 173 provides in pertinent part:
“It is unlawful to import or bring any narcotic drug into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction . . . .” 21 U. S. C. § 174 provides in pertinent part:
“Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings any narcotic drug into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction, contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of any such narcotic drug after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law, or conspires to commit any of such acts in violation of the laws of the United States, shall be imprisoned not less than five or more than twenty years and, in addition, may be fined not more than $20,000.”
The room occupied by the petitioners was separated from that of the agents by two doors with a small air space between them. According to the testimony of the federal agents — which was properly credited by both courts below after an exhaustive hearing that included an actual reconstruction of the equipment in the hotel room — the microphone was taped to the door on their side. The face of the microphone was turned toward the %-inch space between the door and the sill, and a towel was placed over the microphone and along the bottom of the door in order to minimize interference from sounds in the agents’ room. A cable was run from the microphone to an amplifier and tape recorder in the bathroom adjoining the agents’ room.
Petitioners contend that this installation was equivalent to a physical penetration of the petitioners’ room because the airspace between the doors acted as a sound chamber, thereby facilitating the pickup of the conversations next door. We are unable, however, to distinguish this eavesdropping from that condoned in Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129, where the agents simply placed a sensitive receiver against the partition wall. Petitioners’ reliance on Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, is misplaced. The heating duct system used as a sound conductor by the agents in that case was “an integral part of the premises occupied by the petitioners,” 365 U. S., at 511, and the agents had to penetrate the petitioners’ house with a “spike microphone” before the heating duct could be thus employed.
384 F. 2d 889.
390 U. S. 943.
The only other issues which warrant mention relate to the Government’s disclosure to the Court of Appeals of two instances of admittedly trespassory electronic surveillance affecting the petitioners. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for a full evidentiary hearing on the subject matter of the disclosures. The first monitoring episode occurred during 1962-1963, when a device was installed in a Florida restaurant. The surveillance was directed at the owner of the restaurant rather than at any of the petitioners, but petitioner Dioguardi was overheard talking about the operations of the restaurant. The log sheets covering the entire period of surveillance were turned over to the District Judge for in camera inspection, and those relating to any conversations of Dioguardi were furnished to the defense. The second instance was an attempted bugging of a rented car used by petitioners Nebbia, Desist, and LeFranc in furtherance of the conspiracy. Again all records pertaining to this episode were turned over to the defense.
District Judge Palmieri, after holding an extensive hearing at which the petitioners were granted unrestrained opportunity to introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses, concluded that none of the “evidence used against [the petitioners] at the trial was tainted by any invasion of their constitutional rights.” 277 F. Supp. 690, 700. Judge Palmieri found that the Dioguardi conversations overheard in 1962-1963 were totally unrelated to the events of the conspiracy, which transpired over two years later. With regard to the second instance, he found that the device in-installed in the rented car “did not function and that nothing coherent was obtained.” Id., at 692. The Court of Appeals held that these findings were supported by the evidence and that the petitioners were accorded all the procedural rights to which they were entitled. We agree. See Alderman v. United States, ante, p. 165.
See also On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747.
See also 389 U. S., at 362 (Harlan, J., concurring); 389 U. S., at 367, 372 (Black, J., dissenting).
See, e. g., Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 485; Lanza v. New York, 370 U. S. 139, 142; Silverman, v. United States, 365 U. S. 505; Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128.
Silverman v. United States, supra, at 512.
In Katz, 389 U. S., at 353, for example, we referred to our previous observation in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 304, that “[t]he premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited.”
See Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, 44, 50-53, 64; Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U. S. 158; Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 437-439; Silverman v. United States, supra, at 510-512.
See also DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U. S. 631; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 727; Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 413; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 629.
See Roberts v. Russell, 392 U. S. 293, 295; Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 523, n. 22.
In other areas where retroactivity has been denied the “purpose” criterion offered much weaker support. Cf. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 298, where it was conceded that “the Wade and Gilbert rules also are aimed at avoiding unfairness at the trial by enhancing the reliability of the fact-finding process in the area of identification evidence”; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 730, where it was recognized that “Escobedo and Miranda guard against the possibility of unreliable statements in every instance of in-custody interrogation”; and Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 414, where it was stated that “the ‘purpose’ of the Griffin rule is to be found in the whole complex of values that the privilege against self-incrimination itself represents,” including “our realization that the privilege, while sometimes ‘a shelter to the guilty/ is often ‘a protection to the innocent.’ ” Id., at 414-415, n. 12.
Jackson v. Demo, 378 U. S. 368; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335; Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12.
48 Stat. 1103, 47 U. S. C. § 605.
The Government has informed us in its brief that “[i]nstead of a wholesale release of thousands of convicted felons, only a relatively small number would probably be affected [by a retroactive application of Katz], since electronic surveillance has played a part in a limited number of federal cases.”
We noted in Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, 48-49, that only a handful of States have prohibited or regulated electronic surveillance by law enforcement officials.
See DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719. Cf. cases cited in n. 13, supra.
In Linkletter itself the Court noted that it dealt only with the narrow issue whether Mapp should be applied to final as well as nonfinal convictions:
“[Mapp] has also been applied to cases still pending on direct review at the time it was rendered. Therefore, in this case, we are concerned only with whether the exclusionary principle enunciated in Mapp applies to state court convictions which had become final before rendition of our opinion.” 381 U. S., at 622.
Mapp had already been applied in Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23; Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85; Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483. Griffin had been applied in O’Connor v. Ohio, 382 U. S. 286, shortly before Tehan was decided.
Actually, Mapp was, of course, decided under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, with one member of the five-man majority relying at least in part on the Fifth Amendment. 367 U. S., at 661-666 (Black, J., concurring).
Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 731. And see Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 417.
Indeed, since the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures, it could be argued that there was, in fact, no Fourth Amendment violation in the present case. The law enforcement officers could certainly be said to have been acting “reasonably” in measuring their conduct by the relevant Fourth Amendment decisions of this Court. Cf. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 356; James v. United States, 366 U. S. 213, 221-222, 245.
The dissenting opinion of Me. Justice Fortas suggests that our holding today denies “the benefit of a fundamental constitutional provision, and not merely of court-made rules implementing a constitutional mandate.” Post, at 271. To the contrary, we simply decline to extend the court-made exclusionary rule to cases in which its deterrent purpose would not be served. The exclusionary rule “has no bearing on guilt” or “the fairness of the trial.” Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S., at 638, 639.
Of course, Katz himself benefited from the new principle announced on that date, and, as our Brother Douglas observes, to that extent the decision has not technically been given wholly prospective application. But, as we recently explained in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 301, the fact that the parties involved in the decision are the only litigants so situated who receive the benefit of the new rule is “an unavoidable consequence of the necessity that constitutional adjudications not stand as mere dictum.” Whatever inequity may arguably result from applying the new rule to those “chance beneficiaries” is “an insignificant cost for adherence to sound principles of decision-making.” 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.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases involve the extent of an employer’s duty under the National Labor Relations Act to recognize a union that bases its claim to representative status solely on the possession of union authorization cards, and the steps an employer may take, particularly with regard to the scope and content of statements he may make, in legitimately resisting such card-based recognition. The specific questions facing us here are whether the duty to bargain can arise without a Board election under the Act; whether union authorization cards, if obtained from a majority of employees without misrepresentation or coercion, are reliable enough generally to provide a valid, alternate route to majority status; whether a bargaining order is an appropriate and authorized remedy where an employer rejects a card majority while at the same time committing unfair labor practices that tend to undermine the union’s majority and make a fair election an unlikely possibility; and whether certain specific statements made by an employer to his employees constituted such an election-voiding unfair labor practice and thus fell outside the protection of the First Amendment and § 8 (c) of the Act, 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (c). For reasons given below, we answer each of these questions in the affirmative.
I.
Of the four eases before us, three — Gissel Packing Co., Heck’s Inc., and General Steel Products, Inc. — were consolidated following separate decisions in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and brought here by the National Labor Relations Board in No. 573. Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347, the petitioning Union in Gissel, brought that case here in a separate petition in No. 691. All three cases present the same legal issues in similar, uncomplicated factual settings that can be briefly described together. The fourth case, No. 585 (Sinclair Company), brought here from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and argued separately, presents many of the same questions and will thus be disposed of in this opinion; but because the validity of some of the Board’s factual findings are under attack on First Amendment grounds, detailed attention must be paid to the factual setting of that case.
Nos. 573 and 691.
In each of the cases from the Fourth Circuit, the course of action followed by the Union and the employer and the Board’s response were similar. In each case, the Union waged an organizational campaign, obtained authorization cards from a majority of employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, and then, on the basis of the cards, demanded recognition by the employer. All three employers refused to bargain on the ground that authorization cards were inherently unreliable indicators of employee desires; and they either embarked on, or continued, vigorous antiunion campaigns that gave rise to numerous unfair labor practice charges. In Gissel, where the employer’s campaign began almost at the outset of the Union’s organizational drive, the Union (petitioner in No. 691), did not seek an election, but instead filed three unfair labor practice charges against the employer, for refusing to bargain in violation of §8 (a) (5), for coercion and intimidation of employees in violation of §8 (a)(1), and for discharge of Union adherents in violation of § 8 (a) (3). In Heck’s an election sought by the Union was never held because of nearly identical unfair labor practice charges later filed by the Union as a result of the employer’s antiunion campaign, initiated after the Union’s recognition demand. And in General Steel, an election petitioned for by the Union and won by the employer was set aside by the Board because of the unfair labor practices committed by the employer in the pre-election period.
In each case, the Board’s primary response was an order to bargain directed at the employers, despite the absence of an election in Gissel and Heck’s and the employer’s victory in General Steel. More specifically, the Board found in each case (1) that the Union had obtained valid authorization cards from a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit and was thus entitled to represent the employees for collective bargaining purposes; and (2) that the employer’s refusal to bargain with the Union in violation of § 8 (a) (5) was motivated, not by a “good faith” doubt of the Union’s majority status, but by a desire to gain time to dissipate that status. The Board based its conclusion as to the lack of good faith doubt on the fact that the employers had committed substantial unfair labor practices during their antiunion campaign efforts to resist recognition. Thus, the Board found that all three employers had engaged in restraint and coercion of employees in violation of § 8 (a)(1) — in Gissel, for coercively interrogating employees about Union activities, threatening them with discharge, and promising them benefits; in Heck’s, for coercively interrogating employees, threatening reprisals, creating the appearance of surveillance, and offering benefits for opposing the Union; and in General Steel, for coercive interrogation and threats of reprisals, including discharge. In addition, the Board found that the employers in Gissel and Heck’s had wrongfully discharged employees for engaging in Union activities in violation of § 8 (a) (3). And, because the employers had rejected the card-based bargaining demand in bad faith, the Board found that all three had refused to recognize the Unions in violation of § 8 (a) (5).
Only in General Steel was there any objection by an employer to the validity of the cards and the manner in which they had been solicited, and the doubt raised by the evidence was resolved in the following manner. The customary approach of the Board in dealing with allegations of misrepresentation by the Union and misunderstanding by the employees of the purpose for which the cards were being solicited has been set out in Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 N. L. R. B. 1268 (1963) and reaffirmed in Levi Strauss & Co., 172 N. L. R. B. No. 57, 68 L. R. R. M. 1338 (1968). Under the Cumberland Shoe doctrine, if the card itself is unambiguous (i. e., states on its face that the signer authorizes the Union to represent the employee for collective bargaining purposes and not to seek an election), it will be counted unless it is proved that the employee was told that the card was to be used solely for the purpose of obtaining an election. In General Steel, the trial examiner considered the allegations of misrepresentation at length and, applying the Board’s customary analysis, rejected the claims with findings that were adopted by the Board and are reprinted in the margin.
Consequently, the Board ordered the companies to cease and desist from their unfair labor practices, to offer reinstatement and back pay to the employees who had been discriminatorily discharged, to bargain with the Unions on request, and to post the appropriate notices.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in per curiam opinions in each of the three cases (398 F. 2d 336, 337, 339), sustained the Board’s findings as to the §§8(a)(l) and (3) violations, but rejected the Board’s findings that the employers’ refusal to bargain violated § 8 (a) (5) and declined to enforce those portions of the Board’s orders directing the respondent companies to bargain in good faith. The court based its § 8 (a) (5) rulings on its 1967 decisions raising the same fundamental issues, Crawford Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 386 F. 2d 367, cert. denied, 390 U. S. 1028 (1968) ; NLRB v. Logan Packing Co., 386 F. 2d 562; NLRB v. Sehon Stevenson & Co., Inc., 386 F. 2d 551. The court in those cases held that the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the Act, which permitted the Board to resolve representation disputes by certification under § 9 (c) only by secret ballot election, withdrew from the Board the authority to order an employer to bargain under § 8 (a) (5) on the basis of cards, in the absence of NLRB certification, unless the employer knows independently of the cards that there is in fact no representation dispute. The court held that the cards themselves were so inherently unreliable that their use gave an employer virtually an automatic, good faith claim that such a dispute existed, for which a secret election was necessary. Thus, these rulings established that a company could not be ordered to bargain unless (1) there was no question about a Union’s majority status (either because the employer agreed the cards were valid or had conducted his own poll so indicating), or (2) the employer’s §§ 8 (a)(1) and (3) unfair labor practices committed during the representation campaign were so extensive and pervasive that a bargaining order was the only available Board remedy irrespective of a card majority.
Thus based on the earlier decisions, the court’s reasoning in these cases was brief, as indicated by the representative holding in Heck’s:
“We have recently discussed the unreliability of the cards, in the usual case, in determining whether or not a union has attained a majority status and have concluded that an employer is justified in entertaining a good faith doubt of the union’s claims when confronted with a demand for recognition based solely upon union authorization cards. We have also noted that the National Labor Relations Act after the Taft-Hartley amendments provides for an election as the sole basis of a certification and restricts the Board to the use of secret ballots for the resolution of representation questions. This is not one of those extraordinary cases in which a bargaining order might be an appropriate remedy for pervasive violations of § 8 (a) (1). It is controlled by our recent decisions and their reasoning.... There was not substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board that Heck’s, Inc. had no good faith doubt of the unions’ claims of majorities.” 398 F. 2d, at 338-339.
No. 585.
In No. 585, the factual pattern was quite similar. The petitioner, a producer of mill rolls, wire, and related products at two plants in Holyoke, Massachusetts, was shut down for some three months in 1952 as the result of a strike over contract negotiations with the American Wire Weavers Protective Association, the representative of petitioner’s journeymen and apprentice wire weavers from 1933 to 1952. The Company subsequently reopened without a union contract, and its employees remained unrepresented through 1964, when the Company was acquired by an Ohio corporation, with the Company’s former president continuing as head of the Holyoke, Massachusetts, division. In July 1965, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 404, began an organizing campaign among petitioner’s Holyoke employees and by the end of the summer had obtained authorization cards from 11 of the Company’s 14 journeymen wire weavers choosing the Union as their bargaining agent. On September 20, the Union notified petitioner that it represented a majority of its wire weavers, requested that the Company bargain with it, and offered to submit the signed cards to a neutral third party for authentication. After petitioner’s president declined the Union’s request a week later, claiming, inter alia, that he had a good faith doubt of majority status because of the cards’ inherent unreliability, the Union petitioned, on November 8, for an election that was ultimately set for December 9.
When petitioner’s president first learned of the Union’s drive in July, he talked with all of his employees in an effort to dissuade them from joining a union. He particularly emphasized the results of the long 1952 strike, which he claimed “almost put our company out of business,” and expressed worry that the employees were forgetting the “lessons of the past.” He emphasized, secondly, that the Company was still on “thin ice” financially, that the Union’s “only weapon is to strike,” and that a strike “could lead to the closing of the plant,” since the parent company had ample manufacturing facilities elsewhere. He noted, thirdly, that because of their age and the limited usefulness of their skills outside their craft, the employees might not be able to find re-employment if they lost their jobs as a result of a strike. Finally, he warned those who did not believe that the plant could go out of business to “look around Holyoke and see a lot of them out of business.” The president sent letters to the same effect to the employees in early November, emphasizing that the parent company had no reason to stay in Massachusetts if profits went down.
During the two or three weeks immediately prior to the election on December 9, the president sent the employees a pamphlet captioned: “Do you want another 13-week strike?” stating, inter alia, that: “We have no doubt that the Teamsters Union can again close the Wire Weaving Department and the entire plant by a strike. We have no hopes that the Teamsters Union Bosses will not call a strike.... The Teamsters Union is a strike happy outfit.” Similar communications followed in late November, including one stressing the Teamsters’ “hoodlum control.” Two days before the election, the Company sent out another pamphlet that was entitled: “Let’s Look at the Record,” and that purported to be an obituary of companies in the Holyoke-Springfield, Massachusetts, area that had allegedly gone out of business because of union demands, eliminating some 3,500 jobs; the first page carried a large cartoon showing the preparation of a grave for the Sinclair Company and other headstones containing the names of other plants allegedly victimized by the unions. Finally, on the day before the election, the president made another personal appeal to his employees to reject the Union. He repeated that the Company’s financial condition was precarious; that a possible strike would jeopardize the continued operation of the plant; and that age and lack of education would make re-employment difficult. The Union lost the election 7-6, and then filed both objections to the election and unfair labor practice charges which were consolidated for hearing before the trial examiner.
The Board agreed with the trial examiner that the president’s communications with his employees, when considered as a whole, “reasonably tended to convey to the employees the belief or impression that selection of the Union in the forthcoming election could lead [the Company] to close its plant, or to the transfer of the weaving production, with the resultant loss of jobs to the wire weavers.” Thus, the Board found that under the “totality of the circumstances” petitioner’s activities constituted a violation of §8 (a)(1) of the Act. The Board further agreed with the trial examiner that petitioner’s activities, because they “also interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the election,” and “tended to foreclose the possibility” of holding a fair election, required that the election be set aside. The Board also found that the Union had a valid card majority (the unambiguous cards, see n. 4, supra, went unchallenged) when it demanded recognition initially and that the Company declined recognition, not because of a good faith doubt as to the majority status, but, as the §8 (a)(1) violations indicated, in order to gain time to dissipate that status — in violation of § 8 (a)(5). Consequently, the Board set the election aside, entered a cease-and-desist order, and ordered the Company to bargain on request.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sustained the Board’s findings and conclusions and enforced its order in full. 397 F. 2d 157. The court rejected the Company’s proposition that the inherent unreliability of authorization cards entitled an employer automatically to insist on an election, noting that the representative status of a union may be shown by means other than an election; the court thus reaffirmed its stance among those circuits disavowing the Fourth Circuit’s approach to authorization cards. Because of the conflict among the circuits on the card issues and because of the alleged conflict between First Amendment freedoms and the restrictions placed on employer speech by § 8 (a)(1) in Sinclair, No. 585, we granted certiorari to consider both questions. 393 U. S. 997 (1968). For reasons given below, we reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
II.
In urging us to reverse the Fourth Circuit and to affirm the First Circuit, the National Labor Relations Board contends that we should approve its interpretation and administration of the duties and obligations imposed by the Act in authorization card cases. The Board argues (1) that unions have never been limited under § 9 (c) of either the Wagner Act or the 1947 amendments to certified elections as the sole route to attaining representative status. Unions may, the Board contends, impose a duty to bargain on the employer under § 8 (a) (5) by reliance on other evidence of majority employee support, such as authorization cards. Contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s holding, the Board asserts, the 1947 amendments did not eliminate the alternative routes to majority status. The Board contends (2) that the cards themselves, when solicited in accordance with Board standards which adequately insure against union misrepresentation, are sufficiently reliable indicators of employee desires to support a bargaining order against an employer who refuses to recognize a card majority in violation of §8 (a) (5). The Board argues (3) that a bargaining order is the appropriate remedy for the § 8 (a) (5) violation, where the employer commits other unfair labor practices that tend to undermine union support and render a fair election improbable.
Relying on these three assertions, the Board asks us to approve its current practice, which is briefly as follows. When confronted by a recognition demand based on possession of cards allegedly signed by a majority of his employees, an employer need not grant recognition immediately, but may, unless he has knowledge independently of the cards that the union has a majority, decline the union’s request and insist on an election, either by requesting the union to file an election petition or by filing such a petition himself under §9 (c)(1)(B). If, however, the employer commits independent and substantial unfair labor practices disruptive of election conditions, the Board may withhold the election or set it aside, and issue instead a bargaining order as a remedy for the various violations. A bargaining order will not issue, of course, if the union obtained the cards through misrepresentation or coercion or if the employer’s unfair labor practices are unrelated generally to the representation campaign. Conversely, the employers in these cases urge us to adopt the views of the Fourth Circuit.
There is more at issue in these cases than the dispute outlined above between the Board and the four employers, however, for the Union, petitioner in No. 691, argues that we should accord a far greater role to cards in the bargaining area than the Board itself seeks in this litigation. In order to understand the differences between the Union and the Board, it is necessary to trace the evolution of the Board’s approach to authorization cards from its early practice to the position it takes on oral argument before this Court. Such an analysis requires viewing the Board’s treatment of authorization cards in three separate phases: (1) under the Joy Silk doctrine, (2) under the rules of the Aaron Brothers case, and (3) under the approach announced at oral argument before this Court.
The traditional approach utilized by the Board for many years has been known as the Joy Silk doctrine. Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 N. L. R. B. 1263 (1949), enforced, 87 U. S. App. D. C. 360, 185 F. 2d 732 (1950). Under that rule, an employer could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union claiming representative status through possession of authorization cards if he had a “good faith doubt” as to the union’s majority status; instead of bargaining, he could insist that the union seek an election in order to test out his doubts. The Board, then, could find a lack of good faith doubt and enter a bargaining order in one of two ways. It could find (1) that the employer’s independent unfair labor practices were evidence of bad faith, showing that the employer was seeking time to dissipate the union’s majority. Or the Board could find (2) that the employer had come forward with no reasons for entertaining any doubt and therefore that he must have rejected the bargaining demand in bad faith. An example of the second category was Snow & Sons, 134 N. L. R. B. 709 (1961), enforced, 308 F. 2d 687 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1962), where the employer reneged on his agreement to bargain after a third party checked the validity of the card signatures and insisted on an election because he doubted that the employees truly desired representation. The Board entered a bargaining order with very broad language to the effect that an employer could not refuse a bargaining demand and seek an election instead “without a valid ground therefor,” 134 N. L. R. B., at 710-711. See also Dixon Ford Shoe Co., Inc., 150 N. L. R. B. 861 (1965); Kellogg Mills, 147 N. L. R. B. 342, 346 (1964), enforced, 347 F. 2d 219 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1965).
The leading case codifying modifications to the Joy Silk doctrine was Aaron Brothers, 158 N. L. R. B. 1077 (1966). There the Board made it clear that it had shifted the burden to the General Counsel to show bad faith and that an employer “will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation... simply because he refuses to rely upon cards, rather than an election, as the method for determining the union’s majority.” 158 N. L. R. B., at 1078. Two significant consequences were emphasized. The Board noted (1) that not every unfair labor practice would automatically result in a finding of bad faith and therefore a bargaining order; the Board implied that it would find bad faith only if the unfair labor practice was serious enough to have the tendency to dissipate the union’s majority. The Board noted (2) that an employer no longer needed to come forward with reasons for rejecting a bargaining demand. The Board pointed out, however, that a bargaining order would issue if it could prove that an employer’s “course of conduct” gave indications as to the employer’s bad faith. As examples of such a “course of conduct,” the Board cited Snow & Sons, supra; Dixon Ford Shoe Co., Inc., supra, and Kellogg Mills, supra, thereby reaffirming John P. Serpa, Inc., 155 N. L. R. B. 99 (1965), where the Board had limited Snow & Sons to its facts.
Although the Board’s brief before this Court generally followed the approach as set out in Aaron Brothers, supra, the Board announced at oral argument that it had virtually abandoned the Joy Silk doctrine altogether. Under the Board’s current practice, an employer’s good faith doubt is largely irrelevant, and the key to the issuance of a bargaining order is the commission of serious unfair labor practices that interfere with the election processes and tend to preclude the holding of a fair election. Thus, an employer can insist that a union go to an election, regardless of his subjective motivation, so long as he is not guilty of misconduct; he need give no affirmative reasons for rejecting a recognition request, and he can demand an election with a simple “no comment” to the union. The Board pointed out, however, (1) that an employer could not refuse to bargain if he knew, through a personal poll for instance, that a majority of his employees supported the union, and (2) that an employer could not refuse recognition initially because of questions as to the appropriateness of the unit and then later claim, as an afterthought, that he doubted the union’s strength.
The Union argues here that an employer’s right to insist on an election in the absence of unfair labor practices should be more circumscribed, and a union’s right to rely on cards correspondingly more expanded, than the Board would have us rule. The Union’s contention is that an employer, when confronted with a card-based bargaining demand, can insist on an election only by filing the election petition himself immediately under i 9 (c)(1)(B) and not by insisting that the Union file the election petition, whereby the election can be subjected to considerable delay. If the employer does not himself petition for an election, the Union argues, he must recognize the Union regardless of his good or bad faith and regardless of his other unfair labor practices, and should be ordered to bargain if the cards were in fact validly obtained. And if this Court should continue to utilize the good faith doubt rule, the Union contends that at the least we should put the burden on the employer to make an affirmative showing of his reasons for entertaining such doubt.
Because the employers’ refusal to bargain in each of these cases was accompanied by independent unfair labor practices which tend to preclude the holding of a fair election, we need not decide whether a bargaining order is ever appropriate in cases where there is no interference with the election processes.
With the Union’s arguments aside, the points of difference between the employers and the Board will be considered in the following manner. The validity of the cards under the Act, their intrinsic reliability, and the appropriateness of a bargaining order as a response to violations of § 8 (a)(5) as well as §§ 8 (a)(1) and (3) will be discussed in the next section. The nature of an employer’s reaction to an organizational campaign, and particularly the Board’s conclusion that the employer’s statements in No. 585 contained threats of reprisal and thus constituted restraint and coercion in violation of § 8 (a)(1) and not protected speech, will be covered in the final section.
III.
A.
The first issue facing us is whether a union can establish a bargaining obligation by means other than a Board election and whether the validity of alternate routes to majority status, such as cards, was affected by the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments. The most commonly traveled route for a union to obtain recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of an unorganized group of employees is through the Board’s election and certification procedures under § 9 (c) of the Act (29 ü. S. C. § 159(c)); it is also, from the Board’s point of view, the preferred route. A union is not limited to a Board election, however, for, in addition to § 9, the present Act provides in § 8 (a) (5) (29 U. S. C. § 158 (a)(5)), as did the Wagner Act in § 8 (5), that “[i]t shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer... to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9 (a).” Since § 9 (a), in both the Wagner Act and the present Act, refers to the representative as the one “designated or selected” by a majority of the employees without specifying precisely how that representative is to be chosen, it was early recognized that an employer had a duty to bargain whenever the union representative presented “convincing evidence of majority support.” Almost from the inception of the Act, then, it was recognized that a union did not have to be certified as the winner of a Board election to invoke a bargaining obligation; it could establish majority status by other means under the unfair labor practice provision of §8 (a) (5) — by showing convincing support, for instance, by a union-called strike or strike vote, or, as here, by possession of cards signed by a majority of the employees authorizing the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes.
We have consistently accepted this interpretation of the Wagner Act and the present Act, particularly as to the use of authorization cards. See, e. g., NLRB v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U. S. 318, 339-340 (1940); Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U. S. 702 (1944); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co., 351 U. S. 62 (1956). Thus, in United Mine Workers, supra, we noted that a “Board election is not the only method by which an employer may satisfy itself as to the union’s majority status,” 351 U. S., at 72, n. 8, since § 9 (a), “which deals expressly with employee representation, says nothing as to how the employees’ representative shall be chosen,” 351 U. S., at 71. We therefore pointed out in that case, where the union had obtained signed authorization cards from a majority of the employees, that “[i]n the absence of any bona fide dispute as to the existence of the required majority of eligible employees, the employer’s denial of recognition of the union would have violated §8 (a) (5) of the Act.” 351 U. S., at 69. We see no reason to reject this approach to bargaining obligations now, and we find unpersuasive the Fourth Circuit’s view that the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments, enacted some nine years before our decision in United Mine Workers, supra, require us to disregard that case. Indeed, the 1947 amendments weaken rather than strengthen the position taken by the employers here and the Fourth Circuit below. An early version of the bill in the House would have amended § 8 (5) of the Wagner Act to permit the Board to find a refusal-to-bargain violation only where an employer had failed to bargain with a union “currently recognized by the employer or certified as such [through an election] under section 9.” Section 8 (a)(5) of H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). The proposed change, which would have eliminated the use of cards, was rejected in Conference (H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 41 (1947)), however, and we cannot make a similar change in the Act simply because, as the employers assert, Congress did not expressly approve the use of cards in rejecting the House amendment. Nor can we accept the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that the change was wrought when Congress amended § 9 (c) to make election the sole basis for certification by eliminating the phrase “any other suitable method to ascertain such representatives,” under which the Board had occasionally used cards as a certification basis. A certified union has the benefit of numerous special privileges which are not accorded unions recognized voluntarily or under a bargaining order and which, Congress could determine, should not be dispensed unless a union has survived the crucible of a secret ballot election.
The employers rely finally on the addition to § 9 (c) of subparagraph (B), which allows an employer to petition for an election whenever “one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in section 9 (a).” That provision was not added, as the employers assert, to give them an absolute right to an election at any time; rather, it was intended, as the legislative history indicates, to allow them, after being asked to bargain, to test out their doubts as to a union’s majority in a secret election which they would then presumably not cause to be set aside by illegal antiunion activity. We agree with the Board's assertion here that there is no suggestion that Congress intended §9 (c)(1)(B) to relieve any employer of his § 8 (a) (5) bargaining obligation where, without good faith, he engaged in unfair labor practices disruptive of the Board's election machinery. And we agree that the policies reflected in § 9 (c) (1) (B) fully support the Board's present administration of the Act (see supra, at 591-592); for an employer can insist on a secret ballot election, unless, in the words of the Board, he engages “in contemporaneous unfair labor practices likely to destroy the union’s majority and seriously impede the election.” Brief for Petitioner, the Board, in No. 573, p. 36.
In short, we hold that the 1947 amendments did not restrict an employer’s duty to bargain under § 8 (a)(5) solely to those unions whose representative status is certified after a Board election.
B.
We next consider the question whether authorization cards are such inherently unreliable indicators of employee desires that, whatever the validity of other alternate routes to representative status, the cards themselves may never be used to determine a union’s majority and to support an order to bargain. In this context, the employers urge us to take the step the 1947 amendments and their legislative history indicate Congress did not take, namely, to rule out completely the use of cards in the bargaining arena. Even if we do not unhesitatingly accept the Fourth Circuit’s view in the matter, the employers argue, at the very least we should overrule the Cumberland Shoe doctrine (see supra, at 584) and establish stricter controls over the solicitation of the cards by union representatives.
The objections to the use of cards voiced by the employers and the Fourth Circuit boil down to two contentions: (1) that, as contrasted with the election procedure, the cards cannot accurately reflect an employee’s wishes, either because an employer has not had a chance to present his views and thus a chance to insure that the employee choice was an informed one, or because the choice was the result of group pressures and not individual decision made in the privacy of a voting booth; and (2) that quite apart from the election comparison, the cards are too often obtained through misrepresentation and coercion which compound the cards’ inherent inferiority to the election process. Neither contention is persuasive, and each proves too much. The Board itself has recognized, and continues to do so here, that secret elections are generally the most satisfactory — indeed the preferred — method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support. The acknowledged superiority of the election process, however, does not mean that cards are thereby rendered totally invalid, for where an employer engages in conduct disruptive of the election process, cards may be the most effective — perhaps the only — way of assuring employee choice. As for misrepresentation, in any specific case of alleged irregularity in the solicitation of the cards, the proper course is to apply the Board’s customary standards (to be discussed more fully below) and rule that there was no majority if the standards were not satisfied. It does not follow that because there are some instances of irregularity, the cards can never be used; otherwise, an employer could put off his bargaining obligation indefinitely through continuing interference with elections.
That the cards, though admittedly inferior to the election process, can adequately reflect employee sentiment when that process has been impeded, needs no extended discussion, for the employers’ contentions cannot withstand close examination. The employers argue that their employees cannot make an informed choice because the card drive will be over before the employer has had a chance to present his side of the unionization issues. Normally, however, the union will inform the employer of its organization drive early in order to subject the employer to the unfair labor practice provisions of the Act; the union must be able to show the employer’s awareness of the drive in order to prove that his contemporaneous conduct constituted unfair labor practices on which a bargaining order can be based if the drive is ultimately successful. See, e. g., Hunt Oil Co., 157 N. L. R. B. 282 (1966); Don Swart Trucking Co., 154 N. L. R. B. 1345 (1965). Thus, in all of the cases here but the Charleston campaign in Heck’s the employer, whether informed by the union or not, was aware of the union’s organizing drive almost at the outset and began its antiunion campaign at that time; and even in the Heck’s Charleston case, where the recognition demand came about a week after the solicitation began, the employer was able to deliver a speech before the union obtained a majority. Further, the employers argue that without a secret ballot an
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question here is whether courtroom identifications of an accused at trial are to be excluded from evidence because the accused was exhibited to the witnesses before trial at a post-indictment lineup conducted for identification purposes without notice to and in the absence of the accused’s appointed counsel.
The federally insured bank in Eustace, Texas, was robbed on September 21, 1964. A man with a small strip of tape on each side of his face entered the bank, pointed a pistol at the female cashier and the vice president, the only persons in the bank at the time, and forced them to fill a pillowcase with the bank’s money. The man then drove away with an accomplice who had been waiting in a stolen car outside the bank. On March 23, 1965, an indictment was returned against respondent, Wade, and two others for conspiring to rob the bank, and against Wade and the accomplice for the robbery itself. Wade was arrested on April 2, and counsel was appointed to represent him on April 26. Fifteen days later an FBI agent, without notice to Wade’s lawyer, arranged to have the two bank employees observe a lineup made up of Wade and five or six other prisoners and conducted in a courtroom of the local county courthouse. Each person in the line wore strips of tape such as allegedly worn by the robber and upon direction each said something like "put the money in the bag,” the words allegedly uttered by the robber. Both bank employees identified Wade in the lineup as the bank robber.
At trial, the two employees, when asked on direct examination if the robber was in the courtroom, pointed to Wade. The prior lineup identification was then elicited from both employees on cross-examination. At the close of testimony, Wade’s counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, to strike the bank officials’ courtroom identifications on the ground that conduct of the lineup, without notice to and in the absence of his appointed counsel, violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. The motion was denied, and Wade was convicted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial at which the in-court identification evidence was to be excluded, holding that, though the lineup did not violate Wade’s Fifth Amendment rights, “the lineup, held as it was, in the absence of counsel, already chosen to represent appellant, was a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights....” 358 F. 2d 557, 560. We granted certiorari, 385 U. S. 811, and set the case for oral argument with No. 223, Gilbert v. California, post, p. 263, and No. 254, Stovall v. Denno, post, p. 293, which present similar questions. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court with direction to enter a new judgment vacating the conviction and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
Neither the lineup itself nor anything shown by this record that'Wade was required to do in the lineup violated his privilege against self-incrimination. We have only recently reaffirmed that the privilege “protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature....” Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 761. We there held that compelling a suspect to submit to a withdrawal of a sample of his blood for analysis for alcohol content and the admission in evidence of the analysis report were not compulsion to those ends. That holding was supported by the opinion in Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, in which case a question arose as to whether a blouse belonged to the defendant. A witness testified at trial that the defendant put on the blouse and it had fit him. The defendant argued that the admission of the testimony was error because compelling him to put on the blouse was a violation of his privilege. The Court rejected the claim as “an extravagant extension of the Fifth Amendment,” Mr. Justice Holmes saying for the Court:
“[T]he prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material.” 218 U. S., at 252-253.
The Court in Holt, however, put aside any constitutional questions which might be involved in compelling an accused, as here, to exhibit himself before victims of or witnesses to an alleged crime; the Court stated, “we need not consider how far a court would go in compelling a man to exhibit himself.” Id., at 253.
We have no doubt that compelling the accused merely to exhibit his person for observation by a prosecution witness prior to trial involves no compulsion of the accused to give evidence having testimonial significance. It is compulsion of the accused to exhibit his physical characteristics, not compulsion to disclose any knowledge he might have. It is no different from compelling Schmerber to provide a blood sample or Holt to wear the blouse, and, as in those instances, is not within the cover of the privilege. Similarly, compelling Wade to speak within hearing distance of the witnesses, even to utter words purportedly uttered by the robber, was not compulsion to utter statements of a “testimonial” nature; he was required to use his voice as an identifying physical characteristic, not to speak his guilt. We held in Schmerber, supra, at 761, that the distinction to be drawn under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is one between an accused’s “communications” in whatever form, vocal or physical, and “compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of ‘real or physical evidence,’ ” Schmerber, supra, at 764. We recognized that “both federal and state courts have usually held that... [the privilege] offers no protection against compulsion to submit to' fingerprinting, photography, or measurements, to write or speak for identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk, or to make a particular gesture.” Id., at 764. None of these activities becomes testimonial within the scope of the privilege because required of the accused in a pretrial lineup.
Moreover, it deserves emphasis that this case presents no question of the admissibility in evidence of anything Wade said or did at the lineup which implicates his privilege. The Government offered no such evidence as part of its case, and what came out about the lineup proceedings on Wade’s cross-examination of the bank employees involved no violation of Wade’s privilege.
II.
The fact that the lineup involved no violation of Wade’s privilege against self-incrimination does not, however, dispose of his contention that the courtroom identifications should have been excluded because the lineup was conducted without notice to and in the absence of his counsel. Our rejection of the right to counsel claim in Schmerber rested on our conclusion in that case that “[n]o issue of counsel’s ability to assist petitioner in respect of any rights he did possess is presented.” 384 U. S., at 766. In contrast, in this case it is urged that the assistance of counsel at the lineup was indispensable to protect Wade’s most basic right as a criminal defendant — his right- to a fair trial at which the witnesses against him might be meaningfully cross-examined.
The Framers of the Bill of Rights envisaged a broader role for counsel than under the practice then prevailing in England of merely advising his client in “matters of law,” and eschewing any responsibility for “matters of fact.” The constitutions in at least 11 of the 13 States expressly or impliedly abolished this distinction. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 60-65; Note, 73 Yale L. J. 1000, 1030-1033 (1964). “Though the colonial provisions about counsel were in accord on few things, they agreed on the necessity of abolishing the facts-law distinction; the colonists appreciated that if a defendant were forced to stand alone against the state, his case was foredoomed.” 73 Yale L. J., supra, at 1033-1034. This background is reflected in the scope given by our decisions to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to an accused of the assistance of counsel for his defense. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, there were no organized police forces as we know them today. The accused confronted the prosecutor and the witnesses against him, and the evidence was marshalled, largely at the trial itself. In contrast, today’s law enforcement machinery involves critical confrontations of the accused by the prosecution at pretrial proceedings where the results might well settle the accused’s fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere formality. In recognition of these realities of modern criminal prosecution, our cases have construed the Sixth Amendment guarantee to apply to “critical” stages of the proceedings. The guarantee reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” (Emphasis supplied.) The plain wording of this guarantee thus encompasses counsel’s assistance whenever necessary to assure a meaningful “defence.”
As early as Powell v. Alabama, supra, we recognized that the period from arraignment to trial was “perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings...,” id., at 57, during which the accused “requires the guiding hand of counsel...,” id., at 69, if the guarantee is not to prove an empty right. That principle has since been applied to require the assistance of counsel at the type of arraignment — for example, that provided by Alabama — where certain rights might be sacrificed or lost: “What happens there may affect the whole trial. Available defenses may be irretrievably lost, if not then and there asserted....” Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, 54. See White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59. The principle was also applied in Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, where we held that incriminating statements of the defendant should have been excluded from evidence when it appeared that they were overheard by federal agents who, without notice to the defendant’s lawyer, arranged a meeting between the defendant and an accomplice turned informant. We said, quoting a concurring opinion in Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, 326, that “[a]nything less... might deny a defendant ‘effective representation by counsel at the only stage when legal aid and advice would help him.’ ” 377 U. S., at 204.
In Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, we drew upon the rationale of Hamilton and Massiah in holding that the right to counsel was guaranteed at the point where the accused, prior to arraignment, was subjected to secret interrogation despite repeated requests to see his lawyer. We again noted the necessity of counsel’s presence if the accused was to have a fair opportunity to present a defense at the trial itself:
“The rule sought by the State here, however, would make the trial no more than an appeal from the interrogation; and the ‘right to use counsel at the formal trial [would be] a very hollow thing [if], for all practical purposes, the conviction is already assured by pretrial examination’.... ‘One can imagine a cynical prosecutor saying: “Let them have the most illustrious counsel, now. They can’t escape the noose. There is nothing that counsel can do for them at the trial.” ’ ” 378 U. S., at 487-488.
Finally in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, the rules established for custodial interrogation included the right to the presence of counsel. The result was rested on our finding that this and the other rules were necessary to safeguard the privilege against self-incrimination from being jeopardized by such interrogation.
Of course, nothing decided or said in the opinions in the cited cases links the right to counsel only to protection of Fifth Amendment rights. Rather those decisions “no more than reflect a constitutional principle established as long ago as Powell v. Alabama....” Massiah v. United States, supra, at 205. 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. The security of that right is as much the aim of the right to counsel as it is of the other guarantees of the Sixth Amendment — the right of the accused to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and his right to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The presence of counsel at such critical confrontations, as at the trial itself, operates to assure that the accused’s interests will be protected consistently with our adversary theory of criminal prosecution. Cf. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400.
In sum, 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.
III.
The Government characterizes the lineup as a mere preparatory step in the gathering of the prosecution’s evidence, not different — for Sixth Amendment purposes — from various other preparatory steps, such as systematized or scientific analyzing of the accused’s fingerprints, blood sample, clothing, hair, and the like. We think there are differences which preclude such stages being characterized as critical stages at which the accused has the right to the presence of his counsel. Knowledge of the techniques of science and technology is sufficiently available, and the variables in techniques few enough, that the accused has the opportunity for a meaningful confrontation of the Government’s case at trial through the ordinary processes of cross-examination of the Government's expert witnesses and the presentation of the evidence of his own experts. The denial of a right to have his counsel present at such analyses does not therefore violate the Sixth Amendment; they are not critical stages since there is minimal risk that his counsel's absence at such stages might derogate from his right to a fair trial.
IV.
But the confrontation compelled by the State between the accused and the victim or witnesses to a crime to elicit identification evidence is peculiarly riddled with innumerable dangers and variable factors which might seriously, even crucially, derogate from a fair trial. The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification. Mr. Justice Frankfurter once said: “What is the worth of identification testimony even when uncontradicted? The identification of strangers is proverbially untrustworthy. The hazards of such testimony are established by a formidable number of instances in the records of English and American trials. These instances are recent — not due to the brutalities of ancient criminal procedure.” The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti 30 (1927). A major factor contributing to the high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification. A commentator has observed that “[t]he influence of improper suggestion upon identifying witnesses probably accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other single factor — ■ perhaps it is responsible for more such errors than all other factors combined.” Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases 26. Suggestion can be created intentionally or unintentionally in many subtle ways. And the dangers for the suspect are particularly grave when the witness’ opportunity for observation was insubstantial, and thus his susceptibility to suggestion the greatest.
Moreover, “[i]t is a matter of common experience that, once a witness has picked out the accused at the line-up, he is not likely to go back on his word later on, so that in practice the issue of identity may (in the absence of other relevant evidence) for all practical purposes be determined there and then, before the trial.”
The pretrial confrontation for purpose of identification may take the form of a lineup, also known as an “identification parade” or “showup,” as in the present case, or presentation of the suspect alone to the witness, as in Stovall v. Denno, supra. It is obvious that risks of suggestion attend either form of confrontation and increase the dangers inhering in eyewitness identification. But as is the case with secret interrogations, there is serious difficulty in depicting what transpires at lineups and other forms of identification confrontations. “Privacy results in secrecy and this in turn results in a gap in our knowledge as to what in fact goes on....” Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 448. For the same reasons, the defense can seldom reconstruct the manner and mode of lineup identification for judge or jury at trial. Those participating in a lineup with the accused may often be police officers; in any event, the participants’ names are rarely recorded or divulged at trial. The impediments to an objective observation are increased when the victim is the witness. Lineups are prevalent in rape and robbery prosecutions and present a particular hazard that a victim’s understandable outrage may excite vengeful or spiteful motives. In any event, neither witnesses nor lineup participants are apt to be alert for conditions prejudicial to the suspect. And if they were, it would likely be of scant benefit to the suspect since neither witnesses nor lineup participants are likely to be schooled in the detection of suggestive influences. Improper influences may go undetected by a suspect, guilty or not, who experiences the emotional tension which we might expect in one being confronted with potential accusers. Even when he does observe abuse, if he has a criminal record he may be reluctant to take the stand and open up the admission of prior convictions. Moreover, any protestations by the suspect of the fairness of the lineup made at trial are likely to be in vain; the jury’s choice is between the accused’s unsupported version and that of the police officers present. In short, the accused’s inability effectively to reconstruct at trial any unfairness that occurred at the lineup may deprive him of his only opportunity meaningfully to attack the credibility of the witness’ courtroom identification.
What facts have been disclosed in specific cases about the conduct of pretrial confrontations for identification illustrate both the potential for substantial prejudice to the accused at that stage and the need for its revelation at trial. A commentator provides some striking examples:
“In a Canadian case... the defendant had been picked out of a line-up of six men, of which he was the only Oriental. In other cases, a black-haired suspect was placed among a group of light-haired persons, tall suspects have been made to stand with short non-suspects, and, in a case where the perpetrator of the crime was known to be a youth, a suspect under twenty was placed in a line-up with five other persons, all of whom were forty or over.”
Similarly state reports, in the course of describing prior identifications admitted as evidence of guilt, reveal numerous instances of suggestive procedures, for example, that all in the lineup but the suspect were known to the identifying witness, that the other participants in a lineup were grossly dissimilar in appearance to the suspect, that only the suspect was required to wear distinctive clothing which the culprit allegedly wore, that the witness is told by the police that they have caught the culprit after which the defendant is brought before the witness alone or is viewed in jail, that the suspect is pointed out before or during a lineup, and that the participants in the lineup are asked to try on an article of clothing which fits only the suspect.
The potential for improper influence is illustrated by the circumstances, insofar as they appear, surrounding the prior identifications in the three cases we decide today. In the present case, the testimony of the identifying witnesses elicited on cross-examination revealed that those witnesses were taken to the courthouse and seated in the courtroom to await assembly of the lineup. The courtroom faced on a hallway observable to the witnesses through an open door. The cashier testified that she saw Wade “standing in the hall” within sight of an FBI agent. Five or six other prisoners later appeared in the hall. The vice president testified that he saw a person in the hall in the custody of the agent who “resembled the person that we identified as the one that had entered the bank.”
The lineup in Gilbert, supra, was conducted in an auditorium in which some 100 witnesses to several alleged state and federal robberies charged to Gilbert made wholesale identifications of Gilbert as the robber in each other’s presence, a procedure said to be fraught with dangers of suggestion. And the vice of suggestion created by the identification in Stovall, supra, was the presentation to the witness of the suspect alone handcuffed to police officers. It is hard to imagine a situation more clearly conveying the suggestion to the witness that the one presented is believed guilty by the police. See Frankfurter, The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti 31-32.
The few cases that have surfaced therefore reveal the existence of a process attended with hazards of serious unfairness to the criminal accused and strongly suggest the plight of the more numerous defendants who are unable to ferret out suggestive influences in the secrecy of the confrontation. We do not assume that these risks are the result of police procedures intentionally designed to prejudice an accused. Rather we assume they derive from the dangers inherent in eyewitness identification and the suggestibility inherent in the context of the pretrial identification. Williams & Hammelmann, in one of the most comprehensive studies of such forms of identification, said, “[T]he fact that the police themselves have, in a given case, little or no doubt that the man put up for identification has committed the offense, and that their chief pre-occupation is with the problem of getting sufficient proof, because he has not 'come clean,’ involves a danger that this persuasion may communicate itself even in a doubtful case to the witness in some way....” Identification Parades, Part I, [1963] Crim. L. Rev. 479, 483.
Insofar as the accused’s conviction may rest on a courtroom identification in fact the fruit of a suspect pretrial identification which the accused is helpless to subject to effective scrutiny at trial, the accused is deprived of that right of cross-examination which is an essential safeguard to his right to confront the witnesses against him. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400. And even though cross-examination is a precious safeguard to a fair trial, it cannot be viewed as an absolute assurance of accuracy and reliability. Thus in the present context, where so many variables and pitfalls exist, the first line of defense must be the prevention of unfairness and the lessening of the hazards of eyewitness identification at the lineup itself. The trial which might determine the accused’s fate may well not be that in the courtroom but that at the pretrial confrontation, with the State aligned against the accused, the witness the sole jury, and the accused unprotected against the overreaching, intentional or unintentional, and with little or no effective appeal from the judgment there rendered by the witness — “that’s the man.”
Since it appears that there is grave potential for prejudice, intentional or not, in the pretrial lineup, which may not be capable of reconstruction at trial, and since presence of counsel itself can often avert prejudice and assure a meaningful confrontation at trial, there can be little doubt that for Wade the post-indictment lineup was a critical stage of the prosecution at which he was “as much entitled to such aid [of counsel]... as at the trial itself.” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 57. Thus both Wade and his counsel should have been notified of the impending lineup, and counsel’s presence should have been a requisite to conduct of the lineup, absent an “intelligent waiver.” See Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506. No substantial countervailing policy considerations have been advanced against the requirement of the presence of counsel. Concern is expressed that the requirement will forestall prompt identifications and result in obstruction of the confrontations. As for the first, we note that in the two cases in which the right to counsel is today held to apply, counsel had already been appointed and no argument is made in either case that notice to counsel would have prejudicially delayed the confrontations. Moreover, we leave open the question whether the presence of substitute counsel might not suffice where notification and presence of the suspect’s own counsel would result in prejudicial delay. And to refuse to recognize the right to counsel for fear that counsel will obstruct the course of justice is contrary to the basic assumptions upon which this Court has operated in Sixth Amendment cases. We rejected similar logic in Miranda v. Arizona concerning presence of counsel during custodial interrogation, 384 U. S., at 480-481:
“[A]n attorney is merely exercising the good professional judgment he has been taught. This is not cause for considering the attorney a menace to law enforcement. He is merely carrying out what he is sworn to do under his oath — to protect to the extent of his ability the rights of his client. In fulfilling this responsibility the attorney plays a vital role in the administration of criminal justice under our Constitution.”
In our view counsel can hardly impede legitimate law enforcement; on the contrary, for the reasons expressed, law enforcement may be assisted by preventing the infiltration, of taint in the prosecution’s identification evidence. That result cannot help the guilty avoid conviction but can only help assure that the right man has been brought to justice.
Legislative or other regulations, such as those of local police departments, which eliminate the risks of abuse and unintentional suggestion at lineup proceedings and the impediments to meaningful confrontation at trial may also remove the basis for regarding the stage as “critical.” But neither Congress nor the federal authorities have seen fit to provide a solution. What we hold today “in no way creates a constitutional straitjacket which will handicap sound efforts at reform, nor is it intended to have this effect.” Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 467.
V.
We come now to the question whether the denial of Wade’s motion to strike the courtroom identification by the bank witnesses at trial because of the absence of his counsel at the lineup required, as the Court of Appeals held, the grant of a new trial at which such evidence is to be excluded. We do not think this disposition can be justified without first giving the Government the opportunity to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications were based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identification. See Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52, 79, n. 18. Where, as here, the admissibility of evidence of the lineup identification itself is not involved, a per se rule of exclusion of courtroom identification would be unjustified. See Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341. A rule limited solely to the exclusion of testimony concerning identification at the lineup itself, without regard to admissibility of the courtroom identification, would render the right to counsel an empty one. The lineup is most often used, as in the present case, to crystallize the witnesses’ identification of the defendant for future reference. We have already noted that the lineup identification will have that effect. The State may then rest upon the witnesses’ unequivocal courtroom identification, and not mention the pretrial identification as part of the State’s case at trial. Counsel is then in the predicament in which Wade’s counsel found himself — realizing that possible unfairness at the lineup may be the sole means of attack upon the unequivocal courtroom identification, and having to probe in the dark in an attempt to discover and reveal unfairness, whde bolstering the government witness’ courtroom identification by bringing out and dwelling upon his prior identification. Since counsel’s presence at the lineup would equip him to attack not only the lineup identification but the courtroom identification as well, limiting the impact of violation of the right to counsel to exclusion of evidence only of identification at the lineup itself disregards a critical element of that right.
We think it follows that the proper test to be applied in these situations is that quoted in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 488, “ ‘[W]hether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint." Maguire, Evidence of Guilt 221 (1959).” See also Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 309. Application of this test in the present context requires consideration of various factors; for example, the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant’s actual description, any identification prior to lineup of another person, the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification. It is also relevant to consider those facts which, despite the absence of counsel, are disclosed concerning the conduct of the lineup.
We doubt that the Court of Appeals applied the prop'er test for exclusion of the in-court identification of the two witnesses. The court stated that “it cannot be said with any certainty that they would have recognized appellant at the time of trial if this intervening lineup had not occurred,” and that the testimony of the two witnesses “may well have been colored by the illegal procedure [and] was prejudicial.” 358 F. 2d, at 560. Moreover, the court was persuaded, in part, by the “compulsory verbal responses made by Wade at the instance of the Special Agent.” Ibid. This implies the erroneous holding that Wade’s privilege against self-incrimination was violated so that the denial of counsel required exclusion.
On the record now before us we cannot make the determination whether the in-court identifications had an independent origin. This was not an issue at trial, although there is some evidence relevant to a determination. That inquiry is most properly made in the District Court. We therefore think the appropriate procedure to be followed is to vacate the conviction pending a hearing to determine whether the in-court identifications had an independent source, or whether, in any event, the introduction of the evidence was harmless error, Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, and for the District Court to reinstate the conviction or order a new trial, as may be proper. See United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U. S. 233, 245-246.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with direction to enter a new judgment vacating the conviction and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice joins the opinion of the Court except for Part I, from which he dissents for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Foutas.
Mr. Justice Douglas joins the opinion of the Court except for Part I. On that phase of the case he adheres to the dissenting views in Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 772-779, since he believes that compulsory lineup violates the privilege against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment.
Holt was decided before Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, fashioned the rule excluding illegally obtained evidence in a federal prosecution. The Court therefore followed Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, in holding that, in any event, “when he is exhibited, whether voluntarily or by order, and even if the order goes too far, the evidence, if material,'is competent.” 218 U. S., at 253.
See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 60-65; Beaney, Right to Counsel in American Courts 8-26.
See Note, 73 Yale L. J. 1000, 1040-1042 (1964); Comment, 53 Calif. L. Rev. 337, 347-348 (1965).
See, e. g., Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45; Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52; White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59; Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478; Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201.
See cases cited n. 4, supra; Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444, 446.
Borchard, Convicting the Innocent; Frank & Frank, Not Guilty; Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases; 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 786a (3d ed. 1940); Rolph, Personal Identity; Gross, Criminal Investigation 47-54 (Jackson ed. 1962); Williams, Proof of Guilt 83-98 (1955); Wills, Circumstantial Evidence 192-205 (7th ed. 1937); Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof §§ 250-253 (3d ed. 1937).
See Wall, supra, n. 6, at 26-65; Murray, The Criminal Lineup at Home and Abroad, 1966 Utah L. Rev. 610; Napley, Problems of Effecting the Presentation of the Case for a Defendant, 66 Col. L. Rev. 94, 98-99 (1966); Williams, Identification Parades, [1955] Crim. L. Rev. (Eng.) 525; Paul, Identification of Accused Persons, 12 Austl. L. J. 42 (1938); Houts, From Evidence to Proof 25; Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Parts I & II, [1963] Crim. L. Rev. 479-490, 545-555; Gorphe, Showing Prisoners to Witnesses for Identification, 1 Am. J. Police Sci. 79 (1930); Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof, supra, n. 6, at §253; Devlin, The Criminal Prosecution in England 70; Williams, Proof of Guilt 95-97.
Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part I, [1963] Crim. L. Rev. 479, 482.
Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part I, supra, n. 7.
See Wall, supra, n. 6, at 57-59; see, e. g., People v. Boney, 28 Ill. 2d 505, 192 N. E. 2d 920 (1963); People v. James, 218 Cal. App. 2d 166, 32 Cal. Rptr. 283 (1963).
See Rolph, Personal Identity 50: “The bright burden of identity, at these parades, is lifted from the innocent participants to hover about the suspect, leaving the rest featureless and unknown and without interest.”
See Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part II, [1963] Crim. L. Rev. 545, 546; Borchard, Convicting the Innocent 367.
An additional impediment to the detection of such influences by participants, including the suspect, is the physical conditions often surrounding the conduct of the lineup. In many, lights shine on the stage in such a way that the suspect cannot see the witness. See Gilbert v. United States, 366 F. 2d 923 (C. A. 9th Cir. 196
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mb. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this civil action in a Federal District Court charging the defendants (appellees here) with having violated § 1 of the Sherman Act which forbids combinations or conspiracies in restraint of interstate trade or commerce. Holding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action on which relief could be granted under the Act, the District Court dismissed. The case is before us on direct appeal, 15 U. S. C. § 29, and the only question we must decide is whether the District Court’s dismissal was error. We hold it was.
In summary the Government’s complaint alleges:
Defendants are (1) a Chicago trade association of plastering contractors; (2) a local labor union of plasterers and their apprentices; (3) the union’s president. These contractors and union members employed by them do approximately 60% of the plastering contracting business in the Chicago area of Illinois. Materials used in the plastering, such as gypsum, lath, cement, lime, etc., are furnished by the contractors. Substantial quantities of this material are produced in other states, bought by Illinois building materials dealers and shipped into Illinois, sometimes going directly to the place of business of the dealers and sometimes directly to job sites for use by the plastering contractors under arrangements with the dealers. The practical effect of all this is a continuous and almost uninterrupted flow of plastering materials from out-of-state origins to Illinois job sites for use there by plastering contractors. Restraint or disruption of plastering work in the Chicago area thus necessarily affects this interstate flow of plastering materials adversely. Since 1938 the Chicago defendants have acted in concert to suppress competition among local plastering contractors, to prevent out-of-state contractors from doing any business in the Chicago area and to bar entry of new local contractors without approval by a private examining board set up by the union. The effect of all this has been an unlawful and unreasonable restraint of the flow in interstate commerce of materials used in the Chicago plastering industry.
The District Court did not question that the foregoing and other factual allegations showed a combination to restrain competition among Chicago plastering contractors. But the court considered these allegations to be “wholly a charge of local restraint and monopoly,” not reached by the Sherman Act. And the court held that there was no allegation of fact which showed that these powerful local restraints had a sufficiently adverse effect on the flow of plastering materials into Illinois. At this point we disagree. The complaint plainly charged several times that the^ effect of all these local restraints was to restrain interstate commerce. Whether these charges be called “allegations of fact” or “mere conclusions of the pleader,” we hold that they must be taken into account in deciding whether the Government is entitled to have its case tried.
We are not impressed by the argument that the Sherman Act could not possibly apply here because the interstate buying, selling and movement of plastering materials had ended before the local restraints became effective. Where interstate commerce ends and local commerce begins is not always easy to decide and is not decisive in Sherman Act cases. See Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 232. However this may be, the complaint alleged that continuously since 1938 a local group of people were to a large extent able to dictate who could and who could not buy plastering materials that had to reach Illinois through interstate trade if they reached there at all. Under such circumstances it goes too far to say that the Government could not possibly produce enough evidence to show that these local restraints caused unreasonable burdens on the free and uninterrupted flow of plastering materials into Illinois. That wholly local business restraints can produce the effects condemned by the Sherman Act is no longer open to question. See, e. g., United States v. Women’s Sportswear Manufacturers Assn., 336 U. S. 460, 464.
The Government’s complaint may be too long and too detailed in view of the modern practice looking to simplicity and reasonable brevity in pleading. It does not charge too little. It includes every essential to show a violation of the Sherman Act. And where a bona fide complaint is filed that charges every element necessary to recover, summary dismissal of a civil case for failure to set out evidential facts can seldom be justified. If a party needs more facts, it has a right to call for them under Rule 12 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And any time a claim is frivolous an expensive full dress trial can be avoided by invoking the summary judgment procedure under Rule 56.
We hold it was error to dismiss the Government’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
This leaves the separate contention of the union that it is immune from prosecution for violation of the Sherman Act because of § 20 of the Clayton Act. This contention has no merit under the allegations of the complaint here because they show, if true, that the union and its president have combined with business contractors to suppress competition among them. Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 325 U. S. 797.
Reversed.
26 Stat. 209, as amended by 50 Stat. 693, 15 U. S. C. § 1, so far as here relevant reads:
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal . . . .” The complaint here also charged a violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, but the Government has not pressed that claim here. Cf. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 314.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mb. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit brought under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1-2. Petitioner has alleged that respondents are engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce in the furnishing of medical and surgical hospital services, and that they are attempting to monopolize the hospital business in the Raleigh, N. C., metropolitan area. The District Court dismissed petitioner’s amended complaint on the pleadings, finding that petitioner had not alleged a sufficient nexus between the alleged violations of the Sherman Act and interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the judgment of the District Court, holding that the provision of hospital services is only a “local” activity, 511 F. 2d 678, 682 (1975), and that the amended complaint did not adequately allege a “substantial effect” id., at 684, on interstate commerce. We granted certiorari, 423 U. S. 820 (1975), and now reverse. We hold that the amended complaint, fairly read, adequately alleges a restraint of trade substantially affecting interstate commerce and that dismissal on the pleadings of petitioner’s amended complaint was therefore inappropriate.
I
A
Since we are reviewing a dismissal on the pleadings, we must, of course, take as true the material facts alleged in petitioner’s amended complaint. See, e. g., Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 222 (1948). Petitioner is a corporation organized for profit under the laws of North Carolina. It operates the Mary Elizabeth Hospital, a 49-bed proprietary hospital in Raleigh, N. C., which offers a general range of medical and surgical services to the public. Respondent Trustees of Rex Hospital (Rex) is a North Carolina corporation which operates Rex Hospital, a private, tax-exempt hospital also located in Raleigh. The other three respondents are the administrator of Rex, one of its individual trustees, and the executive secretary of the local agency responsible for making recommendations to state officials concerning the Raleigh community’s need for additional hospital beds. The amended complaint alleges that respondents, along with several co-conspirators not named as defendants in this action, have acted in concert to block the planned relocation of Mary Elizabeth Hospital within the city of Raleigh and its expansion from 49 beds to 140 beds. According to the amended complaint, respondents and their co-conspirators orchestrated a plan to delay and, if possible, prevent the issuance of the state authorization that was a necessary prerequisite to the expansion of Mary Elizabeth. After a delay of some months, the authorization was finally granted, but since then, it is alleged, respondents and their co-conspirators have employed a series of bad-faith tactics, including the bringing of frivolous litigation, to block the implementation of the expansion. The amended complaint also alleges that respondents have maliciously instigated the publication of adverse information about petitioner’s expansion plan in order to block the expansion. All these actions, it is contended, have been taken as part of an attempt by ilex to monopolize the business of providing compensated medical and surgical services in the Raleigh area.
Petitioner identifies several areas of interstate commerce in which it is involved. According to the amended complaint, petitioner purchases a substantial proportion — up to 80% — of its medicines and supplies from out-of-state sellers. In 1972, it spent $112,-000 on these items. A substantial number of the patients at Mary Elizabeth Hospital, it is alleged, come from out of State. Moreover, petitioner claims that a large proportion of its revenue comes from insurance companies outside of North Carolina or from the Federal Government through the Medicaid and Medicare programs. Petitioner also pays a management service fee based on its gross receipts to its parent company, a Delaware corporation based in Georgia. Finally, petitioner has developed plans to finance a large part of the planned $4 million expansion through out-of-state lenders. All these involvements with interstate commerce, the amended complaint claims, have been and are continuing to be adversely affected by respondents’ anticompeti-tive conduct.
B
Respondents’ motion to dismiss asserted both that the District Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the amended complaint, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1), and that the amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Critical to respondents’ motion was their contention that the amended complaint failed “to allege facts sufficient to state the requisite effect upon interstate commerce as required under the Sherman Act.” App. 32. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the provision of hospital and medical services “is strictly a local, intra-state business,” Pet. for Cert., App. D-3, and that “the conduct of the defendants complained of in this case directly affects only a local activity of the plaintiff, and only incidentally and insubstantially does it affect interstate commerce.” Id., at D-3 — D-4.
A three-judge division of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court. Thereupon, petitioner filed a motion for rehearing en banc, which was granted, and the division opinion was withdrawn. On rehearing en banc, the ruling of the District Court was again affirmed. 511 F. 2d 678 (1975). While the Court of Appeals perceived some ambiguity as to whether the District Court decision was grounded on Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6), it treated the decision as holding that under Rule 12 (b) (6) petitioner had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court then held that the allegations in the amended complaint, even if true, were inadequate to support a conclusion that the alleged anticompetitive conduct was occurring in interstate commerce, or that it had or would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
I — “I I — I
The Sherman Act prohibits every contract, combination, or conspiracy “in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States/’ 15 U. S. C. § 1, and also prohibits monopolizing “any part of the trade or commerce among the several States.” 15 U. S. C. § 2. It is settled that the Act encompasses far more than restraints on trade that are motivated by a desire to limit interstate commerce or that have their sole impact on interstate commerce. “[W] holly local business restraints can produce the effects condemned by the Sherman Act.” United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U. S. 186, 189 (1954). As long as the restraint in question “substantially and adversely affects interstate commerce,” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 195 (1974); Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S., at 234, the interstate commerce nexus required for Sherman Act coverage is established. “ ‘If it is interstate commerce that feels the pinch, it does not matter how local the operation which applies the squeeze.’ ” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., supra, at 195, quoting United States v. Women’s Sportswear Assn., 336 U. S. 460, 464 (1949).
In this case, the Court of Appeals, while recognizing that Sherman Act coverage requires only that the conduct complained of have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, concluded that the conduct at issue did not meet that standard. We disagree. The complaint, fairly read, alleges that if respondents and their co-conspirators were to succeed in blocking petitioner’s planned expansion, petitioner’s purchases of out-of-state medicines and supplies as well as its revenues from out-of-state insurance companies would be thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars less than they would otherwise be. Similarly, the management fees that petitioner pays to its out-of-state parent corporation would be less if the expansion were blocked. Moreover, the multimillion-dollar financing for the expansion, a large portion of which would be from out of State, would simply not take place if the respondents succeeded in their alleged scheme. This combination of factors is certainly sufficient to establish a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce under the Act.
The Court of Appeals found two considerations crucial in its refusal to find that the complaint alleged a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Court’s reliance on neither was warranted. First, the Court observed: “The effect [on interstate commerce] here seems to us the indirect and fortuitous consequence of the restraint of the intrastate Raleigh area hospital market, rather than the result of activity purposely directed toward interstate commerce.” 511 F. 2d, at 684 (footnote omitted). But the fact that an effect on interstate commerce might be termed “indirect” because the conduct producing it is not “purposely directed” toward interstate commerce does not lead to a conclusion that the conduct at issue is outside the scope of the Sherman Act. For instance, in Burke v. Ford, 389 U. S. 320 (1967), Oklahoma liquor retailers brought a Sherman Act action against liquor wholesalers in the State, alleging that the wholesalers had restrained commerce by dividing up the state market into exclusive territories. While the market division was patently not “purposely directed” toward interstate commerce, we held that it nevertheless substantially affected interstate commerce because as a matter of practical economics that division could be expected to reduce significantly the magnitude of purchases made by the wholesalers from out-of-state distillers. “The wholesalers’ territorial division . . . almost surely resulted in fewer sales to retailers — hence fewer purchases from out-of-state distillers — than would have occurred had free competition prevailed among the wholesalers.” Id., at 322 (footnote omitted). Whether the wholesalers intended their restraint to affect interstate commerce was simply irrelevant to our holding. See also United States v. McKesson & Robbins, 351 U. S. 305 (1956). In the same way, the fact that respondents in the instant case may not have had the purposeful goal of affecting interstate commerce does not lead us to exempt that conduct from coverage under the Sherman Act.
The Court of Appeals further justified its holding of “no substantial effect” by arguing that “no source of supply or insurance company or lending institution can be expected to go under if Mary Elizabeth doesn’t expand, and no market price likely will be affected.” 511 F. 2d, at 684. While this may be true, it is not of great relevance to the issue of whether the “substantial effect” test is satisfied. An effect can be “substantial” under the Sherman Act even if its impact on interstate commerce falls far short of causing enterprises to fold or affecting market price. For instance in United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., supra, we considered a Sherman Act challenge to an alleged conspiracy between a trade association and union officials to restrain competition among Chicago plastering contractors. As in the instant case, the District Court dismissed the action on the pleadings. It did so on the ground that the complaint amounted to no more than charges of “local restraint and monopoly,” 347 U. S., at 188, not reached by the Sherman Act. The United States appealed directly to this Court under § 2 of the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29, and we reversed. It was sufficient for us that the allegations in the complaint, if proved, could show that the conspiracy resulted in “unreasonable burdens on the free and uninterrupted flow of plastering materials into Illinois.” 347 U. S., at 189 (emphasis added). We did not demand allegations, either express or implied, that the conspiracy threaten the demise of out-of-state businesses or that the conspiracy affect market prices. Thus, since in this case the allegations fairly claim that the alleged conspiracy, to the extent it is successful, will place “unreasonable burdens on the free and uninterrupted flow” of interstate commerce, they are wholly adequate to state a claim.
We have held that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (footnote omitted). And in antitrust cases, where “the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators,” Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting, 368 U. S. 464, 473 (1962), dismissals prior to giving the plaintiff ample opportunity for discovery should be granted very sparingly. Applying this concededly rigorous standard, we conclude that the instant case is not one in which dismissal should have been granted. Petitioner’s complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Sherman Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
We, too, will treat the dismissal as having been based on Rule 12(b)(6). However, our analysis in this case would be no different if we were to regard the District Court’s action as having been a dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12 (b) (1). In either event, the critical inquiry is into the adequacy of the nexus between respondents’ conduct and interstate commerce that is alleged in the complaint.
When Congress passed the Sherman Act in 1890, it took a very narrow view of its power under the Commerce Clause. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 1707, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1890); Slater, Antitrust and Government Action: A Formula for Narrowing Parker v. Brown, 69 Nw. U. L. Rev. 71, 84 (1974). Subsequent decisions by this Court have permitted the reach of the Sherman Act to expand along with expanding notions of congressional power. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S., at 201-202. Compare United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1 (1895), with Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219 (1948), and United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U.S. 186 (1954).
We have noted that “ [i]t is in a practical sense that we must view an effect on interstate commerce.” Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773, 784 n. 11 (1975).
See also Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, supra, at 783-785.
It may, of course, be that even though petitioner’s complaint adequately alleges an effect on interstate commerce, further proceedings in this case will demonstrate that respondents’ conduct in fact involves no violation of law, or indeed no substantial effect on interstate commerce. Cf. United States v. Oregon Medical Soc., 343 U. S. 326 (1952).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal Rule Civ. Proc. 24 requires that an application to intervene in federal litigation must be “timely.” In this case a motion to intervene was filed promptly after the final judgment of a District Court, for the purpose of appealing the court’s earlier denial of class action certification. The question presented is whether this motion was “timely” under Rule 24.
Until November 7, 1968, United Airlines required its female stewardesses to remain unmarried as a condition of employment; no parallel restriction was imposed on any male employees, including male stewards and cabin flight attendants. This “no-marriage rule” resulted in the termination of the employment of a large number of stewardesses, and in turn spawned a good deal of litigation.
One of the first challenges to this rule was brought by Mary Sprogis, who filed timely charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August 1966, contending that her discharge constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seg. (1970 ed. and Supp. V). The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that United’s policy was illegal, and issued a “right to sue letter.” Sprogis then filed a timely individual action in a Federal District Court, and the court agreed that the no-marriage rule violated Title VII. 308 F. Supp. 959 (ND Ill.). United took an interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b) on the issue of liability, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the finding of sex discrimination. Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F. 2d 1194.
While the appeal in the Sprogis case was pending, the present action was filed in the same District Court by Carole Romasanta, a United stewardess who had been discharged in 1967 because of her marriage. She, too, had filed charges with the EEOC, leading to a finding of cause to believe that the no-marriage rule violated Title VII and the issuance of a right-to-sue letter. Romasanta then promptly filed the present suit as a class action on behalf of herself and all other United stewardesses discharged because of the no-marriage rule. Another. United stewardess was later permitted to intervene as a named plaintiff.
Several months later, the District Court granted United’s motion to strike the complaint’s class allegations, ruling that the class could properly consist of only those stewardesses who, upon the loss of their employment because of marriage, had filed charges under either a fair employment statute or United’s collective-bargaining agreement. As thus defined, the class numbered not more than 30 and in the court’s view did not satisfy the numerosity requirement of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (a)(1). As part of its order, however, the District Court allowed 12 married stewardesses who had protested the termination of their employment to intervene as additional parties plaintiff. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b), the District Court certified for appeal its order striking the class allegations, but the Court of Appeals declined to accept this interlocutory appeal.
The litigation proceeded as a joint suit on behalf of the original and the intervening plaintiffs, and the court ultimately determined that those plaintiffs not yet reinstated in their jobs were entitled to that remedy, and that every plaintiff was entitled to backpay. To aid in determining the amount of each backpay award, the court appointed as a Special Master the same person who had performed a similar task in the Sprogis litigation. Following guidelines adopted in Sprogis, the parties eventually agreed upon the amounts to be awarded each plaintiff, and upon consummation of this agreement the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal on October 3, 1975.
The specific controversy before us arose only after the entry of that judgment. The respondent, a former United stewardess, had been discharged in 1968 on account of the no-marriage rule. She was thus a putative member of the class as defined in the original Romasanta complaint. Knowing that other stewardesses had challenged United’s no-marriage rule, she had not filed charges with the EEOC or a grievance under the collective-bargaining agreement.
After learning that a final judgment had been entered in the Romasanta suit, and that despite their earlier attempt to do so the plaintiffs did not now intend to file an appeal challenging the District Court’s denial of class certification, she filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of appealing the District Court’s adverse class determination order. Her motion was filed 18 days after the District Court’s final judgment, and thus was well within the 30-day period for an appeal to be taken. The District Judge denied the motion, stating:
“Well, in my judgment, gentlemen, this is five years now this has been in litigation, and this lady has not seen fit to come in here and seek any relief from this Court in any way during that period of time, and litigation must end. I must deny this motion. Of course, that is an appealable order itself, and if I am in error then the Court of Appeals can reverse me and we will grant a hearing, but in my judgment this is too late to come in.”
The respondent promptly appealed the denial of intervention as well as the denial of class certification to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court reversed, holding that the District Court had been wrong in believing that the motion to intervene was untimely under Rule 24 (b), and had also erred in refusing to certify the class as described in the Romasanta complaint — a class consisting of all United stewardesses discharged because of the no-marriage rule, whether or not they had formally protested the termination of their employment. Romasanta v. United Airlines, Inc., 537 F. 2d 915.
United’s petition for certiorari did not seek review of the determination that its no-marriage rule violated Title VII, nor did it contest the merits of the Court of Appeals’ decision on the class certification issue. Instead, it challenged only the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the respondent’s post-judgment application for intervention was timely. We granted the petition, 429 U. S. 998, to consider that single issue.
In urging reversal, United relies primarily upon American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538. That case involved a private antitrust class action that had been filed 11 days short of the expiration of the statutory limitations period. The trial court later denied class certification because the purported class did not satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23 (a)(1). Neither the named plaintiffs nor any unnamed member of the class appealed that order, either then or at any later time. Eight days after entry of the order, a number of the putative class members moved to intervene as plaintiffs, but the trial court denied the motions as untimely. This Court ultimately reversed that decision, ruling that in those circumstances “the commencement of the original class suit tolls the running of the statute for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.” 414 U. S., at 553. Since 11 days remained when the statute of limitations again began to run after denial of class certification, and the motions to intervene as plaintiffs were filed only eight days after that denial, they were timely. Id., at 560-561.
It is United’s position that, under American Pipe, the relevant statute of limitations began to run after the denial of class certification in the Romasanta action. United thus reasons that the respondent’s motion to intervene was time barred, and in support of this position makes alternative arguments based on two different statutory periods of limitations prescribed by Title VII.
This argument might be persuasive if the respondent had sought to intervene in order to join the named plaintiffs in litigating her individual claim based on the illegality of United’s no-marriage rule, for she then would have occupied the same position as the intervenors in American Pipe. But the later motion to intervene in this case was for a wholly different purpose. That purpose was to obtain appellate review of the District Court’s order denying class action status in the Bomasanta lawsuit, and the motion complied with, as it was required to, the time limitation for lodging an appeal prescribed by Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4 (a). Success in that review would result in the certification of a class, the named members of which had complied with the statute of limitations; the respondent is a member of that class against whom the statute had not run at the time the class action was commenced.
The lawsuit had been commenced by the timely filing of a complaint for classwide relief, providing United with “the essential information necessary to determine both the subject matter and size of the prospective litigation . . . .” American Pipe, supra, at 555. To be sure, the case was “stripped of its character as a class action” upon denial of certification by the District Court. Advisory Committee’s Note on 1966 Amendment to Rule 23, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 7767. But “it does not . . . follow that the case must be treated as if there never was an action brought on behalf of absent class members.” Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Anaconda American Brass Co., 43 F. R. D. 452, 461 (ED Pa.). The District Court’s refusal to certify was subject to appellate review after final judgment at the behest of the named plaintiffs, as United concedes. And since the named plaintiffs had attempted to take an interlocutory appeal from the order of denial at the time the order was entered, there was no reason for the respondent to suppose that they would not later take an appeal until she was advised to the contrary after the trial court had entered its final judgment.
The critical fact here is that once the entry of final judgment made the adverse class determination appealable, the respondent quickly sought to enter the litigation. In short, as soon as it became clear to the respondent that the interests of the unnamed class members would no longer be protected by the named class representatives, she promptly moved to intervene to protect those interests.
United can hardly contend that its ability to litigate the issue was unfairly prejudiced simply because an appeal on behalf of putative class members was brought by one of their own, rather than by one of the original named plaintiffs. And it would be circular to argue that an unnamed member of the putative class was not a proper party to appeal, on the ground that her interests had been adversely determined in the trial court. United was put on notice by the filing of the Romasanta complaint of the possibility of classwide liability, and there is no reason why Mrs. McDonald’s pursuit of that claim should not be considered timely under the circumstances here presented.
Our conclusion is consistent with several decisions of the federal courts permitting post-judgment intervention for the purpose of appeal. The critical inquiry in every such case is whether in view of all the circumstances the intervenor acted promptly after the entry of final judgment. Cf. NAACP v. New York, 413 U. S. 345, 366. Here, the respondent filed her motion within the time period in which the named plaintiffs could have taken an appeal. We-therefore conclude that the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the respondent’s motion to intervene was timely filed and should have been granted.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See generally Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F. 2d 1194, 1197-1201 (CA7).
The relevant statutory provision at that time, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e), stated that if within 30 days after a charge was filed with the Commission or within 30 days after expiration of a period of reference of the charge to a state or local fair employment agency, the Commission had been unable to secure voluntary compliance, it “shall so notify the person aggrieved and a civil action may, within thirty days thereafter, be brought” by the charging party. The period was extended to 90 days in 1972. § 2000e-5 (f) U) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
Rule 23 (a) (1) lists as one prerequisite to maintenance of a class action that "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.”
In the Seventh Circuit, a denial of class certification is an interlocutory order not reviewable as of right until after entry of final judgment. Anschul v. Sitmar Cruises, Inc., 544 F. 2d 1364. Even were we to assume, arguendo, that the Seventh Circuit is wrong in not recognizing the so-called death-knell doctrine, which permits immediate appeal of adverse class determinations where the claims are so small that individual suits are uneconomical, appeal before final judgment would not have been available in this lawsuit, for the individual claims were suificiently large to permit the action to proceed, as it did, on an individual basis. See generally 7A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1802, pp. 271-277 (1972); id., at 129-130 (Supp. 1977).
In Sprogis, following affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the District Court’s finding of liability, the case was remanded for further proceedings. The Special Master appointed by the District Court recommended that the plaintiff be awarded over $10,000 in damages, the District Court approved that award, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. See Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 517 F. 2d 387, 389-390, 392 (CA7).
As the opinion in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, makes clear, full relief under Title VII “may be awarded on a class basis . . . without exhaustion of administrative procedures by the unnamed class members.” Id., at 414 n. 8. See also Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U. S. 747, 771.
See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4 (a).
In relevant part, Rule 24(b) provides:
“Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action . . . when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. ... In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”
See 414 U. S., at 541-542.
See n. 3, supra.
A person complaining of employment discrimination is ordinarily required to file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the occurrence of the discriminatory act. 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V). Once the administrative process has been exhausted and the EEOC sends the complainant a right-to-sue letter, a civil action in federal district court must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the right-to-sue letter. § 2000e-5 (f)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. V), discussed in n. 2, supra. Since nearly three years passed after the adverse class determination before the respondent took any action, under United’s theory her action is time barred whichever of the two limitations periods is thought to be the relevant one.
Cf. Shapiro, Some Thoughts on Intervention Before Courts, Agencies, and Arbitrators, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 721, 727 (1968) (“It is both feasible and desirable to break down the concept of intervention into a number of litigation rights and to conclude that a given person has one or some of these rights but not all”).
The unlawful discrimination alleged in the complaint — enforcement of the no-marriage rule — was plainly part of a uniform companywide policy that had been applied to all stewardesses. See also S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 27 (1971) (“[T]itle YII actions are by their very nature class cóm-plaints”), cited in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S., at 414 n. 8.
See, e. g., Share v. Air Properties Q., Inc., 538 F. 2d 279, 283 (CA9); Zenith Laboratories, Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 530 F. 2d 508, 512 (CA3); Penn v. San Juan Hospital, Inc., 528 F. 2d 1181, 1188-1190 (CA10); Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 528 F. 2d 551, 553-554 (CA5); Wright v. Stone Container Corp., 524 F. 2d 1058, 1061-1063 (CA8); Paton v. La Prade, 524 F. 2d 862, 874-875 (CA3); Haynes v. Logan Furniture Mart, Inc., 503 F. 2d 1161, 1162-1165 (CA7); Galvan v. Levine, 490 F. 2d 1255, 1260-1262 (CA2); Roberts v. Union Co., 487 F. 2d 387 (CA6); Esplin v. Hirschi, 402 F. 2d 94 (CA10).
United argues that it was unfairly surprised when after having settled the case with all of the original and intervening plaintiffs it nonetheless faced an appeal, and suggests that the negotiation of settlements will be impeded if post-judgment intervention like the respondent’s is permitted. The characterization of the resolution of the Romasanta action as a “settlement” could be slightly misleading. It is of course true that opposing counsel agreed upon a disposition that resulted in dismissal of the complaints. But that agreement came only after the District Judge had granted motions by some plaintiffs for partial summary judgment, and, there was never any question about United’s liability in view of the Sprogis decision. All that remained to be determined was the computation of backpay, and the guiding principles for that computation had been established in Sprogis. The “settlement” ultimately reached merely applied those principles to the claims in this case.
The respondent’s motion to intervene was filed less than three weeks after the “settlement” was incorporated in the District Court’s final judgment, and necessarily “concern [ed] the same evidence, memories, and witnesses as the subject matter of the original class suit.” American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538, 562 (Blackmun, J., concurring). There is no reason to believe that in that short period of time United discarded evidence or was otherwise prejudiced.
A rule requiring putative class members who seek only to appeal from an order denying class certification to move to intervene shortly after entry of that order would serve no purpose. Intervention at that time would only have made the respondent a superfluous spectator in the litigation for nearly three years, for the denial of class certification was not appealable until after final judgment, see n. 4, supra. Moreover, such a rule would induce putative class members to file protective motions to intervene to guard against the possibility that the named representatives might not appeal from the adverse class determination. Cf. American Pipe, supra, at 553. The result would be the very “multiplicity of activity which Rule 23 was designed to avoid.” 414 U. S., at 551. Cf. Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U. S., at 757 n. 9.
A case closely in point is American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 3 F. R. D. 162 (SDNY). That case involved a plan for reorganization of the Interborough Rapid Transit Co. and for its consolidation with the Manhattan Elevated Railway. Mannheim, an owner of a series of bonds in the Manhattan Railway, had participated in the District Court not merely representing his own interests but also acting as “attorney in fact” for other owners of the bonds. After the District Court had approved the plan as fair and equitable, and had subsequently ordered its implementation, Mannheim filed a notice of appeal. He then decided to abandon the appeal and to seek to surrender his bonds pursuant to the terms of the plan. One of the other holders of the same series of bonds, for whom Mannheim had been acting as attorney-in-fact, then moved to intervene for the purpose of prosecuting an appeal on behalf of herself and all other nonsurrendering bondholders. Noting that it is “essential in the administration of our system of justice, that litigants should have their day in court” and that the motion was filed within the time in which an appeal might have been brought, the District Court ruled that the motion to intervene was timely. Id., at 164.
The decision in Pellegrino v. Nesbit, 203 E. 2d 463 (CA9), is also similar to the case at bar. There a corporation had filed an action against corporate officers under § 16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. §78p (b), for recovery of short-swing profits. The District Court entered judgment for the defendants, and when the corporation failed to appeal, a shareholder sought to intervene for the purpose of appealing from the District Court decision. The Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court, ruled that the motion was timely and that intervention should have been permitted. 203 F. 2d, at 465-466.
Post-judgment intervention for the purpose of appeal has been found to be timely even in litigation that is not representative in nature, and in which the intervenor might therefore be thought to have a less direct interest in participation in the appellate phase. See, e. g., Hodgson v. United Mine Workers, 153 U. S. App. D. C. 407, 417-419, 473 F. 2d 118, 129; Smuck v. Hobson, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 372, 378-379, 408 F. 2d 175, 181-182; Zuber v. Allen, 128 U. S. App. D. C. 297, 387 F. 2d 862, discussed in Hobson v. Hansen, 44 F. R. D. 18, 29-30, n. 10 (DC); Wolpe v. Poretsky, 79 U. S. App. D. C. 141, 144, 144 F. 2d 505, 508; United States Cas. Co. v. Taylor, 64 F. 2d 521, 526-527 (CA4).
Insofar as the motions to intervene in these cases were made within the applicable time for filing an appeal, they are consistent with our opinion and judgment in the present case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Chief Justice Buegee
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to review a holding of the Court of Appeals that it was improper for a sentencing judge, in fixing the sentence within the statutory limits, to give consideration to the defendant's false testimony observed by the judge during the trial.
I
In August 1975, respondent Grayson was confined in a federal prison camp under a. conviction for distributing a controlled substance. In October, he escaped but was apprehended two days later by FBI agents in New York City. He was indicted for prison escape in violation of 18 U. S. C. §751 (a) (1976 ed.).
During its case in chief, the United States proved the essential elements of the crime, including his lawful confinement and the unlawful escape. In addition, it presented the testimony of the arresting FBI agents that Grayson, upon being apprehended, denied his true identity.
Grayson testified in his own defense. He admitted leaving the camp but asserted that he did so out of fear: “I had just been threatened with a large stick with a nail protruding through it by an inmate that was serving time at Allenwood, and I was scared, and I just ran.” He testified that the threat was made in the presence of many inmates by prisoner Barnes who sought to enforce collection of a gambling debt and followed other threats and physical assaults made for the same purpose. Grayson called one inmate, who testified: “I heard [Barnes] talk to Grayson in a loud voice one day, but that's all. I never seen no harm, no hands or no shuffling whatsoever.”
Grayson’s version of the facts was contradicted by the Government’s rebuttal evidence and by cross-examination on crucial aspects of his story. For example, Grayson stated that after crossing the prison fence he left his prison jacket by the side of the road. On recross, he stated that he also left his prison shirt but not his trousers. Government testimony showed that on the morning after the escape, a shirt marked with Grayson’s number, a jacket, and a pair of prison trousers were found outside a hole in the prison fence. Grayson also testified on cross-examination: “I do believe that I phrased the rhetorical question to Captain Kurd, who was in charge of [the prison], and I think I said something if an inmate was being threatened by somebody, what would ... he do? First of all he said he would want to know who it was.” On further cross-examination, however, Grayson modified his description of the conversation. Captain Kurd testified that Grayson had never mentioned in any fashion threats from other inmates. Finally, the alleged assailant, Barnes, by then no longer an inmate, testified that Grayson had never owed him any money and that he had never threatened or physically assaulted Grayson.
The jury returned a guilty verdict, whereupon the District Judge ordered the United States Probation Office to prepare a presentence report. At the sentencing hearing, the judge stated:
“I'm going to give my reasons for sentencing in this case with clarity, because one of the reasons may well be considered by a Court of Appeals to be impermissible; and although . I could come into this Court Room and sentence this Defendant to a five-year prison term without any explanation at all, I think it is fair that I give the reasons so that if the Court of Appeals feels that one of the reasons which I am about to enunciate is an improper consideration for a trial judge, then the Court will be in a position to reverse this Court and send the case back for re-sentencing.
“In my view a prison sentence is indicated, and the sentence that the Court is going to impose is to deter you, Mr. Grayson, and others who are similarly situated. Secondly, it is my view that your defense was a complete fabrication without the slightest merit whatsoever. I feel it is proper for me to consider that fact in the sentencing, and I will do so.” (Emphasis added.)
He then sentenced Grayson to a term of two years’ imprisonment, consecutive to his unexpired sentence.
On appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit directed that Grayson’s sentence be vacated and that he be resentenced by the District Court without consideration of false testimony. 550 F. 2d 103 (1977). Two judges concluded that this result was mandated by language in a prior decision of the Third Circuit, Poteet v. Fauver, 517 F. 2d 393, 395 (1975): “[T]he sentencing judge may not add a penalty because he believes the defendant lied.” One judge, in a concurring opinion, suggested that the District Court’s reliance on Grayson’s false testimony in fixing the sentence “trenches upon a defendant’s constitutional privilege to testify in his own behalf as well as his right to have criminal charges,” such as one for perjury, formally adjudicated “pursuant to procedures required by due process.” 550 F. 2d, at 108. The dissenting judge challenged both the applicability of Poteet and the suggestion that the District Court’s approach to Grayson’s sentence was constitutionally impermissible.
We granted certiorari to resolve conflicts between holdings of the Courts of Appeals. 434 U. S. 816 (1977). We reverse.
II
In Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 247 (1949), Mr. Justice Black observed that the “prevalent modern philosophy of penology [is] that the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime,” and that, accordingly, sentences should be determined with an eye toward the “[rjeformation and rehabilitation of offenders.” Id., at 248. But it has not always been so. In the early days of the Republic, when imprisonment had only recently emerged as an alternative to the death penalty, confinement in public stocks, or whipping in the town square, the period of incarceration was generally prescribed with specificity by the legislature. Each crime had its defined punishment. See Report of Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Criminal Sentencing, Fair and Certain Punishment 83-85 (1976) (Task Force Report). The “excessive rigidity of the [mandatory or fixed sentence] system” soon gave way in some jurisdictions, however, to a scheme permitting the sentencing judge — or jury — to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding an offense, and, on that basis, to select a sentence within a range defined by the legislature. Tappan, Sentencing Under the Model Penal Code, 23 Law & Contemp. Prob. 528, 529 (1958). Nevertheless, the focus remained on the crime: Each particular offense was to be punished in proportion to the social harm caused by it and according to the offender’s culpability. See, e. g., Iowa Code of 1851, Tit. XXIV, ch. 182, §§ 3067, 3068, reprinted in S. Rubin, Law of Criminal Correction 131-132 (2d ed. 1973). The purpose of incarceration remained, primarily, retribution and punishment.
Approximately a century ago, a reform movement asserting that the purpose of incarceration, and therefore the guiding consideration in sentencing, should be rehabilitation of the offender, dramatically altered the approach to sentencing. A fundamental proposal of this movement was a flexible sentencing system permitting judges and correctional personnel, particularly the latter, to set the release date of prisoners according to informed judgments concerning their potential for, or actual, rehabilitation and their likely recidivism. Task Force Report 82. Indeed, the most extreme formulations of the emerging rehabilitation model, with its “reformatory sentence,” posited that “convicts [regardless of the nature of their crime] can never be rightfully imprisoned except upon proof that it is unsafe for themselves and for society to leave them free, and when confined can never be rightfully released until they show themselves fit for membership in a free community.” Lewis, The Indeterminate Sentence, 9 Yale L. J. 17, 27 (1899).
This extreme formulation, although influential, was not adopted unmodified by any jurisdiction. See Tappan, supra, at 531-533. “The influences of legalism and realism were powerful enough ... to prevent the enactment of this form of indeterminate sentencing. Concern for personal liberty, skepticism concerning administrative decisions about prisoner reformation and readiness for release, insistence upon the preservation of some measure of deterrent emphasis, and other such factors, undoubtedly, led, instead, to a system — indeed, a complex of systems — in which maximum terms were generally employed.” Id., at 530. Thus it is that today the extent of a federal prisoner’s confinement is initially determined by the sentencing judge, who selects a term within an often broad, congressionally prescribed range; release on parole is then available on review by the United States Parole Commission, which, as a general rule, may conditionally release a prisoner any time after he serves one-third of the judicially fixed term. See 18 U. S. C. § 4205 (1976 ed.). To an unspecified degree, the sentencing judge is obligated to make his decision on the basis, among others, of predictions regarding the convicted defendant’s potential, or lack of potential, for rehabilitation.
Indeterminate sentencing under the rehabilitation model presented sentencing judges with a serious practical problem: how rationally to make the required predictions so as to avoid capricious and arbitrary sentences, which the newly conferred and broad discretion placed within the realm of possibility. An obvious, although only partial, solution was to provide the judge with as much information as reasonably practical concerning the defendant’s “character and propensities^] ... his present purposes and tendencies,” Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U. S. 51, 55 (1937), and, indeed, “every aspect of [his] life.” Williams v. New York, 337 U. S., at 250. Thus, most jurisdictions provided trained probation officers to conduct presentence investigations of the defendant’s life and, on that basis, prepare a pre-sentence report for the sentencing judge.'
Constitutional challenges were leveled at judicial reliance on such information, however. In Williams v. New York, a jury convicted the defendant of murder but recommended a life sentence. The sentencing judge, partly on the basis of information not known to the jury but contained in a presentence report, imposed the death penalty. The defendant argued that this procedure deprived him of his federal constitutional right to confront and cross-examine those supplying information to the probation officer and, through him, to the sentencing judge. The Court rejected this argument. It noted that traditionally “a sentencing judge could exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within limits fixed by law.” Id., at 246. “And modern concepts individualizing punishment have made it all the more necessary that a sentencing judge not be denied an opportunity to obtain pertinent information,” id., at 247; indeed, “[t]o deprive sentencing judges of this kind of information would undermine modern penological procedural policies that have been cautiously adopted throughout the nation after careful consideration and experimentation.” Id., at 249-250. Accordingly, the sentencing judge was held not to have acted unconstitutionally in considering either the defendant’s participation in criminal conduct for which he had not been convicted or information secured by the probation investigator that the defendant was a “menace to society.” See id., at 244.
Of course, a sentencing judge is not limited to the often far-ranging material compiled in a presentence report. “ [B] e-fore making [the sentencing] determination, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443, 446 (1972). Congress recently reaffirmed this fundamental sentencing principle by enacting 18 U. S. C. §3577 (1976 ed.):
“No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”
Thus, we have acknowledged that a sentencing authority may legitimately consider the evidence heard during trial, as well as the demeanor of the accused. Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, 32 (1973). More to the point presented in this case, one serious study has concluded that the trial judge’s “opportunity to observe the defendant, particularly if he chose to take the stand in his defense, can often provide useful insights into an appropriate disposition.” ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures § 5.1, p. 232 (App. Draft 1968).
A defendant’s truthfulness or mendacity while testifying on his own behalf, almost without exception, has been deemed probative of his attitudes toward society and prospects for rehabilitation and hence relevant to sentencing. Soon after Williams was decided, the Tenth Circuit concluded that “the attitude of a convicted defendant with respect to his willingness to commit a serious crime [perjury] ... is a proper matter to consider in determining what sentence shall be imposed within the limitations fixed by statute.” Humes v. United States, 186 F. 2d 875, 878 (1951). The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have since agreed. See n. 3, supra. Judge Marvin Frankel’s analysis for the Second Circuit is persuasive:
“The effort to appraise 'character’ is, to be sure, a parlous one, and not necessarily an enterprise for which judges are notably equipped by prior training. Yet it is in our existing scheme of sentencing one clue to the rational exercise of discretion. If the notion of 'repentance’ is out of fashion today, the fact remains that a manipulative defiance of the law is not a cheerful datum for the prognosis a sentencing judge undertakes. . . . Impressions about the individual being sentenced — the likelihood that he will transgress no more, the hope that he may respond to rehabilitative efforts to assist with a lawful future career, the degree to which he does or does not deem himself at war with his society — are, for better or worse, central factors to be appraised under our theory of 'individualized’ sentencing. The theory has its critics. While it lasts, however, a fact like the defendant’s readiness to lie under oath before the judge who will sentence him would seem to be among the more precise and concrete of the available indicia.” United States v. Hendrix, 505 F. 2d 1233, 1236 (1974).
Only one Circuit has directly rejected the probative value of the defendant’s false testimony in his own defense. In Scott v. United States, 135 U. S. App. D. C. 377, 382, 419 F. 2d 264, 269 (1969), the court argued that
“the peculiar pressures placed upon a defendant threatened with jail and the stigma of conviction make his willingness to deny the crime an unpromising test of his prospects for rehabilitation if guilty. It is indeed unlikely that many men who commit serious offenses would balk on principle from lying in their own defense. The guilty man may quite sincerely repent his crime but yet, driven by the urge to remain free, may protest his innocence in a court of law."
See also United States v. Moore, 484 F. 2d 1284, 1288 (CA4 1973) (Craven, J., concurring). The Scott rationale rests not only on the realism of the psychological pressures on a defendant in the dock — which we can grant — but also on a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system. A “universal and persistent” foundation stone in our system of law, and particularly in our approach to punishment, sentencing, and incarceration, is the “belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.” Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 250 (1952). See also Blocker v. United States, 110 U. S. App. D. C. 41, 53, 288 F. 2d 853, 865 (1961) (opinion concurring in result). Given that long-accepted view of the “ability and duty of the normal individual to choose,” we must conclude that the defendant’s readiness to lie under oath — especially when, as here, the trial court finds the lie to be flagrant — may be deemed probative of his prospects for rehabilitation.
Ill
Against this background we evaluate Grayson’s constitutional argument that the District Court’s sentence constitutes punishment for the crime of perjury for which he has not been indicted, tried, or convicted by due process. A second argument is that permitting consideration of perjury will “chill” defendants from exercising their right to testify on their own behalf.
A
In his due process argument, Grayson does not contend directly that the District Court had an impermissible purpose in considering his perjury and selecting the sentence. Rather, he argues that this Court, in order to preserve due process rights, not only must prohibit the impermissible sentencing practice of incarcerating for the purpose of saving the Government the burden of bringing a separate and subsequent perjury prosecution but also must prohibit the otherwise permissible practice of considering a defendant's untruthfulness for the purpose of illuminating his need for rehabilitation and society's need for protection. He presents two interrelated reasons. The effect of both permissible and impermissible sentencing practices may be the same: additional time in prison. Further, it is virtually impossible, he contends, to identify and establish the impermissible practice. We find these reasons insufficient justification for prohibiting what the Court and the Congress have declared appropriate judicial conduct.
First, the evolutionary history of sentencing, set out in Part II, demonstrates that it is proper — indeed, even necessary for the rational exercise of discretion — to consider the defendant’s whole person and personality, as manifested by his conduct at trial and his testimony under oath, for whatever light those may shed on the sentencing decision. The “parlous” effort to appraise “character,” United States v. Hendrix, supra, at 1236, degenerates into a game of chance to the extent that a sentencing judge is deprived of relevant information concerning “every aspect of a defendant's life.” Williams v. New York, 337 U. S., at 250. The Government’s interest, as well as the offender’s, in avoiding irrationality is of the highest order. That interest more than justifies the risk that Grayson asserts is present when a sentencing judge considers a defendant’s untruthfulness under oath.
Second, in our view, Williams fully supports consideration of such conduct in sentencing. There the Court permitted the sentencing judge to consider the offender’s history of prior antisocial conduct, including burglaries for which he had not been duly convicted. This it did despite the risk that the judge might use his knowledge of the offender’s prior crimes for an improper purpose.
Third, the efficacy of Grayson’s suggested “exclusionary rule” is open to serious doubt. No rule of law, even one garbed in constitutional terms, can prevent improper use of firsthand observations of perjury. The integrity of the judges, and their fidelity to their oaths of office, necessarily provide the only, and in our view adequate, assurance against that.
B
Grayson’s argument that judicial consideration of his Conduct at trial impermissibly “chills” a defendant’s statutory right, 18 U. S. C. § 3481 (1976 ed.), and perhaps a constitutional right to testify on his own behalf is without basis. The right guaranteed by law to a defendant is narrowly the right to testify truthfully in accordance with the oath — unless we are to say that the oath is mere ritual without meaning. This view of the right involved is confirmed by the unquestioned constitutionality of perjury statutes, which punish those who willfully give false testimony. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 1621 (1976 ed.); cf. United States v. Wong, 431 U. S. 174 (1977). Further support for this is found in an important limitation on a defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel: Counsel ethically cannot assist his client in presenting what the attorney has reason to believe is false testimony. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475, 480 n. 4 (1978); ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Defense Function § 7.7 (c), p. 133 (Compilation 1974). Assuming, arguendo, that the sentencing judge’s consideration of defendants’ untruthfulness in testifying has any chilling effect on a defendant’s decision to testify falsely, that effect is entirely permissible. There is no protected right to commit perjury.
Grayson’s further argument that the sentencing practice challenged here will inhibit exercise of the right to testify truthfully is entirely frivolous. That argument misapprehends the nature and scope of the practice we find permissible. Nothing we say today requires a sentencing judge to enhance, in some wooden or reflex fashion, the sentences of all defendants whose testimony is deemed false. Rather, we are reaffirming the authority of a sentencing judge to evaluate carefully a defendant’s testimony on the stand, determine— with a consciousness of the • frailty of human judgment— whether that testimony contained willful and material falsehoods, and, if so, assess in light of all the other knowledge gained about the defendant the meaning of that conduct with respect to his prospects for rehabilitation and restoration to a useful place in society. Awareness of such a process realistically cannot be deemed to affect the decision of an accused but unconvicted defendant to testify truthfully in his own behalf.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for reinstatement of the sentence of the District Court.
Reversed and remanded.
The testimony regarding the prison clothing was important for reasons in addition to the light it shed on quality of recollection. Grayson stated that after unpremeditatedly fleeing the prison with no possessions and crossing the fence, he hitchhiked to New York City — a difficult task for a man with no trousers. The United States suggested that by prearrangement Grayson met someone, possibly a woman friend, on the highway near the break in the fence and that this accomplice provided civilian clothes. It introduced evidence that the friend visited Grayson often at prison, including each of the three days immediately prior to his penultimate day in the camp.
The District Court in this case could have sentenced Grayson for any period up to five years. 18 U. S. C. § 751 (a) (1976 ed.).
Compare the decision in the present case, 550 F. 2d 103 (1977), and Scott v. United States, 135 U. S. App. D. C. 377, 419 F. 2d 264 (1969), with United States v. Hendrix, 505 F. 2d 1233 (CA2 1974), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 897 (1975); United States v. Moore, 484 F. 2d 1284 (CA4 1973); United States v. Nunn, 525 F. 2d 958 (CA5 1976); United States v. Wallace, 418 F. 2d 876 (CA6 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 955 (1970); United States v. Levine, 372 F. 2d 70 (CA7 1967); Hess v. United States, 496 F. 2d 936 (CA8 1974); United States v. Cluchette, 465 F. 2d 749 (CA9 1972); and Humes v. United States, 186 F. 2d 875 (CA10 1951).
See Task Force Report 88.
The National Prison Association in its influential 1870 Declaration of Principles, asserted that “punishment is directed not to the crime but the criminal.” Id., at 93.
The evolutionary development of sentencing and incarceration practices continues to engage attention. See S. 1437, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., Part III (1977); Task Force Report. Increasingly there are doubts concerning the validity of earlier, uncritical acceptance of the rehabilitation model. So experienced a penologist as the late Torsten Eriksson, long Director of Prisons in Sweden and later United Nations Interregional Advisor on Grime Prevention and Criminal Justice, dedicated his 1976 book, The Reformers: An Historical Survey of Pioneer Experiments in the Treatment of Criminals (Djurklou transí.), “[t]o those who tried, even if they failed.”
See Task Force Report 74:
“In the United States today, rehabilitative assumptions play some role in determining whether and for how long defendants have to be confined, but the precise weight given to such assumptions varies enormously among judges.”
But to some of the most thoughtful and experienced correctional authorities, the optimistic predictions of earlier years on the efficacy of rehabilitation are undergoing reappraisal. See, e. g., Eriksson, supra, n. 6.
See Shimm, Foreword, 23 Law & Contemp. Prob. 399 (1958):
“Signalizing, on the one hand, the termination of the trial phase, sentencing must accurately reflect the community's attitude toward the misconduct of which the offender has been adjudged guilty, and thereby ratify and reinforce community values. Marking, on the other hand, the threshold of the sanction or treatment phase, however, and largely defining its character and length, sentencing must also look to the offender's rehabilitation, to his restoration as a functioning, productive, responsible member of the community.''
In 1945, Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32 (e)(2) provided, as it does today:
“The report of the presentence investigation shall contain any prior-s. criminal record of the defendant and such information about his characteristics, his financial condition and the circumstances affecting his behavior as may be helpful in imposing sentence or in granting probation or in the correctional treatment of the defendant, and such other information as may be required by the court.”
All amendments to Rule 32 (c) since its promulgation by this Court have had one of two purposes: first, to increase judicial use of presentence reports in the sentencing decision and, second, to assist the sentencing judge in assessing the accuracy of the information contained in them. See Advisory Committee's Notes on Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32 and amendments, 18 U. S. C. App., pp. 1456-1460 (1976 ed.); 8A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶ 32.03 [l]-[4] (1975). To the same end, Congress, between 1973 and 1975, authorized 828 additional probation officers — an increase of more than 125%. The increase from 1971 to date has been more than 275%.
Title 18 U. S. C. §§ 4205 (c)-(d) (1976 ed.) provide district courts with a means, in addition to the presentence report, of acquiring information relevant to sentencing: commitment of the offender for up to six months to enable the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to make “a complete study ... of the prisoner.”
Title 18 U. S. C. §3577 (1976 ed.) was enacted as a part of § 1001 of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, a section designed to impose extended terms of imprisonment on dangerous special offenders, i. e., the habitual, professional, or organized crime offender. The House Report on the 1970 Act, by way of explanation of what is now § 3577, cites this Court’s decision in Williams v. Nexv York. H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, p. 63 (1970); see also S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 167 (1969).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A 1981 amendment to the Food Stamp Act states that no household shall become eligible to participate in the food stamp program during the time that any member of the household is on strike or shall increase the allotment of food stamps that it was receiving already because the income of the striking member has decreased. We must decide whether this provision is valid under the First and the Fifth Amendments.
I
In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA), Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 357, Congress enacted a package of budget cuts throughout the Federal Government. Among the measures contained in OBRA were more than a dozen specific changes in the food stamp program, id., §§ 101-117. One of them was the amendment at issue in this case, § 109 of OBRA, which is set out in the margin. The Committee Reports estimated that this measure alone would save a total of about $165 million in fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984. H. R. Rep., at 12; S. Rep., at 63.
In 1984, two labor unions and several individual union members brought suit against the Secretary of Agriculture in District Court, contending that §109 is unconstitutional and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, and the Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Congress’ action was well within its constitutional prerogatives. After a hearing, the District Court denied both motions. 648 F. Supp. 1234, 1241 (DC 1986) (Appendix).
Both sides conducted discovery and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On November 14, 1986, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and issued a declaratory judgment, holding the statute unconstitutional. 648 F. Supp. 1234. Specifically, the District Court found that the amendment to the Food Stamp Act was unconstitutional on three different grounds. First, it interferes or threatens to interfere with the First Amendment rights of the individual plaintiffs to associate with their families, with their unions, and with fellow union members, as well as the reciprocal rights under the First Amendment of the union plaintiffs to their members’ association with them. Second, it interferes with strikers’ First Amendment right to express themselves about union matters free of coercion by the Government. Third, it violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As the basis for its conclusion on the equal protection claim, the District Court mentioned several somewhat related deficiencies in the amendment: it betrays an animus against an unpopular political minority, it irrationally treats strikers worse than individuals who quit a job, and it impermissibly directs the onus of the striker’s actions against the rest of his family. Id., at 1239-1241. The Secretary appealed the decision directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 481 U. S. 1036 (1987). We now reverse.
II
We deal first with the District Court’s holding that § 109 violates the associational and expressive rights of appellees under the First Amendment. These claimed constitutional infringements are also pressed as a basis for finding that appellees’ rights of “fundamental importance” have been burdened, thus requiring this Court to examine appellees’ equal protection claims under a heightened standard of review. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 383 (1978). Since we conclude that the statute does not infringe either the associational or expressive rights of appellees, we must reject both parts of this analysis.
A
The challenge to the statute based on the associational rights asserted by appellees is foreclosed by the reasoning this Court adopted in Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U. S. 635 (1986). There we considered a constitutional challenge to the definition of “household” in the Food Stamp Act, 7 U. S. C. § 2012(i), which treats parents, siblings, and children who live together, but not more distant relatives or unrelated persons who do so, as a single household for purposes of defining eligibility for food stamps. Although the challenge in that case was brought solely on equal protection grounds, and not under the First Amendment, the Court was obliged to decide whether the statutory classification should be reviewed under a stricter standard than mere rational-basis review because it “ ‘directly and substantially’ interfere^] with family living arrangements and thereby burden[s] a fundamental right.” 477 U. S., at 638. The Court held that it did not, explaining that the definition of “household” does not “order or prevent any group of persons from dining together. Indeed, in the overwhelming majority of cases it probably has no effect at all. It is exceedingly unlikely that close relatives would choose to live apart simply to increase their allotment of food stamps, for the costs of separate housing would almost certainly exceed the incremental value of the additional stamps.” Ibid.; see also id., at 643 (Brennan, J-., dissenting) (stating that rational-basis review is applicable); ibid. (White, J., dissenting) (same).
The same rationale applies in this case. As was true of the provision at issue in Castillo, it is “exceedingly unlikely” that § 109 will “prevent any group of persons from dining together.” Id., at 638. Even if isolated instances can be found in which a striking individual may have left the other members of the household in order to increase their allotment of food stamps, “in the overwhelming majority of cases [the statute] probably has no effect at all.” Ibid. The statute certainly does not “order” any individuals not to dine together; nor does it in any other way “ ‘directly and substantially’ interfere with family living arrangements.” Ibid.
The statute also does not infringe the associational rights of appellee individuals and their unions. We have recognized that “one of the foundations of our society is the right of individuals to combine with other persons in pursuit of a common goal by lawful means,” NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 933 (1982), and our recognition of this right encompasses the combination of individual workers together in order better to assert their lawful rights. See, e. g., Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1964). But in this case, the statute at issue does not “‘directly and substantially’ interfere” with appellees’ ability to associate for this purpose. Lyng, supra, at 638. It does not “order” appellees not to associate together for the purpose of conducting a strike, or for any other purpose, and it does not “prevent” them from associating together or burden their ability to do so in any significant manner. As we have just stated with respect to the effect of this statute on an individual’s decision to remain in or to leave his or her household, it seems “exceedingly unlikely” that this statute will prevent individuals from continuing to associate together in unions to promote their lawful objectives. 477 U. S., at 638.
Prior cases indicate that § 109 has no unconstitutional impact on the right of individuals to associate for various purposes. Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co., 335 U. S. 525, 530-531 (1949), for example, held that where a State forbids employers to restrict employment to members of a union, enforcement of that state policy does not abridge the associational rights of unions or their members, despite their claim that a closed shop “is ‘indispensable to the right of self-organization and the association of workers into unions.’ ” Similarly, in Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club, 481 U. S. 537, 548 (1987), we held that requiring Rotary Clubs to admit women “does not require the clubs to abandon or alter” any of their activities or their basic goals and therefore did not abridge the members’ associational rights. Both of those cases upheld state laws that exerted a much more direct and substantial threat to associational freedoms than the statute at issue here.
Any impact on associational rights in this case results from the Government’s refusal to extend food stamp benefits to those on strike, who are now without their wage income. Denying such benefits makes it harder for strikers to maintain themselves and their families during the strike and exerts pressure on them to abandon their union. Strikers and their union would be much better off if food stamps were available, but the strikers’ right of association does not require the Government to furnish funds to maximize the exercise „of that right. “We have held in several contexts [including the First Amendment] that a legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right.” Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U. S. 540, 549 (1983). Exercising the right to strike inevitably risks economic hardship, but we are not inclined to hold that the right of association requires the Government to minimize that result by qualifying the striker for food stamps.
In Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory, 431 U. S. 471 (1977), we upheld a statute that denied unemployment compensation benefits to workers who are thrown out of work as a result of a labor dispute other than a lockout, saying that the case “does not involve any discernible fundamental interest.” Id., at 489. Although the complaining worker there was a nonstriking employee of a parent company that found it necessary to close because its subsidiary was on strike, it is clear enough that the same result would have obtained had the striking employees themselves applied for compensation.
B
For the same reasons, we cannot agree that § 109 abridges appellees’ right to express themselves about union matters free of coercion by the Government. Appellees rely on Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209 (1977). But we do not read either Abood or the First Amendment as providing support for this claim. In Abood, the challenged state law required certain employees to pay a fee to their representative union. We ruled that this law violated the First Amendment insofar as it allowed those funds to be used to promote political and ideological purposes with which the employees disagreed and to which they objected, because by its terms the employees were “compelled to make . . . contributions for political purposes.” Id., at 234. We based this conclusion on our observation that “at the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one’s beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience rather than coerced by the State.” Id., at 234-235. By contrast, the statute challenged in this case requires no exaction from any individual; it does not “coerce” belief; and it does not require appellees to participate in political activities or support political views with which they disagree. It merely declines to extend additional food stamp assistance to striking individuals simply because the decision to strike inevitably leads to a decline in their income. And this Court has explicitly stated that even where the Constitution prohibits coercive governmental interference with specific individual rights, it “‘does not confer an entitlement to such funds as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.’” Regan, supra, at 550, quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297, 318 (1980).
Ill
Because the statute challenged here has no substantial impact on any fundamental interest and does not “affect with particularity any protected class,” Hodory, supra, at 489, we confine our consideration to whether the statutory classification “is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.” Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 533 (1973). We have stressed that this standard of review is typically quite deferential; legislative classifications are “presumed to be valid,” Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 314 (1976), largely for the reason that “the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one.” Ibid.; see Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485 (1970).
Appellant submits that this statute serves three objectives. Most obvious, given its source in OBRA, is to cut federal expenditures. Second, the limited funds available were to be used when the need was likely to be greatest, an approach which Congress thought did not justify food stamps for strikers. Third was the concern that the food stamp program was being used to provide one-sided support for labor strikes; the Senate Report indicated that the amendment was intended to remove the basis for that perception and criticism. S. Rep., at 62.
We have little trouble in concluding that § 109 is rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of avoiding undue favoritism to one side or the other in private labor disputes. The Senate Report declared: “Public policy demands an end to the food stamp subsidization of all strikers who become eligible for the program solely through the temporary loss of income during a strike. Union strike funds should be responsible for providing support and benefits to strikers during labor-management disputes.” Ibid. It was no part of the purposes of the Food Stamp Act to establish a program that would serve as a weapon in labor disputes; the Act was passed to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and to strengthen the agricultural economy. 7 U. S. C. § 2011. The Senate Report stated that “allowing strikers to be eligible for food stamps has damaged the program’s public integrity” and thus endangers these other goals served by the program. S. Rep., at 62. Congress acted in response to these problems.
It would be difficult to deny that this statute works at least some discrimination against strikers and their households. For the duration of the strike, those households cannot increase their allotment of food stamps even though the loss of income occasioned by the strike may well be enough to qualify them for food stamps or to increase their allotment if the fact of the strike itself were ignored. Yet Congress was in a difficult position when it sought to address the problems it had identified. Because a striking individual faces an immediate and often total drop in income during a strike, a single controversy pitting an employer against its employees can lead to a large number of claims for food stamps for as long as the controversy endures. It is the disbursement of food stamps in response to such a controversy that constitutes the source of the concern, and of the dangers to the program, that Congress believed it was important to remedy. We are not free in this instance to reject Congress’ views about “what constitutes wise economic or social policy.” Dandridge, supra, at 486.
It is true that in terms of the scope and extent of their ineligibility for food stamps, § 109 is harder on strikers than on “voluntary quitters.” See 648 F. Supp., at 1253-1254 (Appendix A); compare 7 CFR § 273.1(g) (1987) with id., § 273.7(n). But the concern about neutrality in labor disputes does not arise with respect to those who, for one reason or another, simply quit their jobs. As we have stated in a related context, even if the statute “provides only ‘rough justice,’ its treatment... is far from irrational.” Hodory, 431 U. S., at 491. Congress need not draw a statutory classification to the satisfaction of the most sharp-eyed observers in order to meet the limitations that the Constitution imposes in this setting. And we are not authorized to ignore Congress’ considered efforts to avoid favoritism in labor disputes, which are evidenced also by the two significant provisos contained in the statute. The first proviso preserves eligibility for the program of any household that was eligible to receive stamps “immediately prior to such strike.” 7 U. S. C. § 2015(d)(3). The second proviso makes clear that the statutory ineligibility for food stamps does not apply “to any household that does not contain a member on strike, if any of its members refuses to accept employment at a plant or site because of a strike or lockout.” Ibid. In light of all this, the statute is rationally related to the stated objective of maintaining neutrality in private labor disputes.
In view of the foregoing, we need not determine whether either of the other two proffered justifications for § 109 would alone suffice. But it is relevant to note that protecting the fiscal integrity of Government programs, and of the Government as a whole, “is a legitimate concern of the State.” Hodory, supra, at 493. This does not mean that Congress can pursue the objective of saving money by discriminating against individuals or groups. But our review of distinctions that Congress draws in order to make allocations from a finite pool of resources must be deferential, for the discretion about how best to spend money to improve the general welfare is lodged in Congress rather than the courts. Bowen v. Owens, 476 U. S. 340, 345 (1986). “Fiscal considerations may compel certain difficult choices in order to improve the protection afforded to the entire benefited class.” Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S., at 355 (Stevens, J., dissenting). In OBRA Congress had already found it necessary to restrict eligibility in the food stamp program and to reduce the amount of deductions that were allowed to recipients. Rather than undertaking further budget cuts in these or other areas, and in order to avoid favoritism in labor disputes, Congress judged that it would do better to pass this statute along with its provisos. The Constitution does not permit us to disturb that judgment in this case.
Appellees contend and the District Court held that the legislative classification is irrational because of the “critical” fact that it “impermissibly strikes at the striker through his family.” 648 F. Supp., at 1240. This, however, is nothing more than a description of how the food stamp program operates as a general matter, a fact that was acknowledged by the District Court. Ibid. Whenever an individual takes any action that hampers his or her ability to meet the program’s eligibility requirements, such as quitting a job or failing to comply with the work-registration requirements, the entire household suffers accordingly. We have never questioned the constitutionality of the entire Act on this basis, and we just recently upheld the validity of the Act’s definition of “household” even though that definition embodies the basic fact that the Act determines benefits “on a ‘household’ rather than an individual basis.” Lyng, 477 U. S., at 636. That aspect of the program does not violate the Constitution any more so today.
The decision of the District Court is therefore
Reversed.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Included were such fundamental changes as redefining the requirements to constitute a family unit, reducing the gross income eligibility standard (except for the elderly and the disabled), and adjusting the levels of deductions that are allowed to recipients. §§ 101, 104(a), 105, 106, 115. The Committee Reports estimated that these changes in the food stamp program would save several billion dollars in fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984. H. R. Rep. No. 97-158, pp. 11-13 (1981) (hereafter H. R. Rep.); S. Rep. No. 97-139, pp. 52-70 (1981) (hereafter S. Rep.).
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a household shall not participate in the food stamp program at any time that any member of the household, not exempt from the work registration requirements ... is on strike as defined in section 142(2) of title 29, because of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) as defined in section 152(9) of title 29: Provided, That a household shall not lose its eligibility to participate in the food stamp program as a result of one of its members going on strike if the household was eligible for food stamps immediately prior to such strike, however, such household shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household: Provided further, That such ineligibility shall not apply to any household that does not contain a member on strike, if any of its members refuses to accept employment at a plant or site because of a strike or lockout.” OBRA, § 109, 95 Stat. 361, 7 U. S. C. § 2015(d)(3).
The District Court did not find that any individuals had left their households in order to increase their allotment of food stamps. It found instead only that some individuals “have been told by state agencies or have learned that they can avoid household disqualification by having the striker leave the household.” 648 F. Supp. 1234, 1237 (DC 1986). Appellees note that one striker’s spouse and children left the household after he was denied food stamps, and that the couple was subsequently divorced. Affidavit of Mark Dyer, ¶¶ 4-8, App. 25-26; Deposition of Mark Dyer,.id, at 82-83.
The District Court found that one individual quit his job and abandoned his union membership in order to receive food stamps, and another individual left a picket line to seek other work and lost his union membership. 648 F. Supp., at 1237. Some other strikers have voted to ratify or accept collective-bargaining agreements that were less favorable than they wished, motivated by lack of wages as a result of being out of work and, to a lesser degree, lack of food stamps. Ibid.
It is clear from previous decisions that associational rights “are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference,” Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 523 (1960), and that these rights can be abridged even by government actions that do not directly restrict individuals’ ability to associate freely. See, e. g., Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169, 183 (1972). But none of these cases indicates that the statute challenged here “will affect in any significant way the existing members’ ability to carry out their various purposes.” Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club, 481 U. S., at 548. The Court has found, for example, that compulsory disclosure of the membership lists of an organization, which led to harassment, physical threats, and economic reprisals against those individuals, worked “a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner’s members of their right to freedom of association.” NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 462 (1958). We also have held that the First Amendment “restricts the ability of the State to impose liability on an individual solely because of his association with another” when the individual lacks the specific intent to further any illegal aims that may be promoted by other members of a group. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 919-920 (1982). The facts of this case, however, do not demonstrate any “significant” interference with appellees’ associational rights of the magnitude found in decisions like Patterson and Claiborne Hardware. Exposing the members of an association to physical and economic reprisals or to civil liability merely because of their membership in that group poses a much greater danger to the exercise of associational freedoms than does the withdrawal of a government benefit based not on membership in an organization but merely for the duration of one activity that may be undertaken by that organization.
The decision in Hodory was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not on the First Amendment, but our application of rational-basis review to the constitutional claim raised in that case indicated that fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment were not implicated there.
Appellees rely heavily on Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963), in which we held that a State violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when it denied unemployment benefits to a woman whose religious beliefs did not allow her to work on Saturday. That decision, however, “was decided in the significantly different context of a constitutionally imposed ‘governmental obligation of neutrality’ originating in the Establishment and Freedom of Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.” Maher v. Roe, 432 U. S. 464, 475, n. 8 (1977). The reasoning of Sherbert has not been applied in other contexts, and is inapposite here as shown by our decision in Hodory, which found no fundamental rights to be infringed by a State’s denial of unemployment benefits to a man who was unable to work as a result of a labor dispute.
We reject the proposition that strikers as a class are entitled to special treatment under the Equal Protection Clause. City of Charlotte v. Firefighters, 426 U. S. 283, 286 (1976); Hodory, 431 U. S., at 489. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528 (1973), does not counsel otherwise. There we upheld an equal protection, challenge to a provision of the Food Stamp Act and concluded that “a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” Id., at 534 (emphasis in original). This statement is merely an application of the usual rational-basis test: if a statute is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental objective, it cannot be saved from constitutional challenge by a defense that relates it to an illegitimate governmental interest. Accordingly, in Moreno itself we examined the challenged provision under the rational-basis standard of review. Id., at 533.
For example, one who voluntarily quits a job is disqualified for food stamps for 90 days. Thereafter, he is eligible as long as he registers for work and cannot find a job. 7 CFR § 273.7(n)(1)(v) (1987). The striker, unless he quits his job, is disqualified for as long as he is on strike. § 273.1(g).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.